Fri, 1 Dec 2006 at 1:40 pm
|
Christians |
Atheists |
|
Believe that there is scientific proof of the existence of God, even though it is scientifically impossible to prove such |
Believe that there is scientific proof of the non-existence of God, even though it is scientifically impossible to prove such |
|
Believe that Christians are persecuted for their beliefs |
Believe that Atheists are persecuted for their beliefs |
|
Believe in a “War on Christmas” |
Believe in a “War on Science” |
|
Secretly hold non-Christians in contempt |
Openly hold non-Atheists in contempt |
|
Believe that Christians are more moral than non-Christians |
Believe that Atheists are more intelligent than non-Atheists |
|
Believe that when Jesus returns, it will be the end of war and suffering |
Believe that when the world becomes free of religion, it will be the end of war and suffering |
So, you may ask what my beef is with Atheists. Let me tell you. A while ago, I started really looking into Atheism, and I got into some discussions with Atheists and so forth. What I found was appalling.
Although all Atheists will claim that their belief in the non-existence of God is based on scientific fact, they cannot point to a single publication in a refereed scientific journal that has proven the non-existence of God.
Worse yet, they believe in other things (such as “the world will be without war once everyone is an Atheist”) that there is ABSOLUTELY NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF of, and yet they believe and defend these things with the rabid passion of the most devout follower of John Birch.
So, you may still ask, what is your problem with Atheists? Don’t Christians and Muslims and Jews believe in things that there is no scientific proof of?
Yes, but Atheists claim a superiority since their belief (oh, excuse me, absence of belief) is based in science and scientific principles. And yet, the things that they believe in most dearly are utterly without scientific backing or proof.
For example, I had one Atheist, who waxed on about how superior science is to primitive “belief”, tell me that he believed that without religion there would be no war. When I pressed him on what sort of scientific proof he had for this theory, he retorted “I believe this to the core of my being! I don’t have proof, but I KNOW that this is true.” He then went on to rant about how stupid and ignorant religious people are.
In other words, they believe in the absolute superiority of science — unless science fails to support their beliefs. This sort of hypocracy among those who claim to be supporters of science is what I dislike about Atheists.
Robin Says:
December 1st, 2006 at 1:55 pm
I learned a lot from that, I don’t know much about athiests. I’m not sure what I am, can I just be “No Opinion”?
Alex Says:
December 1st, 2006 at 4:12 pm
You’re an agnostic, like me, then, Robin. Our philosophy is that we don’t know, so we’ll keep an open mind. Some of us veer towards the most likely solution, if it suits us. Me, I’m an Occam’s razor type of guy.
I do have to admit I get a little fed up with religious people, though. I don’t like the idea of forcing people to conform to someone else’s standards for moral behavior. As long as I’m not hurting someone else, as an adult of sound mind and body I should be able to decide what’s best for me.
TJ Says:
December 1st, 2006 at 4:51 pm
As Voltaire said: “Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.”
Alex Says:
December 2nd, 2006 at 12:58 am
Agreed. Especially about doubt being unpleasant. I would love to be one of the ignorant masses who know for certain that there is or is not a higher power.
Janice Brown Says:
December 2nd, 2006 at 5:15 pm
I find it interesting that these so-called intelligent atheists really believe that belief systems cause wars. The smart folks know that wars are the result of greed–a desire to have something that your neighbors have (oil, land, etc. etc.). Wars are always fought over commodities, they are simply not-so-discretely masked by saying a war is being fought over a belief system (or for freedom, or to save the world, or to get rid of terrorists). Even the American Revolution had alot more to do with economic issues (look at see how many of the earliest pro-Revolutionaries were involved in the tea trade).
And please someone–don’t let Alex run with Occam’s razor
J
Omnipotent Poobah Says:
December 2nd, 2006 at 7:54 pm
Interesting post TJ.
I ‘m an atheist, but I don’t think I’m superior to anyone else.
I believe that science can and cannot prove much about the world, but that there are many things that are unprovable and I figure those things are fair game for whatever opinion you want to hold about them.
I don’t believe that religions cause wars, but they do sometimes have a propensity for gathering together like-minded folk who sometimes do stupid things. But then, so do political parties, fraternaties, and a zillion other groups. Asshats sometimes just seem to hang together, you know?
I’m one atheist who is neither ashamed nor proud of being one. It is just who I am. I believe you can or cannot worship however you want, so long as you don’t impinge on my beliefs. Call me a live and let live atheist.
In any case, great post TJ. Keep it up.
Janice Brown Says:
December 2nd, 2006 at 8:13 pm
I should have qualified my post… I used the term “so-called intelligent atheists” trying to respond to TJ’s terminology.
I am a mutant-cross of atheist-agnostic-Buddhist. I honor all belief systems, and non-belief systems. There are good people who believe in a god or gods, and good people who do not. I keep an open mind.
I don’t know if god exists. Maybe not. Maybe so. I believe we are all connected (on an intrinsic energy level). I do believe in the Buddhist’s focus on compassion for all living things, but I am not a member of the belief system, and I eat meat with relish.
What I do know is that when anyone says or implies they are better than someone else because of their belief system, they scare the crap out of me. Why? Because like Poohbah says, they “do stupid things.”
J
TJ Says:
December 2nd, 2006 at 9:32 pm
I’m glad this sparked a bit of intelligent debate. I hope everyone understands that I have nothing against Atheists or Christians or Buddhist.
Its the Hindus I hate (polytheistic bastards!)
Just kidding. But seriously, It just annoys me when, as poobah said, people band together and decide everyone else is deluded, immoral, and/or stupid. Of course I also believe in free thought, so if you want to think you are superior because you are part of a group, then go for it.
But if you want to exercise your right to express your superiority to the world in general, then I will exercise my right to point at you and laugh.
Alex Says:
December 3rd, 2006 at 5:48 pm
Uhh… back the truck up here! Religions don’t cause wars? What about the crusades? Was the People’s Crusade based on commodity appropriation? Oil rights? Expansionism within the territorial logic of empire? Globalization to supposrt a capitalist mode of empire?
No. The only capital involved in this war was the soul.
If that doesn’t convince you, try reading about the:
Judean War
Albigensian Crusade
English Civil War + Cromwell’s invasion of Ireland
Hideyoshi’s Christian persecution
The French Civil Wars of 1562-1598
The Thirty Years War
The Reconquista
Israel and Palestine
And this is just a brief list of examples.
If you want to look for theoretical bases for “just war” based on religion (I’ll quote Christians, since I am more familiar with Western intellectual history), check out Augustine, Aquinas, Anselm, Grotius. Although Grotius disguised much of his religious fervor as natural law arguments, the end is the same.
TJ Says:
December 3rd, 2006 at 6:39 pm
Careful you don’t run that truck over your foot when you back it up. . .
I don’t know enough history to begin a debate over which wars were fought for strictly religious reasons, and which were “sold” as religious wars, even though the aggressors had different motives.
I will concede that some wars were truly religious wars with no other motive. However, to suggest that in the absence of religion there would be fewer wars is absurd. Communist Russia was essentially Atheist, and they weren’t exactly the most peaceful, logical, and rational bunch of chaps.
Alex Says:
December 3rd, 2006 at 8:02 pm
Right. Getting rid of organized religion wouldn’t end the existence of wars on Earth, but it might reduce them in number.
I’m willing to give it a shot.
Janice Brown Says:
December 4th, 2006 at 9:54 am
The Crusades were to obtain the commodity of the Holy Grail (which certainly would give someone power and or a product to sell for a huge sum of money), AND land –the Holy Land–which they actually captured and then lost.
The Albigensian Crusade or Cathar Crusade (1209 – 1229) was a 20-year military campaign initiated by the Roman Catholic Church to eliminate the religion practiced by the Cathars of Languedoc, which the Roman Catholic hierarchy considered apostasy. It is historically significant for a number of reasons: the violence inflicted was extreme even by medieval standards; the church offered legally sanctioned dominion over conquered lands to northern French nobles and the King of France. [so a land grab].
The Thirty Years’ War was fought between 1618 and 1648, principally on the territory of today’s Germany, and involved most of the major European continental powers. Although it was from the outset a religious conflict between Protestants and Catholics, the rivalry between the Habsburg dynasty and other powers was also a central motive, as shown by the fact that Catholic France even supported the Protestant side, increasing France-Habsburg rivalry. Political and economic tensions grew among many of the powerful nations of Europe in the early 17th century. Contributing factors: IT WAS AN ATTEMPTED LAND GRAB… 1) Spain was interested in the German states because it held the territories of the Spanish Netherlands on the western border of the German states. The Netherlands revolted against the Spanish domination, gaining independence in a series of wars which was halted by a truce only in 1609. 2) France was interested in the German states because of their status as weak neighbors, compared to the Habsburgs realms which surrounded France on land. 3) Sweden and Denmark were interested in gaining control over northern German states bordering the Baltic Sea.
The Reconquista (English: Reconquest) was the process encompassing almost 8 centuries, by which the Christian kingdoms of northern Hispania (modern Portugal and Spain) reconquered the Iberian peninsula from the Muslim and Moorish states of Al-Ándalus.
Perhaps I’ve made my point. If you look at the other wars… it was still one country or group lusting after another’s things, or wanted to get “their stuff back”… land… power…. commodities, constintuency…. simply veiled as something else.
[some info above taken directly from Wikipedia, but found in other reliable sources]
J
MC Says:
December 4th, 2006 at 6:42 pm
As a dude with a history degree, I back up Janice’s claim.
Janice Brown Says:
December 4th, 2006 at 7:13 pm
Thanks MC hehe
But I’m still not going to let you run with cutlery.
J
Alex Says:
December 5th, 2006 at 2:49 am
As a dude doing his grad work in the humanities (who also completed a history major in college), let me say a couple of things:
1) You contradicted your own point (if I identified your implied point correctly – you never come out and make an explicit statement) multiple times within that argument.
2) Calling Wikipedia a reliable source is possibly the best thing you could have done to discredit your analysis.
3) The Holy Grail? What history texts have you been reading?! Oh yeah. Wikipedia. *chuckle*
Honestly. If you’re going to try to argue as if you have done research, then do some. Otherwise it’s very simple to say, “I don’t know, but weren’t there other factors?”
Yes, there are always going to be arguments from Marxist scholars saying capital, means of production, and the like were the issues. There will always be Christian apologists who say it was anything but xianity that was to blame. Fair enough. But what we have to look at is what motivated people to leave their homes and fight in these wars.
In the case of the People’s Crusade (which you conveniently lumped into a generic category called, “The Crusades”; can you tell me how many crusades there were without looking it up?), it was faith. Blind faith that motivated these people. They didn’t even bring weapons. They were so sure that their faith in the christian god would shield them from harm and strike down their enemies before them that they waltzed completely unarmed into the Holy Land.
Obviously, they were quickly rounded up and slaughtered.
I truly don’t mean to sound like a snob, but we’re obviously not arguing on level ground, here.
Oh, and if MC really had a degree in history, there is no way he would have backed up statements made based on internet research. That’s utterly ludicrous!
Well, I guess I don’t want to assume people are liars, or anything. If he really does have a history degree, I would love to hear his argument for supporting the claim that religion doesn’t cause wars.
Also, why didn’t anyone touch the Israel-Palestine example I gave?
lol
TJ Says:
December 5th, 2006 at 8:30 am
Alex: If you’ve ever read Janice’s blog, then you’ll know you aren’t speaking to a lay person. Janice is precise and methodical in her research, and she’s probably forgotten more history than you’ll ever know.
You’ll forgive her for not writing a complete annotated dissertation with references in a blurb on someone else blog. If you can show she’s wrong then do it. Attacking her sources, rather than proving that she is wrong is just lazy.
Janice Brown Says:
December 5th, 2006 at 9:40 am
Alex,
It appears clear that you and I agree to disagree. I doubt there is anything I could say that would change your mind and vice versa. I respect what you believe, but I continue to disagree with you.
There is a certain comfort in the belief that the cause of war is something elevated, such as a religion, or patriotism, whereas I believe wars are caused by mankind’s baser needs, such as greed or envy.
As for Wikipedia… I didn’t even have to mention it. I did because I wanted to be truthful about where I pulled the snips of information. Just being truthful here. I won’t say its 100% accurate, but it contains some well-researched information (depends on the author of the post).
As for the Israel-Palestine War… tell me that neither side wants to keep land or get land, and I’ll listen more closely.
J
Janice Brown Says:
December 5th, 2006 at 9:47 am
Sorry one more post
Alex,
I am not denying that some of the “soldiers” or participants in the Crusades (and other wars) did not believe they were fighting for a greater good. Of course some of them did. But that fact, in itself, does not have anything to do with why the war was initiated.
J
Alex Says:
December 5th, 2006 at 3:45 pm
TJ, now you’re just attacking me because you don’t like what I’m saying. Unless Janice has a Ph.D in history, I doubt she’s learned anywhere near as much about history as me, let alone forgotten it.
I don’t attack your knowledge about your field of work, so don’t attack mine. That’s just plain rude.
By the way, quellenforschung is a perfectly legitimate topic of discussion when making historical arguments. Without evaluating our sources, we’re merely swallowing whatever it is an author is trying to feed us. That may be all well and good in discussions of politics and the media, but in history one learns to discriminate (as dirty as the word may be these days).
Janice: Peter the Hermit initiated the People’s Crusade. He was an ascetic Christian who wanted to rid the Earth of the heathen Mohammedon. He didn’t give a rat’s patooty about finding the holy grail, as you suggest (and if he did, no Christian would have ever dreamed of selling the thing – I’m not sure where arguments like that are coming from, if it is Wikipedia or you). Moreover, why would an eremite take pecuniary concerns into consideration when forming a genocidal movement.
So, there’s why the war was initiated.
History lesson over, though I know I reached nobody.
Maybe I’ll go talk to a brick wall for a while – they’ll listen better than Christians.
MC Says:
December 5th, 2006 at 4:32 pm
Israel/Palestine: That area of the world has two competing claims for the same land based on historical precedence and the aftermath of the Balfour declaration and the Second World War. If you have two groups of people who have different cultural identities claiming that they own the piece of land exclusively, problems are going arise, are they not.
The Judean War: Yeah, no one in the entire history of mankind has ever started a rebellion because civil authorities were not providing the protections they should while your overlord was facing many challenges throughout the world. The preface to Flavius Josephus’s history of that war makes that point quite clear.
The AC: The Cathars were attacked by French nobility before the crusade as they threatened the power of the state and the church was rich while the aristocracy was poor. There were other motivations involved.
And if this was purely a war of religion, why did high proportion of Catholics in the affected regions fight against the supposedly cleansing blade of a Holy army that would eliminate a powerful heretical group, a group that they themselves persecuted?
And the People’s Crusade…. there were other inducements for that behavior that you fail to mention…. like the fact that for the first time in many of those people’s lives, they were at least temporarily free from their bondage to the land and those that sought fortune outside the poverty they had experienced in their homeland.
And the English Civil War was more tied up in the battle for and against absolute monarchy (that’s why it was the Royalists vs. the Parliamentarians after all). And Ireland had been in rebellion for 8 years before Cromwell’s final moves against Ireland. At the time of the pacification of the island, the Irish Confederacy was allied with the Royalists, which is another pretty solid secular reason for fighting.
The French Civil Wars(or as they are also known, the French Wars of Religion). When all is said and done, it boils down to a pissing match between two competing Royal Houses. The fact that it is also Protestant vs. Catholic makes it interesting yes, but in fact, secular in origin with the power vacuum created by the death of Henri II being the spark for the battles to come. It strongly parallels the War of the Roses.
The Reconquista: If this was completely a holy war, why is the most celebrated hero of this era of history well known for fighting for any side, Muslim or Christian, that would pay him?
The Thirty Years War: There is as much self-interest involved from nearly every party to belie the claim that religion was the cause. Given the starting conditions, war may very well have started in Bohemia or from numerous other duchies or principalities throughout the Empire. When you have a decentralized system like the Holy Roman Empire and one party trying to exert its power over nominally autonomous states, conflict in inevitable.
TJ Says:
December 5th, 2006 at 4:44 pm
Alex: My comment was rude, but I didn’t intend it as such. It was more in support of Janice’s historical knowledge than an attack on your knowledge, but I clearly phrased it in an offensive way. I apologize.
Points:
1) You didn’t cite any references, so your “history lesson” is meaningless to most discriminating readers.
2) I don’t hold that much stock in college degrees, so It doesn’t make any difference to me if Janice never got out of the eigth grade or if she has a PhD in History. She is a thorough researcher, and she cites her sources. If you think one of her sources is crap, thats fine, but its better than not citing any sources at all.
3) Who are you calling a Christian? I was raised Catholic, but I’m agnostic. I honestly have no idea if Janice is Crhistian, Jewish, Atheist, or Jehovah’s Witness, and nothing in this discussion has given me a clue as to her religious affiliation or lack thereof.
Janice Brown Says:
December 5th, 2006 at 4:45 pm
Alex,
No need for anyone to get overheated. I think TJ was being protective of me. Nice to think that someone admires my interest in history. I’m a lurker on your blog, Alex, and think you produce some pretty amazing writing.
Do I agree with you on this topic, nope sorry
.
Do you agree with me, nope. But I’ll take that fact gracefully and not as a person affront.
I hope you stick around. I always listen, I just don’t always agree.
And I’m not Christian, nor a brick wall.
J
MC Says:
December 5th, 2006 at 5:00 pm
Yeah, and I am so Christian… that’s why I am batting around a couple of creationists elsewhere in a discussion about evolution, so yeah, I am just such a rhetorical warrior for religion.
MC Says:
December 5th, 2006 at 5:01 pm
I wish I knew what the emoticon for :rolleyes: was.
Janice Brown Says:
December 5th, 2006 at 5:05 pm
MC,
You are such a trouble maker haha
J
Alex Says:
December 5th, 2006 at 6:49 pm
Oh. My apologies. I thought my pompous little lectures were being stonewalled because the xians were plugging their ears, saying “La, la, la! I can’t hear you!”
And, TJ, it’s all good. I just wanted to point out, as I said on my own blog, that you attacking my historical method is like me attacking your knowledge of history.
If you’d like a great source for information on the Crusades in their entirety, I would suggest Payne. He’s well respected in academia, a thorough researcher who argues all sides, and, mostimportantly, his prose is lively (alot of crusade history, even the popular history crap about Templar treasure hunts, is painful to a writer’s sensibilities).
And, to be perfectly honest, I think this debate has gotten to a point where I can confidently say we’re all arguing a similar point, but we’re trying so hard to disagree that we’re succeeding.
To wit, I never meant to say religion was the one and only cause of war, nor that it was the only possible reason for any one of the specific wars I mentioned. My claim is that religion played a strong role in causing those wars. The strongest, in fact, during the first years of the crusades (possibly others, but since we’ve been concentrating on one topic, why deviate). Saying religion had no place in reconquering the Holy Land is arguing against the very definition of the place. Yes, it’s a fight for land, but it’s first and foremost a fight for holy land. The Muslims were happy to admit pilgrims who wanted to worship at the holy places, so there had to be other reasons than the much-bandied argument that the crusaders wanted to secure the temples and routes thereto for pilgrims’ progress.
Anyhoo, if you want some evidence to back up my arguments, I would suggest having a look at Payne, Reston (Jr.), Reid, or even Maalouf’s “The Crusades Through Arab Eyes,” which gives us a heavily biased account, but still one worth reading, for sake of perspective if nothing else.
What else? I think that’s it. I do want to assure you I wasn’t getting angry. It’s just that in my grad courses we argue in a manner which is very much designed to go for the throat. When we write our papers, we are good little scholars who calmly explore the evidence and cite three to five sources per sentence, in the pedantic maner we were taught; in the classroom, though, we latch on to the weak link in the causal chain and yank until it snaps. That’s what I was doing with the Wikipedia-as-source argument (which I insist is valid, heh).
MC Says:
December 6th, 2006 at 3:12 pm
Alex, I should note that I am usually a political realist so I do tend to minimize the role of ideology in analysis. That may explain why we were of differing opinions earlier in the thread.
Paul Says:
December 6th, 2006 at 8:25 pm
Ha… this is funny… “Religions don’t cause wars?”
Tell me, did religion push Stalin, Hitler or Pol Pot to murder MILLIONS? Ah no. Let’s be honest, if you don’t like religion, fine. But just say so. To try and justify your dislike of religion because they start wars is silly. More people have been killed by Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot than all religious wars combined. Easily.
And don’t get me started on the “Israeli-Palestinian” problem.
Alex Says:
December 7th, 2006 at 2:25 am
Umm… you realize Hitler was a Catholic who committed genocide against Jews, right?
I wouldn’t say that religion was the only cause for Hitler’s countless atrocities, but the fact that these people were Jewish might have had something to do with their deaths. I think those little armbands might have given that one away, though.
Good try.
John Says:
December 7th, 2006 at 8:53 pm
I would just like to point out one screaming error, in the assumption that atheists “believe that there is scientific proof of the non-existence of God” – that’s simply not true.
Just as asexuality is literally “lack of sexuality”, atheism is literally “lack of theism”, i.e. we just don’t believe it. I can’t imagine any sane atheist wasting their time trying to disprove the existence of God, since we mainly *just don’t care*. The minority that might try, well, they’ve just got too much time on their hands.
Myself… I’m a big fan of ‘live and let live’. I don’t push my (lack of) views on anyone as long as they don’t push theirs on me… that way everyone’s happy. We’d just be wasting each other’s time and, frankly, I’ve got better things to do.
This is doubtless the point where I get jumped on by countless Christian fundamentalists telling me I’m a demon and that they’ll pray for my path to the bosom of Christ and all that stuff I’ve heard ten thousand times from my grandma, so I’ll be on my way…
Paul Says:
December 7th, 2006 at 10:23 pm
Hitler was a catholic. Ok. I’m thinking, as much as people hate the Catholic Church, that’s it’s pretty much NOT ok to kill 6 million people and STILL call yourself a good Catholic.
I know. Call me crazy and all that, but I think you’re a bit off the reservation on that one.
Of course any history buff would know that Nazi is short for National Socialism, which again, would rather put a damper on any real religious fervor, other than killing people. You know, that socialism thing.
Of course Stalin and Pol Pot weren’t Catholic and they killed millions, but I know, why ruin your nice reparte.
But really, you don’t like religion. That’s fine. Just say so. It’s just wrong to say that religion is the root of war and use that as a basis for attacking religion.
Alex Says:
December 8th, 2006 at 4:37 pm
Attack? Who attacked anything? We were having a nice, polite debate.
A couple of points about your largely irrelevant arguments:
1) I never said Hitler was a GOOD catholic. And I don’t see what that has to do with anything. He was Catholic; he murdered large amounts of Jews. I would say that proves religion was at least involved in some way, shape, or form.
2) Catholics only need to ask forgiveness, and they are released from sin. The ban on premeditated sin is a purely protestant idea. So, after all his murdering, Hitler could have merely asked forgiveness for his sins and gone to heaven, if Catholics have the right of it.
3) Socialism and religion are not mutually exclusive. In the past, the Communist party has made it difficult for the religious, true, but the Communists are not the be all end all of socialism.
4) Yes, Hitler used the socialist-worker’s party to aid his rise to the top. However, Hitler was quite obviously a fascist, not a socialist. You really need to think about things before you go off on your kneejerk reactionary fits.
Nobody is attacking religion here, bud. We’re just having a friendly debate about its value in the modern world, in relation to the horrible mistakes people have made in religion’s name.
MC Says:
December 8th, 2006 at 6:40 pm
I would like to note that the Final Solution and other mass murder/purges that have been described thus far are separate from the original discussion of whether religion causes war.
The origins of the Second World War are much more pragmatic than what is being indicated here, and the murder of 6 million Jewish people is a corelated thread to that War but is neither the cause of nor the result of that global changing event. The war did allow for more Jewish people to be killed, it is true, and I can’t debate that. Without German expansion throughout the late 1930′s and early 40′s, the genocide of the Jewish people of Europe would not have been as widespread as it was, but it still would have happened in Germany if the war had not occurred.
Pol Pot only rose to power because of the instability created from American intervention in that country, and there are no real ties between religion and the violence, though religious figures were victims of mass murder, though I think I can safely make the argument that they were killed because they were figures of authority rather than because of the religion they professed.
Of course, if a larger framing question was asked regarding whether religion has led to murder, discrimination and other foul acts of man against man as the SOLE reason outside of simple warfare, I could agree to that.
MC Says:
December 13th, 2006 at 2:23 am
Wow, we’ve killed this debate… hehe.
Anonymous Says:
October 26th, 2007 at 9:00 am
IT’S AN OUTRAGE
bw Says:
April 7th, 2008 at 8:32 am
I am an atheist, but assertions number 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 are not true of me or many of my close friends. However, I am sorry to say that assertion number 5 is accurate, at least to some degree. Much as I would like to be able to honestly say “I am not prejudiced, I draw no conclusions about one’s level of intelligence from their belief,” it is not true.
If someone is a believer, I think that they have not fully embraced the principles of science or logic. Their intelligence is especially questionable if they expend a lot of time and resources practicing one particular religion to the neglect of other religions and other life goals. I know people who claim to be scientists but have some deep-rooted belief that their Christian traditions are the “correct” ones.
To be fair to religious people, it is impossible to critically and objectively assess beliefs that you were raised with. Even if they are intelligent, I do not expect most religious people to become atheists. Also, I have met religious people for which all six of those assertions are not true – although usually not all in one person. To make matters even more complicated, I am absolutely convinced (because of scientific evidence) that prayer and belief can help people with many things, including disease and addiction. I don’t think the benefit of prayer is evidence that there is a god, god is not necessary for prayer to work. Cognitive therapy and the placebo effect are alternative explanations, and there is a large body of very convincing evidence that both of those are real. However, if belief is beneficial for some then it becomes much harder to condemn it.
I have the utmost respect for people who essentially use religion as a form of cognitive therapy, like alcoholics in AA. I also respect people who are religious because it is expected of them. That is a highly rational decision – being religious and not standing out in the community can often be a prerequisite to success and acceptance, so if those are your goals you should be religious. I don’t wear a suit to a job interview because I believe it to be the scientifically validated “best” form of clothing. I have nothing but contempt for many of the people who invent religions, like L. Ron Hubbard and Joseph Smith, I seriously question their motives. Jesus, on the other hand, was probably a really good guy.