Battlezone Forums

Nielk1 wrote:Plenty of people go through life thinking that when they die they are done. If people can cope with that, it's not a good explanation for the beliefs that build religion. The basis of such belief is probably something far more ingrained in our search for knowledge and understanding.

I don't think that religious belief has one single basis. It is the culmination of fear of death, the desire to belong, the wish to understand the universe, the desire for guidance, the desire to feel as though there is hope and many other factors.

Many modern people can cope with fear of death. This is likely due to the fact that they don't live in constant fear of predators, disease or famine as their ancestors did. Death is not an overtly common theme in the lives of most people in developed countries. This also helps to explain the rise of Atheism and Agnosticism in the developed world - particularly in contrast to the developing world where religion is precisely the way it was a thousand years ago. They still need the comfort it can provide, whereas comfort exists 'in this life' in the developed world.

bigbadbogie wrote: I don't think that religious belief has one single basis. It is the culmination of fear of death, the desire to belong, the wish to understand the universe, the desire for guidance, the desire to feel as though there is hope and many other factors.

+1 . . . exactly. And that overrides all logic and reason.

Just remember people with faith aren't stupid.

Additionally, we are still the same are our pre-religion ancestors. Don't confusing not fearing death with acceptance/belief that there is nothing after.

Nielk1 wrote:Just remember people with faith aren't stupid.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4

I don't think that religious belief has one single basis.

I expect it is actually due to activity in a specific parts of the brain, that then adopts a social narrative and becomes an explanation to the individual concerned. This is why people often find God after an illness or other traumatic event.
It also implies that those without belief have simply not experienced (or cease to) this type of brain activity, obviously it is not actually linked to any specific narrative explanation and could just as easily adopt a belief in science in a person not indoctrinated by religion. It would also imply that other species may well have similar experiences. In other words it's a built in function that can become activated or indeed weaponized...

bigbadbogie wrote:

Nielk1 wrote:Just remember people with faith aren't stupid.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4

Nice strawman there. We're dealing with items that have no correlation and you know it.

Nielk1 wrote:Nice strawman there. We're dealing with items that have no correlation and you know it.

Yeah. I'll admit that not every religious person is like Ray Comfort. Quite a lot are, though. Particularly in the US. There may be a high correlation between stupidity and religiosity, but that is not proof of causation.

bigbadbogie wrote:There may be a high correlation between stupidity and religiosity, but that is not proof of causation.

Unintelligent people tend to be easier to convince into believing something, they wont question (test) things as easilly/often as an intelligent/educated person will.
Than there is popularity, specially insecure (often uneducated/unintelligent) people are subject to it .. if everybody does so so do I need to ... than go back to above and again realise they wont question what they are part of.

bigbadbogie wrote:

Nielk1 wrote:Nice strawman there. We're dealing with items that have no correlation and you know it.

Yeah. I'll admit that not every religious person is like Ray Comfort. Quite a lot are, though. Particularly in the US. There may be a high correlation between stupidity and religiosity, but that is not proof of causation.

Actually, most religious people aren't overt about it because they respect the views of others, so you probably are looking only at a sample that is already predisposed to stupid as shown by their vocalness.

I moved down south and now on the TV I hear "have a blessed day" like every 5 min. People around here are damn sharp though, even though they all navigate by churches as landmarks.

Actually I think you will find it very hard to convince anyone to actually believe something like a Religion without lifelong exposure to such idea's as their social norm. Intelligence does does not seem to be a particularly significant factor. One might just as easily consider those who dismiss such concepts without significant analysis as being stupid too. I would not, as I am aware that intelligence is expressed in many more different ways than the conventional assessments of it would have us believe.
Blind rejection of a concept is no better than blind belief in it.
Still got to laugh at the Guy using a banana as his proof though , it shows how little he understands what he is arguing against.

If someone did a survey I would expect the results to show the average intelligence of the religious and non-religious to be pretty similar. I doubt anyone can say that the religious people they know personally are noticeably less intelligent than the non-religious.

I actually like it down south, though the dust is a bit much and I am hoping I don't integrate the accent.

Nielk1 wrote:Actually, most religious people aren't overt about it because they respect the views of others, so you probably are looking only at a sample that is already predisposed to stupid as shown by their vocalness.

|
V

Nielk1 wrote:I moved down south and now on the TV I hear "have a blessed day" like every 5 min. People around here are damn sharp though, even though they all navigate by churches as landmarks.

That's not overt?

That's not vocal?

These articles explain how much 'respect' people have for others' views:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-28616115

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/ft/2 ... ists_.html

bigbadbogie wrote:

Nielk1 wrote:Actually, most religious people aren't overt about it because they respect the views of others, so you probably are looking only at a sample that is already predisposed to stupid as shown by their vocalness.

|
V

Nielk1 wrote:I moved down south and now on the TV I hear "have a blessed day" like every 5 min. People around here are damn sharp though, even though they all navigate by churches as landmarks.

That's not overt?

That's not vocal?

These articles explain how much 'respect' people have for others' views:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-28616115

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/ft/2 ... ists_.html

No, it's not overt and vocal. You seem to have some idea that if you are around it, it is BAD. The truth, BBB, is that you don't have the right to not be offended. You have the right to not have people get up in your face about it, and they don't do that. They just are, and if you exist near them you have to accept it.

Nielk1 wrote:You have the right to not have people get up in your face about it, and they don't do that.

I'd say that hearing "'have a blessed day' like every 5 min" on TV is exactly that - getting up in your face about it. Perhaps they won't do so in person, but TV and media probably provides more communication than face-to-face these days anyway.

Perhaps it's just an international difference; in the US, people might be more tolerant of things like that and don't consider them to be as 'in your face' as Australians would.