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

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
It takes just as much faith to hold the alternative viewpoint, that it's a braindead inanimate materialist monist randomly generated freak coincidence.

That's debatable.

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
I think the evidence stacks up quite favorably for the God hypothesis, and a monistic idealism (consciousness is primary).

Then your definition of 'evidence' must be different than mine.

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
The only problem I really have with atheists, is how smart they THINK they are!

Many people think they're smart, atheist or theist.
I see myself more as a retarded puppy floating through space in a state of shock and awe.
And I think that's probably a fairly accurate depiction of reality...



[edit on 10-8-2009 by TruthParadox]

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
reply to post by makinho21

 

I also offered quotes from scientists much more knowledgeable and smarter than I. That one guy Laszlo, he is considered one of the smartest people on the planet at this time.
I believe the premise that he's operating under is that the universe, and the complexity which arises within it, is the result of non-local information sharing which is formative or cumulative, defining an arrow of progress, and this model is validated by the complexity of life we see all around us, and are ourselves. Then there is the consciousness factor, and the subjective/objective interdependancy as a participative co-creation.
These things point to a fully informed, information gathering matrix or in short, a mind of God, which indeed will have had plenty of time to become self aware.
Modern science is continually affirming that the universe is wholistic and interdepedant, and non-locally, or transluminally interconnected, as some sort of holographic wave form made of light. Not bits and piece which operate as a machine. It's more thoughtlike, than matterlike.
The arrow of modern science is pointing towards a God-mind hypothesis, and away from a Cartesian Newtonian Materialist Reductionistic machine-like universe, and if it's a machine, where is the energy coming from which drives it?
What I find most interesting about Laszlo's hypothesis of the fully informed Akashic Field (Zero Point Field) is how he's not even talking about a first cause, but instead, an arrow of progress where each potentiality becomes fully actualized, from universe to universe.
There are even some who suggest that the so-called unseen "dark matter" is the base of the pyramid of a parent universe which has a gravitational impact on our own universe.
All we are saying is that where there is progress, there is hiearchy, and where there is information exchange and intelligent design, there is mind, and where there is mind, there is an apex of mind - and what we're talking about is an infinite intelligence at the apex of all universes which is fully informed and therefore fully aware or self aware. However, it's inclusive and we are made in the image of God, whereby "it pleased the father (first/last cause - creator) to share his kingdom with all his children."

Aside from the books by those scientists mentioned earlier in this thread, I would recommend that atheists read this book
www.amazon.com...'___'-Sonoran-Desert/dp/1594772991/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1249940334&sr=8-1
but don't judge it by it's cover or even some of the content.
It was one of THE best reads I've enjoyed to date and I've read quite a number of books, including a lot of popular science books on the new science.

[edit on 10-8-2009 by OmegaPoint]

It was a little difficult to ge through all that, and I totally admit it - I don't quite understand alot of it. I did watch your video you posted, and I did read your other post.
Point taken. And yes, I can toy with such a proposition.
However - my OP was about a study done on "religious" folk.
What you are talking about is a scientific explanation of things (which may point to a "being" or supreme consciousness), that is unrelated to what modern mono-theistic religions propose. It has links to religion I guess, but it's completely different. This in no way refutes the study...

I believe the study is specifically looking at people in organized denominations. The things these people convince themselves are true, is part of the reason why the study returned the results it did.

Either way I respect what you posted. I really did watch the video, but it seems like a lot of speculation is being used to shore-up holes and issues that are, as of yet, unresolved. I suppose that's how science works anyways.

Originally posted by TruthParadox

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
Again, I made another post after that, clarifying the position myself and others are making and you post as if it wasn't even there.

I'm offering up some ideas, and they are dismissed out of hand with "we've seen it all before". That's ignorant.

The problem is not that you're offering ideas, the problem is that you're passing them off as fact. I've already said in this thread, I'm willing to consider many possibilities. But just because something is, perhaps, possible, does not mean that it is probable. And that's why faith must come in to support a theory such as the one you suggest. There simply isn't enough evidence to support it as fact, or even deem it remotely probable for that matter. Faith is needed to fill in the gaps.

At the same time, I'm not saying you're wrong either..
I'm just saying I've seen a lot of 'ideas' about how the Universe works, and they all have something in common: lack of proof.
For this reason alone, I'm skeptical of anyone who thinks they have the answers.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

I tried to be rather indifferent with Omega in my reply above, but you basically said the truth here Paradox - the problem is Omega and others are seemingly relabeling faith as fact.

I have no problem with people believing what they want. However, atleast have the guts to admit it is faith, and do not try to convince us otherwise.

To Mamabeth: have you actually added anything constructive to this thread since you reared your head 10 pages ago? the answer is NO
ps: I switched my picture, figured it was time to find some other offensive religious idol...JK. I wanted something more spacelike

Originally posted by makinho21
What you are talking about is a scientific explanation of things (which may point to a "being" or supreme consciousness)

Ah so there is one among you who is open minded, and perhaps can see that it's an either/or proposition, either side of which requires a leap of faith. Personally, I think it's a more absurd proposition to accept the random materialist viewpoint.

reply to post by mamabeth


Taking things on faith is a terrible way to make decisions or deliberations.
A man tells you: you won't fall should you jump off a bridge, but instead, you'll float softly to the ground below without harm.
All logic and rational reason oppose this statement, but he insists it's true and he's seen it happen.
He knows it's possible...
our understanding of how things work, that if gravity exists and things "fall", tells us such a thing is ludicrous. However, he insures you it's possible.
Believing what this man says is faith - or delusional...take your pick

Just like the idea a man can float up into the sky (without mechanical assistance), or that wine becomes water without the process of fermentation and addition of grapes or rice.

Ignoring our understanding of the world and how things work, purposely "bending" the rules when those bends don't actually exist, is unintelligent.

Believing the man that says you won't get hurt should you leap from a bridge, because you'll float to safety, is unintelligent.

Faith is unintelligent.
It might provide happiness and security, even strength and comfort, but it is not a smart asset in terms of thinking logically about problems and it does not provide reasonable solutions.

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
It takes just as much faith to hold the alternative viewpoint, that it's a braindead inanimate materialist monist randomly generated freak coincidence.

None of us described the universe that way. I don't believe any of the declared atheists on this thread regard the universe like that. It's your description, and reflects the depth of your misunderstanding of both atheism and science.

The universe is not a freak. It is not a conicidence. It is not randomly generated (please see my earlier discussion with Badmedia about determinism). And clearly it is not inanimate, for we live in it.

But never mind, never mind. Would you just explain what part of an atheistic view of the universe has to be taken on faith? What aspect of the scientific-materialist outlook defies observed reality?

I think the evidence stacks up quite favorably for the God hypothesis, and a monistic idealism (consciousness is primary).

Show us the evidence. No need for paragraphs and links. Just list the evidence, onetwothreefour, that you regard as favourable.

The only problem I really have with atheists, is how smart they THINK they are!

At least they're smart enough not to go on ignorantly misusing the word monist in post after post after post on thread after thread after thread.

[edit on 11/8/09 by Astyanax]

Originally posted by makinho21
reply to post by mamabeth

 

Taking things on faith is a terrible way to make decisions or deliberations.
A man tells you: you won't fall should you jump off a bridge, but instead, you'll float softly to the ground below without harm.
All logic and rational reason oppose this statement, but he insists it's true and he's seen it happen.
He knows it's possible...
our understanding of how things work, that if gravity exists and things "fall", tells us such a thing is ludicrous. However, he insures you it's possible.
Believing what this man says is faith - or delusional...take your pick

Just like the idea a man can float up into the sky (without mechanical assistance), or that wine becomes water without the process of fermentation and addition of grapes or rice.

Ignoring our understanding of the world and how things work, purposely "bending" the rules when those bends don't actually exist, is unintelligent.

Believing the man that says you won't get hurt should you leap from a bridge, because you'll float to safety, is unintelligent.

Faith is unintelligent.
It might provide happiness and security, even strength and comfort, but it is not a smart asset in terms of thinking logically about problems and it does not provide reasonable solutions.

That's a nice little analogy, which is accurate. I see after so many pages in this thread is still explaining the differences between faith based thinking and critical & logical thinking. Hmmm you could go on forever with this thread with little success, but keep trying! I suppose it is likely to be different people coming and going making a case for their beliefs.

It is true - faith is unintelligent. Does this make faith-based believers generally unintelligent? From my own experiences I would say "yes", and scientific studies also say "yes". It is really a simple deduction that athiest's are generally more intelligent than thiest's.

I think thiest's often incorrectly relate science as equal to athiesm, and so feel threatened, as they feel it's a competition. This is often due to a common religious misinterpretation of science, and the lack of understanding of how science "works".

The spaghetti monster analogy to god as Richard Dawkins puts it: there may be a flying spaghetti monster, and we can't disprove its existence, but it is a large leap of faith to say one does definitely exist.

[edit on 11-8-2009 by john124]

reply to post by john124


Haha I'm glad you enjoyed it - High fivvve
But yes back to the topic at hand, I definitely agree. I don't think religion "makes" people less intelligent, I think people of less intelligence (that is harsh to say I know) are drawn to it, or simply can't recognize the difference between faith and logical analysis.
They could be perfectly smart in other areas of life. For some reason or another though, they don't have the ability to do away with silly beliefs.

Sometimes I feel they believe in the process of belief, if that makes sense.
They do recognize faith is illogical, and yet take pride in it.
That is a whole other matter though

reply to post by OmegaPoint


I completely agree with Astyanax to be honest.
I am merely acknowledging that the scientist you listed has some sort of theory for the things you have said.

I still think the study is accurate to a point.

Let me assure you as well, I am NOT open to a "personal" god. I will grant you the fridge science origin and creation idea, but then to jump to something like a personal god that we see in the bible. No, I call shenanigans. Not that you did that, I'm just saying the two are different.

Unfortunately, that is what the end-plan is for the type of things you are talking about.
It reminds me of the post by OldTimer - OldThinker? - whatever, where his source had used a recently discovered Large Red Shift (I believe that is what it is called, but yea) and because it was so big and it hinted at some of the earliest star formations we have seen, the genius team of "Creation Scientists" were able to accurately link this LRS to the 4th day of creation, because the "4th day is when god made stars".

This is what I am afraid is being attempted by the source of your material.
Perhaps not, but time will tell I suppose...

I can easily say that personal idea of a deity is pretty much bogus.
This is for the big three, not just christianity.




[edit on 11-8-2009 by makinho21]

I would liketo see where people get off saying faith is unintelligent.

Why do you believe that? I think youll find that there is no definite answer between if a god or doesnt exist. There is only evidence for and against. You will soon find that logical and critical thinking leads you no further in answer the questions, is there a God?

So to believe in a god without EMPIRICAL evidence is perfectly understandable. Afterall, who are we to argue that empirical evidence cannot be falsified, try watching to matrix, or think of people who are on lsd and see scooby doo, monsters (idk whatver) to those people those imaginary people actually exist. BUT DO THEY REALLY? EVEN THOUGH THEY CAN SEE THEM?

reply to post by Toughiv

I don't think that's where the lack of intelligence comes in. There's nothing dumb about believing in the possibility of God.

But to wholeheartedly embrace that possibility, turn it into an article of faith and then build upon it one's sense of self, one's morality and one's outlook on the world - that's dumb. To refuse to acknowledge that one might be wrong - that's dumb. To deny what is plainly before one's face because it conflicts with what one wishes to believe - that's dumb.

And to live as if this life did not matter, that all our hopes and fears should be focused on 'the life to come' is not merely dumb - it is idiotic.

reply to post by Astyanax


[Q]"But to wholeheartedly embrace that possibility, turn it into an article of faith and then build upon it one's sense of self, one's morality and one's outlook on the world - that's dumb. To refuse to acknowledge that one might be wrong - that's dumb. To deny what is plainly before one's face because it conflicts with what one wishes to believe - that's dumb. "[/Q]

Right, if we first start with religious believers. What is it to be a religious believer? Somebody who believes in an organised religion or can the term be extended to agnostics as well?

If it is the latter, the I do not see no wrong with being a wholehearted agnostic. For agnoticism allows a lot more fluidity to ones ideas, since they typically develop as one gets older and perceives more truths throughout their lifetime.

However, I wholeheartedly agree with you when you say the statement above with regards to someone who believes in organised religion. Simply because, as we have stated many times before, organised religion is typically somebody else's ideas about how the Universe works. Then you agree and follow that.

Thing is, people can be right. However, when it comes to something as grand, obscure and as unknowable as God or anything along the same lines, I think we should always take into regard, man's fallacy and how we have a tendancy to anthropromorphise etc.

Therefore, you are quite right to say that somebody who is a member of an organised religion and then follows what that religion TEACHES wholeheartedly, then yes that is stupid.

However, as many other threads have shown. What is the truth? How can we qualify something like God with objective means? We cannot. Therefore, if we look at what a belief is. It is a system which we hold to be true. Hence, peoples beliefs can be changed as they realise what they hold to be true is incorrect.

The way i see it, it is very easy to qualify certain religions have it wrong. As ive always been told, you can tell what type of a person is, not by what they say but by the effect of their actions. I BELIEVE it to be wrong to kill somebody. Which I think we can break down logically. (ask me to break it down if you do not agree.)

Now if you look at islamic and christian religions. Dont get me wrong here, both religions hold a lot of truths. However, look at the effect of their actions: Crusades, War on Terrorism and so on. That to me shows me that there is room for improvement and so should definitely not be seen as "the truth".

I myself am an agnostic, i do not feel stupid for that at all.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Toughiv

 

And to live as if this life did not matter, that all our hopes and fears should be focused on 'the life to come' is not merely dumb - it is idiotic.

I don't think atheists are smarter then anyone else. But they may as a group be more inclined to use the the scientific method. The major problem I have with creationists is not what an individuals religion is, but the rejection of the scientific method. And that can affect our industrial competitiveness, and that really worries me.

To Whom It May Concern,
I do have an IQ above room temperature.
I also have enough intelligence to know when I'm wasting my time.
This thread isn't going anywhereThe few who are trying to prove their superior intellect.Who are they trying to impress? Those on ATS,or themselves?
I didn't join this website to pick a fight with anyone.I keep finding
myself defending my faith,my religion and my belief in God.Since
I am a newer christian,I am getting help from more mature christians.
We will be spreading the truth about our faith and commitment to God.
This is the last post I'm wasting on this dead thread!
Mamabeth is watching you,have a nice day.

Originally posted by makinho21

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Toughiv

 

And to live as if this life did not matter, that all our hopes and fears should be focused on 'the life to come' is not merely dumb - it is idiotic.

What religious followers act as if this does not matter?

Thanks

Brad!

reply to post by mamabeth

Before you start wasting your time and possibly getting yourself banned, I suggest you ponder the contents and fate of this thread and some of its participants.

By the way, I'm very glad you're watching me. I perform better in front of an audience.

reply to post by Toughiv

Christians are expected to, for a start.

The only thing that matters, is the present moment. Heaven can only be entered into via the present. We must "become as little children" does not say, we must 1st grow old and die. Some people make wrong assumptions, and then others come along and assume that those assumptions are applicable, and you know what they say about when you ASSUME..

Originally posted by Toughiv

Originally posted by Astyanax
And to live as if this life did not matter, that all our hopes and fears should be focused on 'the life to come' is not merely dumb - it is idiotic.

What religious followers act as if this does not matter?

Just about any fundamental Christian.
It's what baptism, essentially, represents.
Your flesh is dead, or crucified, and the desires or pains of this world are supposed to mean nothing because of this. Only the soul matters.

But I think it's relevant that you said "act", because it truly is an act - in the end.


[edit on 12-8-2009 by TruthParadox]