TOLSTOY: “For life is life, only when it is the carrying out of God's purpose. ." (Tolstoy, L., "Patriotism, Slavery of Our Times," in The Complete Work of L. Tolstoy. New York: T.Y. Crowell Co., 1927, 165.)
By the way, a lot of men use the word "God" and it does not pertain to a religion.
Some people use it to describe the awe and wonder of the world, or many other things.
For instance, Einstein used the word God many times, but expressed rejection of any notion of religion.
It is becoming more clear to me that you are the one that, in deed, has some historical brushing-up to do. All I have done is give concrete examples to support the premise that men of great intelligence who have had great impacts on science, math, art and philosophy were believers in God and a Creator. I do not doubt that many people of intelligence are athiests. Being somewhat of a historian and educator myself, I do know of many men and women of high intellect and influence who have lived a life based on a belief in a divine creator of matter and mankind.
Louis Pasteur, developer of the germ theory of disease, pioneer in immunology, the first to describe scientific basis of fermentation, and inventor of pasterurization had this to say: "a bit of science distances one from God, but much science nears one to Him."
and...
"the more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator."
Averages are averages. The top xx% of deeply religious people are still smarter than the average athiest or person and the bottom xx% of athiests are re s compared to the average.
Higher IQ just gives one more reasons to dismiss religion. Religiousness does not determine IQ, IQ determines the chance of rejecting religion. That chance isn't 100%. Descartes is smarter than anyone who has ever visited this board yet was a religious nut (relative to our standards today, probably average in his day).
Wow, according to one of those links only 7% of scientists believe in God.
good stuff Solid D, glad to see you around.
don't let the miami heat troll hook you...he's just a schmuck with too much god damn time on his hands...if you'll excuse my language...
laters!
Well, GWB is proof of this theory.
Don't forget being gay.
awwwwwww i thought it gonbe he-mannnnnnnn
So scientists are just trend followers? Yeah, okay Mono.
Proof to these links? what? you have none?
Descartes was not religious. He was an atheist living in a time when the Church could kill you for not accepting the religion. It only took SU ION and an accusation, and you were ed and sent to trial. You had to confess that Jesus is Lord or you die.
Descartes, in his time, was known as a secret atheist. His religion is debated to this very day, so you cannot use him.
Last edited by MiamiHeat; 05-31-2010 at 12:10 PM.
and again, you fail to comprehend.
I humored you, but the reality is, giving a small handful of men does not dispute the topic at hand - that the majority of intelligent men do not believe in a religion.
His family has recorded that he never went to mass, and never practiced the religion. He was a "Catholic" in name only.
and, you should really brush up on your history, as I told you before, instead of quoting christian books.
PASTEUR'S TAKE ON GOD
----
He did not believe in a God like you did.
As I said before, many men, Einstein and Pasteur, all used the word "God" to mean something else entirely. A unifying wonder of the universe, that created everything.
Not a God of religion.
Galileo could not practice his beliefs freely. He couldn't even practice SCIENCE freely.
He was persecuted and went to trial in front of the damn INQUISITION!
They were ready to burn him and torture him if he did not confess that Christianity is his religion, and say all the right things.
So you can't use Galileo.
Again, using another man who lived in a time where if he said he was an atheist, or even a goddamn Buddhist, he would be tortured and killed.
If he didn't say he was Catholic, he would be killed. Fairly simple.
Let's use some of his other quotes.
DA VINCI's QUOTES
"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
"I see Christ once more being sold and crucified and his saints martyred."
Try again.
Yeah, that's what it is another conspiracy. Couldn't have anything to do with the fact that nothing at all in science even remotely points to a divine creator.
Explain to me how that's funny.cool story, Lindsay.
Lmao, at Mono insulting the intelligence of atheists in a thread with scientific proof that atheists are smarter than religious people.
Another one who lived in a time where he had no choice but to say he was a Christian.
His religion is debated even to this day, because many people believe he was an atheist in secret.
It is very telling though, that he refused to publish his work LeMonde, because he was scared of what would happen to him via persecution from religion.
This is you second newly discovered conspiracy in this thread alone. The study was rigged by atheists and atheists blackball everyone in the scientific community.
Mono's headgear:
"All the atheists we studied were from uptown Manhattan, and all the religious people tested were from Southeast Arkansas. That seems fair
le of the second link:
"Average intelligence predicts atheism rates across 137 nations"
Why do you keep posting this?
Another man who lived in the 1500's and had to declare himself a Catholic or be killed.
By the way, Bacon is said to have been part of several underground intellectual movements in his day.
copy paste :
1)Bacon could see that the only knowledge of importance to man was empirically rooted in the natural world;
2) and that a clear system of scientific inquiry would assure man's mastery over the world.
3) 'I had rather believe all the fables in the legends and the Talmud and the Alcoran, than that this universal frame is without a mind.'"
If I was a devout believer that a black unicorn was God, and I pray to it every day, and worship horse hair.
Would you take me seriously? Obviously you wouldn't.
so then, is religion only OK when x amount of people believe in it?
Last edited by MiamiHeat; 05-31-2010 at 01:37 PM.
The articles posted by the OP are saying that recent studies indicate that intelligent people are 'less likely to believe in God'. That "People with higher IQs are less likely to believe in God". I am not debating the findings. I have been saying that when people get into situations where they are confronted by death or seemingly hopeless situations, God or a diety often becomes an option. Atheism means "a disbelief in, or the denial of, the existence of a god' (Oxford English Diction), or one who believes there is no diety" (Websters).
I have also pointed out that throughout history, people of great intelligence who have heavily influenced the world we live in today, in thought and in deed, have believed in a diety or God.
It is you, who have twisted the premise to wherever you are going with this, MiamiHeat. By the way, the reference you use for Pasteur assumes a creator. In his quote "whether God is called Brahma, Allah, Jehovah..", he is obviously referring to what people have called the Creator without injecting his own name for Him in that sentence.
Descartes was clearly a believer in a diety or creator...in fact, "God".
Here is a link to a resource with staff from academia (with peer review and editor at Universities from North America to Europe to Oceana). The Internet version of the Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://www.iep.utm.edu/descarte/
"Once this principle is established, Descartes looks for an idea of which he could not be the cause. Based on this principle, he can be the cause of the objective reality of any idea that he has either formally or eminently. He is formally a finite substance, and so he can be the cause of any idea with the objective reality of a finite substance. Moreover, since finite substances require only God’s concurrence to exist and modes require a finite substance and God, finite substances are more real than modes. Accordingly, a finite substance is not formally but eminently a mode, and so he can be the cause of all his ideas of modes. But the idea of God is the idea of an infinite substance. Since a finite substance is less real than an infinite substance by virtue of the latter’s absolute independence, it follows that Descartes, a finite substance, cannot be the cause of his idea of an infinite substance. This is because a finite substance does not have enough reality to be the cause of this idea, for if a finite substance were the cause of this idea, then where would it have gotten the extra reality? But the idea must have come from something. So something that is actually an infinite substance, namely God, must be the cause of the idea of an infinite substance. Therefore, God exists as the only possible cause of this idea.
Notice that in this argument Descartes makes a direct inference from having the idea of an infinite substance to the actual existence of God."
I am sure you will try to twist this further than what I have tried to say last night and today but I'm sure the others reading this will see the clarity with which I have expressed myself. Your twisting of the facts regarding Pasteur's belief in God...in a diety, are careless.
Good day to you and I hope you have a happy Memorial Day.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
