Are atheists more intelligent than religious believers? Study suggests such a correlation , page 39

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by kaskade

---

Your statement is contradictory. You say people "who believe in something." which is near every human on the planet - even many atheists believe in something, calling themselves secular humanists.

Then you say they can do physical feats that most humans cannot but they are most humans.

"they have very little stress in there life if any "
That's because they live is a smaller world, a naive little bubble. Religious people are more content because they live in a fantasy land while the rest of us actually recognise uncertainty in reality.

[edit on 16-8-2009 by Welfhard]

It was an example of what SOMEONE WHO IS RELIGIOUS can do. And no most do "not live in a little bubble"
a study showed that MOST RELIGIOUS PEOPLE, get out, and experience more than someone who DOES NOT believe in something.
I am Buddhist, yet i am on ATS, and not "neieve' as you put it.
EVERYONE ON ATS THAT BELIEVES IN A RELIGION.
this guy above, is basically saying you live in a bubble, and we are all naive...
yea...i think the sheer fact of you saying that statement, just goes to show how average the intelligence of an atheist really is

"naive" yet most on this site, have some religious belief
haha

reply to post by Before2017Victor

---

"Arguing over the internet is like running in the special Olympics...even if you "win"...you're still retarded."

I love when self-rightous prigs charge into internet arguments with this little line as if they were not getting involved in a "internet argument" themselves after they state that silly line. That being said. You do have a point burried in all the self glorification........
The problem is you fail to apply it to yourself and refer to those that disagree with you as "living under a rock" or merely being "superstitious" when you yourself admit you do not know for sure what is correct.

[edit on 16-8-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Before2017Victor

---

"Arguing over the internet is like running in the special Olympics...even if you "win"...you're still retarded."

I love when self-rightous prigs charge into internet arguments with this little line as if they were not getting involved in a "internet argument" themselves after they state that silly line. That being said. You do have a point burried in all the self glorification........
The problem is you fail to apply it to yourself and refer to those that disagree with you as "living under a rock" or merely being "superstitious" when you yourself admit you do not know for sure what is correct.

[edit on 16-8-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

YES!

Exactly.


I actually was questioning myself whether or not to put that quote in there, but I still find it funny/truthful in a way; it's a little over used though.

Yea I joined the argument. Guuuuiiiilllttyyy!

Thank you for recognizing that I had a point.

reply to post by Before2017Victor

---

I'm not out to "win" an argument *don't believe any suc thing is really possible most the time* so I can happily concede points. Not saying you are but there are vast numbers "out there" who are.

[edit on 16-8-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

reply to post by kaskade

---

I am Buddhist, yet i am on ATS, and not "neieve' as you put it.

You're awful argumentative and selfrighteous for a Buddhist. I'm saying that people who believe in a religion, a faith, a theology, a dogma, an establish set of beliefs regarding the nature of reality in which they make the context of all their lives experiences and because they see no real mystery or uncertainty they become content in their life. It breeds contempt.

At least Agnostics go "nothing is certain." They're the least naive.

"naive" yet most on this site, have some religious belief
haha

How do you know? There is nothing in the Demographics about religion, the closest thing to information about peoples religion.


[edit on 17-8-2009 by Welfhard]

The Answer is NO!

Most Athiest dont start out as athiests and most Christian certainly don't start

out as Christians... this study is a fake piece of poo that stimulates the

Athiest EGO

So intelligence clearly has a powerful genetic component. But we can also see a number of environmental aids and hindrances: A stimulating environment, parental encouragement, good schooling, specific reasoning skills, continued practice, and so on, certainly help a person become more intelligent. Likewise, there are certain biological factors that are nevertheless environmental: prenatal care, nutrition (especially in early childhood), freedom from disease and physical trauma, and so on. All of these are important and cannot be ignored -- especially when these are the things we can most easily do something about! But I do believe that something better than half of intelligence is accounted for by genetics. And this is, to put it simply, a matter of brain efficiency. If your brain is well-developed, free from genetic defects, free from neurochemical imbalances, then it will work well, given a decent environment. But no matter how good your environment, if you are forced to rely on “bad equipment,” it will be much more difficult to attain high intelligence.

webspace.ship.edu...

reply to post by Toughiv

---

Why not wish for world peace while you're at it?

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

---

Shall we compare your little attempt? Sure.

3) Someone who doesn't believe in a deity and makes no claims of probability or knowledge. (weak atheism)

This is the dictionary term for agnostic:

Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic
Pronunciation: \ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agnōstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnōstos known, from gignōskein to know — more at know
Date: 1869
1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2 : a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something

SOURCE:www.merriam-webster.com...
Now, your not bending things in such a way as to claim the middleground by saying agnostics are in fact atheist how? And I will ignore the silly obfuscation where you claim I am calling you an agnostic. And I do have to ask have you ever thought about a career in Political Spin Doctoring? You do seem to have the knack.



[edit on 15-8-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

"unknown" and "probably unknowable" is not the same as "doesn't believe in a deity". You simply are trying to blend these together to make your point valid.
As Paradox has explained (and myself a few times here) Agnosticism and Theism are not mutually exclusive. What does this mean you ask?

Gnosticism - you know something...
Theism - you believe something...
knowledge and believe are subtly different.

Agnostic Atheists don't believe in a deity, but they make no claims they know that deity does not absolutely exist.

Gnostic Atheists, on the other hand, do.

Grouping all non-theists into one category is just as moronic as saying all Muslims are Ji-hadists.

[edit on 18-8-2009 by makinho21]

reply to post by makinho21

---

Too bad I am not trying to do that *meaning bunch all "non-theists" together as you put it which is funny as my sympathies are greatly agnostic*. I could go over my reasoning again but if you didn't take note the other times why should I? And your misusing the word gnostic as well.

Gnosticism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Gnostic)
Gnosticism (Greek: γνῶσις gnōsis, knowledge) refers to diverse, syncretistic religious movements in antiquity consisting of various belief systems generally united in the teaching that humans are divine souls trapped in a material world created by an imperfect god, the demiurge; this being is frequently identified with the Abrahamic god, and is contrasted with a superior entity, referred to by several terms including Pleroma and Godhead[1]. Depictions of the demiurge - the term originates with Plato's Timaeus[2] - vary from being as an embodiment of evil, to being merely imperfect and as benevolent as its inadequacy permits. Thus, broadly speaking, Gnosticism was a dualistic religion, influenced by and influencing Hellenic philosophy, Judaism (see Notzrim), and Christianity;[3] however, by contrast, later strands of the movement, such as the Valentinians, held a monistic world-view[4]. This, along with the varying treatments of the demiurge, may be seen as indicative of the variety of positions held within the category.

The gnōsis referred to in the term is a form of revealed, esoteric knowledge through which the spiritual elements of humanity are reminded of their true origins within the superior Godhead, being thus permitted to escape materiality[5]. Consequently, within the sects of gnosticism only the pneumatics or psychics obtain gnōsis; the hylic or Somatics, though human, being incapable of perceiving the higher reality, are unlikely to attain the gnōsis deemed by gnostic movements as necessary for salvation[6][7]. Jesus of Nazareth is identified by some Gnostic sects as an embodiment of the supreme being who became incarnate to bring gnōsis to the earth[8]. In others (e.g. the Notzrim and Mandaeans) he is considered a mšiha kdaba or "false messiah" who perverted the teachings entrusted to him by John the Baptist[9]. Still other traditions identify Mani and Seth, third son of Adam and Eve, as salvific figures[10].

Whereas formerly Gnosticism was considered by some a heretical branch of Christianity, it now seems clear that traces of Gnostic systems can be discerned some centuries before the Christian Era. [11] Gnostic sects may have existed earlier than the First Century BC, thus predating the birth of Jesus.[12] The movement spread in areas controlled by the Roman Empire and Arian Goths (see Huneric), and the Persian Empire; it continued to develop in the Mediterranean and Middle East before and during the second and third centuries. Conversion to Islam and the Albigensian Crusade (1209–1229) greatly reduced the remaining number of Gnostics throughout the Middle Ages, though a few isolated communities continue to exist to the present. Gnostic ideas became influential in the philosophies of various esoteric mystical movements of the late 19th and 20th Centuries in Europe and North America, including some that explicitly identify themselves as revivals or even continuations of earlier gnostic groups.

SOURCE:Gnosticism@wikipedia.org

Then of course we could get into the argument of how knowledge is simply a semantic device for differenciating between beliefs and strongly held beliefs. Case in point, I admit I "know" nothing, that all the things I may happen to accept as "fact" and "true" *thusly I "know"* may in fact be changed at a later date, meaning I didn't "know" that at all.

[edit on 18-8-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

New Law of Physics Could Explain Quantum Mysteries

In case anyone has missed it, Astyanax has actually now started a thread with a theory that is basically saying what I've been saying in this entire thread.

The Invariant Set Postulate differentiates between reality and unreality, suggesting the existence of a state space, within which a smaller subset of state space (reality) is embedded.

state space = all possibilities/all things. The smaller subset(reality) = the limited perspective/experience of the state space.

Originally posted by badmedia
New Law of Physics Could Explain Quantum Mysteries

In case anyone has missed it, Astyanax has actually now started a thread with a theory that is basically saying what I've been saying in this entire thread.

The Invariant Set Postulate differentiates between reality and unreality, suggesting the existence of a state space, within which a smaller subset of state space (reality) is embedded.

state space = all possibilities/all things. The smaller subset(reality) = the limited perspective/experience of the state space.

Isn't it a bit curious how since that thread and theory came to light from a scientist, that suddenly the same people who called me nuts all through this thread for saying those things are suddenly absent?

The OP of this thread has now even put me on ignore, rather than admit to the reality of the situation.

And when I bring it up in the other thread, it is said that I am "trolling" and the issue itself is completely avoided? Except to once again say "This theory has nothing to do with that", without even a hint as to why?

All I got in this thread was "prove it" while being told - you don't understand quantum physics.

Is this what we call being open minded?

reply to post by badmedia

---

The OP of this thread has now even put me on ignore, rather than admit to the reality of the situation.

Oh get over yourself. He just doesn't like you. And he doesn't like that you won't put forward evidence to back up your claims other than to say "You cannot teach a toddler aviation mechanics" or something to that effect.

reply to post by Welfhard

---

I'll "get over myself", when people aren't making threads saying people are ignorant if they have any notions that god is real.

The simple fact I even know that he has me on ignore should tip you off enough not to have made that post.

What I am able to understand and what I am able to prove are just simply 2 different things.

Einstein said:

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.".

"Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion."

"A human being is a part of a whole, called by us _universe_, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."

Could he prove it? No, but he understood it.

I try to show the understanding, and all I get in return is "prove it", "you can't prove what you say" and so forth. And you call it "scientific" when it's really quite contrary to it.

And I'll quote Einstein one more time for that.

"Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts."

But no, according to you, such things are not "scientific" and are by default false because it hasn't be proven yet. As if radio waves didn't become real until someone made the radio.

All you and others have really done is forgot that there is no science without the scientists.

reply to post by badmedia

---

Aren't we in a sniedy mood today.

When truth is demonstrable, only the demonstrable can be said to be true.

You go beyond that and say that what you "understand" is true, then we have to take your word along with all the other people who claim such esoteric or absolute truth like witchdoctors and psychics.

Radiowaves were demonstrated, something you've yet to do so don't get ahead of yourself.

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by badmedia

---

Aren't we in a sniedy mood today.

When truth is demonstrable, only the demonstrable can be said to be true.

You go beyond that and say that what you "understand" is true, then we have to take your word along with all the other people who claim such esoteric or absolute truth like witchdoctors and psychics.

Radiowaves were demonstrated, something you've yet to do so don't get ahead of yourself.

Actually, if you were to just accept what I or anyone else said was true, then you would be missing the entire point. It's not about "knowing", it's about understanding.

And if someone had talking about radio waves before they were proven, your way would have been arguing against it telling the person to prove it, regardless if it was possible to understand it.

How in the world do you think new things happen and things progress? Someone first gets the idea and an understanding of something, then it later comes to be proven/known. Sometimes it takes a long time for it to be proven, and sometimes by another person. But it's not the ones who sit around saying "prove it" over and over to anything someone claims that do it, it's the people who take the idea, understand it and then eventually find a way to prove it who do.

Your just hiding behind "scientific method" as being a valid excuse to ignore things you don't like. But yet, you seem to have no problem doing the same things in other areas, such as thinking consciousness is a result of neuro-networks, and having faith that eventually one day it would be proven.

If brain waves are proof of consciousness, then creation is proof of god.

Hey You...Yeah, You...
  Posted 5 days ago with 82 member flags

Amazingly powerful video.. The real you - Alan Watts
  Posted 17 days ago with 50 member flags

Matrix Unraveled ~ The Do\'s and Do Not\'s ~ !!!!!!
  Posted 12 days ago with 49 member flags

I Did 3 Bowls Today – I’m Flyin !
  Posted 10 days ago with 42 member flags

Animals Are As With-it as Humans (Animals Are Conscious)
  Posted 16 days ago with 41 member flags

The number 13: The Power behind it. How to Protect yourself in this spiritual war..
  Posted 13 days ago with 22 member flags

Triptych Doorway, Key to the Sacred Science Spirituality of the Mother Civilization
  Posted 11 days ago with 21 member flags

Spirit Science; a full movie
  Posted 5 days ago with 21 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: