Political Crossfire Forums

[cap'n queasy]

John wrote: ideal wrote: Dr. Wojtyla wrote: Statistically, you're probably too mentally weak not to have religion to support you, but this is based solely on the fact that you're religious and is not based on you as a person at all. The weak depending on religion is completely independent of whether or not God exists and in fact the concept seems to be more or less supported by the religious ("Amazing grace... that saved a wretch like me," etc).

How do you come to this conclusion? Granted, I've known many religious people who have been completely worthless mentally and emotionally, but no different can be said for the atheists I've known.

No one is worthless mentally and emotionally.

That is something that is impossible for some to understand.

[Dr. Wojtyla]

John wrote:
Well, strong minded people know what they believe and stand by it.
You're right about that. No matter what evidence there is to the contrary, they'll stand by the beliefs dead mommy and daddy gave them to the bitter end.
Quote: You have no idea how much research I've done.
There is no research to do that proves that any religion is correct. So it doesn't matter what research you've done.

The history of science, however, has been the disproving of one religious truth after another. The world turned out not to be supported by elephants on the back of a giant turtle... and it went downhill from there.
Quote: You don't know what information I have that causes me to believe what I believe. None. No matter what information you have, it isn't the cause of your beliefs. The cause of your beliefs is your insistence on believing them. Quote: I can tell you that I'm not basing what I believe what I do on blind faith. I just don't have as much faith in modern day scientists as you do. Or ancient scientists. Or any scientists at all. You'd have to believe that all of science starting with the invention of fire is one giant demonic deceit in order to believe any religion is true.

And try not to be too disappointed that I didn't bite at your amateur "faith" bait.
Quote: Have you ever performed a radiometric dating test? Do you even know what goes into such a test?

Or are you “choosing to run on an engine of naked certainty”?

You see...I have something you don't have. I have all the research that I've done that satisfies my intellectual curiosity That probably didn't take too long. Quote: ....AND I have the assurance I feel in my spirit that tells me that what I believe in is the truth. Not surprised. Quote: I have a peace in not having to worry about what if I'm wrong...because I KNOW that I'm right about what really matters.
And I know that if I die today and Odin and Thor ask me why I didn't believe in them, I can at the very least plead "overabundance of options" along with the rest of my fellow humans.

Oh, and if your research has produced results that prove a divine presence, I recommend you notify the press and the authorities immediately, seeing as how you've made the biggest discovery in the history of mankind.

[Dr. Wojtyla]

ideal wrote: Dr. Wojtyla wrote: Statistically, you're probably too mentally weak not to have religion to support you, but this is based solely on the fact that you're religious and is not based on you as a person at all. The weak depending on religion is completely independent of whether or not God exists and in fact the concept seems to be more or less supported by the religious ("Amazing grace... that saved a wretch like me," etc).

How do you come to this conclusion?

Which part? The religious tending to be weaker, or the fact that the religious tend to embrace this?

[mojo]

Dr. Wojtyla wrote: ideal wrote: Dr. Wojtyla wrote: Statistically, you're probably too mentally weak not to have religion to support you, but this is based solely on the fact that you're religious and is not based on you as a person at all. The weak depending on religion is completely independent of whether or not God exists and in fact the concept seems to be more or less supported by the religious ("Amazing grace... that saved a wretch like me," etc).

How do you come to this conclusion?

Which part? The religious tending to be weaker, or the fact that the religious tend to embrace this?

Christianity teaches to be humble.

There is a difference between weak and humble. A humble person is strong who wants to be weak so he grow in his relationship with himself, God and the world. Also a humble person always respects the weak.

[Dr. Wojtyla]

mojo wrote: Dr. Wojtyla wrote: ideal wrote: Dr. Wojtyla wrote: Statistically, you're probably too mentally weak not to have religion to support you, but this is based solely on the fact that you're religious and is not based on you as a person at all. The weak depending on religion is completely independent of whether or not God exists and in fact the concept seems to be more or less supported by the religious ("Amazing grace... that saved a wretch like me," etc).

How do you come to this conclusion?

Which part? The religious tending to be weaker, or the fact that the religious tend to embrace this?

Christianity teaches to be humble.

There is a difference between weak and humble. A humble person is strong who wants to be weak so he grow in his relationship with himself, God and the world. Also a humble person always respects the weak.

Blessed are the humble for they shall inherit the Earth?

[greeneye]

Dr. Wojtyla wrote: Oh, and if your research has produced results that prove a divine presence, I recommend you notify the press and the authorities immediately, seeing as how you've made the biggest discovery in the history of mankind.

Sounds like you might need a personal invitation to witness the next "move the mountain by faith" event.

If you PM your contact information, we'll send you a personal invitation next time one is scheduled. 8:)

P.S.
BTW, the authorities have already been notified of such events
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Fatima which thousands of people did witness. And if you're really interested there are lots of pictures and testimony at your local library.

[Dr. Wojtyla]

greeneye wrote: Dr. Wojtyla wrote: Oh, and if your research has produced results that prove a divine presence, I recommend you notify the press and the authorities immediately, seeing as how you've made the biggest discovery in the history of mankind.

Sounds like you might need a personal invitation to witness the next "move the mountain by faith" event.

If you PM your contact information, we'll send you a personal invitation next time one is scheduled. 8:)

P.S.
BTW, the authorities have already been notified of such events
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Fatima which thousands of people did witness. And if you're really interested there are lots of pictures and testimony at your local library.

Millions of Catholics have seen the Virgin Mary. Millions of Hindus have seen milk bleed from the eyes of Ganesh's statue. And so on and so on and shooby dooby doo.

[greeneye]

Dr. Wojtyla wrote: greeneye wrote: Dr. Wojtyla wrote: Oh, and if your research has produced results that prove a divine presence, I recommend you notify the press and the authorities immediately, seeing as how you've made the biggest discovery in the history of mankind.

Sounds like you might need a personal invitation to witness the next "move the mountain by faith" event.

If you PM your contact information, we'll send you a personal invitation next time one is scheduled. 8:)

P.S.
BTW, the authorities have already been notified of such events
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Fatima which thousands of people did witness. And if you're really interested there are lots of pictures and testimony at your local library.

Millions of Catholics have seen the Virgin Mary. Millions of Hindus have seen milk bleed from the eyes of Ganesh's statue.

That's right.... miracles happen all the time... :-D Fatima, however, was one of the biggest known and witnessed miracles in the 20th Century.

[thefranzkafkafront]

JDHURF wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: You seem to have spotted the biographical similarities allthough i'd note that theres a huge diffrence as jesus never actually did any of these things supposedly he mearly taught about them.
That is an interesting theory; that Jesus went around teaching people that he had done things which he had, in fact, not done. Is that what you meant, or did I interpret incorrectly?
Well one of the key things about jesus was that eveything he did was directly related to his theology primarly his escatology. Nothing he did was for any sake but this.

Also hes far more poetic (in so far as he makes illusions to doing things to make a point as oposed to doing them) unlike the charaters who you cite.

Quote:
thefranzkafkafront wrote: What were the theological similaries?
I’m not entirely sure of the distinction which you are trying to make, but, I shall try to provide what I assume to be the answers which you are looking for.
Let us first take Apollonius Christ, the theological similarity is virtually identical. He preached “we cannot hate our fellow man” he created miracles, healed the sick, was accused of sedition in Rome and his followers, after his death, claimed that he had ascended to heaven and came to them in spiritual form afterwards. In fact the theology of Apollonius was so similar to that of Christianity there are records of early Church fathers mentioning and arguing against Apollonius’ divinity, again, using the argument that Satan used Apollonius as a way to deceive:

"How is it that the talismans of Apollonius have power over certain members of creation, for they prevent, as we see, the fury of the waves, the violence of the winds, and the attacks of wild beasts. And whilst Our Lord's miracles are preserved by tradition alone, those of Apollonius are most numerous, and actually manifested in present facts, so as to lead astray all beholders?" – Justin Martyr, early Church father

Apollonians, those who were followers of Apollonius, believed in the immortality of the soul and that upon death they would ascend to heaven. In fact, there is debate on whether or not Jesus had been conflated with Apollonius due to the similarities.
Intresting i shall have to read more on this charater. I assume you mean Apollonius of Tyana?

If so I think the key thing missing here is his lack of similar escatology.

Quote:
There are also striking similarities between Christianity and Zoroastrianism, the later predating the former. Many scholars credit Zoroastrianism with influencing the eschatology, angelology and demonology of Judaism. Judaism, of course, then influencing Christianity and Islam:

“it was from this very creed of Zoroaster that the Jews derived all the angelology of their religion... the belief in a future state; of rewards and punishments, ... the soul's immortality, and the Last Judgment - all of them essential parts of the Zoroastrian scheme.” – from The Gnostics and Their Remains (King and Moore, 1887).

Zoroastrianism had abstract concepts of heaven and of hell, personal and final judgment and even contains the concept of a coming messiah-like figure referred to as the “Peshotan.”

The theological similarities exist in abundance.

Thank you for joining the discussion by the way.
Yes Zoroastrianism undoublty had an effect on Jewish theology and thus by extension jesus, as the jewish excile in babalyon exposed them to it heavily.

I just don't see a direct comparison to other messianic figures in the gentile world and jesus. I think your mistaking the weight ot theological dogma added when christianity when gentile with actual comparisons.

[ideal]

Dr. Wojtyla wrote: ideal wrote: Dr. Wojtyla wrote: Statistically, you're probably too mentally weak not to have religion to support you, but this is based solely on the fact that you're religious and is not based on you as a person at all. The weak depending on religion is completely independent of whether or not God exists and in fact the concept seems to be more or less supported by the religious ("Amazing grace... that saved a wretch like me," etc).

How do you come to this conclusion?

Which part? The religious tending to be weaker, or the fact that the religious tend to embrace this?

Both. Embracing humility is not embrassing weakness. The concept is that the religious are better now than they were(or would have been) without religion. The issue of them tending to be weaker is clearly countered by the number of drooling mental invalids you find arguing against religion.

[Dr. Wojtyla]

greeneye wrote: Dr. Wojtyla wrote: greeneye wrote: Dr. Wojtyla wrote: Oh, and if your research has produced results that prove a divine presence, I recommend you notify the press and the authorities immediately, seeing as how you've made the biggest discovery in the history of mankind.

Sounds like you might need a personal invitation to witness the next "move the mountain by faith" event.

If you PM your contact information, we'll send you a personal invitation next time one is scheduled. 8:)

P.S.
BTW, the authorities have already been notified of such events
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Fatima which thousands of people did witness. And if you're really interested there are lots of pictures and testimony at your local library.

Millions of Catholics have seen the Virgin Mary. Millions of Hindus have seen milk bleed from the eyes of Ganesh's statue.

That's right.... miracles happen all the time... :-D Fatima, however, was one of the biggest known and witnessed miracles in the 20th Century.

Truth is a democracy now? Whichever miracle got the most votes is the most true, rendering all the other religions' miracles false? Or are you saying the Catholic God also makes Ganesh cry milk?

[Dr. Wojtyla]

ideal wrote: Dr. Wojtyla wrote: ideal wrote: Dr. Wojtyla wrote: Statistically, you're probably too mentally weak not to have religion to support you, but this is based solely on the fact that you're religious and is not based on you as a person at all. The weak depending on religion is completely independent of whether or not God exists and in fact the concept seems to be more or less supported by the religious ("Amazing grace... that saved a wretch like me," etc).

How do you come to this conclusion?

Which part? The religious tending to be weaker, or the fact that the religious tend to embrace this?

Both. Embracing humility is not embrassing weakness. The concept is that the religious are better now than they were(or would have been) without religion. The issue of them tending to be weaker is clearly countered by the number of drooling mental invalids you find arguing against religion.

Well, no, people tend to be more religious the less intelligent they are. And in fact, it's the number of drooling mental invalids one finds arguing against religion that demonstrates this fact -- that is to say, the relatively small number.

Simply saying "alot of atheists are dumb" doesn't prove anything about anything. You have to look at how many atheists are dumb versus how many theists are dumb.

I'm not debating whether or not intelligence declines with piety -- it does. What I'm actually doing is explaining my theory for why that is. Correlation does not imply causation -- I seriously doubt a smart person could find religion and suddenly get dumber. But the dumb tend to be religious. Personally I think it has more to do with mental weakness. Oftentimes, though, I suspect perfectly intelligent people simply haven't gotten around to exploring metaphysical ideas. There's alot of world out there to take in. Some people just never get around to graduating out of religion and into philosophy. I give people in person the benefit of the doubt.

[ideal]

To be quite honest, I've always believed the studies cited there to be complete bulls**t. People have a tendancy to write papers which conclude there hypothesis(especially in social sciences). That being the case, until a religious institution agrees with them, I'm going to go with personal experience. I'll submit that religious people tend to be less educated and more closed minded to new ideas, but the ratios I see in my life for people's intelligence based on religion show no variances from any faith to another or lack thereof.

[Dr. Wojtyla]

ideal wrote: To be quite honest, I've always believed the studies cited there to be complete bulls**t. People have a tendancy to write papers which conclude there hypothesis(especially in social sciences). That being the case, until a religious institution agrees with them, I'm going to go with personal experience. I'll submit that religious people tend to be less educated and more closed minded to new ideas, but the ratios I see in my life for people's intelligence based on religion show no variances from any faith to another or lack thereof.

Personal experience is anecdotal by definition and cannot be trusted. I think as time goes on you'll see less and less correlation between atheism and intelligence (as religion largely disappears over the next century). 100 years ago, only a handful of scientists, philosophers and academics were atheists. Today anybody could be one (with the possible exception of the populations of Alabama and Kentucky). Tomorrow, the correlation will be even less.

One of the biggest reasons anecdotal evidence can't be trusted is that people tend to surround themselves with others like them. People you work with, live with, hang out with, and go to school with tend to be more like you than you think, especially in terms of economic strata, which tends to be a large factor in both intelligence and religiosity (possibly the operative variable to both). This grouping provides too specific a test sample.

[Gilbert1908]

Dr. Wojtyla wrote: ideal wrote: To be quite honest, I've always believed the studies cited there to be complete bulls**t. People have a tendancy to write papers which conclude there hypothesis(especially in social sciences). That being the case, until a religious institution agrees with them, I'm going to go with personal experience. I'll submit that religious people tend to be less educated and more closed minded to new ideas, but the ratios I see in my life for people's intelligence based on religion show no variances from any faith to another or lack thereof.

Personal experience is anecdotal by definition and cannot be trusted. I think as time goes on you'll see less and less correlation between atheism and intelligence (as religion largely disappears over the next century). 100 years ago, only a handful of scientists, philosophers and academics were atheists. Today anybody could be one (with the possible exception of the populations of Alabama and Kentucky). Tomorrow, the correlation will be even less.

One of teh biggest reasons anecdotal evidence can't be trusted is that people tend to surround themselves with others like them. People you work with, live with, hang out with, and go to school with tend to be more like you than you think, especially in terms of economic strata, which tends to be a large factor in both intelligence and religiosity (possibly the operative variable to both). This grouping provides too specific a test sample.

This is a fine hypothesis except that while Islam grows at an ever faster pace and Christianity continues to grow after 2000 years, although at a slower rate than in the past, atheism shows NO statistcal growth as a % of the population.

So if Islam, Christianity and other religions continue to grow and atheism remains a relatively fixed % of the population, how is it even remotely possible that "religion" will disappear over the next century?

[JDHURF]

Gilbert1908 wrote: This is a fine hypothesis except that while Islam grows at an ever faster pace and Christianity continues to grow after 2000 years, although at a slower rate than in the past, atheism shows NO statistcal growth as a % of the population.

So if Islam, Christianity and other religions continue to grow and atheism remains a relatively fixed % of the population, how is it even remotely possible that "religion" will disappear over the next century? You seem to be oblivious to the reality of the world outside of the United States, Sweden 46-85% non-believers (atheists or agnostic), Vietnam 81%, Denmark 43-80%, Norway 31-72%, Japan 64-65%, Czech Republic 54-61%, Finland 28-60%, France 43-54%, etc.
http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html

[Gilbert1908]

JDHURF wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: This is a fine hypothesis except that while Islam grows at an ever faster pace and Christianity continues to grow after 2000 years, although at a slower rate than in the past, atheism shows NO statistcal growth as a % of the population.

So if Islam, Christianity and other religions continue to grow and atheism remains a relatively fixed % of the population, how is it even remotely possible that "religion" will disappear over the next century? You seem to be oblivious to the reality of the world outside of the United States, Sweden 46-85% non-believers (atheists or agnostic), Vietnam 81%, Denmark 43-80%, Norway 31-72%, Japan 64-65%, Czech Republic 54-61%, Finland 28-60%, France 43-54%, etc.
http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html

Take a look again at WORLD growth rates on the very same site and you will find that what I said is true.

My point was WORLD wide growth rates NOT the USA or the top 50 countries, the world is a bit larger than that.

And Islam has replaced Christianity as the fastest growing religion, while Christianity continues to grow just not a fast as it had been. Atheism has no perceptible growth patter world wide.

Atheism relative to world population is a static % in a 5% according to YOUR site and that % is a subset of "nonreligious" more than half of which DO believe in God but do NOT go to a particular church, the rest are agnostics etc..

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

[wormwood]

Quote: You seem to be oblivious to the reality of the world outside of the United States, Sweden 46-85% non-believers (atheists or agnostic), Vietnam 81%, Denmark 43-80%, Norway 31-72%, Japan 64-65%, Czech Republic 54-61%, Finland 28-60%, France 43-54%, etc.
Even a tad more research will show that these countries still have religion. For example: You say Vietnam is 81% atheist.


Quote: Buddhism is the most influential religion in Vietnam, with about 80 percent of Vietnamese being Buddhists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_in_Vietnam

Also, since the debate was about intelligence and religion...what have any of the above countries done recently that is great or intelligent with the exception of Japan which is both Buddhist and Shintoist?

[Dr. Wojtyla]

Gilbert1908 wrote: JDHURF wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: This is a fine hypothesis except that while Islam grows at an ever faster pace and Christianity continues to grow after 2000 years, although at a slower rate than in the past, atheism shows NO statistcal growth as a % of the population.

So if Islam, Christianity and other religions continue to grow and atheism remains a relatively fixed % of the population, how is it even remotely possible that "religion" will disappear over the next century? You seem to be oblivious to the reality of the world outside of the United States, Sweden 46-85% non-believers (atheists or agnostic), Vietnam 81%, Denmark 43-80%, Norway 31-72%, Japan 64-65%, Czech Republic 54-61%, Finland 28-60%, France 43-54%, etc.
http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html

Take a look again at WORLD growth rates on the very same site and you will find that what I said is true.

My point was WORLD wide growth rates NOT the USA or the top 50 countries, the world is a bit larger than that.

And Islam has replaced Christianity as the fastest growing religion, while Christianity continues to grow just not a fast as it had been. Atheism has no perceptible growth patter world wide.

Atheism relative to world population is a static % in a 5% according to YOUR site and that % is a subset of "nonreligious" more than half of which DO believe in God but do NOT go to a particular church, the rest are agnostics etc..

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

Unfortunately, Gilbert is right and JD is wrong. You can't cite a handful of countries and say this is part of a larger trend, as nearly every country not named is overrun with religion.

The truth is very few people are willing to admit to that they are atheists, but more the the point, very few people are completely devoid of religion.

Religion's failure in the 21st century will not be the story of the atheist population rising and the religious population falling. Rather, it will be a continuation of the trend observed in the 20th century: religion will matter less and less to the religious. The population of Christians will continue to be replaced with the population of "Christians." As the sphere of science and technology grows, religion itself will matter less and less. The defect in our brains that causes us to posit a supreme being will find other sources of satisfaction.

To say that religion will always be around is not unlike an ancient Egyptian saying someone, somewhere will always worship Osiris. No one, nowhere worships Osiris. One day, that will go for all the gods and all the pantheons.

[Dr. Wojtyla]

wormwood wrote: Quote: You seem to be oblivious to the reality of the world outside of the United States, Sweden 46-85% non-believers (atheists or agnostic), Vietnam 81%, Denmark 43-80%, Norway 31-72%, Japan 64-65%, Czech Republic 54-61%, Finland 28-60%, France 43-54%, etc.
Even a tad more research will show that these countries still have religion. For example: You say Vietnam is 81% atheist.


Quote: Buddhism is the most influential religion in Vietnam, with about 80 percent of Vietnamese being Buddhists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_in_Vietnam

Also, since the debate was about intelligence and religion...what have any of the above countries done recently that is great or intelligent with the exception of Japan which is both Buddhist and Shintoist?

I'd be fine with a nation of atheist Buddhists.