they do examine that evidence, and they consider the best explanation to be that people who are moved by internal revelation are deluding themselves.

Religious beliefs in most cases don't meet the DSM-IV criteria for delusional disorders:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusional_disorder

A summary of the book "Is Religion Dangerous?" by Keith Ward a contemporary of Richard Dawkins at Oxford:

See Part Two in particular, Are religious beliefs irrational?":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is_Religion_Dangerous%3F

Ward's bio: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Ward

Evans-Pritchard paraphrase: "anthropologists rarely succeeded in entering the minds of the people they studied, and so ascribed to them motivations which more closely matched themselves and their own culture, not the one they are studying." (He wrote "Theories of Primitive Religion")

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._E._Evans-Pritchard

2000 year old eyewitness testimony that claims to have seen the impossible happen should be disregarded as there are simply more likely explanations.

I disagree. The bible is far too powerful a book and accurate to too astonishing a degree about human beings to have been from the minds of people 2 to 4 thousand years ago.

I'm taking a break.

I can see I'm going to get overloaded again with too many posters taking me on at the same time itt and I need to get offline anyway.

From just the summary, it seems that a lot of what the book is about is based on the same fallacies as most other apologetics that have been slapped down time and again when faced with criticism (such as those in The Case for Christ). For instance this

is clearly a strawman and these

always wind up embarrassing the person claiming them when examined.

Then you are wrong.

No, sorry.

Deo... just stop.

no u

Make me

.

most people hold religious belief for cultural reasons, not because the holy ghost or allah or vishnu or whatever is holding a conversation with them in their heads.

Well its a good reason they hold those beliefs whatever causes the holding.

SQ produces more peace and happiness in the life of a human being than IQ. That alone is reason enough to not dismiss religion. Because religion is just the distorted shaped door you pass through to spirituality. It's hard to interpret things. To go from logically seen reality to unseen happiness without some distortion occurring. Going from this world partially into the next world would incur fuzziness of perception. Still if there's more peace and happiness in the other world why wouldn't you go there?

A lot of people with high IQs are depressed in this world. If they don't achieve a true and lasting spirituality then the best they can do is learn to dismiss depression. They never conquer it and go on to something better (not without drugs which also alter reality)...

The bible teachs us to alter reality by fixing on God's promises. Altering reality can be sensible...that's why a lot of people resort to drugs to beat mental conditions.

Imagine achieving happiness and peace without drugs? Isn't that worth something? Would people act out negatively as much as they do if they tamed their own souls? Can people get interrupted on the way to taming them and not completely tame themselves?

In addition to all the above biblical spirituality teachs you to let go. How many control freaks in the world do you think there are that are driving themselves and everyone around them crazy because they can't let go. Christians can let go because we've got Jesus holding onto us.

So SQ isn't actually hogwash?

Btw, IQ isn't supposed to produce peace and happiness. It's a test score.

No, it's not hogwash not unless all of metaphysics is hogwash.

It's just hard to quantify so people dicker over and dismiss these terms and people like to substitute psychology for it but it preceded psychology by a good bit.

We know about SQ in the bible but we call it spiritual discernment. Some people have more discernment than others...people with extremely high discernment we call visionaries or prophets.

2/3 of the religious people in the world believe the bible is mostly mythology and jesus was just a man. their "SQ" is leading them to believe something that you say is objectively false. in effect you are just arguing for the utility of "spirituality" as a means to happiness, not as a means to truth. most atheists would agree that religious belief can have certain psychological benefits for some (not all) people. no big deal there.

IQ is just a measure of intelligence, and studies show it negatively correlates to depression.

might be the funniest thing you've ever wrote

you think muhammad was a visionary with high discernment? sai baba?

And you're quoting "studies" without any experience on your own part. Studies are very manipulable. Change a variable and you get a different result.

So this may be the funniest thing you ever said.

Religion has been going on for several milleniums and people still are testifying to its benevolence. So who do you really thing I'm going to believe? The time tested results or your one time study that could have biased or incomplete data or incomplete situational testing?

Faith is a hard thing to test anyways. You test it too early you might get a false result.

The one which agrees with your preconceived opinion?

utility argument. nobody disputes religious belief can have psychological benefits for some people. belief in santa makes children happy. so what?

why are you setting up religious belief and intelligence quotient as opposites in your argument? that doesn't make any sense, since obviously the latter is not something anyone can do anything about. i don't recall jesus saying the dumb will inherit the earth. blessed are those with low IQs for theirs is the kingdom of heaven!

presumably you mean something other than IQ. something you think is the opposite of spirituality - belief in naturalism or whatever.

Hmmm...I don't feel the need to explain everything all the time.

Sometimes slowing down and pondering produces more fruit than dialog.

So you think about what I said up above....