Intelligent people less likely to believe in God

page: 3
26
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Rren
 




Ever hear the phrase "You're so sharp you'll cut yourself?"

It's kinda "Curiosity kill the cat" but the other way round.



p.s; this isn't directed at you, i'm just making a casual point.




posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 08:42 PM
link   
Wow, did ATS just fall for the oldest academic fallacy in the book:

Correlation does not equal causation.

During the last few hundred years, religious practice has declined while the number of domestic cats have increased. This must mean religious practice declines are due to house cats!

The atheists, who are supposed to be on the side of logic, are going to have a field day with this and some on ATS already have - completely ignoring reality. Its amazing, people will do anything to confirm their world view regardless of whether or not its true.

[edit on 12-6-2008 by ALightinDarkness]



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by DaleGribble
 


So you admit that there are missing links in religion that make it not completly fact. The difference with science and religion are that; something can not be considered science if it is impossible to test the theory to try and disprove it. But it is blasphemy to try and test religion, and so if you are a blind follower you are forbiden from questioning those beliefs. It seems that science has less to hide from its people.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALightinDarkness
Wow, did ATS just fall for the oldest academic fallacy in the book:

Correlation does not equal causation.

During the last few hundred years, religious practice has declined while the number of domestic cats have increased. This must mean religious practice declines are due to house cats!



I don't think you understood the article, it's not declaring causation, simply stating that intelligent people are less likely to believe in God, thats it. Learn to read what's there, not what you *think* is there.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ALightinDarkness
 


I'm sorry, your meaning is hidden from me for some reason.

Are you agreeing with the source?



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Quazga
 


Actually, you should learn to read what IS there, not what verified your narrow world view. The paper attempts to link intelligence with non-belief in God. This is a clear casual inference, because simply stating a correlation between intelligence and religious adherence is pointless. There is also a correlation between the number of bees and the number of birth defects - and yet, that is not a research paper. Correlations aren't published as research unless they claim a casual connection, which if you even read the conclusion the papers opponents note is what its up to.

Anti: I'm disagreeing with it. If the author was interested in proving causality he would have put it in a regression and controlled for numerous factors, he didn't because its been done before and the statistics show there isn't a high enough r squared to make a casual connection and any reasonably high r squares you can get are not statistically significant at a generalizable level (p



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by acewilliams
 


Another possible reason why Einstein had such a hard time of it.

I wonder whether or not those whom openly declare themselves Atheist realise the fact that they are infact doing the (modern) church's work for them by denying the possibility of something that transcends physical laws?

By denying this possibility, they are more or less ensuring that Religious organisations can sit snugly in their beliefs, because anyone who openly questions them based on a theological standpoint (on the internet) will be met with derision and even disrespect.

As i've said before in the past, the implications have gone unnoticed.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420


And there you have it folks, scientific evidence. But then again, science isn't real, gravity is just God holding us down, and Jesus created the world in 6 days.

I love it!!!



So basically what you are saying is that God is "The Man" and we need to stick it to him?




posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 08:54 PM
link   
Blatant self congratulation and little more, IMO. Further proof that science has indeed become a religion for some.

[edit on 12-6-2008 by resistor]



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 08:55 PM
link   
oops


[edit on 12-6-2008 by resistor]



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by C0le
 


Or he could just be admitting that with his very off information of what he thinks of the christian faith, his ignorance is exactly why this post has been created... lack of evidence, lack of research and most of all ignorance.

Dont remember any bible saying Jesus created the world in 6 days. I also dont know where in the bible it specifies that 1 day was 1 human day. Noting that humans supposibly lived 900 years... thats 9 times... meaning the earth was spinning much differently... MEANING a lot has changed from creation to the breath of man. It didn't say where God created man exactly either... That he just breathed on dirt? No its essense was stating that man is made of the same materials as the earth and they sustain each other. Lack of Study. The bible is mostly symbolic... nobody ever said it was literal. Those who do are foolish

[edit on 12-6-2008 by rjmelter]



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by acewilliams
reply to post by DaleGribble
 


So you admit that there are missing links in religion that make it not completly fact. The difference with science and religion are that; something can not be considered science if it is impossible to test the theory to try and disprove it. But it is blasphemy to try and test religion, and so if you are a blind follower you are forbiden from questioning those beliefs. It seems that science has less to hide from its people.


yes i do admit there are holes in religion. i never said it was blasphemy to test religon. i test mine every day. it is my postion that with out further scientific prof on the subject of evolution that i will manitain my religious convictions because it is my personal experince that there is a devin power.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 09:14 PM
link   
Maybe the question to ask is what IS God?

Do you believe God is..

Jesus

Yaweh

Jehovah

Buddha

A higher being

Mother Nature

An alien being

Ourselves (inside us)

Or anything else you decide your "God" to be...

Just because one doesn't believe in "God" as most people see "it" or "him", doesn't mean you don't believe in your own version of what "God" is to you.





[edit on 12-6-2008 by philosopherrose]



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 09:14 PM
link   
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



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by laiguana
 


Even the greatest minds on this earth are still susceptible to defeat, laiguana, you would do well to learn that.

It may well be the case that Einstein withdrew into himself upon discovering that there really is no reasoning with atheism.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Anti-Tyrant
 


It isn't the scientists that deny god for the most part. Over time, religion has denied science and in so have started much controversy. All that scientists have truly done is prove their theories and try to show that which they propose and hope that it is tested by others, and maybe become fact. Galileo was tortured for his thesis that the earth was not the center of the universe. But Galileo was very religous, it was not his fault that his findings upset the beliefs of his religion. "If god gave us the freedom of choice why would we spit in his face by forcing others to relinguish this gift?"



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 09:21 PM
link   
I have no doubt that academics are less religious than the general population and compared to the general population academics would have higher IQs, since most people with low IQs will never matriculate at a university, although some people with lower IQs do well in college and many high IQ people do poorly.

What I'd like to see is a study of high IQ people, not just academics and then generalizing from academics to the population of all high IQ people.

Intelligence is not the same thing as wisdom, either.

There really is nothing of much substance here. The OP after all could only muster a two word analysis of the article and its assertions.

We all know that most academics are liberals, but most liberals are either naive, dumb, isolated from reality or all three.


[edit on 2008/6/12 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 09:21 PM
link   
I see the whole in this being the definition of the word 'Atheist". Something tells me that they have used atheist to mean without religion, and not a renouncing of the existence of God.

BTW, I'm a genius level IQ and have a very profound belief in God. For whatever that's worth.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by acewilliams
 


I didn't say anything about scientists, i said;

"Those who openly declare themselves Atheists".

There is a difference between a scientist and an atheist, for those willing to notice it.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Anti-Tyrant
 


Honestly, I don't care what you believe, you could say the world was still flat for all I care. I find that religious people seem to become quite defensive when someone disagrees or argues the validity of their beliefs...
Having said that, I'll stick to science for my reasoning. So far it has proved to be the best way to understand our universe.





new topics
 
26
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join