Jump to content

Religion And Intelligence


Recommended Posts

this is about whether there is any logical reason to think christian claims about god are compelling,not about god's motives. it started when someone indirectly questioned the truth of the christian tenet ofsalvation based on belief because higher intelligence apparently equates to less chance of belief.in effect this is questioning the truth of the bible - not judging god."we can't understand god's motives" is not evidence the bible is true.
Once again you are wrong.But you don't know why.And I don't feel like enlightening you because I rather enjoy your inability to understand what's going on around you.Good luck
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 152
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

When I say I saw the sun rise, am I trying to fool you with a belief that the sun revolves around the earth?
No, your religion finally gave that one up a few hundred years ago...after quite the fight, I might add. Just like evolution will be accepted eventually.
When God says he protects us under His wings, does that mean God has wings like a chicken?
What if he says we're the wind beneath his wings?
And when a Being from outside of time/space who created all known matter and laws wants to give someone like me a set of directions for my life, should he include detailed explanations of neutrino's and their ability to start a fusion reaction by passing through the 20 feet of steel decking on an aircraft carrier.
No, he should dumb things down to the level of idiocy.
As I said, you God is too small.Misunderstanding the concept of what God means isn't a viable argument for why you think He doesn't exist.In fact changing the meaning of the word God to nothing more than a make believe superman shows the intellectual dishonesty of your side's arguments as a whole.
You aren't even close to understanding what I meant. I wasn't saying that "our god" is different from "your god". I was saying that, since we have no particular god (because we're intellectually honest and know that there's no way we could possibly know if there is or is not a god out there (although we do know that it's absurdly unlikely that any god would be similar at all to what you think of it)), it's hard for me to always fully grasp what you're saying because your starting point for any conversation is so far off from mine. I wasn't arguing with you or your view (well, now I did in that last parenthetical debacle) as much as commenting on why no one around here can ever come to any middle ground.We don't misunderstand the concept. We just think it's ridiculous and therefore aren't always able to immediately know what you're trying to say. You know why we have this problem and you don't? Because you're so stuck in your view that we almost always have to have conversations with hypotheticals about YOUR position. We try our best to look at it from your side, which you rarely do the same for us. Which is why to a random observer (or someone that doesn't understand the situation...apparently like you sometimes) it would seem like we're arguing about different "versions" of god.
Link to post
Share on other sites
No, your religion finally gave that one up a few hundred years ago...after quite the fight, I might add. Just like evolution will be accepted eventually.
You are rewriting history.The church backed the scientist of the day to say the earth was the center of the universe.It was a Christian who said that the earth revolved around the sun.
What if he says we're the wind beneath his wings?
Then ..um you win
No, he should dumb things down to the level of idiocy.
What if you're talking to idiots?
You aren't even close to understanding what I meant. I wasn't saying that "our god" is different from "your god". I was saying that, since we have no particular god (because we're intellectually honest and know that there's no way we could possibly know if there is or is not a god out there (although we do know that it's absurdly unlikely that any god would be similar at all to what you think of it)), it's hard for me to always fully grasp what you're saying because your starting point for any conversation is so far off from mine. I wasn't arguing with you or your view (well, now I did in that last parenthetical debacle) as much as commenting on why no one around here can ever come to any middle ground.We don't misunderstand the concept. We just think it's ridiculous and therefore aren't always able to immediately know what you're trying to say. You know why we have this problem and you don't? Because you're so stuck in your view that we almost always have to have conversations with hypotheticals about YOUR position. We try our best to look at it from your side, which you rarely do the same for us. Which is why to a random observer (or someone that doesn't understand the situation...apparently like you sometimes) it would seem like we're arguing about different "versions" of god.
No, I understood, you guys have created a God you can discount. I am just pointing out that your God is not really a God, but is fact a made up version of a bigger one of us.A God by definition would be all knowing, all powerful and able to do anything He wants for any reason without the ability for you to judge. Because your starting point for understanding Him would be too far removed to have any real validity.Now you can ignore this reality and continue to pretend that you in fact can judge something so much greater and foreign to you as an ant would be judging the principle of lowering taxes to revive a stagnant economy, but it doesn't really county now...does it?Or you can say there is no God, but then you remove yourself from judging His actions also.But what you can't do is say there is no God, and you can prove it because something He does doesn't sit right with you. Unless you want to be like crow and just invent new definitions as you need to in order to keep your blindfold fitting snugly.
Link to post
Share on other sites
A God by definition would be all knowing, all powerful and able to do anything
That's only if your IQ is 95. If you get up to 105, then God by definition would be that which is beyond linguistic concepts and therefore cannot be defined.
He wants for any reason without the ability for you to judge. Because your starting point for understanding Him would be too far removed to have any real validityNow you can ignore this reality and continue to pretend that you in fact can judge something so much greater and foreign to you as an ant would be judging the principle of lowering taxes to revive a stagnant economy, but it doesn't really county now...does it?Or you can say there is no God, but then you remove yourself from judging His actions also.But what you can't do is say there is no God, and you can prove it because something He does doesn't sit right with you. Unless you want to be like crow and just invent new definitions as you need to in order to keep your blindfold fitting snugly.
And you can see from that perspective that a god that "wants" certain things, "exists" apart from anything else, "judges" or any exhibits other human mental categories is clearly one made up by humans1. 1specifically by those with low IQs
Link to post
Share on other sites
Once again you are wrong.But you don't know why.And I don't feel like enlightening you because I rather enjoy your inability to understand what's going on around you.Good luck
cop out. you're truly master of debating.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Unless you want to be like crow and just invent new definitions as you need to in order to keep your blindfold fitting snugly.
not about definitions. it's about self-contradiction. you say humans cannot comprehend god's actions/motives, when you yourself (as a fundamentalist christian) are claiming to do exactly that.
Link to post
Share on other sites
That's only if your IQ is 95. If you get up to 105, then God by definition would be that which is beyond linguistic concepts and therefore cannot be defined.
Well then how would I know about such things?
And you can see from that perspective that a god that "wants" certain things, "exists" apart from anything else, "judges" or any exhibits other human mental categories is clearly one made up by humans1. 1specifically by those with low IQs
Unless in fact God does exist, in which case you are trying to fit a ten pounds of crow into a 5 gallon bucket.
Link to post
Share on other sites
not about definitions. it's about self-contradiction. you say humans cannot comprehend god's actions/motives, when you yourself (as a fundamentalist christian) are claiming to do exactly that.
Wrong, I am claiming to accept the definitions given to me by God's word, which can be accepted as truth that I can understand.To claim that you can understand things beyond those things He clearly tells us shows your arrogant denial of your own human frailty.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Wrong, I am claiming to accept the definitions given to me by God's word, which can be accepted as truth that I can understand.To claim that you can understand things beyond those things He clearly tells us shows your arrogant denial of your own human frailty.
Umm, no. You can't even decide if the bible naturalistic or methaphorical.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Umm, no. You can't even decide if the bible naturalistic or methaphorical.
Sure I can, and I do.We can discuss the Bible verse by verse if you want, or we can go over the different schools of thought throughout history that range from allegorical to metaphorical to the current fundamentalist belief that it means what it says, and putting simple logic to obvious allegories isn't being contradictory.Or you can just pretend I think a certain way that you can prove is wrong and declare victory.Psst, the last choice is your best option.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Case in pointThen Peter came to Jesus and asked, "Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?" Jesus answered, "I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times." Matthew 18:21-22 (NIV)Does this mean we count each time we forgive someone so we can reach a point where we no longer have to forgive?Or do we see that the point He was making was we are to keep forgiving because God forgave us?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Case in pointThen Peter came to Jesus and asked, "Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?" Jesus answered, "I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times." Matthew 18:21-22 (NIV)Does this mean we count each time we forgive someone so we can reach a point where we no longer have to forgive?Or do we see that the point He was making was we are to keep forgiving because God forgave us?
No, you didn't understand. Did this conversation actually take place or was it just a story about forgiveness?
Link to post
Share on other sites
No, you didn't understand. Did this conversation actually take place or was it just a story about forgiveness?
It took place.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Wrong, I am claiming to accept the definitions given to me by God's word, which can be accepted as truth that I can understand.
you're not getting that i'm not questioning your interpretation of the bible. i'm questioning how you know it's the word of god in the first place, given that humans aren't capabable of comprehending the actions or motives of a god.
Link to post
Share on other sites
pics or it didn't happen.
50 bucks on Stars on if you put video on Youtube of you shouting that during any random church service. I'd offer more but i'm not rolled all that well right now. Now that I think about it I may just do it for the fun of it.
Link to post
Share on other sites
We can discuss the Bible verse by verse if you want, or we can go over the different schools of thought throughout history that range from allegorical to metaphorical to the current fundamentalist belief that it means what it says, and putting simple logic to obvious allegories isn't being contradictory.
Is the talking snake allegory? How do you know?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Case in pointThen Peter came to Jesus and asked, "Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?" Jesus answered, "I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times." Matthew 18:21-22 (NIV)Does this mean we count each time we forgive someone so we can reach a point where we no longer have to forgive?Or do we see that the point He was making was we are to keep forgiving because God forgave us?
CRAZY. I was making this exact same point with a non-Christian friend of mine tonight. Same verse, same point. crazy.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think I've brought this up before concerning creation. Since God is, by definition, all-powerful and all-knowing, what's the point of creation? He knows he can do it and everything that will follow and it's not like he would have a sense of accomplishment from doing it, so that leaves us where? I cannot imagine an ominpotent, omniscient being having any reason to do anything.
Yeah, it's like in Final Fantasy VII when I became so powerful that I could pretty much kill any enemy with a regular attack.I just stopped playing.
Link to post
Share on other sites
No, you didn't understand. Did this conversation actually take place or was it just a story about forgiveness?
It took place.
I'm sorry, but if the forgivensess part was metaphorical, how do youknow the whole conversation wasn't? Who decides what parts were and weren't?
Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sorry, but if the forgivensess part was metaphorical, how do youknow the whole conversation wasn't? Who decides what parts were and weren't?
There are two guys in the Vatican and the head of the Skull and Cross Bones Society who meet every lunar new year to discuss which parts of the historic writings really happened, and which stories using metaphors Christ is telling are allegorical.I cannot tell you how much better things have gotten since the invention of the airplane.Used to be years before you would know if Christ was talking about a real marriage between a lamb and His bride, or if He was using a poetic method of expressing an image.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...