Now it is official - Analytic Thinking Promotes Religious Disbelief

most of the greatest minds in history have been believers in religion, so how can you state your argument as fact?

 

The fairy tale turned out to be a better explanation for the origin of the universe than scientific static universe theory.


_

 

Neither Einstein nor Langan were/are agnostic. So... I guess they are just stupit dummiez?

 

What's amusing here is that so many people are dumb enough to believe a proclivity for analytical thought is a sign of superior intelligence.

 

I think these people mean the more neducated people become the less thy can read the Bible comprehensively, and the more they criticize those less educated who read the book incorrectly but have managed toi get their reorts on the book widely disseminated.

What I am saying is that educated people are opposed to Christianity, specifically, simply because they realize what religious people say does not make sense.
But they are not really intelliegent because they do not see that Genesis nstates exactly what did happen in the beginning or formative eons of the Universe.

There WAS a Big Bang start or beginning of nthe Cosmos.

There WERE seven durations of time since that beginning, seven Eras which Genesis calls "days."

There WAS a collection of all the waters into one Ocean surrounding Pangea.

The Plant Kingdom DID precede the Animal Kingdom.

Visible Light WAS delayed until 400 million years after the Big Bang.

And so much more is pretty much what intelligent people would see was already known to the Jews in 1362BC.

 

It apprears this is a snippet from a study/paper submitted by two "sciencentists". Who could possibly argue with their conclusions?

 

I would agree with you... except for the Lawyers and the Financiers.

 

It's like when Claude Allegre' one of the early "Global Warming" scientists changed his position after new studies and rejected the claims was then castigated by the left. Now we have two guys that came up with a dubious claim and lefties are all in to believe it.

Again... Einstein and Lagan both believe(d) in a God... they r dum?

 

Oh the irony! LOL

The thread is littered with evidence to support the hypothesis stated.

Individual differences in the tendency to analytically override initially flawed intuitions in reasoning were associated with increased religious disbelief.

Not saying you're gullible, just that you don't have a great grasp of the information being presented. You're not analytical enough

 

Einstein thought the universe was god, he didn't believe in any religion's god.

 

You are mistaken.


Einstein never said he thought the universe was "God."

He said the perfection and order in the universe is evidence that a supreme being exists.

 

True, we do apply ourselves far better than most. But genetics do have something to do with it. When smart people consistently marry and have children with other smart people, who highly value family, education and hard work, that's how you stay ahead of the curve. Its certainly no accident how Jews have achieved what we have, despite what happened in the 40s. Nobody gave us anything. We earned everything. Its because of religion why we've achieved so much, since its a whole way of life, not just believing in a God.

 

It has not been scientifically proven whether a god/creator exists or not. How ironic would it be that in the future we find proof one exists. Talk about egg on the face of all the so called "intelligent" people who said it couldn't or didn't exist. I, being a person who likes to rely on facts and evidence, remain agnostic; could a god figure exist or have existed that created everything... sure why not, but at the same time ill remain skeptical and not try to belittle everyone who believes. Because honestly making fun of people when you can't prove their belief to be false makes one not only an (*)(*)(*)(*)(*), but also a moron in my book.

 

Can I use that as an excuse when I get to the Pearly Gates and meet St Peter? I can see it now............

St P "Hmmmmmm I see you were an atheist"

Me "Well, God did give me this brain that just kept analysing and thinking"

St P "Yes and I see that you spent your life helping others so you can enter but just keep this side of the wall"

Me "Why the wall?"

St P "Well all the religious zealots are on the other side"

Me "Do they have it better than this side"

St P "No, but they like to think they are the only ones up here"

 

Could you imagine what it would be like if we could not only prove the existence of God but had a direct line with written or definitive answers - people would be asking questions all day long......

But I don't think we will ever "prove" god's existence, well at least not in my lifetime because after more than 20 years of ICU nursing I do not want to ask questions I want to kick him/her/it in the shins and demand answers!!!!

 

From my perspective, considering that religion is a human-made concept, so are gods. Characterizing natural phenomena as an act of a god is simply a way of rationalizing and humanizing the unknown. Therefore, God is real, but only as a human-created supreme human character, and consequently, religion is simply a delusional way of analyzing what occurs in the universe under the premise that natural phenomena that are independent of humans. However, they do not have to be, because they are acts that a human can fully control, understanding that god has human-like qualities, while at the same time being divine to ensure that the ways of god are somewhat beyond understanding.

 

What if god existed, created our universe and then died. We are left like a fine swiss quartz time piece, ticking on until our battery runs out, at which time things just stop. Bleak I know but a possibility, nonetheless.

My own humble opinion is that the universe was never created, it always existed. The planets and such have definite lifespans but the universe is infinite in life and size, planets, moons and all celestial beings grow and die and are recycled one way or another. I think this way because of the way nature is. As far as we know energy cannot be created or destroyed it just transfers form. Everything in nature seems to go in never ending circles. A tree grows, dies becomes dirt and another tree grows out of it, and on and on. I know its hard to grasp the thought that the universe has existed forever for some but its just the way I personally think.

 

No wonder you're so clueless about the Constitution.

 

My take on it is a little different subscribing to the "brane" theory of cosmology

 

Also made by humans.

 

I believe what people relly mean is that they don't believe in a "man in the Sky" thingee which is watching us and keeping score about how bad or good we are.

They do not consider the Laws of Nature to be the same idea, that we as humans are bound in our behavior by whatever forces or metaphysical entity is behind the Cause and Effect system of things such that consewquences are sure to follow behaviors.

Its like some almighty effect oof the Reality is governing us all.

 

Hpw does that HYPOTHESIS avoid a "First Cause?"

 

3) This effect observed by Halley in 1930-40, clued him to suggest the Big Bang Theory.

2) Since NOTHING can be created/destroyed, whether it be Matter or Energy, the presence of Matter at the moment of that Big Bang implies the source was Energy.
Energy requires no Space/time in order to exist.
Energy in itself is invisible, undefinible, an intangible substance, sort of like a "God."
AEnergy contains implicit within itself all the Natural Laws of the Physics that comes into play once it has transformed itself into Matter.

1) The current Theory of the Big Bang does not concern itself with the Energy that must have always existed before the Transformation into the Cosmos when, "In the beginning, the Heavens and the Earth were all created with just one single flash."

 

I'm insanely spiritual and I have 2 undergrad, 1 masters, a PhD, and am considering a post doc. I graduated manga cum laude or suma cum laude. My family's not Jewish (that I know of).

 

But, would you admit that you were wrong?

_