Proof: God makes you stupid

[GePap]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


How so? I don't think you know what the meaning of 'logically consistent" is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logically_consistent

A belief that the moon is made of cheese, or in the flying spaghetti monster could be logically consistent depending on other beliefs and assumptions.

Additionally, many people (including myself and other scientists) don't find anything logically inconsistent between (some forms of) Christianity and science. This has been defended in many books, and even many strongly atheist scientists agree.

Now if you are just saying that Ben is not logically consistent, I might agree.

JM

I was going on more on the lines of the idea that Ben's belief system isn't.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by GePap
What are you talking about? Love is an emotion, though a complex one, and as such we can certainly see it in action, just as much as any other emotion like sadness or anger.

Not so. Plenty of people immitate love but do not have the genuine thing. Prostitutes certainly don't love their clientele. Plenty of con artists feign love only to obtain the wealth of their mark.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Straybow
Not so. Plenty of people immitate love but do not have the genuine thing. Prostitutes certainly don't love their clientele. Plenty of con artists feign love only to obtain the wealth of their mark.

First of all, love is not something anyone expects with regards to the sexual interaction between a prostitute and a client.

As for faking love, you can fake any emotion, but you can only say someone is faking something if you believe that there is something to be faked.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
You atheists are so comsumed with providing "evidence". It could be viewed as funny.

I find this pretty funny.

[Ben Kenobi]

As, so a Deux Ex Machina that explains nothing.

It works. I already shot one alternative theory down. What's your consistant theory on the origins of life without God?

First, you have no evidence that the scriptures as writen are any more historically accurate than the Da Vinci Code or a Harry Potter book, or the Q'uran.

Actually, we do. There are only 5 copies of Aristotle out there, and 20 of Tacitus. There are 24 THOUSAND copies of the Vulgates and Greek bibles out there.

There are 230 manuscripts that predate 600 AD.

The Codex Vaticanus dates back to 300 AD, while the earliest copy of the Rylands manuscript dates back to 130 AD.

So yes, we have ample manuscript evidence which is far superior to anything else out there.

The earliest copies of Herodotus and Thucydides we have date back to 900 AD. For Aristotle and Tacitus, they date back to 1100 AD. So we can be much more sure of the accuracy of our copies of scripture then we can of any of the other ancient works of history.

The earliest Koran is in London and dates back to 800 AD, or roughly 150 years after the death of Mohammed. Compared to the Rylands manuscript which is only 80 years after the death of Christ and the fact that the Bible is much older then the Koran, and that compares very favourably.

Second, just the mere existance of someone does not validate or claims about them; the fact I acknowledge that Mohammed does exist, and the historically evidence of his existance is solid, does not mean that I believe him to be the last true prophet of god.

That is an entirely reasonable preposition. I am only asking if you believe in the man who existed, Jesus of Nazareth, without accepting any of the other claims, that he preached in Galilee and in Jerusalem, and was crucified by the Romans on Golgatha.

[McCrea]

Re: Proof: God makes you stupid

Originally posted by MarkG

God makes you stupid, researchers claim

"...stupidity is causally linked to how likely people are to believe in God."

"...average IQ is an excellent predictor of what proportion of the population are true believers..."

I'm sure I didn't miss when they proved average = stupid. I believe the intended model is stupid < average < smart.

The field of stupidity is very young. [Edit: so young, in fact, that it is now trendy, and thus one plausible cause for this recent study.] I don't think it has a classification yet, and considering both the national history of IQ and bias and misuse of (former) clinical terms such as moron, imbecile, et. al., I would propose "beteology".

Anyhow, the whole article is insubstantial. I'm not going to research this now, but the correlation between IQ and atheism has been shown before. The reason I won't follow up is because I hoped this was about stupidity, which neither I nor many know much about. Instead, the article is simply about IQ and atheism, both of which I currently find to be boring subjects.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by GePap
While this is true, you are left the issue of explaining what you are willing to believe, and what you are not, and why. Why believe that Jesus is Christ as opposed to the idea that he wasn't the Messiah, or that Mohammed was in fact the last true prophet. Or that life was placed here by space aliens?

Jesus made some testable assertions, and I tested them and found them true. But it is up to you to test them for yourself. The challenge to repent and turn to God is an individual one, not one of providing proof for somebody else.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


It works. I already shot one alternative theory down. What's your consistant theory on the origins of life without God?

First of all, you haven't shot **** down.
Second, your theory "works" just as well as me saying that a covenant of twelve insane intelligences created the universe purely for their own amusement. That theory "works" just as well as your.

Actually, we do. There are only 5 copies of Aristotle out there, and 20 of Tacitus. There are 24 THOUSAND copies of the Vulgates and Greek bibles out there.

There are 230 manuscripts that predate 600 AD.

The Codex Vaticanus dates back to 300 AD, while the earliest copy of the Rylands manuscript dates back to 130 AD.

So yes, we have ample manuscript evidence which is far superior to anything else out there.

The earliest copies of Herodotus and Thucydides we have date back to 900 AD. For Aristotle and Tacitus, they date back to 1100 AD. So we can be much more sure of the accuracy of our copies of scripture then we can of any of the other ancient works of history.

The earliest Koran is in London and dates back to 800 AD, or roughly 150 years after the death of Mohammed. Compared to the Rylands manuscript which is only 80 years after the death of Christ and the fact that the Bible is much older then the Koran, and that compares very favourably.

You think publishing figures are proof of anything?

Summerian records of their myths predate any biblical manuscript by millenia. Oh, now you have to believe in Gilgamesh.

That is an entirely reasonable preposition. I am only asking if you believe in the man who existed, Jesus of Nazareth, without accepting any of the other claims, that he preached in Galilee and in Jerusalem, and was crucified by the Romans on Golgatha.

I have no reason not to believe that a guy named Jesus lived and was killed by the Romans. I know there was a guy called David Koresh that also lived and was eventually killed by authorities as well.

[Ben Kenobi]

First, you have no evidence that the scriptures as writen are any more historically accurate than the Da Vinci Code or a Harry Potter book, or the Q'uran.

Gepap, that was your question.

Now, my point is that there is more historical evidence in favour of the Gospel being historically accurate then either of these three.

There is more evidence that the Gospels are more historically accurate then any of the other ancient historians. If we would believe Tacitus or Herodotus, or Seutonius, should we not also believe the Gospel accounts.

As for your flippant remark about Gilgamesh there is speculation that he was a real ruler of the Babylon area around 2700 BC.

The Epic, at least our earliest copies of it date back to the 7th century in Ashurbapanel, so only a gap of 20 centuries.

I guess my point to you, is that the manuscript evidence might not mean anything, but oh well. It's proof positive for historians and an indication of reliability.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Gepap, that was your question.

Now, my point is that there is more historical evidence in favour of the Gospel being historically accurate then either of these three.

When a story comes to be printed does not verify it as true. There were tens of millions of copies of Harry Potter less than a decade after Rowlings invented her characters.

There is more evidence that the Gospels are more historically accurate then any of the other ancient historians. If we would believe Tacitus or Herodotus, or Seutonius, should we not also believe the Gospel accounts.

The existance of many characters in the stories of the ancient historians are referenced elsewhere, by other sources. No one today would take what Herodotus said and claim it to be an absolute truth, like you claim gospel to be.

I guess my point to you, is that the manuscript evidence might not mean anything, but oh well. It's proof positive for historians and an indication of reliability.

It most certainly is not proof positive of anything. The way one looks to validate history is to look for several sources of evidence regarding the actions of any individuals, including non-literary evdence, such as statues, monuments, and so forth, as well as tombs, and artifacts.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Agathon


I find this pretty funny.

He's here all night.

[Elok]

You know what would be great? If there were an [arguing with BK] tag or something, and a corresponding ability to check a little box in the forum interface and remove all posts bearing that tag from view. I imagine we'd have to self-police, or else code it so the tag is auto-attached whenever the smiley is used. Either way, I'd like to be able to read only the posts in a thread that aren't a lengthy rhetorical two-step.

Can't be arsed to investigate the actual studies; I don't know enough about statistics to reach a meaningful conclusion. While I'm obviously biased against the belief that I'm in with the cretins, it seems a tad simplistic to argue direct correlation. IMO it's more a matter of the ongoing fundamentalist anti-intellectual backlash in the wake of The Origin of Species alienating academics from religion.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Elok
You know what would be great? If there were an [arguing with BK] tag or something, and a corresponding ability to check a little box in the forum interface and remove all posts bearing that tag from view. I imagine we'd have to self-police, or else code it so the tag is auto-attached whenever the smiley is used. Either way, I'd like to be able to read only the posts in a thread that aren't a lengthy rhetorical two-step.

There are a whole slew of posters this could be applied to

[Theben]

It would be better if the Ignore list removed the poster from your sight entirely, so I wouldn't feel tempted to look anyway.

[Nikolai]

I can't understand how Ben hold out with you guys. There should be possible to respect him even though you disagree.