Total Posts:154|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

A topic of Intellect?

Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 6:09:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Is Religion an emotion based topic or an intellectual topic?

In my opinion it is an emotionally based topic which is all about what people believe. It has very little to do with intellect.

Crypto said "I absolutely disagree. Religion can very well be a topic of intellect. I wouldn't be surprised that you don't think so after inhabiting this forum in this state for so long.

Skyangel said " In what way is religion a topic of intellect when the religious believe in myths?
That is like claiming that discussing the existence of fairies is intelligent."

I patently await your reply Crypto.

Any other readers are obviously also welcome to add their two cents worth of emotional opinions.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,278
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 7:22:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/27/2014 6:09:21 PM, Skyangel wrote:
Is Religion an emotion based topic or an intellectual topic?

In my opinion it is an emotionally based topic which is all about what people believe. It has very little to do with intellect.


Crypto said "I absolutely disagree. Religion can very well be a topic of intellect. I wouldn't be surprised that you don't think so after inhabiting this forum in this state for so long.


Skyangel said " In what way is religion a topic of intellect when the religious believe in myths?
That is like claiming that discussing the existence of fairies is intelligent."

I patently await your reply Crypto.

Any other readers are obviously also welcome to add their two cents worth of emotional opinions.

Religion has intellectual and emotional components. This was actually at the root of some pretty intense conflict during the Patristic period, between the cerebral Hellenist Christians based in Alexandria, who fused early Christianity with Platonic philosophy, and the Christian mystics and poets who inhabited Syria at the time. It would play out again during the 13th century, when St. Thomas Aquinas attempted to reconcile Averroism with the dominant corpus of Christian theology and philosophy. The Scholastic movement, which he contributed heavily too, came up against fervent resistance from the more traditional elements of the Church later on. Religion is a very fluid conflict: Islam ranges from Kalam to Salafism, Christianity includes Quakers, Catholic theologians, and Orthodox monks. Saying that it can't be a matter of intelligent discussion, in light of the amount of knowledge which has been discovered in the pursuit of religious questions, is just absurd, in my opinion.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 7:40:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
In the religion you have these 2 things... if you call it "intellectual reasons and non intellectual /based on faith only"....

if you believe in some religion based on reasoning/intellectual /rationality, the other stuff comes with it with the whole package... like the concepts hell heaven angels etc.. which you cant prove it in Islam its called "Ilm al-Ghayb" - "the Knowledge of the Unseen".

so it has both, you basing your faith on good reasons and after you accepting, the other package comes with it if you like it or not...
Never fart near dog
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 7:48:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/27/2014 6:59:15 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
It depends on their reasons for believing.

Their intelligence depends on their reasons for believing?
Do you think if someone has a good reason to believe in fairy tales, they are more intelligent than a person who has no reason to believe in fairy tales?
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 8:01:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/27/2014 7:22:48 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 12/27/2014 6:09:21 PM, Skyangel wrote:


Skyangel said " In what way is religion a topic of intellect when the religious believe in myths?
That is like claiming that discussing the existence of fairies is intelligent."

I patently await your reply Crypto.

Any other readers are obviously also welcome to add their two cents worth of emotional opinions.

Religion has intellectual and emotional components. This was actually at the root of some pretty intense conflict during the Patristic period, between the cerebral Hellenist Christians based in Alexandria, who fused early Christianity with Platonic philosophy, and the Christian mystics and poets who inhabited Syria at the time. It would play out again during the 13th century, when St. Thomas Aquinas attempted to reconcile Averroism with the dominant corpus of Christian theology and philosophy. The Scholastic movement, which he contributed heavily too, came up against fervent resistance from the more traditional elements of the Church later on. Religion is a very fluid conflict: Islam ranges from Kalam to Salafism, Christianity includes Quakers, Catholic theologians, and Orthodox monks. Saying that it can't be a matter of intelligent discussion, in light of the amount of knowledge which has been discovered in the pursuit of religious questions, is just absurd, in my opinion.

Life itself is filled with conflict. Religious conflict is only a small part of it.
The conflicts in religion are usually regarding doctrinal issues. When they all base their doctrines on different interpretations of the same scriptures, how can that be resolved intelligently?
Religious people are arguing amongst themselves about interpretations of ambiguous writings. Those arguments create obvious division amongst the religions.
When it comes to believers vs non believers they are arguing about the existence or non existence of mythical invisible supernatural characters. Where is the intelligence in that? It is like two children arguing about the existence or nonexistence of Santa.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,711
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 8:02:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/27/2014 6:09:21 PM, Skyangel wrote:
Is Religion an emotion based topic or an intellectual topic?

In my opinion it is an emotionally based topic which is all about what people believe. It has very little to do with intellect.


Crypto said "I absolutely disagree. Religion can very well be a topic of intellect. I wouldn't be surprised that you don't think so after inhabiting this forum in this state for so long.


Skyangel said " In what way is religion a topic of intellect when the religious believe in myths?
That is like claiming that discussing the existence of fairies is intelligent."

I patently await your reply Crypto.

Any other readers are obviously also welcome to add their two cents worth of emotional opinions.

Response: Your own claim that religions are based on myth, followed by the inability to prove such a claim, shows that a topic on religion is intellectual. As you could not provide an intellectual argument against religion, which implies that your claim is based on the lack of intellect in atheism.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 8:10:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/27/2014 7:40:31 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
In the religion you have these 2 things... if you call it "intellectual reasons and non intellectual /based on faith only"....

if you believe in some religion based on reasoning/intellectual /rationality, the other stuff comes with it with the whole package... like the concepts hell heaven angels etc.. which you cant prove it in Islam its called "Ilm al-Ghayb" - "the Knowledge of the Unseen".

so it has both, you basing your faith on good reasons and after you accepting, the other package comes with it if you like it or not...

The fact is that any knowledge of the unseen comes from evidence that the unseen does indeed exist. The unseen is like the wind. We cannot see the wind but we know it exists due to seeing its effects. Its power is evidenced through its actions/ force.
However, all it proves is that an unseen force exists. It does not prove that force is a supernatural entity in the sky who loves the world.

Energy obviously exists and is manifest in many different ways through the cycles of nature. Calling that energy God is personifying the energy. It does not mean a supernatural entity exists. It does not mean a supernatural entity created energy or anything else out of nothing.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,278
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 8:15:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/27/2014 8:01:11 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 12/27/2014 7:22:48 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 12/27/2014 6:09:21 PM, Skyangel wrote:


Skyangel said " In what way is religion a topic of intellect when the religious believe in myths?
That is like claiming that discussing the existence of fairies is intelligent."

I patently await your reply Crypto.

Any other readers are obviously also welcome to add their two cents worth of emotional opinions.

Religion has intellectual and emotional components. This was actually at the root of some pretty intense conflict during the Patristic period, between the cerebral Hellenist Christians based in Alexandria, who fused early Christianity with Platonic philosophy, and the Christian mystics and poets who inhabited Syria at the time. It would play out again during the 13th century, when St. Thomas Aquinas attempted to reconcile Averroism with the dominant corpus of Christian theology and philosophy. The Scholastic movement, which he contributed heavily too, came up against fervent resistance from the more traditional elements of the Church later on. Religion is a very fluid conflict: Islam ranges from Kalam to Salafism, Christianity includes Quakers, Catholic theologians, and Orthodox monks. Saying that it can't be a matter of intelligent discussion, in light of the amount of knowledge which has been discovered in the pursuit of religious questions, is just absurd, in my opinion.

Life itself is filled with conflict. Religious conflict is only a small part of it.
The conflicts in religion are usually regarding doctrinal issues. When they all base their doctrines on different interpretations of the same scriptures, how can that be resolved intelligently?

The same way that historians base their theories off of different interpretations of the same sources, yet still manage to resolve things intelligently.

Religious people are arguing amongst themselves about interpretations of ambiguous writings. Those arguments create obvious division amongst the religions.
When it comes to believers vs non believers they are arguing about the existence or non existence of mythical invisible supernatural characters.

They also argue law, politics, and natural science. Each world religion possesses an outlook which is not just introspective, but extrospective as well, and all have developed cogent ways for dealing with the material world around them, and seek to reconcile that world and its requirements with the faith which binds them together. Calculus, algebra, medicine, astronomy, history, law, and politics have all been influenced to an astounding degree by religious thinkers, who honed their skills in rhetoric, logic, and grammar by engaging in the theological debates which you see as vacuous and useless.

Where is the intelligence in that? It is like two children arguing about the existence or nonexistence of Santa.

That's a ridiculous argument, and you're either ignorant of the complexity, scope, and influence of these theological debates, or you're making a false equivocation between the two in order to make your point, albeit dishonestly.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 9:21:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/27/2014 6:09:21 PM, Skyangel wrote:
Is Religion an emotion based topic or an intellectual topic?

In my opinion it is an emotionally based topic which is all about what people believe. It has very little to do with intellect.


Crypto said "I absolutely disagree. Religion can very well be a topic of intellect. I wouldn't be surprised that you don't think so after inhabiting this forum in this state for so long.


Skyangel said " In what way is religion a topic of intellect when the religious believe in myths?
That is like claiming that discussing the existence of fairies is intelligent."

I patently await your reply Crypto.

Any other readers are obviously also welcome to add their two cents worth of emotional opinions.

Yeah a discussion about the existence of fairies can be intellectual.

Saying X can not be discussed intellectually or rationally, is a non-sequitur. Because the discussion itself can proceed following the rules of logic. The different sides could even present what justifications they have for or against the existence of fairies.

Now there are things we know of that are illogical. A square-circle. And there are plenty of intellectual discourses upon the reasoning of why square-circles are illogical and what heuristics of truth can be discerned from such thinking.

People who say X can not be intellectually discussed, are really saying they can not intellectually discuss subject X.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 10:55:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/27/2014 8:15:11 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 12/27/2014 8:01:11 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 12/27/2014 7:22:48 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:

Religion has intellectual and emotional components. This was actually at the root of some pretty intense conflict during the Patristic period, between the cerebral Hellenist Christians based in Alexandria, who fused early Christianity with Platonic philosophy, and the Christian mystics and poets who inhabited Syria at the time. It would play out again during the 13th century, when St. Thomas Aquinas attempted to reconcile Averroism with the dominant corpus of Christian theology and philosophy. The Scholastic movement, which he contributed heavily too, came up against fervent resistance from the more traditional elements of the Church later on. Religion is a very fluid conflict: Islam ranges from Kalam to Salafism, Christianity includes Quakers, Catholic theologians, and Orthodox monks. Saying that it can't be a matter of intelligent discussion, in light of the amount of knowledge which has been discovered in the pursuit of religious questions, is just absurd, in my opinion.

Life itself is filled with conflict. Religious conflict is only a small part of it.
The conflicts in religion are usually regarding doctrinal issues. When they all base their doctrines on different interpretations of the same scriptures, how can that be resolved intelligently?

The same way that historians base their theories off of different interpretations of the same sources, yet still manage to resolve things intelligently.

Obviously religious people have not yet learned how to reconcile disagreements. They seem to solve their problems by parting ways and creating yet another new cult or sect in their religion. Divide in order to multiply seems to be the answer to their problems. Then "they" simply preach about the "other side" being in error while only "they" have the truth. The same theme runs through all religions. "Our religion is right and yours is wrong" That's really intelligent, don't you think so? At least they all agree they are right in their own eyes even if no one else agrees with them. ;-)

Religious people are arguing amongst themselves about interpretations of ambiguous writings. Those arguments create obvious division amongst the religions.
When it comes to believers vs non believers they are arguing about the existence or non existence of mythical invisible supernatural characters.

They also argue law, politics, and natural science. Each world religion possesses an outlook which is not just introspective, but extrospective as well, and all have developed cogent ways for dealing with the material world around them, and seek to reconcile that world and its requirements with the faith which binds them together. Calculus, algebra, medicine, astronomy, history, law, and politics have all been influenced to an astounding degree by religious thinkers, who honed their skills in rhetoric, logic, and grammar by engaging in the theological debates which you see as vacuous and useless.

I don't see all aspects of debate about our material world as vaccuous and useless at all. What I see as useless is arguing about whether invisible supernatural characters exist and whether they are loving or not. It seems to me that only the gullible believe in the supernatural characters. In my opinion their existence is irrelevant to the fact that we can learn a lot of lessons from the stories in which they obviously exist. It is the message and morals which are the important things to learn in life not argue about whether invisible characters want your attention or will punish you forever for not believing in them.

Where is the intelligence in that? It is like two children arguing about the existence or nonexistence of Santa.

That's a ridiculous argument, and you're either ignorant of the complexity, scope, and influence of these theological debates, or you're making a false equivocation between the two in order to make your point, albeit dishonestly.

Your personal opinion is noted. You will believe what you want to believe regardless of whether it is true or not.
All things in life have some influence over other things even if it just to repel them.
Everything is connected even if we do not see all the ways they are connected.
Some things in life attract people and some obviously repel people. Opposite poles attract and like poles repel. The same thing in life can have both properties of being attractive and repulsive at the very same time. How others react to us does not depend on what we do or say but on how they interpret what we do and say.
PLEASESTOPLYING
Posts: 196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 11:20:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Religion has intellectual and emotional components. This was actually at the root of some pretty intense conflict during the Patristic period, between the cerebral Hellenist Christians based in Alexandria, who fused early Christianity with Platonic philosophy, and the Christian mystics and poets who inhabited Syria at the time. It would play out again during the 13th century, when St. Thomas Aquinas attempted to reconcile Averroism with the dominant corpus of Christian theology and philosophy. The Scholastic movement, which he contributed heavily too, came up against fervent resistance from the more traditional elements of the Church later on. Religion is a very fluid conflict: Islam ranges from Kalam to Salafism, Christianity includes Quakers, Catholic theologians, and Orthodox monks. Saying that it can't be a matter of intelligent discussion, in light of the amount of knowledge which has been discovered in the pursuit of religious questions, is just absurd, in my opinion.

Not sure what you are saying, but while I agree that it can be a topic of intelligent discussion as far as why human beings feel the need for it, what it gives people, whether or not the fact that it gives people comfort, through the spreading of lies is a good or even a moral thing.
however discussing its stories as if they were historical, or discussing its claims about things it cannot know, like the afterlife cannot be discussed intelligently, since the topics are pure nonsense. you can't discuss nonsense intelligently
for example
you can't have an intelligent discussion about the route that santa has to take to get every house in world in one night.
Did anyone ever disprove the existence of ZEUS?
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 11:21:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/27/2014 9:21:29 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 12/27/2014 6:09:21 PM, Skyangel wrote:
Is Religion an emotion based topic or an intellectual topic?

In my opinion it is an emotionally based topic which is all about what people believe. It has very little to do with intellect.


Crypto said "I absolutely disagree. Religion can very well be a topic of intellect. I wouldn't be surprised that you don't think so after inhabiting this forum in this state for so long.


Skyangel said " In what way is religion a topic of intellect when the religious believe in myths?
That is like claiming that discussing the existence of fairies is intelligent."

I patently await your reply Crypto.

Any other readers are obviously also welcome to add their two cents worth of emotional opinions.

Yeah a discussion about the existence of fairies can be intellectual.

Maybe if both people in the discussion can think rationally.

Saying X can not be discussed intellectually or rationally, is a non-sequitur. Because the discussion itself can proceed following the rules of logic. The different sides could even present what justifications they have for or against the existence of fairies.

Well let me clarify it for you then.
"X" cannot be discussed rationally with irrational people.
Not all people are familiar with the rules of logic let alone how to use them.
Many people justify their own belief in fictional characters by claiming a fictional book supports their existence and they believe the book is non fiction. In their own mind they are thinking perfectly rationally and basing their belief on what they perceive to be facts because "the book said so"

Now there are things we know of that are illogical. A square-circle. And there are plenty of intellectual discourses upon the reasoning of why square-circles are illogical and what heuristics of truth can be discerned from such thinking.

People who say X can not be intellectually discussed, are really saying they can not intellectually discuss subject X.

Maybe so or maybe they have not found anyone rational and intelligent enough to discuss anything with on the same level as they are.
People who are searching for truth need to be open minded and not one sided because truth is not one sided. It has many angles and can be perceived in many different ways.
You need to look at anything from all angles to see the whole thing.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,278
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 11:22:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/27/2014 11:20:00 PM, PLEASESTOPLYING wrote:
Religion has intellectual and emotional components. This was actually at the root of some pretty intense conflict during the Patristic period, between the cerebral Hellenist Christians based in Alexandria, who fused early Christianity with Platonic philosophy, and the Christian mystics and poets who inhabited Syria at the time. It would play out again during the 13th century, when St. Thomas Aquinas attempted to reconcile Averroism with the dominant corpus of Christian theology and philosophy. The Scholastic movement, which he contributed heavily too, came up against fervent resistance from the more traditional elements of the Church later on. Religion is a very fluid conflict: Islam ranges from Kalam to Salafism, Christianity includes Quakers, Catholic theologians, and Orthodox monks. Saying that it can't be a matter of intelligent discussion, in light of the amount of knowledge which has been discovered in the pursuit of religious questions, is just absurd, in my opinion.

Not sure what you are saying, but while I agree that it can be a topic of intelligent discussion as far as why human beings feel the need for it, what it gives people, whether or not the fact that it gives people comfort, through the spreading of lies is a good or even a moral thing.
however discussing its stories as if they were historical, or discussing its claims about things it cannot know, like the afterlife cannot be discussed intelligently, since the topics are pure nonsense. you can't discuss nonsense intelligently
for example
you can't have an intelligent discussion about the route that santa has to take to get every house in world in one night.

Why not? Were all of the great classic epics not intelligent because they were written by men who believed in literal gods? It's a nonsensical distinction based on prejudice.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
PLEASESTOPLYING
Posts: 196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 11:27:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/27/2014 7:40:31 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
In the religion you have these 2 things... if you call it "intellectual reasons and non intellectual /based on faith only"....

if you believe in some religion based on reasoning/intellectual /rationality, the other stuff comes with it with the whole package... like the concepts hell heaven angels etc.. which you cant prove it in Islam its called "Ilm al-Ghayb" - "the Knowledge of the Unseen".

so it has both, you basing your faith on good reasons and after you accepting, the other package comes with it if you like it or not...

pure nonsense - knowledge of the unseen and faith itself is just a way to gain and keep gullible people in the faith. If it is possible to prove the religion you start is false, exactly how long do you think it will last.
Even con man joseph smith knew this, he and the angel translated the gold plates, and only he could see them by gods orders, god chose him although he couldn't write and had to get his neighbor to scribe as he stuck his head in a hat and translated - pure nonsense, but since no one could see the plates and the angel took them back - no one can prove it is nonsense same with all religions
Did anyone ever disprove the existence of ZEUS?
PLEASESTOPLYING
Posts: 196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 1:53:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/27/2014 11:22:56 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 12/27/2014 11:20:00 PM, PLEASESTOPLYING wrote:
Religion has intellectual and emotional components. This was actually at the root of some pretty intense conflict during the Patristic period, between the cerebral Hellenist Christians based in Alexandria, who fused early Christianity with Platonic philosophy, and the Christian mystics and poets who inhabited Syria at the time. It would play out again during the 13th century, when St. Thomas Aquinas attempted to reconcile Averroism with the dominant corpus of Christian theology and philosophy. The Scholastic movement, which he contributed heavily too, came up against fervent resistance from the more traditional elements of the Church later on. Religion is a very fluid conflict: Islam ranges from Kalam to Salafism, Christianity includes Quakers, Catholic theologians, and Orthodox monks. Saying that it can't be a matter of intelligent discussion, in light of the amount of knowledge which has been discovered in the pursuit of religious questions, is just absurd, in my opinion.

Not sure what you are saying, but while I agree that it can be a topic of intelligent discussion as far as why human beings feel the need for it, what it gives people, whether or not the fact that it gives people comfort, through the spreading of lies is a good or even a moral thing.
however discussing its stories as if they were historical, or discussing its claims about things it cannot know, like the afterlife cannot be discussed intelligently, since the topics are pure nonsense. you can't discuss nonsense intelligently
for example
you can't have an intelligent discussion about the route that santa has to take to get every house in world in one night.

Why not? Were all of the great classic epics not intelligent because they were written by men who believed in literal gods? It's a nonsensical distinction based on prejudice.

I agree that people of faith can be and do anything. I am not saying that believers lack intellect. Some of the most intelligent people in the world are believers and the same is true for historical believers. However, we aren't talking about whether the can write great classic epics or not, the OP asked the question of whether or not religion was an emotion based topic or based on intellect. My position is that people choose religion for a number of reasons. I think that one is that they were indoctrinated at a young age (neither). They like the sense of community if gives (emotion). They believe in a heaven and hell, they desire one and are afraid of the other (emotion).
In contrast I can only say that I don't think anyone joins a religion, because they are intelligent. At best you could say they join a religion in spite of having high intelligence. The belief in the supernatural is not rational. Belief in things on insufficient evidence is not rational, belief that any living person has certain knowledge of an afterlife is not rational. etc etc
again no one joins because they are intelligent, but they do join a religion because they are emotional about the topic
Did anyone ever disprove the existence of ZEUS?
PLEASESTOPLYING
Posts: 196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 1:57:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/27/2014 7:48:44 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 12/27/2014 6:59:15 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
It depends on their reasons for believing.

Their intelligence depends on their reasons for believing?
Do you think if someone has a good reason to believe in fairy tales, they are more intelligent than a person who has no reason to believe in fairy tales?

no intelligence has nothing to do with belief, however the willingness or desire to use that intelligence does.

there is no good reason to believe in anything on insufficient evidence, but again just because you choose to not use your ability to reason and not take things as fact on insufficient evidence, in no way means you aren't intelligent, it just means you choose, for whatever reason, to not use the intelligence you possess.
Did anyone ever disprove the existence of ZEUS?
PLEASESTOPLYING
Posts: 196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 2:07:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago

Life itself is filled with conflict. Religious conflict is only a small part of it.
The conflicts in religion are usually regarding doctrinal issues. When they all base their doctrines on different interpretations of the same scriptures, how can that be resolved intelligently?

They could use this intelligence to think logically and employ reason and use the scientific method or some other suitable method to determine the truth of what they follow (relying on faith is not suitable method) with so many doctrinal differences and so many religions logic tells us that
1. either that all of the different doctrines and different religions are true IMPOSSIBLE
2. only one of the different doctrines or different religions is true UNLIKELY
3. NONE of the different doctrines or different religions Is true VERY LIKELY

Religious people are arguing amongst themselves about interpretations of ambiguous writings. Those arguments create obvious division amongst the religions.

easily explained due to the fact that the bible is not the word of god but the word of man filled with many inaccuracies, contradictions and inconsistencies, which would not occur if it were the word of an omniscient being.
also not a single person in history has ever actually had a 2 way conversation with any god and thus no real revelations have ever occurred. all revelations are self invented

When it comes to believers vs non believers they are arguing about the existence or non existence of mythical invisible supernatural characters. Where is the intelligence in that? It is like two children arguing about the existence or nonexistence of Santa.

true
Did anyone ever disprove the existence of ZEUS?
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 2:08:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/27/2014 6:09:21 PM, Skyangel wrote:
Is Religion an emotion based topic or an intellectual topic?

In my opinion it is an emotionally based topic which is all about what people believe. It has very little to do with intellect.


Crypto said "I absolutely disagree. Religion can very well be a topic of intellect. I wouldn't be surprised that you don't think so after inhabiting this forum in this state for so long.


Skyangel said " In what way is religion a topic of intellect when the religious believe in myths?
That is like claiming that discussing the existence of fairies is intelligent."

I patently await your reply Crypto.

Any other readers are obviously also welcome to add their two cents worth of emotional opinions.

May I ask why you care whether it is one or the other?

I am asking sincerely, so I can maybe understand what your motivation or ultimate goal might be.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
PLEASESTOPLYING
Posts: 196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 2:11:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/27/2014 8:02:20 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 12/27/2014 6:09:21 PM, Skyangel wrote:
Is Religion an emotion based topic or an intellectual topic?

In my opinion it is an emotionally based topic which is all about what people believe. It has very little to do with intellect.


Crypto said "I absolutely disagree. Religion can very well be a topic of intellect. I wouldn't be surprised that you don't think so after inhabiting this forum in this state for so long.


Skyangel said " In what way is religion a topic of intellect when the religious believe in myths?
That is like claiming that discussing the existence of fairies is intelligent."

I patently await your reply Crypto.

Any other readers are obviously also welcome to add their two cents worth of emotional opinions.

Response: Your own claim that religions are based on myth, followed by the inability to prove such a claim, shows that a topic on religion is intellectual. As you could not provide an intellectual argument against religion, which implies that your claim is based on the lack of intellect in atheism.

an intellectual argument against religion is very easy to build - the trouble is that the argument cannot be an intellectual argument due to the fact that the theistic side cannot argue points of intellect since all religions claim divine revelation which is dependent upon faith, not critical thinking and no amount of assertion can change that fact.
Did anyone ever disprove the existence of ZEUS?
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 2:13:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 1:57:56 AM, PLEASESTOPLYING wrote:
At 12/27/2014 7:48:44 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 12/27/2014 6:59:15 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
It depends on their reasons for believing.

Their intelligence depends on their reasons for believing?
Do you think if someone has a good reason to believe in fairy tales, they are more intelligent than a person who has no reason to believe in fairy tales?

no intelligence has nothing to do with belief, however the willingness or desire to use that intelligence does.

there is no good reason to believe in anything on insufficient evidence, but again just because you choose to not use your ability to reason and not take things as fact on insufficient evidence, in no way means you aren't intelligent, it just means you choose, for whatever reason, to not use the intelligence you possess.

Do you think irrational people choose to not use their intelligence or do you think they are incapable of using it due to it being suppressed in favor of belief?
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 2:21:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 2:13:25 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 12/28/2014 1:57:56 AM, PLEASESTOPLYING wrote:
At 12/27/2014 7:48:44 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 12/27/2014 6:59:15 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
It depends on their reasons for believing.

Their intelligence depends on their reasons for believing?
Do you think if someone has a good reason to believe in fairy tales, they are more intelligent than a person who has no reason to believe in fairy tales?

no intelligence has nothing to do with belief, however the willingness or desire to use that intelligence does.

there is no good reason to believe in anything on insufficient evidence, but again just because you choose to not use your ability to reason and not take things as fact on insufficient evidence, in no way means you aren't intelligent, it just means you choose, for whatever reason, to not use the intelligence you possess.

Do you think irrational people choose to not use their intelligence or do you think they are incapable of using it due to it being suppressed in favor of belief?

Why do you label it as "irrational" behavior - for someone to believe in something that only seems to be non intelligent - to You? Maybe you simply don't understand the rationale being used.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
PLEASESTOPLYING
Posts: 196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 2:27:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago

The same way that historians base their theories off of different interpretations of the same sources, yet still manage to resolve things intelligently.

very silly example, historians might use books, and witness accounts to determine an agreed upon resolution, however no such thing exists with religion no intelligence is ever used only emotion and faith which is why there are so many different ones and so many different subgroups within each one

Religious people are arguing amongst themselves about interpretations of ambiguous writings. Those arguments create obvious division amongst the religions.
When it comes to believers vs non believers they are arguing about the existence or non existence of mythical invisible supernatural characters.

They also argue law, politics, and natural science. Each world religion possesses an outlook which is not just introspective, but extrospective as well, and all have developed cogent ways for dealing with the material world around them, and seek to reconcile that world and its requirements with the faith which binds them together. Calculus, algebra, medicine, astronomy, history, law, and politics have all been influenced to an astounding degree by religious thinkers, who honed their skills in rhetoric, logic, and grammar by engaging in the theological debates which you see as vacuous and useless.

true and all of the calculus algebra and medicine and astronomy used the scientific method as the standard of proof, not what someone believes, scientists can claim anything they want, they can submit any theory they want, but it will never be taken serious at all unless it can be tested and show repeatability, then peer reviewed rigorously. while all it takes for a religion is for someone to make a claim, all it takes to become a religious leader like a pastor is to make a claim, no proof is ever needed for religious claims no matter how fantastic they may be, there are people who think that Abraham who was clearly suffering from mental illness because possibly schizophrenia because he was hearing voices and was willing to kill his own son Isaac just because he thought that one of these voices was god - no intellect there my friend



That's a ridiculous argument, and you're either ignorant of the complexity, scope, and influence of these theological debates, or you're making a false equivocation between the two in order to make your point, albeit dishonestly.

no matter the complexity scope or influence, of these debates if they are debates about belief in something that requires taking it as truth on insufficient evidence, then they cannot be considered intellectual debates in my book, but emotional or faith based debates, since they don't have any way of being falsified.

if me and a friend debate the social impact of the flying spaghetti monster, another entity not proven to exist, we must rely on our emotional belief systems since we cannot base these beliefs on facts or arguments that have the ability to be falsified.
Did anyone ever disprove the existence of ZEUS?
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 2:31:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 2:08:34 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/27/2014 6:09:21 PM, Skyangel wrote:
Is Religion an emotion based topic or an intellectual topic?

In my opinion it is an emotionally based topic which is all about what people believe. It has very little to do with intellect.


Crypto said "I absolutely disagree. Religion can very well be a topic of intellect. I wouldn't be surprised that you don't think so after inhabiting this forum in this state for so long.


Skyangel said " In what way is religion a topic of intellect when the religious believe in myths?
That is like claiming that discussing the existence of fairies is intelligent."

I patently await your reply Crypto.

Any other readers are obviously also welcome to add their two cents worth of emotional opinions.

May I ask why you care whether it is one or the other?

I am asking sincerely, so I can maybe understand what your motivation or ultimate goal might be.

My motivation and goal in asking questions is to learn what people think and why they think the way they do. I learn what I can from their reactions and replies to the questions. I learn that most people have no clue why they think the way they do and believe what they do. They simply place their trust in what others told them was true and they choose to believe it rather than question what has been presented to them as truth.
PLEASESTOPLYING
Posts: 196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 2:31:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/27/2014 9:21:29 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 12/27/2014 6:09:21 PM, Skyangel wrote:
Is Religion an emotion based topic or an intellectual topic?

In my opinion it is an emotionally based topic which is all about what people believe. It has very little to do with intellect.


Crypto said "I absolutely disagree. Religion can very well be a topic of intellect. I wouldn't be surprised that you don't think so after inhabiting this forum in this state for so long.


Skyangel said " In what way is religion a topic of intellect when the religious believe in myths?
That is like claiming that discussing the existence of fairies is intelligent."

I patently await your reply Crypto.

Any other readers are obviously also welcome to add their two cents worth of emotional opinions.

Yeah a discussion about the existence of fairies can be intellectual.

Saying X can not be discussed intellectually or rationally, is a non-sequitur. Because the discussion itself can proceed following the rules of logic. The different sides could even present what justifications they have for or against the existence of fairies.

Now there are things we know of that are illogical. A square-circle. And there are plenty of intellectual discourses upon the reasoning of why square-circles are illogical and what heuristics of truth can be discerned from such thinking.

People who say X can not be intellectually discussed, are really saying they can not intellectually discuss subject X.

the OP was whether religion in and of itself was an emotional or intellectual topic - not whether or not you could assign variables and discuss it intellectually, no matter how you discuss it, religion itself is not based on intellect.

I think people are arguing about different interpretations of the OP
Did anyone ever disprove the existence of ZEUS?
PLEASESTOPLYING
Posts: 196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 2:35:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 2:13:25 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 12/28/2014 1:57:56 AM, PLEASESTOPLYING wrote:
At 12/27/2014 7:48:44 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 12/27/2014 6:59:15 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
It depends on their reasons for believing.

Their intelligence depends on their reasons for believing?
Do you think if someone has a good reason to believe in fairy tales, they are more intelligent than a person who has no reason to believe in fairy tales?

no intelligence has nothing to do with belief, however the willingness or desire to use that intelligence does.

there is no good reason to believe in anything on insufficient evidence, but again just because you choose to not use your ability to reason and not take things as fact on insufficient evidence, in no way means you aren't intelligent, it just means you choose, for whatever reason, to not use the intelligence you possess.

Do you think irrational people choose to not use their intelligence or do you think they are incapable of using it due to it being suppressed in favor of belief?

I don't know but I think that either is can be true. Some of the most intelligent people in the world, have some experiences in their lives that seem to point to a god answering a prayer or providing a miracle for them and no matter what intellect they possess their belief will not change - however many people choose not to use it for whatever reason, be it community or simply being afraid to admit they don't believe because of fear of the repercussions which could be severe in many cases.
Did anyone ever disprove the existence of ZEUS?
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 2:47:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 2:21:28 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/28/2014 2:13:25 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 12/28/2014 1:57:56 AM, PLEASESTOPLYING wrote:
At 12/27/2014 7:48:44 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 12/27/2014 6:59:15 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
It depends on their reasons for believing.

Their intelligence depends on their reasons for believing?
Do you think if someone has a good reason to believe in fairy tales, they are more intelligent than a person who has no reason to believe in fairy tales?

no intelligence has nothing to do with belief, however the willingness or desire to use that intelligence does.

there is no good reason to believe in anything on insufficient evidence, but again just because you choose to not use your ability to reason and not take things as fact on insufficient evidence, in no way means you aren't intelligent, it just means you choose, for whatever reason, to not use the intelligence you possess.

Do you think irrational people choose to not use their intelligence or do you think they are incapable of using it due to it being suppressed in favor of belief?

Why do you label it as "irrational" behavior - for someone to believe in something that only seems to be non intelligent - to You? Maybe you simply don't understand the rationale being used.

Where did I label anything specific as irrational behavior?

Please explain the rationale regarding a belief in invisible intelligent supernatural characters. You imply that you understand the rationale and I do not, so enlighten me.

I asked PLEASESTOPLYING a question about irrational people not using their intelligence because he implied some people "CHOOSE to not use your ability to reason"
Do any rational people choose to not use their ability to reason? In my opinion that is an irrational choice for any intelligent person to make. Why would anyone choose to not use their ability to reason?
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 2:50:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 2:31:09 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 12/28/2014 2:08:34 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/27/2014 6:09:21 PM, Skyangel wrote:
Is Religion an emotion based topic or an intellectual topic?

In my opinion it is an emotionally based topic which is all about what people believe. It has very little to do with intellect.


Crypto said "I absolutely disagree. Religion can very well be a topic of intellect. I wouldn't be surprised that you don't think so after inhabiting this forum in this state for so long.


Skyangel said " In what way is religion a topic of intellect when the religious believe in myths?
That is like claiming that discussing the existence of fairies is intelligent."

I patently await your reply Crypto.

Any other readers are obviously also welcome to add their two cents worth of emotional opinions.

May I ask why you care whether it is one or the other?

I am asking sincerely, so I can maybe understand what your motivation or ultimate goal might be.

My motivation and goal in asking questions is to learn what people think and why they think the way they do. I learn what I can from their reactions and replies to the questions

We have at least that much in common then.

I learn that most people have no clue why they think the way they do and believe what they do.

Does that bother you? If it does. . . then, why does it bother you?

They simply place their trust in what others told them was true and they choose to believe it rather than question what has been presented to them as truth.

You know that we are free to do that though. Right?
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 2:55:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/27/2014 6:09:21 PM, Skyangel wrote:
Is Religion an emotion based topic or an intellectual topic?

In my opinion it is an emotionally based topic which is all about what people believe. It has very little to do with intellect.


Crypto said "I absolutely disagree. Religion can very well be a topic of intellect. I wouldn't be surprised that you don't think so after inhabiting this forum in this state for so long.


Skyangel said " In what way is religion a topic of intellect when the religious believe in myths?
That is like claiming that discussing the existence of fairies is intelligent."

I patently await your reply Crypto.

Any other readers are obviously also welcome to add their two cents worth of emotional opinions.

Religion is an emotional topic that we try to explain using intellect. It doesn't always work, but hey! Emotions are real. For the most part if you feel it then there is a level of personal reality to it. But no, not all religious subjects are able to be communicated in an intellectual way, unless it's approached as a philosophical argument. Then it kind of works.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 3:02:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 2:47:53 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 12/28/2014 2:21:28 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/28/2014 2:13:25 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 12/28/2014 1:57:56 AM, PLEASESTOPLYING wrote:
At 12/27/2014 7:48:44 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 12/27/2014 6:59:15 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
It depends on their reasons for believing.

Their intelligence depends on their reasons for believing?
Do you think if someone has a good reason to believe in fairy tales, they are more intelligent than a person who has no reason to believe in fairy tales?

no intelligence has nothing to do with belief, however the willingness or desire to use that intelligence does.

there is no good reason to believe in anything on insufficient evidence, but again just because you choose to not use your ability to reason and not take things as fact on insufficient evidence, in no way means you aren't intelligent, it just means you choose, for whatever reason, to not use the intelligence you possess.

Do you think irrational people choose to not use their intelligence or do you think they are incapable of using it due to it being suppressed in favor of belief?

Why do you label it as "irrational" behavior - for someone to believe in something that only seems to be non intelligent - to You? Maybe you simply don't understand the rationale being used.

Where did I label anything specific as irrational behavior?

I highlighted (bolded) it in my response. Do you not think that calling people's behavior "irrational" is a form of labeling?

Please explain the rationale regarding a belief in invisible intelligent supernatural characters. You imply that you understand the rationale and I do not, so enlighten me.

From both my observations and some past experiences, it's really very simple. There is a reward and fulfillment dynamic that takes place when you (figuratively you) adopt a belief (logical or not) and surrender yourself to it as a way you give yourself a higher purpose in life, more meaningfulness, etc.


I asked PLEASESTOPLYING a question about irrational people not using their intelligence because he implied some people "CHOOSE to not use your ability to reason"

Right. I caught that.

Do any rational people choose to not use their ability to reason?

On some things, they do. Sure.

It may be completely irrational (for example) to cheat on a spouse. . . but emotions have a way of compelling a lot of otherwise rational people to do so every day.

Right?

In my opinion that is an irrational choice for any intelligent person to make. Why would anyone choose to not use their ability to reason?

Like I said. There is a rewarding aspect to it whether you think there should be or whether you (or I) agree that it is genuine or not.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...