I think about it no more than I think about any other religious text that has been written in the last few thousand years - I don't give it much thought at all. If there is a god up there, which I highly doubt, I'm sure he doesn't give a toss about organised man made religions. If he has created the billions of galaxies in the universe, hundreds of billions of planets -I can't imagine him hovering over us insignificant humans screaming "no.. no.. NOO!... No red meat on Fridays!"

If he really is sat up there waiting to judge - who is he going to let in to heaven - someone like me who has lived (up until now anyway) a relatively good life, compassionate and caring, but doesn't believe in him.
Or will it be the militant christian - firebombed an abortion clinic in his name, but believes in him without question.

If it is the latter, I would rather be elsewhere anyway.

Well, for me, agnosticism isn't about sitting on the fence. It's more about accepting that I don't know and becoming comfortable with the fact that I will never know while I'm alive, rather than feeling that by not knowing, I'm somehow missing out on something.

I don't claim to have achieved this by the way.

You call yourself agnostic because you misunderstand the meaning of the word "atheist." Very few of us claim to know that there is no god. All of us nonbelievers (notice it's about belief, not knowledge) are atheists. You're simply one of the many who's either ignorant of the meaning of the word or too scared to call yourself atheist because of the negative stigma attached.

On a different subject, it's ridiculous that you people are arguing about the correlation between IQ and religion by using anecdotal evidence.

And yet there are a bunch of people with IQs high enough to qualify for Mensa (myself included) that are Christians. Imagine that.

Is this a joke? If you actually had an IQ as high as you claim I think the chances are pretty high that you'd realize how stupid it is to imply that your anecdotal evidence has any bearing on the subject. It doesn't matter if you know the smartest person in the world and she happens to be a Christian. It's irrelevant. I guess high IQs don't make up for ignorance of basic statistics.

I believe that it is fairly widely accepted that this phenomenon is an example of correlation-not-causation, due to a variety of socio-economic factors not strongly associated with religion.

What's your point? I never claimed that being religious makes you stupid. I don't think anyone did.

All I claimed is that smart people tend to choose atheism. Your article supports that. Impoverished nations tend to have lower IQs, because people aren't educated and because of the general concept of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Thanks for the backup.

You call yourself agnostic because you misunderstand the meaning of the word "atheist." Very few of us claim to know that there is no god. All of us nonbelievers (notice it's about belief, not knowledge) are atheists. You're simply one of the many who's either ignorant of the meaning of the word or too scared to call yourself atheist because of the negative stigma attached.

Why do you think he misunderstands it? He never said anything about belief.

What's your point? I never claimed that being religious makes you stupid. I don't think anyone did.

All I claimed is that smart people tend to choose atheism. Your article supports that. Impoverished nations tend to have lower IQs, because people aren't educated and because of the general concept of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Thanks for the backup.[/quote]
That's not really correct either. People with higher IQs are more likely to be agnostic/atheist/non-religious than people with lower IQs, but that doesn't mean they are more likely in general. The wikipedia page linked on page 3 quotes a study that seems to indicate that people with higher IQs are still more likely to be religious than to not be. Judging from the graph around 66% of people with higher IQs are still religious compared with 90+% at lower IQs.

[quote name='Telgin' timestamp='1311171158' post='4837966']
To address the original question, I'll say that I look at the book of Revelation as nothing but fiction. Even when I still considered myself a devout Christian I can't say that I ever believed it completely.

It brings up a lot of fundamental issues that no one will ever be able to come to an agreement on. The problem of Hell is a big one in my opinion. A truly omnibenevolent and omnipotent god would not torture his creations eternally for even the worst of finite sins. I've read a dozen counter arguments and I don't find any of them satisfactory.

Revelation also brings up the issue of why Satan exists, or why he is evil. Again, I've read a number of arguments for this and they're all nonsense to me.

Most of these arguments boil down to the concept that God is beyond understanding and to that, I always thought that it was particularly evil of a god to intentionally create a set of rules that don't always make sense to the god's creations and expect them to follow without question, or else punish them eternally. Not to mention the question of why God would have decided to create us in the first place... (especially knowing who would be sent to Hell). He can't be lonely or bored if he's perfect, so what was the point?

The best I see it is thus: God is holy and perfect therefore only perfection and holiness can be around him or it will be destroyed. Hell is a place where people go who can no longer be around God not because he "sent" them their but rather they have removed themselves out of his grace by violating his law. God created us in perfection and with perfect nativity so that we were literally blameless because we didn't know better. When we chose to go against his instructions we were no longer perfect and could no longer partake in his perfect kingdom. There was once when God was going to completely wipe out the human race but Moses intervened and said that if he did that then he'd have to destroy him as well. Since God has only referred to Moses as his friend in all the Bible that put him in a special place in relationship to God. God changed his mind, obviously. But the point of the whole God and man thing was for God to have a family who loves him and wants worship him out of their own free will, I think. That's the only point I can possible conceive. Why then give us free will if everyone else will go to hell? Truth be told I don't know. I can only go back to the view that says God wants us to worship him because we want to and not because we have to.
[/quote]

This is typically the argument I see people use about this subject, which I suppose makes it one of the better.

Still, it only makes sense to me if we alter some things that are assumed about God.

First and foremost, we assume that God is perfect. To me anyway, that would mean that He is free from most if not all of the "negative" human emotions. That would include loneliness and boredom. I can't conceive of any other reason for Him to create us. That would also subsume the need for us to have free will, because otherwise there would again be no point.

To be perfect and omniscient would also imply that God knows the future perfectly well (most people would agree on this interpretation of the Christian God). That would also mean that He shouldn't ever change His mind about anything since He would know what He was going to do far beforehand anyway. Which brings me to my next point:

There can't be free will in such a scenario. If God truly knows everything about the future, He knows exactly what we're going to do eventually anyway, and created us to do specifically that, so we don't have free will. Or does God not know?

To me anyway, the modern interpretation of the Christian God is illogical. He must either be not completely good, or not completely perfect. Perhaps He really does know what we're going to do and creates billions of people to place in eternal torment, for no good reason. Or maybe He creates us with free will hoping that we'll choose to follow Him, but not knowing this for sure.

With the (to us anyway) evil things that He commanded some of His servants to do as well as the fact that He changed his mind before and (supposedly) didn't know that Adam and Eve would sin, I could go with either or both.

Again, one could argue that his motives only appear to be imperfect or evil to us, but as I said before it seems pretty evil in and of itself to be perfect like that and then make us in a way that we couldn't understand what we're dealing with. Why would he create Adam and Eve, knowing they would betray him and exact ultimate punishment for it? That's another big issue I have with Christianity as it stands. Back when I still worshiped God, it wasn't because I loved Him or was thankful for anything He ever did (because I never had any evidence that He was directly responsible for any of it anyway, most of it I could trace back pretty reliably to a mundane cause). I was just scared to death of Him.

Some people just have faith that God is doing the right thing and are content to accept the lack of logic. Fine by me, do as you please as long as it doesn't bother others. I expect a little more from a perfect, omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent god though.

[quote name='A Brain in a Vat' timestamp='1311199593' post='4838158']
You call yourself agnostic because you misunderstand the meaning of the word "atheist." Very few of us claim to know that there is no god. All of us nonbelievers (notice it's about belief, not knowledge) are atheists. You're simply one of the many who's either ignorant of the meaning of the word or too scared to call yourself atheist because of the negative stigma attached.

Why do you think he misunderstands it? He never said anything about belief.
[/quote]
What makes me think he misunderstands it is that he calls himself an agnostic to avoid calling himself an atheist, when in fact he is an agnostic atheist. Almost everyone misunderstands these terms.

That's not really correct either. People with higher IQs are more likely to be agnostic/atheist/non-religious than people with lower IQs, but that doesn't mean they are more likely in general. The wikipedia page linked on page 3 quotes a study that seems to indicate that people with higher IQs are still more likely to be religious than to not be. Judging from the graph around 66% of people with higher IQs are still religious compared with 90+% at lower IQs.
[/quote]
Okay, I'll accept that. What I meant to say is that the smarter you are, the more likely you are to choose to be nonreligious or outright atheist. This finding holds true in almost all studies. The fact that the majority of the world remains religious simply confirms my opinion that the majority of the world is generally stupid. We fight wars, we rape and lie and cheat and kill. Humans are animals and we act like it. We've only just started to look beyond the animal mindset and elevate ourselves, by means of science and reason, to be something more than that -- and religion is simply a holdover from a more ignorant past. We'll outgrow it as we've outgrown many other practices, and replace superstition with the better tool of science, but for now you're right -- the majority of us remain willfully ignorant.

What makes me think he misunderstands it is that he calls himself an agnostic to avoid calling himself an atheist

Why do you think that? He didn't even call himself agnostic.

Okay, I'll accept that. What I meant to say is that the smarter you are, the more likely you are to choose to be nonreligious or outright atheist. This finding holds true in almost all studies. The fact that the majority of the world remains religious simply confirms my opinion that the majority of the world is generally stupid.
[/quote]
ahhh. So now religious people are stupid delusional shit eating monkeys. I'm surprised you even see us all down here from up there on that horse of yours.

[quote name='phantom' timestamp='1311185964' post='4838079']
[quote name='Aardvajk' timestamp='1311184541' post='4838066']
This is why I am, and imagine always will be, agnostic.

Personally, if I had to label myself, I'd put myself down as a atheist.[/quote]

Well, for me, agnosticism isn't about sitting on the fence. It's more about accepting that I don't know and becoming comfortable with the fact that I will never know while I'm alive, rather than feeling that by not knowing, I'm somehow missing out on something.

I don't claim to have achieved this by the way.
[/quote]

You can be any combination of agnostic and atheist. (a)gnosticism implies knowledge, (a)theism implies belief. I would say that I'm an agnostic atheist; I don't know if there's a god but I don't believe there is one.

Really, anyone who claims to be a gnostic theist or atheist needs their head checked.

[quote name='A Brain in a Vat' timestamp='1311205590' post='4838193']
What makes me think he misunderstands it is that he calls himself an agnostic to avoid calling himself an atheist

Why do you think that? He didn't even call himself agnostic.
[/quote]
What the hell are you talking about?

[color="#1C2837"]This is why I am, and imagine always will be, agnostic.[/quote]
[color="#1c2837"]That's exactly what he said. Can you not read? Are you trying to prove my point about the correlation between low IQ and religiosity?

ahhh. So now religious people are stupid delusional shit eating monkeys. I'm surprised you even see us all down here from up there on that horse of yours.[/quote]
As I said, it's not the monkeys that are delusional. The monkeys don't invent invisible sky daddies.