Why Religion is Not for Intelligent, Logical, People.

Listen up, sheep!
Listen up, sheep!

Pretty simple.

There are thousands of religions, and many philosophical explanations for who we are and why we are here. Some are similar, others diametrically opposed. One thing they have in common is none of them are certain, and if one believes in any of them, it requires faith.

Faith, defined: "strong belief...based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof."

Right there in the definition of faith, we see it requires a lack of proof. If there is proof, it's not faith, it's just observation. Here we have reason #1. No proof. The rebuttal to anyone saying there IS proof: If there is proof, then it is not faith. If it's not faith, then it's not a religion. If you are trying to say your religion has proof, then by the very definition of religion and faith, you are delusional.

Next reason: Improbability.

Out of these thousands of options with their creative explanations of life, it's very unlikely that any one you choose or that appeals to you is the right one.

So many, and they all say they are the "true truth" lol
So many, and they all say they are the "true truth" lol

Even if hundreds of millions of others believe the same thing. Example: Hinduism vs. Judaism. "1,200,000,000 people can't be wrong", is the argument I've heard. Well, yes, actually, they can. Either that, or over 2,000,000,000 people who believe those people are wrong, are wrong. Having numbers doesn't make you right, and is listed as one of the logical fallacies. See "Argumentum ad pupolum" : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Given this information, the only logical solution is to just admit you don't know. It's not that hard, it doesn't hurt (unless you are really egotistical/narcissistic, etc). It's just the truth. You don't know. No one does. There are those who think or believe they know, for whatever reasons (fear of the unknown, false confidence, upbringing, lack of intelligence, inability to accept reality, etc), but simply by accepting that you don't know, you put yourself a step ahead of the fools.

Just those two logical foundations alone are enough to dissuade anyone of sufficient cognitive ability to fully understand them from subscribing to or continuing to participate in any current world religion. Not that everyone has that level of cognition, or ability to extricate themselves from their subjective reality enough to observe the information with an unbiased and logical mind.

Why Religion is Not for Intelligent, Logical, People.
Add Opinion
7Girl Opinion
41Guy Opinion

Most Helpful Guy

  • Kaazsz
    I’m an atheist but I think most atheists are more scared to think about religion and spirituality and hide behind a guise of “rationality.”

    The interesting thing about spirituality and religion is what I would call “revelation.” And not only in terms of Christianity.

    It’s basically profound concepts which are expressed through symbolism and cannot be explained through logical means.

    I think this is why people believe in religions and such. And it’s very interesting. Of course I’m an extreme skeptic and critic and despite learning a lot I’m still an atheist.

    But I’m not so ignorant to think that I’m somehow more intelligent or “rational” than people who are religious. I think it’s nonsense to say that shit. It’s pure ignorance if you ask me.

    It’s fun to learn the concepts and ideas that religion has. You won’t find the profound concepts you can learn anywhere else. It doesn’t mean they were passed down from god. If you ask me, god is similar to the concept of infinity. Human beings are interested in exploring ideas, and things such as infinity or god, where you attempt to integrate a logic based on the integration of all that exists into a single concept is very interesting.

    And the same way there is a logic to infinity, so is there a logic to spirituality.

    And science does the same shit. Ever heard of a boltzman brain? It’s the same thing. You could say the entirety of existence as well is one massive conscious brain. If our human brains are conscious and capable of rational thought due to the transfer of information, who is to say that all of existence is not merely a singular information machine, and said machine is not conscious of what goes on inside?

    See, it is fun to think about stuff like that. Doesn’t make it true. But there’s merit to it. And you aren’t special for being an atheist and you aren’t smarter than other people for being an atheist, and you aren’t more rational either.

    If you’re going to talk about philosophy, the world of philosophy debates god quite a bit. And there are good arguments on both sides, from people probably way smarter than anyone on this website lol.
    LikeDisagree 4 People
    Is this still revelant?
    • Thanks for a very intelligent and insightful reply. You are right, I was wrong to say "not for intelligent or logical people..".

      Also, I'm not an atheist, or think I'm "more special" than anyone. I realize for most religious people the reason for their religion is just by chance the place where they were born and who they were born to.

    • Kaazsz

      That’s definitely true as well. But it applies to everyone. The majority of people aren’t exactly “thinkers.” They’re more like animals, doing whatever their body tells them to do lol. But we all have that potential to think more and be more than that in my opinion.

    • goaded

      Why Religion is Not for Intelligent, Logical, People.

    • Show All

Most Helpful Girl

  • purplepoppy
    Rational arguments don't work on religious people if they did there'd be no religious people.
    LikeDisagree 17 People
    Is this still revelant?
    • Pete671

      if you're religious you are not rational,,,

    • Says she who hasn't understood the esoterics of religious teachings!

    • @bigbang101 says the woman who is a slut. What would you expect from a slut? To believe that they will burn in hell. Of course sluts CHOOSE not to believe in going to hell.

Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

  • Greendruid
    Your question is very intrestings, i find a pattern here, i observed that before monoethism was popular,

    The polytheistic society of the people were more logical, resonable and practical, like in ancient assyria, rome, greeks, persians, babylone egypt, mesopotemia , india, etc,

    infact many mathmatical and scientific discoveries took place there, some examples are

    concept of decimal number system and zero, pythagoras theorem, algerba , trigonometry , geometey etc are ancient branches of maths, in fact they knew about the round earth and planetry system and heliocentric solar system model , even calculated years and radius of earth, the existence of atoms, gunpowder, archimedes principal, gravity (yeah they knew it already, newton gave law and equation)
    Not just that, they even knew some very intresring things like plastic surgery and brain surgery. If i start counting all the things discovdred in ancient times then you will notice most of the education we get now is derived from mathmatical and physcial concepts of ancient and pre medival era

    and all the scholars and researcher of that time devoted themselves to their patron deities,

    infact i think its very shameful and diagraceful when i think that just some 4 century ago , mankind became foolish enough to to belive in flat earth, while people in BCE's were making ground breaking advancement in their time

    When the galeleo again tried to prove that earth is round and we live in heliocentric system, he was arrested , trialed for blashpemy and was blindfolded

    so my conclusion is that as long as people keep religion personal matter (like in ancient times) and dont try to impose it on humanity, humans will always proper and keep doing wonders, and thats why religions just doesn't fit with logic and they not practical.

    Science is always great, and it will be greatest forever, people might feel offended (and m not sorry for that ) but science is far superior and above religion.
    Like 1 Person
    • To add to what you’re saying, I wonder exactly how much Romans and Greeks believed in their gods completely, and how much they realized he was just missed in order to explain the world, but not real.

      Tunnel away some of us look at astrology, as sort of a fun thing to do, but not really something you want to lay your life down for. I feel like people are so serious about religion these days they’re ready to kill themselves or other people, which is going a bit too bit far if you ask me

    • I think roman and greeks belived in their gods, thought not to be on par with today's religious extremist, but indian and egyptian were more firm in their beliefs, though egyptians god belivers are not there anymore, but indians in ancient times firmly belived their gods and had many theocratic kingdoms and republics (*mahajanpad). But true, its ohk as long as they follow peacefully,

    • Also, alexander and his subjects used to think that he was grandson of god, shame that he didn't wrote any holy book or we might have one more prophet as alexender the great prophet , the messenger of god XD

  • ADFSDF1996
    Your whole argument is a false dichotomy. There is no logic behind the idea that being religious automatically makes you “stupid”.

    Plenty of the brightest minds throughout history were religious. In fact many of the biggest contributors towards science like Galileo, Newton, Gauss, Von Braun, Walton and so on were all practitioners of Christian faiths.

    Then there’s the fact that many biblical passages have been interpreted as referring to scientific facts such as evolution, atoms, hygiene, physics and Botany. Not to mention that science has actually confirmed many of those facts.


    Even Richard Dawkins made many atheists raise their eyebrows after he proposed the theory that Humans evolved from mud. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/news/world/752936/Humans-evolved-from-MUD-says-Richard-Dawkins-bible-was-right-evolution-bible/amp
    LikeDisagree 3 People
    • As far as i know, galileo was declared herectic by church for blasphemy when he
      announced that our solar system is heliocentric

      Giordano Bruno was scentenced to burned alive on stake pyre,
      The list goes on with Michael Servetus, Hypatia and many more, its not m accusing any particular religion, m saying all almost all religion , can't tolerate somrthing which question their authority over people's mind

    • @Greendruid Galileo’s conflict with the Church didn’t stop him from being a Catholic. A person simply having a difference in opinion with the church doesn’t make that person an “atheist”. And most of these Christian scientists I mentioned never had any conflict with their churches.

      The Catholic Church may have persecuted dissidents in it’s early years but so did many Atheistic regimes like the Soviet Union. The difference is that the Christendom evolved out of it’s authoritarianism. While the Soviet Union remained authoritarian until it’s collapse.

    • Sorry, it wasn't meant to be "religious people are stupid". It was more meant to say "if you have some intelligence and logic, here is a simple explanation of why believing in a particular religion is illogical". I see that it was a bit inflammatory and apologize.

    • Show All
  • DJB72
    You're confused. It's understandable.

    You insist on using a definition that's secular to define something that isn't. You use an English definition for an English language translation of an ancient Greek word.

    Your confusion is understood.

    So to use the English translation of the ancient Greek definition: Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things as yet unseen.

    Every human on earth uses faith with that definition. You use faith that the chair will hold your weight. That you can tie the waistband of your pants round your middle. To say intelligent, logical people don't need faith is actually illogical. A fallacy of the highest order. And a demonstration of the sheer ignorance 21st Century "intellect" wants to claim as superior.

    You quote numbers. Billions of believers. There may be billions of members of organised denominations such as Catholic, Anglican, Baptist. But sitting in a denominational church for an hour or two a week doesn't make someone a Christian - I assume as most individuals who write the kind of message you write here are most interested in - any more than sitting in a stable makes you a horse. The number of people walking this planet at this time who might actually qualify as Christians at this point would be millions fewer. Hundreds of millions fewer. There's a massive difference between religion and Faith.

    I'm not a religious man. But I'm a man af deep Faith. My Faith is based on seeing God move in my life over 48 years. More answered prayers than I can count. I have Faith because of the evidence I have seen in my life. That doesn't mean that I know what's coming next. This year I almost died of covid and had to have my right foot amputated. I didn't know that was coming. But I have Faith that despite the issues I've faced this year, God is a good God. I have Faith that God didn't give me Covid. I also have Faith that God is the reason I'm still alive today.

    Medicine says I should be dead. My heart stopped. Total flatline. That means you can't use the paddles because they only work if the heart is in atrial fibrillation - hence the name "defibrillators".

    Medical science says I should be dead. I'm not. That's evidence. Even my doctor keeps telling me my being alive is a miracle. And you don't get much more intelligent or logical than a doctor.
    LikeDisagree 4 People
    • If there's something more logical than a doctor, it's math. Sometimes referred to as an exercise in pure logic. You being alive is math. Statistics, to be more precise. Standard deviation from the norm is expected and accounted for. You survived, and the majority in a similar situation did not.

    • DJB72

      While I concur that my survival comes into the category of being in the "survival" column on a spreadsheet, *why* I survived remains a mystery, not just to me but also to the pulmonologist and covid specialist who treated me in intensive care for 12 weeks through the events I mentioned before. Yes, I'm a statistic, a "standard deviation" as you put it. That doesn't answer the question of WHY. Maths/statistics never can answer an issue of Faith. Faith often defies logic on the surface. And until you follow the logic through to the ultimate conclusion you can't see how Faith works

    • Yes, I see how "Faith (sic) works": if you don't know how something happened and it's not explained by science or some logical process, just make something up with your imagination and pretend like it's truth. Faith does often defy logic, I absolutely agree. Much like filth defies cleanliness.

    • Show All
  • hellionthesagereborn
    I love how atheists who believe that the universe created itself (scientifically impossible) try to claim rationality is on their side while also not understanding the purpose of religion in any way shape or form. You try to treat religion as if it was science, and while science is derived from esoteric religious philosophies (alchemy to be precise), its function is wildly different then sciences.

    I'd recommend first, stop trying to be an edgy teenager by repeating what your teachers have told you to think, second to actually study religion and listen to theologians i. e. religious scholars so you can have a better understanding of what its purpose is, and three consider the idea that you don't actually know everything (because you don't) and that you could be wrong (and yes, this goes for religious fanatics as well, they should also do all of these things) because you are more then likely, wrong (we don't have all the answers and when some one goes and claims that they do, especially about something that is as unknowable as to the creation of our universe and ourselves, you are almost certainly full of it).

    Ego, self righteousness and ignorance never make for good arguments (and I wish atheists had the capacity to self reflect, if they did they would see that they are as fundamentalist as religious people and just as obnoxious).
    LikeDisagree 2 People
    • Thanks, great points, along with many false assumptions, such as my teachers ) who were Christians when I went from Christian to agnostic), or that I am atheist, or a teenager, I think I know everything, etc. Or maybe you're not addressing me with these assumptions?

      My whole stance presented in the My Take comes precisely from the point that I could be wrong and most likely am, and applying that same principle to every religion and belief system known to man.

    • 99% of atheists were taught atheism (because again, it is not a rational stance (nor am I suggesting theism is either), hence the conclusion drawn (I also thought you were some one else when I wrote that (their is another G@G who constantly ridicules and insults religion and makes the same false claim that your title makes.).

      I wasn't suggesting you were a teenager, I was suggesting the argument that you have to be stupid and irrational to be religious was an "edgy teenager" stance because it is. Its not a well thought out argument or idea, its simply something that is believed because it was taught, and that is designed to be counter culture and counter traditional.

    • Religion is not a science so trying to treat it as such is not a logical argument, that is called a strawman argument. It is about how to live your life, it is closer to philsophy then it is to science (again, despite science getting its start in religion). Second you do not consider that you could be wrong because you stated in your very first line that any one who does not think like you (atheist) is not intelligent nor are they logical. Thats like me saying "I'm not calling you a liar, I'm just saying everything you say is a lie" at that point it is functionally the same, that is essentially what your arguing, "I'm not saying I'm right, I'm just saying every one who disagrees with me is wrong", at that point, you are actively and functionally treating your stance as absolute and theirs as completely wrong.

      The irony is that religion actually has a slightly better argument simply because it implicitly acknowledges the absurdity of existence, that is you cannot have a universe that is bound to causation without actively violating causation (either their was nothing then something which breaks causation, or its always existed which makes the universe an affect without a cause which in turn breaks causation), so believing that their was something that exists outside of causation that can act as the primary mover at least makes some sense (as much sense as one can make of such a thing) compared to "it created itself, don't question me" which is the usual atheist argument.

    • Show All
  • nightdrot
    Your definition of religion is simplistic and anti-historical. Better not tell Aquinas, Augustine, Chesterton, and Jastrow, among others, that religion is the absence of evidence and not for intelligent and logical people. No offense, but it would be grand good fun to see you in a match up with these men, all of whom - especially the first two - helped in their writings and reasoning to lay the foundations of Western civilization. Not bad for unintelligent and illogical people.

    Indeed, assuming, as your description seems to, the equivalence of science and religion, they are not unrelated. In general, the truth is that each in its way compliments the other and that the dichotomy between the two is of fairly recent vintage. In fact, it is a premise of the Roman Catholic Church that faith and reason are ultimately compatible. That if man's reason were perfect and uncorrupted, faith and science would affirm each other.

    Thus, to this day, Vatican City has one of the world's foremost astronomical observatories. A place engaged in understanding the way the universe works as a way to grasp more fully the complex nature of the God's creation.

    To be sure, the RCC has had its bad moments with science. See also Galileo. However, believe it or not, that was because the Church believed that he was contradicting science. The mistake the Church made was a tool literal understanding of the compatibility of faith and reason.

    The Church reasoned that because man was the center of God's creation that therefore - literally - the sun, the stars and the planets must ultimately as a PHYSICAL reality revolve around the Earth. Thus Galileo fell afoul of the Church to his great price, but ultimate vindication.

    Ironically, the real split between faith and science came from an excess on the scientific side. The birth of the age of Reason - coming from the discoveries of the physical laws by Newton among others - seemed to refute the Biblical understanding of man and free will.

    Science reasoned that if there are physical laws that these must also be binding on human conduct. In effect, there is no free will. The flaws in human society were the result of man mistakenly producing laws that contradicted natural rights and therefore created disharmony. Religion, it was reasoned, was among the sources of these mistaken laws - superstition divorced from abstract reason and disharmony and conflict follow.

    Here then where the serious split between science and religion. Some in religion turned to fundamentalism. That the Bible was literally - word for word - true. That the discoveries of science were the product of a reason corrupted by Original Sin and thus not to be relied upon and were wrong.

    From the science side, the most conspicuous example was Marxism. Science stripped man of the particularities that give man his identity - his culture, his ethnicity, his religion. Marx squared the circle by identifying "scientific principles rooted in economics and the imagined dialectic of History" that squared the circle. Hence the phrase "scientific socialism."

    Of course, both sides have their problems. Fundamentalism can give you the Salem Witch Trials. Socialism gives you the Gulag.

    Still, overall, the history of the West - and I did not even get into Islam and other religions that have their own stories to tell - has been to understand the way the universe works to give sense to something that transcends the material world. In that, the West has been the story, not always peaceful to be sure as man is not perfect, of the co-existence of science and religion and on the whole, man has benefited from that not always easy relationship.
    LikeDisagree 2 People
    • Perhaps the dictionary is "simplistic and anti-historical", but it at least is a base reference most people can understand and allow as a common ground.

      /rəˈlijən/ : noun, the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

      No offense taken; I would love to introduce your ancient wise men to the vast amounts of information we have access to today that they were blundering about in the dark ages for.

      This myTake is absolutely simplistic; I don't believe most people would take the time to read anything much longer (and it's probably too long by a paragraph or so for many), and there's really not much need. But I do concede there are many more elements to belief than I address above. Some shortcomings are the failure to address the power of culture and the psychological need for answers.

      I did not mean to imply a science vs. religion stance. Science is not a belief system, and gives no "hard" answers claiming objective, definitive knowledge. It simply says, "This is what seems to be, until it is shown otherwise, which is possible and perhaps even probable."

    • nightdrot

      Yours is the arrogance of the modern age. The presumption that knowledge equals wisdom.

      In any case, where science was left to run its course, we go the Gulag and the atomic bomb. The logic of the latter being, if unencumbered by the morals of religion, that it is to be used.

      In any case, as far as science goes the words of Chesterton are appropriate, “It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything.”

      The problem being that science can explain everything - except why science exists.

    • Putting words in my mouth, then showing them to be false doesn't really move the discussion forward. It moves backwards, as I point out I said nothing about knowledge being synonymous with wisdom.

      What I said and will repeat, is that I would enjoy taking "wise men" and exposing them to new information. (Because it would be interesting to see what how they took it in and processed it, and what they would do with it.)

      "Science cannot explain why science exists" <- because science exists for subjective reasons according to the person practicing the principles of science. So it is mutable and therefore "undefinable", at least in an objective manner.

      Can religion explain why religion exists?

      As for Chesterton, the quote you chose is appropriate as it is another paper tiger. I and many others do not "complain that it is unthinkable... to make everything out of nothing...". On the contrary, as a former Christian, I find it incredibly easy and simple to imagine a superbeing creating everything out of nothing. In fact, it is so simple and easy, humans have been doing it throughout our history with many various names given to their easily imagined deities. A child could do it, and children do. It's easy for creationist children to argue with evolutionist adults, because the child has anything they can imagine on their side of the argument. It's the old playground imagination game: "I've got a gun!," "Ok, then I have a shield that can block bullets.", "ok, then I have a laser than can cut through your sheild!" Sky's the limit when you have omnipotence and omniscience in your lineup.

    • Show All
  • OlderAndWiser
    It is called faith because there is no "proof" in a scientific sense of the word. That does not mean that the truth of religion will disappear if proof is discovered. That is quite illogical reasoning.

    If you don't believe, that's fine. You have the right to not believe. Using defective reasoning to tell everyone else they are wrong is worse than sophomoric.
    Like 1 Person
  • goaded
    To my mind, the killer argument is that there's no evidence of a supreme being (especially not if you take specifics of a particular religion into account), but abundant proof of people and other animals lying for their own advantage in nature. (Which is not to say that adherents of religion are lying, just the people who started them; and Scientology is a recent example of the phenomenon.)
    Like 1 Person
    • Yeah, I agree. Like Moses saying to himself, “Dang, how can I get these people to wander around in the wilderness with me for 40 years? I know! I’ll tell them gods talking to me and wants them to do it.”

  • IAMNathanael
    Religious people are capable of intelligent thought. There were plenty of scientists that had their religious beliefs (like Isaac Newton for example). You can still have a knowledge of the world around you and hold on to your own beliefs.
    Like 1 Person
    • You are right. I wanted to update myTake, but it appears too late to do so. I was wrong to say a person cannot also be intelligent and rational, it is definitely deeper than that. Thank you.

      There is something, though. That keeps people blindly believing in the unverified/unverifiable. I suspect it is fear based, or some other "negative" element of the psyche that I wish to avoid.

    • No worries mate, it's still a good question!

  • bamesjond0069
    Maybe intelligent people realize it makes their life better to believe, maybe they had miraculous experiences, maybe they can accept just because its improbable doesn't make it not true and we know we don't know everything. These are why i believe in God.
    Like 1 Person
    • This is probably the strongest argument I’ve heard for believing: “it makes their lives better to believe.”. I have personally considered attempting to delude myself into a fantasy world that would make me happier. It’s just a bit against my nature, but I agree it could be a pleasant option.

    • Yes. God gives me more direction in life and when i follow that direction it makes me happier and more fulfilled and confident. Then after making the motions for awhile I've actually felt God, almost like smoking weed high but just from praying. And those two things together make me say "hey i dont know everything" so no need to hold back

  • winterfox10
    By that logic, the only rational belief system is Agnosticism, because it accommodates the possibility of a deity without committing to any of them. Atheism would fall into the same category as religious folks, because Atheists actively believe that there is no god; which is a form of faith.
    LikeDisagree 2 People
    • No, atheists don't "actively believe that there is no god", we don't base things solely on belief at all, we reject that way of thinking. We think logically, not based on blind faith. Calling atheism a religion is like saying that "bald" is a hair colour.

    • Merriam-Webster defines Atheism as 1. A lack of belief, or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods. 2. A philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods.

    • Exactly. A LACK of belief. Not this out that type of belief. Just like bald is a LACK of hair, not this or that type of colour of hair.

    • Show All
  • Cozybcuz
    Perhaps subscribing to a religion such as Christianity could be considered less rational. But you can't limit your view of religion or more or less a belief in the divine or a god to such simplified beliefs. There are more then enough people who have much more interesting views on god, spirituality can be much more profound then what you seem to put through. I'm not religious my self but I find that you might have fallen in to a very dogmatic way of thinking. Try reading some interesting views on god, like Spinoza or maybe Immanuel Kant
    Like 2 People
    • It is precisely from reading a wide variety of perspectives, philosophies (Kant, Berkeley, Huxley, etc) , religions, etc, That I came to the conclusion I have come to, and I thought I illustrated that in the OP? When I talk about how there are thousands of different religions, and anyone of them could be right.

  • Not_Average
    I mean I'm an engineer, I write code, and have an above average IQ. I believe in god. These are negative labels that wouldn't actually add up in fruition. Humans are very complex, and humans are compelled to believe certain things for a variety of different reasons. We all have different experiences. My uncle before he passed was one of the smartest men I've ever known. He had some traumatic experiences within his youth which drove him to believing in god. So it's not as simple as saying it's for stupid and illogical people. There are many different drivers which can change the trajectory of many decisions in our life. This is a very linear way to look at such a complex subject that has so much depth. It seems like you're being a provocateur just to be a provocateur. E. g. you say something so wildly insulting to someone, thus getting an emotional response out of them so that you can break down their points when they're in a weaker state of mind due to emotion clouding their ability articulate what they think.

    I have a genuine question for you though, have you ever read the bible? I don't mean this to put you down or prove a point. I'm genuinely curious because I was an atheist for many years. I read the bible to dispel all of this talk of faith looking for confirmation that I was correct in my assertion as an atheist. I attempted to deconstruct it for years on and off. I ended up believing in god through my attempts to deconstruct. The bible has such a rich amount of depth in every verse. I'd really suggest you at least read it before coming up with any absolutes for your life. That seems like a logical solution in my opinion.
    • Yes, I read the Bible when I was a Christian, when I was a kid, between the ages of 8 and 14. I didn't read the whole thing because there were a lot of boring parts in it like "Sheb begat Asford, and Asford begat Noah, and Noah begat Marky Mark..." I remember one such section just kept going on and on. Just based on that I disagree with "rich amount of depth in every verse..."

      So I read for content, to get anything valuable or interesting out of it. I really liked Psalms and Revelations. The Old Testament was more interesting than most of the New Testament.

      This is an older question and I hope you will see in some of the discussions it raised I backed off a bit and it wasn't really my intent to be a provocateur. I just do see it as pretty simple: if something cannot be logically supported as being irrefutably true, then don't support it as being irrefutably true.

  • Kaneki05
    Of course. Also another reason we have learnt to cope with death we don't need some afterlife or meaning to life cause were strong and not weak-minded to need something to cope with it. I do think you can be a bit smart as religious but 100% not strong enough to cope with the thought of life has no meaning.
    Like 1 Person
  • Xtcy2083
    Why should I accept your particular definition of faith? To me it means the acceptance of propositions not because we have evidence or "proof", but because it makes more sense to accept than reject them (ex. I accept the notion of objective reality, the existence of minds other than my own, and the reality of the past. I cannot "prove" that you are real, but I trust - that is, I have faith - that you are).
  • TheorionMage
    The ONLY NON-homo sapien-centric 'religion' is expressed in contextual insightful observation of the interactions and morality demonstrated in Nature. Nominally modern neopaganism.Why Religion is Not for Intelligent, Logical, People.The Sentience who 'designed' our terrarium 'reality' perpetuates this divine 'day dream' for purposes unknown to man. The KJV of the Christian bible says it best in Isiah 45:7.
  • PBandJ_Nerd
    But don't most people who follow a religion agree that we don't know what happens in the afterlife? Isn't that enough to show that we're unsure? I mean, it's just possibilities of what it could be like. Also atheists just don't follow a religion but they might still be spiritual at least.
    • Actually, my understanding is they propose that they know EXACTLY what happens after we die, down to the number of virgins they receive as a reward, or who lions and lambs hang out with.

  • OmNomaly
    Though I don't believe in gods. I do believe in religion.
    This doesn't mean that I myself am religious.
    Some folks needs a way to cope with existentialism.
    If it is something that helps them cope with the loss of a loved one and helps take emotional burdens from them. More power to them.
    I consider myself to be more in line with Buddhism and it's teachings.
    It's important to have balance.

    As far as religion goes for me. If they are not trying to shove it down my throat. Live and let live.
    Though I do wish that religious ceremonies in 2020 would be under better guidelines for the outbreak. Instead of them trying to flock into congregation, ignoring warnings.
    Like 1 Person
  • Don-_-Don
    So let's get this straight, are you also possibly implying that everyone who believes in religion aren't intelligent?
    LikeDisagree 2 People
    • Don-_-Don

      You can be both intelligent and logical and still have " faith" in a particular religion.

      It would be a shame to just count everyone who believes in a god not logical and intelligent.

    • You only have that opinion because you’re religious and believe that you’re not ignorant... but, guess what? You’re actually ignorant 👍👍👍

    • Don-_-Don

      @CrazyRay43 this is great, I really have to have someone here to see this.

      @AmandaYVR look at what this man is saying, he's assuming that I'm religious merely because I asked him a question. Not only that he claims that I'm ignorant.
      This is a good example of why I don't really stay active here this much, you say something and a person will find some way to try and throw in a little insult for no real reason.
      Sir, I'm not religious, not even at the slightest.

      Seems like your own ignorance caused you to assume that I am as such, the irony here is amazing.

    • Show All
  • Liam_Hayden
    If you believe that nothing became something and organized itself then you have more faith than I or any other religious person will ever have.
    Like 1 Person
    • @liam_hayden as I said, " the only logical solution is to just admit you don't know. It's not that hard, it doesn't hurt (unless you are really egotistical/narcissistic, etc). It's just the truth. You don't know. No one does."

    • Exactly. My point is that all of us at some point make a leap of faith as to what we believe. That leap might be based in logic or not. People like Alister McGrath and the late R. C. Sproul are examples of intelligent, logical people who came to a monotheistic, Christian worldview.

  • Gedaria
    No , faith is things hope for..
    The Bible demanstrates how reliable the Bible is by things you read in it.
    It gives us a promise of a better life now and in the future.
    It's like God told the Israelites when they left Egypt.
    If you follow my words you will prosper. And they did.
    But it also if they don't there lives will be full of troubles and strife
    Which history has shown.
  • Show More (26)