Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Intelligent people less likely to believe in God

page: 21
26
<< 18  19  20    22  23 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Black_Fox

But I still find that statement a bit off.
There are plenty of intelligent people who believe in god.



Just because YOU think there are plenty of intelligent people, does not mean the statement is off or the researcher is wrong.

What do you define as 'plenty'? 5, 20, 1000?

If the guy did he research correctly and the statistics are good, then it doesn't matter if you think "a lot", "plenty", "many", "all my friends" etc. believe in god and are intelligent--you can't argue with the numbers.

I think one definition of 'plenty' is: enough or more than enough. If that's the case, then you are probably wrong.. since there are obviously not quite enough intelligent believers to swing the average.




posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by melatonin
 


It's a problem of causality.

It is impossible, though any known method of observation, to determine whether or not our genetics can encode "mental images" that could be later construed by our imaginations to be compiled into a sort of Chimera.


I'm not even speaking about such 'mental images' really. That perhaps suggests a more conscious awareness. I'm talking at the level of instinctual responses, more fixed action patterns than something we might contemplate or have a 'mental image' of (although, as I take brain = mind, then we could in some way agree).

For example, a few studies show that very young babies prefer to look at people viewed as attractive. Why? Why would they prefer an attractive face cf. an unattractive face? Symmetry perhaps? Is this an innate preference? I doubt they learned it. A clear FAP in babies is the grasping response. If I place an bitter/astringent substance in the mouth of a baby, they show a disgust response, is this instinct or pure learning?

An excellent example of an FAP is egg-rolling in the Greylag goose. When seeing a displaced egg it goes and retrieves it, rolling it back with its beak. If you remove the egg after initiation of the behavioural pattern, it follows the behaviour through to completion with some imaginary egg.

This behaviour is initiated on exposure to the stimulus (egg) and the FAP is the response. Many other examples as well: e.g., sticklebacks - here they can change the stimulus to see what base stimulus features trigger the FAP; predator response in naive fowl, species show flocking and mobbing sensitive to different types of bird silhouette stimuli (some for shape, others speed, others direction). In the previous examples, we have stimulus (predator odour) and response (stress and fear response, behavioural withdrawal).

These FAPs are more innate than learned. They are preprogrammed responses to highly salient and specific stimuli of different modes (olfactory, visual, tactile etc). However, some predisposed behaviours do require a degree of fine-tuning and learning, and in many species, behavioural flexibility is important (i.e. modification). Thus, FAPs can often be strengthened or weakened by experience (cf. reflex).

In the wider context of brain chemistry and behaviour. A good example is the lab studies on voles. Predictions can be made about the degree of monogamous behaviour from the density of particular receptors (vasopressin for males; oxytocin in females). So here, the density of neural receptors for certain chemicals determines the individual's promiscuity. By altering the neurochemistry, sexual behaviour can be altered.

The density of such receptors will be genetically determined to a large degree.


It "sounds" scientific, because it includes genetics and chemical reactions. But to use that as an explanation is not scientific. It's a conjecture - and a faith-based conjecture, at that, seeing as there is no real way to verify the conjecture to be true or false.


Really what you are doubting here is the fact the genes can underpin and predispose to behaviour. I think you are very wrong, and the serotonin allele studies in humans suggest this, along with the many other studies showing the relationship between genes and behaviour/psychopathology.

Genes do underpin the biological nature of brain, they predispose to emotional, cognitive, and behavioural drives. Of course, the brain is very plastic, so we would ignore environment and learning at out peril. However, the idea of some Tabula Rasa is well abandoned.

[edit on 8-7-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Rasobasi420
 

no science is the real thing ur fake little god is what isnt real, i feel really sorry for all you stupid religous people that think that when you die god will save you and you wasted your whole life not caring when you die cuz you think you will have another chance, but you wont so just keep thinking what you want maybe go look at some evidence that proves there isnt a being out there that just randomly appeared out of no where and created the universe. BIG BANG FTW I LOVE IT!!!



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 06:29 PM
link   
I'd say less likely to believe in organized religion. Atheism is dogma in a way too, the dogma of believing in nothing.



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mossboss16
reply to post by Rasobasi420
 

no science is the real thing ur fake little god is what isnt real, i feel really sorry for all you stupid religous people that think that when you die god will save you and you wasted your whole life not caring when you die cuz you think you will have another chance, but you wont so just keep thinking what you want maybe go look at some evidence that proves there isnt a being out there that just randomly appeared out of no where and created the universe. BIG BANG FTW I LOVE IT!!!


Wow, you are ignorant! It's people like you who make me so damn angry. I'm not quite sure what makes you believe I have or will have wasted my life, I have learnt to live life to the maximum and help those in need along the journey. I won't get another life on this world but I will in another and if you carry on thinking like that, you won't. I'm not saying I'm perfect, nobody is.

You say, "go look at some evidence that proves there isnt a being out there", how about I have evidence for myself that there is a divine being "out there". I have no need to prove anything to you or anybody else, it was shown to me in order for me to make some serious changes in my life and I couldn't be more grateful for that to have happened to me.

Lastly, "that just randomly appeared out of no where and created the universe. BIG BANG FTW I LOVE IT!!!" is the biggest contradiction I've come across in ages! Where the hell did the Big Bang come from? No where!

Maybe you should open your mind just a little bit more. I really hope one day you do.



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 10:10 PM
link   
I expected more civility joining this forum.



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 01:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Quazga
 


A more honest headline would read: "Lets be intelligent guys... lets believe God does not exist." Its absolutely offensive and rude to people such as myself who believe in thinking for them self. The very concept of "believe this because that is what smart people say" is an absolute outrage, in addition to be an obvious logical fallacy (appealing to authority). The article is absolutely less than worthless, in terms of providing us evidence of any truth. In other words it has a negative value, because it is a promotion of group think. Who needs evidence... lets just look at what people labeled "intelligent" think and believe whatever they say.

The article was not designed to be offensive because it was an honest attempt at appealing people who believe in God to stop believing it. Yet it in the end it was thoughtless and offensive, because it promotes the idea that we should believe things because that is what the smart people are believing.

[edit on 23-7-2008 by truthquest]



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 08:11 PM
link   
I as a Protestant Christian deeply believe that Scientology (being based on quantum physics) is actually a very real concept, most highly intelligent people are, in fact believers in quantum physics. The main idea of quantum physics, about you yourself being able to project your realities, ideas, and knowledge onto what we see as the universe, has been found to be very true, however, the theories are still very shallow and shortsighted, and there are a lot of holes in the explanations. Take a look at what we think is reality. Beyond these explanations are Quantum Theory, and along with it Scientology. However, you go even deeper into the "rabbit hole" and you hit a coulple of brick walls. that is because not even quantum physics is seeing the whole picture and even in the same league as the ultimate explanation. There is a supreme being who has "infected" the entire existence and created the universe and, according to "M" theory all eleven dimensions of reality. Our ability to "infect" our own reality should not, however be solely credited to us, due to the reality that God is the sole reason anything had ever existed. Anywhere you go for a further explanation will only strengthen the idea of this universally-found truth.



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by laiguana
I don't know if this has been mentioned, but I get rather tired of people claiming Einstein was religious. In a recent letter that went for auction Einstein himself wrote that religion was a "childish superstition" and god a "product of human weakness"

check it out: link


thank you, and George W bush=intelligent??? insanity. Political leaders often use their religions as moral fronts to seem wholesome and caring; mere car-salesmanship.

I don't think that religion plays any role in intelligence, but I find it simply fascinating at how naive or childish most religious types are/get when you ask them extremely obvious questions about faith and religion that disprove the existence of god or the tales of religion. They tend to introvert and say 'it's my beliefs' and end the discussion as if they've been personally attacked.

Myself personally, I do not believe in a god or religion because I was turned-off by fear driving they (parents, church etc) were trying to instill in to me. I was afraid of religion as a child (i.e. the religious symbolism, or the old tale of 'be good or go to hell' etc etc), and that's where it all begins. Once you obtain control their fears, then you can control their minds.

If one simply meditated, they could achieve everything that religion has to offer.



posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 06:45 PM
link   
I guess you would have to define intelligent now wouldnt you.

There are highly educated people that if hard pressed could not do simple and mundane tasks that the lesser educated do enmass every day.

There are highly educated people that cannot even hook up their DVD player and VCR much less tell you if their is a God.

Mankinds intelligence is an assembly of trial and error coupled with scientific theory. Should the theory test out, he has merely discovered what already existed.

How does one determine Wisdom? By what is your benchmark? The writings of Proverbs are Wisdom. Is knowledge of Quantum physics wisdom or merely an understanding of what already has already been?

Every man is capable of an understanding, but not every man is wise.

Your knowledge of understanding is awash in a sea of infinity. Today you know, and tomorrow you will be dead. The life that follows, whether you understand it or not is not of your making or your own will.

The laws of that which created the universe and that which is the universe prevail on an eternal scale.

Your intelligence cannot conquer death. Is it intelligence or Wisdom that can right the injustice of the world, and creat peace on earth? Does the pottery tell the potter he does not exist?

Whether you realize that you are wrought from a larger mountain, or fail to understand the power of love and the rights given to every child of the universe, one thing is for sure, death makes us all a believer that we are not in control of our eternal existence.

The intelligence and the technology of Nazi Germany shows us that being intelligent in no way indicates if we are humane. The Nuclear Bomb shows us that intelligence in they ways of nuclear has created fear on the only planet that we have knowledge of existence. It wasnt the poor, or the lesser educated that did this to humanity, it was the wrong application of what is good for less then good, courtesy of science.

If you ask me if there is a God I will tell you this. "I dont think there is a God, I know". I bring witness, whether you believe my pen or not.

Think your intelligent? Design a honey bee of your own creation;from scratch; or perhaps a butterfly. Do not forget, the environment and all that which it may need.

Good luck.

The probability of the impossible is Gods realm.
That which is impossible to man is possible with God.

The posturing and penning of man in time, has given witness to makind the will and the way of what is Good. His pride in his creations are merely an extension of what already is. His arrogance and lack of understanding makes him wise in his own eyes, yet makes him blind to the ways from that which he is wrought.

Its not about religion, its about Love. Love is everything. And when man realizes the futility in the Love of power, and embraces the power of Love; Then, and only then can he achieve peace and unity amongst his brothers and sisters.

Anyone can do nothing. One person can change the world. That change starts in being the change in the world that you want to see. ( Ghandi )

Do selfless Good for your fellow man, and one day you will know God.

Peace


[edit on 29-7-2008 by HIFIGUY]



posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 08:00 AM
link   
reply to post by HIFIGUY
 


I am sure I will be flamed for this, but well said, HIFIGUY, well said. There is a difference between "religiousness" and Spirituality. Religion is corrupted by corrupt men seeking power which in turn gives spiritual people a bad rap. The truly spiritual Man embraces the power of love and overcomes the evils of powerful religion. A star for you, sir.



posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by truthquest
reply to post by Quazga
 


A more honest headline would read: "Lets be intelligent guys... lets believe God does not exist." Its absolutely offensive and rude to people such as myself who believe in thinking for them self. The very concept of "believe this because that is what smart people say" is an absolute outrage, in addition to be an obvious logical fallacy (appealing to authority). The article is absolutely less than worthless, in terms of providing us evidence of any truth. In other words it has a negative value, because it is a promotion of group think. Who needs evidence... lets just look at what people labeled "intelligent" think and believe whatever they say.

The article was not designed to be offensive because it was an honest attempt at appealing people who believe in God to stop believing it. Yet it in the end it was thoughtless and offensive, because it promotes the idea that we should believe things because that is what the smart people are believing.

[edit on 23-7-2008 by truthquest]



You obviously do not know the difference between a study of probabilities and someone saying "what is smart".

This study, regardless of your view on it, is not saying that it is stupid to believe in God. It is saying that right now, at this time in our history, that if you are intelligent, you have a higher tendency NOT to believe in God.

That's it. It's not saying that intelligent people do not believe in God. It's not saying you are stupid if you do. I REALLY wish people would learn to read what is there, and not what they assume it is saying.



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 09:10 AM
link   
I find it a bit wrong that the very University the study was done was founded by people who believed in "God" If you look at the history of the university you'll see what I mean.

I find the more intelligent people become the more chances they have of killing one another. Think of the Atomic Bomb and the killing of thousands during Hiroshima. The advancement of weapons and correlation to the advanced of "Intelligence" is seen here as well.

If being intelligent means not believing in God, and by that measure means believing these "Intellectuals" will create faster, deadlier, and stronger weapons to kill our fellow human beings; then, I say I'd rather believe in a God that can't be proven, then in the cruelty of advancement.



posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by clg79
I find it a bit wrong that the very University the study was done was founded by people who believed in "God" If you look at the history of the university you'll see what I mean.

I find the more intelligent people become the more chances they have of killing one another. Think of the Atomic Bomb and the killing of thousands during Hiroshima. The advancement of weapons and correlation to the advanced of "Intelligence" is seen here as well.

If being intelligent means not believing in God, and by that measure means believing these "Intellectuals" will create faster, deadlier, and stronger weapons to kill our fellow human beings; then, I say I'd rather believe in a God that can't be proven, then in the cruelty of advancement.


While I appreciate your point here, I think it should be pointed out that intelligence, weapon development, and belief in God are separate issues. But if you study the history of warfare all three are closely linked. Intelligent men have started wars in the name of religion and because of the "need" to win or defend, weapon development advanced. Intelligence is nothing more than the ability to solve new problems with available knowledge. Belief in God is nothing more than believing in something better than ourselves. The problem you have pointed out has nothing to do with intelligence, religion or weapon development, but everything to do with MAN's tendency to evil. I think Quazga said it best a few posts up.



posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 09:02 AM
link   
I'm not keen on religious fanatics/nutjobs...................almost as much as I despise people who class themselves as "intellectual elite"



posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 09:37 AM
link   
intelligence as a meaning is but one part of the whole and does not define our rational Being. Understanding ideas is relative to that which is judging the "truth" of that understanding. Truth does not need to be judged. it defines itself and cannot be made untrue. We all see the same truth in the end. There is only one truth and it is accepted by us all no matter what we label it. It is the only thing we share and can share. Then we are all intelligent and the measure of degree is irrelevant.



posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by blueorder
I'm not keen on religious fanatics/nutjobs...................almost as much as I despise people who class themselves as "intellectual elite"




Personally, I wish more people in this country (US) would strive to be intellectually elite. The general trend of American Society is to demonize the smart and uplift the common and stupid.

That is what really bothers me.



posted on Aug, 9 2008 @ 12:34 PM
link   
It's critical to human development that children experience culture growing up. You have to raise them to be part of the society they live in this is important to human development.
Religion doesn't have to be part of that. Any of you that say if we don't put God in our children's lives or they will become led astray are full of it. Religion is not necessary to create good people I don't care what kind of scientist, philosopher or new age nut says so.
If your not rationalizing your fantasizing. Making up reasons to believe what you want is self justification plain and simple and if you don't like it your just living a lie. So go ahead and spread your ignorant religious propaganda it's not much different from the government trying to pull the wool over your eyes in fact it's all part of the same scheme.
People hide behind the veil of God so that they don't have to reveal to others what kind of monsters they are inside. They say things like "God saved me." It's pathetic, save yourselves. Otherwise, try changing your thinking instead of waiting for some religion to point you in the right answer. You know why you keep making the same mistakes? Because your not learning anything. You just keep asking God to provide the answers for you so you can go to heaven like good little boys and girls. Religion makes me sick sometimes (especially Christianity). But it can be fascinating how much of an impact it makes on what I thought would be potentially rational people.

[edit on 9-8-2008 by freakngeckos]



posted on Aug, 9 2008 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Quazga
 


doesn't emeritus imply that she isn't a "real" professor?

What type of intelligence did she measure?

I bet there is a study or two that says "Intelligent people less likely to believe in little green men" how does that sit with most of you?



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Res Ipsa
I bet there is a study or two that says "Intelligent people less likely to believe in little green men" how does that sit with most of you?


Or the alternatively, that Little green men don't believe there are intelligent people.

Peace





new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 18  19  20    22  23 >>

log in

join