Are People Who Believe in God Stupid?

[Coito ergo sum]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzQ7iYNG ... ture=feedu[/youtube]

[jcmmanuel]

I've read a few different versions of the Bible, and I can tell you one thing for sure: there is no science to be learned there. None.

Calm down Johnny Boy. Who was talking about science? Music isn't science either. Making love isn't science. Underneath all things there's the (natural/physical) 'wiring', which explains how things work. Besides that, how we use our knowledge, how we make sense of things, how we see something as artistic or not, is hardly a scientific matter - let alone in the domain of the exact sciences. Science is reductionistic by design - that's on purpose. But no scientist would normally see that as a strong limit to our human aptitudes (unless your name is Francis Crick of course).

FYI: those different versions of the Bible have their reason to exist in the fact that no language covers the other exactly, and especially the difference between ancient and modern languages is endemic in this regard. This is why the study of any ancient work is an interesting specialization for a particular breed of scientists (they are called historians, although also textual criticists, experts in literature, sociologists, archeologists and others are usually involved).

Only someone who has not cracked the binding of a real science book could think the Bible has any "science" in it.

Look, if I need someone to tell me the obvious about religion, I'll ask Dawkins, he's just as good at it. But thanks for the reminder.

It has some assertions about reality, yes, but that's not science.

No one was claiming that science is everything, and only an idiot would claim that everything is covered by science. One could just as well contend that his hammer and nails and his complete treating tank is the summary of everything there is. Normally, we people know the difference between 'us' and the tools we use. And even the most formidable tools are meant to serve us, offer us specific insights - they are not designed to be put on a pedestal and tell everybody to bow down for the new Golden Calf. Be real - that's good enough already.

And, I've never met anyone who ever said that they want to understand religion from a science book. I'm an atheist, and I learn about religion from reading religious books.

I've seen a lot of guys who challenge religion by means of a concocted idea about 'science' dissolving all of that. (Oh, wait - it was in your first quote already too, I'm just sayin'). And, as I already pointed out, one could just as well stew together the idea that science 'wants' everything to be 'logical' about us. Yet, besides the fact that science doesn't want anything (the habit of personifying science is a bit of a residue of postmodernism, afaics), most people know how to use our tools. Love is not rational and not scientific - but it is human. A part of the sciences (natural sciences, physics) are 'exact' but not all things are exact and certainly not humans. So what are you talking about and what is the problem I am supposed to see for me here?

Thanks for introducing yourself as atheist. The 'atheist' box however I consider too small for any atheist to live inside of it. So I'll take the freedom to see you as a human being in the first place, regardless those labels.

[jcmmanuel]

(shit, I always hit the quote button in stead of the edit button - and apparently you can't delete a post here, so this is a 'placeholder' now).

[devogue]

Re: this thread.

That's the last fuckin' time I try to troll this forum.

[Chuck Jones]

Devogue, I don't condone trolling. Please stop it.

[scubahog]

I firmly believe that if they have been indoctrinated from an early age they may not be stupid per say.... However, once someone has been exposed to free thinking or more rational ways of thinking and chooses to continue down the path of the credulous they are not gaining any respect from me and I very well may call them stupid.....

[Coito ergo sum]

I've read a few different versions of the Bible, and I can tell you one thing for sure: there is no science to be learned there. None.

Calm down Johnny Boy. Who was talking about science?

You were: "jcmmanuel wrote: And to consider a theist who wants to learn science from the bible just as much fake as an atheist who wants to understand religion from a science book, must be stupid too." To which I responded - There is no science to be learned there. None.

Music isn't science either. Making love isn't science. Underneath all things there's the (natural/physical) 'wiring', which explains how things work. Besides that, how we use our knowledge, how we make sense of things, how we see something as artistic or not, is hardly a scientific matter - let alone in the domain of the exact sciences. Science is reductionistic by design - that's on purpose. But no scientist would normally see that as a strong limit to our human aptitudes (unless your name is Francis Crick of course).

All good points - but, like I said, I was addressing your point about the theist who "chooses to learn science from the Bible." Naturally, music is not science, etc., and there may be plenty to be gained from the Bible. I've read it, and there are some very interesting stories, some very poetic portions, some interesting moral lessons, and whatnot. It gives one a basis for much of English literature, which contains many Biblical references. An appreciation of the Bible is very important to a good knowledge of English literature.

FYI: those different versions of the Bible have their reason to exist in the fact that no language covers the other exactly, and especially the difference between ancient and modern languages is endemic in this regard. This is why the study of any ancient work is an interesting specialization for a particular breed of scientists (they are called historians, although also textual criticists, experts in literature, sociologists, archeologists and others are usually involved).

That's certainly true. There are many reasons for many versions of the Bible to exist.

Only someone who has not cracked the binding of a real science book could think the Bible has any "science" in it.

Look, if I need someone to tell me the obvious about religion, I'll ask Dawkins, he's just as good at it. But thanks for the reminder.

I'll just have to point out, once again, that you're the one that referred to theists who choose to get their science from the Bible. That's what I was responding to. But, now I see we are in agreement - there is no science to be gotten from the Bible. Fair enough.

It has some assertions about reality, yes, but that's not science.

No one was claiming that science is everything, and only an idiot would claim that everything is covered by science. One could just as well contend that his hammer and nails and his complete treating tank is the summary of everything there is. Normally, we people know the difference between 'us' and the tools we use. And even the most formidable tools are meant to serve us, offer us specific insights - they are not designed to be put on a pedestal and tell everybody to bow down for the new Golden Calf. Be real - that's good enough already.

Okay. Nobody did claim that science was everything or that everything was covered by science.

And, I've never met anyone who ever said that they want to understand religion from a science book. I'm an atheist, and I learn about religion from reading religious books.

I've seen a lot of guys who challenge religion by means of a concocted idea about 'science' dissolving all of that. (Oh, wait - it was in your first quote already too, I'm just sayin').

Arguing that science disproves some religious assertion is not the same thing as "learning about religion from science."

And, as I already pointed out, one could just as well stew together the idea that science 'wants' everything to be 'logical' about us. Yet, besides the fact that science doesn't want anything (the habit of personifying science is a bit of a residue of postmodernism, afaics), most people know how to use our tools. Love is not rational and not scientific - but it is human. A part of the sciences (natural sciences, physics) are 'exact' but not all things are exact and certainly not humans. So what are you talking about and what is the problem I am supposed to see for me here?

Your the one who made some assertions to which I responded. What I would say to you at this point is that man's capacity to love says nothing about the existence of gods We don't have to believe in a god or gods in order to experience love and appreciate other abstract concepts.

Thanks for introducing yourself as atheist. The 'atheist' box however I consider too small for any atheist to live inside of it. So I'll take the freedom to see you as a human being in the first place, regardless those labels.

Okeydoke.

[Chuck Jones]

Coitus doesn't like theists. He's a theophobe.

[Coito ergo sum]

Coitus doesn't like theists. He's a theophobe.

Addressing your comment, LaMont...

I like them. I find them puzzling, often hypocritical and irrational, and generally motivated by wish-thinking, but generally speaking, I don't mind theists. Unless they're priests, though. I don't trust priests. I find them patently dishonest, and I have a firm belief that they know full well they are full of shit, but sell their snake oil anyway. Also, any grown man who would enter a profession wherein he has to promise to never have sex is suspect.

Other theists that I don't like are the kind that "just believe" something for no reason, and reject a myriad other beliefs that they don't "just believe", while at the same time suggesting that it is somehow unreasonable for someone else to reject all those same myriad beliefs plus the one that the theist "just believes" for no reason. The kind of person that can do that seems to me to not be trustworthy.

[Chuck Jones]

See? You don't like theists because they believe. Theophobe!

[Feck]

See? You don't like theists because they believe. Theophobe!

And where is the virtue in suffering fools gladly ,Monkey Boy ?

[Chuck Jones]

Another theophobe! Theophobe!!!

[Feck]

Another theophobe! Theophobe!!!

Grow a pair .

[Chuck Jones]

I can't believe this. All this intolerance and bigotry! Theophobes!!!

[Feck]

I can't believe this. All this intolerance and bigotry! Theophobes!!!

Where is the bigotry ? and you have had enough tolerance..... to quote BA 'Pity the fool !'