Jobar

[mod hat on] Manners, people. If this deteriorates any further I will consign it to Rants & Raves- which would be a pity, because the many previous posters tried to actually address Koy's question. Or perhaps I shall simply delete any posts I find offensive. [mod hat off]

St. Robert, your faith, however compelling you may find it personally, is not a valid argument. Always remember that there are thousands of other religions whose adherents hold are unquestionably correct because of their faith. Your testimony, unbacked by logical or practical proofs, is no better than theirs- and this thread is specifically seeking a sound logical or practical reason which does not disintegrate into nonsense when we look at it hard.

Jobar

St. Robert: "I'm not calling you a fool. Jesus is[...]"

I seem to recall that Jesus also said something to the effect that calling someone a fool put you in danger of damnation...

Thomas Metcalf

When believers claim that atheists are somehow fools, I like to point out that there is a demonstrable negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity. Study after study confirms this. I can provide some sources if you want to look them up.

Once again, the Bible seems to contain an error.

Kenny

To Thomas Metcalf,

Actually, no, there is no error. The word “fool” in the OT Biblical sense refers to a person without wisdom rather than a person lacking intelligence. “Wisdom,” in the OT, carries with it moral connotations and typically refers to the application of knowledge toward moral ends. A person who posses great intelligence but does not employ that intelligence to seek after the things of God is thereby a “fool” in this Biblical sense.

As far as studies showing that there is a negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity are concerned, I am somewhat skeptical of what sort of conclusions could be drawn from such studies. Other sorts of sociological factors need to be taken into account, such as a decidedly anti-religious bias in much of modern western academia (which intellectuals are the most likely to be influenced by). Nevertheless, I think the apologist tendency to try and refute these studies is misplaced since the Bible actually seems to predict their results:


To All,

I plan on a couple more posts to rap up my discussion of the OA, but it may be a while (perhaps even a week or so).

God Bless,
Kenny

[ August 06, 2002: Message edited by: Kenny ]</p>

Devilnaut

Anti-religious bias? Perhaps stemming from the fact that there is no sound reason for belief in a diety? If there is, present one please! Am I the only one sick of theists acting like God is an established fact while the truth is about as far from this as possible???

Theli

Nice twist there Robert.
Jesus spoke of a certain kind of fools, correct?
Those are the fools that think they are smart, but are in fact fools, correct?
You called me such a person. So therefore, you were the one who called me a fool. Jesus was just refering to a certain kind of fools. Not me in particulary.

BTW, I'm still waiting for your mindblowing argument for the existence of god, that will ultimately show that I am a fool.

BTW again... "Intellectual fools", isn't this a neat paradox?

[ August 07, 2002: Message edited by: Theli ]</p>

Theli

Kenny...

A person should not use a word based on a definition not used anymore. Especially if that definition is used to presuppose the persons superiosity. As the word fool is not fully subjective, but has a literal definition, and can be a lie.

According to the definition you gave me, a person who sits under a tree without pants and drools all day long can be refered to as "wise" just because he believe in god. The same goes with a person who runs around throwing feices at people.
I don't think even Jesus would call them wise.

Clutch

Kenny, This is absurd. There is a preponderance of western academics who reject the supernaturalist features of religion, to be sure. But calling this a bias is simply groundless whining, for two utterly obvious reasons.

First, virtually every university has a department of religion, theology, or divinity, and sometimes more than one of these. This is hardly consigning religion to the outer darkness.

More importantly, the issue is about bias, as opposed to judgement. Most western academics also reject elan vital in biology and phlogiston in chemistry. Does this represent a bias?

For someone who has seen first-hand on this board the dismal failure of so many attempts to make theism rationally defensible, Kenny's assertion that the tendency of, roughly speaking, smart people to reject religion indicates a bias falls somewhere between sad, maddening, and laughable. Who'd have thought that something could be all three of those?

Dr S

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a decidedly anti-religious bias in much of modern western academia
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaking of bias, I've been thumbing through the NT and I can't help but notice that praise ("Blessed are the…this and that") is heaped upon the most miserable of people. Human suffering is presented as a virtue. Even more of a virtue if you don't complain.
Yet nowhere can I find a good word for things like intelligence, strength, freedom, dignity, human rights, self-reliance, leadership or success. Nowhere, that I can find, are you instructed to think for yourself.

If modern western academia is biased against that I say we stop and give them a round of applause.

Keith Russell

Doctor S:

Even more disturbing to me is the fact that the 'sin' most mentioned as being the most vile is not murder, adultery, theft, etc.--

--but 'pride'.

In modern religious (and not only 'Christian') rhetoric, 'pride' seems to be the only unforgiveable sin.

Keith Russell.