Atheism - theism

[Freethinker]

Nah, actually its the Madeline Murray O'Hair crowd that hijacked it, not the uber-fundamentalists... oh wait, is that what you mean by "the opposition?"

Interestingly, I have been compared to her by people that knew her personally. Though I am nowhere near as proactive as her.

[Freethinker]

Phelps writes:

 

"The religious sentiment, in its essence, can never be crushed by reasoning, by a sin, by a crime, by any form of atheism; there is something there which remains and always will remain beyond all that, something which the arguments of atheists will never touch.

Which is obviously false. As PROVEN by the GROWING number of Atheists out of Religious society.

 

If "The religious sentiment, in its essence, can never be crushed by reasoning,.. by any form of atheism", then Atheism would HAVE to DECREASE in societal penetration. Not INCREASE. As such the claim is internally self contradictory and thus invalid.

[Freethinker]

Gnostic was the branch that early on was branded as heretical by the then dominant Catholic structure.

"Gnosticism is a philosophical and religious movement which started in pre-Christian times."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/gnostic.htm

 

"Many elements of gnosticism are pre-Christian, and it is generally accepted that orthodox Christianity and its canonical texts do not predate the Gnostic movement, but grew up alongside it, out of some of the same sources."

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

 

Not to mention that there was no "dominant Catholic structure" until the Orthodoxy split in the 11th Century.

 

It is more historically correct to state that Christianity is a form of Gnosticism than the other way around.

The importance is the word belief itself. Practically why the Crusades were fought. "They were infidels!" and "We are right with God!" See how those oppose each other.

Boy how many times has this been challenged at this site! Claims that the Crusades were NOT religiously motivated!

 

Just as interesting is how Dubya, the Idiot child, specifically stated, perhaps Freudianly, that his 9/11 response was a CRUSADE! And his top Military General in Iraq was openly stating that HIS god was more powerful than their false god!

I see it as same, with God / "No God". Both are belief.

Never willing to comprehend, are we?

 

Try explaining to your hairstylist that you want your hair died the color "bald". Obviously by your POV bald (a LACK of hair) IS a hair color also!

Both can neither be proved nor disproved.

Oh, I CAN PROVE that I have a LACK of a god belief!

What I see you have two people in a room: a Creationist (Theist) and an Atheist. To either to see the others point of view would take the same procedure. The removal of the will. Now a lobotomy would probably do the trick.

Oh I can SEE the other POV. I can understand what and why. I am just not willing to sell my life out so cheaply. I DEMAND factual proof and will not SETTLE for FAITH.

[pgrmdave]

Just like the "bible Code" and Nostradamus. It is easy to invent correlations after the fact.

 

I am confused, here I am supporting the fact that premonition doesn't exist because I noticed, subconsciously, that things were different than normal - The shades were drawn during the day, there were no lights on that I could see - and you say that I was inventing correlations? I noticed something was different, even though I didn't think it, and felt uneasy.

[Tormod]

I am confused, here I am supporting the fact that premonition doesn't exist because I noticed, subconsciously, that things were different than normal - The shades were drawn during the day, there were no lights on that I could see - and you say that I was inventing correlations? I noticed something was different, even though I didn't think it, and felt uneasy.

 

I read Freethinker as saying that you are correct and that this shows that inventing correlations is easy.

[Freethinker]

If you have them available, I'd really like to take a look at those stats, as well as their source studies. This is something that I've heard referenced, but have never been able to get my hands on. Thanks for the help.

I promised I'd get to it Irish, sorry it took so long. I don't log in from home much and it was hard to find which thread I made the promise on. I keep files of such and lots of other data at home.

 

Burham P Beckwith "The Effects of Education on Religious Faith"

 

two dozen major studies compared

 

The higher the level of school acheivement, the less religious the group.

 

Schools with higher academic standings have less religious populations.

 

"Religious faith varies inversely and strongly with the IQ and SAT scores"

 

13 of 16 student studies showed inverse correlation between IQ/ grades and religious belief, 3 showed no difference.

 

5 student body studies show the same correlation

 

3 of 4 studies show geniuses (over 150IQ) are significantly less religious.

 

12 Gallop polls show college allumni less religious than grade school only educated people.

 

STUDIES OF STUDENTS

 

1. Thomas Howells,

Study of 461 students showed religiously conservative students "are, in general, relatively inferior in intellectual ability."

 

2. Hilding Carlsojn,

Study of 215 students showed that "there is a tendency for the more intelligent undergraduate to be sympathetic toward atheism."

 

3. Abraham Franzblau,

Confirming Howells and Carlson, tested 354 Jewish children, aged 10-16. Found a negative correlation between religiosity and IQ as measured by the Terman intelligence test.

 

4. Thomas Symington,

Tested 400 young people in colleges and church groups. He reported, "There is a constant positive relation in all the groups between liberal religious thinking and mental ability There is also a constant positive relation between liberal scores and intelligence "

 

5. Vernon Jones,

Tested 381 students, concluding "a slight tendency for intelligence and liberal attitudes to go together."

 

6. A. R. Gilliland,

At variance with all other studies, found "little or no relationship between intelligence and attitude toward god."

 

7. Donald Gragg,

Reported an inverse correlation between 100 ACE freshman test scores and Thurstone "reality of god" scores.

 

8. Brown and Love,

At the University of Denver, tested 613 male and female students. The mean test scores of non-believers was 119 points, and for believers it was 100. The non-believers ranked in the 80th percentile, and believers in the 50th. Their findings "strongly corroborate those of Howells."

 

9. Michael Argyle,

Concluded that "although intelligent children grasp religious concepts earlier, they are also the first to doubt the truth of religion, and intelligent students are much less likely to accept orthodox beliefs."

 

10. Jeffrey Hadden,

Found no correlation between intelligence and grades. This was an anomalous finding, since GPA corresponds closely with intelligence. Other factors may have influenced the results at the University of Wisconsin.

 

11. Young, Dustin and Holtzman,

Average religiosity decreased as GPA rose.

 

12. James Trent,

Polled 1400 college seniors. Found little difference, but high-ability students in his sample group were over-represented.

 

13. C. Plant and E. Minium,

The more intelligent students were less religious, both before entering college and after 2 years of college.

 

14. Robert Wuthnow,

Of 532 students, 37 percent of Christians, 58 percent of apostates, and 53 percent of non-religious scored above average on SATs.

 

15. Hastings and Hoge,

Polled 200 college students and found no significant correlations.

 

16. Norman Poythress,

Mean SATs for strongly antireligious (1148), moderately anti-religious (1119), slightly antireligious (1108), and religious (1022).

 

17. Wiebe and Fleck,

Studied 158 male and female Canadian university students. They reported "nonreligious S's tended to be strongly intelligent" and "more intelligent than religious S's."

 

STUDENT BODY COMPARISONS

 

1. Rose Goldsen,

Percentage of students who believe in a divine god: Harvard 30; UCLA 32; Dartmouth 35; Yale 36; Cornell 42; Wayne 43; Weslyan 43; Michigan 45; Fisk 60;

Texas 62; North Carolina 68.

 

2. National Review Study,

Percentage of students who believe in a Spirit or Divine God: Reed 15; Brandeis 25; Sarah Lawrence 28; Williams 36; Stanford 41; Boston U. 41; Yale 42; Howard 47; Indiana 57; Davidson 59; S. Carolina 65; Marquette 77.

 

3. Caplovitz and Sherrow,

Apostasy rates rose continuously from 5 percent in "low" ranked schools to 17 percent in "high" ranked schools.

 

4. Niemi, Ross, and Alexander,

In elite schools, organized religion was judged important by only 26 percent of their students, compared with 44 percent of all students.

 

STUDIES OF VERY-HIGH IQ GROUPS

 

1. Terman,

Studied group with IQ's over 140. Of men, 10 percent held strong religious belief, of women 18 percent. Sixty-two percent of men and 57 percent of women claimed "little religious inclination" while 28 percent of the men and 23 percent of the women claimed it was "not at all important."

 

2. Warren and Heist,

Found no differences among National Merit Scholars. Results may have been effected by the fact that NM scholars are not selected on the basis of intelligence or grades alone, but also on "leadership" and such like.

 

3. Southern and Plant,

Studied 42 male and 30 female members of Mensa. Mensa members were much less religious in belief than the typical American college alumnus or adult.

 

STUDIES Of SCIENTISTS

 

1. William S. Ament,

C. C. Little, president of the University of Michigan, checked persons listed in Who's Who in America: "Unitarians, Episcopalians, Congregationalists, Universalists, and Presbyterians [who are less religious] are far more numerous in Who's Who than would be expected on the basis of the population which they form. Baptists, Methodists, and Catholics are distinctly less numerous."

 

Ament confirmed Little's conclusion. He noted that Unitarians, the least religious, were more than 40 times as numerous in Who's Who as in the U.S. population.

 

2. Lehman and Witty,

Identified 1189 scientists found in both Who's Who and American Men of Science. Only 25 percent of those listed in the latter and 50 percent of those in the former reported their religious denomination, despite the specific request to do so, under the heading of "religious denomination (if any)." Well over 90 percent of the general population claims religious affiliation. The figure of 25 percent suggests far less religiosity among scientists.

 

Unitarians were 81.4 times as numerous among eminent scientists as non-Unitarians.

 

3. Kelley and Fisk,

Found a negative (-.39) correlation between the strength of religious values and research competence. [How these were measured is unknown.]

 

4. Ann Roe,

Interviewed 64 "eminent scientists, nearly all members of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences or the American Philosophical Society. She reported that, while nearly all of them had religious parents and had attended Sunday school, 'now only three of these men are seriously active in church. A few others attend upon occasion, or even give some financial support to a church which they do not attend All the others have long since dismissed religion as any guide to them, and the church plays no part in their lives A few are militantly atheistic, but most are just not interested.'"

 

5. Francis Bello,

Interviewed or questionnaired 107 nonindustrial scientists under the age of 40 judged by senior colleagues to be outstanding. Of the 87 responses, 45 percent

claimed to be "agnostic or atheistic" and an additional 22 percent claimed no religious affiliation. For 20 most eminent, "the proportion who are now a-religious is considerably higher than in the entire survey group."

 

6. Jack Chambers,

Questionnaired 740 US psychologists and chemists. He reported, "The highly creative men significantly more often show either no preference for a particular religion or little or no interest in religion." Found that the most eminent psychologists showed 40 percent no preference, 16 percent for the most eminent chemists.

 

7. Vaughan, Smith, and Sjoberg,

Polled 850 US physicists, zoologists, chemical engineers, and geologists listed in American Men of Science on church membership, and attendance patterns, and belief in afterlife. Of the 642 replies, 38.5 percent did not believe in an afterlife, whereas 31.8 percent did. Belief in immortality was less common among major university staff than among those employed by business, government, or minor universities. The Gallup poll taken about this time showed that two-thirds of the U.S. population believed in an afterlife, so scientists were far less religious than the typical adult.

[RiverRat]

FT … It appears that you have provided a plethora of studies that suggests (or possibly proves) that individuals with inferior intellects are more apt to be ‘religious’.

 

You have mentioned (and cited literature) on numerous occasions that religion has impeded an overwhelming number of good and viable advancements in any number of fields (education, medicine, etc …). You have also mentioned that religion is the root cause of war and suffering throughout history.

 

OK …religious individuals are intellectually inferior, impeded advancements in the betterment of humanity and are the root of all evil.

 

NOW … I pose to you again (as you dodged a similar post)… what will you do to ‘right’ which is easily apparent ‘wrong’? What are your action plans?

 

It is obvious that you have spent countless hours formulating and researching your point of view. Have you spent equal time in proposal development?

[Fishteacher73]

I think simply removing an impediment allows forward movement. Removing the block allows one to move up on a sane and logical path. The removal of these "taboos" and biases allows the individual to see the world and its current situation in a more objective light and remove a segregating factor of humanity.

 

It would be wise to replace the theological vacuum with education of the basic knowledge that mankind has developed and shift responsibilty to the individual as opposed to some "higher power". To simply remove religion would leave a vacuum that any other half-baked "-ology" could replace and continue the same regression and oppression that religion has done over the ages.

[Freethinker]

FT … It appears that you have provided a plethora of studies that suggests (or possibly proves) that individuals with inferior intellects are more apt to be ‘religious’.

Not "intellects", but education. Unless you mean them synonymously. What this research indicates is that the more EDUCATED a person is, the less likely they are to ahve a religious belief structure. Or perhaps conversly, people that place education high on their agenda and praoctively act on it, have a non-religious mindset. That the more a person is interested in gaining factual knowledge, the less apt they are to accept religious claims.

 

But there is an obvious inverse correlation between level of education and religious belief.

You have mentioned (and cited literature) on numerous occasions that religion has impeded an overwhelming number of good and viable advancements in any number of fields (education, medicine, etc …). You have also mentioned that religion is the root cause of war and suffering throughout history.

Nicely capsuled. You've been paying attention.

OK …religious individuals are intellectually inferior, impeded advancements in the betterment of humanity and are the root of all evil.

I never said this, but I won't argue the point.

NOW … I pose to you again (as you dodged a similar post)… what will you do to ‘right’ which is easily apparent ‘wrong’? What are your action plans?

 

It is obvious that you have spent countless hours formulating and researching your point of view. Have you spent equal time in proposal development?

If you search the site you will find that I have in fact delineated this previously. To cover a few aspects.

 

I have been President of a local Freethought group for almost 10 years now. I am active in numerous Freethought National Orgs and our group is aligned with some of them. We have hosted various guest lecturers, seminars and host a booth at our State's State Fair. I have attended many protests from anti-war to the "Godless March on DC" (with 2 of my sons). I have had many situations with my kid's schools fighting religious incursions. I have been so active that I am listed in "Who's WHo in Hell" ("This listing of several thousand nonbelievers include ancients such as Euripides; French revolutionaries; and statements by or about countless individuals including Sir Arthur C.Clarke, Hugh Hefner, Jack Nicholson, Sally Jesse Raphael. This book makes a case not only for the respectabilty of nonbelievers but also for their positive outlooks and creativity." Amazon)

 

Other social involvement included/s Cub Scout Den leader (YEP! No Christian would step forward and I crossed out the god stuff on the form), Asst soccer coach, memberof kids' school site committee, Pres of my city's Cable Access Committee, active in Howard Dean's campaign including being his chauffer when he was in the state. Ward Captain and poll location monitor for Kerry.

 

But perhaps my most rewarding and visible activity is involvement with a rapidly growing discussion site on the internet.

[Freethinker]

It would be wise to replace the theological vacuum with education of the basic knowledge that mankind has developed and shift responsibilty to the individual as opposed to some "higher power". To simply remove religion would leave a vacuum that any other half-baked "-ology" could replace and continue the same regression and oppression that religion has done over the ages.

This is perhaps the biggest stumbling block to shedding society of religious superstition. How many people are ready to adopt a personal philosophy that does not allow them to shift their guilt to some greater power as an excuse? How many have the purity of heart to openly admit full personal responsibility rather than "The devil made me do it", or claims of being a "weak willed human" unable to resist temptation without some outside force ready to punish them if they do not act right?

 

Not that people CAN'T do it. But they have been used to being able to make excuses rather than accept responsibility. Are they willing to not just let their superstition go, but accept the full implications of living a positive life without being "forced by fear" to?

[dlauz]

i had a big eye opener about religion after reading the book WORLD IN COLLISION by Immanuel Velikovsky. It can explain a lot about early believes. Also his other book LES GRANDS BOULVERSEMENTS TERRESTRE. I know he is a very controversial author but his idea makes lots of sense.

 

did you know that when einstein passed away he had Velikovsky's book open on his desk.

[RiverRat]

FT ... I commend you on your activism. The cub scout thing was a bit militant… but extreme views (based on societal norms) requires extreme tactics (“…. By any means necessary”).

 

The Jews runs Hollywood, the Christians run Government and atheists run cub scout troop #777 and Jefferson elementary soccer team … :cup:

 

You are in an unenviable position of constantly trying to educate people and defend your POV (which is undoubtedly taxing).

 

Myself … I do not have to ‘evangelize’ my POV therefore I am able to concentrate my energy on tangible items. Although I admit I could do more, I have done far less in the past. As I grow and learn, I understand that there are unfortunate people in adverse situations. When I was younger in my rebellious stage my ‘faith’ was negligible and my actions and outlook reflected it. As I continually evolve, my ‘faith’ strengthens and my actions mimic this. I simply try to find the good in every person, live my life in a proper manner and be altruistic whenever possible.

 

One could say … well geez you could do that without ‘believing’ … but I say why must they be mutually exclusive. I’m by far a better person now then when I was in my rebellious stage. For me at this point in time … it is good enough.

[Fishteacher73]

One could say … well geez you could do that without ‘believing’ … but I say why must they be mutually exclusive. I’m by far a better person now then when I was in my rebellious stage. For me at this point in time … it is good enough.

 

Not to demean your POV or experience, but for the sake of argument, could one not pose the idea that durring your "rebelious phase" when you were disillusioned was a reaction away from a religious tennet? If this system that you rebeled from had not been in place, could you have reached an altruistic state without having to have had this "rebelious stage'?

 

In other words, could religion have instigated your negative outlook (not that it does today) and had you not had this in your life in your youth could you have still become the person you are today (Minus the religious affiliation)?

 

Just some thoughts.....

[RiverRat]

I can not say that religion pushed me away and was the catalyst of my rebellious stage.

 

Looking back (hindsight is 20/20) it was apparent that I was EXTREMELY self centered. Everything revolved around ME, ME, ME !! Everything I did was an individual endeavor (from mixed martial arts to power lifting to racing superbikes). Nothing else was relevant except ME. Not a healthy or productive state of mind.

 

Would I have evolved to the steady state I am comfortable in now without religion??

Maybe … but probably not.

 

I’ve had a few life changing experiences that are not easily communicated and are readily dismissed as ‘anecdotal’ by a skeptic. This does not lower the event to an irrelevant status for me … the person that experienced it.

 

Over the years… through these few experiences, reading and searching and speaking with other people … I evolved to my POV.

[Fishteacher73]

Well with matters of faith I feel it is a purely personal decision. If through personal insight and experience you decide that a faith/religion is for you than I feel that is the best type of personal faith. One issue that many atheist find is that the average religious person on the street has not done the introspection and has blindly accepted what dogma has been spoon fed to them. The fact that we have this discussion on this type of board almost automaticly removed you from this precieved "blind herd". As you have probably found that not all atheists are screaming demon worshipers :cup: as generally percieved by the faithful either.

 

We have all come here to discuss various thoughts and idea constructively, and I commend you POV here...out of the frying pan and into the fire.

 

Hopefully we can all learn from each other and in the end be better for it.