Are believers less intelligent than Atheists? Discuss

no, you should think about why you have the idea that religion promises to fix everything. I understand this is a deeper idea than about making physical problems go away, and it somehow represents to you peaceful mental process enabled by some concept that ties it all together, like "god has a purpose for everything." Unfortunately, certain types of thinkers cannot justify the simpler explanations for long. Being, apparently, that type of thinker, you are lucky you didn't have an overwhelming emotional experience that allowed you to suspend your thought process, or that you were not introduced early enough that you weren't cognitively mature enough to see problems within the simple answers - not because it makes a difference in the end, but rather it makes a difference in the fact that you don't have to look back to a golden age of your life when things were easier cognitively (they weren't easier in practice). Then again it is said "better to have loved and lost", i don't know if is true - i think cognitive science would say people are happier that had less in the past and get something, happier than people having much more in the past receiving the same thing.

We have categories of thought which have no sufficiently testable laws, but anti-religionists don't throw those categories away when they try to throw away religion. Testing all aspects of morality is impossible for example. We don't know what path results in species survival, and there are many opposing views, and we can't test the outcome.

Fundie example - You can look at logic and find actual logic problems in their reasoning, such as "my book says it is true," "another other book says IT contains the truth", followed by "i can use the statement in my book that says it is the truth as proof somehow". EDIT - to clarify - that person may be correct, but they came at the result from suppositions that won't carry a more logically based thinker to the same conclusion. you can't use someone else's ladder.
2nd example - You could use modern psychology, morality to inform your religious choice and avoid unhealthy situations, also, i don't think someone else's belief is going to fit the evidences your mind requires. Certainly, "i believe because you say so," doesn't seem a likely style for you to adopt.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I find it interesting that the main thing the two of you see in those pictures is the physical torture.

When I look at those pictures, the first thing that comes to my mind is that it is a depiction of the contempt that theists have for non-theists and theists of other denominations.

This contempt has been there for millennia, and by all means seems to be an integral part of theism.

The external manifestations of this contempt have changed over time, but the contempt remains.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

i think you touch on a MAJOR issue here. There is a duality forced on the world through the presence of a converted team and a non-converted team. I mentioned this team mentality to a mormon friend, and he just reacted as if i talked about jesus being the child of a ufo pilot and mary, THAT is how blind theists are to the issue, but yes, it is there. I would say "contempt" is a very poor choice of words for the feeling most believers have towards unbelievers though. The way this plays out in real life is almost as if believers think they are somehow the mediator, and they love the people even though God is their enemy. It is quite sick, and shows a very low opinion of God actually, but it shouldn't be called contempt, except in the cases of believers for whom the word actually applies.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think the word "contempt" is accurate - I generally feel contempted, despised by theists.

The theists tell me that they love me, they say they are my wellwishers - and yet they do not care about me enough to actually care whether I feel loved or whether I feel I am being wished well.

"I don't care what you think of me, I love you and I am your friend," a Christian once said to me. That really sums it up.

Those theists have the same mentality as a husband who beats his wife "for her own good" and expects her to be even happy with the beatings.

Of course, few theists would admit they despise non-believers, yet their haughty, superioristic attitude is just that - contempt.

And they don't think of themselves as merely mediators - but as necessary links between the person and God: "Nobody gets to God except through me."

 

One more thing:

We've been over this many times, but you still don't understand me. I have expressed my thoughts on the matter several times in several ways. I am starting to think you deliberately refuse to understand.

Again:

One can defer only to an authority with which one has some mutually acknowledged relationship.

For example, I can defer to the constitution of the country of which I am a citizen.
But I cannot defer to the constitution of a country of which I am not a citizen. Such attempt at deference is null and void.


Similarly, I cannot defer to the authority of a religious scripture if I am not a member of said religion.


Bottomline, I think that your approach to explaining theism, and the approach that theists generally have, works only in the context of a monoculture where the majority of the population is born into a religion, becoming members by birth.

But your approach doesn't make sense in a modern secular country with people who have not been born into a religious family and try to choose a religion when they are already adults. For such people, religious choice becomes trivial, or neurotic (at least as long as they try to follow the same principles as those born into a religion do).

 

If it doesn't fix everything, then it is not worth pursuing, given the usual definition that God is supposed to be the Omnimax, the One Who Contextualizes Everything.

There's plenty of partial solutions, and that is allright, as long as one takes them as partial. But if not a blade of grass moves without God's will, then the "God solution" should be total, complete, comprehensive - and most definitely not partial.

How can I possibly exclude the possibility that I am supposed to believe just because someone says so? Perhaps this is in fact the only way that God intends for me.
As absurd and repugnant as such possibilities may seem (and they are endorsed by some theists!), I cannot exclude them.

 

This reminds of an old saying... hahaha what is with these old sayings? No seriously, blind men and elephant. You saw the tail. I see the tail too, but also other parts you are not willing to admit into the description. I have met christian people whose actions and words were so kind. I know the radical evangelical theology - this type of thinking is not universal. I mean let's just suppose I were to say too you, nobody gets to God except through jesus (I won't, because you can't use someone else's ladder, but let's say), and then said, "go find a bible and figure it out." Would that be contemptuous? Just for sake of discussion, what if there was an enlightened sage who lived in a cave, and this sage was brought to my house, and this sage decided to try to get some bread out of an old toaster with a metal knife. Would it be contemptuous to tell him there is a problem with his worldview?

Is it possible for the dalai lama to actually care about us unenlightened, deluded people? Or is he contemptuous of us? You are basically saying the word "bodhisattva" should be accorded the same value as, "demon". That is a far deeper level of non-duality than i am capable of assenting to, or grasping right now. Perhaps you should say that the christian attitude is "disrespectful" of your metaphysical model. If you want to play in the big sandbox, you need to accept disrespect for your metaphysical model without getting offended.

A final, complete, and total medicine would fix every medical problem. OUR medicine can't. Because it is incomplete. Most non-cults have an understanding that their religion is a partially understood, or incomplete map. By ignoring the built-in admission, you are building a straw man to attack a form of thought.

 

I'm saying that your assumptions are overly simplistic. Maybe Wikipedia can explain it better:

Economists have attempted to model the circumstances under which slavery (and variants such as serfdom) appear and disappear. One observation is that slavery becomes more desirable for landowners where land is abundant but labour is scarce, such that rent is depressed and paid workers can demand high wages. If the opposite holds true, then it becomes more costly for landowners to have guards for the slaves than to employ paid workers who can only demand low wages due to the amount of competition. Thus, first slavery and then serfdom gradually decreased in Europe as the population grew, but were reintroduced in the Americas and in Russia as large areas of new land with few people became available​

In summary, cheap "free" (white} labour can be cheaper than "free" (black) slaves.

I think there was often a religious component to it, almost fulfilling a commandment to keep the descendents of Ham in their place. If you look at the development of apartheid in South Africa, the roots are similar.

 

Not all of them by any means. There were a lot of poor farmers with only one or two slaves, who lived little better than their slaves. They were usually illiterate so it seems unlikely that they would have done all of the calculations and determined that slaves were the best way to go. My guess is that a lot of them did have religious and/or racial motivations.

 

You were questioning whether slavery was profitable. I have shown how your claim was BS. Of course certain changing conditions could affect the success/viability of slavery in any given area/situation. But were we not discussing "Slavery"? Slavery was a practice well implemented and HIGHLY profitable, as it was used in conditions where it was profitable. The fact your opinion is that you can't see whether it was profitable or not is kind of irrelevant considering slavery was very profitable.

You still seem to be unable to accept the fact that unpaid labour is SLAVERY. Being a slave isn't dependent on skin colour. Whites forced to work for nothing are also slaves. You just seem to ignore my points and reiterate points I have already countered.

All I know is that if I had 100 slaves working for me today, and I had to pay a team of 10 security guards to guard them I would be quids in.

Have you got something more to bring to the table?

 

That doesn't surprise me a bit, and it makes my point. You didn't bother to calculate at all whether slavery would be economically viable today. If somebody offered me 100 slaves for "free", my first question would be, "What's the total cost going to be to operate this venture?"

I wonder how many slave owners gave it any more thought than you have.

 

Just as I thought, you have nothing more.

 

I believe you have a point SSB, the profitability of slavery was dependant on the the rural industry they were enforced to slave in. The cotton industry for example was low profit/labour intensive industry however if managed well it could return, I think, sufficiently to be profitable hence I think slavery in the cotton fields and similar high labour intensity rural situations was profitable but ONLY if farm management was good. As we all know farm management is NOT always Good. The rate of literacy amongst farm managers was probably not that much better than their captive slaves in most cases.

The huge market for synthetic fibre I would also believe was created due to the failure of the cotton industry...to manage it's labour to profit ratios properly.
just thinking out loud and speculating only [re: end of slavery Brasillia - and resultant social chaos]

 

It is probable, although it is hard for me to say without a much much deeper analysis, that plantation and work-gang slavery was the economic engine and political force that enabled the slave trade to exist, and the isolated poor farmer was just a byproduct, meaning you couldn't use that poor farmer in an analysis of economic factors. Either way, i don't see that it is possible for you to show caribbean sugar farmers, or poor farmers for that matter, thought they could do better financially with a different system but stuck to their guns out of some sort of religious or even racial idea.

I have lots of problems with the way humans do business, but i find it farfetched to say the least to find enough of these people willing to throw away their chances at being wealthy to support the slave trade. But of course there are always a few sociopaths willing to sacrifice themselves to hurt others.

 

You're wrong.
Sure, there are Christians who save stray cats, and so on.

The difference between you and me is that I think that a person can rightfully claim to believe in God only when said person is perfect and has full realization of God, while per your standards, any bozo is entitled to publicly claim he or she believes in God.

When I hear someone claiming they believe in God, I per default assume that this person claims to be perfect and to have full realization of God. And I hold them to that.

Is it absurd to assume so? I am sure many would say it is.
For me, this assumption is simply the consequence of taking matters of God with a life-or-death seriousness.


If I were to go and publicly claim, directly or indirectly, that I believe in God, for me the requirement to do so would be precisely perfection and full personal realization of God; without the perfection and realization, I do not think it is appropriate to tell anyone I believe in God. Because I find all this to be a matter of such extreme importance that slip-ups are out of the question.

It is so easy to cause people so much worry and suffering by informing them wrongly about God. Which is why I think that by all means, one must talk on the topic of God with utmost qualification, and then only.
And the same goes for oneself: It is so easy to drive oneself into the deepest pits, simply by the way one thinks and talks to oneself about God.
So it is out of concern for one's own wellbeing and the wellbeing of others that one ought to make claims about God only when one really is sure about their veracity.

(Note that there are many people who claim to be "really sure" about their notions of God. But as it often turns out, when they talk on the topic a bit, they reveal to actually have all kinds of doubts and uncertainties about God. I find few things as frustrating as talking to a theist who at first appears to be fire-and-brimstone sure about God, but who, after 15 minutes of conversation, utters "I am just a seeker like you", or who, at some point, exclaims "I am the most fallen one!" or "I am mostly in maya, I just occasionally fall into Krishna" - these are verbatim quotes from actual people.)


In one sense, my extreme attitude, however torturous it may seem, has at least one remarkable advantage, though: I can't fall prey to cultists, fundamentalists and the like, and I don't go and do harm to people in the name of God.
And that ought to count for something.

No, because he'd be in your house, as a guest, under your care and protection.

Eh?

I do hope you are aware that one of the bodhisattva vows is to kill a person if the bodhisattva deems it would be in the person's best interest to do so. Now that's a nice one, isn't?

If the Dalai Lama came against you, with a knife or a gun, looking like he is intending to kill you, would you gladly assent? Would you say, "Oh, this infinitely compassionate being is coming to kill me, how nice of him, I will just stand still and let him do it!! I am so happy!" - ? Would you?

Would you trust another human so much?

Pffft.

What, and now we should suddenly cut all those self-appointed theists some slack?!

 

Or they just went with what was then a socio-economic norm, without thinking about it much at all. As people generally tend to follow socio-economic norms without thinking about them much.

 

Now that's an interesting pov....but are you now talking about belief or knowledge [ truth ]?

hmmm... very interesting approach though, I must admit

 

What he's doing here is excusing religious belief by superimposing an image in reverse over its actual history. Not that anyone ever claimed to have complete knowledge of a particular religion, but the object of prophets and saviors in monotheism is to fill in the perceived gaps and make understanding whole. The arrivals of Jesus and Mohammad meant that one had everything they needed to get to the afterlife. But since they were both men (provided that they both existed, of course) and neither could have anticipated the world 2,000+ years later, their messages are hard to reconcile today. Our modern understanding of the universe and everything in it has severely eroded religion, because in the place of their explanations, we offer better ones. We also have superior morals, thanks to our better understanding of the world (for example, we know witches don't exist, rendering "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" both useless and troubling in its ignorance of the natural world given its alleged divine origin. [ie Why would God want us to kill something that didn't exist?]

It's in reaction to these bothersome questions that theology arises, and attempts to reconcile these ancient and ignorant injunctions with the modern world. Thus you have people like Cole apologizing for religion by saying the problem is in our "incomplete understanding of it." In reality, however, the problem is that the more we learn about ourselves and our world, the less religion matters. We're not looking at a map shrouded by darkness, we're looking at a map half-rotted by time and the elements.

 

The American South became an industrial non-entity and a technological backwater under slavery. Slavery was the downfall of the South. I find it farfetched to think that nobody saw it coming, that nobody struggled to preserve it despite the economic decline.

“There was a land of Cavaliers and Cotton Fields called Old South. Here in this pretty world Gallantry took its last bow. Here was the last ever to be seen of Knights and their Ladies Fair, of Master and of Slave . . . Look for it only in books for it is no more than a dream remembered. A Civilization gone with the wind . . .”​

 

Yes, that would be a non-economic motivation.

I don't know how the subject of slavery even came up. I just find it odd that in a thread about intelligence, people would say, "Economics is THE motivation. The end. Switch brain off."