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

and something i want to add,

proclaiming truth is not wrong,
every truth has it's basis, basics, in the absolute truth,
2 opposite looking truths are only both true,
when they come together in the absolute truth
that allows them to be both true,
otherwise it is not true.

truth is so simple, that you will need some time to read my posts,
and im not going to anno myself to much by writing it,
because you will have to see it soon enough,
when the heavens start to shine,
and love will get its proof.

So truth is always One. as Absolute, not excluding but including.
Otherwise you cancel yourself out as being a skeptic
and join ignorant



[edit on 13-8-2009 by pasttheclouds]

Originally posted by badmedia

Originally posted by makinho21
First of all, it's Michio, not Miko.
Second of all, string theory and the popularly accepted idea of 11 dimensions does not prove "god exists".

Quite frankly, I am tired of hearing you tell us how you are right and we are definitely wrong, all the while providing nothing worth mentioning as evidence or testable backing.

Your limited understanding of quantum mechanics and your faith-based prejudice make you entirely arrogant, and uncannily naive.

Your attempt to "stump" Astyanax is quite pitiful really - since when is the "history channel" an authority on scientific research and exploration.
I'm sure Dr. Kaku would be disgusted you mentioned his name in an attempt to substantiate your wishful thinking.

Keep your delusions private Media, or don't try to convince yourself you know better than we all.

Quite frankly, I'm tired of your hypocrisy. You sit here and scald me for saying I'm right, but then you yourself are doing exactly the same thing.

Do you back it up with anything other than personal insults and claims? No. It's always the same thing over and over.

To sum up your post:

You told me I'm wrong, while scalding me for suggesting that I'm right.

You called me - arrogant, naive, faith-based, with limited understanding, pitiful, delusional and that I should just shut up.

Not to mention putting down a show because it was on TV? As if because it came from the TV, it means it's not to be understood and so forth?

I believe the saying goes that the one who has to resort to personal attacks is the one who has lost the debate.

Oh, and btw, the word god was actually mentioned in the show. And it's kind of funny, because all I keep hearing from scientists are basically the same things I say. They don't seem to have a problem admitting science has it's limits, and most of them say the fight between religion and science is stupid and that we need both.

I'd go on to say that those who think there is a fight between likely don't understand either.



[edit on 8/13/2009 by badmedia]

If you believe everything on TV is real - there is no point arguing with you.
I hope that is not what you meant, but either way, you seem to forget to think critically about things like a tv program.

I do not scald you, I call it as it is - as I have done every time you attempt to
solicit your faith to us, wrapped in something that mocks scientific process.

You have not presented evidence once.
If that is me scalding you, then so be it.

You resorted to personal attacks much much earlier than any of us. Your first reply to myself called me an idiot.

I am calling you on your Houdini like illusions, and it makes you sour. Nothing I can do.

I have presented information and scientific ideas that are backed and have been tested - and you only continue to assert your "divine" intelligence over us all.
That is why I have made it a common practice to call you arrogant.

You misunderstand the definition of hypocrisy then: I NEVER said I was right. That is the arrogance only faith-based thinking brings.
Where have I ever suggested I knew everything and you were all wrong. Nowhere. You have, on the other hand, every post.

This last one was simply an attempt to back it up - with a History Channel program.

Put words in my mouth as you have done, but it's never happened.
You on the other hand, routinely tell us you are right (about what I'm not sure, you have basically given up presenting information and instead resort to this deluded arrogance every post)

If you have discovered the inner workings and mechanisms that created our universe and how consciousness evolved...you'd be the first.

Why not see if your ideas make the grade then. Instead of just telling us over and over you are correct in your assumptions, put it to the test.

I think it just makes you feel good coming on here doesn't it - telling us we're all mislead and you know better than we all. Confidence booster no?

PMP - Poor Man's Porsche

I don't really care if I hurt your feelings, or if it makes you all bent-up and frustrated inside, I am going to call you on your faith pleas every time.
And so far, that's all your posts have been.

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

I also don't think there is a war or battle going on between religion and science.
I have watched Dr. Kaku documentaries numerous times - who is a outspoken atheist - and I recently completed a book by Dr. Lee Smolin, professor of Physics at Waterloo University, whose book - "The Trouble with Physics" - identifies the many fallacies the physics community has accepted with String Theory.

String Theory could be true, and it could also be completely wrong.
It has been lucky from it's inception - the lack of testable observations it provides has been ignored, and the main reason it has come to fruition, is because most of it's founders and followers are now in positions of scientific power across North America and Europe. Sounds abit like a conspiracy, I know, but that's the problem: they have a monopoly over research and experimentation.
You could say, that these scientists believe it on faith really.
It also "works" for our model of the universe, because, originally, it predicted an infinite number of different universal models. Ofcourse 1 of them was ours...
Only recently did they cut it down to 11, but again they had to forgo the normal scientific process of test and observe, because, really, it does not provide predictions that can be substantiated.

For you to say it does exist, and it 'proves' what you have said all along, merely shows your lack of learning behind the subject, and the fact you are only out to assert your "intelligence" over us once again.

Good Day Media

reply to post by badmedia


You have NOT shown why and understanding. That astrophysicist was part of Omega's post - you didn't bother to bring any sources of your own. If he hadn't posted about him, you would not be using him as your example, which just reinforces what we are saying, you haven't presented sources, or information for the propositions you tell as truthful fact.

I watched his video, and I read his quotes and I visited his page. Unfortunately, he is also making faith claims , but atleast he wholeheartedly admits it (unlike yourself):

"I don' believe it does. I think that ultimately it is the other way around". He isn't presenting evidence or experimental facts, he's telling us his personal conclusions.
That is not science. He even says he "expects" this to be validated within our life-time...which means it ISN'T.

Big difference.


He uses an analogy of taking a picture from the formless white-light (potential) and extrapolating that to the universe and how it comes to be.
To me this speaks of a rehashed version of "the universe is like a house, they each have a builder" or however that poor attempt at creation goes. It has been debunked many times over, on the simple grounds that the universe is not a house. Nor is it a polaroid picture.

He is also speaking out of personal conclusions, and he does NOT provide evidence. If you want to take what he says on face-value, so be it. No one will stop you, but we will surely call you out when you proclaim it as truth.

One other thing - if you watched his video, you will see he doesn't agree with the idea of an infinite number universes, or a "multiverse". Isn't this the very thing you were using as material for your own conclusions?

He says "..it is logically possible, but the end result is a multi-verse of universes, without any purpose". He seems to think that one universe that has purpose is the right way to think - "It is equally logical that an intelligence lies behind the Big Bang, and the universe".

Again...personal conclusions are pointless, and this is all this man has presented.

Unfortunately for you, this neither backs up your statements, nor does it really agree with some of the things you have suggested.

try again I suppose...

[edit on 13-8-2009 by makinho21]

Here is a "review" of his book...by a fellow friend and astrophysicist.

henry.pha.jhu.edu...

I have read it all..but the part that stands out is when he honestly admits faith is needed. You might want to take some notes Media, you could learn something:

I have known Haisch for quite some years, because for a while we were both astronomers working in exactly the same field, chromospheric ultraviolet emissions from cool stars. We are also both astronomers who have become deeply interested in fundamental physics, and who, despite our limitations, insist on probing physics as best we can.


Much discussion of "religion v. science" today centers on the observed "fine-tuning" of the universe that allows human existence. This is supposed to prove something, which it does not.

To some degree Haisch falls into this trap, particularly in mentioning more than once the Fred Hoyle prediction of a key nuclear level in carbon through noting his own existence. If the level were not there, there could be little carbon, hence no Hoyle. Ergo, the level exists. David Gross rightly points out that quantum chromodynamics is fixed, complete, and not tunable, and it just so happens that the level is there, Hoyle or no Hoyle.


But that kind of argument is not the essence of Haisch's case for God. Let me quote a single sentence from his book, which I have chosen because it so perfectly encapsulates my own understanding: "It is not matter that creates an illusion of consciousness, but consciousness that creates an illusion of matter." That is correct physics: it is not controversial in the slightest degree that there is no reality; this has been demonstrated in both theory and experiment (Gröblacher et al., Nature, 446, 871, 2007).


And yet in how many physics classes today are students made aware of this most fundamental discovery? In all of my classes, I assure you; but I am confident that this is not common. The illusion of matter, which is to say the illusion of a really-existing world, is so strong, that I think most scientists are unable to overcome it. It took me decades to finally realize that this is not a joke, and that the universe is purely mental: that mind is fundamental; matter merely an illusion—and that this is physics, not philosophy (or religion).


And how, out of this, does God appear? Well, the only mind I know exists is my own. My choice is solipsism or God. A leap of faith is required, yes — but it is an easy leap indeed! Haisch, too, says his is "a theory that looks promising, not scientific proof."

[edit on 13-8-2009 by makinho21]

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Welfhard

 

"Aint no way, aint no how" *atheism* is just as dogmatic *in that it claims absolutes* as "There is, aint no way their aint" *theism*. But from a certain biased point of view you are correct.

Nouns
Belief
Beliefs
Verbs
Believe
Believes

Wrong - My atheism stems from my rejection of a personal god (the christian muslim or jewish god), which is completely false. If such a thing existed and did the things in the bible it is claimed to have done, we would take notice. We would observe such a thing.

I can easily reject such a fairytale, one which makes claims and predictions that have yet to be validated.

I don`t refute a god at the beginning of time and creation: I can`t. I don't need such a god though, and it really makes no difference at that point. It it is just there floating around doing nothing except "watching", why call that divine...

However, that is not the god people reference when speaking about their "christian" faith and so on.

Originally posted by makinho21
However, that is not the god people reference when speaking about their "christian" faith and so on.

It's all one and the same for some of us, depending on interpretation.

For me, spirit of the universe and light of life, inwelling the person of Jesus and by extension all of us to this day, is a valid frame of reference, and, it has much to do with consciousness, quantum physics, and cosmology, where man is uniquely made by intelligent design to fill a role and a place in the grand scheme of things, and this is only further illuminated by the person and teachings of Jesus Christ, and his Magnum Opus or Great Work.

That atheists cannot "grok" it, makes it no less valid to me as a believer, and as a rational and scientifically minded philosopher.

reply to post by pasttheclouds


How does logic lead to God?...
Define freedom. When you say everyone has to agree thats bull. Say i ruled in the medieval times, I could pick and choose whatever i wanted to do, whenever i wanted it. That is freedom to me. Never mind the fact that the women id pick to bear my children might not want me. As long as im free, truely that is absolutle freedom (personally)

reply to post by pasttheclouds


Surely we can never ACTUALLY know what truth is. The only thing that we know for certain is mathmatics. Not laws of mathmatics, they were made up by correlations, some can be twisted and shown to be flawed. But most definitely 1+1 = 2

Originally posted by makinho21
You have NOT shown why and understanding. That astrophysicist was part of Omega's post - you didn't bother to bring any sources of your own. If he hadn't posted about him, you would not be using him as your example, which just reinforces what we are saying, you haven't presented sources, or information for the propositions you tell as truthful fact.

That it would even matter who put the source up has no bearing whatsoever on what is right/wrong or what the understanding behind it is. I came to my conclusions separately from my own work and study. As if study and research consists of reading and repeating other peoples work or something with you. It was simply an example of other people who are coming to the same kinds of conclusions when they begin to look at the very foundations of "reality".

You quite simply aren't worth another second of my time, and I'm just not even going to respond to this kind of stuff anymore. You aren't looking for what is true, you are just looking to put down anything that goes against your beliefs through any methods possible.

reply to post by OmegaPoint


Intelligent design. Now there is a loaded phrase. Please tell me why intelligent design holds more weight for you, than just this being all random.

(Im playing devil's advocate here btw).

Secondly, in response to the "watching statement". You are anthropromorphizing "god". As most people do

absolute freedom is absolute, or you are not free.

if i have something, when someone around me is struggling, i can not be full free,
otherwise i would change it or i would agree with it from a position of care and need,
just as god agrees with our pain because he understands the pain he allows himself to have. To be absolute free, everything aroudn me has to be perfect.

Beliefs are not decided by majority but what is right , what is truth,
truth in this world can only be seen by erasing all the lies first,
so you and, not me, because i did it, have to decide for yourself
if you want to know, if you really search one day you'll have your list
with negatives, you can also ask help ofcourse... and then your logic will
decide for you, yes for you, what is right...

so don't tell me god,life, truth isn't logic, it is logic that takes over, always,
as long you make the fight of faith and open to honesty and search (struggle)

only by honesty possible ofcourse.
don't stop your search, a skeptic heart with a touch of love is the most religious
heart there is in the world, when all this theater is over, you are gonna see the truth of this.

Truth is always absolute, otherwise you talk against your own,
a house divided can not stand they once said
If not everything is one, how can you write a letter, make a sentence ,
be a beliefsystem, that accuses another beliefsystem, made up from another beliefsystem,
to be seen by us beliefsystems, or you think a atom can think about what you are,
you think nothing can think about itself ?? well, then you end up with god again.

it's logic that will bring you once back to god, because you search him,
even if you dont know him, that salvation process are the lies of religion,
it is honesty and love that bring you to be one, and honesty is what makes science
in the same league as religion, in every branch you have searchers and takers.

reply to post by badmedia


Badmedia, they are looking for the truth. Its just that YOUR BELIEFS dont stand up to their critical analysis. It never will. This will always be a 50/50 argument.

There is no PROOF for God and there never will be. Simple as. If you think otherwise, I suggest you go learn more about this world.

the thing is you don't have a proof about god,
but neither about yourself.

God is the one that has the proof,
the arc, carried by his priests
means logic carried by his people

God knows what he is, you don't know anything,
that is the truth, you dont need the word god to end up with god,
you nly need honesty

start with what you have, nothing,
build from there.

reply to post by pasttheclouds


"Beliefs are not decided by majority but what is right" - Tell that to the survivors of Auschwitz.

You still havent told me how Logic leads you to God...

Thirdly, is your 'god' bound by the laws of logic? Can your god make a sided Triangle? Create an object they cannot lift?

Lets see how well atheism stands its ground in a Formal Debate

[edit on 14-8-2009 by Skyfloating]

reply to post by Skyfloating


Just started reading it now, thanks for posting. This is great stuff. Its been years since ive seen a formal debate like this.

Cheers!

you are playing emotional, for an atheist that is plainly wrong

aushwitz had an explination, that is logic.

You tell me God isn't logic and play sentiments to neglect what i really tell you.

The people who carried the cross of aushwitz will get their heavens pay,
and that is pure logic.

God is free from logic,
but this is logic,
that is the thing about logic,
logic is the truth,
and logic in this world frees god of logic, =paradox = lucifer
but it is still logic.

What is free can create whatever it wants,
you think mathematics is difficult ?
it is simple, because very difficult proofs are made based on
the most simple logic there is
and it is with this simple logic that you can proof god,
not with formulas that build proof on past proofs but forgot
about the basic they needed to build on.

Look, i can't convince you , but if you are a skeptic,
you will by honesty automaticly come to god,
and not far from now, because time is up,
logic only allows the pain that is needed to build
the paradox, when the paradox falls, that is now,
pain leaves the game, only a short while allowed
to bring you home if you want.

You can beat me with your words and clouds, but you can not beat god
in logic...logic is the holy spirits part, and you dont need to see the whole
picture to evolve to the whole, thats was jesus message but was
raped by the churches...

yes, even atheists who allow strugle for truth above theirselves
live for what is one, the truth, and they are from god
before they know it

sceptisism is good
ignorance is wrong

political correctness is mostly ignorance
you can ignore whatever you want by some stupid rules
as grammar and majority and sentiments
but god is love because he is one
and that was jesus message.

jonathan.

[edit on 14-8-2009 by pasttheclouds]

reply to post by pasttheclouds

you are playing emotional, for an atheist that is plainly wrong

aushwitz had an explination, that is logic.

You tell me God isn't logic and play sentiments to neglect what i really tell you.

The people who carried the cross of aushwitz will get their heavens pay,
and that is pure logic.

1) I am not atheist. But if I was, why would i not be able to play emotional. Just because I wouldnt believe in a deity, does not mean I wouldnt agree with the fact that chemicals cause emotions which affect our psyche.

2) It does have an explanation. Mass brainwashing of a nation. Intentional war to create mass culling. Lots of things

3) I didnt say God isnt logical. I said can he make a 2 sided triangle? Also, if you look at this world, i think you'll see, that the divine creator (if there is one) is both CREATIVE and LOGICAL. Just like we are.

4) We cannot assume anything about how heaven and rewards are handed out.

okay, sorry i missed the part where you pointed to you being deist or atheist or whatever thing,

i just tried to make something clear to you...

You can be emotional, but the emotions allow to build the logic,
but emotions can also take away your going to logic.
or you play a theater, or you release your own theater.

that is the secret of understanding god
it is faith.

Listening to what you are, God is One,
so you are a part of One truth,
makes your logic starting to proof Him.
Why ? because when you feel love, you will beat your own ignorance
and search solutions for the pain around you.
This is REGRET and REPENTING.

Regret is an old word for seeing
repenting is the same thing ofcourse

Then you forgive, how ? by understanding

this allows justification of the bad in the world, including Aushwitz,
not by the ignorant butchers who killed, but for the whole of One God,
that needs to be perfect, or he does not exsist, and certainly not as One.

This is the gospel in short what i just told you.
It justifies God by faith, which gives you works, because Oneness always talks,
which gives you the cross, which you share because you choose to be One.

IF you ignore, you can not pick up the cross, the cross with One measurement for One God,

and you put yourselfe outside truth, evolving truth, and you pick the option that doesn't exsist,

this is dead.

Look, im not interested to talk personal things, for me it's not important what your background is, it is important for me that understanding grows, why ?
because hope is what this world will need the next few years.
Not because God is not Good, but because there are a lot fo crosses left to bear,
when pain allready lost most of it function, God takes away pain in the next following years, because it is pure logic.

Take care.
Love is the way, and love is understanding, it allows the truth to be, and be free.

Jonathan.

[edit on 14-8-2009 by pasttheclouds]

One extra note,
when you read my mails like this,
forgetting the past mails in this topic i wrote,
you can not understand what i write.

I'm going to stop writing now,
time will only allow some to understand all,

there are seven heavens,
there is a paradise, then there is heaven, heaven is One God.
the cross of one, one cross, one measurement,
is divided over heavens, phases, slaves and free persons

that's why everyone can hide behind another one,
but does not know the truth of the cross the other carries.

Symbols explain logic, but logic only comes when God allows you
most will think they decide, but if they can not see themselves,
proof theirselves, how can they understand god.
You think a decision is made by you ? where did the trigger come from ?
where did the request for deciding comes from ? where did space give you
the opportunity to decide how the time lag will be before you think again,
where did statistics proove dna as real as absolute.


99 % of this world ignores logic or ignores heart, as absolute they are one thing and the same, they are the lightening and the thunder...
They can not be without each other.

i do my job, and then i'll go
jonathan.

a hint.
there were 2 spies coming back to get the others to, from the promised land.
a hint.
all prophets were declared as son of man, and son of man is what you will be once.

an advise
Religions think they own God, when God put his laws clear:
blessing : torah laws falls, because accusitions need more then One as proof
curse: God is divided, and you choose against

All religions are part of the desolution, the mist, that was promised,
and can be used as good or wrong, we end up now again
in division of blessing and curse.

Atheism: the same thing

but persons are not bound by their religions but by their choices,
for love or against love. For One or against One.

past was a shadow of the things to COME now.
a spirit was first symbolic portrayed, as literal, now it is spiritual.
All beliefs are spirits, and what turns the wrong side of the clock
turns into demon, what turns the right side of the clock, turns
into right spirits, angels.

But before the turn is made a positive it will become negative, and
that's why negative is needed to turn back positive,
some people do negative to make positive,
some people never see negative and ignore,
do not care about their whole selves as one.

thats why monsters can be good, and peacefull people can be evil.
this is what will create the last storm, reactions that invite to loose the past,
will make some so afraid and angry because they will have to admit they were wrong,
this is why only love protects. and love is logic, it is not seeing god before you know god, it is building towards that god by listening to your heart, so you have to justify him by logic, it is not waiting and calling a name and be saved, the lie of the church.

and this is the way of repenting, the way to god



[edit on 14-8-2009 by pasttheclouds]

[edit on 14-8-2009 by pasttheclouds]