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

reply to post by john124


I'm a programmer and make my living creating and working with logic. And now you think I have anger towards it? I create and design systems for a living, and I have a knack for understanding systems.

What I say comes from years of seeking and researching etc. I use to be an atheist. I'm sorry, but I can't just make you "see the light" in a few paragraphs, or fully explain why I am saying what I am saying. I am giving you the end result, and I am not showing my work.

Everyone who has worked on AI has come to many of the same conclusions I have. There are problems you face logically when trying to do things. It is generally known that there are things beyond logic/science, and that these things have their limits.

Creation = logic. It is the realm of action reaction(if/then), it is repeatable in a lab and science is best suited for that.

But there are things which go beyond logic. It is that which creates and understands logic, rather than that which is logic.

The universe is just a program. It is based on logic, just as programs are. I am talking about that which experiences the program, which is different th an that which is the program. That which is spirit is spirit, and that which is flesh is flesh. There are 2 realms here, not just 1.

This is the reason it is "Artificial" Intelligence. Because it is unable to understand or create it's own logic. But they will do many intelligent things because we are able to put our logic into it. But it is artificial, and not real intelligence.

At some point, in order to go from artificial intelligence to actual intelligence, it needs a consciousness/soul. Without it, it's just a bunch of patterns repeating, has no free will and so forth. And in fact, that is the direction where AI is heading these days, trying to figure out how to get peoples consciousness into a machine, where they think they can live forever.

What I say sounds crazy and illogical to you because you see yourself as being part of creation itself. There is a difference between what is being observed and that which observes it. Science is great for explaining what is observed, but says nothing about what is observing it. As I said in my first post, any scientist who is atheist has forgotten it takes a scientist(observer, which can understand) to have science.

reply to post by badmedia

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.

He says with great faith.

The problem arises when you see that making a choice is a logical process in the brain. It is a linear deterministic process where by one option is selected on some form of merit. A lot of factors will play a roll in what determines the outcome of a decision but still the outcome is determined by the conditions. That is not the biblical sense of free will because it's a deterministic "choice" model.

Freewill in the bible implies that a person is not fated to either Heaven or Hell but knowing that the act of choosing in deterministic it does in fact mean that people would be fated to heaven or hell.

Therefore choice does not equal freewill.

[edit on 28-7-2009 by Welfhard]

reply to post by makinho21


So basically, you just spent 4 paragraphs to tell me you think I'm a liar, made it all up and I am just going off beliefs.

Well that is fine, I don't expect anything less honestly. I wouldn't believe me either. But it's just not the case. As I said before in my post to john, I am only giving you the end result of what I have come to understand, which appears to be "absolute" to you. But I can't put years worth of effort into 1 or 2 paragraphs.

It takes a special kind of ignorance to believe in a big invisible man in the sky.

Lets look at religion for what it is: A crutch, rooted in power and money.

Some people use it as a crutch for dying, thereby easing their mind as they enter into death believing they will go to a magical paradise known as heaven.

Some people use it as a tool of guidance: they believe one cannot have a moral compass without religion. They need a book to tell them what is right and what is wrong, as well as how to live.

Some people simply cannot comprehend there are some questions out there they we just cant answer, so they rely on the giant invisible man theory to ease their minds.

Religion is about control. Control of the mind, and control of the wallet. Nothing more, nothing less.

The list goes on and on, at least in my own personal experiences with religious folks, this study proves to be 100% accurate.

I enjoy playing head games with religious folks whenever I come across them, and not one of them has been able to answer the following 2 questions with anything close to resembling an educated, coherent response.

Where did "god" come from?

In every depiction of Adam and Eve, they both have a belly button. Why?

[edit on 28-7-2009 by TheAftermath]

[edit on 28-7-2009 by TheAftermath]

reply to post by Welfhard

You know, you guys just don't come across as being nearly as bright as you think you are and profess to be, relative to us lowly believers in a supreme being.

Originally posted by Welfhard
He says with great faith.

The problem arises when you see that making a choice is a logical process in the brain. It is a linear deterministic process where by one option is selected on some form of merit. A lot of factors will play a roll in what determines the outcome of a decision but still the outcome is determined by the conditions. That is not the biblical sense of free will because it's a deterministic "choice" model.

Freewill in the bible implies that a person is not fated to either Heaven or Hell but knowing that the act of choosing in deterministic it does in fact mean that people would be fated to heaven or hell.

Therefore choice does not equal freewill.

What does the fact that you base your choices on the environment have to do with the fact that you are still making a choice?

Again, if there is no choice that can be made, then why do we have manipulation? If there is no choice, there can't be any manipulation, as it is not in anyway needed.

What you are talking about is true when it comes to AI. I could never find a way for it to make a choice. I can use pseduo-random numbers in order to create the illusion of choice, but it was all pre-determined.

This is not the case with humans. Yes, there are plenty of things which influence choice, and that is where manipulation does it's "job", but that doesn't mean there is no choice.

reply to post by OmegaPoint


*blink blink*

... Thanks buddy, I'll try to keep that in mind?

[edit on 28-7-2009 by Welfhard]

Originally posted by badmedia
What does the fact that you base your choices on the environment have to do with the fact that you are still making a choice?

Again, if there is no choice that can be made, then why do we have manipulation? If there is no choice, there can't be any manipulation, as it is not in anyway needed.

What you are talking about is true when it comes to AI. I could never find a way for it to make a choice. I can use pseduo-random numbers in order to create the illusion of choice, but it was all pre-determined.

This is not the case with humans. Yes, there are plenty of things which influence choice, and that is where manipulation does it's "job", but that doesn't mean there is no choice.

I DIDN'T say there was "no choice."

What I said was:

Therefore choice does not equal freewill.

That's all.

Unless you define freewill as something else....
There is a philosophy that hard determinism - like I'm suggesting - and free will are not mutually exclusive. This is called 'Compatibilism', but the trouble with compatibilism is that it avoids the issue be redefining 'Freewill' to merely mean liberty.

when one says that one could either continue to read this page or to delete it, one doesn't really mean that both choices are compatible with the complete state of the world right now, but rather that if one had desired to delete it one would have, even though as a matter of fact one actually desires to continue reading it, and therefore that is what will actually happen.

[Compatibilism]

This doesn't challenge the argument that decisions/choices are still deterministic.

[edit on 28-7-2009 by Welfhard]

reply to post by Welfhard


You defined free will as a choice yourself. You said the bible referred to being able to choose between heaven and hell.

reply to post by badmedia

You defined free will as a choice yourself. You said the bible referred to being able to choose between heaven and hell.

No I didn't. I've already said that choice is a deterministic process of selection (determined by merit & pre-conditions etc. etc.), whereas free will is a selection that is not predetermined by anything.

The bible is not be and I do not agree with what it says - it says that one can choose "freely" (with freewill) either heaven or hell. I assert that since choice is deterministic - the scenario that the bible paints is impossible

[edit on 28-7-2009 by Welfhard]

Originally posted by halfmanhalfamazing
almost everyone goes through some sort of religious path before they become athiests, or non - believers or whatever you want to call it

...you got it backwards (evidence of your religious indoctrination)... humans are atheist upon birth - meaning no belief in a god... no one comes out of the shoot with beliefs, just instincts...

reply to post by Wyn Hawks

Think he allows for atheism at birth when he says

some sort of religious path

Children can adopt theistic beliefs very early on, before even imaginary friends or believe in fairies or monsters in their closets.

[edit on 28-7-2009 by Welfhard]

reply to post by Welfhard


Except that you choose which things determine your reasoning.

Part of free will is the ability to give it away as well. We do this in order to have experiences. Poker for example, we give away our free will in order to have the experience of the game. We subject ourselves to it's rules/laws in order to have the experience. Our choices beyond that point are determined based on the conditions of the game, but we are still making choices, and it is free will which enables that choice.

reply to post by badmedia

We do this in order to have experiences. Poker for example, we give away our free will in order to have the experience of the game.

Our choice to play the game is likely determined by wanting to play the game. Wanting to play the game is determined by any number preconditions internally and externally, like being encouraged by friends, amount of time since previous play, acknowledgement of the level of enjoyment from previous experiences of the game. All of those things, too, are predetermined by other things etc etc.

Except that you choose which things determine your reasoning.

That choice (of what reasoning) is itself predetermined also.

Any choice made is predetermined - that is the nature of the act of choosing - the reasoning is always based on something and therefore the outcome is determined by circumstances prior to the act of choosing. Choice is a predetermined act, period.

[edit on 28-7-2009 by Welfhard]

reply to post by Welfhard


So what is it that makes the choice and is able to use those predetermined factors to do so?

Sounds to me like the old "I am as god made me" excuse preachers like to use after getting caught touching little boys.

Isn't it kind of pointless to even debate if what you said were true? After all, it's not my fault I think what I do right? And it's not your fault you think like you do either. And as we have no choice and whatever, then we obviously lack the ability to really know which is right or wrong, because it is not our choice to do such things to begin with?

Do you really realize what you are saying?

[edit on 7/28/2009 by badmedia]

reply to post by badmedia

So what is it that makes the choice and is able to use those predetermined factors to do so?

..... Our brains.
It's been said to me that psychology is just applied neurology.
Neurology is just applied biology.
Biology is just applied chemistry.
Chemistry is just applied physics.
Physics is just applied Mathematics + cause and effect. The universe doesn't speak english, it only speaks numbers.

Isn't it kind of pointless to even debate if what you said were true? After all, it's not my fault I think what I do right? And it's not your fault you think like you do either. And as we have no choice and whatever, then we obviously lack the ability to really know which is right or wrong, because it is not our choice to do such things to begin with?

Do you really realize what you are saying?

It's not pointless, maybe meaningless but not pointless. Some people find the idea that they are trapped daunting and it makes them extreme pessimists but I don't think it needs to. No matter what you believe, you'll never know your future - all this is saying is that there is only one future. We are but characters on a stage playing out a story that has a predetermined ending. But the mere fact that I know it's a fixed timeline does not absolve me from the choices I make. I know that what ever I choose to do, that outcome was the only possible outcome from the choice.

All I can do is aspire to be just (as best as I understand "just" to be) and hope for the best.


Determinism may not comfort you but to the best of my understanding, nature is neither for nor against us so I would expect it to comfort us. Determinism is something I've believed since I was about 10 and I have never been able to see how it can possibly be violated.

[edit on 28-7-2009 by Welfhard]

I don't believe that religious people are generally less intelligent that the non-religious. But I can foresee some kind of gap in knowledge, if that makes any sense.

Many Christians belief what the Bible and their pastors tell them about creation, the universe, life, morals, society, etc. People that aren't religious have to come to certain conclusions about these things, for the most part, on their own. Even if there parents teach them these things, I don't think it's usually ingrained in them so much as it is for people with religious upbringings.

I've known quite a few devout Christians and most of the time when you present them with a serious question that seems to either contradict or at least questions the validity of a certain belief they have, they usually either automatically deny or refer to the bible--"Well, the bible says..." or "That's up to God to decide."

They just don't question or analyze things as much because it's all the answers are written in a book for them or told to them by their religious leaders. There's no need to question or analyze when you have something or someone telling you all the answers you will EVER need to know are right here.

reply to post by makinho21


Too bad your argument is a strawman at best...... You can apply a focused statement as broadly as you wish but that doesn't mean it was meant to be so. People can and do as I as describe just because you choose to believe I apply it just to all atheists instead of a great deal of people of all labels does not mean I do as well.

Originally posted by Welfhard
..... Our brains.
It's been said to me that psychology is just applied neurology.
Neurology is just applied biology.
Biology is just applied chemistry.
Chemistry is just applied physics.
Physics is just applied Mathematics + cause and effect. The universe doesn't speak english, it only speaks numbers.

So, certain chemicals and such react with each other and that gives us consciousness? What is this observitanium element? Or, what is the magical electrical wave pattern that gives us consciousness?

That is what you are saying. Consciousness comes from chemicals and electricity reacting with each other. But it's nonsense. Those are merely tools for consciousness. They react and they give you signals and such, but it is not what it means to feel, or observe or anything like that.

And the universe is just numbers, it's a program. But consciousness is separate from it. I have nothing against science, I pretty much watch the science channel only on TV most of the time. I love it. But there is that which goes beyond it.

Check up on people who work with AI, they will also talk about these limitations in logic/math. Quantum Physics is the only part of science that even acknowledged consciousness and the observer, and it's pretty much been taboo because of it(although Einstein was right, no randomness).

What you say is true of AI, and is true of this universe/creation. But there is that which is beyond it and not a part of creation itself, and that part within you is the father/god. You are god, but you are in a limited experience just like that poker game.

I can't prove it to you, but you really have to think on this topic to understand.

It's not pointless, maybe meaningless but not pointless. Some people find the idea that they are trapped daunting and it makes them extreme pessimists but I don't think it needs to. No matter what you believe, you'll never know your future - all this is saying is that there is only one future. We are but characters on a stage playing out a story that has a predetermined ending. But the mere fact that I know it's a fixed timeline does not absolve me from the choices I make. I know that what ever I choose to do, that outcome was the only possible outcome from the choice.

If we are stuck in a linear reality, then fine there is no free will or choice. But that is the point, we are not. I don't know the future, even as much as I do understand about the universe there is so much to it that I can only even imagine but a small portion of it. It says nothing of the rules of the game we live in and so forth. It is simply the construct for creation.

It also says nothing of how much is shared and so forth, all of which is possible. And so on. Science is great for these kinds of things.

Science is basically proving that we are not stuck in a linear reality with quantum physics.

All I can do is aspire to be just, as best as I understand just to be, and hope for the best.

I agree, but how are you not making a choice there?

Wisdom is being able to take from existing knowledge, experience and understanding in order to make the correct choice.

Determinism may not comfort you but to the best of my understanding, nature is neither for nor against us so I would expect it to comfort us. Determinism is something I've believed since I was about 10 and I have never been able to see how it can possibly be violated.

Actually, I think it would be comforting. In my relationship with the father he never tells me "this is this, that is that" and so forth. But rather I am given understanding so that I can see for myself. Now, that can be difficult at times, because I wonder if I am understanding correctly. And a deterministic response would certainly be easier and more comforting.

It basically means I'm not responsible for my actions. Where as now I feel I am responsible for my actions. Because I can choose better.

reply to post by badmedia


No you can't, and what good would it do? Personal experience doesn't count for much - which is why the idea of believing in faith, in order, to have faith is really dumb. I didn't call you a liar, I merely think you are arguing something that is irrelevant in a discussion of Atheism and what it means. I have laid out to you - in my opinion - what Atheism is. You have explained your side as well, and that is probably the best we will get out of this because my take is your argument is pointless because you are making it out of the "absolute avenue", and your argument is I am making claims off of negative proofs. Fair enough. I'm pretty bored of this though. Maybe I'll make a new thread