Other Sports2 mins ago
Why Be Interested In Other Religions?
184 Answers
Regardless of where you live, you have no doubt seen for yourself how religion affects the lives of millions of people.
Answers
Hypognosis; To say that someone who believes the sum total of religion is a belief in "sky fairies" is lacking in the IQ department, is not the same as saying that all atheists are stupid. This is something I have never said (and naomi, not even of Dawkins). What I have said in my classifying of various positions, is to distinguish between different types; those...
16:13 Wed 30th Mar 2016
Khandro- "Would you care for a list of some highly educated people who are not atheists, in fact some of the most educated and brilliant minds on the planet?"
Oh yes please! I like a good list. Particularly when it's a list that has no relevance to anything and effectively proves nothing whatsoever. Post away.
So, preempting your list of intelligent people who believe in sky fairies, let me just say that intelligence or IQ or whatever it is that quintessentially makes a smart person clever has zero relevance to their belief in a creator deity. In fact there is considerable evidence to suggest that people with a high IQ are more susceptible to a belief in god as they consider themselves to be too clever to be wrong.
On a personal note I have met some very intelligent people in my time on this planet and I know that a belief in god is no measure of intelligence. It is however, a measure of gullibility and some of the most intelligent people I've ever met are also the most gullible. It seems like a paradox doesn't it? And yet it isn't. It's actually quite simple and something that has been recognised by psychologists for a considerable length of time: the more intelligent one believes oneself to be, the more one is incapable of spotting a clever con. These people believe themselves to be so enlightened that once they have been convinced of a specific aspect of a tall tale, their inner arrogance kicks in and convinces them that if they think it's right, it must be right because they're very intelligent. Arrogance trumps logical thought every time.
It is the reason some very intelligent people such as doctors have dropped everything and joined the likes of ISIS. It is not intelligence they lack; it is a lack of humility and an surfit of arrogance.
Oh yes please! I like a good list. Particularly when it's a list that has no relevance to anything and effectively proves nothing whatsoever. Post away.
So, preempting your list of intelligent people who believe in sky fairies, let me just say that intelligence or IQ or whatever it is that quintessentially makes a smart person clever has zero relevance to their belief in a creator deity. In fact there is considerable evidence to suggest that people with a high IQ are more susceptible to a belief in god as they consider themselves to be too clever to be wrong.
On a personal note I have met some very intelligent people in my time on this planet and I know that a belief in god is no measure of intelligence. It is however, a measure of gullibility and some of the most intelligent people I've ever met are also the most gullible. It seems like a paradox doesn't it? And yet it isn't. It's actually quite simple and something that has been recognised by psychologists for a considerable length of time: the more intelligent one believes oneself to be, the more one is incapable of spotting a clever con. These people believe themselves to be so enlightened that once they have been convinced of a specific aspect of a tall tale, their inner arrogance kicks in and convinces them that if they think it's right, it must be right because they're very intelligent. Arrogance trumps logical thought every time.
It is the reason some very intelligent people such as doctors have dropped everything and joined the likes of ISIS. It is not intelligence they lack; it is a lack of humility and an surfit of arrogance.
Yet atheists believe that intelligent man, though he cannot create life or even anything more intelligent than himself, was created by a force with no intelligence. Does it make sense?
No, to say that there is no Supreme Intelligence is to say that the universe has evolved something higher than itself, it has created intelligence. And to think that anything can create something it does not itself possess, is the most vacuous kind of empty-headed reasoning.
Now, humility, it has everything to recommend it. Most importantly, it can help to put us in the right relationship with God, for we read: “God opposes the haughty ones, but he gives undeserved kindness to the humble ones.” (Jas. 4:6)
Yes, humility also makes for our own peace of mind and contentment. And it helps us in our relations with our fellowmen.
And humility is especially helpful when we are being tried by adversity. Family problems, economic hard times and advice may be hard to face.
Adversity may also take the form of opposition one meets while engaged in our Christian ministry, or severe persecution.
It may include being wronged by a seeming friend. As we can see, on here, humility will help me to endure.
No, to say that there is no Supreme Intelligence is to say that the universe has evolved something higher than itself, it has created intelligence. And to think that anything can create something it does not itself possess, is the most vacuous kind of empty-headed reasoning.
Now, humility, it has everything to recommend it. Most importantly, it can help to put us in the right relationship with God, for we read: “God opposes the haughty ones, but he gives undeserved kindness to the humble ones.” (Jas. 4:6)
Yes, humility also makes for our own peace of mind and contentment. And it helps us in our relations with our fellowmen.
And humility is especially helpful when we are being tried by adversity. Family problems, economic hard times and advice may be hard to face.
Adversity may also take the form of opposition one meets while engaged in our Christian ministry, or severe persecution.
It may include being wronged by a seeming friend. As we can see, on here, humility will help me to endure.
@naomi
//
Khandro, no thanks. They haven't learnt enough.
22:55 Sun 27th Mar 2016
//
Hence my choice of username
Hypo= under
Gnosis=knowledge
With the added irony that my knowledge of classics is so close the nil that I've probably perpetrated a latin/greek cut'n'shut. Not that I'd be the first.
@birdie
//they consider themselves to be too clever to be wrong. //
'at made I larff. Thank you
//
Khandro, no thanks. They haven't learnt enough.
22:55 Sun 27th Mar 2016
//
Hence my choice of username
Hypo= under
Gnosis=knowledge
With the added irony that my knowledge of classics is so close the nil that I've probably perpetrated a latin/greek cut'n'shut. Not that I'd be the first.
@birdie
//they consider themselves to be too clever to be wrong. //
'at made I larff. Thank you
birdie: If your full understanding of religion is a belief in your term "sky fairies",
it really would seem to be a demonstration of your own limitation in the I.Q. department.
You want a list of people who are unfortunate in not having your superior knowledge, I could sit here typing all day but here are a few;
Well, let's start with Albert Einstein who said, "There is harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind am able to recognise, yet there are people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me to support such views." ...... " Every scientist becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men"...... " I want to know how God created this world".... "This firm belief in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience represents my conception of God".
Moving on, all the pioneers of quantum mechanics rejected atheism;
Heisenberg: "I have repeatedly pondered the relationship of science and religion, for I have never been able to deny the reality to which they point."
Max Planck: "There can never be any real opposition between science and religion, for one is the complement of the other."
Erwin Schroedinger: "Science is reticent when it come to the question of the great unity of which we somehow form a part. The popular name for it in our time is God."
Just think birdie, if only they had known what you know with such certainty, who could say what they might have achieved!
it really would seem to be a demonstration of your own limitation in the I.Q. department.
You want a list of people who are unfortunate in not having your superior knowledge, I could sit here typing all day but here are a few;
Well, let's start with Albert Einstein who said, "There is harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind am able to recognise, yet there are people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me to support such views." ...... " Every scientist becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men"...... " I want to know how God created this world".... "This firm belief in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience represents my conception of God".
Moving on, all the pioneers of quantum mechanics rejected atheism;
Heisenberg: "I have repeatedly pondered the relationship of science and religion, for I have never been able to deny the reality to which they point."
Max Planck: "There can never be any real opposition between science and religion, for one is the complement of the other."
Erwin Schroedinger: "Science is reticent when it come to the question of the great unity of which we somehow form a part. The popular name for it in our time is God."
Just think birdie, if only they had known what you know with such certainty, who could say what they might have achieved!
@goodlife
You clearly do not fully understand how evolution encourages progress. Put simply, you are either the smartest critter on the patch or you are some other creature's lunch.
For the future safety of mankind, it is probably as well that we do not fully grasp how intelligence arises from the neural networks, in the brain because we've already taken linear code execution to billions of instructions per second and parallel processing at such speeds would probably do things that would astound us.
Obviously, it will not want to eat us but, if you fed it the creation myth, it might reach the inescapable conclusion that the greatest threat to the myriad of species on the planet is mankind and its cats and dogs. Then we'd be doomed.
"Aye… doomed!"
You clearly do not fully understand how evolution encourages progress. Put simply, you are either the smartest critter on the patch or you are some other creature's lunch.
For the future safety of mankind, it is probably as well that we do not fully grasp how intelligence arises from the neural networks, in the brain because we've already taken linear code execution to billions of instructions per second and parallel processing at such speeds would probably do things that would astound us.
Obviously, it will not want to eat us but, if you fed it the creation myth, it might reach the inescapable conclusion that the greatest threat to the myriad of species on the planet is mankind and its cats and dogs. Then we'd be doomed.
"Aye… doomed!"
// Did you know that the very name “Easter,” is of pagan origin? Where do think I learnt that.//
yes I did actually - comes from the pagan spring festival of Estre
and so does TWR above, where we discussed this ( estre) on his " why oh why is chocco not labelled eater chocco - I mean easter chocco ? "
- instead of saying "eastery" we say Paschal which brings it back to the greek and erm aramaic I think
and yes or no hypognosis
I did wonder ...
but wonder no more - it is Greek/Greek
however gnosis as knowledge has a bit more to it
Gnostics claimed the knowledge but they also claimed much more
see
https:/
and we use it in diagnosis and prognosis which isnt really .... knowledge.
( yeah yeah I know I am gonna get v.e. yapping down my throat on koine but hey it is Eastre Mondag so I'll give it a go )
and finally Good life
can you use copy-and-paste less and your own thoughts more ?
thx - it will just make your posts more readable .....
yes I did actually - comes from the pagan spring festival of Estre
and so does TWR above, where we discussed this ( estre) on his " why oh why is chocco not labelled eater chocco - I mean easter chocco ? "
- instead of saying "eastery" we say Paschal which brings it back to the greek and erm aramaic I think
and yes or no hypognosis
I did wonder ...
but wonder no more - it is Greek/Greek
however gnosis as knowledge has a bit more to it
Gnostics claimed the knowledge but they also claimed much more
see
https:/
and we use it in diagnosis and prognosis which isnt really .... knowledge.
( yeah yeah I know I am gonna get v.e. yapping down my throat on koine but hey it is Eastre Mondag so I'll give it a go )
and finally Good life
can you use copy-and-paste less and your own thoughts more ?
thx - it will just make your posts more readable .....
Khandro/ " Every scientist becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men"/.
Completely untrue as Einstein would have admitted if questioned.
I remain completely unconvinced... but then the advantage of scientific reasoning is that mental meanderings only affect conclusions if they have any substance.
Completely untrue as Einstein would have admitted if questioned.
I remain completely unconvinced... but then the advantage of scientific reasoning is that mental meanderings only affect conclusions if they have any substance.
naomi; I quote these people because you said that //The rise of atheism is the result of education.// Your implication (and that of birdie and jomifl) that the more educated and intelligent a person is then they will eschew religion, is completely false, you cannot substantiate it, and you don't have to look far to see how unfounded it is.
@Khandro
naomi specified the benefits of education.
----------------
Albert Einstein
Born: March 14, 1879, Ulm, Germany
Died: April 18, 1955, Princeton, New Jersey, United States
Influenced by: Isaac Newton, Mahatma Gandhi, more
-----------------
In 1962 James Watson (b. 1928), Francis Crick (1916–2004), and Maurice Wilkins (1916–2004) jointly received the Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine for their 1953 determination of the structure of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). Wilkins’s colleague Rosalind Franklin (1920–1958), who died of cancer at the age of 37, was not so honored because the Nobel Prize can only be shared by three scientists.
----------
Einstein would not have been educated in Biochemistry because, as a science, it didn't exist, beyond the rudiments, during his childhood. Famously, he was rubbish at maths but little is said about his aptitude about other subjects.
No matter, really. To be an ace physicist, you have to *focus*; shut out other extraneous subjects and be ultra-good at just one thing. And he pulled that off, in a big way, didn't he?
Anyway, the point is that practically *all* scientists specialise: not just in a field you can hang a name on - physics, since we're on the subject - but in a sub-specialism, of a sub-specialism of a sub-specialism. They can tell you about their 'bit' in great depth and detail but will aver discussing areas outside their field as this can only lead to embarassment when caught out by being wrong. Maintaining one's scientific credibility is the name of the game. Any BS just poisons people's opinion of you. I say people, I should confine that to "employer's opinion of you".
Interdisciplinary studies is something that one of my lecturers would have dearly loved to see come to pass but that was ~30 years ago and science progresses almost exponentially. I can't see how anyone can assimilate enough of "everything" to come up with worthwhile ideas by spotting crossovers and links between specialisms.
But I digress. The point I'm making is that by studying biochemistry (for example) I know more about it than Einstein did.
https:/
naomi specified the benefits of education.
----------------
Albert Einstein
Born: March 14, 1879, Ulm, Germany
Died: April 18, 1955, Princeton, New Jersey, United States
Influenced by: Isaac Newton, Mahatma Gandhi, more
-----------------
In 1962 James Watson (b. 1928), Francis Crick (1916–2004), and Maurice Wilkins (1916–2004) jointly received the Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine for their 1953 determination of the structure of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). Wilkins’s colleague Rosalind Franklin (1920–1958), who died of cancer at the age of 37, was not so honored because the Nobel Prize can only be shared by three scientists.
----------
Einstein would not have been educated in Biochemistry because, as a science, it didn't exist, beyond the rudiments, during his childhood. Famously, he was rubbish at maths but little is said about his aptitude about other subjects.
No matter, really. To be an ace physicist, you have to *focus*; shut out other extraneous subjects and be ultra-good at just one thing. And he pulled that off, in a big way, didn't he?
Anyway, the point is that practically *all* scientists specialise: not just in a field you can hang a name on - physics, since we're on the subject - but in a sub-specialism, of a sub-specialism of a sub-specialism. They can tell you about their 'bit' in great depth and detail but will aver discussing areas outside their field as this can only lead to embarassment when caught out by being wrong. Maintaining one's scientific credibility is the name of the game. Any BS just poisons people's opinion of you. I say people, I should confine that to "employer's opinion of you".
Interdisciplinary studies is something that one of my lecturers would have dearly loved to see come to pass but that was ~30 years ago and science progresses almost exponentially. I can't see how anyone can assimilate enough of "everything" to come up with worthwhile ideas by spotting crossovers and links between specialisms.
But I digress. The point I'm making is that by studying biochemistry (for example) I know more about it than Einstein did.
https:/
@Khandro
Actually, the date(s) of his pro-god quotes could be highly enlightening. Set in the context of their rightful time, we could assess what might have become of someone in the Jewish community professing atheism.
I must assume, for now, that this was *after* he achieved fame. Can you imagine someone only part of the way up the career ladder, in an academic institution where the people who have their hands on the levers of power were all regulars at the church or synagogue, or the (cough)ic lodge (cough), having the brass neck to do that, in those days?
I can't.
Actually, the date(s) of his pro-god quotes could be highly enlightening. Set in the context of their rightful time, we could assess what might have become of someone in the Jewish community professing atheism.
I must assume, for now, that this was *after* he achieved fame. Can you imagine someone only part of the way up the career ladder, in an academic institution where the people who have their hands on the levers of power were all regulars at the church or synagogue, or the (cough)ic lodge (cough), having the brass neck to do that, in those days?
I can't.
Latest Posts
Looks Like Keir Starmer Et Al. Have...
News4 mins ago
Technology9 mins ago
ChatterBank11 mins ago
ChatterBank13 mins ago