Reptile & Amphibian Forums

I've read enough of the post below to come to the conclusion that some people are blinded by their own selfish passions. Sure, Indigo snakes are beautiful animals, but I get the impression that Dean, for one, would rather see the human race take a back seat because Indigo habitat is disappearing in Florida. The bottom line is that this planet is, unfortunately, all about the survival of the fittest. I haven't seen one shred of evidence that there is a god running the show, so I, of course, am an athiest. (And, no Eric East, I'm not corrupting your children or anyone else's, just because I don't share your self-righteous beliefs). What is good for the human race is not always good for other inhabitants of this planet. It's just a cold hard fact.

Charlie

I couldn't agree more, except I see nothing wrong with certain people trying to save certain habitats. Couldn't hurt (except for local economies) as long as there is some habitat left for us humans!

Nature is war. Plants developing pesticides to kill the insects that eat them, insects developing ways to overcome those pesticides, trees fighting for sunlight. Other trees winning the light and killing the smaller ones. Other plants using poisons to kill plants that happen to touch them. Subspecies trying to dominate a habitat. Baby birds killing their siblings so that they will survive. Insect fighting other insects. Predators eating prey and competing with other predators for that prey. Even environmentalists competing to see who can save what plot of land. I really like Indigos, but is it worth saving their habitat at the expense of some other habitat with some other endangered animal? I don't really know, but there is no way to save it all. If some people are able to save certain habitat, more power to them. They win the war and some other group looses, along with their pet project. It always makes me chuckle a little when I see the bumper stickers asking to give peace a chance, and the bumper sticker next to it bashing conservatives and Bush, and another one praising the green party.--Nature has never given peace a chance. Why do greens support nature when it is so violent?--Oh, yeah, it's only humans they don't support. How little thought some people give very complex issues.

I am involved in a bird club that several years ago recommended that the Scarlet Macaw (Ara macao) no longer be allowed to be exported. This was recommended because of some census takers that found that their numbers were dwindling in the wild. Checking back a few years later found that their numbers had plummeted. Turns out the native people would raid the breeder birds nests in the jungle and take the babies, leaving 2 for the parents to take care of. They would then hand-raise the babies to sell to exporters and could make enough off one bird to feed their family for about 2 months--plus 2 babies survived in the wild. (normally, about that many live anyway since the parents can't get enough food to feed them all) Once the ban was in place, they couldn't sell the babies so that species was now worthless. The natives were now killing and eating the adult breeders, after all, they had families to feed. Our good intentions had devastating consequences on this species. I now support sustainable harvesting of all species. Many disagree with this, and it depends on the species, but in general, a valuable resource is protected-- and one that can't be traded is worthless, and thus, not protected.

Rodney

Evolution is certainly nasty business, but it's reality. Humans are also evolving/growing, and unfortunately, some animals are in harm's way. I agree that saving certain habitats is a great idea as long as it's not done at the expense of human beings. I certainly don't want to find out one day that I can't retire to Florida because a snake is living on the piece of ground that I planned on buying. I don't look at Wal Marts as some kind of evil entity. I don't put businessmen down as "capitalistic swine". I value the human race much, much more than I do snakes. I think of the word "fanatical" when I read some of the sanctimonious comments on the Indigo forum, as if those particular snakes have a higher value than other snakes and maybe even humans. Some people need to keep their hobbies in perspective.

Charlie

Charlie,

A couple questions and clarifications,

You said:
Evolution is certainly nasty business, but it's reality. Humans are also evolving/growing...

Question:
Can you tell me how human beings are evolving?
Can you tell me how human beings are growing?

You said:
I agree that saving certain habitats is a great idea as long as it's not done at the expense of human beings.

Question:
Many human beings think that destroying habitat is done at the expense of human beings. Some of us feel that we are reducing the quality of life on earth for humans if we allow unrestrained habitat destruction. Do you agree that for some conserved habitat might be as important as WalMarts?

You said:
I certainly don't want to find out one day that I can't retire to Florida because a snake is living on the piece of ground that I planned on buying.

Question:
Would you still move to Florida if it were wall to wall parking lots and WalMarts and housing developments? Do you think you might spend some time enjoying natural habitat while retired in Florida?

You said:
I value the human race much, much more than I do snakes.

Question:
I do to Charlie. But my quality of life depends to some considerable extent on the natural world I live in. Protecting the environment for me is done as much for selfish reasons as altruistic ones. Do you think its possible to protect nature for human's sake?

Joe

np
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Is it your opinion that humans are not "evolving" or "growing"? If so, how did we become the most advanced species on earth? How is it that you have a computer to type your opinions into so they can be heard by all of us? If you are insinuating that we no longer "grow" or "evolve", then you are insinuating that morality and compassion are dead in ALL people. I don't think so.

Evolution is a biological term. Obviously our population is increasing in number. But the terms growing/evolving were used (I think) as "developing".

Obvioulsy humans have evolved in the past. And obvioulsy we are changing over time. But are we evolving now? Are we adapting to our environment as you suggest? If so, how?

Joe

pulatus, if you are having difficulty seeing how Humans are growing and evolving, go to your local zoo and visit the Apes. If that doesn't answer your questions, you are not trying hard enough to understand. Mankind is always outdoing itself in intellectual, technological, physical, etc., ahievements. Have you missed all of this? Our population has also grown over the years, what's so hard to understand?

Because our population has grown, wild habitat has diminished. That's the way it's been, and, unfortunately, that's the way it's going to be. Face it, snakes do not have enough charming appeal to persuade the general public to alter their retirement plans. WalMarts have a much greater appeal to the general public than snakes. The climate and beaches in Florida are the main draw for retirees, not the swamplands, so if, in the end, erosion of habitat, unfortunately, will not deter the flow of retirees to Florida. Most people are content to look at snakes and alligators in a zoo. Personally, I'd rather see them in the wild, but if it meant I was denied the right to move there because a snake was living on the piece of ground that I planned on buying, the snake has to go. It's selfish, but honest. That's the nature of survival of the fittest.

Charlie

At some point you have to stop using the life as war analogy - we don't have to fight so hard anymore. We, as humans, have reached a point where we can look beyond tooth and claw and ask ourself whats right, whats good, whats beautiful. It doesn't matter (to me) if god has provided this insight, or if we have come to perceive it on our own. But the ability to see value and beauty beyond the strict laws of nature is ours if we care to use it.

Joe

Charlie,
Can you direct me to the post where Dean said that? I can't find it. Did he actually say something like that, or did you interpret something else that he said to make it fit what you wanted to say? As a matter of fact, I can't see where anyone said that Humans should take a back seat. I do see where several people said (in effect) that Humans need to be smarter about the way they use the natural resources and try to preserve some habitat for these animals. That's a far cry from saying that Humans should take a back seat. Do you think that people should be allowed to just destroy all suitable habitat for these animals, just because we are the "stronger" species and have the technology to do so? Do you have the background an knowledge (as Dean does) to make an assessment on what is the best balance between what is good for the Indigos and what is good for the people? Have you actually worked on the Indigo projects (as Dean has) so that you might have some inkling as to what you are talking about?

Also, please direct us to the post where Eric said that your religious beliefs would corrupt his kids, or even something that would make someone think that anyone even remotely cares about your religious beliefs (or lack thereof). What is so special about you that your being an athiest would have any effect on anyone else? Every one (under the U.S. Constitution) has a right to their own religious beliefs, including you AND Eric. Do you think that being an athiest makes you a better or smarter person that someone who is religious or believes in God or some other higher being? Or, do you think that YOU are the only one that was granted the right to Religious Freedom?

Just asking....

I'll begin with Eric East's comments: "I would be greatly disturbed if they or their children were unable to enjoy these things in the future. However, I am far more concerned about them growing up & being bombarded by all the lies taught in our schools & by our society in general that says there is no God & that it is ok to do what every you want, including drugs, sleeping around, killing babies etc." If you lack the brain capacity to detect the insult to athiests, that's on you. If you have a problem with athiests, that's also on you. Do I think that athiests are smarter than the rest? In regards to not believing in something that hasn't been proven, YES Oldherper I certainly do!

As for Dean, it doesn't take a rocket scientist (or involvement with an "Indigo Project" to see that has a disdain for BUISNESS. This just in Dean: we are a CAPITALISTIC SOCIETY. Our survival depends on business. Mouths are fed by business. Americans have the right to take a stab at running their own business. Our economy is very competetive, so in order to survive, of establish a new one, some people have to branch out. Unfortunately, snakes will have to take a back seat to people.

Charlie

I'm calm...no problem. I was just asking questions. As for your comments.....

I'll begin with Eric East's comments: "I would be greatly disturbed if they or their children were unable to enjoy these things in the future. However, I am far more concerned about them growing up & being bombarded by all the lies taught in our schools & by our society in general that says there is no God & that it is ok to do what every you want, including drugs, sleeping around, killing babies etc." If you lack the brain capacity to detect the insult to athiests, that's on you. If you have a problem with athiests, that's also on you. Do I think that athiests are smarter than the rest? In regards to not believing in something that hasn't been proven, YES Oldherper I certainly do!

I have no problem with athiests. They have a right to their opinions and I have a right to mine. I don't really know Eric, but I can surmise from his postings that he is a religious person. You aren't. I fail to see where that makes you any smarter than Eric. I think that if you will do a little research you'll find that many of the greatest minds in history were religious people. Many weren't. I tend to believe things that I see evidence of, but there are many kinds of evidence. That does not mean that I'm an athiest and I'm not willing to share my religious convictions (or lack thereof) on this forum. I don't think it has a place here. Eric does. And so do you. I don't think that means either of you is smarter than the other. In fact, I don't think it plays into it at all. I also don't think it's right (or smart, for that matter) to respond to one percieved insult against a group of people with another. I would say the the number of "believers" far and away outweighs the number of "non believers", so you have potentially leveled an insult against the majority here based on their religious beliefs by saying that "non-believers" are smarter that "believers". Now I would ask you for evidence that what you say is true. Not just opinion, but evidence. For instance, if you find a snake shed in the woods would you take that as evidence that a snake was there? What about the possibility that a human or some animal transported it from where it was actually shed? If you simply take it at face value and assume that a snake was there, you are doing exactly what the majority of people would do. Do you have irrrefutable PROOF that a snake was there? No. Does Eric have irrefutable proof that his beliefs are true? No. Do you have irrefutable proof that they aren't? No.

As for Dean, it doesn't take a rocket scientist (or involvement with an "Indigo Project" to see that has a disdain for BUISNESS. This just in Dean: we are a CAPITALISTIC SOCIETY. Our survival depends on business. Mouths are fed by business. Americans have the right to take a stab at running their own business. Our economy is very competetive, so in order to survive, of establish a new one, some people have to branch out. Unfortunately, snakes will have to take a back seat to people.

I'll have to say that what you are saying here is entirely untrue. I know Dean. He has no disdain for business. He is actually in business. His "day job" is a business. It feeds his family like everyone else's job does. He sells snakes. He sells Indigo Snakes and he MIGHT even make a little money from it. But, he also gives something back, which is MUCH more than I can say about most people in this hobby. He donates a large percentage of what he makes to preservation projects (as do I) and gives his time and efforts to those projects. Do you? What he does have a disdain for is the needless destruction of habitat that is crucial for the survival of a Threatened species in the name of greed. He has never said that people should not be allowed to engage in business or build homes. As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure that he lives in a home. It was built on land, if my theory is correct, that was probably habitat for something.

n/p
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

You are absolutely right! Nobody cares that you are an athiest.

Charlie

PS Eric was blaming you when he implied that the world was going to hell.

I too am an atheist--just not a rabid one!

The difference between an atheist and a theist is that an atheist doesn't believe something that has never been proven by anyone in all of history. A theist believes in something he has no proof of. There is a difference in believing in something that can't be proven, and not believing in something that hasn't been proven.

Do you think it is more intelligent to believe something that hasn't been proven, or in something that no one has ever been able to prove? I too believe atheists are more intelligent in general, though theists do have good intentions generally.

(By the way, I support Church values since I believe they are very beneficial to society and I think most people who are atheists go way overboard with things like separation of church and state--things like "In God we trust" don't bother me a bit and never will. Not to mention, all the families I have known that regularly go to church are great families, with well behaved children. Non-church goers tend to have a lot more brats! Going to church must be doing something good for them!)

Rodney

np
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

I too am an atheist--just not a rabid one!

And I certainly would not hold that against you. That is your right. Notice that I am not declaring myself either way. It is not because I don't believe either way, but because I don't think my personal beliefs are germaine to the discussion.

The difference between an atheist and a theist is that an atheist doesn't believe something that has never been proven by anyone in all of history. A theist believes in something he has no proof of. There is a difference in believing in something that can't be proven, and not believing in something that hasn't been proven.

The last sentence is obvious. Certainly there is a difference between believing something and not believing something. What is the practical difference (at this point in time, for the sake of this argument) between hasn't been proven and can't be proven?

Do you think it is more intelligent to believe something that hasn't been proven, or in something that no one has ever been able to prove? I too believe atheists are more intelligent in general, though theists do have good intentions generally.

On what do you base the assumption that athiests are generally more intelligent? Do you mean that because of the difference in that one belief that an athiest is a more intelligent being than, say a Christian? Does than mean that an athiest has never believed something that has not been proven? Like,for instance, that Fred and Sobek are the same person? Has an athiest ever proven that there is no God? Because of the fact that that has never been proven either, then wouldn't you say (by applying the same rules that you applied) that niether party is more intelligent than the other? Maybe an agnostic is the most intelligent? Can you really even apply those rules in this case, since neither theory has either been proven or disproved?

(By the way, I support Church values since I believe they are very beneficial to society and I think most people who are atheists go way overboard with things like separation of church and state--things like "In God we trust" don't bother me a bit and never will. Not to mention, all the families I have known that regularly go to church are great families, with well behaved children. Non-church goers tend to have a lot more brats! Going to church must be doing something good for them!)

I'll certainly agree with that.

Can YOU prove that there is no Santa Claus? There isn't much of a difference in proving that there is no god. (I'm sure that YOU would have no problem at all proving that Fred and sobek are the same person, being that you are buddies.) And YES Oldherper, someone who no longer believes in Santa Claus is more intelligent than someone who does. The same goes for believers in anything for which there is no proof. Use your common sense, if you have any!

Charlie

Does Rod need you to answer for him? I think not.

And..genius...there is a small difference between Santa Claus and God. Who is it that wants to change the subject?

First, it's just my opinion, not fact. That's why I said I believe and not I know.

In general, I think that people who believe in something they have no proof of aren't that intelligent. I don't believe in ghosts, or that extraterrestials are living among us. Doesn't mean they don't exist, I just don't believe it. I'll believe it when I see it or when someone is able to prove it! Most children believe in Santa Clause. Why, because their parents tell them it is true. When they get older and are either told about it or become wiser and question it, then they become enlightened to the truth. Do you consider a 20 year old who believes in Santa smarter than one who does not? Asking this same question about a 4 or 5 year old wouldn't make much since because that person is so young they haven't developed any wisdom yet.

Parents tell their children about god in much the same way. It's just that their parents believe it too. That makes it a lot harder for the children to question, and they are never told that it is a lie. If they do question it, their parents believe it too so there is no other opinion to find.

Questioning things is a great part of intelligence. Going along with what everyone else says, with no proof, is not!

I think anyone who questions anything, and wants proof, is more intelligent than someone who accepts things that have never been proven. It doesn't matter if it is god or anything else for that matter. Unfortunately, a lot of people get bent out of shape as soon as someone mentions god. Those people wouldn't get mad if you wanted proof of aliens existing!

And frankly, I have a huge problem with people that say, where did the universe come from, it must have come from somewhere. They don't ever say, where did god come from, he must have come from somewhere. How can someone accept that god is alive and eternal, and that the universe which isn't alive, must have had a point in time or space where it originated? Pretty poor logic if you ask me.

I also don't think god would have gone to all the trouble of creating the universe, and life, just to get a bunch of people into heaven that accept his existance without any proof. Whouldn't he want the more intelligent among us in heaven? Wouldn't he have made it possible for people to prove his existance so that the more intelligent would then believe?
I also don't think that if there was a god, he would be so vain as to want his creations to worship him.

On a side note, sure it's a personal matter that a lot of people won't discuss. I have always felt that the internet is pretty much anonymous so it really isn't that personal anyway. I have no idea who you are and I am pretty sure I never will. It seems to me like many people who say things are personal and don't want to discuss them, are either ashamed of, or can't defend their positions--so they avoid them instead. I'm quite proud to be an athiest so I don't mind sharing that with people. If I am ever ashamed of it, I will probably then start calling it personal.

Again, this is all my opinion.

Rodney

Charlie

That's all I was looking for! An intelligently reasoned argument. Well done. I'm not saying that I agree with everything you say, but at least you have put some thought into it and are eloquent enough to express it.

I agree that things should be questioned and you should not accept things that people say just because they say them. I am of a scientific background, therefore I have trouble believing most things I can't see for myself. However, as I said before there are other kinds of evidence. Hopefully, you can't see the air where you live...but you know it's there because you can breathe.

That being said, I have known some very intelligent people who claimed to believe in God. My father is one of them. When I questioned him (he is also of a scientific background) here is what he told me: "You can't always prove everything. Some things I just have to believe. I was raised by Christian parents to be a Christian but that does not mean I never questioned it. I do not believe everything the Bible tells me. It is just a book, written by men. When I see a tree, or a baby or some other 'miracle', I have a hard time believing that it was randomly created because even from a scientific viewpoint, it all dovetails too perfectly. I think there must have been some sort of higher being involved, and God is just as good a name as any." Now I certainly will not say that my father is less intelligent than anyone else I know. That simply is not true. He is one of the most intelligent people I've ever known.

The part I guess I have a hard time with is the labelling of people as "less intelligent" because of their beliefs. Maybe less questioning, but less intelligent? Maybe they do question it in their own minds but choose to believe because it helps them to cope with life in some way?

To say that those who believe in a god, or gods, or spirits of any sort, are less intelligent isn't true. Some of the most intelligent people I know are religious. The tendency to believe in a "other world" or "spirit world" is not contingent on intellect.

Think of it this way. The intellect resides on the third floor of the parking lot, the spirit seeking mind lives on the fourth - the two never really interact. As old herper said, there is much about our world that has no explanation and never will. We'll never be able to dissect the miracle of our own child in our own arms, for example.

Those who claim to have no "belief system" in fact do. They hope that team A beats team B because A is better in some mythical way. We all have a huge list of indefensible "beliefs" that we hold dear, and will defend when pressed.

But fundamentalism is uniquely different. Fundamentalism is a type of psychosis that we should, as a society, have the guts to recognize and devise treatments for. Fundamentalism is the same whether it occurs in a christian in Topeka or a muslim in Tehran. Fundamentalism grows out of a severe psychological deficit, or need that we should work to understand, not ridicule.

Joe

Everyone has a "belief system. The differance is that what you call a belief, is the acceptance of a guiding spirit/spirits. An Athiest disagrees with that concept. What is more accurate is to say an Athiest developes his own moral code. I do not care if A or B wins. "I look to see what is true and act accordingly". In that Athiests do hold the higher ground as the people of faith are betting on their horse really being there without proof. Athiests are realists and try to see the world as it is. A true Athiest would accept a god if the proof was there. That points to a level of mature judgement and honesty the the religious cannot attain. It is best to remember that faith is an emotion, emotions are not based on logic.
Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

I totally agree with you, and that was very well said. We finally are in complete agreement!

On a philosophical note, I often hear "religious" people say things like, "Look how beautiful that flower is, and some people say there is no god!"

Consider this. Everything you have ever seen you have classified. You consider something beautiful, while other things ugly. Some things hot, others cold. Some things good, some bad. You even classify very discriminatingly. There are many different levels of beauty.

Now consider that everything that you classify as beautiful is also classified as not ugly--after all, you consider something as beautiful by its lack of ugliness. How come no one ever says, "Look how ugly that is, and some people say there is no god!"?

If you classified everything you have ever seen that is beautiful on a scale of 1 to 10, and then you eliminate everything from your memory that is a 10. Guess what? Some of the 9s now become 10s. and you will still say that same thing again Look how beautiful that flower is, and some people say there is not a god!. Now eliminate all the 10s again, and guess what?--same thing! Now change beautiful and flower in the above sentence to something like complex and chimpanzee. Guess what, same thing happens again if you remove everything from your memory that is a 10 in complexity and rerun the above scenario.

You just proved that you classify things based on your life experiences, you have not proved or given any evidence that there must be a god.

Still, I am not saying there isn't a god, just no evidence of one. The above sentence, that is heard so commonly, is a very poor statment, logic wise, to support your belief that there is one.

Think about that one for a while,
Rodney

I get the strangest feeling about that (lol). If you agree with that, you would probably love my ideas on Organised Religion (the business of selling God). Guarrenteed to make the Religious scream!
I should point out that I do respect an honest man of "Faith", as I do respect anyone who is true to their convictions...I do draw the line at Fundementalism. As (pointed out elsewhere)...They are destructive fanatics. But organised religion has distilled faith into a product and uses it to control their followers.
Did you know for example that Pope Innocent (the same one who started The Crusades, celebacy for priests and the Inquisition), ruled that "Reading and interpretation of the Bible are the sole province of the Church". In other words, you could be executed for reading the bible!
The church has allways wanted it's followers to be ignorant of science (note the persecution of Gallileo, Copernicus and Cervantes) and non church philosophy. (It is amazing that Mendel got away with his concepts...but then He was a priest).
The greatest gift of the Renaissance was the liberation of men by the printing press.
But enough (at this point I'm sure I'm being damned from somewhere). The catch 22 of religion has to do with the concept of..If you can't see it..doesn't mean it's not there. They have allways feared the man who asks "Why". Because asking that makes a man think...and thinking makes him free. Without the restrictions placed on man by churches (the reward/punishment principle), man would be free to decide what is right or wrong...and he would not need churches...and so they would pass into history. The down side is...without the enforsement of (the churches) moral code...the unthinking would rely on whoever else came along with acceptable ideas and the personality to make them follow.
Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Your atheism has become a belief system for you.

Joe

I don't understand that logic. I don't believe in something that I have no proof of, and I can show that someone else has no evidence what so ever to reinforce their beliefs. In fact, using logic, I can prove that their arguments for having this belief are very flawed. How is that a belief system exactly? Is it that I believe in logic?

Logic is not a belief. Logic is more of a tool, like math or science, that is used to prove things. I know what I know. I also don't know what I don't know. Belief is something you believe in without actually knowing. That is not at all what I am doing. I am simply pointing out some very flawed arguments by some believers. If you can come up with an argument that reinforces your beliefs without someone being able to show that that argument is illogical, that's fine with me. In fact, I will consider you to be more intelligent for being able to come up with that logical argument.

Rodney

Atheism is not a belief system. It is in fact as simple as this: You put forth the "theory" of there being a god. An Atheist is one who has looked at your theory and evidence and said, "You have not supplied enough evidence to convince me that your theory is correct."
It is a very common error to call Atheism, a belief system or a religion. It springs from the belief of religious people that we must have a religion/belief system of some kind (thus the misnomer (Atheist church or Atheist philosophy). Examples of this are Buddhism (which started as a philosophy). Budda himself denied that he was a god, his followers made him one...and Scientology...which back in the 60's was a philosophy but since has become...first a church and now is considered a religion.
Atheists are quite individualistic in their approach to morality as they usually do not have the "imprinted " framework of religious doctrine as a blueprint for thought (another concept that is beyond the religious). In that, it is more honest as it is enforced by our own sense of right and wrong instead of a fear of a deity's disapproval. (It is easier to lie to a god...than to yourself as in the end you have only yourself to blame or forgive-No excuses). The Atheist looks at what is out there and decides his course based on his conscience.
Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Had to correct spelling and grammar...It's been so long since I talked on this subject I continued the mis-spelling of the word..ATHEIST is correct. Sorry 'bout that.
Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

i didn't say atheism is a religion, i said *your* atheism has become a religion for *you*

you've embued it with a sense of rightiousness and specialness. it has become a belief system for you. you believe that athiesm is true and correct and good.

joe

" As old herper said, there is much about our world that has no explanation and never will. We'll never be able to dissect the miracle of our own child in our own arms'

First of all, there are many incredible things about our world that HAVE been explained. We once thought the earth was flat. We've come a long way since then, and we will go much further than we are now, WITHOUT MIRACLES.

Childbirth, although fascinating and awsome, is by no means a miracle. To offer childbirth as evidence the a god exists is not very intelligent.

"To say that those who believe in a god, or gods, or spirits of any sort, are less intelligent isn't true. Some of the most intelligent people I know are religious." Although those intelligent religious people that you know may be smart in other areas, any time they claim that god exists, they are not being rational. They are being emotional. The evidence on this planet points to the NON-existence of a god, so yes, those who don't believe in god are more intelligent on this particular matter.

"The tendency to believe in a "other world" or "spirit world" is not contingent on intellect" Then it is not an "intelligent" belief.

Charlie

I too have known a number of very intelligent religious people, but the other statement you made you should reconsider. (In general though, I have found religious people to be a little more gullible and atheists to be less so. The more religious, the more gullible--again, in general.) After all, it is the religious fanatics that believe in things like suicide bombings to get to heaven and dancing with poisonous snakes to prove your faith that some fundamentalist Christian churches practice.--again, in general.

Many religions in the past worshiped the sun, the sky, the water, the moon, the wind, among other things. Science has basically eliminated all these beliefs. Today, how many people in society don't know what the sun is? People believed a lot of really weird thing just a couple of hundred of years ago or less. Those things seem bazaar by today's standards. Who's to say that what we don't know today we will never be known? Obviously, many of the things we don't know today will be known eventually. We are learning new things all the time. Plus, things we believe today may seem bazaar by tomorrow's standards.

Frankly, I believe that todays religions exist partly because there is no way to measure gods existence. If we could measure it, we could probably explain it, and then those religions would disappear also. And other different religions would probably arise out of the ashes.

Rodney