Why some people believe in God and in the bible and others do not.

originally posted by: flyingfish
The more intelligent a person is the less likely they are to believe in Gods.
People are getting smarter this is why atheism is the way of the future. Even believers are atheists to all other Gods, all Gods but the one their born or indoctrinated into.
With the way atheism is trending, it will only take a few generations before practically all people are atheistic to all Gods..
www.dailymail.co.uk... s.html

I dunno, I think you have to be very careful making this association; although there is a correlation, I believe it is also easier for more intelligent people to rationalize away errors in their own thinking. It's easier for them to lie to themselves, essentially.

And there are a bunch of highly intelligent people who believe in abject nonsense of one kind or another which demonstrate this.

I think though, access to information is the key here. People now have access to incredible amounts of information via the internet, and those who are truly objective and of an open mindset are now able to check facts instantly. More and more younger people especially are doing this and I wonder to myself if religion and mysticism in general will actually survive the internet in the long run..

originally posted by: flammadraco
You are simply beating a dead horse.DITTO

FYI: the horse is anything BUT dead...

Neither will it be beaten.

We Will Ride
He has fire in His eyes and a sword in His hand
And He's riding a white horse across this land
He has fire in His eyes and a sword in His hand
And He's riding a white horse across this land
And He's calling out to you and me
"Will you ride with me?"

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: flyingfish

Even believers are atheists to all other Gods, all Gods but the one their born or indoctrinated into.

That's not what atheist means. Believers aren't atheist to anything. Anglophone atheists usually believe things also, starting with the soup becomes monkeys thing, and the big bang.

Splitting hairs.. most believers are atheists towards all Gods but one. Obviously they are not literally atheists, but they do not have faith or hold a belief in any other God or gods, so it can be said, (however loosely), that they are atheists towards all but one God.

There is no such thing as "the soup becomes monkeys thing", no such thing at all. That is an ignorant oversimplification of abiogenesis and evolution, both of which require not faith to accept, but simply a review of the evidence and a reasonable education. You're ignoring the distinction here between between faith-based belief and belief based on evidence.

The more intelligent a person is the less likely they are to believe in Gods.

How so?

There is a correlation between level of education and belief or not in God, I think that's what he's alluding to. It's a tricky point, especially when phrased as he did, but the correlation is there.

a reply to: spygeek

There is no such thing as "the soup becomes monkeys thing", no such thing at all.

Indeed.

Splitting hairs..

No. Atheist means without a God. Belief in one version of God or another does not imply calling all other versions ignorant or stupid.

That is an ignorant oversimplification of abiogenesis and evolution, both of which require not faith to accept, but simply a review of the evidence and a reasonable education.

Soup into monkeys is the theory you defend. Primordial soup if you prefer.

Abiogenesis is not more convincing to me than genesis, which I wouldn't call biogenesis for what it's worth.
Also, it would do your theory some good to be named not by adding a privative prefix but by a term explaining its essence, hence soup to monkey. We can say evolution but please educate your self as to its the etymology because it's even funnier.
If you have a better term, feel free to enlighten me, I won't call it oversimplification but a title, because my education is reasonable.

There is a correlation between level of education and belief or not in God, I think that's what he's alluding to. It's a tricky point, especially when phrased as he did, but the correlation is there.

Education is another instance of adding a privative prefix (this time a Roman latin one). Ex ducere is the root.

While there is a correlation between atheist education and atheism, the opposite is also true.

So your point is again invalid.

edit to add:

You're ignoring the distinction here between between faith-based belief and belief based on evidence.

The beliefs you mention are not based on evidence. Manipulating existing things in a lab is not evidence that they spontaneously emerged from nothing/something exploding into everything for no reason.

That's actually a stretch, to put it mildly.

a reply to: wisvol

Also, it would do you theory some good to be names not by adding a privative prefix but by a term explaining its essence, hence soup to monkey.

Abiogenesis isn't a scientific theory it is a hypothesis. Do you understand the difference between those scientific terms because understanding those differences are very important.

Knowing at least that much is important when speaking about scientific issues, but you seem to either be unaware of that or completely disregard it.

Evolutionary theory isn't dependent on the hypothesis of Abiogenesis there are several hypothesises of the origin of life, but Abiogenesis does look like one day in the future it will become Theory.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Abiogenesis isn't a scientific theory it is a hypothesis. Do you understand the difference between those scientific terms because understanding those differences are very important.

My point exactly.

but Abiogenesis does look like one day in the future it will become Theory.

Miller's experiment claimed it was. Potato, potato. It was by design anyway.

Knowing at least that much is important when speaking about scientific issues, but you seem to either be unaware of that or completely disregard it.

I seem that way then.

Welcome aboard the fundamental train express. All rational thought and other perspectives must be left behind. Please only bring one narrow minded strict belief system with you. Remember to stick near your belief system at all times and do not loose sight of it at any time.

FYI - There are no windows on this train, only mirrors. We made sure to fog up all the mirrors so you won't beable have a good look at yourself.

Have a great trip and don't forget to stay fundddamental!

*Not to be confused with the "fund a mental" charity.*

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: spygeek

There is no such thing as "the soup becomes monkeys thing", no such thing at all.

Indeed.

Quite.

Splitting hairs..

No. Atheist means without a God. Belief in one version of God or another does not imply calling all other versions ignorant or stupid.

I used the qualifier "however loosely" when describing the use of the term in this context. I even said they obviously aren't literally atheists.

Is your perception of language so strictly and utterly literal that you can not entertain an informal, looser definition of a term in context? If someone says they are feeling blue, do you object to the usage because blue is a colour and cannot be felt?

Nowhere was stupidity or ignorance implied.

That is an ignorant oversimplification of abiogenesis and evolution, both of which require not faith to accept, but simply a review of the evidence and a reasonable education.

Soup into monkeys is the theory you defend. Primordial soup if you prefer.

Considering I haven't actually tried to defend anything I am puzzled by this comment..

"Primordial soup" creating life is the hypothesis of abiogenesis. Life evolving into more complex organisms is the Theory of evolution. You have lumped these together as if they are the same thing, or at the very least, interdependent, which they are not.

Abiogenesis is not more convincing to me than genesis, which I wouldn't call biogenesis for what it's worth.

It has been demonstrated to be completely possible through simulation, which is more than can be said of the magical process hinted at in genesis.

Creationism is unfalsifiable, and requires the breaking of the fundamental laws of nature by some kind of supernatural being that is categorically indefinable and unsimulatable.

If you find magic more convincing than what has been proven to be naturally possible, all the power to you.

Of course you wouldn't call the genesis creation myth biogenesis; God is not a biological organism. In this context, genesis alone would mean simply the creation of life from nothing.. perhaps 'theogenesis' is more appropriate.

Also, it would do your theory some good to be named not by adding a privative prefix but by a term explaining its essence, hence soup to monkey. We can say evolution but please educate your self as to its the etymology because it's even funnier.
If you have a better term, feel free to enlighten me, I won't call it oversimplification but a title, because my education is reasonable.

What theory of mine are you referring to? I wasn't aware I had presented a theory of my own..

The privative prefix of the term 'abiogenesis' is used to distinguish it from life created by life. In short, abiogenesis is non-life forming life, and biogenesis is life forming life, (i.e. through sexual reproduction.)

Interestingly, God himself seems to have performed abiogenesis throughout Genesis. Genesis 1:20 in particular appears to support this quite plainly.

If you are going to attempt to argue against the theory of evolution based on the term's etymology, there is nothing really to say in response to that. It is a facile argument, it is irrelevant. The term, (or "title" as you seem to prefer), used in today's studies and investigations is 'modern evolutionary synthesis' anyway, we have far surpassed the original theory of Darwin.

There is a correlation between level of education and belief or not in God, I think that's what he's alluding to. It's a tricky point, especially when phrased as he did, but the correlation is there.

Education is another instance of adding a privative prefix (this time a Roman latin one). Ex ducere is the root.

Ducere means "to lead", or "to consider", Ex means "out of", or "from within", "on account of". This Ex Ducere means "to lead out of".

It is a common misconception oft repeated that education is derived from this, but it most certainly is not. The root of 'education' is "Educare", which means, "to bring up", "to rear", or "to raise", particularly in respect of children.

While there is a correlation between atheist education and atheism, the opposite is also true.

So your point is again invalid.

Atheist education? As in, education that teaches there is no God? This is not the kind education I was referring to. I hope you are not trying to make a blanket statement about all secular education. It seems like you are.

Studies have repeatedly found that the more degrees and higher the level of education of a person has, the less likely they are to hold a strong religious conviction, and the more likely it is that they will be agnostic or atheistic. That was the point raised by flyingfish that I was attempting to clarify.

edit to add:

You're ignoring the distinction here between between faith-based belief and belief based on evidence.

The beliefs you mention are not based on evidence. Manipulating existing things in a lab is not evidence that they spontaneously emerged from nothing/something exploding into everything for no reason.

That's actually a stretch, to put it mildly.

You clearly know very little about what material science says about the origin of the universe, and life itself. Testing a hypothesis in a lab or controlled experiment is the first step of turning a hypothesis into a theory. The results of such experiments are indeed used as evidence in favour of or in opposition to the hypothesis' validity. The hypothesis is then reevaluated and revised before further experiments are performed.

Creationism does the opposite. It forgoes the hypothesis part and starts at the conclusion, working backwards, cherrypicking evidence in favour of it, ignoring evidence opposing it, and never reevaluating or revising the conclusion.

Did God come from nothing/something? Did God not create the universe from nothing/something spontaneously, as described in the bible? It's the same stretch.

More of a stretch actually, as it is without a single piece of physical or experimental evidence, and with a multitude of unknowable factors and assumptions about this unobservable God character, some would say.

originally posted by: Ceeker63
If atheist do not believe in the Bible. How do they justify its existence over the eon's? If they do not believe the Bible exists is it because the Bible contains words that they do not want to hear and believe, because it goes against their life choices. I have problems with atheist trying to prevent Christians and governmental agencies co-existing together in a belief that God created us. Our founding fathers believed in a Christian belief. Atheist just need to accept that fact.

This is litteraly the most ridiculous argument for god I have ever heard. Ever.

The ancient religious texts of Egypt
The Rigveda
The Torah
The Buddhist Diamond Sutra
The Epic of Gilgamesh

These text are all older than the bibe, let me know when you are planning to make the next offering to the sun god RA.

a reply to: DeathSlayer

Hello

I am coming around to something similar, I believe, without specific scripture to back this up, that the two camps of saved and not saved will be, at the very end, will be those descended from seed of the serpent and and the seed of Adam.

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

There is no correlation,

Off the top of my head, Newton was one highly intelligent chap.

In 2009 a survey of scientists found 33% beloved in God and an addition 18% in some other higher spirit/power

You can argue Einstein

Pascal
Galileo
Marconi
Kepler

The list goes on

a reply to: drevill

Yes, but believed in WHICH God?

The culture in which you are born and raised in feeds into your mind which is the One-True-God.

That simple reality alone should give every intelligent and honest person pause.

originally posted by: drevill
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

There is no correlation,

...

This 2013 research certainly identified some:

A meta-analysis of 63 studies showed a significant negative association between intelligence and religiosity.

The Relation Between Intelligence and Religiosity - A Meta-Analysis and Some Proposed Explanations

I have realised after researching more recent studies that my earlier comments regarding education level and religiosity were overstated. It appears that education level has a far milder correlation with religiosity than earlier studies had suggested. The correlation with higher intelligence is much stronger as the above analysis, amoung others, shows.

Discussing religion alongside intelligence is pretty poor etiquette.

How anyone can feel they have the right to judge someone's intelligence based on their faith is beyond me.

As Drevill rightly put there have been many great minds who also had faith.

I've known doctors and heard of many scientists who believe in God/higher power. I think to many, it's only logical.

originally posted by: MrConspiracy
Discussing religion alongside intelligence is pretty poor etiquette.

How anyone can feel they have the right to judge someone's intelligence based on their faith is beyond me.

That is not what is being done. No-one is being judged and no one's intelligence is being questioned because of their faith. A correlation was noted, not a causative relationship.

a reply to: spygeek

Well at least I found someone who will tell me exactly how things are, how nice of you.

Only fair that I answer your questions then:

Is your perception of language so strictly and utterly literal that you can not entertain an informal, looser definition of a term in context?

No

If someone says they are feeling blue, do you object to the usage because blue is a colour and cannot be felt?

No

Oh I get it, you ask that type of questions. But then there's the assertions.

Of course you wouldn't call the genesis creation myth biogenesis; God is not a biological organism. In this context, genesis alone would mean simply the creation of life from nothing.. perhaps 'theogenesis' is more appropriate.

For someone able to see blue for a feeling and a believer for an atheist as you heavily insisted upon, it's interesting that you would say that. Theogenesis is nor more appropriate at all because genesis is a word coined for that particular theory. Of course, one could argue that it is not a theory, yet the theo in theogenesis is actually the theo in theory.

It is a common misconception oft repeated that education is derived from this, but it most certainly is not.

Interesting how you claim things that go against truth. A pattern maybe.

Studies have repeatedly found that the more degrees and higher the level of education of a person has, the less likely they are to hold a strong religious conviction, and the more likely it is that they will be agnostic or atheistic.

This is also true of those who have no formal education. And also true of one-legged circus clowns.
Those you went through lengthy study of particular fields and have a strong religious conviction exist, even though most will say that it is such a personal choice that they would not debate it because what I'm doing now is not fun to do.

I know what I'll do: try a thought experiment. Everybody likes those.

Not a lot of people believed in wireless oversea communication in 1802. Even the doctors of physics.

Now if for some reason wireless overseas communication becomes a thing of the past, in any kind of mad max story, the only ones knowing that it has in fact been seen would be those who give credence of the stories passed down to them. Are they ignorant fools who should be educated about the mythological nature of these claims?

You clearly know very little about what material science says about the origin of the universe, and life itself.

Here we go again. Material science says all things are one at the micro and macro level, just energy and spacetime usually sphering up and revolving around spheres, and in the middle is the trees, the birds and the people, who may or may not have been generated spontaneously from soup.
(No! material science says something else!) Well sure it does bud, anything you observe for yourself and reproduce until you draw a conclusion unchallenged by other reproducible experiment is part of that.)

As for the account of genesis interesting that you would bring up a piece of it.
If you think I distort evolution by calling it soup to monkey, let's again be reminded that the book you quote from may very well have been at some point during the transmission to you handled by the sort of people who claim that educare is not a prefixed construct of ducere, a verifiable linguistic science point, and that makes for all sorts of interesting results.

Did God come from nothing/something? Did God not create the universe from nothing/something spontaneously, as described in the bible? It's the same stretch.

First question is great: God doesn't seem like a effect but rather a cause, not coming from & c.
This sharply contrasts with theories claiming the start of spacetime as spontaneous.
Second is not: you misuse the concept of spontaneity, then say it is described in the bible, which it isn't.
Definitely not the same stretch, and a key point of understanding.

More of a stretch actually, as it is without a single piece of physical or experimental evidence, and with a multitude of unknowable factors and assumptions about this unobservable God character, some would say.

Physical evidence would include all of physical evidence.
Experimental evidence requires genesis, such as programmatic genesis, for lack of understanding of grammatic genesis.
Some do say this however, and I wish them the best until they say their science contradicts this, because frankly I would love to see that, because it would change some of my life choices quite drastically.

People accept the bible, and the Koran because they want (and believe in) eternal life. Is it all a myth? Impossible to say.
a reply to: DeathSlayer

originally posted by: DeathSlayer
I have some time this evening so here is another thread concerning why people believe in God and in the bible and others do not. Now there have been numerous threads on this subject but this one will be different.

Well your thread devolved into the usual nonsense, eventually. But I actually think your OP was different, star and flag and all that.

I like the idea you brought up, that it's God who chooses who believes and who doesn't. This makes sense, if we assume that he is omnipotent. It is ultimately part of his plan, and on him.

In another post you mentioned you don't think hell is eternal. Could you elaborate on that, what hell actually is?

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
I have more Faith in the non believers Judgement than I do the convenience believers.

The feeling is mutual, friend. You could probably call me an unbeliever, although I feel that's oversimplifying it a bit.

Anyway, I have a lot more respect for believers who take their faith seriously, than for those who are lukewarm and only go to church on Christmas, or out of habit or because they think it's a nice social club. Honestly it creeps me out. People who claim they have faith in a living god, then they express this gift by putting a bumper sticker on their car, or writing some platitude on facebook.

originally posted by: drevill
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

There is no correlation,

Off the top of my head, Newton was one highly intelligent chap.

In 2009 a survey of scientists found 33% beloved in God and an addition 18% in some other higher spirit/power

You can argue Einstein

Pascal
Galileo
Marconi
Kepler

The list goes on

Newton is just one guy, so are the others you listed, even Einstein. In this context it's irrelevant what they believed. When you think about it, it makes sense that the more intelligent tend to be unbelievers, in this day and age. Here is why:

Formerly, most people believed in God. This has changed, and is still changing: more atheists now than before.

What sort of people are more likely to make drastic changes in their world view? The intelligent, or the unintelligent? I would say the former. So, the intelligent change and the unintelligent keep believing the same thing. This is true for both theists and atheists.

Here's the crux: there were many more theists. So many intelligent people with a religious background are now atheists. But there were not that many atheists, so even if some of them converted it was insignificant in comparison.

Theism has experienced and indeed is still experiencing brain drain.

That's my explanation to the study proving that atheists tend to be more intelligent. So don't feel bad, it doesn't mean believing makes you dumb. And remember it doesn't say any individual theist is dumb, it's just statistics.

nvm

a reply to: DeathSlayer

I respect everyone's right to their opinion. Also I respect that everyone has a right to choose their beliefs - and it is a choice. According to the bible - one of the gifts that god gave to humans was free will; this is supposedly why he didn't give Eve a free pass for eating the forbidden fruit. So for anyone to say they were chosen by god is contradicting the very book they use to guide them in their faith. It also makes praying seem kind of pointless - first of all if Adam and Eve weren't spared for eating the wrong fruit, then god probably isn't going to cure your cancer or help you win the lottery. What is officially considered praying? Do you have to be on your hands and knees? Do you have to fold your palms together? Do you have to actually say the prayer out loud or does it count if you just do it all in your head?
What I can never figure out about believers is - why do you care if others don't believe? Do you believe that you get extra credit points for each atheist you convert? At the end of the day - it's an argument or discussion that you can not conclusively win. Atheist's also can't win their argument that god doesn't exist. No one can win - because no one can definitively prove god does or doesn't exist. Best case scenario is one side convinces the other side that they have more compelling evidence that their beliefs are more likely to be correct.
Using the logic that god created me and gave me free will - then if I don't believe in god, that is god's will.
Also if god is the creator of everything - then god created the devil and if the devil created hell, then by extension god created hell.
Also perhaps believers shouldn't feel too secure in an eternal life in heaven - because supposedly the devil was cast from heaven. So apparently even if you die and go to heaven - there are circumstances where that arrangement could be reversed.

My point isn't to dissuade anyone that believes in god to not believe in god. If that's what you believe - great. I respect that. All that I ask in return is that you pay me the same consideration - and not try to convince me that I'm wrong. Supposedly most of Jesus's disciples were skeptics. Many of them went on to become saints and apostles.

Ultimately I am using that free will that god gave me - to question if god created me and gave me free will. I believe in the overall philosophy of religion - be a good person, don't steal other peoples stuff, don't run around killing people, don't screw your neighbors wife. If I live a good life and adhere to the basic Christian values and if when I die I find out I was wrong - that there really is a god, I would hope that how I lived my life would be more important than whether or not I was a believer.