How many of you go to church with your kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I suspect most atheists have thought about this stuff far more - and more deeply - than the believers. They are certainly, on average, more intelligent.

This is super offensive.

We go to church on a regular basis (and yes the Catholic one that so many people on this board like to bash) and I think about and question my faith all the time. Just because you don't want to go to church and choose not to believe based on your deep thoughts does not mean that those of us who choose to believe don't think about it and doesn't mean that I am stupid.

Feel free to not believe, but please do not call those of us who do believe unintelligent.

I went to one of the most prestigious Catholic colleges in this country where we studied all religions not just my own both Christian and non-Christian. In addition, I work for a Fortune 100 company...so to my atheist friend above...I am hardly unintelligent.

[Anonymous]

I have to agree that calling religious folk unintelligent is offensive. If you look at the religion stats for Mensa, you may be quite surprised to find that they are about as religious as the rest of the community. I am an atheist with a high IQ, but I doubt the two are connected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I suspect most atheists have thought about this stuff far more - and more deeply - than the believers. They are certainly, on average, more intelligent.

Blatantly wrong and offensive. I am Catholic and have spent my life thinking about God, religion, life, the universe and how it all fits together. I have studied the Bible as gospel and as a piece of literature. I've taken college level religious studies courses. I've learned about other religions. Do you think that the faithful never question their faith? I've done it many times, but still come back to the same answer. I am not lazy and I am not dumb; I am literally a rocket scientist. I really do not care if you believe in God or not, but do not insult my intelligence just to make yourself feel better about your decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suspect most atheists have thought about this stuff far more - and more deeply - than the believers. They are certainly, on average, more intelligent.

This is super offensive.

I apologize if you found this offensive - that was not my intent. To be clear I was certainly not suggesting that all religious people are stupid, which is clearly wrong and offensive. Just that on average believers are less intelligent than skeptics. This is a simple statement of fact.
e.g.:http://jonathanturley.org/2008/07/06/researcher-links-high-intelligence-with-atheism/
or

"Leading Scientists Still Reject God"

A recent survey of members of the National Academy of Sciences showed that 72% are outright atheists, 21% are agnostic and only 7% admit to belief in a personal God.

Survey answers among "greater" scientists %
NAS
members 7%
21%
72%

belief in God agnostic atheists

Belief in personal God 1998
Personal belief 7.0 %
Personal disbelief 72.2
Doubt or agnosticism 20.8

[Anonymous]

In reviewing the posts in this discussion I have observed something that peaks my intellectual curiosity -- many of the atheist and agnostic posters begin their posts with the statement that they were raised X religion and have determined that they do not agree/believe/etc. So my question, which I ask out of pure curiousity not malice, how will the children be able to make that determination if they are not introduced to formal religion with all of its traditions, rites, and texts? And I do not equate reading about and researching various faiths as being introduced to formal religion. Anyway just my wandering thoughts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suspect most atheists have thought about this stuff far more - and more deeply - than the believers. They are certainly, on average, more intelligent.

This is super offensive.

I apologize if you found this offensive - that was not my intent. To be clear I was certainly not suggesting that all religious people are stupid, which is clearly wrong and offensive. Just that on average believers are less intelligent than skeptics. This is a simple statement of fact.
e.g.:http://jonathanturley.org/2008/07/06/researcher-links-high-intelligence-with-atheism/
or

"Leading Scientists Still Reject God"

A recent survey of members of the National Academy of Sciences showed that 72% are outright atheists, 21% are agnostic and only 7% admit to belief in a personal God.

Survey answers among "greater" scientists %
NAS
members 7%
21%
72%

belief in God agnostic atheists

Belief in personal God 1998
Personal belief 7.0 %
Personal disbelief 72.2
Doubt or agnosticism 20.8

On an intellectual level I cannot accept this study as proof. The oldest and one of the most volatile debates is evolution vs. creation and logic almost dictates that scientist / doctors would be more inclined to the evolution debate. This really does not prove your point.

[Anonymous]

Also, do you seriously think that scientists are the only measure of intelligent people? Or the most intelligent?

[Anonymous]

Back to the OP's question. . . . I was raised in an atheist home and my husband in a fundamentalist Christian home. We are not Christians, nor are we traditionally religious in any way, but we are now members of a Unitarian Universalist church which we attend with our children. UU churches welcome believers and nonbelievers of every stripe and are organized around seven principles which I personally find to be a useful moral foundation. They are also service and environment oriented. We appreciate the church for reasons of community and service, and I also find it important to have a spiritual component in my own life.

[Anonymous]

I'm going to go out on a limb here with my own theory about atheism and scientists. The process of science is one of proof. If it is not repeatable and subject to others testing the same thing, then it is not so in the scientific world. Religion would have a hard time (in my opinion) living up to such criteria on a tangible level. Proving experential things is just not possible in a lab or even a wide study. I think that is why it is referred to as faith. I'm not trying to be snarky, just making an observation. I am one of the PP atheists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In reviewing the posts in this discussion I have observed something that peaks my intellectual curiosity -- many of the atheist and agnostic posters begin their posts with the statement that they were raised X religion and have determined that they do not agree/believe/etc. So my question, which I ask out of pure curiousity not malice, how will the children be able to make that determination if they are not introduced to formal religion with all of its traditions, rites, and texts? And I do not equate reading about and researching various faiths as being introduced to formal religion. Anyway just my wandering thoughts.

I think a PP has already answered this question. There's no deadline for when someone can pursue religious study, and by study I mean going to church, speaking with ministers and reading religious texts. If/when my kid wants to know more about a particular faith, I'm not going to stop her from attending church to see what it's about if she wants to. My husband might, but that's a different story. Plenty of people "find god" as adults. I don't think I'm robbing my daughter of crucial experiences as a child b/c we don't go to church.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suspect most atheists have thought about this stuff far more - and more deeply - than the believers. They are certainly, on average, more intelligent.

This is super offensive.

I apologize if you found this offensive - that was not my intent. To be clear I was certainly not suggesting that all religious people are stupid, which is clearly wrong and offensive. Just that on average believers are less intelligent than skeptics. This is a simple statement of fact.
e.g.:http://jonathanturley.org/2008/07/06/researcher-links-high-intelligence-with-atheism/
or

"Leading Scientists Still Reject God"

A recent survey of members of the National Academy of Sciences showed that 72% are outright atheists, 21% are agnostic and only 7% admit to belief in a personal God.

Survey answers among "greater" scientists %
NAS
members 7%
21%
72%

belief in God agnostic atheists

Belief in personal God 1998
Personal belief 7.0 %
Personal disbelief 72.2
Doubt or agnosticism 20.8

I will grant that in 1998 a survey of the NAS showed that only 7.0% of the NAS had a personal belief in God. However, that fact alone in no way supports your statement "on average believers are less intelligent than skeptics. This is a simple statement of fact."

Things that are wrong with your conclusion:
1) You assume that the NAS represents all persons with high IQ's. First of all the NAS only represents scientists and engineers which is a small portion of the population. Must people with high IQ's only be scientists and engineers?
2) Scientists and engineers tend to look to for specific evidence or fact in their work. I should know since I am an engineer. Thus, it is easy to see where members of the NAS may be less inclined to believe in God since we have not develop a conclusive test that determines the precence of God. That is why it is called Faith.
3) People who are elected to the NAS have excelled at their profession. These are often people who are "married to their work", often to the detriment of their personal lives, especially their family. Not saying that members of the NAS cannot be happy family people, it is just that they are less likely as a poplulation to have work/life balance. Religious people on the other hand, tend to have high regard for family, thus may chose a less rigorous job path in order to achieve a better work/family balance. They are not less intelligent, they just decide to place a greater value on family. That is not to say non-believers cannot have great work/family balance, it is just saying that religous people in general put a high value on family life.

I could go on and on, but I actually find the entire article laughable. I think most members of the NAS would agree that the study authors lack evidence to support their claims.

[Anonymous]

Question for athiests: I think Athiests are people of faith, just like religious people. There is no proof either way for the existence or absence of God. Athiests choose to believe there is none. Or do you think there is proof of absence?

[Anonymous]

I consider myself an atheist. Although I don't believe I can state "there is no God" with any more credibility than someone with religious faith can state that there is. I believe all religion is mythology (that is not meant as an offensive term to ANYONE). If humanity is still around in 5,000 years, I think all "modern" religions will have been replaced.

[Anonymous]

I think the real debate here is about organized religion; faith is something else. So, I was raised in a very liberal Jewish home, my husband was raised in a very liberal Catholic home, and we both think organized religion is, on balance, a destructive force. So we don't attend church or synagogue and don't identify as members of a religious group. But that doesn't mean that we don't have personal faith and beliefs. I think that organized religion has co-opted the concept of faith, harming our ability to have conversations about spirituality and belief.

I also think that atheists who insist that they are right about the non-existence of God are displaying exactly the same type of intolerance that drives religious adherents to insist that only they are saved, that the Bible is literal, etc. That superior attitude, and need for certainty, for universal adherence, is a real mark of intellectual insecurity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm going to go out on a limb here with my own theory about atheism and scientists. The process of science is one of proof. If it is not repeatable and subject to others testing the same thing, then it is not so in the scientific world. Religion would have a hard time (in my opinion) living up to such criteria on a tangible level. Proving experential things is just not possible in a lab or even a wide study. I think that is why it is referred to as faith. I'm not trying to be snarky, just making an observation. I am one of the PP atheists.

But wouldn't that make most scientists agnostic? I mean, there's no proof that God doesn't exist either.