Religions > Atheism > Study: Really Smart People Reject Christianity (The Journal Nature)
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Yang, AthD h.c, Kicking AWOLs Cocaine Snorting Ass" |
| Date: |
12 Jan 2006 01:17:03 AM |
| Object: |
Study: Really Smart People Reject Christianity (The Journal Nature) |
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheism1.htm
Web Posted: July 25, 1998
study in today's edition of the prestigious science journal "Nature"
reveals that members of the scientific community are "more likely than
ever to reject God and immortality," discloses Britain's Daily
Telegraph.
That claim is based on another study which repeats a historic
survey first made in 1916 by Dr. James Leuba of Bryn Mawr University.
It revealed that over eight decades ago, only about 40% of the
scientists surveyed expressed belief in any supreme being. Leuba
predicted that advances in education and technology would further
erode faith in religious claims.
In 1997, Edward Larson of the University of Georgia decided to
revisit Leuba's study and evaluate the prediction that religious
belief was disappearing, at least in the scientific community. Author
of the book "Summer for the God's" and a professor of science law and
history, Larson said that Leuba's original survey raised "good
questions."
"They provoke responses and give much more insight into how people
think than the vague Gallup poll question, 'Do you believe in God?'"
he told a writer from Research Reporter.
Larson closely followed Leuba's methodology, repeating the same
questions and attempting to find a representative sample which met the
original survey profile. "I had no idea how it would turn out," Larson
said.
60% responded, a figure considered high for any surveys. Of those,
40% expressed belief in a deity, while nearly 45% did not. Larson's
survey also discovered that physicists were less likely to have such
faith, while mathematicians were significantly more likely to believe
in a supreme being, as defined by Leuba.
"NATURE" SURVEY -- LESS AND LESS BELIEF
The follow-up study reported in "Nature" reveals that the rate of
belief is lower than eight decades ago. The latest survey involved 517
members of the National Academy of Sciences; half replied. When
queried about belief in "personal god," only 7% responded in the
affirmative, while 72.2% expressed "personal disbelief," and 20.8%
expressed "doubt or agnosticism." Belief in the concept of human
immortality, i.e. life after death declined from the 35.2% measured in
1914 to just 7.9%. 76.7% reject the "human immortality" tenet,
compared with 25.4% in 1914, and 23.2% claimed "doubt or agnosticism"
on the question, compared with 43.7% in Leuba's original measurement.
Again, though, the highest rate of belief in a god was found among
mathematicians (14.3%), while the lowest was found among those in the
life sciences fields -- only 5.5%.
THE GLASS IS EMPTIER...
Dr. Larson, in commenting on his 1997 replication of the 1916
study, noted that as with Leuba's report, his revelations elicited
wildly different accounts in the news media. "It's being spun in
different ways," Larson observed. "The Christian Science Monitor ran
an editorial exhorting the fact that scientists still do believe --
despite the fact that well less than half of the scientists in my
survey believed in God -- while the Journal of Humanism ran a piece
proclaiming that they do not."
"Is the glass half empty or half full?," Larson asked.
It would be difficult to interpret the figures reported in
"Nature," though, as suggesting that belief within the scientific
community is gaining popularity, or even holding its own. The "belief
in a person god" category suggests a precipitous drop, from about 40%
in Larson's survey to 7% in the "Nature" study.
CHANGING VIEWS OF SCIENCE, RELIGION, GOD
While Leuba and his study were historic curiosities when Dr.
Larson and co-researcher Larry Witham decided to revisit the findings,
during its time the 1916 survey ignited considerable controversy. Paul
Karr of Research Reporter noted that Leuba's findings "touched off an
anti-evolutionary movement that would culminate in the historic Scopes
trial where science and Darwinism faced off against Christianity and
creationism for the mind and soul of the American schoolchild."
Indeed, just nine years after the Leuba findings, high school biology
teacher John T. Scopes (1900-1970) was in the middle of a legal
controversy, accused of violating Tennessee's Butler Act which forbade
the teaching of evolution in the state's public schools. The trial
drew worldwide publicity, and was soon dubbed the Monkey Trial due to
popular misconceptions about evolutionary findings -- that "people
came from monkeys."
Criminal attorney Clarence Darrow faced off against the
prosecution's most illustrious witness, former U.S. Secretary of State
William Jennings Bryan, a populist known for his famous "Cross of
Gold" oration. Darrow conceded "the facts of the case," that Scopes
had indeed violated the Butler Act -- but he also argued for the
scientific validity of evolution. Scopes was convicted and fined $100,
but the state supreme court later overturned the verdict on technical
grounds; meanwhile, the Butler Act remained on the books in Tennessee
until 1967.
But William Jennings Bryan, the consummate politician, also was
typical of the "amateur scientist" of the late nineteenth and early
twentieth century. He was a member of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science, but as described by Edward Davis in a review
of "Redeeming Culture: American Religion in an Age of Science (James
Gilbert, University of Chicago Press, 1997), was also "representative
of an older, less abstract, way of understanding scientific knowledge,
a common sense Baconianism that eschewed speculative hypotheses (such
as evolution) and saw both science and religion as ways of glorifying
God."
The paradigm exemplified by Bryan -- the practical, "amateur
scientist" who understood the scientific enterprise as a reaffirmation
of the sacred -- may be even less represented today within the
academic community than when John Scopes went to trial in Dayton,
Tennessee nearly three-quarters-of-a-century ago. Evolution, a core
tenet of modern life sciences such as biology, was not a major point
of contention even among professional academicians then. It reflected
the tension between the "common sense" position of the "amateur
scientists" and the more rigorously trained professionals. Davis
argues that "Bryan's 'greatest mistake' was to assume that this view
of science was still operative among professional scientists in the
1920s. Because it was still part of the popular conception of science,
however, his actions leading up to the Scopes trial 'revealed a fault
line between popular and professional science.'"
Today, the fault line appears between the scientific community
which increasingly doubts supernatural or religion-based explanations
of how the universe operates, and the wider popular culture which is
in the midst of both a fundamentalist revival, and a disturbing
popularity of new age and related pseudo science beliefs. One example
could be the recent article in Newsweek Magazine, which suggests a
convergence of scientific opinion and more traditional religious
doctrines. The agreement may exist more in the news rooms of popular
magazines, than in the libraries, labs and observatories where
scientists actually do their work.
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec (aka aka Yang's little poltregeist *****)
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.6 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: 12.5 million FEWER jobs than Clinton and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -2209 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
-----
"Now, did I want to go? Hell no."
-duke (duckgumbo32@cox.net), aka PedophilEarl J Weber, 63
year old mateless, heirless biological failure
of Afton Oaks Apartment, Baton Rouge, on why
a Neocon chickenhawk like him pussied out of
the Vietnam War.
Contact duke's priest and ask
him why duke loves to play
with little girls' nipples:
http://www.stpatrickbr.org/
Father Gerard "Jerry" Martin
Saint Patrick Catholic Church
12424 Brogdon Lane
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70816
.
|
|
| User: "Trace" |
|
| Title: Re: Study: Really Smart People Reject Christianity (The Journal Nature) |
12 Jan 2006 01:54:07 AM |
|
|
HAHA! You're right! The Bible says that it is easier for a camel to
pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven.
And, most of us would agree that in order to be rich, you generally
have to be intelligent.
So, if you reject God and his salvation plan, enjoy your life as much
as possible. This will be the only time youll be happy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Dawkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Study: Really Smart People Reject Christianity (The Journal Nature) |
12 Jan 2006 06:18:37 PM |
|
|
"Trace" <tracey12_12@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1137052447.288153.292390@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
HAHA! You're right! The Bible says that it is easier for a camel to
pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven.
And, most of us would agree that in order to be rich, you generally
have to be intelligent.
So, if you reject God and his salvation plan, enjoy your life as much
as possible. This will be the only time youll be happy.
Hmmm,I am an Airline Pilot and I embrace Christianity.
So do most of my fellow MD-80 captains.
Does that mean that we aren't smart?
~snicker~
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Study: Really Smart People Reject Christianity (The Journal Nature) |
13 Jan 2006 05:02:51 AM |
|
|
Richard Dawkins wrote:
"Trace" <tracey12_12@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1137052447.288153.292390@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
HAHA! You're right! The Bible says that it is easier for a camel to
pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven.
And, most of us would agree that in order to be rich, you generally
have to be intelligent.
So, if you reject God and his salvation plan, enjoy your life as much
as possible. This will be the only time youll be happy.
Hmmm,I am an Airline Pilot and I embrace Christianity.
So do most of my fellow MD-80 captains.
Does that mean that we aren't smart?
~snicker~
Wellllll, you drive the MD-80. I think that sez sumthin...
However, evidence is that religiosity is a function of the temporal
lobe of the brain. On PBS' NOVA, a couple of years ago, an epileptic
who was having "religious" experiences during seizures was put on
anti-seizure medications and the religious experiences stopped. He
stopped taking the medication in order to have the experiences again.
There was an article about this question of religion being an artifact
of the human brain in either SciAm or Discover. I think that's what
religious belief is. I can see several reason such a process would be
useful. Thank god, so to speak, I don't suffer from the delusion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Dawkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Study: Really Smart People Reject Christianity (The Journal Nature) |
13 Jan 2006 09:07:37 AM |
|
|
<liberalhere@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1137150171.496845.20660@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Richard Dawkins wrote:
"Trace" <tracey12_12@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1137052447.288153.292390@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
HAHA! You're right! The Bible says that it is easier for a camel to
pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven.
And, most of us would agree that in order to be rich, you generally
have to be intelligent.
So, if you reject God and his salvation plan, enjoy your life as much
as possible. This will be the only time youll be happy.
Hmmm,I am an Airline Pilot and I embrace Christianity.
So do most of my fellow MD-80 captains.
Does that mean that we aren't smart?
~snicker~
Wellllll, you drive the MD-80. I think that sez sumthin...
However, evidence is that religiosity is a function of the temporal
lobe of the brain. On PBS' NOVA, a couple of years ago, an epileptic
who was having "religious" experiences during seizures was put on
anti-seizure medications and the religious experiences stopped. He
stopped taking the medication in order to have the experiences again.
There was an article about this question of religion being an artifact
of the human brain in either SciAm or Discover. I think that's what
religious belief is. I can see several reason such a process would be
useful. Thank god, so to speak, I don't suffer from the delusion.
Your delusion is still grounded in a temporal fact.
Attempting to dismiss others religious miracles on the basis of one
obviously disillusioned individual shows the inherent weakness in your
argument.
You cannot dismiss out of hand verified miracles proven by the Vatican
scientists (All doctorates) as well of the millions of others in this world
including my own.
I have had a bonfire religious miracle in my life and guess what.....I take
a battery of psychological tests and physical tests every 6 months.
Your argument is weaker than the story that you've graced us with.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Study: Really Smart People Reject Christianity (The Journal Nature) |
13 Jan 2006 09:15:03 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 08:07:37 -0700, "Richard Dawkins"
<Dawkins@Hell.com> wrote:
Your delusion is still grounded in a temporal fact.
Attempting to dismiss others religious miracles on the basis of one
obviously disillusioned individual shows the inherent weakness in your
argument.
Look up Hume's maxim, idiot. Here's a clue: "That no testimony is
sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a
kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact,
which it endeavours to establish"
You cannot dismiss out of hand verified miracles proven by the Vatican
scientists (All doctorates) as well of the millions of others in this world
including my own.
What "verified miracles"?
I have had a bonfire religious miracle in my life and guess what.....I take
a battery of psychological tests and physical tests every 6 months.
You obviously need them.
Your argument is weaker than the story that you've graced us with.
Yet another lying theist. What a surprise.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Dawkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Study: Really Smart People Reject Christianity (The Journal Nature) |
13 Jan 2006 01:19:02 PM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:rngfs1pvfopltknvqcpeumab4vh9gabkfg@4ax.com...
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 08:07:37 -0700, "Richard Dawkins"
<Dawkins@Hell.com> wrote:
Your delusion is still grounded in a temporal fact.
Attempting to dismiss others religious miracles on the basis of one
obviously disillusioned individual shows the inherent weakness in your
argument.
Look up Hume's maxim, idiot. Here's a clue: "That no testimony is
sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a
kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact,
which it endeavours to establish"
You cannot dismiss out of hand verified miracles proven by the Vatican
scientists (All doctorates) as well of the millions of others in this
world
including my own.
What "verified miracles"?
I have had a bonfire religious miracle in my life and guess what.....I
take
a battery of psychological tests and physical tests every 6 months.
You obviously need them.
Yes,being a captain on the MD-80 is a daunting task.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Study: Really Smart People Reject Christianity (The Journal Nature) |
15 Jan 2006 02:42:07 PM |
|
|
Richard Dawkins wrote:
<liberalhere@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1137150171.496845.20660@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Richard Dawkins wrote:
"Trace" <tracey12_12@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1137052447.288153.292390@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
HAHA! You're right! The Bible says that it is easier for a camel to
pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven.
And, most of us would agree that in order to be rich, you generally
have to be intelligent.
So, if you reject God and his salvation plan, enjoy your life as much
as possible. This will be the only time youll be happy.
Hmmm,I am an Airline Pilot and I embrace Christianity.
So do most of my fellow MD-80 captains.
Does that mean that we aren't smart?
~snicker~
Wellllll, you drive the MD-80. I think that sez sumthin...
However, evidence is that religiosity is a function of the temporal
lobe of the brain. On PBS' NOVA, a couple of years ago, an epileptic
who was having "religious" experiences during seizures was put on
anti-seizure medications and the religious experiences stopped. He
stopped taking the medication in order to have the experiences again.
There was an article about this question of religion being an artifact
of the human brain in either SciAm or Discover. I think that's what
religious belief is. I can see several reason such a process would be
useful. Thank god, so to speak, I don't suffer from the delusion.
Your delusion is still grounded in a temporal fact.
Attempting to dismiss others religious miracles on the basis of one
obviously disillusioned individual shows the inherent weakness in your
argument.
Wrong. studies of numerous psychologically sound people support the
finding. Powerful magnets are positioned near the temporal lobe region
of the brain and pulsed. The magnetic field affects neural activity and
a sense of "presence" is created.
You cannot dismiss out of hand verified miracles proven by the Vatican
scientists
Sure I can, there are no such things as "verified miracles". If you
think there are, name one. Sudden recoveries from illness are not
miracles, they are simply cases of the immune system finally creating
the cells necessary to fight the disease.
Show me the case of someone missing a leg, and a crowd watched as a new
one suddenly grew in only ten minutes. Odd that miracles like that
never happen.
(All doctorates)
Sad to say scientists are some of the easiest to fool. I believe James
Randi has demonstrated how scientist are often fooled by simple sleight
of hand. As for Ph. D.'s reviewing "reports" of miracles, without
complete measurements of conditions (and verbal reportage means
measurements aren't possible) your "verfications" are simply opinions.
Einstein once called the concept of a starting point for the universe
an "abominable grasp of physics".
as well of the millions of others in this world
including my own.
I have had a bonfire religious miracle in my life and guess what.....I take
a battery of psychological tests and physical tests every 6 months.
You pass those tests only because there is bias that exempts certain
religious wackoism. Don't believe me? Tell your next tester that you
have become a satanist and invite him to your next black mass; or that
you're now an old testament Jew, having built an altar in your
backyard, you regularly sacrifice animals to Yahweh.
Your argument is weaker than the story that you've graced us with.
Yet infinitely stronger than yours. 'Tis a miracle.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dianelos Georgoudis" |
|
| Title: Re: Study: Really Smart People Reject Christianity (The Journal Nature) |
13 Jan 2006 06:46:43 AM |
|
|
That's nothing. Here is an experiment you can perform on your own
brain: Go into a completely dark room, close your eyes, and using your
index finger apply moderate pressure on your eyelids. You will see
light when in fact there is no such thing in the room. Which
conclusively proves that the experience of light is an artifact of the
human brain. I suppose blind people should thank god, so to speak, not
to suffer from this delusion.
Am I joking? Yes, but I have a point. Your argument is that the fact
that religious experiences can be induced in the brain by artificial
means (or by some malfunction) shows that there is nothing real out
there (namely God) that produces these religious experiences, right? By
the same measure the fact that the experience of light can be induced
in the brain by artificial means (or by some malfunction) shows that
there is nothing real out there (namely light) that produces this
experience. Do you see the fallacy in your argument?
The observation that God is not necessary for producing religious
experience says nothing about whether God is real or not. After all
light is not necessary either for producing the experience of light,
and even so light exists. And how do we know that light exists?
Basically because we directly experience it and because its presence
helps us understand a lot of other things we experience. Exactly how it
is with God too.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jericho" |
|
| Title: Re: Study: Really Smart People Reject Christianity (The Journal Nature) |
16 Jan 2006 04:50:09 PM |
|
|
The observation that God is not necessary for producing religious
experience says nothing about whether God is real or not.
The fact is nothing explains whether god it real or not and that is the
problem. Whereas I understand your logic as to how the previous poster
doesn't prove there is no god, although I believe the poster was
discussing the nature of belief not the existance of god, the fact is
nothing proves or disproves god, just like nothing proves or disproves
Santa Claus, fairies, gnomes, angels, unicorns, flying spaghetti
monsters, boogey men, or trolls (not the kind you see here).
For those of us wanting to live in reality, we need a little bit of
evidence, anything that can't be explained or disproved by natural
means. Anything. The problem is that there hasn't been anything for 2
millenia and more. We won't just 'believe' because other people told
us to (at any time in our life) and it seems that the people who do
believe without any kind of evidence are delusional.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Oh Look" |
|
| Title: Re: Study: Really Smart People Reject Christianity (The Journal Nature) |
16 Jan 2006 05:33:02 PM |
|
|
"Jericho" <wasteofcarbon@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1137451809.940850.255600@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
The observation that God is not necessary for producing religious
experience says nothing about whether God is real or not.
The fact is nothing explains whether god it real or not and that is the
problem. Whereas I understand your logic as to how the previous poster
doesn't prove there is no god, although I believe the poster was
discussing the nature of belief not the existance of god, the fact is
nothing proves or disproves god, just like nothing proves or disproves
Santa Claus, fairies, gnomes, angels, unicorns, flying spaghetti
monsters, boogey men, or trolls (not the kind you see here).
For those of us wanting to live in reality, we need a little bit of
evidence, anything that can't be explained or disproved by natural
means. Anything. The problem is that there hasn't been anything for 2
millenia and more. We won't just 'believe' because other people told
us to (at any time in our life) and it seems that the people who do
believe without any kind of evidence are delusional.
why do you conclude that "faith" is "delusion"?
given that you ( we ) are members of a particular system, and given that
every system contains within it assumptions that are unprovable ( Godel's
Theorem? ) perhaps one might conclude that those who "believe" their system
is the only system are "delusional"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jericho" |
|
| Title: Re: Study: Really Smart People Reject Christianity (The Journal Nature) |
18 Jan 2006 11:41:09 AM |
|
|
Misunderstanding: I didn't say that 'faith' was delusional, I said
people who believe without any kind of evidence are delusional. I can
have faith that it'll rain today, but it's backed up with the evidence
of what look like rain clouds. I can have faith that my son will grow
up to be a strong man based on my own history and understanding of
genetics.
Any belief that has some evidence that leads to the belief is logical.
Anyone can argue for or against your system because you have reasons
for it. Esoteric systems with no information or evidence to support
the system are built on clouds. Belief this these types of systems can
be considered 'delusional' (although I am NOT stating this as a fact,
only as an opinion).
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dianelos Georgoudis" |
|
| Title: Re: Study: Really Smart People Reject Christianity (The Journal Nature) |
28 Jan 2006 02:48:31 AM |
|
|
Jericho wrote:
I originally wrote:
The observation that God is not necessary for producing religious
experience says nothing about whether God is real or not.
The fact is nothing explains whether god it real or not and that is the
problem. Whereas I understand your logic as to how the previous poster
doesn't prove there is no god, although I believe the poster was
discussing the nature of belief not the existance of god, the fact is
nothing proves or disproves god, just like nothing proves or disproves
Santa Claus, fairies, gnomes, angels, unicorns, flying spaghetti
monsters, boogey men, or trolls (not the kind you see here).
For those of us wanting to live in reality, we need a little bit of
evidence, anything that can't be explained or disproved by natural
means. Anything. The problem is that there hasn't been anything for 2
millenia and more. We won't just 'believe' because other people told
us to (at any time in our life) and it seems that the people who do
believe without any kind of evidence are delusional.
I know what you mean but I would like to point out that we all live in
reality whether we want it or not :-) The question is to understand it
correctly.
I agree with your point that one needs some evidence before believing
in something. So evidence is necessary, but I would say that evidence
alone is not sufficient. After all people who believe in astrology can
give you tons of evidence. Now, evidence is some conscious experience,
right? One needs reasoning to make sense of that experience. And I
think that even reasoning alone is not sufficient, because reasoning
can and is often wrong. Right now I am reading a book written by a
scientist who claims that psi phenomena are real. The book is reasoned
in detail and is full of tables and statistical analyses. I think what
is needed even beyond reasoning is coherence. Empirically we find that
true pieces of knowledge interlock with each other tending to form an
unbroken and coherent web. It's here that the reasoning about psi
phenomena fails. And it is here that the reasoning about the theory of
evolution and of the big bang succeed.
I believe in God because, beyond my direct experience of her, I require
her to understand the whole of reality coherently. What is the
fundamental evidence I have? The momentous fact of my own
consciousness. Without God my own consciousness sticks out like a sore
thumb in my web of understanding. With God everything falls neatly into
place. So I have more confidence in the existence of God than, say, in
the existence of physical laws. After all physical laws are necessary
only for the coherence of my observations of natural phenomena, while
God is necessary for the coherence of the whole of reality, including
the very fact I am observing natural phenomena.
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Study: Really Smart People Reject Christianity (The Journal Nature) |
28 Jan 2006 11:07:01 AM |
|
|
On 28 Jan 2006 00:48:31 -0800, "Dianelos Georgoudis"
<dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote:
Jericho wrote:
I originally wrote:
The observation that God is not necessary for producing religious
experience says nothing about whether God is real or not.
The fact is nothing explains whether god it real or not and that is the
problem. Whereas I understand your logic as to how the previous poster
doesn't prove there is no god, although I believe the poster was
discussing the nature of belief not the existance of god, the fact is
nothing proves or disproves god, just like nothing proves or disproves
Santa Claus, fairies, gnomes, angels, unicorns, flying spaghetti
monsters, boogey men, or trolls (not the kind you see here).
For those of us wanting to live in reality, we need a little bit of
evidence, anything that can't be explained or disproved by natural
means. Anything. The problem is that there hasn't been anything for 2
millenia and more. We won't just 'believe' because other people told
us to (at any time in our life) and it seems that the people who do
believe without any kind of evidence are delusional.
I know what you mean but I would like to point out that we all live in
reality whether we want it or not :-) The question is to understand it
correctly.
I agree with your point that one needs some evidence before believing
in something. So evidence is necessary, but I would say that evidence
alone is not sufficient. After all people who believe in astrology can
give you tons of evidence. Now, evidence is some conscious experience,
right?
Wrong, evidence is something objective that can be presented to others
and tested by them.
snip of argument completely depending on equivocating over the word
"evidence".
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "mmntu" |
|
| Title: Re: Study: Really Smart People Reject Christianity (The Journal Nature) |
28 Jan 2006 11:17:12 AM |
|
|
A good program talking about zionism and how it affected christians:
http://www.iamthewitness.com/DarylBradfordSmithInterviews_Chris.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Gods Creator" |
|
| Title: Re: Study: Really Smart People Reject Christianity (The Journal Nature) |
28 Jan 2006 11:44:27 AM |
|
|
thomas p wrote:
On 28 Jan 2006 00:48:31 -0800, "Dianelos Georgoudis"
<dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote:
Jericho wrote:
I originally wrote:
The observation that God is not necessary for producing religious
experience says nothing about whether God is real or not.
......
....
Wrong, evidence is something objective that can be presented to others
and tested by them.
snip of argument completely depending on equivocating over the word
"evidence".
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
*Thus spake God's Creator*
*Evidence* is something that is accepted in a court of law,
that is the litmus test that is used world-wide. (For centuries).
God's Creator!
( *Sorry, I don't forgive ****** )
:-)
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Psstt.... Hey! ---> USED GODS SALE! : http://www.godchecker.com/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Todays U.S. Holy Wars News:
http://www.antiwar.com
http://icasualties.org/oif/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dianelos Georgoudis" |
|
| Title: Re: Study: Really Smart People Reject Christianity (The Journal Nature) |
29 Jan 2006 04:34:54 AM |
|
|
The God's Creator wrote:
thomas p wrote:
On 28 Jan 2006 00:48:31 -0800, "Dianelos Georgoudis"
<dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote:
Jericho wrote:
I originally wrote:
The observation that God is not necessary for producing religious
experience says nothing about whether God is real or not.
.....
...
Wrong, evidence is something objective that can be presented to others
and tested by them.
snip of argument completely depending on equivocating over the word
"evidence".
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
*Thus spake God's Creator*
*Evidence* is something that is accepted in a court of law,
that is the litmus test that is used world-wide. (For centuries).
Correct. What we are discussing (and Thomas so generously snipped away)
is my claim that all evidence is based on conscious experience. Do you
know of any cases where unconscious witnesses were accepted at a court
of law? You may say that a photograph may be accepted as evidence, but
then it is only accepted if there is something visible on it, right?
And how does the court ascertain that there is something visible on it?
By having somebody conscious have a look, that's how. So, again, all
evidence is based on conscious experience. That's a simple fact which I
think is indisputable in debate based on reason. If somebody should
claim that she knows of evidence without the benefit of conscious
experience it's tantamount to claiming paranormal powers such as ESP.
I like freethinkers because they fearlessly follow their thought
wherever they may lead. But free thought is not sufficient.
Superstitious people think freely too. What is also needed is sound
thought. And sound thought requires one's study of the meaning of the
concepts one is using. Atheists who so often use the concepts of
"evidence", "existence" and "God" should first carefully think about
what these concepts mean.
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Study: Really Smart People Reject Christianity (The Journal Nature) |
29 Jan 2006 09:30:30 AM |
|
|
On 29 Jan 2006 02:34:54 -0800, "Dianelos Georgoudis"
<dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote:
The God's Creator wrote:
thomas p wrote:
On 28 Jan 2006 00:48:31 -0800, "Dianelos Georgoudis"
<dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote:
Jericho wrote:
I originally wrote:
The observation that God is not necessary for producing religious
experience says nothing about whether God is real or not.
.....
...
Wrong, evidence is something objective that can be presented to others
and tested by them.
snip of argument completely depending on equivocating over the word
"evidence".
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
*Thus spake God's Creator*
*Evidence* is something that is accepted in a court of law,
that is the litmus test that is used world-wide. (For centuries).
Correct. What we are discussing (and Thomas so generously snipped away)
is my claim that all evidence is based on conscious experience. Do you
know of any cases where unconscious witnesses were accepted at a court
of law?
Can you point at anything that I wrote that makes such an absurd
claim?
You may say that a photograph may be accepted as evidence, but
then it is only accepted if there is something visible on it, right?
And how does the court ascertain that there is something visible on it?
By having somebody conscious have a look, that's how. So, again, all
evidence is based on conscious experience. That's a simple fact which I
think is indisputable in debate based on reason. If somebody should
claim that she knows of evidence without the benefit of conscious
experience it's tantamount to claiming paranormal powers such as ESP.
I like freethinkers because they fearlessly follow their thought
wherever they may lead. But free thought is not sufficient.
Superstitious people think freely too. What is also needed is sound
thought. And sound thought requires one's study of the meaning of the
concepts one is using. Atheists who so often use the concepts of
"evidence", "existence" and "God" should first carefully think about
what these concepts mean.
Let's try again. I will assume that your misrepresentation of what I
said was the result of a misunderstanding. I was referring to
objective evidence, evidence that can be presented to others and
tested/confirmed by them (actually I said that specifically) You
mentioned, for example, that Astrologers have lots of evidence for
Astrology. I do not think they do, nor have I ever been presented
with any objective evidence for the existence of any god. Furthermore
what is accepted in a court of law is not always the same as
objective evidence.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dianelos Georgoudis" |
|
| Title: Re: Study: Really Smart People Reject Christianity (The Journal Nature) |
30 Jan 2006 03:04:02 AM |
|
|
thomas p wrote:
On 29 Jan 2006 02:34:54 -0800, "Dianelos Georgoudis"
<dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote:
The God's Creator wrote:
thomas p wrote:
On 28 Jan 2006 00:48:31 -0800, "Dianelos Georgoudis"
<dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote:
Jericho wrote:
I originally wrote:
The observation that God is not necessary for producing religious
experience says nothing about whether God is real or not.
.....
...
Wrong, evidence is something objective that can be presented to others
and tested by them.
snip of argument completely depending on equivocating over the word
"evidence".
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
*Thus spake God's Creator*
*Evidence* is something that is accepted in a court of law,
that is the litmus test that is used world-wide. (For centuries).
Correct. What we are discussing (and Thomas so generously snipped away)
is my claim that all evidence is based on conscious experience. Do you
know of any cases where unconscious witnesses were accepted at a court
of law?
Can you point at anything that I wrote that makes such an absurd
claim?
You may say that a photograph may be accepted as evidence, but
then it is only accepted if there is something visible on it, right?
And how does the court ascertain that there is something visible on it?
By having somebody conscious have a look, that's how. So, again, all
evidence is based on conscious experience. That's a simple fact which I
think is indisputable in debate based on reason. If somebody should
claim that she knows of evidence without the benefit of conscious
experience it's tantamount to claiming paranormal powers such as ESP.
I like freethinkers because they fearlessly follow their thought
wherever they may lead. But free thought is not sufficient.
Superstitious people think freely too. What is also needed is sound
thought. And sound thought requires one's study of the meaning of the
concepts one is using. Atheists who so often use the concepts of
"evidence", "existence" and "God" should first carefully think about
what these concepts mean.
Let's try again. I will assume that your misrepresentation of what I
said was the result of a misunderstanding. I was referring to
objective evidence, evidence that can be presented to others and
tested/confirmed by them (actually I said that specifically) You
mentioned, for example, that Astrologers have lots of evidence for
Astrology. I do not think they do, nor have I ever been presented
with any objective evidence for the existence of any god. Furthermore
what is accepted in a court of law is not always the same as
objective evidence.
OK. Several comments.
I did not claim that astrologers have lots of objective evidence, just
that they have lots of evidence. Astrology is possible the most popular
belief there is, and people believe in it because of the evidence they
find: they find that events in their personal life do happen as
astrologers predict. You will claim that they don't have objective
evidence, but how would you know that? You would first have to study
the evidence they do have and *reason* that it's not objective.
Evidence does not come with a small label attached that says whether
it's objective or not. You need to reason about evidence to find out
whether it is dependable or not.
We all believe in lots of stuff without really having objective
evidence the way you define it above (testable etc). For example I
assume you believe that Lincoln was murdered and did not, say, commit
suicide in Ford's theater. What *objective* evidence do you have for
that? A better example: You probably believe that the physical universe
started with a cataclysmic event called the big bang some 15 billion
years ago. What objective evidence do you have that? There is plenty of
evidence of course, but that evidence is worth nothing without
reasoning about it. In fact one needs a lot of reasoning to come to the
conclusion that the big bang happened.
So I would like to point out that your view and mine are not really in
opposition. I too agree that evidence is necessary, but I point out
that evidence alone is not sufficient: we need to reason about the
evidence we have before concluding something we feel confident to
believe in.
I even go a step further. Reason alone is not sufficient. We expect any
conclusion (even when based on reason and evidence) to fit well with
the background web of interlocking conclusions we hold to be true -
because we expect reality to be coherent. Why do you think scientists
do not find it worthwhile to investigate PSI phenomena? There is
evidence you would probably accept as objective (see the "ganzfeld
experiments"). There is even some body of reasoning and analysis of
other evidence (such as casino statistics). If PSI were real it would
be phenomenal. Why then aren't serious scientists is studying it? I
don't think it's because it threatens the status quo as PSI defenders
claim. I think it's because the PSI claims would invalidate the deep
coherence or our model of how physical reality works, and nobody
suspects that physical reality may not be coherent. So the PSI claims
are considered dead at arrival, as I think they pretty much should -
even though to be quite honest I wouldn't mind somebody having a
second look at ganzfeld to definitely clear it up.
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Study: Really Smart People Reject Christianity (The Journal Nature) |
31 Jan 2006 05:22:17 AM |
|
|
On 30 Jan 2006 01:04:02 -0800, "Dianelos Georgoudis"
<dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote:
thomas p wrote:
On 29 Jan 2006 02:34:54 -0800, "Dianelos Georgoudis"
<dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote:
The God's Creator wrote:
thomas p wrote:
On 28 Jan 2006 00:48:31 -0800, "Dianelos Georgoudis"
<dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote:
Jericho wrote:
I originally wrote:
The observation that God is not necessary for producing religious
experience says nothing about whether God is real or not.
.....
...
Wrong, evidence is something objective that can be presented to others
and tested by them.
snip of argument completely depending on equivocating over the word
"evidence".
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
*Thus spake God's Creator*
*Evidence* is something that is accepted in a court of law,
that is the litmus test that is used world-wide. (For centuries).
Correct. What we are discussing (and Thomas so generously snipped away)
is my claim that all evidence is based on conscious experience. Do you
know of any cases where unconscious witnesses were accepted at a court
of law?
Can you point at anything that I wrote that makes such an absurd
claim?
You may say that a photograph may be accepted as evidence, but
then it is only accepted if there is something visible on it, right?
And how does the court ascertain that there is something visible on it?
By having somebody conscious have a look, that's how. So, again, all
evidence is based on conscious experience. That's a simple fact which I
think is indisputable in debate based on reason. If somebody should
claim that she knows of evidence without the benefit of conscious
experience it's tantamount to claiming paranormal powers such as ESP.
I like freethinkers because they fearlessly follow their thought
wherever they may lead. But free thought is not sufficient.
Superstitious people think freely too. What is also needed is sound
thought. And sound thought requires one's study of the meaning of the
concepts one is using. Atheists who so often use the concepts of
"evidence", "existence" and "God" should first carefully think about
what these concepts mean.
Let's try again. I will assume that your misrepresentation of what I
said was the result of a misunderstanding. I was referring to
objective evidence, evidence that can be presented to others and
tested/confirmed by them (actually I said that specifically) You
mentioned, for example, that Astrologers have lots of evidence for
Astrology. I do not think they do, nor have I ever been presented
with any objective evidence for the existence of any god. Furthermore
what is accepted in a court of law is not always the same as
objective evidence.
OK. Several comments.
I did not claim that astrologers have lots of objective evidence, just
that they have lots of evidence. Astrology is possible the most popular
belief there is, and people believe in it because of the evidence they
find: they find that events in their personal life do happen as
astrologers predict. You will claim that they don't have objective
evidence, but how would you know that?
Where are the peer-reviewed studies that demonstrate its reliability?
It would need a lot, since its basic assumptions contradict what we
know about the universe today. The objective evidence that does exist
(it is unable to make reliable predictions) indicates that it is
wrong.
You would first have to study
the evidence they do have
They have none to study, and they are unable to make reliable
predictions.
and *reason* that it's not objective.
Evidence does not come with a small label attached that says whether
it's objective or not. You need to reason about evidence to find out
whether it is dependable or not.
That has been done with Astrology. Clearly it is not dependable.
We all believe in lots of stuff without really having objective
evidence the way you define it above (testable etc). For example I
assume you believe that Lincoln was murdered and did not, say, commit
suicide in Ford's theater. What *objective* evidence do you have for
that?
The judicial investigation that took place after the assassination
including medical examinations and the testimony of witnesses that
were in the theatre (not, by the way, witnesses who were claimed to
exist, but actual witnesses with their names and places of residence).
A better example: You probably believe that the physical universe
started with a cataclysmic event called the big bang some 15 billion
years ago. What objective evidence do you have that? There is plenty of
evidence of course, but that evidence is worth nothing without
reasoning about it. In fact one needs a lot of reasoning to come to the
conclusion that the big bang happened.
There is quite a bit of objective evidence for the big bang. It is
not something scientists came up with because they thought it sounded
neat. Of course it had to be reasoned about; I do not understand why
you keep repeating the obvious.
So I would like to point out that your view and mine are not really in
opposition. I too agree that evidence is necessary, but I point out
that evidence alone is not sufficient: we need to reason about the
evidence we have before concluding something we feel confident to
believe in.
Of course we do, and nobody said anything else - at least I never did.
Part of that reasoning includes finding ways to falsify the idea.
I even go a step further. Reason alone is not sufficient. We expect any
conclusion (even when based on reason and evidence) to fit well with
the background web of interlocking conclusions we hold to be true -
because we expect reality to be coherent. Why do you think scientists
do not find it worthwhile to investigate PSI phenomena?
Why do you think they have not investigated it? There have been a
great number of investigations, and many others have tested the
results of those examinations. It was not accepted because of the
results of those investigations and those tests.
There is
evidence you would probably accept as objective (see the "ganzfeld
experiments"). There is even some body of reasoning and analysis of
other evidence (such as casino statistics). If PSI were real it would
be phenomenal. Why then aren't serious scientists is studying it?
See above.
I
don't think it's because it threatens the status quo as PSI defenders
claim. I think it's because the PSI claims would invalidate the deep
coherence or our model of how physical reality works, and nobody
suspects that physical reality may not be coherent. So the PSI claims
are considered dead at arrival, as I think they pretty much should -
even though to be quite honest I wouldn't mind somebody having a
second look at ganzfeld to definitely clear it up.
You are completely wrong. The claims were tested, and they were
tested many times. They failed.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris H. Fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: Study: Really Smart People Reject Christianity (The Journal Nature) |
13 Jan 2006 08:49:18 AM |
|
|
Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
That's nothing. Here is an experiment you can perform on your own
brain: Go into a completely dark room, close your eyes, and using your
index finger apply moderate pressure on your eyelids. You will see
light when in fact there is no such thing in the room. Which
conclusively proves that the experience of light is an artifact of the
human brain. I suppose blind people should thank god, so to speak, not
to suffer from this delusion.
Am I joking? Yes, but I have a point. Your argument is that the fact
that religious experiences can be induced in the brain by artificial
means (or by some malfunction) shows that there is nothing real out
there (namely God) that produces these religious experiences, right? By
the same measure the fact that the experience of light can be induced
in the brain by artificial means (or by some malfunction) shows that
there is nothing real out there (namely light) that produces this
experience. Do you see the fallacy in your argument?
The observation that God is not necessary for producing religious
experience says nothing about whether God is real or not. After all
light is not necessary either for producing the experience of light,
and even so light exists. And how do we know that light exists?
Basically because we directly experience it and because its presence
helps us understand a lot of other things we experience. Exactly how it
is with God too.
I see your point, but what are the other evidences? A blind man can
still detect light via instrument. And the light theory explains
various phenomena and is an integral part of electrodynamics and
relativity. We don't need eyes to know light.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Study: Really Smart People Reject Christianity (The Journal Nature) |
13 Jan 2006 08:59:02 AM |
|
|
On 13 Jan 2006 04:46:43 -0800, "Dianelos Georgoudis"
<dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote:
That's nothing. Here is an experiment you can perform on your own
brain: Go into a completely dark room, close your eyes, and using your
index finger apply moderate pressure on your eyelids. You will see
light when in fact there is no such thing in the room. Which
conclusively proves that the experience of light is an artifact of the
human brain. I suppose blind people should thank god, so to speak, not
to suffer from this delusion.
Am I joking? Yes, but I have a point. Your argument is that the fact
that religious experiences can be induced in the brain by artificial
means (or by some malfunction) shows that there is nothing real out
there (namely God) that produces these religious experiences, right? By
the same measure the fact that the experience of light can be induced
in the brain by artificial means (or by some malfunction) shows that
there is nothing real out there (namely light) that produces this
experience. Do you see the fallacy in your argument?
The observation that God is not necessary for producing religious
experience says nothing about whether God is real or not. After all
light is not necessary either for producing the experience of light,
and even so light exists. And how do we know that light exists?
Basically because we directly experience it and because its presence
helps us understand a lot of other things we experience. Exactly how it
is with God too.
It's not light we want lamo - it's the knowledge that accurately
processing it gives about our environment.
Knowledge about God is not produced in those attacks, any more than
knowledge about your environment is produced by your fingers in your
eyes.
You can't see the forest for the tree in front of your face.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Study: Really Smart People Reject Christianity (The Journal Nature) |
12 Jan 2006 02:01:58 AM |
|
|
"Trace" <tracey12_12@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1137052447.288153.292390@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
HAHA! You're right! The Bible says that it is easier for a camel to
pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven.
And, most of us would agree that in order to be rich, you generally
have to be intelligent.
So, if you reject God and his salvation plan, enjoy your life as much
as possible. This will be the only time youll be happy.
Ah, I guess now we know what Jesus would do.
He'd gloat.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yang, AthD h.c, Kicking AWOLs Cocaine Snorting Ass" |
|
| Title: Re: Study: Really Smart People Reject Christianity (The Journal Nature) |
12 Jan 2006 02:08:46 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 02:01:58 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
"Trace" <tracey12_12@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1137052447.288153.292390@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
HAHA! You're right! The Bible says that it is easier for a camel to
pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven.
And, most of us would agree that in order to be rich, you generally
have to be intelligent.
So, if you reject God and his salvation plan, enjoy your life as much
as possible. This will be the only time youll be happy.
Ah, I guess now we know what Jesus would do.
He'd gloat.
Then burn the GOP in Hell, not because they are traitors, but because
they are wealthy (you know, eye of an needle and all)
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec (aka aka Yang's little poltregeist *****)
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.6 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: 12.5 million FEWER jobs than Clinton and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -2209 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
-----
"Now, did I want to go? Hell no."
-duke (duckgumbo32@cox.net), aka PedophilEarl J Weber, 63
year old mateless, heirless biological failure
of Afton Oaks Apartment, Baton Rouge, on why
a Neocon chickenhawk like him pussied out of
the Vietnam War.
Contact duke's priest and ask
him why duke loves to play
with little girls' nipples:
http://www.stpatrickbr.org/
Father Gerard "Jerry" Martin
Saint Patrick Catholic Church
12424 Brogdon Lane
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70816
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Study: Really Smart People Reject Christianity (The Journal Nature) |
12 Jan 2006 04:17:27 AM |
|
|
"Trace" <tracey12_12@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1137052447.288153.292390@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
HAHA! You're right! The Bible says that it is easier for a camel to
pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven.
And, most of us would agree that in order to be rich, you generally
have to be intelligent.
So, if you reject God and his salvation plan, enjoy your life as much
as possible. This will be the only time youll be happy.
Nice gloating. How sadly typical :P
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
| User: "Oh Look" |
|
| Title: Re: Study: Really Smart People Reject Christianity (The Journal Nature) |
18 Jan 2006 08:52:56 AM |
|
|
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:42mollF1ipc7eU1@individual.net...
"Trace" <tracey12_12@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1137052447.288153.292390@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
HAHA! You're right! The Bible says that it is easier for a camel to
pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven.
And, most of us would agree that in order to be rich, you generally
have to be intelligent.
So, if you reject God and his salvation plan, enjoy your life as much
as possible. This will be the only time youll be happy.
Nice gloating. How sadly typical :P
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
no but athiests condemn opponents to gulags, steal their land, toture,
destroy, wage war with the best of them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Study: Really Smart People Reject Christianity (The Journal Nature) |
18 Jan 2006 11:15:58 AM |
|
|
"Oh Look" <OhLook@LookAndSee.com> wrote in message
news:UPmdndWaJZbXy1PenZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:42mollF1ipc7eU1@individual.net...
"Trace" <tracey12_12@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1137052447.288153.292390@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
HAHA! You're right! The Bible says that it is easier for a camel to
pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven.
And, most of us would agree that in order to be rich, you generally
have to be intelligent.
So, if you reject God and his salvation plan, enjoy your life as much
as possible. This will be the only time youll be happy.
Nice gloating. How sadly typical :P
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
no but athiests condemn opponents to gulags, steal their land, toture,
destroy, wage war with the best of them.
That's nice dear, now prove it.
Or were you actually babbling about Communist Russia?
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jericho" |
|
| Title: Re: Study: Really Smart People Reject Christianity (The Journal Nature) |
12 Jan 2006 04:05:42 PM |
|
|
Are you saying that Paris Hilton is a genius? I haven't heard that she
rejected god but you have to agree, she's certainly enjoying herself
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Study: Really Smart People Reject Christianity (The Journal Nature) |
12 Jan 2006 03:55:44 PM |
|
|
On 11 Jan 2006 23:54:07 -0800, "Trace" <tracey12_12@yahoo.com> wrote in
alt.atheism
HAHA! You're right! The Bible says that it is easier for a camel to
pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven.
It also says 'bats are birds.'
And, most of us would agree that in order to be rich, you generally
have to be intelligent.
The Vatican demonstrates the opposite
So, if you reject God and his salvation plan, enjoy your life as much
as possible. This will be the only time youll be happy.
Poor brainless fuckwit with his 'monster under the bed' threats.
[yawn] Run along toddler and leave the adults be.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a cornucopia of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Oh Look" |
|
| Title: Re: Study: Really Smart People Reject Christianity (The Journal Nature) |
18 Jan 2006 08:56:11 AM |
|
|
"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:i0kds1dr2p940k1fjnjq3pcbs6ins19eg9@4ax.com...
On 11 Jan 2006 23:54:07 -0800, "Trace" <tracey12_12@yahoo.com> wrote in
alt.atheism
HAHA! You're right! The Bible says that it is easier for a camel to
pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven.
It also says 'bats are birds.'
And, most of us would agree that in order to be rich, you generally
have to be intelligent.
The Vatican demonstrates the opposite
wealth accumulated over centuries by people who were most likely a hell of a
lot more intelligent than you give credit for.
do you have any comment about the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Greek, all
of whom accumulated some measure of wealth? All of whom had religious
beliefs most would agree are ludicrous on the face of it?
So, if you reject God and his salvation plan, enjoy your life as much
as possible. This will be the only time youll be happy.
Poor brainless fuckwit with his 'monster under the bed' threats.
[yawn] Run along toddler and leave the adults be.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a cornucopia of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Study: Really Smart People Reject Christianity (The Journal Nature) |
18 Jan 2006 11:17:37 AM |
|
|
"Oh Look" <OhLook@LookAndSee.com> wrote in message
news:FL6dnT_spY-QylPenZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@comcast.com...
snip
wealth accumulated over centuries by people who were most likely a hell of
a lot more intelligent than you give credit for.
And that's really what it's all about, isn't it. Money. The Catholic
church is the biggest cash cow around. Having to pay out settlements to
those molested by their priests really hits them where they live.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
