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

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
If you want to insist that you are nothing but a program, and a reaction/response machine, no matter how complex, running out a deterministic program based on nothing whatsoever but past conditioning, lacking any freedom to choose. pr co-creative ability to invent a new future, or a new you - you're welcome to that view. It's the cost of being an atheist, that's all. For everything there is a price, a payoff and a cost.

But there's more to it than that.
I'll gladly pay the 'price' for the actual truth, not just something I choose to believe in. Your view may be more comforting, but I'm looking for evidence, otherwise what is the worth of a belief? It's just a belief and nothing more.

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
I say you are cutting yourself off from a new possibility and a new understanding as to your true nature and standing, in a relative framework to the whole of all creation, and to your fellow human beings, all of whom share the same ground of being, the same consciousness generated "God-matrix" if you will.

It has implications, either way..

So just to clarify... No evidence.
You're not likely to convince any atheist of anything because that's all it comes down to.

reply to post by badmedia

So processors are processing presentations and from that consciousness is formed? That isn't very logical.

Well ofcourse it isn't when you over simplify it. To make the analogy more precise one would need say that the sensory processor is distinct from other components of the computer with many and varied functions. The sum of all functions is what we sometimes call consciousness.

Your OS is your culture. And you did not prove it.

Well you ought take that up with current psychology and neuropsychology. Psych 101, first lecture; "It must be stressed that the mind is not distinct from the brain." Which makes sense - we can see the brain thinking and doing chores in an MRI and other scanning methods. When we make choices we can see them in actions. Consciousness is one global product of out neurology.

No, what "you" really are is that spirit. It doesn't do them "for you", it is "you". All that you speak of are attachments/possessions. "Your" brain and so forth. Possessions. That spirit is "you" and what possesses those things.

Ok, that's the statement. Now where is the back up?

I'm not making any assumptions. I understand why you would believe that, but I use to believe like you, until I spent years of my life studying and working on this topic. As I have pointed out multiple times, go study up on AI and you will find person after person who understands these limits. If you could prove otherwise, you would be the richest man on earth, as you would have made the biggest discovery in the history of mankind.

Quite frankly I don't care what you believe nor do I much care how AI is limited, we aren't talking about AI, we are talking about human consciousness.

Again, go work on creating AI and coming up with logical solutions to what you say. You are asking me to put years of my efforts into a simple way you can accept.

Hardly, I'm not asking you to explain to me anything about AI - it's irrelevant. What you need to do is explain how consciousness and freewill is a product of "sprits".

But it is what everyone attempts to do.

Doesn't matter, they are still two different things, both are causal.

Without time, change does not exist.

Without time, the universe would still be the Primordial Atom. I exist, therefore the universe exists and is not still the Primordial Atom, therefore time exists. The 4th dimension.

Your sig talks about how "absolute truth" is false

No it says that proclaimed absolute truth is false. Humans are not privy to such things.

I'm not your daddy, and I'm not going to sit here and hand feed things to you.

Don't need you to hand feed me things, but it is your responsibility to backup what you proclaim to be true which you refuse to do, trying to pawn it off on me as if it were my responsibility.

If you can't, or aren't willing to study into things deeper

How do you think I reached these conclusions?

[edit on 29-7-2009 by Welfhard]

reply to post by TruthParadox


Evidence is a slippery slope. Case in point on C2C right now a plausible argument is being presented for design at the genetic level. And what this person views as evidence is quite obviously not what you would consider evidence.

Originally posted by TruthParadox
So just to clarify... No evidence.
You're not likely to convince any atheist of anything because that's all it comes down to.

Fair enough, but can I ask that you take another look at it and consider it as a possibility?

For God's sake man you're not just a robot, and life is more than atoms and physical matter.

Not all truth shows up in a physical way you know.

I wish you well, but you've just basically affirmed that no communication is really possible here, where the meaning and purpose of communication, is the response you get, or the consideration of an idea.

It's a permament gulf between our worldviews then, and to be honest, that saddens me, as a fellow human being who really does share the same ground of being with you - how separated we are.

And from what I've seen on this thread, I'd have a difficult time befriending a hardened atheist, as we'd have nothing in common and no commonly shared "journey" of any kind.

As far as I'm concerned, you live in a dead world, and one which is fast passing away. I do hope you might consider relinquishing from your attachment to it, if the situation calls for it - me I like to get way ahead of the curve, and am a bit of a rebel, which is why, ironically (from your point of view) I gravitate towards a type of Christian mysticism blended with Buddhist philosophy and practice.

We do share a love of science, but I don't see it in the least incompatible with faith in God as a supreme being, quite the contrary I like where it seems to be going and pointing.

All the best. May you uh, run a good program!

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

Evidence is a slippery slope. Case in point on C2C right now a plausible argument is being presented for design at the genetic level. And what this person views as evidence is quite obviously not what you would consider evidence.

He's not a scientist then, nor would such views make it through peer review. Just ignore this kinda stuff and stick with the science, simple rule of thumb.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
You see, I disagree atheist is accurate

Well does it really matter if you disagree? I've provided more than enough evidence that the dictionary does not disagree.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
and it is setting the label "atheist" above and apart of the label "theist" all the while pretending that label "atheist" is synomous with label "agnostic" *I call that massively dishonest*.

I don't know where you got any of that.
You seem to just like arguing for the sake of arguing.
Why not just look at all the evidence I provided to support my claim?

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
And the parts of the definition you ignore in favor of accentuating only the parts that are complentary to your claim. Perhaps you are being dishonest with yourself.... *shrugs*

I'm not ignoring that. They're both definitions of atheism. One is "strong atheism" (the claim that god doesn't exist) and the other is "weak atheism" (lack of belief in any deity due to lack of evidence).
You'd know this if you read the links I provided...

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
You agree atheism is an absolute stance then proceed to say at length it is not by saying you are not absolute on it.

I agree that atheism is an absolute stance?
No, I agree that an atheist CAN have an absolute stance, but it's not required to be an atheist. You're trying to make all atheists into "strong atheists" when that's just not the case. You're the one being dishonest if anything.
It would be like me portraying all Christians as fundamentalists (and believe me that one's been done to death).

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
And it sounds awfully like the reasons for this are more social than anything else. Though I admittingly could be wrong. Motivations being the murky water it can be.

I believe I already explained my reasons. You seem to think that I have some hidden intentions when I'm really just trying to correct your misunderstanding of a word lol.

reply to post by Welfhard


mirror - please look in it.

See how dismissive you are to any evidence which shows up that might contradict your pressuposition. That's ignorance. Nothing the least bit intelligent about it.

[edit on 29-7-2009 by OmegaPoint]

reply to post by Welfhard


Thank you for illustrating my point...... I don't think I will go into trying to point out how science is not inherently atheistic.

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

And he got a star for that comment to boot.

Don't waste your time with these guys, they're locked up.

reply to post by OmegaPoint


They're backing each other up... To be expected. Shows the social component I was talking about though. But yes, I have grown tired with self limited perception absolutists that can't see past their noses who twist terms to make themselves sound better.

[edit on 29-7-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

There is no life in this. it's a waste of time. Get out now!

reply to post by OmegaPoint


I have alot of time at the moment. Besides its fun to watch the acrobatics.

[edit on 29-7-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

Originally posted by OmegaPoint

Originally posted by TruthParadox
So just to clarify... No evidence.
You're not likely to convince any atheist of anything because that's all it comes down to.

Fair enough, but can I ask that you take another look at it and consider it as a possibility?

For God's sake man you're not just a robot, and life is more than atoms and physical matter.

Not all truth shows up in a physical way you know.

I wish you well, but you've just basically affirmed that no communication is really possible here, where the meaning and purpose of communication, is the response you get, or the consideration of an idea.

It's a permament gulf between our worldviews then, and to be honest, that saddens me, as a fellow human being who really does share the same ground of being with you - how separated we are.

And from what I've seen on this thread, I'd have a difficult time befriending a hardened atheist, as we'd have nothing in common and no commonly shared "journey" of any kind.

As far as I'm concerned, you live in a dead world, and one which is fast passing away. I do hope you might consider relinquishing from your attachment to it, if the situation calls for it - me I like to get way ahead of the curve, and am a bit of a rebel, which is why, ironically (from your point of view) I gravitate towards a type of Christian mysticism blended with Buddhist philosophy and practice.

We do share a love of science, but I don't see it in the least incompatible with faith in God as a supreme being, quite the contrary I like where it seems to be going and pointing.

All the best. May you uh, run a good program!

I live in this same world. I can assure you it is far from "Dead" in fact my mind has never been more free and I have never felt less fear.

Knowing that every part of my body was created inside the center of a Star Billion of years ago is just freaking amazing!

Being able to understand how my own mind works is truly FANTASTIC!

Just because I understand how emotion is created by chemicals does not mean that I do not like to "shoot up" with a shot of mental happiness

Understanding is the ULTIMATE rush the ULTIMATE thrill! To step back and say "I might be the first Human to every come to this conclusion" is such an aw inspiring event!

I would hope this world of logic is just starting to give birth and not "Passing Away" as you state.

Not trying to jump in between yalls debate. Sorry if it seemed like I was trying to take a side or argue against you. That is not my intention.

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
Fair enough, but can I ask that you take another look at it and consider it as a possibility?

I've considered many possibilities. And any one of them could be correct. I haven't ruled out a lot of crazy things. This Universe could be a simulation. It would certainly explain a few things, but then again it would also raise more questions, and in the end it has the same problem as many theories: no evidence.

I don't know if you've ever read "The Last Question" (www.multivax.com...) , but I could easily imagine a scenario like that. It's interesting if nothing else.

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
For God's sake man you're not just a robot, and life is more than atoms and physical matter.

Not all truth shows up in a physical way you know.

Maybe. But either way, does it matter what I believe (or don't believe)?
I don't think the idea of a god judging a person based on their beliefs is logical, any god would have more sense than that. So does it really matter in the end?

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
I wish you well, but you've just basically affirmed that no communication is really possible here, where the meaning and purpose of communication, is the response you get, or the consideration of an idea.

It's a permament gulf between our worldviews then, and to be honest, that saddens me, as a fellow human being who really does share the same ground of being with you - how separated we are.

Yin/yang. There has to be a balance . That's how this equation works.

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
We do share a love of science, but I don't see it in the least incompatible with faith in God as a supreme being, quite the contrary I like where it seems to be going and pointing.

If you're right, then I'll be converted eventually. If science discovers god, so will I.

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
All the best. May you uh, run a good program!

lol. Same to you (I guess?) .

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

Thank you for illustrating my point...... I don't think I will go into trying to point out how science is not inherently atheistic.

Well it is in a way. It deals only in the material and completely ignores the metaphysical because it's methodology is not equipped to explore such things..


reply to post by OmegaPoint

mirror - please look in it.

See how dismissive you are to any evidence which shows up that might contradict your pressuposition. That's ignorance. Nothing the least bit intelligent about it.

Hey, I'm sorry but if it can't get through peer review then it's not real empirical evidence. That's how it goes.

[edit on 29-7-2009 by Welfhard]

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
But yes, I have grown tired with self limited perception absolutists that can't see past their noses who twist terms to make themselves sound better.

..
I don't understand how someone can refuse to believe something which has been explained and proven multiple times. Moreover than that though, I can't understand how the same person would accuse the person who provided the proof of "twisting" anything when the former person won't even do an ounce of research to see that he was wrong.

I guess I have a lot to learn about human psychology... I just wouldn't have thought it possible.

[/rant over]

Replies to Various Statements by Badmedia

Originally posted by badmedia
I... believe there is a difference between atheism and agnostic.

An atheist is not one who dogmatically insists there cannot be a God. Such a person is not an atheist but a fool. The absence of evidence for God, resounding as it is, can never be adduced as proof that He does not exist. An atheist is simply one who has decided, on balance, that God does not exist. That is atheism, as TruthParadox made clear over and over again on this thread.

Agnosticism is merely a more polite word to describe a fence-sitter than 'coward'. An agnostic is someone who would like to make Pascal's ignoble wager but fears the obloquy of others too much even to do that. To any self-described agnostic who finds these remarks offensive, I say: redefine yourself. You are a victim of a terminological error, and should really be calling yourself an atheist.

What I consider to be atheists are those who go beyond agnostic and claim there is no god.

These are not atheists but rejectionists, people taking their first steps away from faith in a fog of anger and disillusion. In time, some of them will learn better. They will become atheists. Others will find a Godless world unbearable, and find ways to believe again.

I myself was once atheist and I use to make the exact same arguments, and so I do know the flaws in them.

I question that you were ever truly an atheist. You may have been a rejectionist who thought it was the same as being an atheist.

As such, I recognize 2 positions as being valid. Agnostic and Gnostic.

Just for your information, 'Gnostic' is not the opposite of 'agnostic'. Gnosticism is a specific religion with its own doctrines and practices.

You assume I operate off faith and acceptance, and that is not the case at all.

If you did no more than skim my earlier reply to you, it would be clear to you that I assume nothing of the kind. See below.

(You said) most people don't have (the kind of mystical) experiences (I have had), I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean. That I am crazy? Well I thought I was crazy at first too. It's not like I actually expect you to believe me... you have to find out for yourself. Everyone needs to have their own personal experience.

What I meant is that the sort of personal revelation you were vouchsafed, your first-hand experience of God as you believe it to be, is something only a tiny fraction of humanity is capable of. The mystic is a very special kind of human being, capable of mental states others cannot attain without artificial boosters such as drugs, meditation, long-drawn-out sexual ecstasy and other indignities of the same kind.

I wouldn't like to say if you are crazy or not. You don't sound crazy to me. I believe you had an epiphany of the kind you describe. I believe you are speaking with conviction. Yet to me, none of this adds any force to the argument for God. Even an experience of my own would not convince me, because what you regard as divine epiphany is to my way of thinking simply a very unusual (though not ipso facto pathological) mental state.

And any conclusion a person comes to in an altered state of mind must be treated with grave suspicion.

* * *

Originally posted by badmedia
Would you like to have that debate? Quantum Physics actually is the best hope for the future, as it is the first time science has included consciousness into the mix (which is god).

If makinho21 won't take you up on this, I will. I read physics at university and have a hobbyist's interest in philosophy, so we can dispense with preliminaries and take the matter up at a reasonably advanced level. Makinho21 is perfectly correct: quantum mechanics is not what people like Deepak Chopra and our pal OmegaPoint dream it is; things like the observer effect have no implications whatsoever concerning a role for consciousness in the world of phenomena.

I'll play along if your arguments turn out to be worth refuting - I'm not going to repeat what I've so often said before on this forum. But let's find another thread to do it in, shall we? there are a zillion 'quantum physics' and 'law of attraction' threads on ATS already, so if you want to flog this dead horse all over again, let's do it on one of those.

Thats kind of the funny thing about atheism to me, they aren't really denying god, they are denying themselves.

And after your mystical revelation, do you still believe in the existence of something you call an individuated self? Now there's a surprise.

* * *

Addendum: Frankly, badmedia, the more I read of your posts in this thread, the less inclined I am to give you the benefit of the doubt. Your understanding of science is typical of an engineer - you think science is about well-defined procedures and predictable outcomes. I'm sorry; that's how engineers are taught because it's their job is to build things and fix them when they break, but it isn't science. Science is open-ended. It is about conceiving, investigating and testing explanations for natural phenomena. Your outlook has nothing whatsoever of the scientific in it and the appeal to your technical background is illegitimate and embarrassing.

But that isn't the real problem. The real problem is that you have begun talking through your hat. The naturalist arguments Welfhard has been making are solidly based in more than one science: neurobiology, evolutionary psychology, statistical analysis and a great deal more; backing these scientific results are some unanswerable arguments in philosophy. You are seeing none of that, you aren't familiar with the science or indeed with the philosophy; you're just talking down to us from the fraudulent eminence of claimed revelation (the eminence is fake even if the claim is not). Your arguments are simplistic; they have been made and refuted countless times before in this forum.

Worst of all, the statements you make based on this personal revelation of yours are curiously old-hat and unsatisfactory - they have no persuasive force and even, from time to time, contradict one another. I have every desire to take you for what you say you are, but I'm beginning to worry.

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
There is an observing self, one which chooses or distinguishes, and who has autonomous freedom to choose ie: try moving your finger one way, another, and then either moving it or not moving it (your choice) - question, who is choosing, is that a program, is it random? Or is there a you who is choosing?

It is a program in which the output is determined by a very wide range of interdependent variables. This has been demonstrated in experiments that show we do no become conscious of our actions until after we have set in motion the physiological processes necessary to make them. It is not consciousness that chooses to move the finger. If there is a you that chooses, it is not conscious.

Next, the mind, in terms of a conscious observer, can observe the mind thinking, and can be aware that it is aware of being aware that it is aware, etc.

No, this is impossible. The brain cannot observe itself thinking. You cannot think 'I am thinking about cheeseburgers' unless you stop thinking about cheeseburgers for the time it takes to think about thinking about them.

I represent the world in my brain.

You do nothing. The world projects itself into your brain. You are merely an illusion of which consciousness is the instigator.

If you want to insist that you are nothing but a program, and a reaction/response machine... you're welcome to that view. It's the cost of being an atheist, that's all. For everything there is a price...

Yes, and what is that price? What benefit does the naturalist forswear in embracing empirical reality - apart, that is, from the pleasure of being able to spout pompous epistemological bollocks without feeling like an idiot?

reply to post by TruthParadox


Yet I have explained multiple times as well and you fail to address one particular part. Every single time.

Originally posted by Welfhard
Well ofcourse it isn't when you over simplify it. To make the analogy more precise one would need say that the sensory processor is distinct from other components of the computer with many and varied functions. The sum of all functions is what we sometimes call consciousness.

But what you are essentially saying is that consciousness is the result of chemicals and electrical signals and nothing else. So, how are certain chemicals and electrical patterns able to see "images", and how are they able to reason and so forth.

It is NOT logical. You are simply using the complexity of the brain as an excuse and something to put faith into. That is all.

Well you ought take that up with current psychology and neuropsychology. Psych 101, first lecture; "It must be stressed that the mind is not distinct from the brain." Which makes sense - we can see the brain thinking and doing chores in an MRI and other scanning methods. When we make choices we can see them in actions. Consciousness is one global product of out neurology.

This you simply don't know what you are talking about. An ex of mine was a psychologist and it's nothing more than the study of behavioral patterns.

That the brain is running while thought is going on and so forth is like saying that my PC using memory and CPU is proof that what I am saying comes from my PC, and not from the user using the PC. It's proof that the PC is being used, and what you talk about is only proof that the brain is being used.

Ok, that's the statement. Now where is the back up?

Once again it's not something that can be told to someone. It's a personal journey which leads to understanding. I can sit here and tell you 1+1=2 all day long, but if you don't understand math you will never know 1 way or another if it is true or not. There is a reason why I mention AI.

Quite frankly I don't care what you believe nor do I much care how AI is limited, we aren't talking about AI, we are talking about human consciousness.

Right, did it ever occur to you that since AI is about creating intelligence, that just maybe it may draw some parallels to the topic? Every time I ran into a problem I found answers within the human body and brain. From the reason for life and death, to why more than 1 life/being is needed, to why you need to sleep, to how the brain indexes information like a database does and so forth.

It is putting the logic to work in practice and testing the hypothesis, which you are apparently not interested in. Logic comes up short and can't create consciousness. No matter how complicated the logic may get, it can not create consciousness. These are the limitations of AI, and is proof that action and reaction or complexity in itself can NOT give you consciousness.

I can simulate consciousness and intelligence. Because I am able to port my logic into the program. That is possible. But it is incapable of understanding or creating logic - the true test of intelligence. At some point actual consciousness MUST enter into the machine in order to give it the observer and cross that barrier. And if you took the time to search around a bit, you will find that it's what many people in the AI field are now looking to do. It is accepted, it is understood because unlike you, some people have actually tried to apply the things you've said and found the short comings.

Those who have actually worked on AI know at best we can provide the illusion of intelligence, reason and self awareness. But that it is not the same thing.

Hardly, I'm not asking you to explain to me anything about AI - it's irrelevant. What you need to do is explain how consciousness and freewill is a product of "sprits".

Do you not get that "spirit" is simply a label onto something which can't really be explained, only experienced? I can not tell you what you are, you have to actually figure it out on your own.

But it is what everyone attempts to do.

Doesn't matter, they are still two different things, both are causal.

Of course it matters. If you can't even be honest about this, then what is the point?

Without time, the universe would still be the Primordial Atom. I exist, therefore the universe exists and is not still the Primordial Atom, therefore time exists. The 4th dimension.

You do realize time is not really the 4th dimension, and that there are physical 4d shapes right? That time is only called the 4th dimension because our perspective is based on 3 physical dimensions. That 4d is actually a bunch of 3d realities stacked on 'top' of each other, and that time is merely is how we experience part of it - aka a product of perception?

No it says that proclaimed absolute truth is false. Humans are not privy to such things.

But you are apparently exempt from such things. Typical of hypocrisy. Let me guess, it's "justified" right?

Don't need you to hand feed me things, but it is your responsibility to backup what you proclaim to be true which you refuse to do, trying to pawn it off on me as if it were my responsibility.

Once again, go put the principles you speak of into practice rather than using the complexity of the brain as an excuse. You don't understand, and it's like asking Einstein to teach special relativity to a 5 year old. If you really want to understand, then you will need to take the steps that lead up to that understanding.

How do you expect to teach someone who can't even add how to do calculus? It's dumb, and you are only hiding behind such things as an excuse. It is not my fault, nor is it my responsibility to educate you. If you want to know, then go seek.

How do you think I reached these conclusions?

As Einstein once said, any fool can know, the point is to understand. All you do is repeat what people have told you. Completely clueless to any real understanding, a symptom of those who are too lazy to feed themselves and just accept what they are told.

When pressed about the brain, you simply use the complexity of the brain as an excuse, you dismiss where people have tried to put such principles to practice because you don't like where it leads.

Oh well, time will prove me right. What I say is basically common knowledge to those who are leading the way in technology. It's only a matter of time before the non-thinkers start repeating it as if they have a clue what it means.