Is There a God?

[Stovokor]

I'm just going to post this and see where it goes but I did a quick internet search looking for a very specific article that the Social Psychology Quarterly had about Religiosity versus Intelligence and it funny enough led me here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosit ... telligence

A look through it will be interesting, checked the sources as well, in fact I used several of them for my own sociological research concerning emotional intelligence. Anyways have fun people and debate on.

And Bingo was his name-o!

This response implies that he chose correctly or somesuch... as though this is the demonstrably accurate approach.

Which is contrary to the message itself...

Very odd.


In any case, Yumyum:
I don't really see how I am in any way able to "choose" to see things one way or the other when it comes to matters of belief and reality. I mean, I grant that theists are somehow able to do so, but I have not the slightest idea how. I could no more believe in a god then I could suddenly decide the sky was green (outside of strikingly atypical weather, of course), how on earth do you achieve this?

I find your take on Yum's stance a bit disturbing to be honest. To claim you don't believe in a god and give evidence of it's absence is one thing, and respectable at that since it promotes thought and certain emotions that need to be rattled time and time again. However, to claim that a belief in a god relates to a belief that something that obvious is one thing but you choose to believe it's something else is taking it to an extreme especially since current research hasn't quite made it there just yet.

[Twilliamson]

So why did you bring up statistics then? Since you clearly understand what is wrong with such arguments?

You really can't have this both ways.

There are lies, damn lies and statistics. You may have a point on that. It would be interesting to see what Steven Levitt would say on the issue.

so you just dismises statistics as lieswhen it hurts your agument, but something you say that you have no prove is fact. That's interesting

[Twilliamson]

So why did you bring up statistics then? Since you clearly understand what is wrong with such arguments?

You really can't have this both ways.

There are lies, damn lies and statistics. You may have a point on that. It would be interesting to see what Steven Levitt would say on the issue.

so you just dismises statistics as lieswhen it hurts your agument, but something you say that you have no prove is fact. That's interesting

[Transmaris]

Now, I suppose I am a Christian, however I am not completely convinced that there is a god looking over me 24/7. Now, there probably has been THOUSANDS of these forums but I'm just interested, what are your beliefs and what do you think?

Note: Please do not argue with each other, we are all entitled to believe in what we want to believe in

I believe that the existence of "God" (Divinity Incarnate or discarnate or whatever) is unprovable.
This used to lead me to the conviction that there is no God, nothing divine.

Now it leads me to a slightly different conclusion.
The existence of a divine entity ("God") is irrelevant.

If it does not interact with our reality in a detectable way, it is irrelevant whether it exists or not.
So why do people waste so much time and energy caring?

I'm just going to post this and see where it goes but I did a quick internet search looking for a very specific article that the Social Psychology Quarterly had about Religiosity versus Intelligence and it funny enough led me here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosit ... telligence

A look through it will be interesting, checked the sources as well, in fact I used several of them for my own sociological research concerning emotional intelligence. Anyways have fun people and debate on.

Interesting, though I am curius about their choice of axis in the graphic presentation.

[Jewcrew]

Thank you for the corrections. It doesn't change the point or its validity.


Not really. There are complex issues with these areas that have little if anything to do with religion, the most significant one being that the Bible Belt is a far more rural area. Wealth tends to congregate in cities.

You're talking about living in the most devout places on earth. You've dismissed the Islamic majoroty nations because you don't like Islam, and you are skipping other more negative nations that are more highly devout in order to pick the US.

I dismissed the Muslim nations because they're places where Jews tend to be beheaded, but nice assumption. I wouldn't considering living in most secular Muslims societies in the Middle East, either. I already stated I'd have no problem with Vatican City, and I'd probably get along fine in Bulgaria and other more religious, European nations. These are facile and fallacious points.

It does change the validity, unless you wish to admit the most devout nations often aren't great places and their over adherence to religion and letting it have to much control over their society is a major component in their condition.

Since your position only takes in two factors when the world is run by numerous factors, no, it still doesn't change the validity. I would have zero problem living in devout Christian societies.

[Stovokor]

I'm just going to post this and see where it goes but I did a quick internet search looking for a very specific article that the Social Psychology Quarterly had about Religiosity versus Intelligence and it funny enough led me here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosit ... telligence

A look through it will be interesting, checked the sources as well, in fact I used several of them for my own sociological research concerning emotional intelligence. Anyways have fun people and debate on.

Interesting, though I am curius about their choice of axis in the graphic presentation.

Actually I meant that page to be a spring board for further research for people since it provided many sources to many interesting research articles.

[Jewcrew]

And Bingo was his name-o!

This response implies that he chose correctly or somesuch... as though this is the demonstrably accurate approach.

Which is contrary to the message itself...

Very odd.

It was intended as an expression of agreement. If you look back, I've never once tried to convince an Atheist to believe in G-d.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

And Bingo was his name-o!

This response implies that he chose correctly or somesuch... as though this is the demonstrably accurate approach.

Which is contrary to the message itself...

Very odd.


In any case, Yumyum:
I don't really see how I am in any way able to "choose" to see things one way or the other when it comes to matters of belief and reality. I mean, I grant that theists are somehow able to do so, but I have not the slightest idea how. I could no more believe in a god then I could suddenly decide the sky was green (outside of strikingly atypical weather, of course), how on earth do you achieve this?

Without going into unnecessary detail: I had certain experiences that I considered to be deeply spiritual in nature, and in which I had what I can only describe as a communion with the divine. There were several different ways that I could have interpreted these experiences, but the two most realistic ones seemed to be to either accept that I had experienced an actual touch of something beyond my full understanding, or to conclude that I was going mad. I found the second option to be distinctly disturbing, though obviously there was a fair possibility that such was the case. The first choice seemed more palatable, and added an extra layer of poetry to my life.

[Camelza]

[Jewcrew]

Interesting, though I am curius about their choice of axis in the graphic presentation.

Actually I meant that page to be a spring board for further research for people since it provided many sources to many interesting research articles.

I found this part of that page to be the most worthwhile, since IQ isn't really that useful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosit ... attainment

[Xathranaar]

I find your take on Yum's stance a bit disturbing to be honest. To claim you don't believe in a god and give evidence of it's absence is one thing, and respectable at that since it promotes thought and certain emotions that need to be rattled time and time again. However, to claim that a belief in a god relates to a belief that something that obvious is one thing but you choose to believe it's something else is taking it to an extreme especially since current research hasn't quite made it there just yet.

I'm not entirely sure if I've unpacked this correctly...

In any case, I merely mean to say I find it flabbergasting when I hear people say things like, "I choose to believe x." I don't know how that is done.

[Jewcrew]

I find your take on Yum's stance a bit disturbing to be honest. To claim you don't believe in a god and give evidence of it's absence is one thing, and respectable at that since it promotes thought and certain emotions that need to be rattled time and time again. However, to claim that a belief in a god relates to a belief that something that obvious is one thing but you choose to believe it's something else is taking it to an extreme especially since current research hasn't quite made it there just yet.

I'm not entirely sure if I've unpacked this correctly...

In any case, I merely mean to say I find it flabbergasting when I hear people say things like, "I choose to believe x." I don't know how that is done.

When I was an Atheist, I didn't get it either.

Yes, I used to be an Atheist.

No, I can't explain why I'm no longer an Atheist. C. S. Lewis managed to explain how he did it, but I didn't do it for the same reason.

[Twilliamson]

This response implies that he chose correctly or somesuch... as though this is the demonstrably accurate approach.

Which is contrary to the message itself...

Very odd.

It was intended as an expression of agreement. If you look back, I've never once tried to convince an Atheist to believe in G-d.

yeah but you did say the most atheist are assholes. Just because we was trying to show flaws in your arguments

[Jewcrew]

It was intended as an expression of agreement. If you look back, I've never once tried to convince an Atheist to believe in G-d.

yeah but you did say the most atheist are assholes. Just because we was trying to show flaws in your arguments

No, I called one Atheist an asshole.

[Stovokor]

Actually I meant that page to be a spring board for further research for people since it provided many sources to many interesting research articles.

I found this part of that page to be the most worthwhile, since IQ isn't really that useful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosit ... attainment

Of course you would, it's only logical since you're on the other side of the debate with Xathranaar, however as I said the link was meant as a springboard, which means to be used as a gateway to further investigation of this topic through the sources provided, after all wiki articles are by nature unreliable since they are editable by anyone, do not go under peer review like academic research and most importantly even when attempted to be created to the best of care to the materials sourced they are only a second hand interpretation of their sources.

[Xathranaar]

This response implies that he chose correctly or somesuch... as though this is the demonstrably accurate approach.

Which is contrary to the message itself...

Very odd.


In any case, Yumyum:
I don't really see how I am in any way able to "choose" to see things one way or the other when it comes to matters of belief and reality. I mean, I grant that theists are somehow able to do so, but I have not the slightest idea how. I could no more believe in a god then I could suddenly decide the sky was green (outside of strikingly atypical weather, of course), how on earth do you achieve this?

Without going into unnecessary detail: I had certain experiences that I considered to be deeply spiritual in nature, and in which I had what I can only describe as a communion with the divine. There were several different ways that I could have interpreted these experiences, but the two most realistic ones seemed to be to either accept that I had experienced an actual touch of something beyond my full understanding, or to conclude that I was going mad. I found the second option to be distinctly disturbing, though obviously there was a fair possibility that such was the case. The first choice seemed more palatable, and added an extra layer of poetry to my life.

Well I'm not immune to this sort of thing either. But the dichotomy you present seems to ignore the totality of modern findings in neurology. It is possible to experience highly atypical states of consciousness without the aid of drugs, and without madness, simply as a function of ongoing brain chemistry.

For instance: I once had quite an experience relating to candlelight mediation in which I was somehow able to hallucinate deliberately through concentration. For several hours afterwards I experienced intense euphoria and was able to see even objects with remarkable detail (all of which struck me as astonishingly beautiful, by the way.) The probable reason for this was a dopamine spike in my optic lobe, brought about by hyperstimulus.

Now I suppose this explanation might lack poetry to some. But to me, a symphony of science cascading into a sort of "perfect storm" of brain activity is a thing of incredible beauty. And, of course, the experience was equally amazing whatever it's cause.

[Jewcrew]

I found this part of that page to be the most worthwhile, since IQ isn't really that useful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosit ... attainment

Of course you would, it's only logical since you're on the other side of the debate with Xathranaar, however as I said the link was meant as a springboard, which means to be used as a gateway to further investigation of this topic through the sources provided, after all wiki articles are by nature unreliable since they are editable by anyone, do not go under peer review like academic research and most importantly even when attempted to be created to the best of care to the materials sourced they are only a second hand interpretation of their sources.

Less to do with my side of the debate (though I will admit that I likely have some bias), more to do with my issues with IQ. You ever taken a psychiatrist's IQ test? I have. Most of it is general knowledge. Average IQ was increasing at one point because general knowledge was increasing with better education and media. IQ scores are weighted so that 100 is the average no matter what. IQ would be better described as a relative measurement comparing your general knowledge to that of overall society, rather than a measurement of intelligence.

A measurement based on education level, however, is actually useful, as this is actually application of intelligence and therefore measurable. These studies seem to find no connection between intelligence and religion, which frankly makes sense.

[Xathranaar]

I'm not entirely sure if I've unpacked this correctly...

In any case, I merely mean to say I find it flabbergasting when I hear people say things like, "I choose to believe x." I don't know how that is done.

When I was an Atheist, I didn't get it either.

Yes, I used to be an Atheist.

No, I can't explain why I'm no longer an Atheist. C. S. Lewis managed to explain how he did it, but I didn't do it for the same reason.

The first part of this answer indicates that you do understand how this is done. The third indicates that you do not.

In any case, this is unhelpful.

[Jewcrew]

When I was an Atheist, I didn't get it either.

Yes, I used to be an Atheist.

No, I can't explain why I'm no longer an Atheist. C. S. Lewis managed to explain how he did it, but I didn't do it for the same reason.

The first part of this answer indicates that you do understand how this is done. The third indicates that you do not.

In any case, this is unhelpful.

I understand because I currently believe. I can't explain because there is no one, overarching reason that would make sense an Atheist.

It wasn't intended to be helpful, it was intended to let you know that no one of faith could ever explain it to you. I suppose saying that would have been helpful... Sorry.

[Xathranaar]

The first part of this answer indicates that you do understand how this is done. The third indicates that you do not.

In any case, this is unhelpful.

I understand because I currently believe. I can't explain because there is no one, overarching reason that would make sense an Atheist.

Very well. Give one that would make sense to a Hindu.

[Jewcrew]

I understand because I currently believe. I can't explain because there is no one, overarching reason that would make sense an Atheist.

Very well. Give one that would make sense to a Hindu.

Jews don't proselytize (it is a sin) and actually believe that other religions aren't wrong. Even if I were to come up with such an argument, I would never under circumstances vocalize or write/type it anywhere.

[Camelza]

Very well. Give one that would make sense to a Hindu.

Jews don't proselytize (it is a sin) and actually believe that other religions aren't wrong. Even if I were to come up with such an argument, I would never under circumstances vocalize or write/type it anywhere.

I think you have that think which if a guy from another religion acts well according to his own beliefs is sent to heaven ..or is this a myth?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Without going into unnecessary detail: I had certain experiences that I considered to be deeply spiritual in nature, and in which I had what I can only describe as a communion with the divine. There were several different ways that I could have interpreted these experiences, but the two most realistic ones seemed to be to either accept that I had experienced an actual touch of something beyond my full understanding, or to conclude that I was going mad. I found the second option to be distinctly disturbing, though obviously there was a fair possibility that such was the case. The first choice seemed more palatable, and added an extra layer of poetry to my life.

Well I'm not immune to this sort of thing either. But the dichotomy you present seems to ignore the totality of modern findings in neurology. It is possible to experience highly atypical states of consciousness without the aid of drugs, and without madness, simply as a function of ongoing brain chemistry.

For instance: I once had quite an experience relating to candlelight mediation in which I was somehow able to hallucinate deliberately through concentration. For several hours afterwards I experienced intense euphoria and was able to see even objects with remarkable detail (all of which struck me as astonishingly beautiful, by the way.) The probable reason for this was a dopamine spike in my optic lobe, brought about by hyperstimulus.

Now I suppose this explanation might lack poetry to some. But to me, a symphony of science cascading into a sort of "perfect storm" of brain activity is a thing of incredible beauty. And, of course, the experience was equally amazing whatever it's cause.

That is truly a beautiful thing. However, my experiences were ongoing, though irregular, and at least partially involved an overwhelming sensation of total connection that I still feel the traces of this to this day. That goes beyond a temporary quirk in the brain chemistry. As I didn't exhibit any other signs of psychiatric disorders that would be likely causes of these events (such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder), I decided to simply go with it.

Of course, this could all very easily come across as "NO, MY EXPERIENCE WAS MORE SPECIAL", and that isn't my intent, nor is it to prove that it had some sort of objective and verifiable existence. No, this was entirely subjective in nature. I'll even own up to the distinct possibility that you're correct in your beliefs, and this is simply a recurrent surge of endorphins or some such thing combined with some other factors. However, that doesn't quite fit with my perception. My beliefs lie elsewhere. But I respect your viewpoint on the matter, am appreciative that you're not being an arrogant jerk about my viewpoint, and I'm content to let it lie there unless you have any further questions or observations.

[Jewcrew]

Jews don't proselytize (it is a sin) and actually believe that other religions aren't wrong. Even if I were to come up with such an argument, I would never under circumstances vocalize or write/type it anywhere.

I think you have that think which if a guy from another religion acts well according to his own beliefs is sent to heaven ..or is this a myth?

More of a misunderstanding than a myth.

But please ask this question in the Judaism Discussion Thread, and I'll explain it to you. viewtopic.php?f=20&t=195852&start=750

[Xathranaar]

Very well. Give one that would make sense to a Hindu.

Jews don't proselytize (it is a sin) and actually believe that other religions aren't wrong. Even if I were to come up with such an argument, I would never under circumstances vocalize or write/type it anywhere.

I'm not asking you to proselytize. I'm asking you for to explain yourself. And you are being evasive.

You say you have a reason, but that it won't make sense to me. I don't care. Tell me anyway. By your own account it won't be proselytizing because it has no hope of converting me, right?