Faith as a Measure of Intellect

[Shekwan]

Faith is a great measure of intellect, religious types are always idiots. Always. Unless they're the ones in charge - kudos to them. I'm looking at you Papa-Ratzi.

 

[Lillefix]

I think of religion as an hereditary condition of sorts. I can't explain how otherwise intelligent beings are completely convinced about something without proof and get even more convinced when evidence point against it(and they see this as a virtue!).

Those who turn to religion later without having one in the first place, I think has a great unconcious fear of death and turn to religion for that reason. And those that suddenly can change their religion when they're adults can't possibly have believed much in their first religion in the first place.

 

[bhsup]

That comment might have some validity if there was actually any evidence against the existence of God. Since there isn't any...

 

[nonconformist]

That comment might have some validity if there was actually any evidence against the existence of God. Since there isn't any...

How can you prove a negative? Waht do you want? A big sod-off sign saying "Yaweh is a scam"?

 

[Zarn]

There are many atheists and religious people (and even some agnostics) who believe that they have a greater capacity to understand theology and philosophy over people of opposing views. These people are generally not as intelligent.

 

[Godwynn]

Is Catholicism not Christianity?

Mormonism too...

I was told once (I was raised Catholic) that I worship Mary and not Jesus.

The woman who told me this was a Protestant and she heard it from her Preacher.

 

[Lillefix]

That comment might have some validity if there was actually any evidence against the existence of God. Since there isn't any...

I'm not arguing against the existence of God, I can't even see that I mentioned the word in my post. I'm talking about the validity of religions, which is very different.

Let's turn to christianity for the sake of the argument: Is there any evidence against that Jesus is the son of God? Is there any evindence against that I am the son of God?

You get my point. In these case the christians have the burden of evidence. But they don't need evidence, do they. It's faith! That's the way it is. And it's ridiculous .

edit: Replace "God" with "a god"

 

[MayNilad Man]

He walks on water, and he has the witnesses to prove it [12 apostles]!
You don't.

 

[bhsup]

How can you prove a negative? Waht do you want? A big sod-off sign saying "Yaweh is a scam"?

Nope. I misunderstood is post. Sorry.

I'm not arguing against the existence of a God, I can't even see that I mentioned the word in my post. I'm talking about the validity of religions, which is very different.

Let's turn to christianity for the sake of the argument: Is there any evidence against that Jesus is the son of God? Is there any evindence against that I am the son of God?

Evidence -against- Christ being the Son of God? Nope. In fact, the eyewitness accounts (evidence!) in the Gospels clearly indicates otherwise. You, though? Maybe no evidence against, but have you any evidence to support such a claim?

 

[Lillefix]

He walks on water, and he has the witnesses to prove it [12 apostles]!
You don't.

I've already placed some poles in a lake. Give me some years, I'm only 24.

 

[Defiant47]

Faith is the anti-thesis of logic and intelligence. Thus, any person practicing a faith, while not necessarily illogical and unintelligent (just like a person who lies once is not a liar), is actively forgoing the use of their intelligence, to put it bluntly. However, most of the time it can be forgiven and written off as an emotional endeavor: the emotions involved and their resolution with the introduction of a religion, is far greater a benefit than the use of intelligence.

Wait... I think I just solved religion. Now my friends are starting to make sense, who's religious and who's not (as well as who's broken off). I'll have to keep thinking about it and refine it, but I'm excited that this is yet another step forward!

 

[classical_hero]

This thread is so much a potential troll/flame thread waiting to happen. Any intelligent person would stay away from this.

 

[JohnRM]

Without going into too much detail, let me just say that I have a pretty unfavorable view of all of the major religions and a candidate being a member of any of them is a negative aspect when I consider whom I vote for. Some religions are worse than others.

At the highest levels of distrust, I have Mormonism, Scientology, Hindu faith, and Islamic faith, among others. From what I know of the first three, I just cannot believe that a shred of rational thinking exists in the minds of the followers. With regard to Islam, it is one religion that I know, tragically, very little about. Everything that I hear about it is very bad and this might make me an ahole, but...whatever. I most likely will not vote for any candidate of any of these religions.

At the mid-levels are Catholicism, Judaism, Right Protestantism and others. Most of these religions are extremely liberal in nature and are very active in politics. I can't forgive Catholics for protecting and encouraging illegal immigration. I can't forgive Jews for electing Hillary Clinton. The "Right" Protestant religions are those like the Seventh Day Adventists and the Souther Baptists, etc. These people are crazy nuts, in my opinion. It would significantly hurt a candidates chances of me voting for them.

At the lower levels are Methodists, Lutherans, Non-denoms, Buddhists, Unitarians, etc. These people are almost harmless and they're pretty loose with regard to their belief system and social views. They are mostly accepting of just about anybody, even in the congregation. Buddhists, while hippy-dippyish, are harmless. Unitarians just want to get along with everybody. I wouldn't hold it against candidates of these faiths when considering whom to vote for.

 

[Elrohir]

Scientology is borderline, just because it's so....yeah. (A science fiction writer makes up some story that sounds like science fiction, but is actually some sort of prophetic revelation? Um, yeah.) But I understand how what appears rational to one person doesn't seem so to another; there are certainly people here who think I'm crazy for being a Christian. So I think I'd be willing to give a politician the benefit of the doubt regarding their religion, so long as it isn't a major effect on their policies, or they aren't obviously and technically insane.

Faith and intelligence are unrelated. Smart people fall into dumb traps all the time.

As can be seen by our current chess game. My poor, poor rook.

I think a candidate's religious views are a good reason to give a second-look at some of their policies. If their faith says "the existence of Israel is necessary for the Rapture", then you should look at the candidate to see if their policies seem to be biased due to that. If their faith says "the Earth is 6000 years old", then you'll want to see evidence that their faith caused policy mishaps in that area.

And it's certainly fair to consider how someone's faith will influence their policies. But that's kind of different from whether faith and intelligence are naturally opposed to each other.

There are far too many Mormons who are very competently serving in the military, civil service, halls of Congress, etc. for the "Mormons are too stupid for political service" argument to have a whole lot of merit for me.

You're just biased.

 

[C~G]

This thread is so much a potential troll/flame thread waiting to happen. Any intelligent person would stay away from this.

Was that a troll?

Evidence -against- Christ being the Son of God? Nope. In fact, the eyewitness accounts (evidence!) in the Gospels clearly indicates otherwise. You, though? Maybe no evidence against, but have you any evidence to support such a claim?

I wouldn't call "witness accounts" from two thousands years back (especially from fanatics or followers of Jesus) as hard evidence in any shape or form.

IMHO I think it requires extra leap of faith to accept that as evidence even if you happen to believe into God.

 

[Fifty]

faith and intelligence are unrelated. Take Mormonism, and the threadstarter for example. The threadstarter claims Mormonism is stoopid, yet the two Mormons on this forum that I know of (eran and downtown) are really smart!

Also, threadstarter, you're grossly overusing the term "logical fallacy".

 

[classical_hero]

Was that a troll?

Perhaps.

 

[El_Machinae]

He walks on water, and he has the witnesses to prove it [12 apostles]!
You don't.

Meh, hundreds of people have seen me rip the head off of a tiger..

Evidence -against- Christ being the Son of God? Nope. In fact, the eyewitness accounts (evidence!) in the Gospels clearly indicates otherwise. You, though? Maybe no evidence against, but have you any evidence to support such a claim?

the gospels are not eyewitness accounts

 

[SharpMango]

This thread is so much a potential troll/flame thread waiting to happen. Any intelligent person would stay away from this.

but im stupid, and im staying away from it. You're faith on the people who post in here is based on a logical fallacy.

 

[classical_hero]

the gospels are not eyewitness accounts

Yes they were. John and Matthew were part of the group that Jesus choose and Luke was a learned Greek man and he would have been able to talk those who were around when the things happened. Also he was very much a partner of Paul when he did alot of his missionary work and Paul was someone who was around when these thing happened, because he was once part of the Jewish religious leaders, being a Pharisee. He could have been part of the Sanhedrin that condemned Christ. We do know that he persecuted Christian not long after the ascension of Christ, so that he had to be around when all this happened, because the persecution only started a few months after Jesus' death and resurrection. So to say they were not eyewitness accounts is definitely not true.