Why do you think she wants another wonderful world that a judgmental "boss" created? I'd rather fight the owner of the place, or even DIE forever, then go to a place where I am rewarded for being a slave. I'd rather be a God, and be rewarded, or not rewarded at all.
Who would want to be rewarded for being a slave?
One needs pride, and self-respect, and most importantly reason.
In her way of thinking, it is not a question of wanting the wonderful world. If God is a fact, in her mind,then what one does with that knowledge and with ones time on earth determines his/her eternal life. It isn't about wanting to be a slave, it is about being a creation of this deity, and believing that all one has to do is love the creator the way he supposedly loves his creation (although you would be hard pressed to believe that after reading the first half of the old testament). You see, I get the logic of the beliefs- there is no mystery there, and within the context of the belief system, it makes perfect sense- it's just that none of it is true.
There are definitely the mouthbreathing, knuckledragging, and just plain crazy believers out there, but the christians that really piss me off are the ones who just don't think. They're not stupid - they can walk and chew gum at the same time, use words of more than one syllable, drive, hold down jobs, pay their bills and seem completely normal - but they just don't think deeply about anything at all. No self-reflection, no curiosity about how things really work, no thinking outside the box at all. These are the ones who just believe because they were raised to believe and all their friends believe, and it's something to do on the weekends, and that's good enough for them. When they say "I don't believe in evolution", what they mean is, "I don't know anything about it, I haven't given it much thought, it sounds unlikely, and my pastor said it isn't true - and that's enough for me." Blind, deaf and dumb to everything except what to have for dinner and what's happening on their favorite reality-TV show. These are the christians who really get me. They can be among the hardest to reason with - not because they're christians, but because they just don't care.
Dorris, you hit the nail on the head. I couldn't agree more. Having deep, philosophical discussions with yourself and with others, and asking the hard questions takes work. Most people are just too darn lazy to think deeply or to pick up a book and learn something new. Most of what I know that has been beneficial in improving my intellect I learned after my formal schooling and college education. Yeah, that takes work and time in addition to working a full-time job. But my craving to learn presses on. I'd hate to think that people are too lazy to care, but that's the impression I get.
I kind of disagree with you.I think the problem is that christians, especially the well known ones who write popular apologetic books for example, think differently fundamentally (no pun intended).I have read some of their writings, and they make sound argruments (although they often use fallacious reasoning in order to do so).But when you want to believe something to begin with and arrive at a conclusion at the inception (such as christ dying and then coming back to life), then explaining how and why it is true can be a very thoughtful and well-reasoned.These people think very deeply, they are just on a different track than the rest of us.I think their main problem is that they refuse to challenge their core beliefs, as those on these boards have done.I don't know, maybe that is the definition of not thinking deeply, but I just think they do think long and hard, but only up to that wall that declares "god is real". So maybe the question is, can one be a deep thinker if one is self-deluded?
Putting aside cognitive dissonance, even an intelligent scientist (my PhD supervisor was one and I knew a few others now) can believe be religious (Note: I am not one of them).
This is because they deal mainly with very different things.
Science can neither prove nor disprove religion, as it deals with the way things are in the physical world. The scientific method can only make sense of phenomena that are present in the physical (material) world.
Religions do make claims about the physical world (but do not have the tools to prove those claims). And such claims are increasing challenged by the scientific method.
Generally religions are at their best when they deal with the way things should be in the non-material world (claims about the afterlife).
An intelligent person may use a scientific method to understand the physical world but then it is of no help in the non-physical world, so they may default back to religious explanation.
There are a number of ideas that are being dealt with here.
Might help to clarify:
1. intelligence = cognitive ability divided by chronological age (that is nothing to do with belief);
2. belief is about epistemology: how do we know what we know (how is knowledge formed). An admission that you do not knowing something can be the first step to acquiring knowledge of it ("wisest are those who know they know not").
3. ontology (what is possible in the world) is also important: as noted by me above: religion and science deals with different ontological problems (what is true about the material world vs what is true about the meta-physical world).
4. Not all religious people are theists - is may not be socially acceptable or safe to be an atheist. Just because it is not safe to admit that you are atheist does not make you dumb.