[pbleighton]

Quote

btw for whatever my opinion is worth I do think Bill Clinton has a deep faith and an active personal relationship with Jesus Christ. I do think Hillary truly believes in Jesus as her Savior. I do not think it is an act.

I agree.

I had always thought so, but when I read his reported excuse for Monica, which was that the New Testament said that a blowjob wasn't adultery (I'm not making this up), I knew this guy was SERIOUSLY religious.

Peter

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Aug 21 2007, 12:35 AM, said:

It would be interesting to look at current leaders of some  country who do not profess a belief in a higher power, or a God. 

Off the top of my head it is tough to come up  with leader in History who did not but I am sure there must be some. Any one got examples?

Persians, Egyptians, Chinese, Greeks, Romans, Kahns, Goths hmmm I think all did believe.

Does dialectical materialism count as a "higher power"?

There are any number of examples of communist leaders who didn't believe in "religion" as it is typically defined. One might argue that belief in scientific socialism involves every bit as much faith as belief in god. From my perspective, the "modern" Chinese leadership is practicing a particular nasty version of state run capitalism and is far to practical to pay more than lip service to anything as dated as the dialect. Mikhail Gorbachev is another, similar, example.

If seen a number of back and forth arguments regarding whether or not Kemal Ataturk should be considered an atheist. He was certainly an avowed secularist. Vaclav Havel is an avowed agnostic. I suspect that there are a number of other agnostic in leadership positions throughout Europe.

[mike777]

keylime, on Aug 19 2007, 08:33 PM, said:

Where's Three Dog Night when you need them?

Three Dog Night is really a great underappreciated band.
It seems in the long run this song hurt their reputation more than helped it.
The have many great songs.

From 1969-1974, nobody had more Top 10 hits, moved more records, or sold more concert tickets. During this period Three Dog Night was undoubtedly the most popular band in America: twenty-one consecutive Top 40 hits and twelve straight gold LPs. By late '75, they had sold nearly 50 million records.


http://www.threedognight.com/

[Winstonm]

The decision that a certain belief system is 100% valid will certainly lead to a sensation of inner peace because it eliminates intermal turmoil. An absolute certainty in the rightnous of a belief eliminates the needs to give weight or assess the meanings of contradictions, criticisms, or conflicting data. A sesation of turmoil does not, though, mean the belief is right; it only means a decision has been reached.

However, there is another way to unwind that inner tension. Simply accept oneself as human and thus incapable of full knowledge. It is the atttempt to resolve the inner conflicts that causes the tension; by simply acknowledging that the answer cannot be known resolves the conflict and disapates the tension.

And that's simply another way of saying it is O.K. to be no more than human.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Aug 21 2007, 01:47 AM, said:

Chinese religion.

http://www.tibet.ca/...2002/3/5_2.html

The article on Chinese religions pretty much looks to be a restatement of Marx's old adage that "Religion is the Opiate of the Masses". To me, it looks like the Chinese leadership is consciously adopting religion trappings to improve their social control.

[cherdano]

mikeh, on Aug 20 2007, 04:27 PM, said:

One demographic point which seems proven beyond dispute is that there is a direct positive correlation between intelligence and atheism.

I have never heard of that as beyond dispute. Do you have a source for this claim?

[hrothgar]

Here are a few quotes from Wikipedia

Quote

In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins [5] cites an article by Paul Bell in Mensa Magazine, containing a meta-analysis of studies relating to the connection between religiosity and intelligence. Analyzing 43 studies, Bell found that all but four reported such a connection, and he concluded that "the higher one's intelligence or education level, the less one is likely to be religious or hold 'beliefs' of any kind."[6]

http://en.wikipedia....nd_intelligence

Quote

A letter published in Nature in 1998 reported a survey suggesting that belief in a personal God or afterlife was at an all-time low among the members of the U.S. National Academy of Science, only 7.0% of whom believed in a personal God as compared to more than 85% of the general U.S. population.[92] In the same year Frank Sulloway of MIT and Michael Shermer of California State University conducted a study which found in their polling sample of "credentialed" U.S. adults (12% had Ph.Ds and 62% were college graduates) 64% believed in God, and there was a correlation indicating that religious conviction diminished with education level.[93] Such an inverse correlation between religiosity and intelligence has been found by 39 studies carried out between 1927 and 2002, according to an article in Mensa Magazine.[94] These findings broadly concur with a 1958 statistical meta-analysis from Professor Michael Argyle of Oxford University. He analyzed seven research studies that had investigated correlation between attitude to religion and measured intelligence among school and college students from the U.S. Although a clear negative correlation was found, the analysis did not identify causality but noted that factors such as authoritarian family background and social class may also have played a part.[95]

However, evidence on the relationship between religious belief and educational achievement is mixed. Some research in the United States has found that religiosity in general is correlated with greater educational attainment and scholastic performance. The effect of religion on education can differ depending on what type of religion a student professes. Fundamentalist Christians, especially women, tend to acquire fewer years of education than others do.[96][97]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

[cherdano]

Well a wikipedia article citing a book citing an article in Mensa magazine is not a credible source thank you.

Anyway, none of the other sources I found mentioned studies done outside of the US, none mentioned studies controlling for other factors, etc. etc. Many cited various studies finding no correlation, others only correlation to GPAs or SAT scores...

[cherdano]

Anyway the part of Mike's post that really irritated me was:

mikeh, on Aug 20 2007, 04:27 PM, said:

Does anyone really think that Bill Clinton is a truly devout Christian? Or Hilary?

BTW, I pose those questions precisely because I think that both are far too intelligent to be true believers.

There are so many counter-examples to this conclusion, even if Mike has never met one... To take an extreme example, the current pope is in many ways an intellectual and probably more intelligent than any of the posters here...
(No I don't like him and I am atheist myself.)

[the hog]

cherdano, on Aug 21 2007, 08:13 AM, said:

Well a wikipedia article citing a book citing an article in Mensa magazine is not a credible source thank you.

Anyway, none of the other sources I found mentioned studies done outside of the US, none mentioned studies controlling for other factors, etc. etc. Many cited various studies finding no correlation, others only correlation to GPAs or SAT scores...

Ok if that is not a credible source, try looking up the studies quoted in Dawkins' book itself.

By the way, on what basis do you argue that the pope is of greater intelligence than any poster here? That seems a rather sweeping statement. In any case if you are going to argue about intelligence, perhaps you might like to look at the atheist camp - Dawkins and also Peter Singer, who are regularly cited as leading intellectuals of our time. Looking back into History you have Voltaire, Thomas Jefferson, Bertrand Russell et al.

[the hog]

As a question to other posters: if you argue that it is important to follow the "Word of God", how do you know what the word of God really is? The Old Testament can hardly be taken literally. If it were, we would have to condone stoning, incest and ritual sacrifice. The Gospels of the New Testament were written years after the death of Christ and have been edited and re edited over the years. How valid are they then? Why were the Gnostic gospels exclued by the Council of Nicea? Is it because they presented views that the Church of that time did not want to consider eg that Christ and Mary Magdalene were married?

By the way, and argument of faith - "I believe therefore it is true", is not an argument at all.

[cherdano]

The_Hog, on Aug 20 2007, 08:11 PM, said:

cherdano, on Aug 21 2007, 08:13 AM, said:

Well a wikipedia article citing a book citing an article in Mensa magazine is not a credible source thank you.

Anyway, none of the other sources I found mentioned studies done outside of the US, none mentioned studies controlling for other factors, etc. etc. Many cited various studies finding no correlation, others only correlation to GPAs or SAT scores...

Ok if that is not a credible source, try looking up the studies quoted in Dawkins' book itself.

By the way, on what basis do you argue that the pope is of greater intelligence than any poster here? That seems a rather sweeping statement. In any case if you are going to argue about intelligence, perhaps you might like to look at the atheist camp - Dawkins and also Peter Singer, who are regularly cited as leading intellectuals of our time. Looking back into History you have Voltaire, Thomas Jefferson, Bertrand Russell et al.

Lol. I wasn't debating that there are intelligent atheists, I was just debating the claim that there are NO intelligent deeply religious people. (No I won't insert the snide remark that noticing this difference would be a sign of intelligence as I don't like to insult other posters, not even The_Hog.)

As for judging the intelligence of the pope, I judge him how I would judge any person I only know as a public figure, by what he says and how he argues in public. I guess he is easier to judge by what he said before becoming a pope or even a politician in the Vatikan.

[mike777]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jeffer...Religious_views

It seems a bit much to say Jefferson did not believe in a God or higher power or was an atheist.

I am still a bit hard pressed to think of country or empire political leaders who claimed to be athesist. Perhaps Stalin but I am sure there have been more throughout history. Perhaps a few other communist leaders?

Not sure where Kahn falls.

http://en.wikipedia....an#Spirituality

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tengri

The core beings in Tengriism are Sky-Father (Tengri/Tenger Etseg) and Mother Earth (Eje/Gazar Eej). In history, Chinggis Khan (Gengis Khan), the unifier of the Mongolian nation, based his power on a mandate from Tengri himself, and began all his declarations with the words "by the will of Eternal Blue Heaven." Father Heaven is worshipped for what he is, the timeless and infinite blue sky. He is not visualized as a person, although he is said to have at least two sons.

[the hog]

"I am still a bit hard pressed to think of country or empire poliical leaders who were claimed to be athesist. Perhaps Stalin but I am sure there have been more. through out history. Perhaps a few other communist leaders?"

I think it would be pretty much political suicide to admit to being an atheist and running for public office. I guess it depends on the country, but I suspect that this would be absolutely true in the States. Less so but iit would still cost votes in Aust & GB.

[mike777]

Again this raises the issue of ethics or morality. They(nonbelievers) lie or mistate on purpose what they really believe to gain power?

Why not risk losing power to state to the people what you truly believe?
Note even tyrants choose to state they believe in a higher power. If they were really aethists..then religion got a bad rep in their name.

[mikeh]

On re-reading my post about the Clintons, I realized that it reads as if I felt that no intelligent people could be religious That's not what I meant: what I meant about the Clintons, in particular, was that their behaviours appear most unreligious and very calculating in all aspects. I thnk it was Tony Blair's former press secretary who described Bill C as the only geniune political genius he had ever met.

So while I think Clinton was an excellent President, my impression of him is that his intellect was always focussed on accomplishing his ambition, and that the profession of religious belief was a calculated posture. Obviously, not having met him, I am speculating Whereas, from all I have read of Bush, his religious beliefs really are part of his persona [and it may be no coincidence that he is apparently heading for a designation as one of the worst presidents in the history of the country]. [I also suspect, but obviously do not 'know', that Hilary would believe that the White House was worth a protestation of belief] And, Mike, I'd far rather have a Bill Clinton as the world's most powerful leader (whether I am correct in my view of his beliefs, or whether he is a sincere, but not born-again, Christian) than George W Bush. Give me a humane, intelligent, compassionate man prepared to lie about his beliefs (and marijuana use) over a former playboy, alcoholic, reborn Christian who favours belief over facts.

As for intelligent believers, clearly there are. And some of the most intelligent humans of all time have been devoutly religious: looking only to the Western experience, it is doubtful that many people more intelligent than Isaac Newton ever lived.

But at the same time, there does appear to be strong evidence that religious belief is held by a smaller fraction of well-educated and/or intelligent people than amongst the general population at large. Such a correlation may be offensive to true believers, but many true believers have made a life-pattern out of denying facts in favour of belief, so I am sure that they will be able to ignore the implications of this correlation. To the others, my apologies for the ineptness of my earlier language, and, so long as you do not espouse an Anne Coulter-like solution to those who believe otherwise, I wish you comfort in your faith. I can certainly understand the attraction of believing in a higher power.

[mike777]

1) Ranking presidents is great fun and a wonderful debate. Very difficult to really rank the last ones...not enough time and full debate.
2) To carry the great president debate further see Polk....who now and for a long time has been ranked very low. Perhaps in next decade much higher?
3) For those Bush haters,,,keep in mind Truman had the same hate. Will Bush rise or stay in the sewer of history?
4) For sake of this thread I think even comparing Clinton vs Bush as you have framed it....will lead to a wonderful debate. I think both sides will concede Clinton is a most brilliant politician(no sarcasm). Was he a brilliant leader?

[Codo]

When I read this (and other forums), I believe that the atheists are even stronger believers then most religious people are. When I read some posts from The Hog, MikeH, Gerben or Hrothgar - just to name some of the guys I respect most- I found them quite simpleminded: (Sarcasm on) Atheismus is for the intelligent and when we are all atheists, life will be better. (Sarcasm off)

They really seem to believe that without religion there would be less war and cruelity. IMHO this is simply not true.
It is true, that many horrible things had happen in the name of god.
But who do really believe that the crusades, the inqusition, the fight in serbia/North Ireland or whatever are really for the spread of a religion?

It never was. A war is always for the gain of influence and power. Smart leaders just know that the people will follow them much easier if they have a better reason then this. A reason like: We must stop the evil, we must defend our country or we must spread our religion.

In that case, the religion is abused as a tool to lead the blind and silly.

But unluckily you won´t change anything if you take away the religion. The evil leaders will find other excuses for their goal to reach more power and influence.
(F.E:. hey have rockets in Iran/ the Taliban helped al quaida etc...)


But if you take away the religions, you will take away a lot good things:

There are million of peoples who take their ethics, their hopes and their satisfaction out of religions.
1.If you loose a near relative, it is much easier to find your peace again if you can believe that he/she is in heaven and not just dead.
2.Religions are a school of ethics. Do you believe that "all people are equal", "man and woman are equal" had been popular without the christian religion?
These ideas had not been very popular in the world. They spread together with the christian believe. I doubt that you can find many (if any) parts of history where these fundamental truths had been followed without the christian influence.
3. Many wonderful things are done in the name of a church- feeding homeless, kindergardens, schools etc. And for a lot of people it is much easier to do ethical things if they believe that a higher power will judge their doing. Of course atheists do good things too, but I claim that it is more difficult to do so without religion.
4. At least for me it is less depressing to "know" that my life won´t be over after my death.
5. If you believe in a higher power, it is easier to life with the unfairnesses you may have here. You can believe that their will be justice at the end.

And just because Ron did understand my last statement not as I meant it:
I never would claim that atheists are not ethical. That would be quite silly to claim. I just claim that there is no (big) relationship between the wars and violence which are made in the name of a religion and the "real" religions.
And I claim that religions did many good things to million of peoples.

For the argument that there are more believers between less educated people: This is simply true.
1. A religion is a promise for the future. If your life is not so great on earth it is very satisfying to "know" that everything will be better after your death and that you have a good life in the future.
2. IF you are not able to reach great social status from your job/education/income you can try to reach it by following a god and help the guys who have an even worse life then you.
3.A lot of religions talk about giving to the poor, humility and poverty. It is obvious that this is less popular between people who have reached a fair level of income.


P.S. Some of the worst leaders in history had been atheists: All soviet leaders and Hitler to name just some. So being an atheist does not always make you a good leader.

[Fluffy]

Why does Bush have to be named on every post in this forum?


I believe in god while I don't believe in church, this is nice, since I cannot say I belong to any religion, I cannot group with others and exclude the rest because they are different , but I can keep some degree of ethics.

I don't beleive in church, but I believe it does a lot of good stuff. Helping the poor and the ill (not an expert in this area actually).


In my view there aren't so many differences between muslim and christian religion as they want to make us beleive. Sadly politicias (who are the true cancer os society), decided to make everyone believe those differences where gross and that instead of joining both faiths, the only solution was a sacred war so that they could get more land to rule by.

[the hog]

Hi Roland,

When I read some posts from The Hog, MikeH, Gerben or Hrothgar - just to name some of the guys I respect most- I found them quite simpleminded: (Sarcasm on) Atheismus is for the intelligent and when we are all atheists, life will be better. (Sarcasm off)

I don't think anyone said atheism is for the intelligent. What Richard and I both alluded to is that some studies have shown a correlation between intelligence as measured by Mensa membership, and atheism.

They really seem to believe that without religion there would be less war and cruelity. IMHO this is simply not true.
It is true, that many horrible things had happen in the name of god.
But who do really believe that the crusades, the inqusition, the fight in serbia/North Ireland or whatever are really for the spread of a religion?

Sorry, I totally disagree with you on this one. Sure these wars were about power - the power of one religion having the major influence in government and in decision making as opposed to the other. To argue eg that the Irish struggle was anything but a religious war is just plain incorrect historically. This is not to say that religion is the ONLY cause of war. It is a major one though. If the Crusades weren't a religious war, then what were they? The Christian Church wanted to extend its influence over the "Holy Land".
To argue that the current struggle with fundementalist Muslims is not a religious war is naive. Look at some of th pronouncements made by the mullahs. Convert or die.

snipped

But if you take away the religions, you will take away a lot good things:

There are million of peoples who take their ethics, their hopes and their satisfaction out of religions.

snipped
Yes but that is not an argument to say that we are better off with religion. Bhuddism has one of the best (imo) set of ethical beliefs around. Bhuddism is not a religion; it is a philosophy of life. You can also argue that the values system pushed by organised religion leaves a lot to be desired. Look at the mysogonistic attitude of the Catholic Church. Despite strong evidence that women played a central role in the early Christian Church, a group of patriachial old farts decided to impose their mysogonistic beliefs on the Church from the Council of Nicea onwards. Those parts of the gospels showing women in positions of power were expunged or ignored. A great ethical system!

And just because Ron did understand my last statement not as I meant it:
I never would claim that atheists are not ethical. That would be quite silly to claim.

No, I know you didn't mean that.

I just claim that there is no (big) relationship between the wars and violence which are made in the name of a religion and the "real" religions.
And I claim that religions did many good things to million of peoples.

And I would argue that they are responsible for a large part of the world's ills. I mean, even Bush, (sorry Fluffy), justifies his invasion of Iraq by saying he is on God's mission and God told him to do it. It's a pity God didn't tell him there were no WMD.

snipped

P.S. Some of the worst leaders in history had been atheists: All soviet leaders and Hitler to name just some. So being an atheist does not always make you a good leader.

No one argued this point Roland.