Religious belief & intelligence

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Simple as that really, which is why religious belief (or blind faith in anything with no evidence to back it up) and intelligence are diametrically opposed.

Discordant and incongruous they might be, to some extent, but "diametrically opposed" is wholly wrong.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

For example, to become the president of the USA, then you'd best be a believer, or it's not going to happen.

"To become the president of the USA, then you'd best be white, or it's not going to happen." People always think this until it's tested, and then they realise that people don't care as much as they thought they did. The type of people who care about this sort of thing aren't generally swing voters. Australia also has a strong right-wing religious element, and yet they had an atheist woman as their PM not too long ago.

 

[BigJimLittleJim]

For example, to become the president of the USA, then you'd best be a believer, or it's not going to happen.

"To become the president of the USA, then you'd best be white, or it's not going to happen." People always think this until it's tested, and then they realise that people don't care as much as they thought they did. The type of people who care about this sort of thing aren't generally swing voters. Australia also has a strong right-wing religious element, and yet they had an atheist woman as their PM not too long ago.

Not saying it's impossible, and for all I know there may have been an aetheist in the White House, but as far as I know there hasn't - I welcome the day we finally get a majority of world leaders who are unbelievers.

I imagine when the young aspiring politician crunches the numbers, they soon come to the conclusion you might lose votes if you're an aetheist, but you won't if you play along with the religious game.

 

[pee dubya]

This is not an intelligent question.

 

[argyle]

I've met people in various sciences who are very clever people but when explaining their religious beliefs quickly turn on the dumb. How can scientists deny the fact that dinosaurs are not 5000 years old but hundreds of millions of years old?

 

[Gelsons Dad]

You cannot disprove the existence of god.
You can only fail to prove his existence.

For many thousands of years mankind's naivety led to us misunderstanding many physical processes and ascribing them to the will of god.

One by one these physical processes are being understood thanks to science. As each is understood the "proof" of god diminishes.

As we understand more about the physical processes of the universe the "need" for a catchall answer (god) reduces until eventually the concept of god will become an anachronism and only the uneducated (as opposed to unintelligent) will still feel a need for god.

This goes some way as to explaining why the most extreme religious sects control the education of their followers.

 

[RP2]

You cannot disprove the existence of god.
You can only fail to prove his existence.

For many thousands of years mankind's naivety led to us misunderstanding many physical processes and ascribing them to the will of god.

One by one these physical processes are being understood thanks to science. As each is understood the "proof" of god diminishes.

As we understand more about the physical processes of the universe the "need" for a catchall answer (god) reduces until eventually the concept of god will become an anachronism and only the uneducated (as opposed to unintelligent) will still feel a need for god.

This goes some way as to explaining why the most extreme religious sects control the education of their followers.

There is far, FAR more 'unknown' in the Universe, than 'known', therefore the "proof" of God is very much still alive.

 

[DelToro]

You cannot disprove the existence of god.
You can only fail to prove his existence.

For many thousands of years mankind's naivety led to us misunderstanding many physical processes and ascribing them to the will of god.

One by one these physical processes are being understood thanks to science. As each is understood the "proof" of god diminishes.

As we understand more about the physical processes of the universe the "need" for a catchall answer (god) reduces until eventually the concept of god will become an anachronism and only the uneducated (as opposed to unintelligent) will still feel a need for god.

This goes some way as to explaining why the most extreme religious sects control the education of their followers.

There is far, FAR more 'unknown' in the Universe, than 'known', therefore the "proof" of God is very much still alive.

Yes but the amount of unknown is diminishing thanks to science.

 

[SWP's back]

You cannot disprove the existence of god.
You can only fail to prove his existence.

For many thousands of years mankind's naivety led to us misunderstanding many physical processes and ascribing them to the will of god.

One by one these physical processes are being understood thanks to science. As each is understood the "proof" of god diminishes.

As we understand more about the physical processes of the universe the "need" for a catchall answer (god) reduces until eventually the concept of god will become an anachronism and only the uneducated (as opposed to unintelligent) will still feel a need for god.

This goes some way as to explaining why the most extreme religious sects control the education of their followers.

There is far, FAR more 'unknown' in the Universe, than 'known', therefore the "proof" of God is very much still alive.

Well that is total bollocks and a non-sequitur.

Also, the man pretending to be a theoretical physics student, no one is buying it.

 

[Cityfan]

You do know in the Bible there is a virgin birth, .

Having seen some mothers this is not something I find difficulty in believing.