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

Originally posted by jd140

Originally posted by jonah0julian
Atheists are smarter because they are more focused on science. The theists just say that the universe is not governed by randomness but by "God".

Just because someone is more focused on one subject then another doesn't make them smarter over all.

Atheists aren't any smarter then someone who is a Christian.

Scientists answers questions through evidence which creates new questions. Christian's are like stuck records repeating the same made-up stuff.

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
reply to post by jonah0julian

 

The universe surely is not governed by randomness.

No, that's a religious straw-man argument. The universe works by nature and just is. These being determined through science. Adding a god just makes a sophisticated although simple model that works, into a muddled up mess. Can we answer where a god came from? Did another god create him? What about the second god? Hmmmm... pointless isn't it!

Christians, true Christians, are focused on the love of God and the resolution to the problem of human evil and human suffering.

"Our liberation is God's compulsion."
~ C.S. Lewis Atheist, turned Believer.

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by OmegaPoint

 

That is precisely true, they [atheists] would rather deny their own existence, consciousness and free will before ackowledging God even as a self aware universe, they will go that far..

Generalise much? This kind of reasoning is about as annoying as the old 'foxhole atheists' argument. Also, you are going to have to prove that free will exists and that the universe isn't hard-deterministic which I understand it to be - even as a Christian I did. Causality is a harsh mistress.

Lastly, learn to spell.

Causality is the manipulation, not the truth. You are able to make a choice, and that is free will. You are able to reason, understand and so forth to make a choice.

The universe is not linear. It only appears linear because your perspective is linear. Perspective is really the only thing that ever changes, the universe itself is as static as a painting.

It's not a single movie film, it's many movie films stacked on top of each other. Your choices determine the path you take across those films. Everytime you make a choice, you change dimensions(actually, ever second you change dimensions, but a choice is a path change).

This is easy to demonstrate. Right now there are 2 possible futures for you. In 1 future you raise your arms. In other future you do not. Both exist, which ones becomes reality and a part of your linear perspective is your choice. That is small jump. The more different things are, the bigger the jump. This is easy to demonstrate with time. You jump back 1 year ago, not too much change. You go back 2000 years ago, tons of change. Just apply that in other directions rather than being linear.

Casuality happens when people are stuck in duality, or are manipulated. In which case they believe they are making a choice, but are not. What happens is those with power introduce certain actions, in order to bring about the reactions in people. They people think they made a choice, but the result is really just a reaction. Usually done with fear. 9/11 was an action, and from that the wanted reaction of 2 wars, loss of security and so forth was given. And the people actually believe they are choosing those things. That is the illusion.

The easiest way to prove their is a choice is that manipulation wouldn't need to exist in any form if it was not the case. Because choice does actually exist, manipulation is needed in order to try and control that choice. This is why it is said you are hated by this world. Because you have choice. If you didn't have choice, then you would be like a rocket, action and reaction and that gives those who seek power and control exactly that. If the rocket had choice, who knows where it ends up, they do not have control.

The entire manipulation of this planet is to try and turn people into action and reaction, aka selling their soul and giving up their free will, in exchange for material security and so forth.

reply to post by john124

Um no, it's based on the idea of pure randomness being unable to generate the multifacted miracle that is life in all of it's forms. It is based on the law of thermodynamics being unable to explain the massive and continuous growth in complexity. The "evidence" is all around you and it is you.

A holographic, non-local, self aware and consciousness generated universe OTOH points to an evolutionary non-locality and an intelligent, by-design creativity.

One also has to look at the universe in terms of a boundless open system capable of bleeding off the entropy, while at the same time bounding it as a closed system, so as to push evolution to new orders of complexity (see the work of Ilya Prigogine en.wikipedia.org...).

One may also wish to consider, in terms of the monistic idealism viewpoint (consciousness is primary), the work of David Bohm (holographic universe and the "implicate order" and Karl Pibram (holographic mind), where what we see is the human mind as a sphere within a sphere, such that the distinction between self and God-self becomes blurred.

It requies thinking outside the box free of contemptuous bias prior to, investigation.

Agnosticism is an intellectually honest position, but atheism is not. It's presumptuous and highly arrogant.

[edit on 28-7-2009 by OmegaPoint]

Originally posted by jd140
reply to post by makinho21

 

The way you defend Atheism is the same way a person would defend their religion.

First it starts with calling those with differant beliefs ignorant. Which atheists have been doing for a while now.

Then comes trying to force your way of thinking on others. Which atheists have been doing for a while.


Christianity started this way also. For not being a religion, atheism sure is mimicing one.


I am sure I don't follow a religion. All you religion followers are to uptight about your beliefs, you don't leave any room for the chance that you might be wrong.

Reply if you wish, I am done arguing your religion with you.

You don't understand how evidence based thinking works, and you clearly feel faith is part of science, where it is not. And athiesm is only such because science has not found any evidence of any such god.

This evidence speaks for itself, nobody has to stand on the street and proclaim it as true, as religious people often do with their faith-based views.

You are being petty, whilst athiests are just stating the obvious. And you don't have to answer, and in fact would save us all the time not having to read your illogical replies.

Originally posted by john124

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
reply to post by jonah0julian

 

The universe surely is not governed by randomness.

No, that's a religious straw-man argument. The universe works by nature and just is. These being determined through science. Adding a god just makes a sophisticated although simple model that works, into a muddled up mess. Can we answer where a god came from? Did another god create him? What about the second god? Hmmmm... pointless isn't it!

Consciousness is eternal and without time. Time is merely an illusion of perception.

You need to understand what it means to be a son before you can understand the father.

Take a movie film, stretch it all out at once. That is what the father see's. No time, no movement, no change, knows all things.

Only when you take that movie film and put it into a limited perception of viewing it frame by frame, do you then get the illusion of time, change and so forth. This is your perspective, the son's perspective.

But it is not just a single movie film, linear or a directors cut, it's more like a choose your own adventure book. All possibilities exist and there are many films stacked on "top" of each other. Which ones become reality and the ride you get is based on your choice.

Know thyself, can't understand the father if you can not understand the son(you).

I may be going on a limb here quoting the bible, but wouldn't "judge not, lest you be judged" be applicable in this thread? Of course, not in a "you will be judged by god" sense, but in a "judge me, ill judge you" sense. What would the world be like if we lived our lives based upon morality for the sake of mankind; not arguing about where we did or did not get that morality from in the first place? Would this study even have happened?
Just throwin it out there. I've been reading along this whole time and have actually learned a lot from a lot of the posts in this thread. Sadly, my sidekick makes it impossible for me to make a reply to any particular post

reply to post by mooseinhisglory


Well, there is a difference in judging others, and making good judgments for oneself(wisdom).

We are really just having a discussion, and that is healthy. In order for us to be providing judgment of each other, we would be looking to punish the others and so forth, and that is what I love about forums, none of that is going to happen.

Don't really have to worry about that guy who disagrees turning and rending me and so forth. The worse we will suffer would be any personal attacks, which I can personally deal with.

Debate and discussion is healthy because it helps bring about understanding. Makes people think and examine things or points maybe they hadn't thought of etc.

And you can't really do that IRL too much, because who knows when the guy is gonna want to punch you in the nose, or whatever because they don't like your opinion.

I think they are just too blind to see god who has nothin to prove and are only satisfied with what the beast allows them to see for he knows its more convincing to present them with visuals even if they are just that visual representations of evil souls.

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by OmegaPoint

 

In a sense, we are created beings but this doesn't really mean anything. Creation doesn't strictly imply a creator - leaving an open bottle of milk out for weeks "creates" a mess. Ontological proofs are fallacious.

Again, give a reason to believe and you may get somewhere.

"Ontological proofs are fallacious" fantastic statement!

Remember you're arguing with people who potentially cannot understand as they may lack the intelligence capability. And those who asked for proof of the OP's article are getting the proof right in front of them.

This happens everywhere where religious people debate - they show a lack of rational thinking.

Originally posted by badmedia

Originally posted by john124

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
reply to post by jonah0julian

 

The universe surely is not governed by randomness.

No, that's a religious straw-man argument. The universe works by nature and just is. These being determined through science. Adding a god just makes a sophisticated although simple model that works, into a muddled up mess. Can we answer where a god came from? Did another god create him? What about the second god? Hmmmm... pointless isn't it!

Consciousness is eternal and without time. Time is merely an illusion of perception.

You need to understand what it means to be a son before you can understand the father.

Take a movie film, stretch it all out at once. That is what the father see's. No time, no movement, no change, knows all things.

Only when you take that movie film and put it into a limited perception of viewing it frame by frame, do you then get the illusion of time, change and so forth. This is your perspective, the son's perspective.

But it is not just a single movie film, linear or a directors cut, it's more like a choose your own adventure book. All possibilities exist and there are many films stacked on "top" of each other. Which ones become reality and the ride you get is based on your choice.

Know thyself, can't understand the father if you can not understand the son(you).

It's difficult and pointless to reply rationally to an irrationally based post filled with riddles and endless speculation. It doesn't matter what you say you believe in, whether it be a flying spaghetti monster, or god.... you haven't provided the evidence for the claim so you haven't got past stage one yet.

You may feel a philosophical approach can provide proof to yourself, but usually this is due to just not knowing or understanding any science beyond pre-school level, or copied from those in that position who preach too much yet know very little.

There are unknowns.. that's a certainty and for all we know science may one day learn that we are all part of the same entity, and ghosts are our dead uncles - and that we could call all ghostly entities part of a 'gods' left testicle, and all living humans part of a 'god's' right testicle.... But until evidence based proof is obtained then it's all just conjecture I'm afraid. That's no different to what you said.

And whatever science does discover you can bet it will be much more complicated than a simple little analogy. 100 years ago Quantum Physics would have sounded absolutely bonkers, yet today we accept it as fact because scientific evidence has proved it to be so. We can't even imagine the possibilities of alternate realities, extra-dimensions and what else may exist, and what potentials us humans may have both technologically and spiritually.


[edit on 28-7-2009 by john124]

reply to post by john124


So I guess you have never heard of the 11th dimension and all that stuff?

Maybe you should break out a science book that wasn't made in 1960?

You can't reply because you don't understand it, and just gave me a bunch of stupid dogma in return. Personally, I don't give a crap if you believe me or not, I was just answering the question.





[edit on 7/28/2009 by badmedia]

reply to post by john124


The very fact that you are claiming more intelligence than me belies your own state of ignorance in these most important matters of life, it's purpose, origin, meaning, destiny and the role of man as a consciously aware sentient in relation to it.

Defining one's self and worldview in terms of what you DO NOT believe in, is, to begin with, absurd, I hope you realize that..

Some of us look around at the supreme mystery of life and we cannot help but rationally deduce a creative impulse and a universal creative principal which by far transcends a purely randomized materialist monism.

And your rudeness and arrogance is well noted. If that's what being an atheist is like I want none of it. Just look at Jesus monkey boy for example, motivated by a contempt towards something he doesn't even begin to understand, while assuming his own intellectual superiority.

From what I've seen of atheists, they are a close minded bunch, who begin with a certain presupposition and contemptuous bias born of nothing but a rebellion against certain religious dogmatic precepts, and in so doing they harden themselves against even the possibility of a creator and universal self consciously aware being, and like I said, they are arrogant and rude as can be seen in many of these posts.

[edit on 28-7-2009 by OmegaPoint]

Originally posted by Astyanax
By the way, has anyone noticed that the atheists on this thread, to a man or woman, write (and spell) far better than their opponents?

Just something I noticed...

I noticed too.

Regarding the Issue for Atheism being a Religion. I am not sure who is the person who Authored it but I read a GREAT quote on ATS. It says...

"If Atheism is a religion, then NOT collecting stamps is a hobby."

I think this describes the position of the Atheist flawlessly.

Moving onto the Intelligence level of Atheists I believe Religions that include a Hell or Judgment with the possibility of punishment have a huge barrier that goes beyond rationality or level of Intelligence.

Take for instance people with phobias. My Mother has a heart stopping fear of mice. She is so completely terrified of mice that she nearly goes into a state of shock.

She is not scared of snakes, nor spiders but she is DEATHLY afraid of mice.

She KNOWS where the fear originates from. Her own mother used to put a tiny toy mouse on the floor to keep her out of certain areas when she was a small child.

She KNOWS it is an irrational fear. She is not scared of Hamsters, Guinea Pigs, Gerbils, Chipmunks or ANY other rodents. She KNOWS that small mice are very unlikely to attack her.

But she does not have control over her fear. She is way to scared to attempt to actually deal with it.

MANY Intelligent and famous people have Phobias.

Author Anne Rice (who does all of the Gothic Horror novels) is DEATHLY afraid of the Dark!
Napoleon Bonaparte was VERY Afraid of ...cats.
Sigmund Freud was afraid of trains.
Alfred Hitchcock had a tremendous fear of EGGS!
Nicole Kidman fears butterflies

What is more frightening than their NOT being a heaven and NOT living on for eternity?

Intelligence and rationality go right the heck out the window when an intelligent person is confronted with mortality.

People will resort to almost any means or rationalize anything they possibly can to stay in the game. Grab on to whatever you can to justify an afterlife.

[edit on 28-7-2009 by TurkeyBurgers]

Originally posted by badmedia
reply to post by john124

 

So I guess you have never heard of the 11th dimension and all that stuff?

Maybe you should break out a science book that wasn't made in 1960?

You can't reply because you don't understand it, and just gave me a bunch of stupid dogma in return. Personally, I don't give a crap if you believe me or not, I was just answering the question.

[edit on 7/28/2009 by badmedia]

Yes I have.... where did I say that I hadn't. I was simply saying we have much more to learn.



Your post is full of anger towards logic.

[edit on 28-7-2009 by john124]

reply to post by badmedia


I never said "I can proof god doesn't exist" - no - see like all other religious people, you work in the world of absolutes. That is pointless - it doesn't help us make any headway on any sort of discussion, be it god, leprechauns, or fairies.
Atheists use tangible evidence, as my fellow lady Atheist says, "intrinsic" observations and extensive properties we have investigated and found to be true and real. These are what I use to build my view of the world, and in a practical context, do not need or exhibit creation or design.
Ofcourse like we have stated MANY times, we can't prove or disprove a god. Does that mean it exists? From the appearance of the environment in which I exist, I would say no. When a Christian tells me about Jesus rising to heaven and that he is the son of god, I can very easily reject such a stupid claim - this does not mean I think it is the prime view of god everywhere.
I think you are splitting hairs with your insistence to cling to this theory of absolute knowledge. I don't need that to safely tell anyone that, for me, god does not exist in the forms that have been proposed in the modern religions of our time.
I ask for evidence because I like to base my view of the world on things that are real. Things that have been established and observed (not a personal experience - as you admit those are pointless to share as reason and proof for something) by science. Things that make testable predictions and have been found to exist.
If you don't care that your beliefs are likely to be true - you would not fully understand. If you merely want to believe things because you like the idea of them, then good for you. No one can disprove that or refute it, but I, as well as my Agnostic/Gnostic Atheists, work in a mindset that cares about the legitimacy of our beliefs. This is why I can reject, with confidence, Christian, Jewish and Muslim claims - because their god has been recorded as a personal interactive god that shows itself and influences the world, and that doesn't happen.
Do I claim god doesn't exist somewhere, at some point in time, in the universe? No - I would be foolish to do that, but that is the problem with absolute certainty - We can't say for sure Gollum didn't exist somewhere at some time. We can't say Optimus Prime doesn't exist somewhere at some time.

More to the point of your last posts - once we unravel the fog of your theological language and your philosophical escapism, we see you are merely talking about FAITH - no matter how poetic you try to make it seem, that is what you are referring to: knowing and having to "find out" on one's own that is faith talk.
This is completely irrelevant because it is untestable, unfalsifiable and allows someone to excuse themselves from backing up stupid claims. You are religious, even if you are not Christian or Muslim or Jewish.


Also it is not the same as saying freedom sucks - again you are missing the point. If such an example shall be used, it would be more to the side of
"GWB's idea of freedom is stupid and naive because in the name of this ideal, he is committing atrocious crimes".
Different - it is specific. Like I and all others have been saying. The only way you can maintain a divine presence is if you continue to proselytize from your perch of absolute truths



[edit on 28-7-2009 by makinho21]

[edit on 28-7-2009 by makinho21]

[edit on 28-7-2009 by makinho21]

[edit on 28-7-2009 by makinho21]

"If Atheism is a religion, then NOT collecting stamps is a hobby."

That is great analogy - thank your for your post. I doubt it will help these people see how stuck in their own world they are but it was a very good example. Thanks!

My brother's girlfriend is ridiculously scared of dogs. When they bark and come up *they aren't going to do anything, that is their way of saying hello most of the time* she cringes and squeals and hides behind whoever is closest - after the fact she says it attacked her or something, but that never has happened. I think she actually believes it is going to - or did - attack her. Very odd. Fear of death could be something like that. Phobias are bizarre though for sure

[edit on 28-7-2009 by makinho21]

...I just wanted to quote what you said, but I guess I screwed it up and "quoted" my own writing as well. Godamn it

[edit on 28-7-2009 by makinho21]

These arguments go round in circles.... if those of you who cannot understand the difference between scientific evidence and faith based thinking after this many pages, then you never will.

I'm not trying to proclaim science knows everything, it's a traditional straw-man argument to try that approach when all else fails.

I don't feel compelled or motivated to continue to discuss this same point over and over again.

Scientific discoveries have gone beyond the wildest dreams of anyone's beliefs, yet we still have many unanswered questions. Therefore the human mind cannot conceive absolute certainties. Why bother!? Provide conjecture of course if you say what may be possible, but that's all it is. That's not arrogance or ignorance as believers proclaim... that's just logical, rational and critical thinking. And that my friends... is life!

This thread itself can be used as evidence for the OP's claim within the article.

[edit on 28-7-2009 by john124]