Debate Are religious people somehow weaker than atheistic people?

Are religious people somehow weaker than atheists?

  • Yes

    Votes: 20 32.8%
  • No

    Votes: 41 67.2%

  • Total voters
    61
... " A clap by one palm " - silence...
Only then when all human feelings "stay idle" the person is capable to see true value of this or that...
..............................................................................................
 
Revenant- I believe your intent in beginning this thread was to check whether the conception among athiests that religious people are in some way "weak" is true. Based upon what we have read here, I believe you have confirmed this prejudice. It does seem to be a generalization we can confirm that Athiests do hold their logic, reasoning and critical thinking skills to be superior to any person who claims a religion or faith.
 
Carlson said:
religious people are not weak. more people have been killed for religous reasons then anything else

But who tells you that these people weren't weak at cooking or at composing poetry ? Everybody is weak at something...
 
sabro said:
So your only reason for believing that Athiests are superior in intellect, logic and reasoning is because they agree with you?
No, because nobody else found a better explanation based on facts (e.g. neuropsycholgy). I think you might never understand what I mean if you do not study about neuropsycholgy to understand how the very concept of soul cannot exist, and the reality of life and death has nothing to do with what religions tell us. Once you understand that (you won't with my explanations, so study !), you might be able to realise that the very idea of a 'living god' is one of the greatest aberration and delusion of the human mind. Living automatically means that there is a 'birth' (passing from inert matter to self-preseving biochemical system) to a 'death' (the other way round). No living can be eternal. No living can exist outside a biological body. If you can't understand that, study more about medicine (esp. neurology).

It is difficult even for a well reasoned mind to be an Atheist if they don't first understand that 'soul' is a human-made illusion, and god cannot be 'alive'. That is why your examples are irrelevant. With all my knowledge about different fields (history, languages, maths, sciences, or whatever), if I had never learned about the fucntionning of the human brain I would almost certainly not be a convinced Atheist today (I would be non religious though).
 
I suppose one of the biggest questions in considering whether or not there is such a thing as 'god', is: is it possible to have consciousness and intelligence existing outside of a biological body?
:clueless:
 
Maciamo said:
No, because nobody else found a better explanation based on facts (e.g. neuropsycholgy). I think you might never understand what I mean if you do not study about neuropsycholgy to understand how the very concept of soul cannot exist, and the reality of life and death has nothing to do with what religions tell us. Once you understand that (you won't with my explanations, so study !), you might be able to realise that the very idea of a 'living god' is one of the greatest aberration and delusion of the human mind. Living automatically means that there is a 'birth' (passing from inert matter to self-preseving biochemical system) to a 'death' (the other way round). No living can be eternal. No living can exist outside a biological body. If you can't understand that, study more about medicine (esp. neurology).
It is difficult even for a well reasoned mind to be an Atheist if they don't first understand that 'soul' is a human-made illusion, and god cannot be 'alive'. That is why your examples are irrelevant. With all my knowledge about different fields (history, languages, maths, sciences, or whatever), if I had never learned about the fucntionning of the human brain I would almost certainly not be a convinced Atheist today (I would be non religious though).
It doesn't seem that your conclusion is based at all on facts. I do not think neuropsychology has ruled out the existence of a soul. I'm not certain that much research into the existence of a soul has been done by psychobiologists or what such research might entail. I find nothing in science right now that precludes the existence of a living God. Again, setting the parameters of the research and designing experiments would seem rather difficult. And "living" does not necessarily have to fit the parameters you prescribed. Please provide a source that proves that a soul is a "human made illusion" and that God has to fit the parameters of existence that you set for Him. I think you have developed this model to fit your belief system and found some science which you believe supports your conclusion. Science and reason work in the opposite direction. It is a form of confirmational bias.

As of now, (without researching the topic) I would assert that there is no scientific proof or disproof of a God, or a set of parameters which definitively outlines what God would be. I would also assert that there is no proof or disproof of a soul, and that neuropsychologists would probably not even offer a definition of soul as it is irrelevant to their study.
 
Although you are fairly correct about my scientific background, I don't think you should make assumptions. As far as my study of neuropsychology it is quite minimal. Although I have two masters degrees in Education and Special Education, our focus is on developmental psychology and not psycho biology. I do have a bare minimum undergraduate level education consisting of a few courses in psycology and psychobiology and in all that coursework, I do not remember the existence of either a soul or God being a topic of discussion, study or research.
 
Maciamo said:
But who tells you that these people weren't weak at cooking or at composing poetry ? Everybody is weak at something...

yeah and every religion killed for the sake of religion, no matter there weakness.
seems like a strong thing to do if you ask me.
 
:clueless: :mad: :note:
Really - the human consciousness in " chaotic construction of logic " is "something"...
......
To deny presence of soul, it is necessary to deny and that " the Universe began from "Nothing" "...
And it even " not under force " to atheists...:wave:
Everything, that " the science about the person " in real measurement has learnt it only " anatomy of a body and biochemical reactions of this body "... And it only knowledge " about an environment " and only...
People have comprehended only that see... And other "universe" was also him and will (!) be inaccessible...
It only "Evolution"... The Given form of the person has " the restrictions " - so the reality is arranged...
That it has changed - " it is necessary not much and not a little " - " Evolution the given kind "...
As this world of the person already for a long time lives in " to a certain information system of images and senses " only the "envoy" bearing in " an evolutionary code ", can create " an information level of evolutionary transition "...
" Translation of the Bible for atheists ":blush: :angel:
The Bible is a serious source of the information... Only to read it - people very many forgot...:angel:
 
Maciamo, correct me again if I am wrong- you are saying that non-athiests are weaker in reason and logic because they believe in God and a soul... and that science has proven that there is no God and no soul. Is this correct? If so do you have data to back up this claim? Can you give some citations? Has there been a comparative measure of logical intelligence between athiests and non-athiests? What parameters were set up in the disproval of the existence of the human soul? I don't want to mischaracterize what you are saying but is sounds a bit "iffy" to me.

I'm thinking that in neuropsychology that only the most reductive physicalist would bother refuting the concept of soul. This wouldn't however have anything to do with the existence or non-existence of the human soul, it would only dismiss the importance of the concept as it relates to psychobiology. I cannot find anything on line that explains this in laymans terms that I can handle. Interesting paper that mentions the "God spot" in the brain: http://info.med.yale.edu/intmed/hummed/yjhm/regular/mbasso2.htm

This article examines the the history of conceptions of the human makeup (body and soul) as they arose in ancient philosophy and religion-- primarily Christianity. http://www.meta-library.net/neuro/neuro-print.html
 
Carlson said:
yeah and every religion killed for the sake of religion, no matter there weakness.
seems like a strong thing to do if you ask me.

Especially that Gandhi guy and that Mother Theresa lady. I hear the Dali Lama has a huge human trophy wall and that Billy Graham is still quite the sniper at his age. Monks you know can be quite dangerous...After seeing Tom Cruise go balistic on daytime TV, I kinda cringe whenever I have to drive by the big blue building in Hollywood.

People have been killed over lots of other things besides religion-- to save the free world, to preserve or end slavery, to expand trade and borders, out of ethnic superiority, for gold, for and against communism, for King and country as well as God, for empire, for oil, for independence, for ethnic cleansing, for honor, for tradition... in all fairness, most religions don't command you to go out and kill people... and the underlying causes of most wars are a little more complex.
 
sabro said:
Carlson said:
yeah and every religion killed for the sake of religion, no matter there weakness. seems like a strong thing to do if you ask me.
... and the underlying causes of most wars are a little more complex.
I don't doubt that some people were killed as a direct result of clashing religious beliefs, and I don't doubt that a lot of wars were waged in a certain religions name (we could wage a war in any name really, as long as it moves the masses. Democracy would be easy to do so in). But I challenge the idea that more people have been killed for actual religious reasons than simple socioeconomics.
 
I think the 19th and 20th centuries have seen a shift away from conflicts over religion to political, economical and sectarian reasons. Colonialism, Imperialism, Fascism, Communism, Capitolism...The bloodiest conflicts in human history have not been fought over religion but over "isms."
 
I think a lot of leaders/people in power have used the 'religious feelings' of the masses to fuel conflicts for socio-economic reasons, reasons of power and money. In that sense you can say the people who fall into the trap and end up fighting for what they think is a religious 'cause' are weak, because they have followed leaders into conflict without stopping to think 'is this something that would be wanted by the god that I believe in, all this killing and wars?' :eek:kashii:
 
Kinsao said:
I think a lot of leaders/people in power have used the 'religious feelings' of the masses to fuel conflicts for socio-economic reasons, reasons of power and money. In that sense you can say the people who fall into the trap and end up fighting for what they think is a religious 'cause' are weak, because they have followed leaders into conflict without stopping to think 'is this something that would be wanted by the god that I believe in, all this killing and wars?' :eek:kashii:


thats because if they stoped to think they get killed

guy 1. do you belive in god?
guy 2. no.
guy 1. *bam* dead

guy 1. do you belive in god?
guy 2. yes.
guy 1. do you belive in my god?
guy 2. no.
guy 1. *bam* dead

not trying to revert to my other post. but i bet if you add up all the number of people killed. more people have been killed in the name of religion.

heck its even in the bible all the way to modern day 9/11
 
Carlson said:
thats because if they stoped to think they get killed
guy 1. do you belive in god?
guy 2. no.
guy 1. *bam* dead
guy 1. do you belive in god?
guy 2. yes.
guy 1. do you belive in my god?
guy 2. no.
guy 1. *bam* dead
Add this one :
guy 1. do you belive in god?
guy 2. yes.
guy 1. do you believe I am god?
guy 2. no.
guy 1. *bam* dead

:D
 
Kinsao said:
I suppose one of the biggest questions in considering whether or not there is such a thing as 'god', is: is it possible to have consciousness and intelligence existing outside of a biological body?

Is that even a question ? In fact, I could say that the "body" does not have to be 'biological', but just 'material' ('matter' including 'energy' here). We could imagine creating an intelligent (self-thinking) computer one day.

But I suppose that what most people call "god" is a creator of the universe, i.e. a creator of all matter and energy. How could something immaterial create matter and energy ? What's more, my definition of universe is everything that exist, even if there is something more than matter and energy (e.g. anything 'spiritual' that is not matter/energy, although I don't believe in it). So how could you create existence if you do not exist ?
 
sabro said:
It doesn't seem that your conclusion is based at all on facts. I do not think neuropsychology has ruled out the existence of a soul. I'm not certain that much research into the existence of a soul has been done by psychobiologists or what such research might entail.
Learn and you will see. Don't assume before checking by yourself !
I find nothing in science right now that precludes the existence of a living God.
Do you know everything about sciences, especially neurosciences and psychology ? It seems that I happen to know something you don't know.
 
Sabro, Revenant and Carlson, regarding your discussion about killing for religion, I find it a bit pointless to argue as you will always find examples and counter-examples of people who killed for religion, were manipulated into doing it, truly believed in it, or did very good deeds for the sake or religion. This doesn't prove anything, except that there are many kinds of people in the world.
 

This thread has been viewed 64392 times.

Back
Top