Joy to the world

[the hog]

As a question to other posters: if you argue that it is important to follow the "Word of God", how do you know what the word of God really is? The Old Testament can hardly be taken literally. If it were, we would have to condone stoning, incest and ritual sacrifice. The Gospels of the New Testament were written years after the death of Christ and have been edited and re edited over the years. How valid are they then? Why were the Gnostic gospels exclued by the Council of Nicea? Is it because they presented views that the Church of that time did not want to consider eg that Christ and Mary Magdalene were married?

 

By the way, and argument of faith - "I believe therefore it is true", is not an argument at all.

[cherdano]

Well a wikipedia article citing a book citing an article in Mensa magazine is not a credible source thank you.

 

Anyway, none of the other sources I found mentioned studies done outside of the US, none mentioned studies controlling for other factors, etc. etc. Many cited various studies finding no correlation, others only correlation to GPAs or SAT scores...

Ok if that is not a credible source, try looking up the studies quoted in Dawkins' book itself.

 

By the way, on what basis do you argue that the pope is of greater intelligence than any poster here? That seems a rather sweeping statement. In any case if you are going to argue about intelligence, perhaps you might like to look at the atheist camp - Dawkins and also Peter Singer, who are regularly cited as leading intellectuals of our time. Looking back into History you have Voltaire, Thomas Jefferson, Bertrand Russell et al.

Lol. I wasn't debating that there are intelligent atheists, I was just debating the claim that there are NO intelligent deeply religious people. (No I won't insert the snide remark that noticing this difference would be a sign of intelligence as I don't like to insult other posters, not even The_Hog.)

 

As for judging the intelligence of the pope, I judge him how I would judge any person I only know as a public figure, by what he says and how he argues in public. I guess he is easier to judge by what he said before becoming a pope or even a politician in the Vatikan.

[mike777]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jeffer...Religious_views

 

It seems a bit much to say Jefferson did not believe in a God or higher power or was an atheist.

 

I am still a bit hard pressed to think of country or empire political leaders who claimed to be athesist. Perhaps Stalin but I am sure there have been more throughout history. Perhaps a few other communist leaders?

 

Not sure where Kahn falls.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Khan#Spirituality

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tengri

 

The core beings in Tengriism are Sky-Father (Tengri/Tenger Etseg) and Mother Earth (Eje/Gazar Eej). In history, Chinggis Khan (Gengis Khan), the unifier of the Mongolian nation, based his power on a mandate from Tengri himself, and began all his declarations with the words "by the will of Eternal Blue Heaven." Father Heaven is worshipped for what he is, the timeless and infinite blue sky. He is not visualized as a person, although he is said to have at least two sons.

[the hog]

"I am still a bit hard pressed to think of country or empire poliical leaders who were claimed to be athesist. Perhaps Stalin but I am sure there have been more. through out history. Perhaps a few other communist leaders?"

 

I think it would be pretty much political suicide to admit to being an atheist and running for public office. I guess it depends on the country, but I suspect that this would be absolutely true in the States. Less so but iit would still cost votes in Aust & GB.

[mike777]

Again this raises the issue of ethics or morality. They(nonbelievers) lie or mistate on purpose what they really believe to gain power?

 

Why not risk losing power to state to the people what you truly believe?

Note even tyrants choose to state they believe in a higher power. If they were really aethists..then religion got a bad rep in their name. :)

[mikeh]

On re-reading my post about the Clintons, I realized that it reads as if I felt that no intelligent people could be religious :) That's not what I meant: what I meant about the Clintons, in particular, was that their behaviours appear most unreligious and very calculating in all aspects. I thnk it was Tony Blair's former press secretary who described Bill C as the only geniune political genius he had ever met.

 

So while I think Clinton was an excellent President, my impression of him is that his intellect was always focussed on accomplishing his ambition, and that the profession of religious belief was a calculated posture. Obviously, not having met him, I am speculating B) Whereas, from all I have read of Bush, his religious beliefs really are part of his persona [and it may be no coincidence that he is apparently heading for a designation as one of the worst presidents in the history of the country]. [i also suspect, but obviously do not 'know', that Hilary would believe that the White House was worth a protestation of belief] And, Mike, I'd far rather have a Bill Clinton as the world's most powerful leader (whether I am correct in my view of his beliefs, or whether he is a sincere, but not born-again, Christian) than George W Bush. Give me a humane, intelligent, compassionate man prepared to lie about his beliefs (and marijuana use) over a former playboy, alcoholic, reborn Christian who favours belief over facts.

 

As for intelligent believers, clearly there are. And some of the most intelligent humans of all time have been devoutly religious: looking only to the Western experience, it is doubtful that many people more intelligent than Isaac Newton ever lived.

 

But at the same time, there does appear to be strong evidence that religious belief is held by a smaller fraction of well-educated and/or intelligent people than amongst the general population at large. Such a correlation may be offensive to true believers, but many true believers have made a life-pattern out of denying facts in favour of belief, so I am sure that they will be able to ignore the implications of this correlation. To the others, my apologies for the ineptness of my earlier language, and, so long as you do not espouse an Anne Coulter-like solution to those who believe otherwise, I wish you comfort in your faith. I can certainly understand the attraction of believing in a higher power.

[mike777]

1) Ranking presidents is great fun and a wonderful debate. Very difficult to really rank the last ones...not enough time and full debate.

2) To carry the great president debate further see Polk....who now and for a long time has been ranked very low. Perhaps in next decade much higher?

3) For those Bush haters,,,keep in mind Truman had the same hate. :) Will Bush rise or stay in the sewer of history?

4) For sake of this thread I think even comparing Clinton vs Bush as you have framed it....will lead to a wonderful debate. I think both sides will concede Clinton is a most brilliant politician(no sarcasm). Was he a brilliant leader?

[Codo]

When I read this (and other forums), I believe that the atheists are even stronger believers then most religious people are. When I read some posts from The Hog, MikeH, Gerben or Hrothgar - just to name some of the guys I respect most- I found them quite simpleminded: (Sarcasm on) Atheismus is for the intelligent and when we are all atheists, life will be better. (Sarcasm off)

 

They really seem to believe that without religion there would be less war and cruelity. IMHO this is simply not true.

It is true, that many horrible things had happen in the name of god.

But who do really believe that the crusades, the inqusition, the fight in serbia/North Ireland or whatever are really for the spread of a religion?

 

It never was. A war is always for the gain of influence and power. Smart leaders just know that the people will follow them much easier if they have a better reason then this. A reason like: We must stop the evil, we must defend our country or we must spread our religion.

 

In that case, the religion is abused as a tool to lead the blind and silly.

 

But unluckily you won´t change anything if you take away the religion. The evil leaders will find other excuses for their goal to reach more power and influence.

(F.E:. hey have rockets in Iran/ the Taliban helped al quaida etc...)

 

 

But if you take away the religions, you will take away a lot good things:

 

There are million of peoples who take their ethics, their hopes and their satisfaction out of religions.

1.If you loose a near relative, it is much easier to find your peace again if you can believe that he/she is in heaven and not just dead.

2.Religions are a school of ethics. Do you believe that "all people are equal", "man and woman are equal" had been popular without the christian religion?

These ideas had not been very popular in the world. They spread together with the christian believe. I doubt that you can find many (if any) parts of history where these fundamental truths had been followed without the christian influence.

3. Many wonderful things are done in the name of a church- feeding homeless, kindergardens, schools etc. And for a lot of people it is much easier to do ethical things if they believe that a higher power will judge their doing. Of course atheists do good things too, but I claim that it is more difficult to do so without religion.

4. At least for me it is less depressing to "know" that my life won´t be over after my death.

5. If you believe in a higher power, it is easier to life with the unfairnesses you may have here. You can believe that their will be justice at the end.

 

And just because Ron did understand my last statement not as I meant it:

I never would claim that atheists are not ethical. That would be quite silly to claim. I just claim that there is no (big) relationship between the wars and violence which are made in the name of a religion and the "real" religions.

And I claim that religions did many good things to million of peoples.

 

For the argument that there are more believers between less educated people: This is simply true.

1. A religion is a promise for the future. If your life is not so great on earth it is very satisfying to "know" that everything will be better after your death and that you have a good life in the future.

2. IF you are not able to reach great social status from your job/education/income you can try to reach it by following a god and help the guys who have an even worse life then you.

3.A lot of religions talk about giving to the poor, humility and poverty. It is obvious that this is less popular between people who have reached a fair level of income.

 

 

P.S. Some of the worst leaders in history had been atheists: All soviet leaders and Hitler to name just some. So being an atheist does not always make you a good leader. :)

[Fluffy]

Why does Bush have to be named on every post in this forum? :)

 

 

I believe in god while I don't believe in church, this is nice, since I cannot say I belong to any religion, I cannot group with others and exclude the rest because they are different :), but I can keep some degree of ethics.

 

I don't beleive in church, but I believe it does a lot of good stuff. Helping the poor and the ill (not an expert in this area actually).

 

 

In my view there aren't so many differences between muslim and christian religion as they want to make us beleive. Sadly politicias (who are the true cancer os society), decided to make everyone believe those differences where gross and that instead of joining both faiths, the only solution was a sacred war so that they could get more land to rule by.

[the hog]

Hi Roland,

 

When I read some posts from The Hog, MikeH, Gerben or Hrothgar - just to name some of the guys I respect most- I found them quite simpleminded: (Sarcasm on) Atheismus is for the intelligent and when we are all atheists, life will be better. (Sarcasm off)

 

I don't think anyone said atheism is for the intelligent. What Richard and I both alluded to is that some studies have shown a correlation between intelligence as measured by Mensa membership, and atheism.

 

They really seem to believe that without religion there would be less war and cruelity. IMHO this is simply not true.

It is true, that many horrible things had happen in the name of god.

But who do really believe that the crusades, the inqusition, the fight in serbia/North Ireland or whatever are really for the spread of a religion?

 

Sorry, I totally disagree with you on this one. Sure these wars were about power - the power of one religion having the major influence in government and in decision making as opposed to the other. To argue eg that the Irish struggle was anything but a religious war is just plain incorrect historically. This is not to say that religion is the ONLY cause of war. It is a major one though. If the Crusades weren't a religious war, then what were they? The Christian Church wanted to extend its influence over the "Holy Land".

To argue that the current struggle with fundementalist Muslims is not a religious war is naive. Look at some of th pronouncements made by the mullahs. Convert or die.

 

snipped

 

But if you take away the religions, you will take away a lot good things:

 

There are million of peoples who take their ethics, their hopes and their satisfaction out of religions.

 

snipped

Yes but that is not an argument to say that we are better off with religion. Bhuddism has one of the best (imo) set of ethical beliefs around. Bhuddism is not a religion; it is a philosophy of life. You can also argue that the values system pushed by organised religion leaves a lot to be desired. Look at the mysogonistic attitude of the Catholic Church. Despite strong evidence that women played a central role in the early Christian Church, a group of patriachial old farts decided to impose their mysogonistic beliefs on the Church from the Council of Nicea onwards. Those parts of the gospels showing women in positions of power were expunged or ignored. A great ethical system!

 

And just because Ron did understand my last statement not as I meant it:

I never would claim that atheists are not ethical. That would be quite silly to claim.

 

No, I know you didn't mean that.

 

I just claim that there is no (big) relationship between the wars and violence which are made in the name of a religion and the "real" religions.

And I claim that religions did many good things to million of peoples.

 

And I would argue that they are responsible for a large part of the world's ills. I mean, even Bush, (sorry Fluffy), justifies his invasion of Iraq by saying he is on God's mission and God told him to do it. It's a pity God didn't tell him there were no WMD.

 

snipped

 

P.S. Some of the worst leaders in history had been atheists: All soviet leaders and Hitler to name just some. So being an atheist does not always make you a good leader.

 

No one argued this point Roland.

[mike777]

so many points so little time.

 

At the very least I think posters go too far to say buddihism is not a religion.

 

Buddhism is a dharmic religion

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BuddhistBuddhism is a dharmic religion

[the hog]

Mike, like Arend I don't think Wikipedia is a reliable source. I guess it depends what you meany by religion. I have always argued that religion is the belief in a "God." Bhuddists do believe in reincarnation, but there is no God in their beliefs. Bhudda is definitely NOT a God, just a being who has reached nirvana or enlightenment. They believe that this path is open to all, even you. (Just kidding.) That is a concept totally alien from anything taught in any religion. No religion comes even close to implying that man can assume God like status.

[mike777]

Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: it transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural & spiritual, and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity" A widely cited, but spurious quotation attributed to Albert Einstein 1

"The greatest achievement is selflessness.

The greatest worth is self-mastery.

 

 

http://www.religioustolerance.org/buddhism.htm

 

 

http://darahasa.ca/

[irdoz]

I'm an atheist and a fan of Singer's (Australian bioethicist).

 

This thread makes me anxious. I see two sets of strongly held belief systems speaking but not really having a dialogue - like two non-intersecting circles of flawed logic that will spin separately forever. I get the same reaction to fundamenatlist Islam versus fundamentalist Christians.

 

I fear what humanity is facing this century though global warming and a looming food crisis through destruction of arable land (by increasing population, rise in sea water and climate change). With whats looming youd hope we'd put all our focus on it. But instead we have neoliberals like the Australian prime minister and American president who believe it is all about expanding markets (their solution for everything) and growth - and are prepared to go to war to open up new markets (very moral and ethical). They want to accelerate the very things that are causing the looming global crisis. The gulf between atheists and Christians seems as wide as that between people concerned about global warming and neoliberals.

 

On another point, Im surprised about the bald statements that Hitler was an atheist. Until 1935 he was a self-identified Christian and used quotes from the bible to justify many of his policies. As I undertand it, after 1935 he abandoned 'religion' because he saw it as a threat to his power but he also banned atheism (and they were imprisoned).

[mike777]

yes expandingmarkets(growth).

 

Many believe this is the real problem not the solution...see many other posts......

 

"I fear what humanity is facing this century though global warming and a looming food crisis through destruction of arable land (by increasing population, rise in sea water and climate change). With whats looming youd hope we'd put all our focus on it. But instead we have neoliberals like the Australian prime minister and American president who believe it is all about expanding markets (their solution for everything) and growth - and are prepared to go to war to open up new markets (very moral and ethical). They want to accelerate the very things that are causing the looming global crisis. The gulf between atheists and Christians seems as wide as that between people concerned about global warming and neoliberals."

 

 

 

 

 

Great post...you either think this post is insane nonsense or the real truth.

[Codo]

They really seem to believe that without religion there would be less war and cruelity. IMHO this is simply not true.

It is true, that many horrible things had happen in the name of god.

But who do really believe that the crusades, the inqusition, the fight in serbia/North Ireland or whatever are really for the spread of a religion?

 

Sorry, I totally disagree with you on this one. Sure these wars were about power - the power of one religion having the major influence in government and in decision making as opposed to the other. To argue eg that the Irish struggle was anything but a religious war is just plain incorrect historically. This is not to say that religion is the ONLY cause of war. It is a major one though. If the Crusades weren't a religious war, then what were they? The Christian Church wanted to extend its influence over the "Holy Land".

To argue that the current struggle with fundementalist Muslims is not a religious war is naive. Look at some of th pronouncements made by the mullahs. Convert or die.

 

But this is the main point: There are people who SAY they do it for their religion.

But do you really belive them?

IF Mr Bush tells that his war for oil was a Gods Mmission and that god told him to do so, do you believe him?

I don´t. And I don´t believe the mullahs either.

 

And if the conflict in Ireland was about religion, why was it just in Ireland? Here in Germany we have catholics and protestants but no war.

The reasons for the civil war in north ireland are different. Some irish helped the brits, some had their heart still with the republic of Ireland. This made the big problems.

 

And the crusades: There had been many alliances in that time, christians with muslims against other cristians, which is a clear proove for my statement that they did it for power and influence. not for their believes.

[mike777]

"And if the conflict in Ireland was about religion, why was it just in Ireland? Here in Germany we have catholics and protestants but no war."

 

 

 

What happened to the Muslims?

1) how many catholics go to church in germany every week?

2) how many prots. go to church in germany every week?

3) how many muslims?

 

Facts about germany would help..not guesses.

 

Note my question...how many go to church or mosque every week? not once a year.

 

If not Germany...how about France what are the stats?

 

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-08...ion-cover_x.htm

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4385768.stm

 

 

These may be out of date numbers. You may have better information

 

None of this means war......people who vote count.

[the hog]

Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: it transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural & spiritual, and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity" A widely cited, but spurious quotation attributed to Albert Einstein 1

"The greatest achievement is selflessness.

The greatest worth is self-mastery.

 

 

http://www.religioustolerance.org/buddhism.htm

 

 

http://darahasa.ca/

Mike, I can't really argue too much with your definition, but I still think the word religion is not correct. I have spoken to a lot of monks and abbots in the past year, trying to get a grasp and understanding of my wife's beliefs - she is Bhuddist of course. Not one of them ever used the word "religion", either in English, Lao or Thai when speaking of their beliefs. It was always "belief" or the Lao word for this. This may be being pedantic, but I DO think there is a difference.

[mike777]

religion is a set of common beliefs and practices generally held by a group of people, often codified as prayer, ritual, and religious law. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings,

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

[the hog]

religion is a set of common beliefs and practices generally held by a group of people, often codified as prayer, ritual, and religious law. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings,

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

According to that definition virtually anything can be a religion eg atheism or to take it to extremes, the belief that Meckwell are the best pair in the world. It is a common belief, held by a group of people.....

Like I said, don't rely on Wikipedia....

[Fluffy]

I don't know what religion means nor what it is, but I think the main gap is between believing in only pure physics (this is atheism right?) and believing in anything else.

[pbleighton]

I don't know what religion means nor what it is, but I think the main gap is between believing in only pure physics (this is atheism right?) and believing in anything else.

 

A LITTLE bit simplistic, no?

 

Well, I'm an atheist, but I believe in lots of things: don't kill people, the U.S. Constitution, don't pass 13 counts, etc., etc., etc.

 

Peter

[Gerben42]

When did this thread derail? Oh well...

 

Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings...

 

I agree one should read the Bible as it is an important and influential piece of work. I did. I think its importance as inspiration for art is unsurpassed in western culture.

 

For me the truth value is the same of that of for example the Iliad. I'm pretty sure it is based on real events, but like in the Iliad, the divine intervention part should be evaluated keeping into mind the time when it was written (I don't mean written down here), which is in the 1st Century for the New Testament, way earlier for the Old Testament and the Iliad.

[hrothgar]

Few points that I feel obliged to qualify:

 

1. I posted some references from Wikipedia because Arend asked for any source for the claim that there is a direct positive correlation between atheism and intelligence. I haven’t researched this topic extensively and haven’t read the papers that I referenced. I consider the wikipedia cites as a reasonable starting point for future research rather than a definitive answer.

 

2. I never claimed (nor do I believe) that there are no intelligent people of faith. I most certain don’t believe that all atheists are smart. However, by and large I do agree with MikeH’s original proposition. I think that there is an inverse relationship between intelligence and strong religious belief. For what it’s worth, I’ll throw out the following data point: I’d say that my circle of close friends encompasses (roughly) 20 people. Most are highly intelligent (MIT and Wesleyan grads for the most part). I can think of about eight who exhibit anything that could really be considered as a “religion”. Four of those are secular Jews and two are Unitarian Universalists. (From my perspective, both of these are more aptly considered lifestyles rather than religions) There is one observant Jew and one observant Christian in the lot. As for the rest, religion simply isn’t an issue in folk’s lives.

 

3. Personally, I don’t have any issues with religion per see. I couldn’t care less what other folks believe. However, I do have enormous worries about how they come to these beliefs and especially about the rise of top down organizational hierarchies. I think that these types of structures overly concentrate decision making, short circuit constructive criticism, and eliminate proper diligence. Moreover, I see an enormous degree of overlap between religious affiliation and this type of centralized decision making process. In addition, I think that all of the Abrahamic religions have some real issues when it comes to the role of women in society, sexuality, and the like. (There is very little difference between fundamentalist Muslims, fundamentalist Jews, and fundamentalist Christians on these types of issues) As I noted earlier, I don’t really care about folks personal practices, however, when they start trying to force their morals into the public sphere I get quite ticked off.

 

It’s quite interesting watching the slow disintegration of The Episcopal Church in America and the decline of some of the other of the mainline Protestant Churches. 30 years back, some folks associated with the Scaife Foundation wrote some interesting articles suggesting that the mainline Protestant Churches were too liberal and setting out a strategy to try to neutralize them by starting internal schisms around wedge issues like ordaining women (later extended to acceptance of homosexuality). The strategy seems to have been broadly successful. The inmates seem to be taking over the asylum. I suspect that deliberately forcing these issues is simple accelerating a process that would have naturally taken place over time. (By and large, I think that moderates are drifting away from their churches, leaving the “true believers” behind). It will be interesting to see what happens when the atheists / agnostics finally hit critical mass and start pushing back.

[Al_U_Card]

Mwah hah ha! It's all going according to my evil plan......

 

I take a group of highly intelligent individuals, sources of imminent danger to the nefarious activities that need to remain hidden to be effective and I introduce my favorite dissipater of rational debate.....RELIGION

 

Works every time....MWAH HAH HA!

 

Lew C. Fehr

:)