NationStates Jolt Archive

We could check his groceries... if he bought a lot of chilli sauce, maybe he liked it. :)


He's too poor to go shopping.


Personally, my own take on it would be - in absence of ANY evidence either way (that we have access to), ANY claim about whether he liked chilli sauce is somewhere between speculation and hearsay.

It's certainly grounds for doubting anyone who makes an explicit claim that he DID like it.

And, if there's no evidence at all, why? He hid his secret chilli sauce habit? Or maybe he just didn't much like it.


He never made it a big thing to talk about, he didn't obsess over chilli, he just mentioned once, lets say 6 years ago, that he liked it. And the fact that there is no evidence for it is not unusual in itself, since due to the nature of him being dead and all, there is no evidence that anything he said he liked is true either.


Does your brother know you're willing to kill him to prove a point? ;)

Heh, at times I'd almost want to kill him even if it wasn't to prove a point. :tongue:

He's too poor to go shopping.


Too dead, also - allegedly.


He never made it a big thing to talk about, he didn't obsess over chilli, he just mentioned once, lets say 6 years ago, that he liked it. And the fact that there is no evidence for it is not unusual in itself, since there due to the nature of him being dead and all, there is no evidence that anything he said he liked is true either.


It has to be said, this example is getting more and more esoteric. Pretty soon, we're not going to be able to even verfiy the initial existence of the brother - dead or otherwise.

:)


Heh, at times I'd almost want to kill him even if it wasn't to prove a point. :tongue:

But, this way, it's for a good cause?

Wooh! Everlasting Fame!

Notwithstanding empirical epistemological considerations, of course.

Wooh! Everlasting Fame!

Notwithstanding empirical epistemological considerations, of course.

Yep. You've arrived, now.

*One of us! One of us! One of us!*

*One of us! One of us! One of us!*

*runs*

It has to be said, this example is getting more and more esoteric. Pretty soon, we're not going to be able to even verfiy the initial existence of the brother - dead or otherwise.


True, which is why I can't be bothered to continue with it any more. And I'm sure you're thinking "I'm tired of beating this dead hor-err-brother...". I must sleep now.

True, which is why I can't be bothered to continue with it any more. And I'm sure you're thinking "I'm tired of beating this dead hor-err-brother...". I must sleep now.

:D

Sleep now, yes?

Uhu, whereas "there is no god" is not justified belief, nor knowledge. There is no proof either way.

justification does not require proof. if it did we would quite literally be unable to justly believe much of anything at all. a bit of math and some necessary logical truths, more or less. but since that is clearly insane, we need some less stringent sort of justificatory process.

in any case, a robust absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Let me put it this way:

It is just as difficult for a scientist to understand the difference between water and holy water as it is for a priest to understand that there is no difference.

Not really much of an answer I know, but it's something related to think about.
Not bad for 3 posts. Welcome to NS. *bows*

:D

Sleep now, yes?
http://www.retrojunk.com/img/art-images/dark_city_large_14.jpg
That's another accent i love using. :)

Eh? .
Well, i quoted it. The whole "infinite" part makes the assertion erroneous, even the premise. Needs to be a shift in approach there.

i must have missed it, but someone at some point in here did explain that the mere fact that there can be dumb atheists and smart christians doesn't necessarily affect the overall correlation of intelligence and religiosity (assuming there is one), yes?

At least twice, yes.

bertrand russel once wrote this piece called ''why a free-thinker cannot be christian''

bertrand russel once wrote this piece called ''why a free-thinker cannot be christian''

Is a free-thinker more intelligent?


I also read once that there was a survey (or experiment, if you will) that tested IQ and religious belief. The results were that people that were religious rather than scientific had a slightly lower IQ. I do not believe the difference was all that large, but it was still a difference.

AWESOME! It's still going!

Fair enough. Maybe I dislike breaking it because I have a history of OCD. I couldn't tell you. All I know is I don't like inflicting pain, and I don't like having pain inflicted on me, and pragmatism lets me arrive at a situation where neither of those things happen.

It seems like what we've come to now is an ethical view called emotivism. The tenet of emotivism is just that ethical assertions have no moral or truth value, but that they amount to expressing emotion about a particular action. Basically, it would turn the claim, "Murder is wrong," to "Murder...blech." You can probably see that this is not much, if at all, better than saying ethical claims have no value at all.

I don't buy that.

Inherent in the claim is the fact that it works. That's enough.

You don't have to buy it, but that doesn't change the fact that it's true. :wink: Why should we do things that work? Perhaps we should do things that work because it's the right thing to do. Even if you say that you do it because it works, you have to justify why you do things that work. Otherwise you're still stuck with the fact that you make a completely arbitrary choice as to whether or not you do things that work.

Morally neutral means no reason to follow or not follow? I disagree. It's morally neutral to shit in the swimming pool, but I'm not going to do it.



An interesting diversion. Probably best left to it's own thread, since there's way too much capacity to go (even further) off topic.

I can't tell you which of those 'theories' IS 'true'.

I agree that it would certainly be a diversion, should we choose to pursue it; however, it was only meant to be a better explication of the Inferrence to the Best Explanation principle.

Wholly physical? I don't see ANY evidence that god(s) is/are AT ALL physical.

If we want to have THAT discussion, yes - we need to change the paradigm - but that doesn't mean that other paradigm is 'true'.

On the other hand - since there is no physical evidence, why worry too much about having that discussion?

Well, if God isn't at all physical, then it's completely absurd to use empirical judgments to talk about God in any way whatsoever. Thus, we should only be discussing the arguments based in logic, and anyone who uses the fact that there is no empirical evidence for God as a reason to not believe in God is making a serious logical error-- a 'categorical error,' as it's often referred. It would be like using a graduated cylinder to measure happiness.

bertrand russel once wrote this piece called ''why a free-thinker cannot be christian''

That's odd. I would have thought that Bertrand Russell would have a much better understanding of history. So, I tried to find the essay.

Google brought me this quote, which is relevant:

The expression "free thought" is often used as if it meant merely opposition to the prevailing orthodoxy. But this is only a symptom of free thought, frequent, but invariable. "Free thought" means thinking freely--as freely, at least, as is possible for a human being. The person who is free in any respect is free from something; what is the free thinker free from? To be worthy of the name, he must be free of two things; the force of tradition, and the tyranny of his own passions. No one is completely free from either, but in the measure of a man's emancipation he deserves to be called a free thinker. A man is not to be denied this title because he happens, on some point, to agree with the theologians of his country. An Arab who, starting from the first principles of human reason, is able to deduce that the Koran was not created, but existed eternally in heaven, may be counted as a free thinker, provided he is willing to listen to counter arguments and subject his ratiocination to critical scrutiny. ... What makes a free thinker is not his beliefs, but the way in which he holds them. If he holds them because his elders told him they were true when he was young, or if he holds them because if he did not he would be unhappy, his thought is not free; but if he holds them because, after careful thought, he find a balance of evidence in their favor, then his thought is free, however odd his conclusions may seem.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2000/lowder1.html#6

But, but...I don't believe in intelligence!

~ wail ~

That's odd. I would have thought that Bertrand Russell would have a much better understanding of history. So, I tried to find the essay.

Google brought me this quote, which is relevant:



http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2000/lowder1.html#6

Ooooooooooh, snap! I'd say that puts that to rest.

That's odd. I would have thought that Bertrand Russell would have a much better understanding of history. So, I tried to find the essay.

presumably they were actually after "why i am not a christian" and the sentiments contained in it.

The whole conception of God is a conception derived from the ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men. When you hear people in church debasing themselves and saying that they are miserable sinners, and all the rest of it, it seems contemptible and not worthy of self-respecting human beings.

presumably they were actually after "why i am not a christian" and the sentiments contained in it.

I assume that he is discussing the orthodox Christian conception of god in the quote you provided.

Is every act of self-debasement irreconcilable with rational and free thought?

I don't think so. There are many people who enjoy acts of self debasement and still maintain rational thought processes and even self-respect.

*Dies, waves to Gelgisith from heaven* Who's unintelligent now? How 'bout you Issac Newton?

So you have an active imagination. Good for you. Fact remains that you are still alive, and there's no way of knowing who will wave to whom from where, if anywhere, if at all.
Might as well be me waving to you from Nirvana...

Einstein believed in God, after all,

Common misconception:
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."-- Albert Einstein


Anyway, my take on the matter:

I think there is probably some negative correlation (but not necessarily a directly causal relation) between religiosity and intelligence, but mostly because people who refuse to accept the beliefs with which they are raised tend to be more intelligent than those who automatically accept said beliefs. Since most people are raised fairly theisticly (if not from their parents, culture constantly reinforces theism), most atheists are people who have broken from the assumptions with which they were raised, and therefore tend to be more intelligent.

By this same argument, I would expect to find that, say, a person who was raised Christian but became a Hindu would be more likely to be intelligent than average for a theist, because they seem to have questioned the belief with which they were raised.

Another issue to consider is that intelligent people are more likely to value education, and thus seek it, and there seems to be some negative correlation between religiosity and education.

Of course, this is all pure speculation and may be completely wrong

Einstein did not believe in God. Newton believed in God, but didn't believe in the Holy Trinity...

As for my beliefs... I feel that religion really has NOTHING to do with intelligence. Though a person's personality would compel them to believe in on thing or another.

It's funny... Though, many people don't believe in God (I believe)... When they die, they will say... "Oh God" or "Jesus Christ".

Einstein did not believe in God. Newton believed in God, but didn't believe in the Holy Trinity...

As for my beliefs... I feel that religion really has NOTHING to do with intelligence. Though a person's personality would compel them to believe in on thing or another.

It's funny... Though, many people don't believe in God (I believe)... When they die, they will say... "Oh God" or "Jesus Christ".

Well, when I say anything like "Goddamnit" or "Jesus Christ!" it's just a standard colloquial exclamation for the situation, having nothing to do with belief, and I suspect the same is true for others (even those who do believe).

Yeah... that was a bad example...

Well... I found that when I was an atheist. Whenever I was in a bad situation, I'd pray to God. I thought I might throw that in. That religion is an explanation of something you cannot understand. The brain always searches for such an explanation.

That's funny.

As a theist, I never 'pray' to god in bad situations. Only good ones.

I assume that he is discussing the orthodox Christian conception of god in the quote you provided.

i don't know about orthodox, but certainly mainstream

i don't know about orthodox, but certainly mainstream

In the context of the quote, I don't think that's an important difference.

There many logical problems with that conception of god.

I don't think so. There are many people who enjoy acts of self debasement and still maintain rational thought processes and even self-respect.

Hear hear.

http://www.retrojunk.com/img/art-images/dark_city_large_14.jpg
That's another accent i love using. :)

Love that movie. My two-year old waves his fingers in front of my face kind of like trying to unlock a safe, and says "Sleep now, yes?" in that voice, when it's time for 'nightnight'.

That's how I know I'm raising 'em right. :D

See, I think that some atheists think they are smarter than theists, and there are some theists who think they are smarter than atheists.

Being a theist, I would like to agree with the latter (I'm smarter than you are nah nah nah nah naaah nah!) but neither group's arguments have any validity.

For example, some of the brightest men in the history of the world have been theists (C.S. Lewis, John Milton, Siddharta Gautama, Voltaire, etc.)

And some of the brightest men in the history of the world have been atheists (Einstein, Baron d'Holbach, Jean-Paul Satre, Thoreau I think, but I am not sure, etc.)

Notice however that I have not mentioned any contemporary names, since the recent faith/anti-faith dialogue has become so belligerent and unintelligent on both sides that reasonable voices have been squashed by both parties. As evidence to this point, I submit some of the posts on this very thread, and that many of the atheists and theists of NS are so polarized by the other side that they will resort to snide insults of the intelligence of the other party.

I think there is probably some negative correlation (but not necessarily a directly causal relation) between religiosity and intelligence, but mostly because people who refuse to accept the beliefs with which they are raised tend to be more intelligent than those who automatically accept said beliefs. Since most people are raised fairly theisticly (if not from their parents, culture constantly reinforces theism), most atheists are people who have broken from the assumptions with which they were raised, and therefore tend to be more intelligent.

What says that people who refuse to accept the beliefs they were raised on are more intelligent that those who accept them. If a person was raised with the belief that stoves were hot refuses to accept it, does that mean they are more intelligent that someone who accepts the heat of a stove?

:rolleyes:

Also, what makes you say that those who accept religion accept it automatically and unthinkingly. It seems that is an oversimplification to think that there is no thought that goes into the conscious choice of becoming a believer, and in my case at least, it is outright wrong.

Well, when I say anything like "Goddamnit" or "Jesus Christ!" it's just a standard colloquial exclamation for the situation, having nothing to do with belief, and I suspect the same is true for others (even those who do believe).

I hate it when people assume that you're a Christian because you say stuff like that. I just say it because it comes to mind easier than "Richard Dawkins!" or something of a similar nature.

What says that people who refuse to accept the beliefs they were raised on are more intelligent that those who accept them. If a person was raised with the belief that stoves were hot refuses to accept it, does that mean they are more intelligent that someone who accepts the heat of a stove?

:rolleyes:

If they just blindly accepted it with no reason to believe that it was the case, sure. But of course, you CAN see that it's the case that stoves are hot: they warm food that you put on them, and if you put your hand near them, you can feel the heat.

Questioning is strongly associated with intelligence, only fools blindly accept whatever they are told.


Also, what makes you say that those who accept religion accept it automatically and unthinkingly. It seems that is an oversimplification to think that there is no thought that goes into the conscious choice of becoming a believer, and in my case at least, it is outright wrong.

I say atheists are more likely to have questioned their beliefs because people are much less likely to be raised atheist than they are to be raised theist. Remember, I'm not talking about every case, I'm just talking about correlation-- I didn't even mention how strong a correlation it might be.
Sure, you might have questioned your beliefs before you believed them, but many theists simply automatically accept the religion of their parents.

Questioning is strongly associated with intelligence, only fools blindly accept whatever they are told.

Proof?



I say atheists are more likely to have questioned their beliefs because people are much less likely to be raised atheist than they are to be raised theist. Remember, I'm not talking about every case, I'm just talking about correlation-- I didn't even mention how strong a correlation it might be.
Sure, you might have questioned your beliefs before you believed them, but many theists simply automatically accept the religion of their parents.

Well, this raises the question of whether someone truly is a theist until they have looked upon their faith and made the conscious decision to adopt it.

It seems like what we've come to now is an ethical view called emotivism. The tenet of emotivism is just that ethical assertions have no moral or truth value, but that they amount to expressing emotion about a particular action. Basically, it would turn the claim, "Murder is wrong," to "Murder...blech." You can probably see that this is not much, if at all, better than saying ethical claims have no value at all.


Which is... bad?

I'm not even appealing to emotivism. Seriously - I've stated my ground, and it's not emotion, or some theology, or some externally applied 'morality' - it's pragmatism. It's empathy.

I know I don't like pain. I project that pain onto others, and I don't like it by association. So I don't hurt them. I further don't like it being done to me, so I don't cause the reciprocation.


You don't have to buy it, but that doesn't change the fact that it's true.


I don't accept that it's true. You can SAY it all you like, it won't make it any truer.


Why should we do things that work? Perhaps we should do things that work because it's the right thing to do.


Sounds a little nebulous, to me. I do things that work because I'm a practical kinda guy. And, doing things that DON'T work, seems a little pointless and self-defeating, to me.


Even if you say that you do it because it works, you have to justify why you do things that work. Otherwise you're still stuck with the fact that you make a completely arbitrary choice as to whether or not you do things that work.


No - it's not arbitrary, it's logical. You do the things that work... BECAUSE they work.


Well, if God isn't at all physical, then it's completely absurd to use empirical judgments to talk about God in any way whatsoever. Thus, we should only be discussing the arguments based in logic, and anyone who uses the fact that there is no empirical evidence for God as a reason to not believe in God is making a serious logical error-- a 'categorical error,' as it's often referred. It would be like using a graduated cylinder to measure happiness.

And here's the problem. Some will try to assert that there is physical meaning to their 'god'. If so, there must be some kind of empirical data. If there is no empirical data, then they are either WRONG, or their 'god' is a lie.

If they are just wrong, and their god is not physical or physically meaningful - good. They can indulge whatever philosophy they like, but it has no effect on the PHYSICAL universe - thus, I can discount it.

If they are lying, their god is not only non-physical... but also fictional. Thus, I can discount it.

The only time the discussion becomes MEANINGFUL, is if their 'god' IS physically meaningful. THat's what most of the claimants claim - and that's what the empirical evidence SHOULD be able to support, but seems strangely reluctant to do so.

Questioning is strongly associated with intelligence, only fools blindly accept whatever they are told.

Proof?


He he.

That's funny.

QED?

He he.

That's funny.

QED?

QED? :confused:

Quote:Originally Posted by Originally Posted by Pirated Corsairs:
Questioning is strongly associated with intelligence, only fools blindly accept whatever they are told.
Quote[:Originally Posted by Crimean Republic:
Proof?


He he.

That's funny.

QED?

Sublime! Its so good it seems like a set-up!

From what I’ve noticed it’s the people in great need or distresses who turn to god. So people in poverty, people who are grieving or soldiers under the constant strain of combat. Those of us, who have not been to the rock bottom, cannot comment in full wisdom on religion. As it is at those times that a man believes are really tested.

In modern society, with all our comforts and leisure we dismiss religion for something else, materialism.

QED? :confused:

"quod erat demonstrandum"

"that which was to be demonstrated"

Pirated Corsairs suggested only fools accept what they are told... and you asked for proof.

See?

"quod erat demonstrandum"

"that which was to be demonstrated"

Pirated Corsairs suggested only fools accept what they are told... and you asked for proof.

See?

Oh, well then PC I applaud your wit.

From what I’ve noticed it’s the people in great need or distresses who turn to god. So people in poverty, people who are grieving or soldiers under the constant strain of combat. Those of us, who have not been to the rock bottom, cannot comment in full wisdom on religion. As it is at those times that a man believes are really tested.

In modern society, with all our comforts and leisure we dismiss religion for something else, materialism.

Cute, but not true.

I've been in great poverty, and great grief. I've been to rock bottom.

I don't dismiss religion because I'm materialistic (I'm not) - but because it fails to assert itself as truth, with any capacity to evidence such claims.

Oh, well then PC I applaud your wit.

On the contrary, my friend - you deserve the recognition - you are the proof of the pudding, so to speak.

On the contrary, my friend - you deserve the recognition - you are the proof of the pudding, so to speak.

There is no proof that I am, however, intelligent, except my own arrogance that would like to see me as such.

Well, if God isn't at all physical, then it's completely absurd to use empirical judgments to talk about God in any way whatsoever. happiness.

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." — Ludwig Wittgenstein
"The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao; the name that can be named is not the eternal name." — the Dao De Jing
"What can't be said, can't be said. And it can't be whistled, either." — F. P. Ramsey
"What cannot be spoken in words, but that whereby words are spoken." — Kenopanishad
"We shall grapple with the ineffable, and see if we may not eff it after all." — Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
"I'm in the business of effing the ineffable." — Alan Watts
"You can't second guess ineffability, I always say." — Aziraphale in Good Omens

Lifted shamelessly from Wikipedia, ofc

Cute, but not true.

I've been in great poverty, and great grief. I've been to rock bottom.

I don't dismiss religion because I'm materialistic (I'm not) - but because it fails to assert itself as truth, with any capacity to evidence such claims.

Well then you can comment with wisdom, and you choose your side of the fence. I disagree; I think people aren’t taking to god anymore because they already have all they need. So they are, in general, happy with the way things are. They think they don’t need god because they already have everything.

Its hard to explain in type, much easier to actually talk to people. Then again, if they can talk to you they can normally hit you as well

There is no proof that I am, however, intelligent, except my own arrogance that would like to see me as such.

Alas, all too often, that's all the proof people think they need.....:rolleyes:

Well then you can comment with wisdom, and you choose your side of the fence. I disagree; I think people aren’t taking to god anymore because they already have all they need. So they are, in general, happy with the way things are. They think they don’t need god because they already have everything.

Its hard to explain in type, much easier to actually talk to people. Then again, if they can talk to you they can normally hit you as well

Materialism isn't everything. Watching any US drama featuring incredibly rich, penthouse-dwelling New Yorkers is evidence of this, they're all so *unfulfilled*.

The destitute are depressed and may have nothing but belief left, the rich suffer from ennui (my heart bleeds) because they may have everything but it all seems irrelevant and passé. If you are in the middle, you may feel similar listlessness because you realise you spend your whole life trying to get richer or not becoming poorer. I think the state of mind exists regardless of wealth.

There is no proof that I am, however, intelligent, except my own arrogance that would like to see me as such.

And - in your wish to be seen as intelligent (I'm not saying whether it's the truth or not, that's up to you, not me), you conformed exactly to the pattern that Pirated Corsairs suggested.

See?

Well then you can comment with wisdom, and you choose your side of the fence. I disagree; I think people aren’t taking to god anymore because they already have all they need. So they are, in general, happy with the way things are. They think they don’t need god because they already have everything.


But, most people DON'T have all they need, much less 'everything'.

I certainly don't have all I need. And I don't mean 'all I want', I mean - I'm still running up against needs I'm short of. And yet - I find myself still an Atheist. So - it can't just be the satisfaction of need, or the failure to have reached rock-bottom (because, I've been there) that determines it.

I think you're half right. I think A LOT of people turn to religion in times of need. I think they feel the need of some kind of assurance - something bigger than they are. But, having been there doesn't automatically make you a believer, and being a skeptic doesn't mean you've never been there.

Materialism isn't everything. Watching any US drama featuring incredibly rich, penthouse-dwelling New Yorkers is evidence of this, they're all so *unfulfilled*.

The destitute are depressed and may have nothing but belief left, the rich suffer from ennui (my heart bleeds) because they may have everything but it all seems irrelevant and passé. If you are in the middle, you may feel similar listlessness because you realise you spend your whole life trying to get richer or not becoming poorer. I think the state of mind exists regardless of wealth.

I do not think that those of us who have our physical and mental needs fulfilled can claim to be the same as the destitute. Not all rich are like that anyways, in fact none of the rich I know are like that, and I know some VERY rich people. There just jolly and rather fun, and Christian.


But, most people DON'T have all they need, much less 'everything'.

I certainly don't have all I need. And I don't mean 'all I want', I mean - I'm still running up against needs I'm short of. And yet - I find myself still an Atheist. So - it can't just be the satisfaction of need, or the failure to have reached rock-bottom (because, I've been there) that determines it.

I think you're half right. I think A LOT of people turn to religion in times of need. I think they feel the need of some kind of assurance - something bigger than they are. But, having been there doesn't automatically make you a believer, and being a skeptic doesn't mean you've never been there. You have time and money to sit at a computer and post on nation states, I think my and yours definition of needs are quite different. Do you have food and a roof over your head? Compared to many of the words population, think yourself lucky. I never said it automatically turn you into a believer, I said it makes most people question there beliefs.

I do not think that those of us who have our physical and mental needs fulfilled When does that ever happen?!!?
can claim to be the same as the destitute. I'm sure I didn't say that.. I said they might feel a different way that had the same result as a longing for religion
Not all rich are like that anyways, in fact none of the rich I know are like that, and I know some VERY rich people. There just jolly and rather fun, and Christian.
It's all a facade!
And anyway, hang on, wasn't your original point that, if you had everything, you wouldn't need god? Your friends seem to disprove this point somewhat?

It's all a facade!
And anyway, hang on, wasn't your original point that, if you had everything, you wouldn't need god? Your friends seem to disprove this point somewhat?

I said this was hard to explain. I mean that average Joe has more than he used to, he is happy, so he may see no need to turn to god. Nothing stopping him do it though if he so wishes.

I do not think that those of us who have our physical and mental needs fulfilled can claim to be the same as the destitute. Not all rich are like that anyways, in fact none of the rich I know are like that, and I know some VERY rich people. There just jolly and rather fun, and Christian.


Well - first, I could say that - if they are very rich, they're not very Christian. My personal understanding of the scripture is that someone who is TRULY doing the will of Jesus will have cast of such mundane trappings as wealth.

But - secondly, it was YOUR argument that "with all our comforts and leisure we dismiss religion for something else, materialism", "I think people aren’t taking to god anymore because they already have all they need. They think they don’t need god because they already have everything." and "it’s the people in great need or distresses who turn to god".

That's your argument. Your 'rich friends' would seem to make a liar of it.


You have time and money to sit at a computer and post on nation states,


Actually, I'm posting from work. Does that change it?


I think my and yours definition of needs are quite different. Do you have food and a roof over your head?


I do, now. It hasn't always been so.


Compared to many of the words population, think yourself lucky. I never said it automatically turn you into a believer, I said it makes most people question there beliefs.

No - what you said was: "...it’s the people in great need or distresses who turn to god."

That looks a lot like what you're saying you didn't say.

Which is... bad?

I'm not even appealing to emotivism. Seriously - I've stated my ground, and it's not emotion, or some theology, or some externally applied 'morality' - it's pragmatism. It's empathy.

I know I don't like pain. I project that pain onto others, and I don't like it by association. So I don't hurt them. I further don't like it being done to me, so I don't cause the reciprocation.

But what on Earth would make your pragmatism valid? Your denial of assigning any values to anything makes everything completely arbitrary. I mean, why act pragmatically? There's no reason to unless pragmatism has some value in some way. You think that you indeed should act pragmatically. Perhaps you think that other people should do the same. Yet you deny any attempt to justify these prescriptive claims.

As for your assertion that it comes from empathy, this is a very ethically loaded term. Empathy means that you basically put yourself in someone else's shoes, and determine what action you should take. So you imagine someone else's situation: "I don't like pain. I can imagine that this person also doesn't like pain. Therefore, it would be good if I didn't cause this person pain." I mean, you can't possibly act on these intuitions if you don't think it's somehow good. And guess what? Good is an ethical value. At some point, on some level, I feel very confident that you determine your actions to be ethical.

Sounds a little nebulous, to me. I do things that work because I'm a practical kinda guy. And, doing things that DON'T work, seems a little pointless and self-defeating, to me.

But surely something that's merely pointless is still okay, and in fact, if you insist that a pragmatic action has no ethical value, then an action that has a point and an action that is pointless are exactly the same, ethically. Thus, yet again, there is no reason to prefer one over the other. Again, you can't make a prescriptive ("should") claim without ethical values. I would defy you to give me a counterexample.

No - it's not arbitrary, it's logical. You do the things that work... BECAUSE they work.

So anything that works is desirable? I can think of loads of actions that are effective, that are pragmatic, that are certainly things one should not do. Clearly pragmatism can't be the only concern when you determine your actions from day to day.

And here's the problem. Some will try to assert that there is physical meaning to their 'god'. If so, there must be some kind of empirical data. If there is no empirical data, then they are either WRONG, or their 'god' is a lie.

If they are just wrong, and their god is not physical or physically meaningful - good. They can indulge whatever philosophy they like, but it has no effect on the PHYSICAL universe - thus, I can discount it.

If they are lying, their god is not only non-physical... but also fictional. Thus, I can discount it.

The only time the discussion becomes MEANINGFUL, is if their 'god' IS physically meaningful. THat's what most of the claimants claim - and that's what the empirical evidence SHOULD be able to support, but seems strangely reluctant to do so.

It's two very different things to say, "There is no god," on the one hand and, "There is no physical god," on the other. Many religions rely upon extremely metaphysical and abstract concepts to derive their religious beliefs, so it would seem unfair to firmly assert that there is no god, period, when what you mean is that there is no physically observable god.

I said this was hard to explain. I mean that average Joe has more than he used to, he is happy, so he may see no need to turn to god. Nothing stopping him do it though if he so wishes.


I believe I know what you mean, I am just disagreeing....

As the famous philosopher The Notorious B.I.G. once said: "Mo' money, mo' problems"

The more you have, the more you have to lose. Just having more stuff doesn't necessarily make you happier. If stuff means a lot to you, you will want more stuff, because you think that will make you happy, so you might never be satisfied. Or have I just described the American Dream??!

Of course, the classical refutation of B.I.G.'s point is made by Jay-Z, where he points out that comfort can be found through love and not money or fame: "99 problems, but my bitch ain't one"

Hip Hop philosophy ftw!:cool:

But what on Earth would make your pragmatism valid?


It doesn't need to be validated. It just... is.

The Greatest Good, for the Greatest Number. An' it harm none, do as thou wilt. Be Excellent to each other, and Party On.

It's not a new idea - some of the greatest philosphers have made the same argument in their own words.


Your denial of assigning any values to anything makes everything completely arbitrary. I mean, why act pragmatically? There's no reason to unless pragmatism has some value in some way.


My denial of assigning any ETHICAL values to anything makes everything completely ETHICALLY arbitrary, perhaps. But, I'm strangely comfortable with that.

The 'value' that pragmatism has, is that when you do things that way, things get done. I don't see why it NEEDS some higher authorisation.


You think that you indeed should act pragmatically. Perhaps you think that other people should do the same. Yet you deny any attempt to justify these prescriptive claims.


It's self-justifying. What is pragmatism?


As for your assertion that it comes from empathy, this is a very ethically loaded term.


For you. I don't see it as such.


Empathy means that you basically put yourself in someone else's shoes, and determine what action you should take. So you imagine someone else's situation: "I don't like pain. I can imagine that this person also doesn't like pain. Therefore, it would be good if I didn't cause this person pain."


And here, you load it. That's your wording, not mine.

Again - it comes right back to pragmatism to me - I don't like pain. You don't like pain. I don't want pain. Where is the sense in my inflicting pain on you?

You may say that's 'good'? I don't need that value judgment.


I mean, you can't possibly act on these intuitions if you don't think it's somehow good.


I wipe my butt. Not because I think it's 'good', but because it needs to be done.


And guess what? Good is an ethical value. At some point, on some level, I feel very confident that you determine your actions to be ethical.


Feel confident. You go. Where I might apply an 'ethical' value, it stems FROM my golden rule, it doesn't CREATE that rule.

Maybe that makes my ethical code different to yours, and maybe they overlap, I don't know.


But surely something that's merely pointless is still okay, and in fact, if you insist that a pragmatic action has no ethical value, then an action that has a point and an action that is pointless are exactly the same, ethically.


Okay. I'm willing to go with that.

But an action that is pointless (or even has a point, within the parameter) that is actually COUNTERPRODUCTIVE to the pragmatic golden rule, would - in the terms of pragmatism - be destructive. It would be 'ethically' bad, in THOSE terms.


Thus, yet again, there is no reason to prefer one over the other. Again, you can't make a prescriptive ("should") claim without ethical values. I would defy you to give me a counterexample.


We 'should' follow the pragmatic rule, because it works. It gives the greatest yield of profit. Because it causes the least loss of productivity. It is less counterproductive.


So anything that works is desirable? I can think of loads of actions that are effective, that are pragmatic, that are certainly things one should not do. Clearly pragmatism can't be the only concern when you determine your actions from day to day.


What is pragmatic but shouldn't be done?

Maybe the problem is the terms in which we envision pragmatism?


It's two very different things to say, "There is no god," on the one hand and, "There is no physical god," on the other. Many religions rely upon extremely metaphysical and abstract concepts to derive their religious beliefs, so it would seem unfair to firmly assert that there is no god, period, when what you mean is that there is no physically observable god.

Okay - show me a religion that claims a completely non-interventionist god.

Okay - show me a religion that claims a completely non-interventionist god.

Jainism is the closest I can think of. People can become omniscient beings once they achieve karmic balance, but those beings have no connection to the physical universe once liberated from it.

It's certainly not theist in the western sense, but it posits completely non-interventionist godlike beings.

This is officially the dumbest poll ever Zilam. I'm extremely intelligent; I have tests to prove it, and I am a Christian. So guess what? Smart people believe in God! Atheist asshole.

Jainism is the closest I can think of. People can become omniscient beings once they achieve karmic balance, but those beings have no connection to the physical universe once liberated from it.

It's certainly not theist in the western sense, but it posits completely non-interventionist godlike beings.

Jainism is an interesting case. It claims 'gods' (if you will) rooted in the physical, but transcendent. Effectively - to 'be' god, you are effectively exempted from the physical... there can be no 'interventionist gods' in Jainism.... and yet, the godbeing must originate in mortal entities...

I'm not sure it counts. But, it's probably as close as you'll get. :)

I suspect this entire debate is without foundation. The wrong question is being asked because there is no way for us to ask the right one. The existence of God i dont think is a yes or no question, its a question with an answer that humans arnt biologically designed to understand, in the same way a spider is not biologically designed to understand the rules of chess or even understand the concept of rules.

This is officially the dumbest poll ever Zilam. I'm extremely intelligent; I have tests to prove it, and I am a Christian. So guess what? Smart people believe in God! Atheist asshole.

Sure buddy.

I suspect this entire debate is without foundation. The wrong question is being asked because there is no way for us to ask the right one. The existence of God i dont think is a yes or no question, its a question with an answer that humans arnt biologically designed to understand, in the same way a spider is not biologically designed to understand the rules of chess or even understand the concept of rules.

But, we're still agreed that Chess DOES exist, though... right?

Regardless of whether or not spiders can see it, or play it?

I suspect this entire debate is without foundation. The wrong question is being asked because there is no way for us to ask the right one. The existence of God i dont think is a yes or no question, its a question with an answer that humans arnt biologically designed to understand, in the same way a spider is not biologically designed to understand the rules of chess or even understand the concept of rules.

If we can't ask the right one, who can?

But, we're still agreed that Chess DOES exist, though... right?

Regardless of whether or not spiders can see it, or play it?

Not to the spider it doesnt.

Not to the spider it doesnt.

But, it DOES, anyway.

I'm not arguing 'what exists within the limitation of my perspective'.

In a few years, my diet and exercise continuing as they are, mere 'perspective' will tell me that my penis doesn't exist, except as stories about a long lost wonder, somewhere the far side of my capacious gut. I'm pretty sure that that doesn't mean it will literally cease to be.

If we can't ask the right one, who can?

Good question. Perhaps someone with a different biology from our own or if you believe in the higher dimensions (string theoryish), creatures with a different perspective because of where they exist.

Good question. Perhaps someone with a different biology from our own or if you believe in the higher dimensions (string theoryish), creatures with a different perspective because of where they exist.

So if only we had the right biology, we could ask the right question? We're so inadequate...

Or perhaps we're not.

But, it DOES, anyway.

I'm not arguing 'what exists within the limitation of my perspective'.

i could argue that to another maybe it doesnt but only does in your perspective.What if another creature is looking at the same space you are and instead of a chessboard sees wiggly worms in a bog because they see things on a completly different wavelength. Is your reality because thats the way you percieve it the "right" or "real" one? Who knows and humans are too primitive to say. Its theoretically possible that 90% of the matter in the universe is dark matter. So how much really arnt we seeing?

i could argue that to another maybe it doesnt but only does in your perspective.What if another creature is looking at the same space you are and instead of a chessboard sees wiggly worms in a bog because they see things on a completly different wavelength. Is your reality because thats the way you percieve it the "right" or "real" one? Who knows and humans are too primitive to say. Its theoretically possible that 90% of the matter in the universe is dark matter. So how much really arnt we seeing?

Are you considering that what we're seeing is 100% of what we're seeing?

i could argue that to another maybe it doesnt but only does in your perspective.What if another creature is looking at the same space you are and instead of a chessboard sees wiggly worms in a bog because they see things on a completly different wavelength. Is your reality because thats the way you percieve it the "right" or "real" one? Who knows and humans are too primitive to say. Its theoretically possible that 90% of the matter in the universe is dark matter. So how much really arnt we seeing?

I don't care for conjecture. I want absolutes.

Either there IS a god (or some gods?).. or there isn't. And, I don't really see that there can be any other options.

If God exists... then God exists whether or not I can see him. Or blobby aliens can see him. Or spiders can see him.

If he doesn't exists... then he doesn't exist whether or not I think I can see him. Or blobby aliens think they can see him. Or spiders think they can see him.


I'm not accepting the concept that 'reality' is ultimately altered on an intrinsic level, by our capacity to measure it. I don't think there's a big dark chunk of space outside of which the details are undrawn, because we can't see that far.

OK, how about this:
People who belive in God show intelligence for thinking logicaly about how it is almost impossible for us to exist with out him.
Athiests show intelligence by showing it is almost impossible for God to exist.

So, it looks like either the glass is half full or it is half empty.

I'm not accepting the concept that 'reality' is ultimately altered on an intrinsic level, by our capacity to measure it. I don't think there's a big dark chunk of space outside of which the details are undrawn, because we can't see that far.

I have similiar beliefs; yet, at the same time I would acknowledge what is beyond my capacity to measure/detect. The whole world is what-I-know/what-I-don't-know.

"God" is what I could't know.

OK, how about this:
People who belive in God show intelligence for thinking logicaly about how it is almost impossible for us to exist with out him.
Athiests show intelligence by showing it is almost impossible for God to exist.

So, it looks like either the glass is half full or it is half empty.

It is entirely half full and half empty. :D

Yin and yang.

I have similiar beliefs; yet, at the same time I would acknowledge what is beyond my capacity to measure/detect. The whole world is what-I-know/what-I-don't-know.

"God" is what I could't know.

Ah, I agree.

I don't claim to KNOW if there is a god, or not.

I don't, however, think that my not-knowing makes the slightest difference to the reality of the universe. If gods exist, they do it quite well with me non-knowing. If they don't, the same.

OK, how about this:
People who belive in God show intelligence for thinking logicaly about how it is almost impossible for us to exist with out him.
Athiests show intelligence by showing it is almost impossible for God to exist.

So, it looks like either the glass is half full or it is half empty.

I just want to know what bastard drank half my drink.

I don't, however, think that my not-knowing makes the slightest difference to the reality of the universe. If gods exist, they do it quite well with me non-knowing. If they don't, the same.

Oh, I so agree. I might add that no matter what so-called "planes of existence" mystics may claim to experience, it's still and for always here and now.


What does this guy do....:hail:

Edit: haha.

Oh, I so agree. I might add that no matter what so-called "planes of existence" mystics may claim to experience, it's still and for always here and now.


What does this guy do....:hail:

Not sure what he's supposed to do, but he looks like his earning that $20 the Invisible Man gave him...

I don't claim to KNOW if there is a god, or not.

i, on the other hand, do claim to know there aren't any gods. and i mean this in exactly the same way that i claim to know there isn't a tiny teapot orbiting between earth and mars and that there aren't any unicorns.

i, on the other hand, do claim to know there aren't any gods. and i mean this in exactly the same way that i claim to know there isn't a tiny teapot orbiting between earth and mars and that there aren't any unicorns.

Not-a-thing-iness abounds.

i, on the other hand, do claim to know there aren't any gods. and i mean this in exactly the same way that i claim to know there isn't a tiny teapot orbiting between earth and mars and that there aren't any unicorns.

You don't know about Space Teapot 5?

Not-a-thing-iness abounds.

all things are things, by definition

and, of course, nouns are persons, places, or things. now given that all things are things, it follows that verbs are things. and therefore verbs are nouns.

You don't know about Space Teapot 5?

last best hope for teas, but it failed


damn you newtonian mechanics!

all things are things, by definition

and, of course, nouns are persons, places, or things. now given that all things are things, it follows that verbs are things. and therefore verbs are nouns.
Just so. :-)

Hence "God" is called ineffable.

i, on the other hand, do claim to know there aren't any gods. and i mean this in exactly the same way that i claim to know there isn't a tiny teapot orbiting between earth and mars and that there aren't any unicorns.

What are you talking about?

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23851265-13762,00.html

;)

I just want to know what bastard drank half my drink.

Don't think of it as someone drinking half of your drink, think of someone upchucking half of your drink back in the glass. That's what we optimists do.

Is there correlation between a person's intelligence and their belief in (a) god(s)? This stems from the conversation about dogs believing in gods. It was said that dogs cannot believe in gods, because they are not intelligent enough. However, it seems to me that many people feel that those who believe in god(s) are less intelligent than those who do not believe in god(s). Do you notice this as well? Or is it just my imagination?

Poll to come. Maybe even a Pole, if I can find one.

A survey of the forty-eight living winners of the Nobel prize in science turned up only one theist. The survey was done by Free Inquiry. Overall intelligence may not differ, but highly logical, ordered minds find theism hard to swallow.

Proof?

I know this is late, and others have echoed the sentiment, but precisely. ;) (I was actually hoping you'd ask that.)

A more well-explained version.
Given that:
People often lie, or are mistaken, or for some reason tell you something that is not true.
So: when somebody tells you something, and you blindly accept it, then you're taking a huge risk: maybe they are telling the truth, maybe they are not. (Or maybe they think they are telling the truth/a lie but are wrong.)
If, however, you take what they say and think critically about it, apply reason and standards of evidence, you are less likely to believe something that is not true.
Therefore:
An intelligent person, realizing this, does not blindly accept what people tell him, but instead analyzes it, considers the burden of proof required and any other such factors, and generally tries to find out if the thing that has been said is true.

Now, this is often done very quickly: your friend calls you and says that he's got the grill going and has some beers and wants you to come hang out at a party, you quickly, instinctively consider that this person is your friend, and thus is probably being sincere about having those things, having no motive for lying and having little chance of being mistaken.

But say some random guy on the street comes up to you in a bad neighborhood and asks you to come into his house, claiming he has $500 to give you.
Do you believe him?
I should hope not!

As an intelligent person, you automatically question his claim that he has $500 that he just wants to give you with no catch. You don't even know this guy! He probably means you harm or at least wants to scam you somehow.

You instinctively apply critical reasoning in these situations, you question-- often so quickly, that you don't realize you're doing it. And a good thing, too, or else you'd be in a bad situation with the guy offering $500.


Well, this raises the question of whether someone truly is a theist until they have looked upon their faith and made the conscious decision to adopt it.

Now that's just silly. A theist is somebody who thinks that a god or gods exist. To say that somebody isn't a theist just because they haven't questioned their theism is just a cop-out. It's like saying a Klan member isn't racist if they were indoctrinated to hate black people and never thought about it. (And no, I am not saying religiosity is equivalent to racism, it's just an analogy.)

I cannot believe that no one has quoted Aristotle yet.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it"

Now that that does not mean that all religious people have not entertained the thought of God in their mind, but those which have just accepted that there is a God and those that have accepted that there isn't a God should examine it I am sure that they would be people of both groups that haven't done this. Hell even examine your beliefs on who is the best actor don't just accept it at face value if I say Cary Grant was the best actor ever.

If someone has quoted Aristotle I apologize, I didn't see it.

*snip*

I'm glad I'm not the only one posting absolutely fucking shitfaced right now.

I'm glad I'm not the only one posting absolutely fucking shitfaced right now.

you carry it well.

You're still online.

*stumbles, falls*

Well first off, Being Religious doens't imply that you believe in a God(s)... Me for example, i am religious, but am also Atheistic (Meaning i don't believe in a or many God(s)). Anyway, to explain my choice... i say that really ti all depends on the person. Now granted there are a lot of idiots who have a low intelligence and are religious but there are also people who are very intelligent and religious. For example, Confucius was a very intelligent man, so was Lao Tsu... and they both taught about new philosophies which would soon become religiosn of their own (Confucianism and Taoism, respectivly).

Well first off, Being Religious doens't imply that you believe in a God(s)... Me for example, i am religious, but am also Atheistic (Meaning i don't believe in a or many God(s)).

Either your logic is broken or you're shitfaced too.

I'd claim the latter, cuz the former is just embarrasing.

I simply cannot fathom how any intelligent person can believe in such absurdities as god and heaven and hell and all that nonsense. I look at these idea of god as an idea. One which has no empirical backing whatsoever. No logical backing. No measurable evidence at all. Scientific methodology (the same methodology responsible for you having the computer you're using) dictates burden of proof. It must be proven that god exists, not proven that god doesn't exist. If you are to accept that something is true and demand evidence that it is not, then you must also accept the notion that I am god, and you have to prove I'm not. But since no proof exists, I can safely claim to be god. However, scientific methodology dictates burden of proof, so I cannot claim to be god and get away with it without having some empirical evidence.

So I equate people who believe in god to people who reject scientific methodology, which I see as unintelligent. So I do see people who believe in god as being somewhat less-intelligent (though I haven't defined in what way they are less intelligent).

There are a lot of idiots who believe in a higher power (anything from the Christian God to the Hindu Pantheon, the varieties are vast indeed).

However, there are also a lot of idiots who don't.

Likewise, there are some smart people who believe in some kind of deity. And there are some smart people who don't.

I would say that most fundamentalists (of any religion) are stupid, though. But not all of the faithful are idiot fundies.

Either your logic is broken or you're shitfaced too.


You can easily be atheistic whilst being religious. Many types of Buddhists for example can be described as atheists.

You can easily be atheistic whilst being religious. Many types of Buddhists for example can be described as atheists.
An, arguably, Taoists and Confucians.

The smartest guy I ever met was a die-hard Christina Aguilera fan who asserts, to this day, that her music has unappreciated depths which rival those of pre-modern composers such as Schumann.

Smart people often have not-so-smart beliefs.

I simply cannot fathom how any intelligent person can believe in such absurdities as god and heaven and hell and all that nonsense. I look at these idea of god as an idea. One which has no empirical backing whatsoever. No logical backing. No measurable evidence at all. Scientific methodology (the same methodology responsible for you having the computer you're using) dictates burden of proof. It must be proven that god exists, not proven that god doesn't exist. If you are to accept that something is true and demand evidence that it is not, then you must also accept the notion that I am god, and you have to prove I'm not. But since no proof exists, I can safely claim to be god. However, scientific methodology dictates burden of proof, so I cannot claim to be god and get away with it without having some empirical evidence.

So I equate people who believe in god to people who reject scientific methodology, which I see as unintelligent. So I do see people who believe in god as being somewhat less-intelligent (though I haven't defined in what way they are less intelligent).


That is rubbsih though. Manknind is not wholey a resonable beast.

Do you need scientific verifaction to know that you are loved, or do you automaticaly belive it when your beloved tells you so?

What you mean by you post is of course, that you personaly cannot work it out, and so you have deicided that there is no value in having faith in a creator God. So because we do not think alike in this one thing, I am tarred forever with the brush of supidity in your eyes.

Would you not say that an unintelegent action is to think as you do, to asess somebodys mental worth based on one thing you know about them, where is the scientific method in that?

"No, people who believe in God(s) can be just as intelligent as those who do not believe."

I voted for this. It's part of the human condition to be able to hold contradictory views quite happily, no matter how otherwise intelligent or rational a person seems to be.

It has been shown that the more religious a nation, the deeper it's social problems such as unwed teen birth rates, sexual dysfunction, alcoholism and drug abuse, just to name a few. So what does that say about the US?

That is rubbsih though. Manknind is not wholey a resonable beast.

Do you need scientific verifaction to know that you are loved, or do you automaticaly belive it when your beloved tells you so?

What you mean by you post is of course, that you personaly cannot work it out, and so you have deicided that there is no value in having faith in a creator God. So because we do not think alike in this one thing, I am tarred forever with the brush of supidity in your eyes.

Would you not say that an unintelegent action is to think as you do, to asess somebodys mental worth based on one thing you know about them, where is the scientific method in that?

I did say I didn't define in what way they were less intelligent. There are many fields of intelligence (comprehension and creativity are to name a few), and I never specified which one I thought they might have slightly failed in. But yes, I do tend to deduct a few intelligence points in my assessment of a person if I find they hold a dogmatic belief in god, and until I find someone who does not deserve said deduction of 'points', I will not stop doing that. I've debated with a few die-hard christians (also engineers, if that matters), and the more I talk about it with them, the less I think of them, intellectually. Dogmatic religious beliefs breed intellectual stagnation, in my experience. So now I just assume it whenever I encounter them, and until I find someone to the contrary, I will continue to just assume it. That doesn't mean I don't occasionally try to get to know them better (I usually do).

As for the value of having a belief in god or not, I hold it to as much value as holding to the idea that a giant blue platypus created the universe. Both ideas cannot be proven or disproven, but, thanks to our philosophical system which is at the very basis of our entire society, we reject something as false until it is proven true. This is the basis for our scientific methodology, our basis for law and justice (assume innocent until proven guilty), and without it, our society would reduce to chaos. I could accuse you of sleeping with my girlfriend and you would have to prove you didn't. The most absurd ideas would be true until proven wrong (which it has been in the past, ie. the world being flat).

And touching briefly on the question you postulated "do I need scientific verifaction to know that I am loved", simply put - yes. Words are not enough. I observe that I want to spend a lot of time with my girlfriend and that I enjoy that time with her. I also observe that I care about her a lot, and dislike being away from her. So I conclude that I love her. I observe that she seems to enjoy spending time with me, and seems to care about me, and seems to want to be with me, so I conclude that she loves me. If I were to observe her actions to the contrary of what I would call "loving actions", then I might conclude that she doesn't love me.

Thanks to our philosophical system which is at the very basis of our entire society, we reject something as false until it is proven true.

Absolutely untrue. In philosophy, it is never good practice to assume the falsehood of a proposition when no evidence exists either way. The only appropriate action to take is to completely suspend judgment. If you say, "I've got a wallet in my pocket," and I have no good reason to believe or not believe you, I would be completely unjustified in saying, "I disagree. That is certainly false." I could only say, "Perhaps you do. I can't really say."

Having a religious belief does not equate ignorance.

A person that believes in God can be as intelligent as someone who does not. And vice versa.

And touching briefly on the question you postulated "do I need scientific verifaction to know that I am loved", simply put - yes. Words are not enough. I observe that I want to spend a lot of time with my girlfriend and that I enjoy that time with her. I also observe that I care about her a lot, and dislike being away from her. So I conclude that I love her. I observe that she seems to enjoy spending time with me, and seems to care about me, and seems to want to be with me, so I conclude that she loves me. If I were to observe her actions to the contrary of what I would call "loving actions", then I might conclude that she doesn't love me.

Heh which is all very well until you factor in the concept that they may be lieing. So there comes a time when you must trust that by words and actions that the truth is being told to you.

Jainism is an interesting case. It claims 'gods' (if you will) rooted in the physical, but transcendent. Effectively - to 'be' god, you are effectively exempted from the physical... there can be no 'interventionist gods' in Jainism.... and yet, the godbeing must originate in mortal entities...

I'm not sure it counts. But, it's probably as close as you'll get. :)

It soooooo counts!

That'll teach you to ask such absolute questions about religion! God knows there are enough of them, I'm sure you could find one that believes any old crap you care to name.... :D