It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 28
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 12:11 AM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 12:15 AM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 12:18 AM
reply to post by badmedia

No, my entire premise is that, if you make claims that apply to all of us, you must then provide more reason than personal conclusion. Your individual experience does not cut it when you spout the garbage you do.

I would not deny anything you present that is viable, demonstrable evidence; however you have yet to do that completely.
Just because I call you on it, doesn't mean I am close-minded.
It shows that you are the truly narrow minded one here - arguing from a position of certain truth is complete lunacy.
That is what you do though. And then you fail to back such claims up...
Maybe you don't even see it for yourself, but it's true.

I would never dare to be so arrogant, and yet I don't doubt you know your personal conclusions are true - you sure present it that way.

I have brought forth bits of information - take Abiogenesis for example - which demonstrates how "something comes from nothing", if you want to word it so idiotically.
Dumbing down science doesn't make it stop working.
You don't bother responding to me, and instead decide insults will do.

What have you done Media? Besides proselytize your own theological view of the world to us - that father/son business.

Is that demonstrable? Does it make predictions that are observable beyond your own eyes?

To a blind man, who did not possess vision from birth, and has no ability to process light - blue does not exist.
For those with does.
It is completely relative to the avenue in which it is presented.
Our sense of sight provides us with a tool to access information, such as realizing the color blue.

What sense does your understanding reside in?
If it is completely spiritual - out of our 6 senses - then writing about it is completely pointless.
However, if you claim it is determined through one of our various senses (or many) then you should be able to present us with some sort of observable, testable information.
So far you have failed to do this.

If scientists tomorrow came out with a theory or "fact" pertaining to the garbage you spout, they would present what they consider evidence, reasoning and observable, testable predictions - that are objective and not just based on personal conclusion.

To rape the scientific process as you propose is merely an attempt to make your faith-based stance more reasonable. To give solidity to that which is wind.

I would welcome such discoveries or realizations, but take them on faith? No way. Especially when you try to make claims that involve us all.

I am going to play you for a second:

I have discovered why we are cognitively superior. My sources and personal interpretation of my surroundings tell me that ancestral alien brethren implanted our mammalian ancestors with intelligence boosters, and that is why we are so evolved.

Like I said, I don't doubt you know your understandings to be true.
Just like kids know Santa is real.
Hell, there is more evidence to support Santa than there is for Jesus.
We recognize it is a fabrication though.

You don't allow for any misunderstanding or misconceiving...
Which only reinforces why you have been labeled the arrogant ignorant poster you have shown yourself to be thus far.

I call on you to put aside your theological fog, and your incessant insults, and present the readers you claim to "defend" with non-personal reasoning for your descriptions of our universe and our consciousness.

I can't really address anything when you don't state anything worthwhile.
Personal experience - pointless
Individual conclusions without objective review - unnecessary

So far that is all you have given us unfortunately.

I am completely open to anything you say, but you have to do more than just tell us you arrived at that conclusion by personal interpretation.

I never said you made it up.
I am saying you could simply be wrong - but you don't even allow yourself that vice ofcourse.
I call that arrogance and ignorance of the highest order:
Welfhard agrees
Turkeyburgers agrees
Astyanax agrees
I agree

The burden of proof does not reside with me....

[edit on 4-8-2009 by makinho21]

posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 12:25 AM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 12:27 AM
reply to post by makinho21

I call on you to put aside your theological fog, and your incessant insults, and present the readers you claim to "defend" with non-personal reasoning for your descriptions of our universe and our consciousness. -makinho21

I second this.

posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 01:20 AM
reply to post by makinho21

The only problem with what you say is that I have presented things in the way you wish. Just go back and read the thread.

Omega even posted things from a scientist with a huge list of credentials saying the same things, and it was completely ignored in favor of attacking me.

As the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

If you think of whitte light as a metaphor of infinite, formless potential, the colors on a slide or frame of film become a structured reality grounded in the polarity that comes about through intelligent subtraction from that absolute formless potential. It results from the limitation of the unlimited. I contend that this metaphor provides a comprehensible theory for the creation of a manifest reality (our universe) from the selective limitation of infinite potential (God)...

If there exists an absolute realm that consists of infinite potential out of which a created realm of polarity emerges, is there any sensible reason not to call this "God"? Or to put it frankly, if the absolute is not God, what is it? For our purposes here, I will indentify the Absolute with God. More precisely I will call the Absolute the Godhead. Applying this new terminology to the optics analogy, we can conclude that our physical universe comes about when the Godhead selectively limits itself, taking on the role of Creator and manifesting a realm of space and time and, within that realm, filtering out some of its own infinite potential...

Viewed this way, the process of creation is the exact opposite of making something out of nothing. It is, on the contrary, a filtering process that makes something our of everything. Creation is not capricious or random addition; it is intelligent and selective subtraction. The implications of this are profound. If the Absolute in the Godhead, and if creation is the process by which the Godhead filters our parts of its own infinite potential to manifest a physical reality that supports experience, then the stuff that is left over, the residue of this process, is our physical universe, and ourselves included. We are nothing less than a part of that Godhead - quite literally.

And that is what I call the father/son relationship.

Some of the greatest astrophysicists of the world thought and understood these things. But it is by it's very nature impossible to prove, so it doesn't become "science".

The reason I reject the other is because what I say allows for both perspectives, while the other allows for only itself.

The funny thing is, I didn't even realize these guys had talked about this stuff at all until Omega posted about it. And yet, somehow magically the same conclusion is made. And when you start to look at ancient writings and understandings, you find it there too.

So in the end, I find myself in pretty good company. Many things can be understood which can not be proven. I speak the way I speak and use the examples I have to try and show basic understanding which then can be applied to the bigger picture. Doors can be pointed to, but you have to walk through the door yourself. You ask me to carry you through it, and I can't do it.

posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 01:23 AM
OK Ladies and Gentlemen..

The petty bickering and posting at other members stops now...

No more off topic idle banter either..

Please stay on topic and remember...

Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.

Any further such instances could result in warnings..

Thank you


posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 01:29 AM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 01:35 AM
Reply to post by mamabeth

Aleister Crowley was merely the Marylin Manson of his time. A shock jock. He cloaked his stuff in was considered evil to scare away the one's who would've taken offense anyway and give the morons maze to get lost in.

Posted Via ATS Mobile:

posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 01:42 AM
reply to post by badmedia

I have a response to that video that you posted about the God Theory. It was good, but this one is better. Neil DeGrasse Tyson.

No way was this Universe a creation. Basing the concept of a God or Intelligence on the Universe Design is horrible. It would only Prove that a God with limitless potential is squandering it or this Universe was one of experimentation on how to make a better one.

posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 02:21 AM
reply to post by badmedia

Omega is not you - have I been responding to claims by Omega at all? No. Why? Because he atleast brought something to the table: the link and videos and the summary you have so nicely quoted for us twice. He doesn't just argue from faith (atleast not in the way you have been).
Thank you for finally trying to present us with something other than your own personal concoctions.

posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 02:34 AM
Are ugly websites and programs that don't function very well evidence that there was no programmer who made it?

Because I mean, look at this: not responsible if it makes you go blind, you've been warned

I'm pretty sure there was someone who designed it. And was/is probably even proud of it. I'll be honest, my first website wasn't much better - and I was thrilled to death over it.

We still abide the laws of physics and such. It's not like I'm trying to dispute science. Science is great for describing the experience we are in, I'm talking about the construct through which experiences(universes) come, and that which does the experiencing.

Our bodies come from the same logic as this universe, same laws of physics and so forth. Same limitations.

posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 02:34 AM
double post. Odd, that never happens.

[edit on 8/4/2009 by badmedia]

posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 02:34 AM
reply to post by badmedia

That was really good I enjoyed it. Just finished watching the whole thing here (so you can open it in full screen)


posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 02:42 AM

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
reply to post by badmedia

That was really good I enjoyed it. Just finished watching the whole thing here (so you can open it in full screen)


Yeah, I've probably watched it 100 times. One of my favorites. Brings up good points in all directions. Good thinkers movie.

Not really sure why it got thrown away by the mod.

posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 03:01 AM
I liked that scene with the guy playing pinball, about how the present moment can become an eternally unfolding one, or a timeless moment, when we say yes to God, that it would be ok to be one with everything, forever. I mean like why not? God was right to create something, and to make infinite possibility manifest into an axperiencial actuality. Why? Because it is better to have something, instead of nothing at all. Then there is something to do, people to love, lessons to learn, fun to enjoy, and starving to feed.
It is a good thing. You will never find me accusing God of making the wrong choice in limiting himself to as to share his eternal kingdom with me and all his children, atheists included.
I think some people would like to have the choice, for there to be no God and no eternity, for no other reason than so that they can be free to choose that, and I would imagine that too is available.
Me I will dare to say yes to God and consign myself to an experience of eternity, starting now. I'm not about to count myself out of the equation, and remain isolated in my skin encapsilated ego sphere, separate, nothing but a meat bag and a souless machine, until my physical body dies and rots, never knowing anything else, forgotten.
In the quantum realm of infinite possibility, all things are possible, and there is always a choice, but from what I've heard, even staunch atheists experience the same NDE's and encounter the same beings of light, though I would imagine it COULD be possible to reject all of that and request oblivion.
A firm choice to live for ever, is no less terrifying, and so I can't blame someone for wanting to opt out of that.
What I don't understand is the rebellious tone AGAINST the notion of a loving Creator who wants for there to be a variety of experience, and who loves unconditionally. How could one rebel against that, or throw away the gift as if it's of no value whatsoever, while they sit on this wonderful and miraculous planet and type on their keyboard, alive.
I was once an atheist rebel, but to retain that position into maturity, after years and years of seeking and searching - I just don't understand it, the inability to see that everything is part of an intelligent and mutually interdependant whole which transcends our rational faculty.
If you REALLY search then you run into a knot of paradoxes, the only resolution of which IS the God hypothesis, and then those knots smooth out, and you get peace, joy, light and understanding - if it's just a delusion, then how to explain is efficacy and the power it lends to the ongoing search as well as the rational faculty. God makes me smarter. If God is false, then it ought to make me dumber. It WORKS in other words, and that too is the miracle of it, the miracle of that quantum leap of ultra-rationalism to full on belief.
I even get tactile feedback when I pray, on my head and face.

So I'm with Carl Jung, who, when asked if he believed in God - replied, after a puff on his pipe (me on my smoke) "to ask me if I believe in God, implies the possibility for a disbelief. Therefore I will have to say no, no I do not believe in God. I KNOW there is a God."

posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 03:41 AM
reply to post by badmedia

Or how about the numerous posts calling me ignorant for even having any belief in god, or the title of this thread which also perpetrates that I am ignorant?

I did not start the thread. I am not responsible for its title.

As for calling you ignorant, the closest I have come to doing that is the following sentence:

Astyanax: you aren't familiar with the science or indeed with the philosophy

I challenge you to go through my posts and find even one personal comment about you in them, except for the one in which I said you were thinking like an engineer - hardly an insult.

Pity you can't say the same about your posts - you're forever making rude personal remarks about your opponents.

If you are going to call me ignorant, directly or indirectly... If you want to pretend or put that up as arrogance because I dare to protest... It was this thread and it's contents which brought my intelligence into question...

I haven't called you ignorant, but if you go on imagining nonsense like this, I may have to start calling you paranoid.

Funny how it's ok to call me ignorant, but it is not ok for me to say I am not.

For heaven's sake man, it's only an argument on an internet forum. Grow up.

posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 03:59 AM

Originally posted by mamabeth
I wonder what kind of person would admire the works of people like Nietzsche and Aleister Crowley???

A person who thinks that one question mark after an interrogative sentence is quite enough, thank you.

Adolph Hitler was inspired by Nietzsche's works.

And Torquemada was inspired by Jesus. Could you explain why you think a philosopher should be held responsible for the acts of others who misinterpret and twist his ideas to justify their own vicious deeds?

Aleister Crowley was one of the most evil men in the last century.

Really? In a century replete with villains, from the biggies - Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot - to the small-timers - Idi Amin, Fred West, Velupullai Prabhakaran - you pick Aleister Crowley as one of the most evil?

How many people did Crowley murder?

How many concentration camps did he run?

How many women did he rape?

How many villages did he burn?

How many enemies did he imprison and torture?

How many people did he cheat out of their life savings?

How many houses did he burgle? How many old grannies did he mug?

Madam, is it your purpose on this thread to submit evidence in favour of the OP? If so, you are doing a magnificent job. I salute you.

posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 07:29 AM
I would say the studies have a point but are not stating that if you are part of a religion you are 'dumber'.

I think what should be taken from here is that with a lower IQ, you are generally more inclined to follow rather than lead. This is seen throughout all of nature. You have the dominant character who typically has traits that establish them as the dominant, then you have the beta-males who do not have these traits and so follow.

Those with a lower IQ therefore are more inclined to follow than question and lead. However, that does not mean that religions do not hold merit in their arguments.

I would say that on a general scale, religion is a tool used to brainwash people and establish a sense of right and wrong, to help better society. However, if you take what is said as a guideline, rather than law, then you are free to make your own impression on the ideas presented.

An example, Jesus turning water into wine. Did he actually turn water to wine? I would argue no. I would say that a symbollic approach is better to use in this scenario: Throughout the Torah, the symbollic interpretation of Wine can represent Law. When Jesus turns water to wine, the wine is better tasting than the wine served at the beginning of the party (since you usually give the best alcohol first, then the cheaper less expensive when people are more drunk). This represents that Jesus has come to bring about new law, better law.

Now most with low IQ would take the story at face value and believe Jesus did in fact turn water into wine. Hoorah. However, as shown above it can be shown to be something a lot more rational and understandable. Instead of 'Jesus was the Son of God, the Lamb, praise be onto him, we arent supposed to worship idols but ill pray to a statue of him on the cross anyway...'

Thats my $.02c, what y'all thunk bout it?

posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 08:42 AM
reply to post by Toughiv

Bismillah! An on-topic post, the first in about nine pages... Stay the man with apples, comfort him with raisins and give him another swig from the loving cup.

Your point seems to be that what someone takes out of faith depends a lot on who they are. Clever people would have one take on things, less clever people another.

It seems to me that you are right. And in an age of universal religion, when unbelief (or a protestation thereof) was simply not an option, this would have been an important point to keep in mind. But nowadays, some lucky people have a choice: they can believe in God, or whatever else they want to belive in, or they can eschew belief altogether.

So the question becomes: which choice is the smart choice?

The OP-linked study purpotes to show that smart people tend to choose unbelief. When there is a choice, smart people are more likely than not-so-smart ones to be atheists.

This point of yours has a little venom sticking to it, though, for in an age where belief or unbelief is a choice, the ones who embrace belief can't be very clever, can they?

Moreover, it suggests a corollary: the more passionate and assertive the believer is concerning their belief, the more stupid they're likely to be.

<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in