Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

by **Ivan** Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:37 pm

First topic message reminder :

Bertrand Russell once said that “the immense majority of intellectually eminent men disbelieve in Christian religion”, and research appears to support that remark. Michael Shermer, in ‘How We Believe: The Search For God In An Age Of Science’, describes a large survey of randomly chosen Americans that he and his colleague Frank Sulloway carried out. Among their many results was the discovery that religiosity is negatively correlated with education (more highly educated people are less likely to be religious). Paul Bell, writing in ‘Mensa Magazine’ in 2002 told us: “Of 43 studies carried out since 1927 on the relationship between religious belief and one’s intelligence and/or educational level, all but four found an inverse connection. That is, the higher one’s intelligence or education level, the less one is likely to be religious or hold ‘beliefs’ of any kind.”

Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics and Political Science, suggests that more intelligent people are more likely to adopt evolutionarily novel preferences and values. He said: "Humans are evolutionarily designed to be paranoid, and they believe in God because they are paranoid. This innate bias toward paranoia served humans well when self-preservation and protection of their families and clans depended on extreme vigilance to all potential dangers. So, more intelligent children are more likely to grow up to go against their natural evolutionary tendency to believe in God, and they become atheists.”

Data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (NLSAH) supports Kanazawa's hypothesis. Young adults who identify themselves as 'not at all religious' have an average IQ of 103 during adolescence, while those who identify themselves as 'very religious' have an average IQ of 97 during adolescence.

Shermer says that religiosity is also negatively correlated with interest in science and strongly with political liberalism. And the NLSAH data suggests that young adults who subjectively identify themselves as 'very liberal' have an average IQ of 106 during adolescence, while those who identify themselves as 'very conservative' have an average IQ of 95 during adolescence.

Does this mean that people with left-wing views are more intelligent than those on the right? I’ve long thought that those with the independence of mind to be unaffected by the constant brainwashing attempts of the right-wing media must have a critical faculty which those who succumb to Tory and Republican propaganda clearly lack. It also appears to be the conclusion of experts at Brock University in Ontario, Canada, who studied research comparing childhood intelligence with political views in adulthood in 15,000 people. They found that intelligence, rather than education, wealth or social status, decides whether people are narrow-minded or bigoted in later life. Their report has been published in a journal called ‘Psychological Science’ and states: “Those with lower cognitive abilities may gravitate towards socially conservative right-wing ideologies that maintain the status quo. That is because it provides a sense of order". The authors found a strong link between low intelligence both as a child and an adult, and right-wing politics.

Sources used, and for further details:-

Richard Dawkins, ‘The God Delusion’, Bantam Press, 2006, p.102-3

http://www.tgdaily.com/general-sciences-features/48586-intelligent-people-more-likely-to-be-left-wing-atheists

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2095549/Right-wingers-intelligent-left-wingers-says-controversial-study--conservative-politics-lead-people-racist.html

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/2012/02/04/labour-supporters-are-cleverer-than-tories-canadian-study-claims-115875-23734718/

by trevorw2539 Fri Mar 09, 2012 11:32 pm

quote Oftenwrong
The world is full of stories of a 'great' flood."

Unfortunately we have no means of assessing the age of "folk memory".

Note I have not suggested that this was one great worldwide flood. Each individual flood was 'great' as it affected that particular area.

by Papaumau Sat Mar 10, 2012 1:54 pm

Of the fact that there is no doubt that some of the things reported in the Bible and other religious tomes were either true, ( or as true as they could be with plausibility making them true ), and the fact that many of the "great" natural disasters of biblical times were viewed as "local" events, ( "local" meaning all of the known world to them ), there is no doubt that even to the scribes, who wrote these tomes, what seemed to be happening to them at that time were, in fact, miracles.

I guess that it is all about educated perception and because we are more educated than they must have been in those days we can easily see through the stories that they accepted as true miracles.

What baffles me is why the modern and educated people of today don't allow themselves to see through all of these fables and rather weak in back-up stories in their religious books and why they don't - as a result of this realisation - simply drop the faith that is supported by them.

Then again, I DO know why. As I already said above: "blind faith requires no proof" and those that are weak in their faith who actually look for some proof because of their their loss of faith will almost certainly come to the conclusion - as I did - that faith is built on a foundation of shifting sands and it is just too closed-minded and stubbornly dogmatic to appeal to the open-minded realists of this world.

regards....

Papaumau.

by polyglide Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:33 pm

There is much evidence to suggest that man was far more able and intelligent in previous decades than man is today.

Who today could in fact write a book like the bible with all the cross references etc; and details of future events.

This is not going back billions of years but comparitively recently.

The pyramids being another example.

There was no animal anywhere near the intelligence of man, the vast leap was when man was created and man in my opinion went backwards in the same manner we are doing at the present time, getting above ourselves and dealing with that which we will be unable to control.

All animal life other than man has a system of life style that enables them to exist and mostly in an orderly fashion to ensure the survival of their like.

Man on the other hand has no system that has ever worked in a proper manner that did not involve problems of every kind and with so many living life styles so far apart that you would not believe they were the same
species.

This alone should show that man is an entirely seperate species created for a different purpose.

by AwfulTruth Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:57 pm

Polyglide the mean IQ has gone right up - the ancient Egyptians were dogmatic in extremis and mostly uneducated, intellectually simplistic, ignorant and brutal beyond measure. What are you on?

What species are you - animal vegetable or mineral?

I jest of course!

by Shirina Tue Mar 20, 2012 6:18 pm

There is much evidence to suggest that man was far more able and intelligent in previous decades than man is today.

More knowledgeable, perhaps, but not more intelligent. Even then, I offer up this concession only because I feel it is possible - even likely - that humanity has been "here" before. In the 100,000 or so years modern humans have been around, a civilization like ours - from the founding of the very first city-state of Sumeria to the rise of superpower America - could have risen and fallen over 16 times. Of these former civilizations, very little would remain, and the last ice age 10,000 or so years ago would have wiped much of the former record clean. The Great Pyramids of Giza could very well be a remnant of former civilizations far older, and far more advanced, than Egypt.

As for the Bible, it is filled with contradictions. It is a patchwork stolen from other myths and legends belonging to other cultures and clumsily slapped together. It is a big, sprawling thing like the Winchester Mansion, built by a half-mad widow who believed she would die if she ever stopped construction on the house.

by oftenwrong Tue Mar 20, 2012 7:11 pm

The Red Queen claimed in Alice through the Looking Glass that she could believe at least six impossible things before breakfast.

Evidently she is not alone. For those inclined to believe that a superior mankind visited Earth long ago in space-ships, passages from Ezekiel provide some slight comfort.

by astra Tue Mar 20, 2012 7:44 pm

you haven't been reading Erich von Daniken again OW have you?

by oftenwrong Tue Mar 20, 2012 7:51 pm

Reader, I married him!

by Shirina Tue Mar 20, 2012 8:27 pm

For those inclined to believe that a superior mankind visited Earth long ago in space-ships, passages from Ezekiel provide some slight comfort.

It has nothing to do with spaceships or aliens, OW.

I'm saying that we have gone from the Stone Age to the Cyber Age all by ourselves, and we did it in around 6,000 years. If our advanced civilization collapsed globally tomorrow and we had to revert to an almost Stone Age existence, we could bring ourselves back to the Cyber Age in another 6,000 years. This sort of cycle could have happened many times in the last 100,000 years. There is some evidence to support it, but the reason why there isn't A LOT of evidence is because only the equatorial regions would have been spared the scouring of mile-high glaciers. If you look at our world today, there are no great and powerful civilizations in the equatorial regions. Most people who live there are still barely out of the Stone Age. So, the only place where evidence could have existed in abundance is the same place where there was none to begin with.

by Guest Tue Mar 20, 2012 11:47 pm

Polyglide,

Without thinking too hard, I can identify several items which distinguish man from animals, the most important of which, in my opinion, is the inability of animals to do wrong.

As a 7th grade US History class deviant (Carlos and I drew detailed mini-murals of F-86 Sabrejets shooting down MiG-15s in “MiG alley” when we should have been paying attention to the lecture), I spent many afternoons in detention writing this sentence one hundred times a pop:

“Man is the only animal that can laugh or cry, because man is the only animal that can tell the difference between what things are and what things ought to be.”

I didn’t realize it at the time (my fingers hurt too much to realize anything), but these are wise words. Man is a mammal (dirt, dust), but unlike other mammals, man know that there is right and wrong (“what things are and what things ought to be”), man can differentiate (“tell the difference”) between right and wrong, and man can choose to do either right or wrong.

All other mammals, and all other animals of all other types, and all plants, and all other living things, do exactly what they are designed to do. In their worlds, there is no right and wrong.

by AwfulTruth Wed Mar 21, 2012 4:50 am

I once saw a a lemur express definite emotion when her baby climbed up and fell from a branch and then died in her arms. She held it and cried out in distress while her partner put his arm around her as if to comfort her and also expressed something emotional.

It was an extraordinary, moving and compelling sight and seemed to present de facto evidence of animal intelligence never before seen in a lemur, let alone other animals.

It was something I will never forget. Here is some light relief:

by Guest Wed Mar 21, 2012 6:16 am

Lemurs do not laugh or cry because of knowledge of right and wrong. Only humans do that. If you wish to know why, agree to study certain texts with me and I will show you.

by Shirina Wed Mar 21, 2012 9:02 am

Lemurs do not laugh or cry because of knowledge of right and wrong. Only humans do that.

Really, Rock? Are you so sure?

by trevorw2539 Wed Mar 21, 2012 9:40 am

Interesting article in todays Telegraph on line. About the above postings re animals.

by Papaumau Wed Mar 21, 2012 11:27 am

Polyglide said:

There is much evidence to suggest that man was far more able and intelligent in previous decades than man is today.

Who today could in fact write a book like the bible with all the cross references etc; and details of future events.

I am sorry Polyglide but I cannot subscribe to that idea as I believe over the millennia that our brains have been evolving just like all other living things evolve. I will give you that "intelligence" is not necessarily connected with the size or the capability of our brains but I do think that as we grow and improve within the designs of nature our brains do become more and more capable of just about anything.

To take up your second point:

You highlight the cleverness of the people of old by using the example of "the Bible" but as most people who are interested in the bible - from outside of the teachings that it contains - have found that it is riddled with contradictions and reported events that are only explainable by calling them miracles. The "details of future events" that you mention were also imagined by many people who also said that they could see into the future and all they required to be able to do that was to have fertile imaginations.

I would go even further and suggest that the Bible is probably the most flawed religious book that has ever been written as when looking closely at it through modern and un-influenced eyes it can be seen as exactly what it is: a tool to use to help to enslave the weak-minded and the unsophisticated humans amongst us that are looking for something more and cannot find it.

Just my humble opinion of course !

Regards....

Papaumau.

by polyglide Wed Mar 21, 2012 11:51 am

Sorry to disagree but the brain would only develope at the the rate required to carry out that necessary at the time.

You would not get a pair of legs waiting for a body etc;

by trevorw2539 Wed Mar 21, 2012 2:21 pm

Awfultruth. quote.

the ancient Egyptians were dogmatic in extremis and mostly uneducated, intellectually simplistic, ignorant and brutal beyond measure. What are you on?

On no, no, no.

Children of the upper classes attended schools, while the lower classes were taught at home.

The ancient Egyptians used numerals, a type of fractions, algebra, geometry, developed a form of writing, effective system of medicine, some of which we use today - though updated with modern technology -, first known ships, glass and pottery, astronomy, alchemy and many other things.

Women had the same legal status as their husbands. While it was possible for women to work, most brought up families. The better off were able to secure careers. Though some things like the Priesthood were denied them.

True they maintained an army like most civilisations, and could be tough, but that was the way of the ancient world.

At one stage in their history they were far better off than our ancestors of 200 years ago.

by trevorw2539 Wed Mar 21, 2012 2:30 pm

Incidentally the Egyptian women and the later Spartan women were two main exceptions of 'Patriarchy', though the Spartans less so.

Egyptians because they maintained the balance between male and female in all things.

The Spartans because the males were away in the military until the age of 30? so women needed to be educated to run the home and business while hubby was away.

by trevorw2539 Wed Mar 21, 2012 2:35 pm

Forgot to add to the last 2 postings

But then, what do I know.

by AwfulTruth Wed Mar 21, 2012 3:56 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
Lemurs do not laugh or cry because of knowledge of right and wrong. Only humans do that. If you wish to know why, agree to study certain texts with me and I will show you.

Sure feel free, although I warn that my mother was a lemur! I jest...but yes I am open to persuasion.

by astra Wed Mar 21, 2012 4:23 pm

If you look at the blood lines of the Scottish Kings, the decendance of the Scottish Throne Always went down the FEMALE side of the blood-line!

This was stopped (I believe) by Edward the First of England, when he put John Balliol (the Toom Tabbard) on the throne of Scotland.

SO! the Egyptians, Spartans and the Scots had it right.

Read on the Stone of Destiny, said to have been brought by an Egyptian Princess way way back in the mists of time!

http://www.edinburghcastle.gov.uk/highlights-stone-of-destiny
"In medieval times, many scholars believed it had biblical origins. Some thought it was the pillow on which Jacob dreamed of his ladder. Others believed it had been taken out of Egypt by the daughter of a pharaoh.
- It has been used in coronation ceremonies for many years, originally at Scone, near Perth. Lulach – stepson of Macbeth – sat on it when he was proclaimed King of Scots in 1057."

and this one -
http://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofScotland/The-Stone-of-Destiny/

by Guest Wed Mar 21, 2012 4:51 pm

AwfulTruth wrote:
RockOnBrother wrote:
Lemurs do not laugh or cry because of knowledge of right and wrong. Only humans do that. If you wish to know why, agree to study certain texts with me and I will show you.
Sure feel free…

Cool.

Things that do not absolutely differentiate man from “higher” mammals:

Extreme intelligence? Orcas have that.
Different cultures, including different languages and foods, among different populations? Orcas have that.
Social structure? Many higher mammals have that.

Consider this: “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness… God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”

God is the ultimate chooser; everything he does, he chooses to do. Within the boundaries of physics, man, like God, can choose whatever he chooses to choose. Other higher mammals are limited in choice, since none of them can choose to do wrong.

Why? In order to choose to do wrong, one must be aware of right and wrong. Alone among all living things, we possess such awareness. This is one primary differentiating characteristic.

by AwfulTruth Wed Mar 21, 2012 5:17 pm

But, the question of whether an animal (elephant behaviour, for example, has become a moot point of discussion amongst animal behaviourists) - feels distress when a baby or sibling, whatever, dies, is the question.

I am an atheist but I also believe that animals are separated from human values except via training, which is probably too subjective, which however does instil a learned pattern of behaviour, including learning to be affectionate rather than aggressive towards humans and their fellow pets. The trade-off is that they get fussed and then fuss a human or fellow animal.

So, surely, an animal can learn what is wrong and what is right behaviour and gain pleasure from doing the right thing? Bearing in mind of course that many animals are inherently autistic in their behaviour and that regularity and guidance from members of the group/pack/pride is a fundamental check on their actions and at the same time something they require for their personal well-being; without that they can become withdrawn and fractious. I have also worked with autistic children so I have some human insight re regularity.

Do animals sense when something is wrong? Do they see something as breaking the rules of regularity and so make an informed decision accordingly to interfere with this irregularity in accepted behaviour? Do guide dogs love their owners and want to help them - or are they organic hard-wired robots?

Case study: I had a very motherly female cat who refused to allow the two male cats to fight, even though she was no blood relative. Thus, to great amusement, if they ever started to fight she would run at them, stop, then smack them both hard around their heads. She did it every time and they stopped immediately; it was not something she had been trained to do.

Don't elephants cry?

by oftenwrong Wed Mar 21, 2012 5:24 pm

AwfulTruth wrote:....

Case study: I had a very motherly female cat who refused to allow the two male cats to fight, even though she was no blood relative. Thus, to great amusement, if they ever started to fight she would run at them, stop, then smack them both hard around their heads. She did it every time and they stopped immediately; it was not something she had been trained to do.

Don't elephants cry?

Any chance of getting such a cat to perch on the table between Cameron and Miliband in the House of Commons?

by AwfulTruth Wed Mar 21, 2012 5:33 pm

trevorw2539 wrote:Incidentally the Egyptian women and the later Spartan women were two main exceptions of 'Patriarchy', though the Spartans less so.

Egyptians because they maintained the balance between male and female in all things.

The Spartans because the males were away in the military until the age of 30? so women needed to be educated to run the home and business while hubby was away.

Spartans and the Greeks/Romans also actively encouraged gay relationships because they believed it cemented the armies together.

OK - the education you alluded to was essentially, invariably, microcosmic whereas today's education (even beyond school) is monumentally macro-cosmic and is bigger, broader and deeper. The Egyptians were intelligent for their time, but their brains were wired quite differently - markedly so. Our educational training is far beyond a general Egyptian education which also included a vast amount of pagan religion. Sure, the Egyptians cleverly devised human geometry and monumental architecture, but then do not forget bees and wasps have their own geometric architectural abilities - and they pre-date us by tens of millions of years. Termites invented air-conditioning only now being fully adopted by high-rise buildings. Ants invented farming and the growing of crops and bees devised processed food. Swallows devised mud huts. Monkeys eat fermented fruit and so got drunk long before humans! Spiders were producing superior fibre long before any human manufacturer.

by AwfulTruth Wed Mar 21, 2012 5:36 pm

oftenwrong wrote:
AwfulTruth wrote:....

Case study: I had a very motherly female cat who refused to allow the two male cats to fight, even though she was no blood relative. Thus, to great amusement, if they ever started to fight she would run at them, stop, then smack them both hard around their heads. She did it every time and they stopped immediately; it was not something she had been trained to do.

Don't elephants cry?

Any chance of getting such a cat to perch on the table between Cameron and Miliband in the House of Commons?

Well said! cat

purr-purr! Good idea - maybe make it a massive tiger with Cameron on its dinner menu?

by trevorw2539 Wed Mar 21, 2012 7:17 pm

AwfulTruth wrote:
trevorw2539 wrote:Incidentally the Egyptian women and the later Spartan women were two main exceptions of 'Patriarchy', though the Spartans less so.

Egyptians because they maintained the balance between male and female in all things.

The Spartans because the males were away in the military until the age of 30? so women needed to be educated to run the home and business while hubby was away.

Spartans and the Greeks/Romans also actively encouraged gay relationships because they believed it cemented the armies together.

OK - the education you alluded to was essentially, invariably, microcosmic whereas today's education (even beyond school) is monumentally macro-cosmic and is bigger, broader and deeper. The Egyptians were intelligent for their time, but their brains were wired quite differently - markedly so. Our educational training is far beyond a general Egyptian education which also included a vast amount of pagan religion. Sure, the Egyptians cleverly devised human geometry and monumental architecture, but then do not forget bees and wasps have their own geometric architectural abilities - and they pre-date us by tens of millions of years. Termites invented air-conditioning only now being fully adopted by high-rise buildings. Ants invented farming and the growing of crops and bees devised processed food. Swallows devised mud huts. Monkeys eat fermented fruit and so got drunk long before humans! Spiders were producing superior fibre long before any human manufacturer.

Rather goes against the Roman idea of homosexuality. The thought was that the submissive partner was the inferior partner. Don't see how that would cement relationships. It is recorded that officers would 'assault' their soldiers.

The Greek had a different way. A Patrician would take a young man under his wing and teach him everything, including sex. There was, however, early in Greek history a band of homosexual men called the 'Sacred Band of Thebes' or something similar. This was 300 lovers (150 pairs) formed into an army unit. They were quite successful militarily.

The education 3000+ years ago would seem microscopic to us today. In 3000+ years, when young children have a helmet put on their head, and in a few minutes obtain their education, ours will seem strange and limited.

I agree that there are many creatures who have various skills. That was not the point. Egypt, for its age, was a 'modern and innovative' society.

My position on homosexuality is this. I do not agree with it. But that is probably because I don't understand it, and am not that way inclined. If I've upset you by putting it that way I apologise. My view is that we are all different and as long as I am not expected to join in then people are free to live as they feel right.

by AwfulTruth Wed Mar 21, 2012 8:43 pm

Trevor

Absolutely no need to apologise. Why did you think you had offended me? I am curious because I was simply reacting to your post.

The animal bit was wilted attempt at sideways humour.

by trevorw2539 Wed Mar 21, 2012 9:35 pm

AwfulTruth Quote

Why did you think you had offended me?

But that is probably because I don't understand it, and I am not that way inclined. If I've upset you by putting it that way I apologise. My view is that we are all different and as long as I am not expected to

The underlined phrase sometimes gives offence. silent

by AwfulTruth Wed Mar 21, 2012 9:58 pm

by trevorw2539 Thu Mar 22, 2012 10:14 am

AwfulTruth wrote:

It would seem, in my little experience, that the term to a very few is insulting, in that it implies they are not normal. That's why I try to be careful in my choice of words. silent

by AwfulTruth Thu Mar 22, 2012 12:08 pm

trevorw2539 wrote:
AwfulTruth wrote:

It would seem, in my little experience, that the term to a very few is insulting, in that it implies they are not normal. That's why I try to be careful in my choice of words.

Trevor, dearheart, science has fundamentally proved beyond all reasonable doubt that humans and the other creatures on this planet have one thing in common: same-sex partnerships. Moreover, there is a definite dynamic role played by most ostensibly 'gay' animals, in that they not only check the population by naturally NOT breeding, but also help with straight couples who have too many offspring/eggs to deal with.

There are also a whole raft of other behavioural and sociological issues that come into play here that clearly show an integral relationship between the sexes that has nothing to do with sin, as we know it..

Scientists now say, with compete confidence, that gay people and animals are actually NOT perverts or anomalies, but a normal part of life on earth.

That is perfectly accurate and negates any religious or quasi-religious arguments (I am not pointing at you here) based on strictured prejudice and/or the traditional condemnation of people who are different. Remember, it was not that long ago historically, that gay men were burned at the stake! sunny

by AwfulTruth Thu Mar 22, 2012 12:24 pm

[quote="Shirina"]

As for the Bible, it is filled with contradictions. It is a patchwork stolen from other myths and legends belonging to other cultures and clumsily slapped together. It is a big, sprawling thing like the Winchester Mansion, built by a half-mad widow who believed she would die if she ever stopped construction on the house.

Just re-read this: I totally agree. The Old Testament is really a ragbag of literary, mythological, whimsical, fictional, legalistic and simplistic accretions, sometimes of such a dangerous nature that it is of no surprise that the Anglican church once blessed the death penalty for over 100 common crimes in the 18th century.

Thankfully, these draconian (some biblical) laws were just too harsh. Including the law that allowed children as young as six years to be hung for theft! I kid you not... Sad

The prima facie evidence, as written down by witnesses, actually shocked me to the core. One boy was crying for his mother when the noose was put around his neck. Horrifying, but indicative of a confused church willing to sanction such terrible punishment. And they wonder why religion has such a dwindling following?

QUOTE:
"At the beginning of the 19th century, children in Britain were punished in the same way as adults. They were even sentenced to death for petty theft.[60] In 1814 five child criminals under the age of fourteen were hanged at the Old Bailey, the youngest being only eight years old.[61] Until 1868 hangings were performed in public. In London, the traditional site was at Tyburn, a settlement west of the City on the main road to Oxford, which was used on eight hanging days a year, though before 1865, executions had been transferred to the street outside Newgate Prison, Old Bailey, now the site of the Central Criminal Court."

Source: Go Here:

by Papaumau Thu Mar 22, 2012 12:31 pm

polyglide wrote:Sorry to disagree but the brain would only develope at the the rate required to carry out that necessary at the time.

You would not get a pair of legs waiting for a body etc;

But I don't think you can use that argument to have a go at evolution as nature planned these slow steps of improvement so that life could keep growing and improving.

In other words, unlike what you are suggesting above, Darwin's Natural Selection was a pro-active way of design where millions of tiny alterations were made in an attempt to move forward and the steps that did not work were very quickly dropped. This trial-and-error way of doing things does not suggest to me that any external direction was there.

If those steps were designed by any plenipotentiary entity in the sky, they would have been perfect at every stage. They weren't so that takes out the "creationism" argument.

Regards.....

Papaumau.

by AwfulTruth Thu Mar 22, 2012 1:27 pm

Interesting! I like to use the analogy of nuclear physics and the simple fact that atomic and sub-atomic particles organise themselves to create the different elements.

Organic life reflects the immense variety of non-organic forms and manifests the non-conscious imperative to adhere to the implicit laws of physics, matter and all that.

I do not see that organic life forms are somehow inherently 'separate' from the universal panoply of difference or variety of forms.

Manifestation does not prove the existence of any creator, either. For me the universe is just what it is: an extraordinary and amazing state of inorganic and organic bodies that exist because that is what we all do - exist.

by trevorw2539 Thu Mar 22, 2012 2:21 pm

Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent? - Page 4 Empty

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?
by AwfulTruth Today at 12:24 pm

[quote="Shirina"]

As for the Bible, it is filled with contradictions. It is a patchwork stolen from other myths and legends belonging to other cultures and clumsily slapped together. It is a big, sprawling thing like the Winchester Mansion, built by a half-mad widow who believed she would die if she ever stopped construction on the house.

Just re-read this: I totally agree. The Old Testament is really a ragbag of literary, mythological, whimsical, fictional, legalistic and simplistic accretions, sometimes of such a dangerous nature that it is of no surprise that the Anglican church once blessed the death penalty for over 100 common crimes in the 18th century.

Thankfully, these draconian (some biblical) laws were just too harsh. Including the law that allowed children as young as six years to be hung for theft! I kid you not... Sad

The prima facie evidence, as written down by witnesses, actually shocked me to the core. One boy was crying for his mother when the noose was put around his neck. Horrifying, but indicative of a confused church willing to sanction such terrible punishment. And they wonder why religion has such a dwindling following?

Actually, love that word, I would agree with you if you were to say that the Pentateuch (first 5 books - as you know) were the above.

Much of the 'History Books' - 1 & 2 Samuel, 1 & 2 Kings, 1 & 2 Chronicles and even some of the prophetic books i.e. Daniel, Micah etc contain interesting historical events, places and battles that we knew nothing about, apart from the Biblical references.
Many of these things, places, tribes were thought to be just 'Biblical stories', but the past 2 centuries have opened ancient history through archeaology and brought these things to light.
In some cases we have the same event described in the OT and on ancient palace walls. The same battles described by opponents, sometimes both claiming either actual, or moral, victory. Both occasionally exaggerating.
We know from the OT that the king of Egypt 'came up against' Jerusalem and sacked the Temple. We know that because it is confirmed on an Egpytian palace wall, or its remains.
The Hittites, as I was posting to someone the other day who brought them up (not literally:) ) were considered at least to be a small tribe, if they actually existed. Until they were discovered in the 19th and 20th century to have had a small, but strong, Empire.
There are many such instances.
Oh. Did they copy from each other. Many of the cities/palaces were destroyed and sometimes lost, long before the Bible was written.
The NT is also full of History. People, places and events confirmed by History. Leaving the Religious side out the Bible has many facts that are true and proveable.

There has always been the problem of mistakes in the Bible. That is no problem unless you believe it to be inspired. It is a problem for me to understand why a creator should inspire writers to write a history, and leave in the errors. The Bible is written by man, occasionally 'inspired' as regards spiritual matters. That's for people to decide.

If we take the teachings of Christ then that is a way to live. Others have their own way. Each to his own.

But then, what do I know

by **Ivan** Fri Mar 23, 2012 12:48 am

Ignatius Loyola, founder of the Jesuit order, wrote that believers should "always be ready to obey the church with mind and heart, setting aside all judgement of one's own." Is that an intelligent thing to do?

Adam Lee has written:-
"These are our commandments: Think for yourself and don't blindly bow down to the claims of another. Exercise your own best judgement. Ask questions and investigate whether what you've been taught is true. There have been countless wars and devastations because people were too eager to subordinate their will and conscience to the ruling authorities, but as Sam Harris says, no atrocity was ever committed because people were being too reasonable, too skeptical, or too independently minded. If anything, human beings have always been too eager to obey and to subordinate their will to others. The more we throw off that ancient and limiting mindset, the more freedom we have to think, act and speak as we choose, the more humanity as a whole will prosper."

For the full article:-
http://www.alternet.org/belief/154604/how_religion's_demand_for_obedience_keeps_us_in_the_dark_ages?page=entire

by AwfulTruth Fri Mar 23, 2012 5:08 am

Ivan

Totally compelling rational thinking in your quote, which is where I would draw affirmation of the eureka idea that we do not need to be religious in order to have a personal moral structure, to live by; i.e. respect, dignity, fairness and to support democracy, free speech and fair laws.

That religious fundamentalists preach monotheism and dictate how people should think, live and love, is authoritarianism gone mad and is/has/will be, the cause of so much conflict and disagreement immemorial, et al.

They just do not get it, but millions of victims who died during countless religious conflicts did. In the name of the Lord was never so facile!

by oftenwrong Fri Mar 23, 2012 10:09 am

In the 1998 movie, Shakespeare in Love, Simon Callow in the role of Edmund Tilney, Master of the Revels, threatens to arrest the cast and spectators at The Rose Playhouse for violating morality. He makes frequent use of the phrase "In the Name of The Queen" in an attempt to clear the theatre, whereupon Judi Dench playing Queen Elizabeth emerges from the crowd and berates him for such misuse of her name.

by polyglide Fri Mar 23, 2012 12:26 pm

Ye of little faith.

Throughout history there has been signs and omens that if studied in a proper manner will give good grounds for anyones faith.

In the bible there are numerous references to events that will occur and which have in fact been brought about in the sequence indicated and if you study Reverlations and the world we live in today you will understand what I mean.

Of course there has been numerous inexplicable happenings in the name of religion because man has seen fit to stray from the straight and narrow.

Man has always taken every opportunity to use anything to his advantage and for personal gain, in particular if he can con the weak and feeble with false promises to encourage them to do his bidding and that is why we have false religions, as explained in the bible.

Just have another little look at Reverlations, and tell me who could make this up.

We know that man wrote all the scriptures what people, or some, fail to remember is that they were inspired by God.

by **astradt1** Fri Mar 23, 2012 12:40 pm

Throughout history there has been signs and omens that if studied in a proper manner will give good grounds for anyones faith

What does 'a proper manner' mean?

by Sponsored content