Are atheists more intelligent than religious believers? Study suggests such a correlation

Originally posted by jd140
Its exactly what you are saying.

No it's not lol..

Originally posted by jd140
I don't believe there is or isn't a God. I do not accept either side. Neither side has a viable arguement. Neither side can put forth proof they are right.

Yep I understand.
What you don't seem to understand, with all due respect, is what the word "atheist" means. Your main gripe with atheists seems to be that we believe a deities existence to be impossible, or that we hold the non-existence of all deities as an absolute.
On this very thread you can see that many atheists simply don't feel this way. It's not a belief, it's a lack of belief. You also have a lack of belief in God until proven otherwise, as you've just said.
This very fact alone puts you under the category of atheist... I'm not the one that wrote the definition lol...
I don't see how you can argue against something as simple as:
"In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities."

Seem pretty simple and straight forward to me...
If you don't believe in a specific god or gods, you are an atheist (what is sometimes called "weak atheism").

Originally posted by jd140
If neither side can show me they are right then why would I choose between the two? Its like saying that 2+2= 6 or 8 and those are my only two choices and I have to pick one.

You don't have to choose. The only requirement of being an atheist is not being a theist...

Originally posted by badmedia
False. Atheist always base their non belief in god based on what the religions say. Even if you disagree with them, you are still accepting them.

I'd say many atheists base their non belief in god on a lack of evidence more than anything else. We're realists. We don't need a reason not to believe in god anymore than you need a reason not to believe in fairies - other than a lack of evidence.

Originally posted by badmedia
If I say the sky is green, and someone accepts that and repeats it then they lack understanding. Atheism is like saying - I don't see anything that is green, the sky obviously doesn't exist. In both cases they have accepted me as being the authority over the sky.

No, atheism is more like - I don't see a green sky, our sky obviously isn't green, that guy must have been on something.

Originally posted by badmedia
Atheism is in itself an ignorant religion. It postulates that anything which has not crossed our tiny perspectives is by default false.

This just simply isn't true... I wonder if anyone is reading what I've said about atheism. How can you argue against something if you don't know what it means?
atheism.about.com...

It postulates (more accurately) that anything which has not crossed our perspective is not necessarily false, but rather lacking in a substantial bases for belief.

Just as you would postulate the same given any other god or fictional creature. It seems some people are biased when it comes to god though..
Think of it this way, an atheist is simply equally unbiased given any fictional (or perhaps non fictional (?) ) entity whereas theists are biased (by their own admission, faith) towards one or more entity.

Originally posted by badmedia
Now, many people are simply agnostic and not atheist. And that is fine and dandy, because it's an honest position. Rather than saying anything that doesn't come across your perception is false, it's just a simple - I do not know. It's honest and I can respect that.

That's the exact view many atheists hold. Atheism doesn't mean you claim to know, it just means you're not a theist.

Originally posted by badmedia
IQ is not a measure of intelligence, but a measure of potential if anything.

I agree with you there.
People have different ways of thinking. That's more than likely all it comes down to.
A slow refined thinker may score less (and probably will) on an IQ test than a fast thinker, yet the first may be far more intelligent, just not in a 30 minute time slot .
Besides that, 3-4 points isn't a huge deal on an IQ test.

reply to post by TruthParadox


Um, theism and atheism are absolute statements of belief. Atheism is not just simply a lack of belief as the definition it's self points out.

reply to post by TruthParadox



You want to put me in your group then have at it. I think both sides are idiots.

reply to post by jd140


*strong applause for a comment straight from my own heart*
*would give more stars if I could*
*yay this post says absolutely nothing constructive to this conversation

*

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Um, theism and atheism are absolute statements of belief. Atheism is not just simply a lack of belief as the definition it's self points out.

Wrong. Atheism is an absolute statement of disbelief.
And this is what so many people don't understand...
No claims are required to be an atheist.


en.wikipedia.org...

Atheism can be either the rejection of theism,[1] or the position that deities do not exist.[2] In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.

www.merriam-webster.com...

1archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity

atheism.about.com...

There is, unfortunately, some disagreement about the definition of atheism. It is interesting to note that most of that disagreement comes from theists — atheists themselves tend to agree on what atheism means. Christians in particular dispute the definition used by atheists and insist that atheism means something very different.

The broader, and more common, understanding of atheism among atheists is quite simply "not believing in any gods." No claims or denials are made — an atheist is just a person who does not happen to be a theist. Sometimes this broader understanding is called "weak" or "implicit" atheism. Most good, complete dictionaries readily support this.

freethoughtpedia.com...

Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity.

Theists often assume atheism to be a "belief". And therefore they claim that atheism is a belief system that also requires "faith" (to believe there is no god). This is an erroneous characterization. A "lack of belief" is not a "world view"; it presupposes no rules, doctrine or dogma. It's merely a lack of belief in a god. Do you believe in the non-existence of Santa Claus? Would you call yourself an anti-tooth-fairyian? Is ones' identity or world-view tied to what they don't believe in?

www.thefreedictionary.com...

1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

dictionary.babylon.com...

n. lack of belief that God or gods exist, disbelief in the existence of God or gods; godlessness

Will someone please inform me the magical number of sources needed to convince a person that their understanding the word 'atheism' is limited?

I tried 6 this time... If 10 is the magic number, I'll gladly do more research for you...

reply to post by TruthParadox


Must be great to cherry pick for complimentary parts while leaving the rest....... Incidently you repeat what I said at that first part as if I did not. You are making a claim when you state that there is no possibility of the existance of "god/higher power/prime mover/etc" regardless how you go about it *would like to add that is your right of course and it is within the realm of possibility you are right but that doesn't mean it's so*. Atheism is the mirror image of theism and while you state that theism makes a claim you wish to pretend that atheism does not? I imagine why that is. I would say the answer is simple, the politics of seeming.

Originally posted by Welfhard
Well it's not so much what I'm saying as what science is saying.

It's sciences best guess and it's hardly proven at all. In fact, you can find many who don't believe that at all.

How does a field which bases it's entire method on things being repeatable in a lab over and over even begin to include choice? That is the point I have been trying to make, science breaks down fundamentally once free will and choice enters into the picture, so is it really any wonder why science can't find a way to allow for it?

No it isn't. Take a .45 and shoot someone in the head. If it doesn't kill them, it will give them very very specific deficiencies. Damage to certain areas will impair a persons ability to speak or understand speech. Damage to another area will take away function of sight that is done unconsciously. Countless amounts of very very specific functions are located in different places in the brain. Emotions is another. Situational awareness. Motor skills. subtle brain damage can easily cause personality changes or new disposition. Basically if you change something in the brain, you change the persons mind in a related way.

The brain is a computer, a tool. I have mapped out many functions of the brain and why they are needed while working on AI. Yes, you need those things to function as you do in this world, but I'm talking about that which uses the brain and so forth. What you are doing when you change those things are you are changing the experience itself. If I take away half your hard drive on your PC, I am going to limit what you are capable of doing on your PC, but it's not limiting what you actually are?

These things define your experience, not that which actually experiences it.

Consciousness suddenly appears not as one thing but a collective of countless brain functions. In out past evolved forms, we were not as conscious as we are now, consciousness is something that developed over time in us - it's not something separate from us, it is part of what we are - a materialistic being. The mind is the brain.

You have no idea if they were conscious or not. None. Just as I can not literally know that you are conscious. What you are talking about is the ability to express things. Again, these things define your experience, not that which is experience them.

You disagree. You believe in freewill. I don't because I can't comprehend how a brain could have this ability, and if not the brain, then what? A spirit? God? The conscious universe. These are supernatural beliefs that cannot be proven. I have no more reason to believe that than I do Hercules or Ra.

The brain doesn't have the ability. Just as AI doesn't have the ability. That is the reason what is spirit is spirit and what is flesh is flesh. Because in the end I came to realize without consciousness those things do not exist, and consciousness is that which creates logic, there is no logic that can create consciousness.

Give me a reason to believe!!!

Never, belief is dumb.

You'll also have to explain how Quantum Physics means consciousness when all it really is is sub atomic particles that exist twice as negative forms of one another and can appear and disappear as the waveform collapses - good ol' string theory.

What do you think the observer is?

Why do you keep implying I said that we can't make choices? I never said that! Again, I just said that choices arenot made by a freewill.

Because without free will there is no choice.

I use to believe as you do. I went into trying to create AI with the same beliefs you have. I thought logic could explain it all and so forth. But it can't. People who work on AI all over the world will tell you the same things I am telling you. There are things beyond logic/science.

Just like 3 weeks ago there was a show on the science channel called "Brink". The subject was robots and AI. They had a futurist on the show and this exact question came up. He talked about what AI would be like in the future and so forth. When asked if someone was just their brain and so forth, the guy said specifically - there are things beyond science.

It was this episode if you have some way of watching it.

science.discovery.com...

Artificial Intelligence
Josh Zepps looks into robots that can learn. Meet your future digital assistant, "Laura." She has “intelligent” sensing components, including facial recognition and speech recognition. Futurist and inventor Ray Kurzweil talks about advances in Artificial Intelligence and the challenges and dangers of robot intelligence. Rhett & Link fall in love with a robot.

Honestly, unless you really try to tackle these things head on, I'm not sure what to say. I have tried to take these things on, and it showed me the limits and that there are things truly beyond science.

Originally posted by jd140
You want to put me in your group then have at it.

Have at it? I'm not sure what you think I'm trying to do... I hoped it would be obvious that I'm merely corrected your misunderstanding of a word. How many people have misunderstood the word in this thread alone? 4 people?
And how can you even hope to argue against something when you don't know the correct definition of that something...
If the friggin' definition of the word is right there (I've posted it how many times?), how can you possibly deny it?
It is what it is - pure and simple...

Originally posted by jd140
I think both sides are idiots.

You just called yourself an idiot again...
Sorry.. it's just a bit funny when you actually DO know the correct definition lol...

reply to post by makinho21



Atheists are more intelligent that religious persons, and that is not necessairly beneficial.

Atheists because they have a high IQ are somewhat ostracized from the standard deviation pattern of the normal bell curve. They can be as disenfranchised as someone with borderline IQ. This creates a dilema in the intelligence, as such, how can lower intelligent hypocrites believe this religious dribble. the roots are in superstition. I will worship my own intelligence instead of the Creator God.

So their basic problem is that they refuse to acknowlegde an intelligence greater than themselves.

my two cents

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Must be great to cherry pick for complimentary parts while leaving the rest.......

Huh?
Would you please let me know the magic number of sources that will take your bloated ego down a notch and let you see what's right in front of your face?

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Incidently you repeat what I said at that first part as if I did not. You are making a claim when you state that there is no possibility of the existance of "god/higher power/prime mover/etc" regardless how you go about it

When have I ever made that claim? Answer: never.
Making a claim is not a requirement of atheism... Please actually read the quotes in my other post.

No seriously... PLEASE. I'm getting tired of writing the same thing over and over again.
To not know the exact definition of a word is fine.. But to deny something that's right in front of your face is ignorant.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
*would like to add that is your right of course and it is within the realm of possibility you are right but that doesn't mean it's so*. Atheism is the mirror image of theism and while you state that theism makes a claim you wish to pretend that atheism does not?

A mirror image is a good way of looking at it.. But isn't the picture completely reversed and not just part of it?

So while theism is a belief, what would that make atheism?
Lack of belief.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
I imagine why that is. I would say the answer is simple, the politics of seeming.

Actually the answer is even simpler than that..
I just want people to know the damn definition of what I am.
I'm tired of people thinking I'm something I'm not.

reply to post by badmedia

How does a field which bases it's entire method on things being repeatable in a lab over and over even begin to include choice?

Human behaviour is studied in large sample sizes to find the underlying trends. On large enough scale human traffic looks very similar to a swarm of insects. How conscious do you think they are? It hardly matters.

These things define your experience, not that which actually experiences it.

You are using language very ambiguously. What is an experience but information that has been processed by the brain?

You have no idea if they were conscious or not. None.

Conscious or not? That is a fairly stark false dichotomy you have there. There are other animals around us, animals that we share a common ancestor with somewhere back in time, yet none that we know of are as conscious and self aware as we are. Some are devoid of brains altogether.

The brain doesn't have the ability.

Nor does anything else.

That is the reason what is spirit is spirit and what is flesh is flesh.

One is materialist and one is faith based and untestable.

Your whole hypothesis hinges on the existence of the spirit. Good luck proving that.

Never, belief is dumb.

Reasonable belief isn't.

Because without free will there is no choice.

Wrong! Choice is deterministic, I've demonstrated that already. And you used a bogus poker analogy which was still entirely deterministic.


Sub par argument. E-
See me after class!

reply to post by TruthParadox


If you believe my not agreeing with athiesm or thiesm makes me an athiests then I'm not going to try and convince you other wise.

I really don't know why you keep arguing with me. Actually I do, you are an athiest and you just want to be right, like most athiests who have an ego the size of the moon.

You just have to be right, there isn't any room for another opinion or correct way to think.

Screw it, think what you want.

Originally posted by Welfhard
Human behaviour is studied in large sample sizes to find the underlying trends. On large enough scale human traffic looks very similar to a swarm of insects. How conscious do you think they are? It hardly matters.

No, the closest thing that is studied are behavior patterns. Even psychology doesn't tackle these problems. So the best they can do is study behavior patterns and match up people into those categories.

Again, I have no idea if they are conscious or not. It is possible that you are not actually conscious. I only know for sure that I am. But I think it is a safe bet that you are conscious. Are you simply using the size of their brain and so forth as being a sign of consciousness?

You are using language very ambiguously. What is an experience but information that has been processed by the brain?

All of reality is nothing more than information. The brain determines who you process the information that brings about this reality. But to what is that processed information presented too?

Conscious or not? That is a fairly stark false dichotomy you have there. There are other animals around us, animals that we share a common ancestor with somewhere back in time, yet none that we know of are as conscious and self aware as we are. Some are devoid of brains altogether.

Consciousness and being aware of the consciousness are 2 different things.

Nor does anything else.

True of creation.

One is materialist and one is faith based and untestable.

Your whole hypothesis hinges on the existence of the spirit. Good luck proving that.

I don't need to prove it. Do you think what you believe matters or has merit on the truth of it? I found out a long time ago that knowing the truth is one thing, expecting others to accept it or understand it is completely different.

Never, belief is dumb.

Reasonable belief isn't.

Reasonable is an opinion.

Wrong! Choice is deterministic, I've demonstrated that already. And you used a bogus poker analogy which was still entirely deterministic.

Sub par argument. E-
See me after class!

No, you demonstrated what wisdom is. Since you want to think of it as class, go work on AI a bit. No programming experience required. All you need to do is give me the logic which creates consciousness. If you can do it, I will make you the richest man on earth.

[edit on 7/28/2009 by badmedia]

What I think helps to define a persons beliefs even more is the sub class. We can go even further from Atheist to

-An Atheist who has Faith that there is absolutely no God to

-An Atheist who relies on Empirical Evidence to Determine that there is no God to

-An Atheist who Does not consider there enough Evidence to confirm the existence of a God but they would be open to examine any evidence provided that shows proof of a God to

-An Atheist who does not believe that religion even exists. Heck there could be an Atheist who believes that Christians do not exist. No matter how much proof you could provide to say "look here are the Christians and here is what they believe" they could still say "That is not good enough evidence to prove to me that Christians exist".

I guess the bottom line should be a table that shows and categorizes what types of Evidence are considered proof to you.

One Atheist may consider something to be Irrefutable Evidence or Proof while another Atheist might say that the same thing does not provide Evidence or Proof to them.

Originally posted by jd140
If you believe my not agreeing with athiesm or thiesm makes me an athiests then I'm not going to try and convince you other wise.

I really don't know why you keep arguing with me. Actually I do, you are an athiest and you just want to be right, like most athiests who have an ego the size of the moon.

Ego makes it easy to deny information, not confirm it (with multiple sources, I might add).
Which one have I done? How many sources have I provided?
Which one have you done? How many sources have you provided?
The truth is in the reality, which anyone can see if they choose to.

Originally posted by jd140
You just have to be right, there isn't any room for another opinion or correct way to think.

But there IS room for another opinion!
An opinion with evidence is even better!
Please, if you have issue with the links I've provided, explain how their view of the word "atheism" is incorrect.
Please contact Webster while you're at it and tell them they got the definition wrong. They don't know jack, right? Because you know better...
Sounds a bit like ego to me...

Originally posted by jd140
Screw it, think what you want.

I'd prefer to think what's accurate rather than what I want...
Perhaps that's the difference between us?

reply to post by badmedia

All of reality is nothing more than information. The brain determines who you process the information that brings about this reality. But to what is that processed information presented too?

...

[facepalm.jpg]

the processor is the entity that the information is presented to, the act of processing is the presentation. Although it won't be so simplistic. I know that visual information is processed again and again and again and as a result our visual awareness is astounding.

Consciousness and being aware of the consciousness are 2 different things.

Fine, ignore that. I'll say it again.

Conscious or not? That is a fairly stark false dichotomy you have there. There are other animals around us, animals that we share a common ancestor with somewhere back in time, yet none that we know of are as conscious as we are. Some are devoid of brains outright.

I don't need to prove it. Do you think what you believe matters or has merit on the truth of it? I found out a long time ago that knowing the truth is one thing, expecting others to accept it or understand it is completely different.

Weak dude. Weak. Spectacular cop-out. There is no such thing as truth, because absolute truth is unknowable and subjective truth is oxymoronic. Hence the signature.

Reasonable is an opinion.

An opinion justified.

No, you demonstrated what wisdom is.

The outcome of a decision (aka "choice") is determined by the input. That is a paraphrasing of what I said. That is not wisdom, that is the deterministic-choice.

Since you want to think of it as class, go work on AI a bit. No programming experience required. All you need to do is give me the logic which creates consciousness. If you can do it, I will make you the richest man on earth.

Consciousness has had billions of years to evolve. Give it time.

[edit on 28-7-2009 by Welfhard]

I'm going to add my 2 pennies...yea worthless, but oh well.

I believe in Jesus as the son of god and my Lord.

I won't claim title as christian since it is and has been for centuries a status symbol. The title is worn by men who aided Hitler and the Crusades.

Jesus would approve of neither!

What am I? Mensa rated at IQ 138. A beiever in "God" yes. A fool ...at times. Womanizer , drunk, toker, fighter...guilty, But I am trying to improve my dedication to the path of Jesus.

It doesn't matter to anyone what YOU believe or I believe until WE die.
You athiest get what you believe...oblivion. No harm no foul. I hope...in /upon my faith in Jesus to keep this energy that encompasses my body to simply change patterns and align with the creator of all.

I will admit that my faith is boulstered by rl experiences over the past 30 years. Those are mine... for me. IMHO.
I won't state them to try to convince somebody that there is something else or another way to live life. If you can live in the moment for longer that a day without distraction of past / future concerns then I think you would believe as well.

obtw by living in the moment I don't mean playing everquest for 24 hours straight.

reply to post by TruthParadox


There you go, arguing with me again.

I tried to meet you in the middle and let you believe what you wanted, but I guess that wasn't good enough for you. You just have to keep trying to drive in your point that you have to be right.

Instead, all you did was show that you are as insufferable as alot of athiests when it comes to the subject of religion. I enjoy and agree with most of your posts on other subjects, that is why it is a shame that you have been put on the ignore list.

Hopefully you will grow out of your know it all stage.

reply to post by jd140


I take it, then, that you read none of my last post..
Ok then.

Just know that Google is your friend. If someday you want to know the definition of the word, just do a search. No BS involved... Just a good honest search for the truth. That's all I ask...