Non-Theists More Intelligent than Theists?
- Thread starter ptatohed
- Start date
Help Support Professional Engineer & PE Exam Forum:
ptatohed
Licenced to Spell
- I think the scholars who traced the lineage of biblical characters back to creation, all pretty much agree that, per the bible, creation took place somewhere between 6,000 and 8,000 years ago. And if you take the bible literally, it was clearly in 6 24-hour days.
- You're right. It doesn't specifically use the word flat to describe the earth. But there are several verses that call the earth a circle (not a sphere). And there is a verse that says something about going up high enough on a tall mountain to see all off the land.
- Nope, the earth being stationary and the sun moving around the earth is in the bible. I mentioned the most famous one (Joshua) before where the sun and moon stood still - stopped by God Himself - while the men of Israel kicked the butts of the Amorites. There are a few other locations in the bible that talk about the earth standing still.
- No, there is no place in the bible that I know of that says there aren't more planets than can be seen with the naked eye. It just only mentions those planets that can be seen with the naked eye. I think Venus and Saturn are identified in the OT. I don't think the bible talks about more than three planets.
- No way my friend, exorcisms and demon possession are clearly part of the bible. Specifically the NT. I think there are a few references in the OT where God Himself sends an evil spirit to torment someone but demon possession is primarily found in the NT. It's quite prevalent actually. Even animals can be possessed! Jesus Himself performed exorcisms!
Justification?
matt267 PE
"1000000 warning points" Club Member
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,596
- Reaction score
- 3,629
Ken PE 3.1
It's wacky waving inflatable arm flailing tube man
I would like to throw out one thing that I have always felt is a solid argument, others may not agree. The Bible was written after many years of being passed down by word of mouth. Then, only clergy would be able to write it down. As far as that goes, it stands to reason, as far as I am concerned, that the original writers picked and chose what fit their narrative at the time. Once written and distributed to the masses, they stopped 'updating' it and claimed it as the true word of God. I cannot accept this because there are too many hands in the cookie jar. However, if you look at it from a higher level, I see it as a guide to living a better life through God's teachings.
Just my opinion. I have seen to many strange coincidences in my life to not accept a higher power.
Great debate. Nice to see level headed individuals keeping it civil. Thanks!
Just my opinion. I have seen to many strange coincidences in my life to not accept a higher power.
Great debate. Nice to see level headed individuals keeping it civil. Thanks!
engineergurl
Resident Sweet Cheeks
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2008
- Messages
- 13,258
- Reaction score
- 945
Ken PE 3.1
It's wacky waving inflatable arm flailing tube man
Thankfully, with 2 teenage boys, I have no idea what you are talking about. [emoji3]
I hope to have time to sit down and give all your questions a well thought out response, but for now I will say that yes I have read the Bible and yes there are many things in there I can't explain. Some due to interventions by God and others due to cultural differences. Suffice it to say, I do believe in a literal 6 day creation. How long ago, I cannot say, but I believe it was somewhere between 15,000 to 7,000 years ago. I used the word believe because I cannot prove it, but neither can evolutionist prove their theory is correct. They demonstrate this time and again every time they adjust the age of the earth and universe to fit the theory of the week. I am not telling you what to believe, but I will say that I believe in God and the proof I need that he exists is overwhelming. Just look around you. Do you know the intellect it would take to design your eye? I simply cannot believe that this evolved from a spec of dust. As engineers, we design things every day. I have never seen something come together on its own and work without thought going into it and I believe nature is the same. You are correct that God quit showing himself about the time of the crucifixtion. After that, getting a ticket to Heaven involves faith in something you cant see. It wouldn't take much faith if God went around talking through animals or burning bushes still. Ken, actually there are a few thousand manuscripts that date back nearly to Christs time and they all agree with each other. If you are interested look into the history of the textus receptus. This is the set of "received texts" that were used to create the KJV.
ptatohed
Licenced to Spell
<Okay, here goes my lunch hour... :S >
goodal,
Thanks for the reply. Well, I'm not sure we can really go anywhere from here I don't think. A bible literalist believes everything in the bible to be true even when presented with evidence to the contrary. So, I might say the bible is man-made, false, flawed, and immoral (and I'll provide examples why I think so). You'll say it is divinely inspired, true, perfect, and good - and that nothing can dispute that because it is the word of God. Nowhere to go from there. But I do appreciate you sharing your perspective.
A few things. You used the word theory for evolution. Many people don't like to hear it but that evolution happened and is happening is a fact. Yes it's a theory but only in the same sense that gravity is a theory. Facts are what we can observe. Theories attempt to explain why we observe what we do (based on the available factual evidence). Gravity, like evolution, is part theory and part fact. That gravity exists is a fact, the 'why' of it is the theory part. For gravity the theory part, or the 'why' part, is that objects are attracted to other objects proportionally to the mass of their bodies multiplied, and inversely proportional to the distance between them, squared. That evolution happened is a fact. The theory part, or the ‘why’ part, is natural selection.
A scientific theory is not the same as our everyday use of the word ‘theory’ like you and I might use as friends: “goodal, I have a theory on who is going to win the Super Bowl”. A scientific hypothesis can only become a theory after exhaustive research and scientific peer review. And a theory will remain a theory until proven false (which is a great joy of scientists – proving other scientist’s theories false. These checks keep science honest.). To date, the leading theory on the origin of species is evolution and natural selection. It is accepted as presumed truth. There is no better current scientific explanation/theory. If someone wants to (and is able to), all they have to do is disprove the theory of natural selection. Then, not only will it not be the leading theory anymore, it won’t be a theory at all anymore. To date, no one has been able to disprove the theory of natural selection.
Yes, you are absolutely correct, science does change its mind. And I think it is a wonderful thing! It’s called progress. The definition of science is that it continuously makes discoveries and makes its educated conclusions based on the best and most current data and evidence available at the present. If that data changes, scientific theories are updated. Just like technology, science is advancing all the time. Science is not embarrassed to change its mind or admit it was wrong. It's my opinion, that people who are indoctrinated have fixed thoughts which do not change even when presented with new evidence that challenges their beliefs. That is the opposite of advancement. As they say, the facts should define your beliefs; your beliefs should not define the facts. Prove to me any of my beliefs are wrong, with factual evidence, and I’ll be the first to change my mind, honestly.
Yes, the eye argument.
Well, you can say it was designed by a designer if you’d like but the fact is that all animals with eyes evolved over millions of years from animals without eyes. So, the furthest an ‘eye design’ argument will get you is deism, far from theism. Then you have to believe that this ‘first mover’ either knew that eyes would eventually evolve as he/she/it hoped, or he/she/it guided the evolution process. Then you have to wonder why 99.9% of all species to ever exist have gone extinct and didn’t make it. Too much faith for me – lol! Anyway, thanks again goodal. I appreciate your view.
Last edited by a moderator:
All interesting arguments to read but they will always end at an impasse. No one will ever prove or disprove the existence of a God through science and I think that equating Atheism directly to intelligence (the article) is misleading.
Dexman PE PMP
Internationally PMP'n his PE-ness
Way to be a buzz-kill. Douche.
I forgive you and will pray for you.
Cuz that's how I roll.
Nunc Coepi
Ken PE 3.1
It's wacky waving inflatable arm flailing tube man
Damn you, it's my job around here to derail threads!
ptatohed
Licenced to Spell
10-4. We can let this one die LJ. But FYI, the study did not 'equate Atheism, directly to intelligence'; the study found that, in general, the higher someone's intelligence, the less likely that person is to be religious. It's just a general correlation. You'll still have the brilliant believers and the dumb-@$$ non-believers.
Dex, there is no need for name-calling. I enjoy debates like this too but not at the risk of insulting anyone's feelings and it seemed a few people were getting offended by the topic so maybe it's better to let this thread die. :nod:
ptatohed, we don't have to let it die and you are correct; I should have used the word "correlation".
As far as Dex goes. I took his comment as aoking:
so I responded back with aoking: just to see if it would piss him off. I'm hoping that's how he took my response. All in good fun. (kinda of like when the Jehovah's Witness show up at my house and I ask them to pray the rosary with me... )
I am thick skinned and hard headed and I believe in God because I have reason to. (although I question myself often even after I remind myself of those reasons) Some haven't found their reason to have that belief yet and some never will. I'm not going to say that I think the latter is O.K. because the nature of having a belief is wanting to share that belief so that others may find joy in it also. However, I'm not going to convince anyone by my words. He/she has to come up with their own convictions. I will say that the intelligent people on this board are a pretty good resource for "critical thinking" though.
As far as Dex goes. I took his comment as a
oking:so I responded back with a
oking: just to see if it would piss him off. I'm hoping that's how he took my response. All in good fun. (kinda of like when the Jehovah's Witness show up at my house and I ask them to pray the rosary with me... )I am thick skinned and hard headed and I believe in God because I have reason to. (although I question myself often even after I remind myself of those reasons) Some haven't found their reason to have that belief yet and some never will. I'm not going to say that I think the latter is O.K. because the nature of having a belief is wanting to share that belief so that others may find joy in it also. However, I'm not going to convince anyone by my words. He/she has to come up with their own convictions. I will say that the intelligent people on this board are a pretty good resource for "critical thinking" though.
