General Question

emt333's avatar

Are Christian believers intellectually inferior?

Asked by emt333 (774 points ) March 14th, 2009

Let’s summarize what we know…the world was created 6000 years ago despite overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence in the physical record to the contrary… the first woman was made from the first man’s rib, and they lived in an earthly paradise until they were expelled and kept from returning by a twirling fire sword (and then the garden conveniently disappeared from the archaelogical record). a couple years later some guy builds a big wooden boat and puts two of every one of the hundreds of millions of species of animals and insects on board and then proceeds to weather a global flood and release his menagerie back into the wild, not accounting for environmental issues (what would penguins do in the middle east???) and some many years after that God inseminates a virgin woman (seems to be a likely candidate for caesarian section, in a barn, no less) and that this child dies on the cross some 33 largely unaccounted for years later only to be resurrected and appear to a hooker of dubious reputation and promise eternal life?? without tradition on their side wouldn’t believers be locked up or at least ridiculed for their totally asinine (at best) beliefs? and then what kind of cheek must these people have to wage 2000 years of war and bloodshed under the banner of their “loving” messiah? Given all this wouldn’t a reasonable conclusion be that these “believers” are irrational, illogical, and ultimately lacking the basic mental capacity to discern between fact and fiction? is not this process of discimination and discernment the very cornerstone of sanity?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

83 Answers

tinyfaery's avatar

Is it really going to be one of these days? Maybe I’ll come back tomorrow.

LKidKyle1985's avatar

I heard that 80% of scientist are christian,(at least in the united states) you don’t have to believe all the stories in the bible to actually believe in god as a christian.

emt333's avatar

@LKidKyle1985 i don’t know where your “heard” that but it seems obvious as 75% of Americans are christian that a similar proportion of “scientists” would also be christian.

Elumas's avatar

No, we are equals to you and all the people on earth, sometimes we forget that, sometime you do too.

Les's avatar

Don’t feed the troll, guys. Go enjoy your Saturday!!

emt333's avatar

@Elumas the shameful Christian record of subjugation and slavery under the guise of evangelism would seem to belie your point

zerocarbon's avatar

I am giving all my money to the church because they need the money.
Why do they need the money? i hear you say,well it’s because the people at the top need it to live a discerning life at your expense,besides, everybody else does it.
Buy your passage to Eternity.
So to the question,yes.

ubersiren's avatar

I don’t think Christians are less intelligent because of their beliefs. But studies have shown that people who are more religious (in general, not just Christians) ask fewer questions about life, resulting in much lower test scores. I read one recently, that I will try to find and link, that compared people who wrote the title of their favorite book as being The Holy Bible among the lowest SAT scores.

This is totally general and not meant to piss anyone off. Also, correlation does not imply causation.

Blondesjon's avatar

Dear kindly Sergeant Krupke,
You gotta understand,
It’s just our bringin’ up-ke
That gets us out of hand.
Our mothers all are junkies,
Our fathers all are drunks.
Golly Moses, natcherly we’re punks!

fireside's avatar

@tinyfaery – i was thinking the same thing, lol

Qingu's avatar

Someone can be wrong without being intellectually inferior. I think that kind of language is bordering on inappropriate.

That said, I do think that the idea of “faith”—as expressed in evangelical Christianity at least—is anti-intellectual.

Jayne's avatar

They are certainly not cognitively inferior, as there can be no doubt that tendency towards religion results almost entirely from nurture over nature. Whether or not their intellectual constructs are inferior is of course dependent on our definition of the ideal intellectual model. Being an atheist, I am obviously inclined to think that the atheist mode of thought is superior, or I would not follow it. But depending on the purpose of the intellect, mine could well be inferior; it would certainly be less comforting in difficult situations, of which I have had few. In short, I would not say that atheists are intellectually superior to theists, and I like bashing biblical fallacies as much as the next heretic.

LKidKyle1985's avatar

@emt333 lol okay 75% what does it matter dude, my point is still the same. A majority of people we would assume to be rational and logical still believe in god.

cwilbur's avatar

Not all Christian believers believe what you laid out in your question.

Straw man arguments are also frequently held to be signs that the person putting them forth is irrational, illogical, and ultimately unable to distinguish between an argument and an attempt at character assassination.

Google for “alt.atheism FAQ” and read it. Atheists are supposed to understand logic.

emt333's avatar

@LKidKyle1985 you made the incredibly illuminating point that the same percentage of “scientists” believe in god as do americans. that’s like saying that 50% of people are men. and we’re not talking belief in god but specifically christian dogma

critter1982's avatar

Why do we argue that if there is a God, that he could not have done these miracles in the Bible? I find that the creation of the universe was likely much harder than gathering 2 of each sex of animal and placing them on a boat…....but that’s just me. Using unlikely situations to prove that there is no God is intellectually inferior, IMHO.

Blondesjon's avatar

Dear kindly Judge, your Honor,
My parents treat me rough.
With all their marijuana,
They won’t give me a puff.
They didn’t wanna have me,
But somehow I was had.
Leapin’ lizards! That’s why I’m so bad!

Qingu's avatar

About scientists believing in God—most scientists do not believe in a personal God, like religious people do. According to Scientific American, as of 1998, only 40% of scientists believe in a personal God.

And according to Nature, 72% of NAS scientists are outright atheists.

cwilbur's avatar

@Qingu: if 72% of educated people say a stupid thing, it is still a stupid thing.

Qingu's avatar

@cwilbur, I wasn’t trying to say that “there is no god because 72% of scientists say so.”

I was only disputing the claims other people were making that a majority of scientists believe in God. When most people say “God” they mean a personal God, like Yahweh of the Bible, not an impersonal force—and so I think that claim is inaccurate.

Dog's avatar

I see today is becoming battle of the non-believers/believers.

Now we are trying to gracefully insult one another with questions like this.

I think my time will be better spent in studio today.

gailcalled's avatar

@emt: Is one intellectually inferior when he sends masses of text with no breaks? Let’s summarize what I know. Paragraphs were invented for a reason.

88corniche's avatar

Why don’t we have no religion at all. Would that help solve the question as originally posited?

Blondesjon's avatar

@gailcalledi never thanked you for pointing that out to me early on…thank you :)

emt333's avatar

oh really gail??? Were paragraphs invented??? who gets credit for this ingenious concept??? and what pioneer brought paragraphs to fluther??? because i’d really be interested to know your thoughts on this fascinating topic, particularly as they are so relevant to the question i posed. but in the meantime please forgive my uncouth ignorance before you who are the paragon of grammatical propriety. while we’re at it i also didn’t capitalize anything and there are some particularly egregious fragments and run ons. MEA CULPA MEA CULPA

elijah's avatar

oh snap!

Blondesjon's avatar

@emt333have you ever played this game before? the first one to get angry loses…

chyna's avatar

@emt333 Why the rudeness?

madcapper's avatar

Jesus Christ people! He wouldn’t want you fighting like this. He sits in judgement of all man-kind and if you don;t think he’s on fluther right now marking you in the “going to hell” category you need to read your bible…

gailcalled's avatar

@emt333: while we’re at it i also didn’t capitalize anything and there are some particularly egregious fragments and run ons”

Thanks for pointing that out. I hadn’t noticed. I was too busy putting in eye drops.

elijah's avatar

@madcapper Well you just took the lords name in vain so see ya there
;-)

madcapper's avatar

Aww God damn it! I did…

syz's avatar

Wow. Just wow.

TheKNYHT's avatar

EMT is showing considerable skepticism, bias, and even behavior bordering on hostility, shame shame on them! ; )
As a Christian, I’ve known some rather dumb Christians, and some very intelligent atheists/agnostics; I have also known the reverse sort as well.
What it comes down to is this, I and Christians like myself believe in Genesis 1:1, and if one can believe that, the rest of the Bible flows as entirely credible. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” If He is capable of doing this, what CAN’T He do? Atheists scoff at the idea of a 6 day creation. God could have done it in 6 hours, 6 minutes, 6 seconds, or 6 nano-seconds if He so chose.
No evidence for a 6 day creation? And what of all the irrefutable evidence that this universe could NOT be billions of years old? Seems that athiests don’t want to talk about that at all.
Ex-Atheist.com.
...“TWIRLING fire sword” ??? lol
Incidently, one wouldn’t require all of the millions of species in that ark; i.e., every breed and species of dog. get two dogs, breed, breed, breed, take the variants and breed those, and eventually you’d come up with all sort of breeds.
The mean average of all animals would be approximately the size of a sheep. One wouldn’t require fully grown animals that would be too large to comfortably load onto the ark, like Elephants and rhinos, etc. The measurements of the ark: 450’ x 75’ x 50’or 1,687,500 cubic feet, more than enough space to accomodate the various primary species of the planet.
Yet for all of this, atheists will hold their ground because it supports their own faith in the religion that is evolution, a system of thought (not by name, but in principle) that was long ago a part of Hindu spirituality.
And wars for 2,000 yrs perpetrated by Christians? huh… I obviously have been out of the loop for some time! ; )

marinelife's avatar

Clearly they are no more ignorant that you are, dear questioner.

First of all, a majority of Christians are not Biblical literalists. You have applied the label Christian to a narrow set of beliefs subscribed to by some evangelical sects.

Jeruba's avatar

<atheist declining to play this egregiously dumb game>

Qingu's avatar

@TheKNYHT, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” If He is capable of doing this, what CAN’T He do?

He couldn’t defeat a tribe that used iron chariots in Judges 1:19.

In Yahweh’s defense, I probably couldn’t defeat a tribe with iron chariots either. Unless I had a machine gun or something.

critter1982's avatar

That was Judah, not God.

NaturalMineralWater's avatar

What a silly question. xD Meh… I don’t need to be the garlic in your hate soup. Perhaps you’ll have to use oregano.

Jack79's avatar

Actually you got it all wrong. It’s only been 1976 years of war and bloodshed. Take it back now!

Qingu's avatar

“Yahweh was with Judah, and he took possession of the hill country, but could not drive out the inhabitants of the plain, because they had chariots of iron.” —Judges 1:19

critter1982's avatar

Judah could not drive out the inhabitants because he failed to believe that God’s power would protect him from the iron chariots.

In all honesty, “if God does exist” do you not think that he was capable of this?

Qingu's avatar

I don’t see that anywhere in the text, critter.

And I think Yahweh’s power level fluctuates depending on narrative need, much like an anime character.

LKidKyle1985's avatar

@emt333 First off i said in my first response that not all Christians believe in that dogmatic crap, so I did not ignore that part of your question, and second it would be ignorant of someone to assume that a particular group in a society has the same statistical make up as the rest of society. According to your logic, since 75% of Americans are Christian it would be safe to assume 75% of people of middle eastern decent are also Christian. Or, another good example, you wouldn’t assume that the prison population is the same statistical make up as society. If you do then your assumption would be very wrong. I don’t know why anyone would just assume 75% of scientist are christian as well. Thats why i pointed it out.

critter1982's avatar

@Qingu: Reference Judges 2. It states something to the fact that I have led you to the land I promised your forefathers, I told you I wouldn’t break my covenant and you disobeyed me.

Qingu's avatar

@critter1982,

“But you have not obeyed my command. See what you have done! So now I say, I will not drive them out before you; but they shall become adversaries to you, and their gods shall be a snare to you.”

Yahweh’s angel says this after the incident with the iron chariots.

Are you suggesting Yahweh was extending his punishment for disobedience back in time, before the disobedience occurred? That’s an interesting interpretation.

It’s also interesting to see you invoke the Hebrews’ failure to completely obey Yahweh’s commandments to commit genocide as a “bad thing” that caused your supposedly perfectly moral god to disfavor them.

alive's avatar

i assume you don’t want christians telling you that your beliefs are wrong…so why can you tell them that theirs are.

i am on your side as far as the stories are fiction, but logic has nothing to do with the fact that any person is allowed to and SHOULD be allowed to have their own beliefs.

in fact if you really want to talk about what is a “fact” and what is “fiction” one could also argue that the human brain is not capable of ever knowing everything, and only capable of understanding what our meager 5 senses can tell us about the outside world. but if you chose to rely on them, instead of relying on faith, that is your choice.

i see no need to belittle someone for their beliefs. disagree yes, belittle, no.

also you are assuming that ALL christians believe that the bible is fact. there are plenty that know they are fables that hold a deeper meaning than what they say at face value.
(i.e. god floods the earth = a lesson about how we should not be hedonistic and evil people.—i’m not religious, but i can agree with the claim that people should not be selfish and hedonistic, don’t you?)

Qingu's avatar

@alive, I don’t care if Christians tell me my beliefs are wrong. I would welcome it. I strongly feel that people in general are too scared to debate about ideas that are important to them (not just religion, but politics as well). If you don’t ever talk about these ideas, if they aren’t ever challenged, if you never have to defend them, then how can you be confident that they’re true?

alive's avatar

yes we can and should talk about them. but it is not going to be a healthy debate if people are just dicks to each other.

i repeat: people CAN disagree, but belittle, no.

critter1982's avatar

@Qingu: Morality is relative.

No I am not suggesting that God was extending his punishment for disobedience back in time, before the disobedience occurred. Post disobedience God states that he had disobeyed Him.
1And an angel of the LORD came up from Gilgal to Bochim, and said, I made you to go up out of Egypt, and have brought you unto the land which I sware unto your fathers; and I said, I will never break my covenant with you.
2And ye shall make no league with the inhabitants of this land; ye shall throw down their altars: but ye have not obeyed my voice: why have ye done this?

Qingu's avatar

@alive, I agree that people shouldn’t be dicks to each other. But I also think people need to grow thicker skin so we can have these debates in the first place.

I mean, take language like “intellectually inferior.” I’d say that’s bordering on “dickishness.” But I’d also wager that the OP doesn’t actually mean a genetic disorder or something inherent with religious people’s minds—it’s just a colorful (and aggressive) way of saying they have the wrong way of thinking. It can be clarified, and it doesn’t necessarily have to preclude an adult conversation about the subject.

Qingu's avatar

@critter, the angel is not referring to anything Judah did prior to losing to the dudes with iron chariots. It was calling attention to the Hebrews’ insufficient destruction of the inhabitants of the lands they were supposed to conquer and genocide.

Unless you’re positing time-travel punishment, your interpretation of these verses is indefensible.

And it’s always nice to hear Christians claim that morality is relative, especially when they are trying to defend the practice of genocide.

critter1982's avatar

@Qingu: Is genocide of 50 people immoral to save 1000? Your opinion on morality is relative to your own situation and understanding of that situation. God’s position on morality would be perfect as He is omnipotent.

Agreed the angel is referring to the insufficient destruction of the inhabitants. My point was that Judah did not listen to God hence he did not have the belief that God would protect him if he was to attack the men on iron chariots. It was not God that failed but Judah.

essieness's avatar

Interesting reading here, but wouldn’t you guys rather be enjoying your Saturday?

critter1982's avatar

Unfortunately I have to be working at home right now. We had a customer come in on Friday and wanted a design done by Monday. Fluther is just keeping me sane at this point.

Qingu's avatar

@critter1982, killing 50 people would not be a “genocide.” Genocide is the intentional and total destruction of an entire ethnic or religious group.

Yahweh makes it quite clear why he’s ordered his followers to commit genocide. It wasn’t to save anyone. It was to ensure the Hebrews’ religious purity would not be “polluted.” Yahweh explicitly says this is his reason:

You shall annihilate them—the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites—just as the Lord your God has commanded, so that they may not teach you to do all the abhorrent things that they do for their gods, and you thus sin against the Lord your God. —Dt. 20:17

This genocide is not counterweighted by some other moral good. It’s just ethnic cleansing. Again, it’s interesting to see a Christian defend this practice as morally “perfect.” It says a lot about the moral worth of your religion.

As for your point about Judah, again, there is nothing in the text to suggest that Judah “did not listen” to God or did not believe God would protect him. You simply invented that as an explanation for why God failed to protect him. It would be much more honest for you to simply say “I don’t know why God failed to help Judah beat the iron chariots” than to invent reasons for it out of thin air.

critter1982's avatar

@Qingu: but ye have not obeyed my voice: why have ye done this? I’m pretty sure that one could say this is the same as Judah not listening to God….call me silly!

If Christianity is true, one’s soul is not destroyed when they die, but continues to exist in an afterlife. In this case, death is not destruction but rather a transfer from life on earth to an afterlife of eternal joy or just punishment (death is not immoral if Christianity is true).

The moral worth of Christianity:
1. Do not judge and you will not be judged
2. If anyone hits you on the right cheek offer the left as well
3. Always treat others as you would like them to treat you
4. Love your enemies
5. Love your neighbor as you love yourself
6. You shall not steal
7. You shall not commit adultery
8. Don’t covet
9. Don’t bear false witness

I’m sorry you find my moral worth to be worth nothing. I’m not sure I could say the same about anyone??

Qingu's avatar

@critter1982, can you give a chapter and verse for the “ye have not obeyed my voice” line? (I can’t find it in my translation.) I certainly don’t see anything like it in Judges chapter 1, which—again—would seem to imply that you’re using the time travel explanation again.

Also, are you saying that it’s okay to commit genocide because the people you’re killing end up in an afterlife? (Incidentally, none of the people the Hebrews were killing en masse were “saved”)

And yes, I find such defenses of genocide—the killing of unarmed men, women, and children—to be completely immoral and, frankly, despicable. Imagine if someone today said the people of Darfur deserved to be killed because the Janjaweed have a divine right to their land and don’t want it to be polluted with rival cultures. You should be ashamed of yourself.

critter1982's avatar

Judges2 Which is in the future not the past!

I should be ashamed of myself, why?
I didn’t commit murder or genocide. I simply have faith that the God that I believe in is loving and would not induce genocide among His people without moral reason.

cdwccrn's avatar

As a Christian and a pastor, I can assure you that people of faith are not intellectually inferior.
Really sad you had to ask.

Garebo's avatar

No, but usually close minded.

gailcalled's avatar

(If you want to insult a group, spell it right. closed-minded.)

fireside's avatar

Unless they’re in a huddle or scrum.
Then their minds can be close.

cdwccrn's avatar

Christians are not necessarily close-minded.

critter1982's avatar

…..And there within lies the problem with generalizations.

gailcalled's avatar

@cdwccrn: You’re correct. Shamed on me.

alive's avatar

@critter1982

“God that I believe in is loving and would not induce genocide among His people without moral reason.”

but isn’t the point that there is NEVER a moral reason to kill?

there is actually a VERY good discussion of this question in Fear and Trembling by Kierkegaard.

He uses the story of Abraham and Issac (if you don’t know it, god tells Abraham to kill his son Issac) and Kierkegaard asks how does it make sense to suspend the universal rule “killing is immoral” (religious or not) just because god tells you to kill someone.

i’m not trying to argue either for or against Kierkegaard, just saying that if you are interested in religion, and what it means to be an authentic christian, you should read it. SOOOO INTERESTING!!!!!!!

here is how it is summarized on wikipedia. but the summary does not do justice to how thought provoking Kierkegaard question is.

1. Is there a teleological suspension of the ethical? (That is, can Abraham’s intent to sacrifice Isaac be considered “good” even though, ethically, human sacrifice is unacceptable?)

2. Is there an absolute duty to God? (In other words, beyond that which is ethical)

3. Was it ethically defensible for Abraham to have concealed his purpose from Sarah, Eleazar, and Isaac?

gailcalled's avatar

@cdwccrn: Look at this. “Closed-minded”:
Variant of close-minded.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/closed-minded

Garebo's avatar

Yeah apologize or are you too close minded.

gailcalled's avatar

^^ Add the period, upper case A and hyphen and then, wowza.

TheKNYHT's avatar

@Qingu “Yahweh was with Judah, and he took possession of the hill country, but could not drive out the inhabitants of the plain, because they had chariots of iron.” —Judges 1:19

Apparently, Qingu’s translation says “he” but I checked out the NKJV that states it a bit more clearly. In the KJV it DOES state “he” but is that referring to GOD, or to Judah?
In the NKJV it states “and they drove out the mountaineers but they could not drive out the inhabitants of the lowlands because they had chariots of iron.”
Yet if the LORD was with them, why then didn’t He grant them ABSOLUTE victory? Because of their rebellion as re-stated in Judges ch.2 which chronologically happened before ch.1 as in ch.1 Joshua died, and in ch.2 he’s alive. So if ch.2 happened first, then what was God referring to?
Read Joshua ch. 24, particularly vs. 14, but a read of the entire chapter is very enlightening.
Of course I won’t expect to change Qingu’s views as they are already firmly established, and exhibits a lack of trust for the BIBLE.
Those of us who know our Bibles well, can assuredly and safely assume that in the old KJV the “he” referred to in Judges 1:19 is referring to Judah, and not God, as He is omnipotent and not only capable of blowing up the entire material universe, but will in fact, one day, do so.
2Pe 3:10 “But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.”
But while we are on that subject of things GOD CAN’T do, I can mention a few:
God can’t lie, because He is the essence of Truth.
God can’t learn because He is all knowing (the one and only ‘Know It All’ [the rest of us are just wanna-bes]).
God can’t travel, because He is everywhere.
God can’t make any one love Him as that would be a violation of our free-will agency (Divinely given), and genuine love cannot be coerced.

and OOPS, in my previous post, I used dogs as an example and referred to breeds AND species. Wrongo! there is ONE species: dog! And many, many, many breeds.

evelyns_pet_zebra's avatar

<—-on the sidelines with Jeruba, sharing a nice pot of tea.

Qingu's avatar

@TheKNYHT, Joshua is not “alive” in Judges 2. Judges 2:6 is a general recap of the previous section of history. It is truly amazing the lengths that Christians will go to torture any shreds of legitimacy out of their obviously flawed scriptures.

As for your claim that “God can’t lie,”
For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion, leading them to believe what is false, 12so that all who have not believed the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness will be condemned. —2 Thess 2:11

As for God being all knowing, he doesn’t know where Adam and Eve are in the garden.

As for God not violating free will, he repeatedly hardens Pharaoh’s heart in Exodus, forcing the Pharaoh to keep the Israelites captive, so he could have an excuse to punish them in spectacular fashion and impress his followers.

As I said before, Yahweh’s qualities and powers vary based on narrative need—just like how a Final Fantasy character can summon meteors one day but can’t hop over a fence the next. This is because the Bible was written by many different people over hundreds of years. Of course, I don’t doubt that you can come up with all kinds of entertaining rationalizations to explain away the contradictions of the many versions of your fictional deity—Christian theologians have 2,000 years of practice. To me, it just seems like Star Wars nerds trying to explain why Leia spontaneously loses her British accent halfway through A New Hope.

gailcalled's avatar

Instead of “Thou Shalt Not“s; how about this approach? (Attributed to me.)

1) Thou shalt help build a Habit-for-Humanity house.

2) Thou shalt adopt a less-than-perfect-baby if thou espouses the Right-
to-Life-Platform.

3) Thou should give thy guest room to a homeless person.

4) Thou shalt be a big brother to an inner-city kid.

5) Thou shalt teach English-as-a-Second-Language to those in need.

6) Thou shalt teach the illiterate how to read.

7) Thou shalt give the Enron, AIG, GE, GM and Worldcom stockholders and former employees
a tithe.

8) As thou art running thy AC at full blast, thou shalt consider global
warning.

9) If thee has more than two house, thou shalt give one away.

10) Thou shalt be an advocate for more bike paths in urban areas and get on
one, occasionally, thyself.

Response moderated
Michale's avatar

1. It is reasonable that God might exist.
2. Further, it is reasonable (based on the evidence) that this God who might exist might be personal and therefore have communicated with human beings.
3. The world’s religions are a reasonable place to look for evidence of such communication.
4. Among those representing the world religions, Jesus of Nazareth seems to hold the consensus as the person most likely to provide convincing evidence of the God who might exist. (Since Jesus is- in some way- incorporated into all major world religions. If all the world’s religious leaders were locked in a basement until they could elect only one person to represent the best of their beliefs, I believe Jesus would be the person selected.)
5. The resurrection of Jesus is a reasonable explanation for the existence of Christianity as a distinct belief system from Judaism.
6. An examination of the various alternatives and existing evidence convinces me that the Resurrection is, in fact, true.
7. If the Ressurection is true, then Jesus’ statements about himself, God, Truth, Sin, etc. (The Christian worldview) are true by deduction.
8. Based on this conclusion, I relate to the God who I now believe exists through Jesus.
9. My experience matches what Jesus describes, providing personal verification of the truth of Christianity.
10. Based on Pascal’s wager, I await eventual verification of this conclusion after death, but haven’t lost anything if I am wrong.

Qingu's avatar

1. Why is it reasonable?
2. Why is this reasonable?
3. Why on earth would we look to the world’s religions? We don’t look to them for much of anything else (scientific knowledge, moral guidance, social organization, etc).
4. Actually, that would be Abraham.
5. Don’t see the relevance.
6. Support this assertion. You don’t think “his followers made up a legend about him” is a more satisfying alternative? Since you apparently believe this about every other religious figure in history?
7. That’s a big “if.”
8. See above.
9. What experience are you talking about?
10. Based on Pascal’s Wager, I should believe in Space Emperor Zargon because the risk of him torturing me forever in space-hell is worse than the risk of him not existing and me simply being mistaken. Pascal’s Wager is a logical fallacy.

Michale's avatar

@Qingu What I posted above was the first thing I posted on wis.dm years ago when I first joined there and it was torn apart as well. This was from a website called the Internet Monk and I wanted to see the response here. I’m a much more developed person now. Two years of being an amateur apologeticist has tempered my faith to the point where even I can’t defend my statement above. I’ve moved on a bit, but am still Christian, but I am a Theistic Evolutionist now. (See Dr Francis Collins, former head of the HGRI, and his book, for further information)

Qingu's avatar

Well, I’m glad you believe in evolution at least. Though why did you post an argument if you knew it was flawed?

Michale's avatar

@Qingu the same reason I asked that question about atheists. To see what sort of responses I would get to test the waters. I wanted to see the general tone and feel of Fluther, being new. Just wanted to get it out in the open.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther