Religious people are less intelligent than non-believers

Nevermind

reply to post by predator0187


I love the quotes in the source article- "they know better", and they have less "need" for it. A perfect illustration of science catering towards a particular out come. The real problem is that actual science has been based off of slanted surveys. Maybe the scientific mind is the closed minded individual.

The results seem meaningless. The real question is who is paying Mr.Zuckerman to conduct such a study.

I agree with & expected the results. Joking.

In all honesty though, I don't really think this study proves anything, just because of the amount
of variables they can't record, replication, touch on. I happen to think all religious people are
less intelligent than non-believers, but this is something I don't agree with.

here's how i feel about blanket statements...

...

Women are more likely to be religious than men. Men make up the largest portion of atheism . . .


Are you saying there is scientific proof men are more intelligent than women?


Are you a misogynist?


-FBB

reply to post by predator0187


It would seem to me that if scientist knew so much they wouldn't change their minds so often.

For years scientists have said that the big bang theory and evolution was what brought us to the point we are at right now.

Both of these are being questioned now. I find that people who think they know everything actually know very little. Their minds are closed to anything new. IMO.

Originally posted by Diisenchanted


Both of these are being questioned now. I find that people who think they know everything actually know very little. Their minds are closed to anything new. IMO.

edit on 13-8-2013 by Diisenchanted because: (no reason given)

Does this apply to Christians as well?

Have you ever heard this statement? "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it"

Sounds pretty closed minded to me...how about you?

Try to remember from the OP that the conclusion that was drawn is from a review of 63 separate studies this wasn’t a new study just a review of already available studies.

There were 63 studies total and 53 of them supported their conclusion if you don’t like the outcome I would suggest looking into the other 10. Complaining without reason is meaningless.

reply to post by Diisenchanted

. . . if scientist knew so much they wouldn't change their minds so often.

They don't,
at least as individuals.
The collective, "the scientists" changes its mind,
usually by the older ones dying and being replaced by younger ones
who grow up thinking something different.

Originally posted by MysterX
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!

Shouldn't is a contraction for should not, so should not is the same as shouldn't...not sure if you're intentionally being obtuse.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
Try to remember from the OP that the conclusion that was drawn is from a review of 63 separate studies this wasn’t a new study just a review of already available studies.

There were 63 studies total and 53 of them supported their conclusion if you don’t like the outcome I would suggest looking into the other 10. Complaining without reason is meaningless.

In case you were wondering the term for this type of study is;
meta-analysis
www.merriam-webster.com...

Definition of META-ANALYSIS
: a quantitative statistical analysis of several separate but similar experiments or studies in order to test the pooled data for statistical significance

I could also link you to several studies which clearly document the fact that those of higher intelligence trend towards the condition of functional autism. The atheists also tend to be dominated by men with daddy issues.

Now can we all just skip past the lame grammar corrections and get along with the more intellectual bickering about who is more stupid?

-FBB

Originally posted by TarzanBeta

Originally posted by Tylerdurden1
I can see how that is possible. When you just believe in faith, you kind of stop looking for facts. So that could be the case.
Im sure there are tons of religious people just as smart as people who dont have a religion, those are forward thinking people ( the ones that dont handle snakes and "faith heal":lol

).

edit on 12-8-2013 by Tylerdurden1 because: (no reason given)

Absolutely and completely wrong.

If you had ever had faith, you'd know that the more faith you have, the more facts you seek.

You speak of what you know nothing about.

As a Christian, I'm gonna have to throw a bs flag on the field over this one.

I have spent quite a few years looking for a church in my area that "walks it like they talk it" and I have my own test for that too. I generally ask them if they believe the rapture is near & they usually say yes, and then I ask them why do they think that & I get this, that & the other. And then I ask them "Well have you heard about the Red Heifer?"

"Huh?"

Usually at that point I just sigh & move on. Out of the 8 that I have visted only 1 pastor knew about what I was talking about, and at another I only met 1 parishioner that knew.

Then there's the gifts of the Spirit. You'd be surprised how many apostolic/Charismatic churches that CLAIM that the Spirit is real in their life, don't even know what THEIR gift is! Let alone their "job/function" in the church/body.

So unless you goto one of the most fantastic churches in this country I gotta say bullcookies. The church don't believe in being Bereans anymore, nor accountability, nor holiness, which is why we're in this mess to begin with.

As a side note, the bible says as much too. "The apostasy (falling away) happens first, then the man of sin is revealed." Then of course you have the church of Laodecia that is lukewarm, so God spews them out of His mouth.

Sorry if this seems off-topic to some, but if you're gonna argue from a Christian perspective, maybe you should know what's really going on in the country before you do.

/sorry if this seems brash, nothing personal.

ETA: I agree that the "study" is probably skewed, and appreciate the fact that most aint buying it.

reply to post by predator0187


1. When I see studies like this, my first question is to look at who is running the studies and who is interpreting the data. Is there any kind of correlation between the results of the studies and those implementing them that could be leading to accidental biases?

2. Did they adjust for aggregate factors like education and social class?

3. One of the factors in concluding that Atheists are smarter is comparing IQ scores or things that have a large dependency on IQ for membership (like Mensa). Excuse me, but IQ scores have been dismissed in concluding that certain races are smarter than others, something that many of these Atheists would probably argue (and a position that I would tend to agree with), so why is it valid in determining that they are smarter than religious people?

Number 3 is really my main criticism of this study. IQ scores to measure intelligence are generally considered tenuous at best, so why are they suddenly valid here? I think the fact that they suddenly are valid measures of intelligence in these tests give credence to argument number 1, and that many of the people conducting and interpreting these tests have a bias.

Originally posted by FriedBabelBroccoli

Originally posted by Grimpachi
Try to remember from the OP that the conclusion that was drawn is from a review of 63 separate studies this wasn’t a new study just a review of already available studies.

There were 63 studies total and 53 of them supported their conclusion if you don’t like the outcome I would suggest looking into the other 10. Complaining without reason is meaningless.

In case you were wondering the term for this type of study is;
meta-analysis
www.merriam-webster.com...

Definition of META-ANALYSIS
: a quantitative statistical analysis of several separate but similar experiments or studies in order to test the pooled data for statistical significance

I could also link you to several studies which clearly document the fact that those of higher intelligence trend towards the condition of functional autism. The atheists also tend to be dominated by men with daddy issues.

Now can we all just skip past the lame grammar corrections and get along with the more intellectual bickering about who is more stupid?

-FBB

edit on 13-8-2013 by FriedBabelBroccoli because being an arse: 101

Thanks but I wasn’t wondering nor did I need the definition because I was breaking it down for those here that wouldn’t understand otherwise. I guess you didn’t realize the need for that to be done.

However if you are going to claim studies point to something you should just quote and link them otherwise it could be studies from some creationist site.

And yes skipping the lame grammar corrections and ego trips would be great.

reply to post by schadenfreude

The church don't believe in being Bereans anymore, nor accountability, nor holiness, which is why we're in this mess to begin with.

I agree.
Today it seems that the church's message is: "Apostasy is good, it means we are progressing",
right, onto the road to Hell.
"Holiness" is what we are "saved" to, according to the New Testament.
Too many would-be Christians think that "saved" means we are done, just waiting around to be "raptured".

The problem with the OP article is that it defines what intelligence is. And the statement that people who are already happy and successful, again defined by them, wouldn't "need" religion is also quite biased. I mean I hate religion myself, but this article and 'study' is beyond flawed.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
Thanks but I wasn’t wondering nor did I need the definition because I was breaking it down for those here that wouldn’t understand otherwise. I guess you didn’t realize the need for that to be done.

However if you are going to claim studies point to something you should just quote and link them otherwise it could be studies from some creationist site.

And yes skipping the lame grammar corrections and ego trips would be great.

The Cambridge Companion to Atheism
Michael Martin
www.amazon.com...

Here's a brief excerpt from Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi's chapter "Atheists: A Psychological Profile" in The Cambridge Companion to Atheism:

Who Are They? Demographics

In representative surveys of the U.S. population in the 1970s and 1980s, the unaffiliated were found to be younger, mostly male, with higher levels of education and income, more liberal, but also more unhappy and more alienated in terms of the larger society (Hadaway and Roof 1988; Feigelman, Gorman, and Varacalli 1992). According to 2004 Gallup data, based on 12,043 interviews, the 9 percent of Americans who say they do not identify with any religion whatsoever or who explicitly say they are atheist or agnostic tended to be politically liberal, Democrats, independents, younger, living in the West, students, and those who are living with someone without being married (Newport 2004).

In Australia, secularists are much better educated than the rest of the population, socially liberal, independent, self-assertive, and cosmopolitan. In Canada, census data and national surveys show that those reporting “no religion” are younger, more male than female, more urban than rural, as well as upwardly mobile (Beit-Hallahmi and Argyle 1997).

Being an atheist overwhelmingly means being male. Data from all cultures show women to be more religious than men (Beit-Hallahmi 2005b). Recent polling data from the United States show that the statement “there is a god” was endorsed by 72.5 percent of men and 86.8 percent of women. The statement “I don’t believe in any of these” was endorsed by 7.0 percent of men and only 1.3 percent of the women (Rice 2003).

If you don't believe this application of meta-analysis then I would suggest you dig into the sociology studies on atheism. Investigation into the background of fifty of the leading atheists resulted in a clear trend of broken families, especially those with the father being the primary locus of dysfunction.

-FBB

reply to post by predator0187


Only Sith deal in absolutes.

List of Christian Thinkers who Contributed to Science

You're falling victim to pop science.

reply to post by predator0187
Just a point, the report said that people of high intelligence are less lightly to belive in God. This is not the same as saying a person is less intelligence becouse they belive in God