Intelligent people less likely to believe in God

In relpy to Nightflyer28"

Of course u can become an athiest from reading the Bible cover to cover, Thats probably the easiset way to make an athiest. "Here kid, take this and read this, See ya around some time" Kid proceeds to read the dryness that starts the first few books of the old testament using only his logic and rationality as faculties.......

Thats not the purpose. I once too picked it up and tried to pick it apart and figure it out and guess what, I was still an athiest.

But if you genuinely step to something like the Bible, read between the lines, practice the pre-cepts, practice non-judgement, practise control of emotions, and control of the "passions" this shift takes place in you and you ultimately realize the light on the wall, the wall, the spot on the wall, and the light itself and your relation to all these things. You realize that God is real.

Look; I realized God and I know I did there was no mistaking it. When it happened to me I even asked pastors and friends and athiest frineds and no-one knew what I was going through...and then it came to me loud and clear, that I have just realized God. A quick trip to the library and internet confirmed my experiences to be exactly the same of others who experience God....even though I never read about such experiences previously because I cared not about this kind of information.

Subjective proof is still proof. There is two kinds. One that can be explained and another that cant. Get me a consciousness recorder or a perspective gun ala hitchikers guide and I will show you God.

Until then, remain in your specualtions and assumptions while I bask in the light of God that exists 100%, and on that truth I would bet my own existence and soul. How about you, would you put these things on the line here??? What's your wager that your right??

Originally posted by destiny-fate
reply to post by apaulo

 

Well I don't think you are a jerk - it was an emotional response to something you obviously feel very strongly about - Why do people feel so defensive about this subject ??

I am easily frustrated by what appears to me to be common sense. I don’t push religion or personal beliefs, but to blatantly deny intelligence behind the formation of reality seems ludicrous…

Intelligent people may surely be less likely to believe in God, wise people may be a different story...

reply to post by apaulo


Yes I have to agree - I think some people are just more in touch with their feelings/senses - perhaps religious/spiritual people have better insight. That is why I made the point perhaps modern man is putting too much emphasis on developing the intellect rather than a more balanced holistic approach to education ???? The real irony is the further science advances - the more I believe !!! Just look at nature !!! We have an orderly, beautiful universe in which nearly all physical phenomena can be understood from a few simple mathematical equations. we have a universe that, had it been constructed slightly differently, would never have given birth to stars and planets, let alone bacteria and people. What are the mathematical odds of that hey ????

[edit on 18-6-2008 by destiny-fate]

“Is man one of God's blunders? Or is God one of man's blunders?” Friedrich Nietzsche

A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
(Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science", New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930)

I try to be a good person because I want to be and I want to in my own small way make earth a little bit better, a little bit happier place because I was here for a brief time..............I'm not nice or good or kind because I have to be or I fear an everlasting punishment.........(me)

Excellent post. I have been saying this for years.

Spirituality certainly has a place in all of us, but for some not as much as others. Blind faith can be harmful.

Thanks for posting.

*

reply to post by whipnet


I think that the word faith has been abused by the faithful. Dawkins is spot on when he says that faith, defined as belief in something for which there is no evidence, or for which the evidence is contra-indicative, makes a mockery of reason.

However, I think Dawkins and other purely physicalist or materialist scientists are misunderstanding the words faith and truth. If reason were the only way to know the truth, then how to you explain the early formation of the brain? Nerve fibers strain outward blindly; the baby flails its limbs incessantly in an attempt to make and reinforce the proper neural connections, resulting in better muscle coordination, which, in a reinforcing feedback loop, strengthens the connections that work for the benefit of the integrated whole, and not the individual nerve fiber.

We like to imagine that "we" end where our skin touches the air, but we are still connected by language and culture. To go back to the developing brain analogy, we are all just individual units striving in the best way we know how towards unity. When we strive in the right direction, our efforts are rewarded and our connections are reinforced. Because the simple fact is that we are yet a part of something greater, and to stop at the material and deny that there is anything beyond the reality we've constructed is to realize backwardly that the mind of the individual is limited.

To strive towards unity, a conception of God, a way out of our problems that affirms life, is to become a part of something that will live. To put limits on yourself based on word pictures alone (the rational mind) is to identify yourself with something that will not live.

We know that there are those who will use religion as a tool to reinforce the barriers between the self and others. "This one is gay, that one is black, the other one speaks a different language." When intelligent people see this, they instinctively know that this is an abuse. It may turn them off of religion.

If you are very hungry for connection, however, then you may discover another way to find evidence for God.

[edit on 18-6-2008 by applebiter]

Friedrich Nietzsche; "God is dead"

God; "Nietzsche is dead!!!"

Originally posted by dominicus
Friedrich Nietzsche; "God is dead"

God; "Nietzsche is dead!!!"

Not so funny the second time posted......

Now I have no desire to use this saying. And, looking at it, it's sort of a useless and baseless statement serving no practical purpose in the debate over the existence of God.

Originally posted by NuclearPaul
Intelligent people may surely be less likely to believe in God, wise people may be a different story...

Wise dimwits.

Now there's an oxymoron for you!

if thats the second time it was posted....I apologize.


I just cant for the life of me understand why athiests like to quote nietzshe, kierkegard, satrye, and a slew of others.....

These were just people who wrote some stuff becuase they never experience the awsome transcendence of God. Why do people hold these philosophers so highly beats me!!!!!

Were all philosophers for the most part.....who cares what any of these dudes said...really....quoting any of them proves nothing to anybody.

The answer is in the experience of God. If you never had the experience, then of course you dont believe he exists...and he's in you and all around you.

reply to post by dominicus


Kierkegaard is interesting to me. His holistic intelligence informed him that there is something amiss. The hole he saw in general understanding led him to the concept of living an authentic life. His knowledge of the world didn't build his philosophy. His philosophy was built in the wake as he fell towards the hole...

[edit on 18-6-2008 by applebiter]

Originally posted by Rasobasi420

Originally posted by dominicus
Friedrich Nietzsche; "God is dead"

God; "Nietzsche is dead!!!"

Not so funny the second time posted......

Now I have no desire to use this saying. And, looking at it, it's sort of a useless and baseless statement serving no practical purpose in the debate over the existence of God.

I disagree, I think it serves to illustrate rather well the utter pointlessness that creeps into these meta-physical debates when people move from speculative discussion to angry athiests and religious nutters (not all athiests or religious people granted) bashing each other over the head for daring to disagree with each others viewpoint. Now that is useless, baseless and serves no practical purpose IMO.

The logical conclusion, at our current level of understanding, is agnosticism, which doesn't preclude you from believing what you want but certainly limits the things you can assert as fact.

I believe in God incidentally, but I can live with the uncertainty. Then again I've never been so shallow and insecure as to want to belong or proclaim myself as belonging to some percieved 'ELITE' Bad PR on that clever mans part.

Originally posted by destiny-fate
reply to post by apaulo

 

modern man is putting too much emphasis on developing the intellect rather than a more balanced holistic approach to education ????

Once again, I totally agree. I’m not certain if you are referring to Holism, which I’m only slightly familiar with, but I agree with the essence of the idea. We need to develop equally; otherwise we end up looking like a body builder who focuses on just his upper body. ((Humorously out of proportion.)) Modern civilization as a whole is severely imbalanced and lopsided.

Originally posted by destiny-fate
reply to post by apaulo

 

The real irony is the further science advances - the more I believe !!! Just look at nature !!! We have an orderly, beautiful universe in which nearly all physical phenomena can be understood from a few simple mathematical equations. we have a universe that, had it been constructed slightly differently, would never have given birth to stars and planets, let alone bacteria and people. What are the mathematical odds of that hey ????

The odds? Take 5 quarters and toss them until they all land on their sides stacked up on top of one another. The chances of that happening are equal a divine accident... the universe.

reply to post by Cantwara


When Nietzsche said "God is dead" it wasn't meant in a literal way in any respect. He was merely stating that in this day, God is dead, and the only possible situation that will follow is the belief in nothing. Total lack of moral code and ethics is the only logical outcome, or so he thought.

His God is dead comment represents the loss of morality in today's world.

However, Nietzsche also believed that he could satisfy that loss of God by serving the role of a moral and ethical guide for those nihilists who feel that they've lost their god. That's not to say he felt a 'godliness', but rather a way outside of nihilism.

The response, "Nietzsche is dead: God" doesn't say anything other than to illustrate that God has the last word, and killed Nietzsche. It doesn't seem like anyone bothered to go any deeper than that.

reply to post by Rasobasi420



I wouldn't fret over it. It was just a joke not a statement of fact.

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Now I have no desire to use this saying. And, looking at it, it's sort of a useless and baseless statement serving no practical purpose in the debate over the existence of God.

Now that's good cynicism.

Could you imagine the thought process that went behind creating the concept of a spacial dimension? Or something as familiar yet still unknown to us as energy? Or somewhere to put both of the previous?

They were perceived and implemented concepts...

We have nothing else to compare them with... and because there are so familiar to us, we totally overlook just how absolutely amazing concepts they are.

Perhaps these intelligent people that don't believe in God have alternate ideas?

Originally posted by Rasobasi420

However, Nietzsche also believed that he could satisfy that loss of God by serving the role of a moral and ethical guide for those nihilists who feel that they've lost their god. That's not to say he felt a 'godliness', but rather a way outside of nihilism.

The response, "Nietzsche is dead: God" doesn't say anything other than to illustrate that God has the last word, and killed Nietzsche. It doesn't seem like anyone bothered to go any deeper than that.

Ironically Nietzsche may have taken on the role of a dead God even more completely than he could have guessed, by having his words misinterpreted by evil men to justify their deeds, just as the original Gods moral guidance was.

www.trutv.com...