Religious people are less intelligent than non-believers

page: 5
19
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 11:53 AM
link   
The question should be does having a high IQ make you a better person?

Who laid the foundation stones for future generations in science and the arts, religious people laid the foundation stones, no greater minds ever existed.

Who can hold a candle to them?

just a few

313–1000 (4th–10th centuries)
en.wikipedia.org...

John Philoponus (c.490–c.570) Alexandria egypt.jpg He was a figure in the Monophysitism minority of Eastern Christianity. His criticism of Aristotelian physics was important to Medieval science. He also theorized about the nature of light and the stars. As a theologian he rejected the Council of Chalcedon and his major Christological work is Arbiter.[note 1][2]

Isidore of Seville (c.560–c.636) Isidor von Sevilla.jpeg Catholic Archbishop who preserved many scientific selections from the ancient worlds. His most popular work was Etymologiae which contained information on medicine, mathematics, astronomy, atomic theory, geography, agriculture, zoology, minerology, physiology, and other topics. His work was widely used throughout the medieval ages for its extent of research topics. [3]

Bede, the Venerable (c.672–735) Nuremberg Chronicle Venerable Bede.jpg Catholic monk, venerated as a saint and Doctor of the Church. He was an influence for early medieval knowledge of nature. He wrote two works on "Time and its Reckoning." This primarily concerned how to date Easter, but contained a new recognition of the "progress wave-like" nature of tides.[4]

Rabanus Maurus (c.780–856) Raban-Maur Alcuin Otgar.jpg Benedictine monk and teacher, he later became archbishop of Mainz and is venerated as blessed in the Catholic Church. He wrote a treatise on Computus and the encyclopedic work De universo. His teaching earned him the accolade of Praeceptor Germaniae, or "the teacher of Germany."[5]

Leo the Mathematician (c.790–a.869) Map of Constantinople (1422) by Florentine cartographer Cristoforo Buondelmonte.jpg Archbishop of Thessalonica, he later became the head of the Magnaura School of philosophy in Constantinople, where he taught Aristotelian logic. Leo also composed his own medical encyclopaedia. He has been called a "true Renaissance man" and "the cleverest man in Byzantium in the 9th century".[6][7][8]

Hunayn ibn Ishaq (c.809–873) Cheshm manuscript.jpg Assyrian Christian physician known for translations of Greek scientific works and as author of "Ten Treatises on Ophthalmology." The image shows a picture inspired by his anatomical descriptions of the eye. He also wrote "How to Grasp Religion", which involved the apologetics for his faith.[9]


Please read

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 113131p://bTuesday2013 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)
edit on 123131p://bTuesday2013 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 12:01 PM
link   
I doubt if there is really a correlation between religion and intellect. Belief can coexist with intellect. Maybe people who aren't as smart as others may choose to be interested in the simplicity of religion like sports fanatics get overzealous about sports. I would tend to believe also that the smart person who would want to succeed in a world controlled by religion would tend to go to church. I believe in god but don't believe in religion myself, religion is just a tool by which people who have similar beliefs get to meet.



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Theodoric of Freiberg
(c.1250–c.1310) Rainbow in Budapest.jpg Dominican who is believed to have given the first correct explanation for the rainbow in De iride et radialibus impressionibus or On the Rainbow. In theology he disagreed with Thomas Aquinas on metaphysical positions and tended towards a more Neoplatonic outlook than Aquinas.[25]

Thomas Bradwardine (c.1290–1349) Small Mitre.svg He was an English archbishop, often called "the Profound Doctor". He developed studies as one of the Oxford Calculators of Merton College, Oxford University. These studies would lead to important developments in mechanics.[26]

William of Ockham
(c.1285–c.1350) William of Ockham.png He was an English Franciscan friar and scholastic philosopher. He is a major figure of medieval thought and was at the center of the major intellectual and political controversies of his time. Commonly known for Occam's razor, the scientific/methodological principle that bears his name, he also produced significant works on logic, physics, and theology.[27]

Jean Buridan (c.1300–c.1358) Kanonik.png He was a Catholic priest and one of the most influential philosophers of the later Middle Ages. He developed the theory of impetus, which was an important step toward the modern concept of inertia.[28]


there is also a long list of the Living.



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 


I am a spiritual person love the metaphysical but is that just some natural thing beyond our comprehension, what is truly supernatural?

What touches our imagination where do great thoughts come from?

Are we all natural or are we all supernatural?

What's in a word?

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
Oh BullSh*t! My IQ tested at 156 +/- 4 points. I believe in God and think Darwinism is false.


Can you and your purported high IQ tell me why Darwinism is false?



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 




Are we all natural or are we all supernatural?


What gives us the right to define something as "natural", "unnatural" or "supernatural"? Modern science has existed for 200 years. I think it would be reasonable to say we don't know squat about "natural". Out of the 0.00000000000000000001% of the observable universe that we occupy, we see 1% of what is actually there.

I think we overstep ourselves in defining natural vs supernatural. Perhaps there's a "natural" that exists beyond what we've observed of nature. We just don't have the biology to see it, or even think of trying to see it.



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 




Are we all natural or are we all supernatural?


What gives us the right to define something as "natural", "unnatural" or "supernatural"? Modern science has existed for 200 years. I think it would be reasonable to say we don't know squat about "natural". Out of the 0.00000000000000000001% of the observable universe that we occupy, we see 1% of what is actually there.

I think we overstep ourselves in defining natural vs supernatural. Perhaps there's a "natural" that exists beyond what we've observed of nature. We just don't have the biology to see it, or even think of trying to see it.


Exactly we cannot define it.

It is beyond our comprehension.

Scientist are still theorizing.

Isn't it the essence of the supernatural that we are here experiencing the wonders of the universe.
To see a world in a grain of sand,
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand,
And eternity in an hour.

Being little creators ourselves.

Here is one of my favorites.

From ‘The Ancient Sage’
By Alfred, Lord Tennyson (1809–1892)

IF thou would’st hear the Nameless, and wilt dive
Into the Temple-cave of thine own self,
There, brooding by the central altar, thou
May’st haply learn the Nameless hath a voice,
By which thou wilt abide, if thou be wise,
As if thou knewest, tho’ thou canst not know;
For Knowledge is the swallow on the lake
That sees and stirs the surface-shadow there
But never yet hath dipt into the abysm,
The Abysm of all Abysms, beneath, within
The blue of sky and sea, the green of earth,
And in the million-millionth of a grain
Which cleft and cleft again for evermore,
And ever vanishing, never vanishes,
To me, my son, more mystic than myself,
Or even than the Nameless is to me.
And when thou sendest thy free soul thro’ heaven,
Nor understandest bound nor boundlessness,
Thou seest the Nameless of the hundred names.
And if the Nameless should withdraw from all
Thy frailty counts most real, all thy world
Might vanish like thy shadow in the dark.

‘And since—from when this earth began—
The Nameless never came
Among us, never spake with man,
And never named the Name’—

Thou canst not prove the Nameless, O my son,
Nor canst thou prove the world thou movest in,
Thou canst not prove that thou art body alone,
Nor canst thou prove that thou art spirit alone,
Nor canst thou prove that thou art both in one:
Thou canst not prove thou art immortal, no
Nor yet that thou art mortal—nay my son,
Thou canst not prove that I, who speak with thee,
Am not thyself in converse with thyself,
For nothing worthy proving can be proven,
Nor yet disproven: wherefore thou be wise,
Cleave ever to the sunnier side of doubt,
And cling to Faith beyond the forms of Faith
She reels not in the storm of warring words,
She brightens at the clash of ‘Yes’ and ‘No’,
She sees the Best that glimmers thro’ the Worst,
She feels the Sun is hid but for a night,
She spies the summer thro’ the winter bud,
She tastes the fruit before the blossom falls,
She hears the lark within the songless egg,
She finds the fountain where they wail’d ‘Mirage’!

I love this best
She finds the fountain where they wail’d ‘Mirage’!
edit on 123131p://bTuesday2013 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nacirema

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
Oh BullSh*t! My IQ tested at 156 +/- 4 points. I believe in God and think Darwinism is false.


Can you and your purported high IQ tell me why Darwinism is false?


Darwin was a theologian and never possessed a degree of anything in science. He observed adaptation and then made a leap to common ancestry. This thread shows the desperate attempts to back Darwin up via lies and hoaxes which became foundational for generations who did not know they were lied to.

Evolution backed up by hoaxes and lies



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 


Just thought I'd mention here that while Serenity is determined to prove evolution false, he still doesn't have a better theory to replace it. Which means that his thread does very little to support the premise of this thread, besides proving that 200 years of scientific development leaves quite a lot of room for growth. But we already knew that.
edit on 13-8-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 


Just thought I'd mention here that while Serenity is determined to prove evolution false, he still doesn't have a better theory to replace it. Which means that his thread does very little to support the premise of this thread, besides proving that 200 years of scientific development leaves quite a lot of room for growth. But we already knew that.
edit on 13-8-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)


I have my own views on life. My thread was not about that. The purpose of MY OP was showing the lies and hoaxes used to support the theory of evolution and that is what I did. You have yet to show what I posted was false. Thus my thread stands on it's own and is not false.
edit on 13-8-2013 by UnifiedSerenity because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nacirema

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
Oh BullSh*t! My IQ tested at 156 +/- 4 points. I believe in God and think Darwinism is false.


Can you and your purported high IQ tell me why Darwinism is false?



No, no, no. Take that to the other forum.

There are already hundreds of threads around here derailed by that old debate thx.



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
Oh BullSh*t! My IQ tested at 156 +/- 4 points. I believe in God and think Darwinism is false.


- anorther 100pts for not believing evolution/Darwinism
lol



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by rigel4

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
Oh BullSh*t! My IQ tested at 156 +/- 4 points. I believe in God and think Darwinism is false.


- anorther 100pts for not believing evolution/Darwinism
lol


Um, intelligence (IQ) has nothing to do with how much data is on the hard drive, but a measurement of the speed of the processor.


#facepalm



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 


You have yet to post a better solution. All you did was show that a legitimate theory was flawed. That doesn't negate the fact it is still the best one to date. All you want to do is shatter the light bulb and leave us in a dark room. I have no respect for that. At least give us a better light bulb to work with or go away until you have one.

Maybe that's what they meant by "less intelligent". One doesn't generally remove an engine unless they have a better one to put in. And if that process takes time, they usually have another car to replace it. But Serenity doesn't. Just wants to take out the motor, leave the car sitting, and walk.

Meanwhile, we're hard at work developing a better motor.



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


Come on, there is an entire forum dedicated to that topic.



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 02:25 PM
link   
The reason for this is because "modern science" is no longer truly about science and logic, it is about subjective beliefs and a hierarchy of folks who tell everybody else they are wrong who do not also believe in their faith-based "science". What I mean by this is that "modern science" requires just as much faith to believe as does any other religion. So since it is labeled as "scientific" people who do better on it are considered more intelligent, when in fact it is false. People are intelligent and unintelligent, irregardless of their faith.

So let me sum it up for you; since Atheism is a religion, with subjective and unproven "modern science" as their Bible, then it would seem they know it better since it is their religion. That's like saying "Christians are more knowledgeable about the Bible than non Christians, thus they are more intelligent." Wrong! The Religion of Atheism just claims their faith-bound beliefs as science, and assume that makes them more correct and intelligent than the rest.

Not to mention that most of the real science and physics that we use today was discovered and developed by Christians.



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 02:45 PM
link   
I think as the article suggests, the actual reasons behind this are probably complex, and not black and white.

Although I'm sure plenty of the more ignorant atheists will joyously proclaim that stupidity causes religious belief, even though correlation =/= causation.


I do think one relevant factor is that far less intelligent people are more inclined to unquestioningly believe what they are told by authority figures-- often their family, close relatives, or other influences. In other words-- people who grow up with their parents' / society's religion and never question it much, if at all.

However, I suspect that is only one factor in this correlation. I have known some pretty intelligent people who have faith in a religion, or at least strong spiritual beliefs. And while I tend to lean more toward the spiritual than the religious, it would make my own IQ score a minor anomaly.
edit on 13-8-2013 by iwilliam because: (no reason given)
edit on 13-8-2013 by iwilliam because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Pimpish
 




...should be shouldn't have.


Shouldn't that have been 'should not have'?




Ok, sorry, done pointing out my ironies for the day.


Me too!



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by LABTECH767
reply to post by predator0187
 


This is a statistic not a rule and should be thought of in that fashion, Often intelligence is worked out by IQ which itself is a flawed system using knowledge and programmed thought process tests.
Did you know the head of the Human Genome project is a Christian whom found his faith late in life, Also these statistics may vary by nation and region so should be revised to include region.
This is not a finding, this is a statistical analysis, Often those more willing to be less scrupulous are less likely to believe in god so there lower scruples make them more financially successful but what of there real quality's as people, boy you have started a debate here.
I will just stand and watch for now.

Richard Dawkins is an outspoken atheist, I neither like nor trust that guy he makes my skin crawl.
edit on 12-8-2013 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)


He is pushing his own atheist faith. It is funny that from my point of view there is not problem with we call god on one side and science on the other. But that is probably because I think the religions are maps to something some are better than others and new maps are created by people still. When you seek what is you seem to end up with paranormal things that people are blind to and choose to ignore. They are really not paranormal at all but normal that is not quantified by humans.

I do not know if the treatment is useful but I laugh at him when he he says Mumbo Jumbo. So much for seeking the unknown. And to make it clear I do not know what chakras are and how they work in the body theoretically but something in my body is similar to the ideas of chakras.




posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by honested3
 



Not to mention that most of the real science and physics that we use today was discovered and developed by Christians.


Tell that to Galileo. Or Copernicus. Or any number of other visionary scientists who were put to death, imprisoned, and otherwise oppressed/humiliated by the Church for daring to question its so-called "facts".

I would also call into question your bias.





new topics
top topics
 
19
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join