The obligatory “UK study says atheists are smarter” post
posted at 5:53 pm on June 13, 2008 by Allahpundit
It’s about to vanish from the Headlines box, but after 300+ comments I can’t bear to see it vanish from the front page. So let us rock on, my friends:
People with higher IQs are less likely to believe in God, according to a new study.
Professor Richard Lynn, emeritus professor of psychology at Ulster University, said many more members of the “intellectual elite” considered themselves atheists than the national average.
A decline in religious observance over the last century was directly linked to a rise in average intelligence, he claimed…
A survey of Royal Society fellows found that only 3.3 per cent believed in God – at a time when 68.5 per cent of the general UK population described themselves as believers.
A separate poll in the 90s found only seven per cent of members of the American National Academy of Sciences believed in God.
That’s lovely, but roughly 90% of the American public practices some faith; thus, by definition, a bare minimum of four-fifths of the top half of the population by IQ is religious. It may be that scientists, per the two samples cited in the Telegraph piece, are dramatically less religious than other intellectuals because they’re inclined by training and temperament to seek natural explanations for things, but the idea that most intelligent people generally are atheists simply isn’t borne out by the numbers. Likewise, I’m guessing it’s not an increase in intelligence but the accumulation of scientific advances over the course of the century as an alternate explanation to religious narratives that’s led to a decline in faith. Either that or there’s been no decline at all: It may be that the percentage of atheists over time is fairly constant and only now, as western culture’s become more relaxed about questioning belief, can more of us come out of the closet.
Exit question: What exactly does Ace mean, though? Is he suggesting atheists are skeptical about God because of … peer pressure?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
Not a demand. That which is impossible cannot be done. To deny identity or non-contradiction and remain coherent is impossible. To create a world in which they are denied is impossible. If God could do the impossible, you’d be left left unable to explain an unlimited amount of paradoxes, e.g. can God create a being more powerful than He, etc. The only way to overcome these is to affirm that even God cannot do the logically impossible. I believe this is in keeping with the traditional Christian concept of God in Aquinas, etc, though I’m not an authority on these matters.
phronesis on June 13, 2008 at 8:39 PM
and after thousands of years no atheist has been intelligent enough to refute it. all they can do is ridicule and ignore it.
the day will come, when they find out to their horror how true the Bible is….
right4life on June 13, 2008 at 8:40 PM
‘Unicorn’ deer with rare single horn spotted in Italian nature preserve
My point in linking this is that we now know that the myth of the Unicorn may actually be rooted in truth. So you should at least stop using it as an example with which to ridicule people, you look quite foolish.
aengus on June 13, 2008 at 8:40 PM
I know a scientologist who once announced, in a grandiose fashion, that we could not know that 1+1=2 because by counting the two “1′s” we altered their reality. Some sort of retarded Schrodinger’s Cat analogy.
I laughed at him.
(Don’t tell him, but I think he’s still infested with thetans)
TheCulturalist on June 13, 2008 at 8:41 PM
Y’all play nice or
SaintOlafthe Boogeyman will “settle thy hash for thee”.hillbillyjim on June 13, 2008 at 8:46 PM
IntelligentGodless people ‘lessmore likely to believe inGodIntelligence‘carbon_footprint on June 13, 2008 at 8:50 PM
I am not aware of any mass killings done in the name of atheism.
MB4 on June 13, 2008 at 8:52 PM
I think this is a misquote MB4. At least according to Monticello.org it is and I would think they would know. Look what they have to say here.
Maxx on June 13, 2008 at 8:53 PM
So something that is not coherent to you must necessarily be false? Hasn’t your brain evolved to provide a survival advantage, and developed five or so senses for that purpose? How do you know that same brain has the capacity to comprehend reality so deeply that its sense of comprehensibility somehow limits what reality may be?
To be clear, I think along the same lines as you, but I am trying to demonstrate my thought that ultimately we have to base our beliefs on something that cannot be proven. Those who claim to hold only to the supposed bedrock of logic must hold by faith that their sense of logic applies to the rest of the universe.
mikeyboss on June 13, 2008 at 8:54 PM
Someday we will all be dead.
MB4 on June 13, 2008 at 8:56 PM
I made no such claim. I cannot prove nothingness. If you actually understood logic, you’d never said what you did. This is one reason why, as this study has shown, intelligence will often lead to atheism.
No disrespect, but if you don’t understand the simple process of the scientific method, and the concept of burden of proof or the futility of proving a negative, then you’ll have to admit you still have some learning to do.
Seixon on June 13, 2008 at 8:57 PM
No it isn’t. Deists believe in a Creator. Atheists do not.
No he wasn’t. Neither was Voltaire.
aengus on June 13, 2008 at 8:57 PM
the day will come, when they find out to their horror how true the
BibleMithraZeusMayan WitchdoctorApollothe Cult of DemeterJupiterlazyness is….right4life on June 13, 2008 at 8:40 PM
LevStrauss on June 13, 2008 at 8:58 PM
Best comment from both threads, on topic.
Entelechy on June 13, 2008 at 8:59 PM
Hi MB4
Become aware of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao.
Although a couple are disputed, the fact that those who take umbrage are leftist and Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao sympathizers do not give them much credence.
carbon_footprint on June 13, 2008 at 9:01 PM
Seconded
carbon_footprint on June 13, 2008 at 9:02 PM
Athiests are smarter. So?
snaggletoothie on June 13, 2008 at 9:02 PM
“and after thousands of years no atheist has been intelligent enough to refute it. all they can do is ridicule and ignore it.”
Man I flew off a cross yesterday. I’d like to see you refute that. You cannot because you were not there. Of course my proof is a little shaky but that so far hasn’t stopped you.
LevStrauss on June 13, 2008 at 9:02 PM
TGIF everybody!!
Now, go refill your martini glasses and come back ready to rock!
Atheists will wear black and non-Atheists will wear white.
Go to your corners and when the bell rings, come out a swingin’
DingDing
TheCulturalist on June 13, 2008 at 9:03 PM
Jefferson does not sound like an atheist to me, yet that claim is heard often these days.
Maxx on June 13, 2008 at 9:04 PM
What is it exactly that various men are insisting does not exist? But what is god?
Kralizec on June 13, 2008 at 9:07 PM
“God is dead.” – Nietzsche, 1882 (The Gay Science)
“Nietzsche is dead.” – God, August 25, 1900
carbon_footprint on June 13, 2008 at 9:09 PM
Jefferson was a Deist. I agree with Deism. The study says atheists are smarter, not smartest. Atheism is Deism with hubris but conventional religion is the regurgitated word of charlatans. Atheism is a kind of religion in itself, the belief of absolute knowledge on the matter, Deism or Theism, frankly I do not see a whole lot of difference, is willing to admit that you don’t know for sure what “It” is. “It” is distinctly tied to what would be referred to as Genesis or creation, but not the fable that tells you to stay away from the tree of knowledge.
LevStrauss on June 13, 2008 at 9:14 PM
They’re all male so it was done in the name of Men! That stuff about the Peoples Revolution and crap was just a side note.
ronsfi on June 13, 2008 at 9:17 PM
Who the hell cares if Jefferson or whoever was an atheist or not? Seems some have forgotten one of the Ten Commandments about idolatry… ;)
Seixon on June 13, 2008 at 9:17 PM
I’ll take a crack at that. I believe God is my creator, a personal being whose principles, if I live in accordance with them, will bring good results.
mikeyboss on June 13, 2008 at 9:18 PM
Fixed
LevStrauss on June 13, 2008 at 9:18 PM
Agnostic is probably more accurate, but Jefferson actually styled himself as an Epicurean.
Argue what you will but Jefferson was an outstanding heir of the Enlightenment, the atheist movement that eventually morphed into Modernism/Socialism and our current form of liberalism.
darclon on June 13, 2008 at 9:20 PM
Actually they were all rather short too. That’s it! Short people are responsible for all the horrific mass murder of the last century. Short people are the devils toothpic!
ronsfi on June 13, 2008 at 9:21 PM
Priceless AllahPundit,and its meow, Fri/13TH
how coincidental(kwinky dinky)of you to drop
this thread on today,shear luck or by design?haha. :)
Well,at least everyone can agree/disagree without
someone’s head accidently coming off!
And the FREEDOM to do it in!
canopfor on June 13, 2008 at 9:21 PM
No, he was definitely a Deist.
What, really? I’ve never heard/read that anywhere. Are you sure? If you can link to something I’d appreciate it.
aengus on June 13, 2008 at 9:24 PM
I know your joking, I see your smiley face. But I care a lot, I consider myself a Jeffersonian in matters of governance. But its of particular importance in this thread because no doubt, Jefferson was an intellectual of the first order.
Maxx on June 13, 2008 at 9:25 PM
darclon, on second thought, I think you might mean that Jefferson held to one of the tenets of Epicureanism i.e. the non-belief in superstition. Jefferson’s Bible would seem to confirm this view. But if he did not hold to the other tents then it would not be correct to describe him in this way.
aengus on June 13, 2008 at 9:27 PM
That’s it! Short people are responsible for all the horrific
mass murder of the last century.
ronsfi on June 13,2009 at 9:21PM.
ronsfi: I’m under 5’5″,now I’m worried,scratch that,I’m
sitting here sh!tting my pants,whats the height
requirement,me now worried! ha ha :)
canopfor on June 13, 2008 at 9:29 PM
If you’re taller than Napoleon I’ll allow you to live. :)
aengus on June 13, 2008 at 9:31 PM
aengus on June 13, 2008 at 9:24 PM
No, Jefferson was a self-described Epicurean, or at least in one of his letters in his later years.
Hope this link works:
darclon on June 13, 2008 at 9:38 PM
I understand that he was a Deist, but in MY opinion a Deist is simply a humble agnostic. FWIW.
The problem is that Modernists/progressives/socialists are trying to hijack Jefferson as if he is one of them.
He was not in any way. Especially in regard to his views (as well as Locke’s) on private property.
darclon on June 13, 2008 at 9:43 PM
Thank you, that is fascinating.
I would be interested in reading The Writings of Thomas Jefferson but do you know specifically which letter I should be reading? If you don’t remember that is fine.
aengus on June 13, 2008 at 9:45 PM
If you’re taller than Napoleon I’ll allow you to live.:)
aengus on June 13,2008 at 9:31PM.
aengus: Great,now blood pressure is goin up,how
tall is Napoleon?——————-.:)
canopfor on June 13, 2008 at 9:46 PM
That is not my understanding of Deism. Jefferson said (I forget where, so I can’t link) that he was sure that a Creator had made the world but that he did not believe in the specific Christian interpretation of God. That goes beyond agnosticism in my view.
They’ll try/say anything.
True.
aengus on June 13, 2008 at 9:48 PM
canopfor,
I’m not sure exactly but I just read this very worrying tidbit from Wikipedia:
Oh dear. It looks like I may have to eliminate you. Awfully sorry about that.
aengus on June 13, 2008 at 9:51 PM
1 Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
labrat on June 13, 2008 at 10:05 PM
From the news thread, since some of you may have moved on….
Nice comment Skidd. I agree with much of it, except that the onus is on me. Yes it does mean something to me. Lack of belief or faith in god does not mean I don’t believe in some form of spirituality. Humans (and the universe) are complicated. Culture and feelings are important.
I’ll suggest an exercise – you read back over a few of the last 600 posts as if you were an athiest, and see how the comments feel to you. I’ll do the same from the opposing view. No need to comment, just a little introspection.
Fair enough and well said. I know I have a brusque nature – I apologize if my statements are harsh because they are truly intended to be thoughtful, if irreverent. That type of subtlety is difficult to convey in text.
I agree.
And that was the point of my comments.
peski on June 13, 2008 at 10:24 PM
thanks for the Jefferson link, very interesting.
TheCulturalist on June 13, 2008 at 10:28 PM
Shall we list the dictators who were influenced by and were acting upon an atheistic world view? Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Mussolini, Milosevic, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh… I could go on. How about what the Chinese are doing in Tibet? How about the killing fields in Cambodia? In a sense, you are right: these men were not killing in “the name of atheism,” but they were killing as a result of internalizing and acting upon a world view founded upon atheism.
Have Christians been “innocent?” Not exactly, but there is really no comparison between Christians and atheists in terms of genocides. Salem Witch Trials: less than 30 people died (1). Spanish Inquisition: 3000-5000, ballpark? And the Crusades were what? A defensive move against the invading Muslims.(2)
Send_Me on June 13, 2008 at 10:29 PM
Some atheists here need to understand that they are not immune from assuming a burden of proof. When you say that such and such argument is insufficient, or foolishly say there is no evidence whatsoever, you’ve made claims that you need to defend. If you have no reasons, data or arguments to support your statements, then don’t strut around with your uinformed sneers about Christianity being only blind faith, as your practicing much the same.
aikidoka on June 13, 2008 at 10:32 PM
Ah, I see what you did there. Brill. Nietzsche = nothing. Kudos.
BTW, I prefer Wranglers. Any product that comes from SF, CA is suspect.
carbon_footprint on June 13, 2008 at 10:50 PM
you can’t be serious.
the “proving the unprovable” card is an exclusive tool of the Atheists.
how dare you assume you can use their argument against them.
shame on you.
TheCulturalist on June 13, 2008 at 10:52 PM
Sorry I’m not as evolved as you guys. =P
ZK on June 13, 2008 at 11:04 PM
I appreciate a lot of what you said. Perhaps, this whole thing should have begun with some definitions so we could all be on common ground.
Faith: An assumption of the future, based upon experience and reason. For example, I have faith that my chair will hold me up, for the following reasons: 1) Previous experience tells me that my chair will hold me up. 2) My knowledge of physics, civil engineering, and mathematics tells me that the chair should hold me.
Reason: A tool by which we come to understand the world, whether deductive or inductive in nature, requiring a flow of premises to establish a conclusion, absent of fallacies.
Operational Science: Testing possible in a lab to make a prediction as to what will happen in the future.
Forensic Science: Testing of relics, in the present, to get an idea of what happened in the past. (For example, cops aren’t on the scene when someone gets shot, but they can look at present relics to get an idea of what happened in the past.)
Send_Me on June 13, 2008 at 11:11 PM
None of these barbarians ever said they were killing in the name of atheism. BTW Hitler was a Catholic who never formally renounced his faith.
On the other hand wholesale killing for Allah, Christ and other fictitious gods has been common through the ages.Why can’t these omniscient creatures do their own dirty work?
Annar on June 13, 2008 at 11:26 PM
Okay, he may have claimed to be a Catholic and/or was raised as a Catholic. His actions. i.e., killing and trying to wipe out GOD’S children – the Jews, proves behind any doubt that this man was evil. Evil is the opposite of holy. God is holy.
By the way, the fact that non-believers are, in theory, struggling in their beliefs of God is still hope. We all struggle with our faith at one time or another. The fact is, you may be an atheist for 87 years of your entire life and in the last minute of your life you find God and you are granted eternal life.
carbon_footprint on June 13, 2008 at 11:39 PM
I should also point out that the name “Israel” in English means “Struggles with God”.
carbon_footprint on June 13, 2008 at 11:41 PM
peski on June 13, 2008 at 10:24 PM
Nicely done. I only hope that aengus will see this. You’re both great and today’s discussion/s (not directly addressed to your comments, but rather a general conclusion) are the first on topic that weren’t bordering the ridiculous.
Entelechy on June 13, 2008 at 11:41 PM
Cue Mel Brooks..2..3..4
hillbillyjim on June 13, 2008 at 11:59 PM
See my first post.
Send_Me on June 14, 2008 at 12:10 AM
From an actual tombstone at a museum I was in once:
“Here lies an Atheist. All dressed up and no where to go”
LOL
Guardian on June 14, 2008 at 12:19 AM
An atheist is a man with no invisible means of support.
MB4 on June 14, 2008 at 12:21 AM
Nah, some of us would argue with a fence post.
You see the problem is that the invisible and the non-existent look so damned much alike.
MB4 on June 14, 2008 at 12:25 AM
Blasphemy is a victimless crime.
MB4 on June 14, 2008 at 12:27 AM
“World view founded on atheism”?
Baloney. Atheism was probably the farthest thing from their minds, assuming that they were all athiests. If they were doing what they did thinking that they were serving some god they probably would have redoubled their efforts.
BTW, have you ever seen the stats on the U.S. prison population by religion?
MB4 on June 14, 2008 at 12:33 AM
So sorry I missed this today. The title suggests it was supposed to be the “Friday Stupid” thread…
Connie on June 14, 2008 at 12:34 AM
Indeed. They were no more killing in the name of atheism than they were killing in the name of cucumbers.
MB4 on June 14, 2008 at 12:37 AM
Truth in advertising.
MB4 on June 14, 2008 at 12:39 AM
No, I apparently you don’t understand it. The issue isn’t that you need to prove it because I assume the opposite is obvious. The issue is that positive statements need to be proven, not negative ones. You know, our discussion reminds of Soviet times half jokes about Russian bureaucracy, which would demand of citizens things like a documental proof that they have never been involved in anti-Soviet activity.
You can’t really prove that something does not exist. Unless you can prove that the very notion in question in inherently contradictory. The mere lack of hard evidence that something does not exist is a sufficient proof. This is how rational thinking operates.
You gather data of some sort, you process it, you construct a theoretical framework that explains it. You try to use it for prediction. If you’re remotely successful then you have something.
This isn’t just applicable to science. You could witness people’s behavior, analyze it and infer some moral rules or implications thereof. But you never pose a problem of proving a negative statement. Why? Because I gave you an example of a number of negative statements, and I could give you many more. If you need to prove non-existence of any nonsensical thing you could think of, you’ll never get anywhere.
Let me give you another example, much less unreasonable. In case you are still unconvinced and troubled by the inherent ridiculousness of my examples. There’re galaxies in the outer space that are millions of light years from us. We have absolutely no knowledge of them because they are so far away and no information about them could be obtained. Suppose, I pick one galaxy. I will not go through the tedious process of specifying it, but assume I could explain which galaxy, which is very far away I’m talking about. Something along the lines of “it’s exactly 1,000,000 light years away in the direction of the North Star” or something.
Now that galaxy has objects revolving around it. Some of them we would call planets. That’s primarily based on their size. Now, I claim there’s exactly 15 of them. No more, no less. It’s not like you know if it’s true or false. It could very well be true. But do you think it’s your responsibility to disprove that there’s exactly 15 of them? Or do you think if I make such a statement of fact then I need to prove it?
I would say that it’s intrinsic to rational discourse that the burden of proof is on me.
freevillage on June 14, 2008 at 12:43 AM
He didn’t have to. His actions did that for him.
Connie on June 14, 2008 at 12:43 AM
The mere lack of hard evidence that something does exist is a sufficient proof.
freevillage on June 14, 2008 at 12:46 AM
I have a task for all of you atheists…prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt that God does not exist.
This will give you something to do instead of your normal routine of persecuting Christians, trying to silence them and calling them stupid.
SaintOlaf on June 14, 2008 at 12:53 AM
[new]
freevillage on June 14, 2008 at 1:00 AM
If you atheists really believed there is no God..you wouldn’t be the most active people talking about Him.
Denial is a lonely life that leads to an eternity in Hell.
And yes, you will be lonely there too..better get used to it.
There is no such thing as an atheist.
In order for you to be an atheist you would have to say that you have all knowledge in the universe and you know for a fact that God does not exist.
You’re obviously just a pathetic liar if you say that.
But then again if you’re an atheist..you have no morals so that is not an insult to you.
An atheist is just someone who lies to them self and tries to convince themselves that God does not exist.
SaintOlaf on June 14, 2008 at 1:02 AM
There is no such thing as “reasonable doubt” when debating someone who believes in a being who can defy reason. Say someone rationally proves something to you, all you need do is say that your god has the power to make it seem that way.
Instead of tasking people who’d rather not waste time explaining something you’ve already dismissed how about you prove why god exists, and specifically why you think the Christian God exists. I’m open to varying opinions – I’ve read a lot of the ancient philosophers – how about you say something they haven’t, or even better, how about you say anything that rationally supports the belief in an all-powerful, purely good, infinite being.
Nonfactor on June 14, 2008 at 1:03 AM
On the other hand, in order to believe in God..you don’t have to have all the knowledge in the universe..all you would have to do is simply meet Him once.
Atheists are intellectually dishonest.(but that doesn’t matter to them because in their view there is no such thing as morality…a lack of belief in morality is the mark of a truly dangerous person)
SaintOlaf on June 14, 2008 at 1:10 AM
What book did Hitler require his men to carry and read? Friedrich Nietzsche’s “Thus Spake Zarathustra.” What is the foundation of Neitzschien, Communist, and any other humanistic philosophy? Atheism. Without God, the men I listed are accountable to no one. Who are we, as mere mortals, to force our beliefs upon anyone else? If there is no God, I have no grounds by which to tell another he is wrong. Nietzsche was the one consistent atheist. He saw that if there is no God to judge us, to guide us, then the only alternative is to reach for and attain power for ourselves as individuals. Hitler internalized this view and acted upon it. The foundation for these beliefs? The belief that makes Nietzschien philosophy possible? Atheism.
Thoughts lead to actions. These men never said, “In the name of atheism, I decree…” There was no need. Their actions did this for them, as stated before.
Send_Me on June 14, 2008 at 1:11 AM
This is something you atheists do not understand about Christians…we do not believe in God just in some intellectual view.
We believe in God because WE KNOW HIM PERSONALLY.
Until you understand this point, you will never understand why Christians believe what we believe.
Yes, we understand and experience more of reality than you do…who is smarter now.
SaintOlaf on June 14, 2008 at 1:14 AM
I appreciate your post, and have no problem with “ridiculous” examples. I tend to use such analogies myself, and am glad to come upon another person who does. appreciate them.
I would agree that, given your example of the distant planets, you would need to do more than just make an assertion to convince a rational person you are correct. But for me to say you are definitely wrong about that would also require some proof. It’s unlikely, but possible there are exactly 15 such planets.
The difference to me is that when talking about God, to me He is not so distant and unknowable. I have what is for me enough evidence to believe, from seeing the difference in my life and the lives of those close to me who have tried to make the connection with God.
I was a super-smart overachiever, cocky to cover up a sense of inferiority. I ran into a problem that I would not admit was beyond my power to fix, though it was obvious to everyone else. Ruined my life and hurt others, all along thinking that my fine intellect and work ethic would fix the thing. When I finally realized doing things my way was not working, I decided to try to live by God’s principles, and the night/day difference from life before is proof enough for me.
Now that is subjective, and I don’t expect it to convince another rational person. But I am happily convinced that God exists and is working in my life and the lives of many others. If someone wants to convince me I’m wrong, then I’d say the burden of proof is on them.
Sorry if this was overly confessional, but what the hell, we’re among friends.
mikeyboss on June 14, 2008 at 1:15 AM
While I pretty much agree with you, I’d ask you to think about one thing: how did Paul preach the Gospel? He spoke to Greeks differently than Jews. He spoke to new Christians differently than he did those who’d been around a bit longer. He spoke to those who’d had pagan gods differently than any of the above. My point is this: remember your audience. If their “hurdle” is an intellectual one, we must meet them at that level. If it’s at an existential level, we must meet them there. We must meet those searching for Christ at their level, not the level we feel they should be. I hope this comes across in the right way.
Send_Me on June 14, 2008 at 1:24 AM
I’m not an atheist but the whole “atheists have no morals” thing always seemed pretty weak to me. Are you saying the only reason you have morals is because the bible tells you to? Otherwise you’d just go buckwild and kill everyone?
Also, how many people in this thread have said “prove God doesn’t exist”. Any Logic 100 class will teach you the burden of proof always lies on the positive side of an argument.
crr6 on June 14, 2008 at 1:29 AM
Persecuting? Huh.
Calling them stupid? If you don’t want people making fun of your beliefs you shouldn’t have such silly beliefs.
Something to do? Speaking of which, don’t you have an unbeliever to condemn to eternal hell or something?
MB4 on June 14, 2008 at 1:30 AM
See prison stats by religion.
Kind of sounds that way.
MB4 on June 14, 2008 at 1:33 AM
Can relate. Thanks for sharing. It reminds me of one of those things about “Truth:” if we’ve found Truth, then it should reveal itself in all aspects of our lives, whether it be the philosophical, the existential, the historical, the emotional, the personal, and if there are any “Scriptures”, then those as well. I’ve found in my life that Christianity is the only thing that satisfies these requirements. All other philosophies and religions were an empty shell for me.
Send_Me on June 14, 2008 at 1:34 AM
I agree with your comments about “Truth”. If I can get myself into the right “size” and relationship to God and my fellows, things go better in all aspects of life. For me it’s something along the lines of remaining grateful and recognizing the good in people and situations.
I’ve also found that I can now listen to the same readings and sermons I’ve nodded through before and actually “get it”.
mikeyboss on June 14, 2008 at 1:41 AM
I am still waiting for your solid proof that there is no God.
I’m sure that you “atheists”, who have infinite knowledge of everything in the universe, can give me your “proof”. Right?
BTW MB4 what your morality consists of is what you know that you can get away with.
With no Moral Law everything is legal for you.
If there was no civil law against murder…and someone made you mad…the scary thing about you is…you would kill him.
It is only civil law and laws of manners that keeps atheists in check.
SaintOlaf on June 14, 2008 at 1:42 AM
World, you are safer from atheists than you are from SaintOlaf. Today has proven that, beyond a doubt, repeatedly.
Entelechy on June 14, 2008 at 1:44 AM
Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of this astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy.
~~ Carl Sagan
Entelechy on June 14, 2008 at 1:49 AM
+1 Logic classes are interesting and fun, if one seeks logic. I mentioned before that you’re smart crr6.
Entelechy on June 14, 2008 at 1:56 AM
On the contrary, though Christians pay no attention to civil laws or laws of manners, the thing is, we are subjects of God’s Moral Law(which civil law is based on).
For example, an atheist may steal something if no one is looking and he knows he can get away with it..
But a Christian will NOT steal something, even if he can legally get away with it, because he knows that God sees all and that all of our sin is against Him.
Sure, it’s lot’s of fun for you to personally attack and persecute anyone who speaks a Biblical Truth..
But be sure of this…there will be a day that you will regret it.
SaintOlaf on June 14, 2008 at 1:57 AM
For the atheists, here are some of the “reasons for the hope that I have:”
1) Aristotle and Aquinas’ arguments of First Cause: Every effect has a cause. What was the First Cause? The universe had to have a beginning, otherwise it’d be at equilibrium and no chemical reactions would take place.
2) As Josh McDowell once said when asked, “Why can’t you refute Christianity?” He said, “For a very simple reason: I am not able to explain away an event in history–the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” His body could not have been stolen by the disciples, since the guards at the tomb were subject to a death sentence if they allowed this to happen. Besides, why would the disciples have all died a martyr’s death for what they knew to be a lie? Why didn’t the Romans or Jews bring out the body during Christianity’s infancy? All they had to do was produce his body and they couldn’t.
3) Paley’s teleological arguments, since supported by Behe and others.
4) St. Anselm’s ontological argument
5) C.S. Lewis’ explanation of Natural Law, Universal Morality, if you will
6) Leibniz’s arguments dealing with this being the “best of all possible worlds” as an answers to the “problem of evil”
7) In the end, as C.S. Lewis wrote about so eloquently, I had to answer, was Jesus a liar, lunatic, or Lord?
Send_Me on June 14, 2008 at 1:59 AM
Good for you. Does it ever occur to you that atheists might not care at all what you believe, or don’t?
Entelechy on June 14, 2008 at 2:00 AM
1. If you don’t care, why did you respond?
2. What would it take for you to believe that God exists? And I mean that in all seriousness. I’m not asking you to prove a negative, but rather to explain what you see wrong with theistic arguments. No ad hominems or other crap. I’d actually like to know.
3. Are you willing to change based upon what anyone writes here?
Send_Me on June 14, 2008 at 2:10 AM
I know God exists.
This past winter, my mother died. A few days later, on Christmas Eve, I was listening to a recording of her singing “I’ll Be Home For Christmas” (she was a professional vocalist). I prayed and asked God to let me know she was all right. When I got up to go to bed in the middle of the night, I turned on the downstairs radio as I routinely do for my dog…the song playing (on a talk station I don’t usually have on – just happened to be there that night) was “I’ll Be Home For Christmas”. Coincidence, I guess.
But as I prayed (after thinking about the lyric “please have snow”), I had asked God if it wouldn’t be too much trouble, if He would make it snow so I would know for sure she was with Him. I live in a mild climate where it rarely snows, and hasn’t snowed on a Christmas day in my memory.
Then I thought I was being silly and went to bed, kicking myself for setting myself up to be disappointed.
The next morning, I got a text message from a friend who lives a few miles north of me. It simply said, “It’s snowing!” He hadn’t known about my prayer. I ran to the window and looked out, and there was nothing…but five minutes later, I was standing outside in a bathrobe, being showered by the largest snowflakes I had ever seen (and I grew up in Wisconsin).
No one will ever convince me that God didn’t answer my prayer that night. Not only do I believe He exists, I believe He personally gave me a gift this past Christmas.
Oh yeah…and my brother, a scientist with a PhD, believes in Him too.
capitalist piglet on June 14, 2008 at 2:30 AM
Thanks. While I pretty much agree with you.
I disagree that the atheists dilemma is intellectual.
The atheists dilemma is MORAL.
They don’t want to debate you intellectually.
The reason that they proclaim to be atheist is because they REJECT God and do not want to be held accountable to Him.
There is no such thing as an atheist.
ALL MEN KNOW THAT GOD EXISTS…MANY REJECT HIS LOVE AND PRETEND THAT HE DOES NOT EXIST.
“FOR THE INVISIBLE THINGS OF HIM FROM THE CREATION OF THE WORLD ARE CLEARLY SEEN,BEING UNDERSTOOD BY THE THINGS THAT ARE MADE, EVEN HIS ETERNAL POWER AND GODHEAD; SO THAT THEY ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE.”
“BECAUSE THAT, WHEN THEY KNEW GOD, THEY GLORIFIED HIM NOT AS GOD, NEITHER WERE THANKFUL; BUT BECAME VAIN IN THEIR IMAGINATIONS, AND THEIR FOOLISH HEART WAS DARKENED.”
“PROFESSING THEMSELVES TO BE WISE, THEY BECAME FOOLS.” Romans 1:20-22
SaintOlaf on June 14, 2008 at 2:42 AM
heh.
:-)
ColtsFan on June 14, 2008 at 3:35 AM
A2. God perhaps?
A3. So far no, since most of the comments by believers are mostly ad hominem attacks. Case in point…
Hmmm…that stuff from Romans sounds like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Pat Robertson, Pat Buchanan, Pope Benedict etc.,.
barry norris on June 14, 2008 at 3:48 AM
May I jump in here (only for 1 purpose: to increase thread count!!!)
You have made an excellent point above.
Your point, however, does not affect or touch Christianity since historic Christian theology teaches or affirms that reason (or the “laws of logic”) reflect the rational nature of God. Therefore, the Christian conception of God cannot “defy reason.”
There are other possible or hypothetical conceptions of God that directly run into the powerful force of your insightful comments above, such as the Islamic doctrine of abrogation.
Dude,
It is good to have you back.
You have been gone awhile…
ColtsFan on June 14, 2008 at 3:49 AM
I am an evangelical, Bible-believing Christian. But may I please make one request?
Could you please get rid of this ridiculous “persecution theme” for just one moment? It is rather silly. No Christian has been “persecuted” on Hot Air.
I have debated Hot Air atheists often in the past, and I have never been called names by any atheist. Hot Air atheists have never tried to silence me or call me names or anything like that at all.
Instead, there has been an exchange of ideas and positions.
And for that, I am grateful.
ColtsFan on June 14, 2008 at 3:59 AM
(wink)
Cylor on June 14, 2008 at 4:11 AM
I think there are some problems with the above. But one thing is clear: it sure is making me hungry!!!
ColtsFan on June 14, 2008 at 4:16 AM
Trolls come from Norway and Sweden
But they were in the Garden of Eden
For if Adam and Eve
Were both truly deceived
It took a Troll, not a snake to Believe in!
ronsfi on June 14, 2008 at 4:23 AM
I agree.
The reason that “there are many rational arguments for the existence of God” is because the theistic worldview has both the a priori equipment (metaphysical tools that are necessary) and the knowledge (the epistemological link to a-causal, necessary truths that are independent of Naturalism).
It is kinda pointless to discuss a philosophical task if one lacks the tools needed to get the job done.
I agree.
ColtsFan on June 14, 2008 at 4:27 AM
I agree with Davidk here.
All knowledge is based on faith. That is one of the lessons learned in Epistemology in this postmodern age.
I would love to dive further on this (in that it is a favorite topic of mine), but I seem to be getting very sleepy right now (I just worked 3rd shift), and my Diet Mountain Dew is wearing off now….
ColtsFan on June 14, 2008 at 4:34 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »