[RyanT]

(Original post by najinaji)
Your debating skills leave much to be desired.

Also, all I said was that believing in something without any evidence is, by the very definition, unintelligent. And preferably, I would like to live in a world where most people are reasonably intelligent. I know that that is not the case now (and may not be the case for some time, or perhaps ever), but I think that religion holds a lot of people back who may otherwise have had the ability to think freely.

Sorry, I don't have much sympathy with religious individuals but you're wrong here.

Faith is emotionally driven, they want to believe in something. By the usage of the word faith, they are explicity recognising that it cannot be scientifically proven which puts them a few IQ points ahead of you, given that you can't even appreciate that nuance. Belief isn't an intellectual decision, it is driven by emotions and that is why this entire thread is a waste of bytes.

[saachi]

(Original post by najinaji)
Your debating skills leave much to be desired.

Also, all I said was that believing in something without any evidence is, by the very definition, unintelligent. And preferably, I would like to live in a world where most people are reasonably intelligent. I know that that is not the case now (and may not be the case for some time, or perhaps ever), but I think that religion holds a lot of people back who may otherwise have had the ability to think freely.

Sorry to butt in here, but I don't agree with that The human scope of observation is so limited that not having evidence for something is no reason for someone to not believe in it. I'm not talking about extremely absurd/ bizarre things like superstitions or literal, Biblical concepts of heaven and hell, but... Four or five centuries ago, someone who believed that humans could someday fly over oceans in machines would have been called unintelligent, but we made it happen, and that phenomenon was called air travel

For example, I believe in aliens, even Stephen Hawking believes in aliens but we don't have evidence of their existence- does that make Stephen Hawking unintelligent?

[najinaji]

(Original post by RyanT)
Sorry, I don't have much sympathy with religious individuals but you're wrong here.

Faith is emotionally driven, they want to believe in something. By the usage of the word faith, they are explicity recognising that it cannot be scientifically proven which puts them a few IQ points ahead of you, given that you can't even appreciate that nuance. Belief isn't an intellectual decision, it is driven by emotions and that is why this entire thread is a waste of bytes.

I've never met a pragmatically religious person in my life. I'm sure that some exist, but they are definitely the minority. Most religious people do assert that their faith, despite being based on literally no evidence at all, is undeniably true, including (in many cases) beliefs on general science and how homosexuals should be treated by society.

I'm simply saying that thinking in that way is not an intelligent way to think.

EDIT:

(Original post by saachi)
Four or five centuries ago, someone who believed that humans could someday fly over oceans in machines would have been called unintelligent, but we made it happen, and that phenomenon was called air travel

That's a different matter. People now predict that at some point in the future, we could medically repair ourselves using nanobots. However, they do not say 'this is definitely true'. They say 'this could happen'. People in the past who had the idea for the idea of humans flying, and indeed those who helped to develop our capability to do that, did not say 'this will definitely work'. No scientist says 'this will definitely work', or 'this is definitely true'. They say 'it might work' or 'this is likely'.

They also had to make countless observations and prototypes and models and so on before flying was possible. This is the scientific method, not a faith-based one.

For example, I believe in aliens, even Stephen Hawking believes in aliens but we don't have evidence of their existence- does that make Stephen Hawking unintelligent?

If you or Prof. Hawking were to say 'there are, without doubt, aliens', then that would be unintelligent. Saying 'it is likely that there are aliens' or 'there may be aliens' is not.

[Bailey8]

(Original post by najinaji)
Believing in something wholeheartedly despite there being literally no proof of it isn't exactly intelligent.

Thats why Charles Darwin with an IQ of 135, rejected his theory of evolution on his death bed in favour of christianity. There are many intelligent people and also very talented people who believe wholeheartedly in god such as messi and kaka in football, or mel gibson, tom hanks etc. None of these people lack intelliegence, rather those who make such sweeping statements lack intelligence.

[Polka Dot]

(Original post by najinaji)
Your debating skills leave much to be desired.

Also, all I said was that believing in something without any evidence is, by the very definition, unintelligent. And preferably, I would like to live in a world where most people are reasonably intelligent. I know that that is not the case now (and may not be the case for some time, or perhaps ever), but I think that religion holds a lot of people back who may otherwise have had the ability to think freely.

Since you believe religious people to be unintelligent you would support the view that

Sir Issac Newton, Carl Linnaeus, James Clerk Maxwell, Gregor mendel as well as a host of other Scientists where all unintelligent?

[Dirac Delta Function]

(Original post by thomaskurian89)
A recent Gallup poll shows that 46% of Americans believe that God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years.

So, if 46% of Americans lack common sense, how did the US come to be so powerful?

Countries become powerful due to the actions of only a small proportion of the population: the scientists and innovators, the entrepreneurs the leaders.

Deep religious belief probably helps the individual soldier, gives him a purpose for sacrifice and promise of eternal bliss.

[Helloworld_95]

(Original post by Bailey8)
Thats why Charles Darwin with an IQ of 135, rejected his theory of evolution on his death bed in favour of christianity. There are many intelligent people and also very talented people who believe wholeheartedly in god such as messi and kaka in football, or mel gibson, tom hanks etc. None of these people lack intelliegence, rather those who make such sweeping statements lack intelligence.

(Original post by Polka Dot)
Since you believe religious people to be unintelligent you would support the view that

Sir Issac Newton, Carl Linnaeus, James Clerk Maxwell, Gregor mendel as well as a host of other Scientists where all all unintelligent?

These are hardly good examples when at the times they lived you would be killed due to being a non-believer, not to mention the lack of knowledge compared to today.

Also Mel Gibson is an anti-Semite and Tom Hanks a scientologist so they aren't particularly good examples.

[najinaji]

(Original post by Bailey8)
Thats why Charles Darwin with an IQ of 135, rejected his theory of evolution on his death bed in favour of christianity.

That tale is based on one sole account, and has been said to be untrue by others. It is not a solid fact.

There are many intelligent people and also very talented people who believe wholeheartedly in god such as messi and kaka in football, or mel gibson, tom hanks etc. None of these people lack intelliegence, rather those who make such sweeping statements lack intelligence.

I simply said that being religious is unintelligent. You can, of course, be intelligent in other ways.

(Original post by Polka Dot)
Since you believe religious people to be unintelligent you would support the view that

Sir Issac Newton, Carl Linnaeus, James Clerk Maxwell, Gregor mendel as well as a host of other Scientists where all all unintelligent?

No. See above. That would be a bit like condemning the North Koreans for supporting the regime. How could they possibly know any better?

[james22]

(Original post by kj14)
How has believing in God , got anything to do with lacking intelligence , well the only thing you have proved here is your stupid. GROW UP , religious ppl are no different from non religious ppl... but look there are different types of bags in this world , red ones , ones with loads of zips, shiny ones , but hell you are a "DOUCHE"
bag

Believing in God has little, if anything, to do with inteligence. Believing that humans were created by God 10,000 years ago makes you at best ignorant.

[lightburns]

(Original post by saachi)
Sorry to butt in here, but I don't agree with that The human scope of observation is so limited that not having evidence for something is no reason for someone to not believe in it. I'm not talking about extremely absurd/ bizarre things like superstitions or literal, Biblical concepts of heaven and hell, but... Four or five centuries ago, someone who believed that humans could someday fly over oceans in machines would have been called unintelligent, but we made it happen, and that phenomenon was called air travel

For example, I believe in aliens, even Stephen Hawking believes in aliens but we don't have evidence of their existence- does that make Stephen Hawking unintelligent?

Why do you believe in aliens? Because there is good reason to believe in aliens. They may not exist, and we have no direct evidence. However, we know that it is very possible for life to develop and maintain itself (see the earth), and we know that there are many planets and many earth-like planets. A massive number of things with the same conditions mean that the same effects should arise. Ergo... aliens probably exist.

Religion is not the same reasoning process. There is no argument for the existence of God that has been unrefuted. There are many specific deities that are logically inconsistent and therefore impossible. There are a huge number of mutually exclusive deities that are believed in, suggesting that people are believing in them for the wrong reasons.
We both believe in aliens (probably, not certainly). Not that alpha centuri is inhabited by small furry creatures. Most theists believe in very specific deities.
Even theists who don't follow particular religions have zero reason to believe in their deities. Except that it feels right, which isn't a valid reason.

(Original post by RyanT)
Sorry, I don't have much sympathy with religious individuals but you're wrong here.

Faith is emotionally driven, they want to believe in something. By the usage of the word faith, they are explicity recognising that it cannot be scientifically proven which puts them a few IQ points ahead of you, given that you can't even appreciate that nuance. Belief isn't an intellectual decision, it is driven by emotions and that is why this entire thread is a waste of bytes.

Statements about the object state of the world can't be made from emotions. I can be emotionally driven to feel that Elvis is still alive, because I feel such a connection, but it's hardly logical.

But hey, you've got it right yourself. "Belief isn't an intellectual decision". Yup. It's the illogical decision, but if people want to believe it, fair dos to them.

[Agenda Suicide]

(Original post by Bailey8)
Thats why Charles Darwin with an IQ of 135, rejected his theory of evolution on his death bed in favour of christianity. There are many intelligent people and also very talented people who believe wholeheartedly in god such as messi and kaka in football, or mel gibson, tom hanks etc. None of these people lack intelliegence, rather those who make such sweeping statements lack intelligence.

It was claimed by a sole account, which has since, been criticised...


From Darwin's son: "Lady Hope's account of my father's views on religion is quite untrue. I have publicly accused her of falsehood, but have not seen any reply." [17]
From Darwin's daughter: "I was present at his deathbed. Lady Hope was not present during his last illness, or any illness. I believe he never even saw her, but in any case she had no influence over him in any department of thought or belief. He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier. We think the story of his conversion was fabricated in the U.S.A. The whole story has no foundation whatever.

[Sagacious]

(Original post by james22)
Believing in God has little, if anything, to do with inteligence. Believing that humans were created by God 10,000 years ago makes you at best ignorant.

The definition of intelligence 'Showing sound judgment and rationality', hence making judgements on logic and reason, not belief. Thus, allows one to say a creationist lacks intelligence.

[FrogInABog]

Surely the most obvious counter-argument would be that nearly all of the most powerful countries in history were strongly religious?

The British Empire, for example, was headed by a religious country who sent missionaries all over the world. It also spanned nearly a third of the globe.

Religion didn't stop Britain, so why should it stop the USA?

[lecom40]

If God is for you, who can be against you?

[Polka Dot]

(Original post by najinaji)
No. See above. That would be a bit like condemning the North Koreans for supporting the regime. How could they possibly know any better?

Atheism and evolution is nothing new and it existed in the time of the scientists I mentioned yet they still rejected it.

Newton was well aware of evolutionary thinking in his day, and this is evident from what he says in the third book of his Optiks of said this.

"For it became him who created them to set them in order. And if he did so, it's unphilosophical to seek for any other Origin of the World, or to pretend that it might arise out of a Chaos by the mere Laws of Nature; though being once form'd, it may continue by those Laws for many Ages."

[t0ffee]

I don't understand why people don't get that all long lasting modern day religions have been the basis of functioning advancing societies.

[Polka Dot]

(Original post by Helloworld_95)
These are hardly good examples when at the times they lived you would be killed due to being a non-believer, not to mention the lack of knowledge compared to today.
.

That is absolute nonsense. There were many atheists in at the time of the scientists I mentioned. Darwin was not the first to propose believe that species evolved from a common ancestor.

Charles De Secondat Montesquieu (1689–1755), concluded that ‘in the beginning there were very few [kinds of] species, and they have multiplied since

Louis Buffon( 1707–1788) expounded that ape and man shared an ancestor.

Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1788)

Erasmus Darwin- (1731–1802). He expounded his ideas at length in his book Zoonomia, published in 1794. He was the grand father of Charles Darwin.

Even before these men the ancient Greeks had held the idea that animals developed from other forms of animals for many thousands of years.

Empedocles (493–435 BC) is just one of many greek naturalists. He believed spontaneous generation fully explained the origin of life, and he also taught that all living organism types gradually evolved by the process of trial-and-error recombinations of animal parts. He also believed that fitter organisms would survive to pass on their traits.

[Miracle Day]

(Original post by thecrimsonidol)
Only 46%? That's lower than I would have expected actually.

I just dream of the day when it's 0%. (Everywhere, not just there)

It'll never be 0%.

The religious body may die, only to be replaced by something else.

[cl_steele]

a damn good work ethic, huge amount of natural resources, a large population and the fact they werent crapped all over by two world wars

[ckingalt]

(Original post by najinaji)
Believing in something wholeheartedly despite there being literally no proof of it isn't exactly intelligent.

I'm not religious but I can recognize that intelligent people can be. Read some of CS Lewis's essays. I disagree with him but he is devout, he is a believer, and he is most assuredly intelligent.