[quote]forlife wrote:
BBriere wrote:
I will never again doubt the existence of God again, but I’m not asking you to admit you are wrong.
I don’t see it as a question of admitting you are wrong, it’s more about admitting that you could be wrong. I’m very willing to admit that I could be wrong, but how many fundamentalist Christians can say the same? They are so rigidly entrenched in their beliefs, that it is impossible for them to objectively consider any evidence that might contradict those beliefs.[/quote]
Functional belief is difficult as long as the belief system works. They only become challenged when the belief system is no longer functional. Let’s face it, most peoples MO is based a light dusting of thought, that counts for both sides of the argument. That is my observation, not an absolute fact. I just don’t see people putting a lot of thought into the matter. They believe what they believe, based on a very small set of life events and almost no logical thought.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
This is one thing I dislike about some atheists and agnostics, they can not accept that someone with intelligence would believe in God.
Intelligent people can believe in god(s), but statistically, people who don’t believe in god(s) are more likely to be score high on standard measures of intelligence compared with people who do believe in god(s). It’s not surprising, really. The less intelligent you are, the less capable you are of differentiating facts from fiction.
I guess when you are at the top, you have more problems, as I do not see Muslims standing here on stage to have to defend their beliefs so stringently from atheists and agnostics, and I doubt they will ever see the day.
Christianity (which includes Mormons in the statistics, btw) is only 33%, compared with Muslims at 21%. I have no beef with Christians that live and let live, it’s the judgmental assholes that irk me.
[quote]pat wrote:
Functional belief is difficult as long as the belief system works. They only become challenged when the belief system is no longer functional. Let’s face it, most peoples MO is based a light dusting of thought, that counts for both sides of the argument. That is my observation, not an absolute fact. I just don’t see people putting a lot of thought into the matter. They believe what they believe, based on a very small set of life events and almost no logical thought.[/quote]
I agree completely. Why is it that so few people are really, genuinely, sincerely interested in the TRUTH, even if the truth turns out to be not everything they hoped it would be? I guess it’s human nature to lie to ourselves in order to make living easier. I wonder why some people value the hard truth more than others.
It’s the classic Matrix decision between the red or blue pill.
Now, let’s see the study that says people who do not believe have more intelligence as I didn’t find anything in the study. I did not clarify last time.
[quote]In 2008, intelligence researcher Helmuth Nyborg examined whether IQ relates to denomination and income, using representative data from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth, which includes intelligence tests on a representative selection of American youth, where they have also replied to questions about religious belief. His results, published in the scientific journal Intelligence demonstrated that on average, Atheists scored 1.95 IQ points higher than Agnostics, 3.82 points higher than Liberal persuasions, and 5.89 IQ points higher than Dogmatic persuasions. Atheists were third highest in the study overall, behind Jews and Anglicans. [4]
“I’m not saying that believing in God makes you dumber. My hypothesis is that people with a low intelligence are more easily drawn toward religions, which give answers that are certain, while people with a high intelligence are more skeptical,” says the professor. [5]
The relationship between countries’ belief in a god and average Intelligence Quotient, measured by Lynn, Harvey & Nyborg.[6]Nyborg also co-authored a study with Richard Lynn, emeritus professor of psychology at the University of Ulster, which compared religious belief and average national IQs in 137 countries. [6] The study analysed the issue from several viewpoints. Firstly, using data from a U.S. study of 6,825 adolescents, the authors found that atheists scored 6 g-IQ points higher than those adhering to a religion.
Secondly, the authors investigated the link between religiosity and intelligence on a country level. Among the sample of 137 countries, only 23 (17%) had more than 20% of atheists, which constituted “virtually all the higher IQ countries.” The authors reported a correlation of 0.60 between atheism rates and level of intelligence, which is “highly statistically significant.” This portion of the study uses the same data set as Lynn’s work IQ and the Wealth of Nations, which has drawn criticism of accuracy and accusations of statistical manipulation.
Commenting on the study in The Daily Telegraph, Lynn said “Why should fewer academics believe in God than the general population? I believe it is simply a matter of the IQ. Academics have higher IQs than the general population. Several Gallup poll studies of the general population have shown that those with higher IQs tend not to believe in God.”[/quote]
[quote]forlife wrote:
BBriere wrote:
I will never again doubt the existence of God again, but I’m not asking you to admit you are wrong.
I don’t see it as a question of admitting you are wrong, it’s more about admitting that you could be wrong. I’m very willing to admit that I could be wrong, but how many fundamentalist Christians can say the same? They are so rigidly entrenched in their beliefs, that it is impossible for them to objectively consider any evidence that might contradict those beliefs.[/quote]
The problem is a belief system means you believe it wholeheartedly. I believe in God without question. I could easily be wrong about a lot of things, but because of my beliefs I will never doubt the exisistence of God. That is my belief though. It’s funny I was reading earlier today about how the world has taught us tolerance of other people’s beliefs. You know, it doesn’t matter if they are Jew, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist, etc. The fact is that’s not what the Bible teaches.
Now I personally never condemn anyone to Hell for whatever they believe because it’s not my place. It says so in the Bible. However, I share my faith with others because that is what I am instructed to do. For as many Christians as you have found that are condemning how many have you found that are sharing? It’s a fine line in believing that you have the truth yet not condemning others. Unfortunately, I think many have taken the stance that you must either tell someone constantly that they are going to Hell or just stand back and say nothing to them at all.
[quote]BBriere wrote:
The problem is a belief system means you believe it wholeheartedly. I believe in God without question. I could easily be wrong about a lot of things, but because of my beliefs I will never doubt the exisistence of God.[/quote]
What is wrong with a belief system that admits you could be wrong? This is exactly what science is, btw. It formulates a set of hypotheses (i.e., a belief system), which it procedes to test and refine based on subsequent evidence, until you get closer and closer to the actual facts.
If you insist on being 100% right, and refuse to acknowledge the possibility that your beliefs don’t reflect actual facts, how will you ever know the truth? Isn’t knowing the actual truth more important than mere confidence that you have the truth?
No, science is not a belief system. Science is a way of proving and explaining the natural world. Therefore scientific theories can be proved right or wrong. God cannot be proven fact or fiction. The belief in God doesn’t come from empirical evidence. It is something you have to believe or not. If you believe it you shouldn’t question the belief and want evidence. Religion can never be science just like science should never be someone’s religion.
So when I say I will never doubt the exisistence of God then it’s not a scientific theory. When I say I believe in the Big Bang Theory then, yes I can say I could be wrong because it is a part of science that may eventually some day be proven wrong.
[quote]BBriere wrote:
No, science is not a belief system. Science is a way of proving and explaining the natural world. Therefore scientific theories can be proved right or wrong. God cannot be proven fact or fiction. The belief in God doesn’t come from empirical evidence. It is something you have to believe or not. If you believe it you shouldn’t question the belief and want evidence. Religion can never be science just like science should never be someone’s religion.
So when I say I will never doubt the exisistence of God then it’s not a scientific theory. When I say I believe in the Big Bang Theory then, yes I can say I could be wrong because it is a part of science that may eventually some day be proven wrong.[/quote]
This is a very intelligent point that you are making. We really cannot test to determine whether or not there is a God. Not only would we not really know what we were looking for (so might not even recognize God if we did find him), but we wouldn’t really know where to look.
However, one has to ask themselves how man knows/conceives of God’s presence in the first place. It’s only logical that God must have affected the physical world in some way or another (like re-encarnating Jesus as Christians believe). And if he did/does, then we can test for that, because it involves the physical/natural world; which I think was the original topic of this thread (or at least the non inflammatory one).
The tests still don’t unequivocally tell us that there is no God, or that prayer doesn’t work of course. But, they do tell us that (at least in the sample used in the earlier quoted study) there isn’t a higher prevalence of unexplained phenomenon as the result of prayer than there is without the presence of prayer.
So, it would seem that either:
God is carrying out his plan regardless of what we as humans do or ask of him
We still haven’t figured out the correct way to test him/aren’t looking in the right places or asking the right questions
He doesn’t exist and the universe is simply based on chance
He does exist but doesn’t intervene with the natural world
Whichever someone chooses is up to them. Problems only arise when people try to force others into adopting their beliefs. Live and let live.
[quote]BBriere wrote:
No, science is not a belief system.[/quote]
Of course science is a belief system. The only difference is that the beliefs of science are supported by objective facts, while the beliefs of religion are not supported by objective facts. Why would you want to believe in something for which you have zero objective evidence? How is that any different from believing in fairy tales?
If it cannot be proven, and empirical evidence is impossible, why in the world would you choose to believe it anyway? What is your justification for believing it is actually true, when you have no evidence to support that belief?
So not only do you choose to believe in something for which there is no evidence, but you take it one step further by refusing to consider the possibility that your beliefs may not actually be true. How does that make any sense?
Paul says is I Corinthians 1:23: “We preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness.” Faith is not about what can be proven true by empirical evidence. This is why many such as the Greeks had such a hard time believing in God or that Jesus was the son of God. Comparing any religion to science is not a valid argument.
I went through a long period when I wanted proof of the existence of God. I read Biblical archaeology books, I studied theology, I looked for anything that could let me know without a shadow of a doubt that God existed and there was evidence. The problem was like the old saying I couldn’t see the trees for the forest. The spirit of God is something you have to feel inside you. It’s not always there.
Many make the mistake of saying something along the lines that they will repent on their deathbed or they’re not ready to accept God. The fact is God choses when to reveal himself to you. For some he may shut them off for years. For others he may make constant revelations. Whether a person accepts him or not is up to the individual.
I always say that I think most people are turned off by religion of any type because of the following 3 reasons: 1) They need total proof in a physical sense 2) They have had negative interactions with the religion’s believers or 3) They become angry. In the first reason it’s perfectly natural to want evidence of a God being real. After all, it’s much better to search for answers then to accept what is given.
That’s why I always say search for what is inside of you. If you feel nothing; no calling or desire for something deeper than what you see everyday then your desire isn’t there yet and that’s ok. The second reason of course is self explanitory. The third usually deals with people that are already believers. Typically they become angry at God because their own actions caused them misery or they feel a prayer went unanswered.
If you don’t feel compelled to seek out more than answers to the physical world around you then there is nothing wrong with you as some would have you believe. It just means the time is not right yet. Often people take the wrong approach and try to force it on someone that is obviously not even ready to accept a belief system. This typically turns the person off on religion in general even more.
Trust me, it happened to me several times. The only thing a believer should do is share their faith, not try to convert. That’s
God’s job.
[quote]BBriere wrote:
Faith is not about what can be proven true by empirical evidence.[/quote]
I understand. My question was, if there is no actual evidence to support your faith, how do you differentiate it from fairy tales?
You seem to be saying here that you do believe there is evidence for your faith. You feel the “spirit of god” inside of you, and interpret this feeling as valid evidence supporting the reality of your beliefs.
I understand, because I’ve been there myself. As a believer for three decades, I was deeply convinced that I had heard the voice of god, and felt the spirit of god in my life confirming the truth of my beliefs. I had many spiritual experiences which convinced me beyond doubt that my beliefs were true.
My beliefs were based on actual experiences, just as the beliefs of science are based on actual experiences. The real question is whether those experiences mean what we think they mean. Are they actual proof that our beliefs are valid? Or can they be explained in some other way?
As discussed by William Gardiner:
I agree with Edwin Teale on the importance of knowing the actual facts, rather than using your emotions as a source of evidence:
Edwin Way Teale (1889-1980), Circle Of The Seasons, 1953
Ok, sorry for typing so much and not actually answering your question. Yes, part of the evidence is the spiritual feeling. I understand your argument that anyone can feel they are spiritually driven rather they be Christian, Jew, Muslim, Mormon, Hindu, etc. How do we know which one is right? Ultimately, only the individual can determine whether he is right or wrong.
Again, faith is not science. For me though there is other evidence in my life. A lot goes back to the original thread if prayer works. When I pray I have always seen it answered. Is it always the way that I want it at the time? No. When I take time to reflect though I understand why certain things didn’t happen the way I wanted them to or sometimes when I wanted them to. Case in point my current situation.
8 year ago I graduated college looking for the perfect job in the town I went to school in. Everything should have realistically been in my favor: I student taught at two local schools, I subbed in the district, I graduated Magna Cum Laude, I got very favorable recommendations, etc. To my disappointment I ended up having to look elsewhere for a job. Eventually, that brought me to Dallas where I have far from the ideal job, but I did meet my current fiancee.
Along the way I was always one of those “church goers.” I went but never was that convicted. Had I have stayed where I felt comfortable I probably would have lived my life very mundane, possibly half-assed my job, always been a “church goer” rather than a believer. Since I was forced to move around and face adversity I became a better and more faithful person than the uptight know-it-all I was after college. Now can anyone prove that God spoke to me directly and allowed the things to happen to strengthen me? No, but it’s proof to me.
So I guess again I can’t actually answer your question of where is my proof in God. All I can tell you is what I believe. Let me ask you this. Does it anger you that people are adamant about their belief in God? I know when I went through my unbelieving period I used to get pissed anytime someone would even mention it.
[quote]BBriere wrote:
For me though there is other evidence in my life. A lot goes back to the original thread if prayer works. When I pray I have always seen it answered. Is it always the way that I want it at the time? No. [/quote]
That’s my point, though. You’ve had intensely emotional spiritual experiences and seen your prayers answered, which you take as proof for the validity of your beliefs.
However, so did I. As a Mormon, I had many beliefs which are different from your own, and yet god told me that my beliefs were true. I knew it “with every fiber of my being”, through the power of the Holy Ghost.
Now multiply that by the thousands of different experiences that people have, all of which they take as proof for their particular belief system. Clearly, these experiences are NOT a reliable source, because it is logically impossible for the contradictory belief systems all to be true.
How do you explain that?
Not at all. I think people have the right to believe whatever they want, although I don’t consider their beliefs to be other than fairy tales unless there are actual facts backing them up. The only thing that irritates me is when believers try to legislate their beliefs on others, for example by voting against gay marriage. As long as they keep their beliefs within their churches/synagogues, I think they should be able to do whatever they want.
Well, sorry I couldn’t provide anymore evidence than that. As I said, you either believe or you don’t. I’m not theologian or trained professional so I can’t do much more. I agree with you though that politics shouldn’t be driven by religion. That being said I think that it’s every Christian or anyone else’s job to vote for leaders that promote their beliefs best. In other words I wouldn’t vote for anyone that supported abortion, the death penalty, etc.
I don’t belive religion should play a big part in politics though. So I also wouldn’t vote for anybody that insisted on prayer in school, gay marriage bans, or displaying the Ten Commandments in a government building. I always find it amusing when people say the Founding Fathers were Christian. Which ones? Thomas Jefferson who was a Deist? John Adams or Ben Franklin who were atheists? Or George Washington who was a social member?
I’m not asking you to provide evidence, just curious how you would answer my question. If other people believe that god has said doctrine X is true, but you believe god has said doctrine X is false, who is right? That’s the problem with emotionality as evidence, it doesn’t say anything about the actual facts.
All of that said, I have no beef with anything you’ve said. You are one of the Christians that seems to “get it” when it comes to understanding the basics of Jesus’ message, so I wish you the best.
You have to have faith in NOT believing in God just as you do in believing. I choose the latter. You cannot say with absolute certainty God is not real and vice versa. It comes down to what you have more faith in. Try the believing part and see it work miracles.
[quote]DK 14 wrote:
You have to have faith in NOT believing in God just as you do in believing. I choose the latter. You cannot say with absolute certainty God is not real and vice versa. It comes down to what you have more faith in. Try the believing part and see it work miracles.[/quote]
You’re forgetting the third choice, which to me is the most honest. Instead of randomly choosing to believe in a god or insisting that gods are impossible, you could instead admit that we don’t know and leave it at that.