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.

 

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

page: 21
24
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


Now you are simply using the lack of knowledge to produce probability, which is what I have said numerous times is why the pseudo-random numbers we use in programs are "random" enough for the purposes we use them for, even though in reality they are not actually random numbers at all.

That's exactly how statistics works - quantifying uncertainty! Without uncertainty, there is no probability - there is certainty.

If you have an interaction and list some 'possible' outcomes and the probabilities of those outcomes, it's merely quantifying the uncertainty. Take away the uncertainty, and you have certainty of one outcome and the rest become impossible. A determined outcome.



It is the same exact reason we give away our free will and subject ourselves to the rules/laws of a poker game, in order to have the experience.

And yet every part of the poker game may be ordained the rules/laws therein, the descision to join that poker game is still determined by all the circumstances before that choice was made. All that is happening here is that you are applying more conditions for actions that there already were. When you ignore those rules, it's called cheating - it's against the so-called "laws" so one's ability to do so means that nothing has changed in the slightest - no "giving away freewill" because there is none there to begin with.

If you can't demonstrate where about in the process of making choices that freewill comes into play (i.e. imput > freewill > output or something) then your position has no leg to stand on and clinging to definitions of 'freedom' and choice and pretending that if these concepts are linked in the dictionary (i.e. the statement that "freedom is a prerequisite for choice" and then not proving it) that they are therefore linked in reality as well smacks of fundamentalism.

[edit on 31-7-2009 by Welfhard]




posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 


Well, you completely ignore that the first choice was to choose this reality over others in the first place, from a pool of unlimited possibilities at the starting point.

So I'm not really sure what you want me to say. I use those examples to try and bring understandings of bigger things, but then you just want to keep reducing it all back down to the OR and ignore the rest.

At some point, the original choice had to be made and so forth.



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 

Ohh! OW! Wow, what a retort! Blew me away that's for damn sure.

So we're back to more more appealing to spirits and other metaphysics then...

See ya round.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 


At some point there had to be something which sets off the chain of events.

At that point, what were the influencing factors that set that event? If we follow your logic, then that point is impossible, because there is no input.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia
Now you are simply using the lack of knowledge to produce probability, which is what I have said numerous times is why the pseudo-random numbers we use in programs are "random" enough for the purposes we use them for, even though in reality they are not actually random numbers at all.


Randomness is nothing but our own inability to see an order in deterministic systems with infinite amount of interactions



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 01:27 AM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


At some point there had to be something which sets off the chain of events.

At that point, what were the influencing factors that set that event? If we follow your logic, then that point is impossible, because there is no input.


Now that's a good point. The first cause - obviously it's going to be tied closely Big Bang Theory. Of course as it stands, time and the other 3 dimensions began with that event. This gives us some trouble with the whole "what happened before..." when there is no time line before it, i.e. no causality. Yet still one is left with the problem, what caused the event.

One may say that it was a big crunch event but then under that idea, time goes on backwards for infinity which has the same hole in it as the "what made god" argument - infinite regression.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 01:30 AM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


Give it up, everyone thinks they're smart and they don't know crap, make all kinds of assumptions about time, causation, matter, without any thought to what might be possible. It's like talking to a wall. There is no communication in this thread.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 01:37 AM
link   
reply to post by OmegaPoint
 


Give it up, everyone thinks they're smart and they don't know crap, make all kinds of assumptions about time, causation, matter, without any thought to what might be possible. It's like talking to a wall.


...Or a skeptic, maybe.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 01:38 AM
link   
I have been following yalls debate because it is one I am currently trying to find answers to as well.

I think Badmedia has a great point that a decision always starts somewhere. There is always a first influence of a first cause for a decision. Maybe a decision that a person makes can be traced as far back to our very first experiences from birth?

The very first sights we take in and sounds we hear might have an effect on the decisions we make right now. It is possible that the subconscious is different for every person. Maybe some peoples subconscious likes the color yellow because our Mobile twirling around our crib was yellow fishies. Maybe when we go to the store we see a yellow shirt and we decide to buy it but cannot figure out why?

Maybe it is a combination of many decisions that we have made throughout our lives all being weighed at one time by our super complex brains. Maybe there are so many factors that if we took the time to examine each possible choice before actually making a choice that we would be there for weeks of months or years before a decision could be reached.

Maybe the brain has safeguards to prevent us from going into factor/decision overload and just flips a neuron



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by jd140
reply to post by Republican08
 



You believe there isn't a God.

You can't prove to me that there isn't.

A believer can't prove to me there is.

Until one side can prove to me they are right, I will be sitting back wondering why both sides are bickering about something they can't prove.


This is a great post!!!!! I believe in God, but I can't give proof that would
be acceptible to a non-believer,I go by faith!



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by makinho21
 


If such a correlation exists maybe it has something do with atheists requiring a better answer for their environment and the world around them than "god did it - don't question it because you can't comprehend it".

I think the connection is more direct than that. Smart people quickly see through the obvious discrepancies in religious teachings and the way they contradict established scientifict fact, the obvious moral hypocrisies and double standards inherent in all religions, and above all the desperate insistence on faith that this and only this is the truth.

People whose minds are too dull to grasp such things tend to be religious. As another poster said, religion isn't for everybody.


I would die for my beliefs,would you? I have found that most atheists are
really God haters.Something in their past turned them against any form
of religion.
I graduated from a floral school with an A-.I had to have enough IQ points
in order to pass the written exams and get my diploma!!!!!!



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by makinho21
 


I think that generalizations are dangerous. When I first signed out of Catholicism a couple years back I would have been gung ho about slamming the religious. Now I've come to be more defined in what bothered me. The runaway, unthinking organization was actually what bothered me and individual people caught up were just that. People caught up. Many of the greatest minds ever wandered in and out of various beliefs.

The truth is we are here for only a very short time. Religion is enticing in that if you are born into one or find one it allows you to stop thinking about a number of life issues. That's not necessarily unintelligent, building on those who came before you. It's prudent, a time saver a survival technique. We all do this to some extent. Like I said life is short, no need to reinvent the wheel. And so faiths allow the believer to forge ahead in any number of other directions, confident in the faith provided answers. No that doesn't necessarily make for the best outcomes. But it is also no measure of intelligence. Not everyone gets to the place during their short lifetimes where their core beliefs are challenged like mine were. And so I'm at a point where I think our individual experiences shape our decisions every bit as much as our IQs.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 02:34 PM
link   
I believe in god, have a 2.1 honours business degree and manage an insurance company with 12 staff below me. My mates joking call me Google as I can usually converse on all topics thrown at me, not being arrogant but I do not seem to fit into these stats as know a couple of atheists and they are not the sharpest tools in the box, they are in fact single minded and seem to be atheists only for the purpose to argue about it at parties
I agree with the previous poster I cannot prove that gods exists and if you believe he does not then fair dues I do not really care and will not waste my time arguing with you. People are free to believe what they want, stats like this are at best headline grabbers nothing more, I could argue that for someone not to look at the stars and the size and scale of the universe and not think this has a purpose and someone created this is the stupidest thing I have ever heard



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by On the level
 


..that is why studies are done over a population/group and are "general" conclusions. No one says because you are a believer, you, therefore, are less intelligent. This study suggests a pattern or trend does occur however. I know some really dumb non-religious folk as well.
Cheers.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by mamabeth
 


Congrats. You would die for a mystical being that, I would assume only made itself known to you through personal experiences. A mystical being that has neither scientific credibility, nor physical, testable evidence? IQ represents more than just book smarts lady.
A Low IQ also does not mean you will be unsuccessful in life, or school, or financial freedom.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by makinho21
reply to post by mamabeth
 


Congrats. You would die for a mystical being that, I would assume only made itself known to you through personal experiences. A mystical being that has neither scientific credibility, nor physical, testable evidence? IQ represents more than just book smarts lady.
A Low IQ also does not mean you will be unsuccessful in life, or school, or financial freedom.


Yes,I would die for my beliefs...it's called FAITH !
I know in my heart that God IS REAL!One of these days,even YOU will
know He is real.There will come a time when every knee shall bow,
every tongue confess that Jesus Christ IS LORD!!!!
I will do you a favor...I will add you to my prayer list!!!Have a good day!



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by makinho21
reply to post by mamabeth
 


Congrats. You would die for a mystical being that, I would assume only made itself known to you through personal experiences. A mystical being that has neither scientific credibility, nor physical, testable evidence? IQ represents more than just book smarts lady.
A Low IQ also does not mean you will be unsuccessful in life, or school, or financial freedom.


What a bunch of crap. Scientific evidence? It's people like you who give science a bad name. Are you even a scientist yourself?

The advantage science has in things is that is able to change and adapt. As such, it's never set in stone and you are an idiot for treating the current day scientific theory as if it is such, and not subject to change in the future.

Personal experience will always trump anything scientific, and you are just using science as a way of denying what you lack in others.

You want to pick on such things, then pick on me. Because I do have a high IQ, I am among the smartest in the world, and your ignorance and assumptions are disgusting to me.

You keep going on about science and stuff? Way to attach the accomplishments of others to yourself. Did you do any of that? No. Did you come up with the theories you quote? No. In truth, you haven't done jack. All you do is accept what people tell you, which makes you no different than the billions of people throughout history.

You probably don't understand even half the things that are said yourself.

If it was 400 years ago, you'd be on people for thinking the earth was round, you'd be scalding people for talking about earth revolving around the sun and so forth. Because you actually don't know anything, all you do is take the relatively easy position of agreeing with the popular beliefs of the time.

If you want to claim a superior intelligence, then show it. Rather than pointing out the things that others say and did as if it is somehow a reflection of you. As it is, it has been people like you, who have held things back all these years, you are not of the kind of people who advance things. Because the people who advance things don't rely on what is already known, they general reject it, and look for answers elsewhere.

So you wanna direct such insults towards people, then direct them to me. Because I will put you in your place.

I may have not agreed with Welfard and others in this thread, but they atleast had the decency to dispute things from their own understandings rather than blind ridicule and such.


[edit on 8/1/2009 by badmedia]



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by makinho21
 


You are only 21? I have dresses in my closet older than you!!



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by mamabeth
Yes,I would die for my beliefs...it's called FAITH !
I know in my heart that God IS REAL!One of these days,even YOU will
know He is real.There will come a time when every knee shall bow,
every tongue confess that Jesus Christ IS LORD!!!!
I will do you a favor...I will add you to my prayer list!!!Have a good day!


It's not called faith, it's called extremism, it puts you in the same box as suicide bombers - except maybe you don't hate people as much, yet still you're willing to die for faith (defined as 'belief without evidence')

What astonishes me is that you people don't even know the name of your messiah, many don't know that 'Christ' is a title, hence "the Christ."

I personally am more of a fan of some of the other Solar Deities like Mithras and Dionysus. But to each their own I guess.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard

Originally posted by mamabeth
Yes,I would die for my beliefs...it's called FAITH !
I know in my heart that God IS REAL!One of these days,even YOU will
know He is real.There will come a time when every knee shall bow,
every tongue confess that Jesus Christ IS LORD!!!!
I will do you a favor...I will add you to my prayer list!!!Have a good day!


It's not called faith, it's called extremism, it puts you in the same box as suicide bombers - except maybe you don't hate people as much, yet still you're willing to die for faith (defined as 'belief without evidence')

What astonishes me is that you people don't even know the name of your messiah, many don't know that 'Christ' is a title, hence "the Christ."

I personally am more of a fan of some of the other Solar Deities like Mithras and Dionysus. But to each their own I guess.


Belief without evidence isn't faith at all. That is blind faith, and it is much different than the faith being talked about in the bible.

I'm not a man of blind faith at all. But I do have "faith" that the understandings I've been given are true, and that one day truth and understanding will rule the world, rather than lies and acceptance.

Acceptance is blind faith, and you get that not only in religion, but in all things. Look at all the people who are willing to die for the flag and such, regardless of what is actually going on.

Blind religion is not the cause, it is simply a symptom.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join