It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Intelligent people less likely to believe in God

page: 13
26
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


Good. The nitty-gritty is where I live. In fact, your positions remind me of myself exactly, just a few years back.

"Subjective", in my opinion, is just another label. I coined my moniker several years ago, on other boards, because I thought of myself as a dedicated follower of the truth, no matter where it led me. I still do.

I'm going to throw an idea at you, and you don't have to respond. Just put it away if you like, and take it out later if it seems like a good idea:

You are not your mind. Your mind is a tool, and that's all it is. It's very good at perceiving patterns and creating order. In fact, it's so good at it that it is very, very difficult to recognize it for what it is. It builds upon itself, layer upon layer, by way of metaphor. It's a process of accretion, and the more layers it builds, the farther it's understanding is removed from direct experience of the "here and now". There is so much more going on right here, right now, that we miss because it doesn't fit into this monster of a worldview, created by mind over time. Think of a computer that understands 0s and 1s. What would it do if it encountered a 3? Maybe crash. Maybe mistake it for a 0 or 1. Maybe it would ignore it. In any case, it isn't programmed to understand 3s, and so it can't use it.




posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Equinox99
I want to know who Professor Lynn surveyed, and how many people he surveyed.


I still haven't got around to read it myself yet (doh!), but from what I gather he took data for national IQ scores and related it to national polls of belief (i.e., percentages of atheists).


How is that even correct? There are more Catholics then there are Atheists. This was a survey done by Minnesota Daily’s Survey Research Department.


It's true. There are more atheists in academia than in the general population. Thus as noted earlier, if we just take the national academy of science data 7% of the sample had a belief in god. The rest were atheist and agnostic. In other general polls in the USA belief in god is around 70-80%.

So a reasonable question is why?


Generalizing a whole group of individuals because they believe in a God is wrong. They can believe in God and at the same time study the same thing as an Atheist studies. Why would an Atheist automatically increase in IQ because he stopped believing? Psychologically it does not make sense.


What the data in its extreme would suggest is that IQ predicts levels of atheism. Could be numerous explanations for this (education etc).

It doesn't mean that by becoming an atheist you will suddenly gain 5 IQ points. Perhaps that people with higher IQs tend towards atheism. Maybe a rather simplistic view though. If what I gather is true, The data really shows that nations with high IQs have more atheists. I think it's more an educational thing myself.

Perhaps it's mainly theists who bias the IQ data, and they are intelligent enough to not vilify and denigrate the on average less intelligent non-theists. This might only apply in certain places though, as not all lands of 'liberty' are really atheist friendly...

The study is open to numerous interpretations, but other data can help in this regard.


Let us not forget his controversial research which basically labeled most of the blacks dumb.


Again, that would be an extreme view. If the race data is reliable, it might be due to poor education, poor health, poor nutrition, cultural....

*puts on hard-hat*

...it might even be genetic.

Who knows? But there could still be considerable overlap between the groups.


I can't really believe people actually think that because they are Atheist they are the smartest beings. Why do you think that? Is it because you seem to think you see this world with logic, while we are dumb and don't know anything? Far from it.


You're taking the data wrong. Again, if we accept the data as reliable in one interpretation, it would suggest that if I grabbed two random populations of atheists and theists (say a 1000 of each), IQ would be higher in the atheist group. However, the chances are there would be considerable overlap - thus, there would be stupid atheists and highly intelligent theists. Just a difference on average.

Doesn't mean all atheists are geniuses and all theists dopes. Hope that helps.

[edit on 14-6-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by applebiter
"Subjective", in my opinion, is just another label. I coined my moniker several years ago, on other boards, because I thought of myself as a dedicated follower of the truth, no matter where it led me. I still do.


Heh, but 'labels' do help us know what we are talking about.


I'm going to throw an idea at you, and you don't have to respond. Just put it away if you like, and take it out later if it seems like a good idea:


Okie dokie


You are not your mind. Your mind is a tool, and that's all it is. It's very good at perceiving patterns and creating order. In fact, it's so good at it that it is very, very difficult to recognize it for what it is. It builds upon itself, layer upon layer, by way of metaphor. It's a process of accretion, and the more layers it builds, the farther it's understanding is removed from direct experience of the "here and now". There is so much more going on right here, right now, that we miss because it doesn't fit into this monster of a worldview, created by mind over time. Think of a computer that understands 0s and 1s. What would it do if it encountered a 3? Maybe crash. Maybe mistake it for a 0 or 1. Maybe it would ignore it. In any case, it isn't programmed to understand 3s, and so it can't use it.


OK. So you are basically saying there is stuff the mind is not able to process. Fair enough. For example, I can't perceive X-rays, but we can observe its real-world effects indirectly and empirically.

Stuff we don't process = god? Appears rather wooish. Maybe my brain just can't process it. Oh well, no-one's perfect. Maybe it will hit the spot later.

Actually nice to discuss with you. I mussssst sleep, however. But I do hope to foxtrot with you again



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Heh, but 'labels' do help us know what we are talking about.


Not quite, it helps others to know what we are talking about.

What would you do if i told you i was aware of a nameless entity which existed in a multi-dimensional capacity?

How would you 'label' something as grandoise and theoretically impossible as that?



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anti-Tyrant
Not quite, it helps others to know what we are talking about.


I think it really helps if all those involved understand the concepts we are talking about. That is, the 'we' was plural. Myself and the other. We.

So for example if I coin some neologism, no point me just knowing what it means. I need to express it to the other. If I'm not even clear myself, we are fragged.

So we both need to understand.


What would you do if i told you i was aware of a nameless entity which existed in a multi-dimensional capacity?

How would you 'label' something as grandoise and theoretically impossible as that?


Call it George?

[edit on 14-6-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 10:14 PM
link   
I will try to state this in the most matter of fact way I know how without all the bells and whistles, as there seems to be a huge disconnect with reality about this thread.

Lets look at physics and astronomy, gravity the laws of motion and thermodynamic and yes even evolution.

Lets us see if these name ring a bell for you people in this discussion.

Copernicus (heliocentic theory) Believer in God

Kepler (Came up with knowldege of eliptical orbit in our galaxy) believer in God

Galileo (Gravity and laws of motion) believer in God

Darwin (Evolution) Believer in God, and in fact buried in a catholic church

When europe was in the dark ages and their was enlightenment and renaissance in the middle east all believers in God

You could go on and on about the basis which science today sets its foundations on and although weve advanced some if it were not for the scientist believers in God who is to day where we would be

I actually think the smartest people are like galileo when he expressed to the church "The Bible tells us how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go."

This is the way I see it, the Church was closed minded in its beliefs, when they finally opened up, the scientists took there place, people in the Church today explore science way beyond the realm of Evolution vs Creationism and try to mesh scientific ideas with their religion, I would say that many people that believe in God like myself, know that they could never understand the mind of God and so that anything is possible, but scientist on the other hand (unlike the founders of their art) often use science and statistics to downgrade people who do believe by attempting to prove that there is no God. It is hard to believe that that is actually a platform of science.

That is what this article all comes down to, it is not about being intelligent that this article is talking about, it is the acceptance or denial of science. It is about downgrading those you see as competitive to your cause. I really feel there is no truth to this study and as anyone who has taken a statistics class can tell you, you can make a study to show anything you believe.

If this same study had been done in the Bible belt of the midwest it would read "Athiests found to be less intelligent than believers" and everyone would be in a rampage to have anyone that believed in God banned from this sight. In my very unintelligent narrow sighted opinion anyone who actually would agree with this is exactly the opposite of intelligent by trying to narrow a single group of people into a sterotype. If you fall for this, I do believe you would fall for anything.



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by DaleGribble
 


i agree with you. science is extremely close minded. i've seen ghosts/spirits, science says there's no such thing. science says energy healing is bull*Snip*, i've had first hand experience that it works.

looking at religions which combine religion with science, e.g. yoga, taoism, hebrew etc. you can see that the worldview becomes better balanced.

science these days has no moral responsibility because there is no aspect of religion. look at genetic engineering as a good example. no religious person would be stupid enough to *Snip* with the building blocks of life!!!

Mod Edit: Please Adhere to ATS Standards on Vulgarity

[edit on 14-6-2008 by MemoryShock]



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALightinDarkness
reply to post by Quazga
 


We live in a world where people are strongly influenced by the media's agenda, which creates a never ending string of intellectual trends and fads. Anti-religion is just the newest one, although others are emerging such as Anti-USA and Anti-Democracy/Republic.

I do not believe you can be a genuine atheist and have a hatred religion without having a hatred for every other institution - in which case, you would be a very bitter person. People who are atheists because they have examined the evidence, again, do not couch their dogma in terms of bashing religion. They realize religion in and of itself is nothing but one of many societal institutions. Those who concentrate on bashing religion usually do so out of the trendiness of it and the fact that its much easier to bash something than explain yourself. As you can see on ATS, all you have to do is rant about how religion sucks and it results in 30 stars and countless pages of back slapping and everyone talking about how enlightened they are for being against religion.

Being "anti-religion" is pretty ignorant, you might as well be "anti-human condition," but those who are, are of course, free to buy into the media propaganda that has shaped the trend.

I think what it comes down to is that people are just so used to being hip by bashing religion it has never occurred to them that you could be an actual atheist with logic on your side by not bashing it.



What *is* your issue with "Trendy" and "Fads". You continue to mention this as a reason for things. I think that is a over simplistic view of looking at things.

Can't you understand someone who isn't anti-religion, but just doesn't believe in God? I know for a fact, that anything someone claims to "know" is simply a belief. And I too cringe at "arrogance" because it comes from all people, atheists and believers.

What I think you are blind to, due to your own experiences, is the fact that someone can simply not believe in God.

Let me give you an example. I will go to Church when things are rough in life because when I sing the songs in a joyous way along with other people, I feel a lot better. Now, this isn't any different than when I go to a concert and sing songs with others who like the same band. I can get the same thing from a Hootie and the Blowfish concert as I can from the local mega church. But, the mega church is closer.

The truth is, when used right, the religious experience is a great "mood enhancer". But just because the pill works, doesn't mean that I have to think it's magic.



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Quazga
 


You do realize by copying and pasting the same thing over and over, your pretty much showing you've got nothing? Come on, don't make atheists look bad...I was hoping you were a genuine atheist and not one of the "Im so hip and cool, RELIGION SUCKS! CHRISTIANITY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL THE WORLDS EVILS! YEAH!" kind. Guess I was wrong?

If you've got nothing, just stop replying. Its OK.


[edit on 14-6-2008 by ALightinDarkness]



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by birchtree
I will try to state this in the most matter of fact way I know how without all the bells and whistles, as there seems to be a huge disconnect with reality about this thread.

Lets look at physics and astronomy, gravity the laws of motion and thermodynamic and yes even evolution.

Lets us see if these name ring a bell for you people in this discussion.

Copernicus (heliocentic theory) Believer in God

Kepler (Came up with knowldege of eliptical orbit in our galaxy) believer in God

Galileo (Gravity and laws of motion) believer in God

Darwin (Evolution) Believer in God, and in fact buried in a catholic church

When europe was in the dark ages and their was enlightenment and renaissance in the middle east all believers in God

You could go on and on about the basis which science today sets its foundations on and although weve advanced some if it were not for the scientist believers in God who is to day where we would be



According to ALightInTheDark, the reason these folks believed in God, was because it was trendy to do so.

You have to understand however, a huge difference between Catholicism and Protestantism. In the former, science does indeed play a part. However, in the latter, it is almost heresy.


But even besides the differences in versions of Christianity, being a scientist does not make one intelligent. The two are not the same.

As most people have said, belief in God, or the disbelief in God, doesn't have much to do with one's apparent level of intellect. Much like one's academic achievement also doesn't really speak to the level of one's intelligence.

People will state a belief in God for many reasons, fear, curiosity, no other better explanation, etc. But at the same time, I would posit that *the* single biggest influence is situation.

The meta narrative of the culture is what guides everyone's beliefs, including those of atheists. In a previous time, it was more popular to adopt a completely different God, as opposed to deny the existence of them.

More deeper questions which were attempted to be solved by philosophers, such as the existence of the soul.

Yet even then, there were skeptics, who would prefer to worry about the here and now, than some lofty thoughts that others might revere.


Eventually science left these pursuits behind, as it moved from alchemy to chemistry, from phrenology to psychology, while at the same time societies moved from theocracies to democracies.

This has all been an eventual process, and today we find that science is somehow at odds with a belief system it chose to replace with the scientific method. Descartes exhorted us to focus on the objective world.

All along the way, science has had to battle superstition and let the light of the experiment show the path.

It is partly because of this history that more intelligent people of *today* do not entertain a belief in God. As well, there are the political failures of religiously motivated government actions. This also has to do with *todays* situation of a tendency not to believe in a God, or at least not to allow a belief in God to be imposed on our legal system.

There really are two types of people, and they are found throughout the religious and the scientific community, and across history.

There are those who believe the illusion of their subjective minds, and then there are those who are always doubtful and suspicious of their mental impressions.



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALightinDarkness
reply to post by Quazga
 


You do realize by copying and pasting the same thing over and over, your pretty much showing you've got nothing? Come on, don't make atheists look bad...I was hoping you were a genuine atheist and not one of the "Im so hip and cool, RELIGION SUCKS! CHRISTIANITY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL THE WORLDS EVILS! YEAH!" kind. Guess I was wrong?

If you've got nothing, just stop replying. Its OK.


[edit on 14-6-2008 by ALightinDarkness]



I'm just waiting on you to acknowledge it. Because I never said relgion sucks, nor did I say I was an atheist. Read the following, and you will understand.



So, once again I ask you...




Can't you understand someone who isn't anti-religion, but just doesn't believe in God? I know for a fact, that anything someone claims to "know" is simply a belief. And I too cringe at "arrogance" because it comes from all people, atheists and believers.

What I think you are blind to, due to your own experiences, is the fact that someone can simply not believe in God.

Let me give you an example. I will go to Church when things are rough in life because when I sing the songs in a joyous way along with other people, I feel a lot better. Now, this isn't any different than when I go to a concert and sing songs with others who like the same band. I can get the same thing from a Hootie and the Blowfish concert as I can from the local mega church. But, the mega church is closer.

The truth is, when used right, the religious experience is a great "mood enhancer". But just because the pill works, doesn't mean that I have to think it's magic.


Unless you can concede that a person can appreciate and enjoy the benefits of religious experience, while at the same time convinced of a completely different belief system, then we have no further discussion.



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 11:32 PM
link   
Subjectivism: So I argue that most if not all findings/discovries were/are for the most part subjective and absolutley true....and then when proven mathematically or demonstrated in some other format....is ultimately considered true.

Same as experience. The first guy that ever got drunk (caveman?) subjectively knew that to drink a fermented liquid made him loopy. He then demonstarted this to other cavement to prove that certain fermented drinks contain alcohol and make you loopy.

SO it is with God. I subjectively experience God and know God to me true, real, and existing right here and right know omnipresently amongst and within all things and all space. So, if I had a perspective gun (ala hitchhikers guide to the galaxy) or a "Consciousness recorder and play back device" then those who dount the existence of God can experience this reality for themselves.

The irony is that it is hard to explain usning the extremely confined limits of human language to desribe experiencing God. But to say that subjective direct experience is not truth is to say that nothing is truth and that there are no absolutes....that anything that was first subjectively discovered is worth crap even if proven by others.

Why so??? Because somebody once told me they found God and I saw a complete change in their character and personality and felt this undescribable essence eminating off of this person, whom before I could not stand, now standing before me utterly changed and glowing. So if he was telling me that subjectively he knows for sure 100% experientially that God exists...I tried for myself and the demonstration was made in me that the same subjective truth that he knew...I know now too...as do hundreds of thousands if not in the millions of people today. Is that truth???? Of course it is, how could it not be??? There is no way it cant be true. These are not feelings, or a new part of the brain, or emotions, .....this is God live and direct..something even a Child can discern were they to experience this infinite neverending monstrocity of Love and the source we all came from.

And yet people still doubt the existence of God because their not willing to take a sip of fermented liquor to see if they really will get drunk if they try this.

Its you yourselves being stuck in ego's, and in the mind, in the intellect and in limited consciousness that wont allow you to see this for yourselves and your arguing from these "stuck" places. Its like you're all computers seeing the one's and zero's even though all the other numbers is what makes up the programming language that allows you to read one's and zero's. These other numbers are all around you and are what make you..but you cant see it.

Oh, and as for me saying that whatever belief system you ascribe to...pointing finger at athiests, agnostics, and those in "comas"...you are still "technically" part of a group of people that represents that belief. Ok so there is no Athiestic Pope or there is no Agostic Organisation with members who meet every sunday (or maybe there is). Still there are your heros as in Dawkins whom many of you look up to as a leader of this belief system...making what you belief in and argue for pretty much no different than religious people. We all belong to certain groups based on our belief systems.

And Im not squeezing athiests into the same group of agnostics. even though I love and respect all of life....I have more respect for the beliefs of an agnostic than an athiest...knowing that the agnostic is closer to the truth than the athiest.



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Quazga
 


Usually when people know there in a corner, they start arguing about labels. Its a easy way to distract. Unfortunately, I don't fall for it. Call yourself an atheist...or not. I don't care. If you don't believe in God, you are an atheist. Hate the label, argue the label, it doesn't really matter to me.

If you believe in god and like to bash religion, that just make you someone who enjoys being part of a trend. Bashing religion isn't anything special - its pretty easy to do when its part of the propaganda pumped into you and everyone encourages it.

You are not "fully enjoying" the benefits of a religious experience by going to a church. That you consider simply going to church the religious experience is actually kind of amusing.

Its not amazing nor does it prove anything that - gasp - people who don't believe in the theology of a church still go to it.

Oh, by the way, I suggest that you not say things like "According to Alightindarkness," like I saw you just did. I didn't say that, so until you can comprehend what I am saying, don't try to pass it on - it doesn't do you any good.

[edit on 15-6-2008 by ALightinDarkness]



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by ALightinDarkness
 


Wow. You really are fixed on "trendy" versus "traditional". More phantoms of language.



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Quazga
 



by Quazga
"According to ALightInTheDark, the reason these folks believed in God, was because it was trendy to do so.
You have to understand however, a huge difference between Catholicism and Protestantism. In the former, science does indeed play a part. However, in the latter, it is almost heresy.
But even besides the differences in versions of Christianity, being a scientist does not make one intelligent. The two are not the same.
As most people have said, belief in God, or the disbelief in God, doesn't have much to do with one's apparent level of intellect."

According to me these people would not have made some of the treatise they did to the church about their beliefs, if they did not care. They simply would of scribed and published their material under other names. It was done and is still done today, so please dont attempt or blame someone else for attempting to write off the fact that these people were believers in God, this is not math it is a discussion so canceling out factors does not work, it is a part of the facts in this story, trying to banish an important point to accept your or someone elses hypothesis about an issue is just lying; to yourself and others

Another thing I despise is someone telling me what it is that I need to understand, the thought police hard at work..."what we all need to understand is my point of view needs to be accepted as the one truth" Bologna

This has nothing to do with which religion is more accepting of science. It has to do with sterotyping a people to bring them beneath you. That is what a lot of these professors that have got their tenure seat do, they pick someone to belittle in advance of their notions and then sit up on their academia positions and make torts about how smart they are. People talk about how military brainwashes youth, but I will tell you place of higher learning do the same for the liberal crowd and that is all this is.

I have met people who are some of the most intelligent people I know on both sides of the belief coin. Anyone buying into this article needs to work on their intelligence, I will even go so far to say that Hitler made these same types of refs about the jewish people. That they were not as intelligent, that they could not see the truth because of their blinded beliefs. that is all this is. It is a self serving agenda to the individual that wrote it, and I bet if you looked hard enough on his back ground you would clearly see why this was a focus of his study.

But then again I am not intelligent as the rest of you because I beleive in God and I always will Amen!!!



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by ALightinDarkness
reply to post by Quazga
 



You are not "fully enjoying" the benefits of a religious experience by going to a church. That you consider simply going to church the religious experience is actually kind of amusing.
[edit on 15-6-2008 by ALightinDarkness]


Once again, you show your inability to comprehend.

I didn't say simply going to church was a religious experience, I said the experience of singing songs of praise with others, I find myself in an ecstatic experience during those times, where I feel as one with the Universe. Like I said, I don't mistake the experience for the reality, although I enjoy the experience.




[edit on 15-6-2008 by Quazga]



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by birchtree




But then again I am not intelligent as the rest of you because I beleive in God and I always will Amen!!!


Your true platform comes out. You couldn't possibly fathom someone who enjoys ecstatic religious experiences, but doesn't allow his subjective mind to cloud his rational thought about what is actually happening. To you , someone either believes or they don't, and if they don't they are somehow arrogant and in denial.

I'm glad to live in a much more colorful world. I wish you had the ability to do so as well brother.

[edit on 15-6-2008 by Quazga]



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 01:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Quazga
 


Nice pointless red herring. Goody for you, you get something out of going to church. Am I supposed to be surprised or astounded? What exactly does this have to do with anything?

Your setting up a straw man - did anyone argue anywhere that you couldn't both join the fad of bashing religion and go to church?



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 01:35 AM
link   
reply to post by applebiter
 


Truth hurts. People forget pseudo-intellectuals have their fads. First new age thought, then communism and socialism, now religion bashing.



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 01:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by ALightinDarkness
reply to post by Quazga
 


Nice pointless red herring. Goody for you, you get something out of going to church. Am I supposed to be surprised or astounded? What exactly does this have to do with anything?

Your setting up a straw man - did anyone argue anywhere that you couldn't both join the fad of bashing religion and go to church?




Man, all you know how to do is throw out witticisms like "Straw man" and talk about fads.

Do you even *have* an education? I'm done with this one.



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join