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

[Double post]

[edit on 1-8-2009 by Welfhard]

reply to post by badmedia

Belief without evidence isn't faith at all. That is blind faith, and it is much different than the faith being talked about in the bible.

Well actually in this case the 'belief without evidence' bit is part of the dictionary definition unlike some of the things you have been talking about. When 'faith' isn't being used in this way, the religious way it's just a synonym for trust.

The difference in 'faith' and so-called "blind faith" is just of degree. All faith is blind in this way - and combine that with a religion that teaches that faith is the most important thing and that criticism or doubt on faith is the devils influence... sad people who give away their ability to think critically about issues that relate to their faith.

reply to post by badmedia


I fail to see how anything I said was an insult - I was pointing out that saying you (she to be exact) would die for "god" is on par with "I would die for Pegasus". I have said many many times before - though it seems you didn't even respond to my posts earlier on - that I can not disprove or prove god, and I am alright with that. Science does not suggest a god. Perhaps it will in the future, but so far no. I don't care if you have a high IQ, you can still be mislead and deceived by others. It seems, from your posts, you toy with the idea of a divine "consciousness" or something akin to that.
Basically your reply was out of spite and anger (from what I read) and didn't really say a whole lot. What do you want to argue about Media?
Your personal experience leads you to cast away logic and reason?
I can not refute personal experience either, but sharing it is pointless - we have already gone over this. To say it trumps science is one of the most laughable comments on here.

When someone makes a statement such as "There will come a time when every knee shall bow,
every tongue confess that Jesus Christ IS LORD!!!! " I am going to respond.
Are you trying defend this woman's stupidity? I have every right to criticize such a blatant claim of faith - rooted in nothing other than personal experience.

"it has been people like you, who have held things back all these years, you are not of the kind of people who advance things. Because the people who advance things don't rely on what is already known, they general reject it, and look for answers elsewhere."

I stand for reason, logic, and understanding. The fact that I am opposing an old, outdated, dogma, that has no backing whatsoever means I am someone who accepts what is already known? The fact that people like myself do
reject useless unnecessary beliefs is why our race has been advancing at a exponential rate. You see the trend yourself in computers (if what you say you are is true). Every 8 months or so - I forget the exact stat - computer technology doubles. Why? Because people are constantly searching and considering alternatives. This is where our views differ:
you seem to think considering every alternative is a viable option. I say nay, I consider things that are likely to be true. Things that can reasonably occur or materialize without mystical beings and spiritual forces getting involved.
If people didn't reject stupid ideas (I have no problem calling Christianity stupid) we would still be burning women for being witches, persecuting those who do oppose the status quo, we would believe the earth is flat and it was created in 6000 years, and that we have a special connection and elite position on this earth - which is complete and utter bs.
You are trying to present me as someone who doesn't consider alternatives and possibilities, but you are horrendously wrong - or purposely naive.
I don't know how you have concluded not being ireligious means "[I] have held back all these years". Again, your intent to insult undermines any possible point you had - that makes no sense at all.
Science does not back religion, or spirituality, or god, or jesus, or gnomes, or leprechauns, or pixies, or smurfs, or unicorns.
Obviously, like you have done countless times before, you can argue from your pedestal of "absolute" certainty, but that simply reveals how unlikely and unreasonable such claims are.
In an argument of practical, everyday evidence - there is none.
Twist this whichever way you will, but I doubt you are "intelligent" enough to consider what I am saying - nor will it deter you from thinking you are right.
I would have no problem believing in a god or divine essence - if it was not based on faith and heresay.
Gidday Media


[edit on 1-8-2009 by makinho21]

Originally posted by Welfhard
Well actually in this case the 'belief without evidence' bit is part of the dictionary definition unlike some of the things you have been talking about. When 'faith' isn't being used in this way, the religious way it's just a synonym for trust.

The difference in 'faith' and so-called "blind faith" is just of degree. All faith is blind in this way - and combine that with a religion that teaches that faith is the most important thing and that criticism or doubt on faith is the devils influence... sad people who give away their ability to think critically about issues that relate to their faith.

There is a difference though. You have faith the sun will come up tommorow. There is obviously no evidence that it actually will, but based on the patterns and understanding, it's a pretty safe bet.

Blind faith means there is no reason to believe such a thing, and no understanding of why it will happen.

Blind faith is bad, regular faith is not bad at all.

And everything you are saying - The bible teaches against. As does every other religion I know of. The bible tells you to question things and so forth. It's what the entire act of seeking is. How does one seek? By asking questions.

You need to be able to seperate what people do in the name of things with the actual things. There is a difference.

People put blind faith into many things, not just religion. As I keep saying over and over, the real issue is simply understanding vs acceptance. And once again, the bible teaches to go in the way of understanding rather than acceptance.

reply to post by makinho21


No, I defend her right to her beliefs. Jesus represents truth, and in all honesty the return and rule of "Jesus", is really referring to a time when truth will rule the world, rather than manipulation and lies. Does she believe and see things in the same way? Probably not, but that is her right.

If she had attacked you and such, then I would have defended you instead. She just posted her opinion. It has nothing to do with particular beliefs, but rather than directing towards what she said, you basically just called her ignorant and so forth. I won't just stand and let it go by unchecked.

Plus, it is one thing to die for your beliefs, it's a completely another thing to kill for your beliefs. I will die for my beliefs, no problem at all. But I will never kill for my beliefs - because well that is actually against them. Big difference.

To be quite honest, the entire premise of the OP was ignorant. All it does is group people up and stereotype. And in doing so, it allows people to hide behind it. You falsely place blame and things over people. Those who are religious and smart, you use the study to put down. Those who are atheist and ignorant, the study puts them above. In reality, religion has nothing to do with how smart someone is.

So if you want to attack such things, then attack me. I'll be your huckleberry, and such is the entire reason I am still on this rock.

i don't know they didn't seem to smart over there in that other thread you have goin. maybe there smarter over here.

reply to post by badmedia

There is a difference though. You have faith the sun will come up tommorow. There is obviously no evidence that it actually will, but based on the patterns and understanding, it's a pretty safe bet.

One would argue that that is not faith, but a belief based on knowledge that the earth rotates as it orbits the sun. It would be very difficult to pass this off as faith.

And everything you are saying - The bible teaches against. As does every other religion I know of. The bible tells you to question things and so forth.

At times it does. At other times is says that one will only get access to heaven if their faith is sufficient, thereby implying that doubt is bad. It's a rambling contradictory book written over 1600 years by dozens of authors, you can't expect it to have a concise message.

reply to post by badmedia


Unfortunately, people have "killed" in the name of religion, numerous times over. Only recently, a prominent doctor who did abortions was murdered outside his home (I'm sure you heard of this?) No doubt these people interpreted the bible a different way, and to them, it said "abortions were evil and those who condone them are punished by death."
She is entitled to her view, but when it encompasses us all, she is pushing it on us - I doubt she even means to - but that is what happens.
You can view the bible and jesus in whatever light you want to, it's still not rooted in practical evidence, or logical backing.
I did not attack her - I responded to her claims of faith that stated I would "acknowledge the lord jesus".
I admit, I can not prove or disprove god. Who so would be so ignorant to insist, then, that we ALL will answer to jesus in time? Only religious people.
Only those whose beliefs are not rooted in logic and reason.
So what is your argument media? Please tell me - you have attempted to insult me for the last 2 pages, tell me what you are so damn angered at.
If is that I don't agree with you (which it seems to be thus far) than I am afraid I could care less what you say.
What is your point? Other than to obfuscate and fog up the religious view of the world as much as you can, what is your point of continually replying?
Other than getting mad at me, you don't really say a whole lot.
I admit - I will never (most likely scenario atleast) be able to disprove a god.
That doesn't change my view that this world is not divine and holy.
Your insults don't change my understanding of scientific theories and experiments that show us how life could start.
I have already spoken of these numerous times over, but you ignore them, and simply try to lessen my point by throwing attacks my way.
Abiogenesis has been demonstrated. What does that mean? It means that life - the animate - can start out of the inanimate world. Without guidance, or "meaning", without purpose, proteins and amino acids can form.
What does that tell us? That our prehistoric ancestral organisms could have simply developed with the appropriate atmospheric conditions.
It does not matter the experiment involved conditions different from the earth.
That is irrelevant - we know it can happen.
That is all I really need to consider - what is your point you are so desperately trying to share with us? Maybe if you focus more on your thoughts and your evidence, rather than character insults, your opinion might be better understood.



[edit on 1-8-2009 by makinho21]

Originally posted by Welfhard
One would argue that that is not faith, but a belief based on knowledge that the earth rotates as it orbits the sun. It would be very difficult to pass this off as faith.

Right, and what I say is based off the understanding and knowledge I have been given as well. For me, it is the same thing as your belief that the sun will rise tomorrow. It is only from my own understanding and knowledge that I say god is real, and that I believe that one day people will do the right things and so forth.

I also don't really consider it faith, because it is different than blind faith, which is generally what most people mean when they say faith. But really it is.

At times it does. At other times is says that one will only get access to heaven if their faith is sufficient, thereby implying that doubt is bad. It's a rambling contradictory book written over 1600 years by dozens of authors, you can't expect it to have a concise message.

It's a collection of books. Someone a long time ago just put them together, decided which ones they thought belonged and so forth.

Most of what you know as Christians are what I would refer to as followers of Paul, rather than Jesus. They of course will never say that, but Paul contradicts Jesus on numerous accounts, and those contradictions are what the majority of Christians believe. I think mainstream Christianity is the anti-christ religion for example. They really don't have a clue. But that doesn't reflect on god at all. It just reflects on them and their lack of understanding.

I first noticed these things in politics. People claim to be about the country and the constitution and stuff. But it's just a lie to get people to accept them. What is really telling if that is true or not, is what they do. Hardly consider someone like GWB as caring about such things, while at the same time systematically dismantling them.

On memorial day, I think the majority of people are disrespectful. They wave the flag around as if those people died for it, while at the same time openly giving away everything those people actually fought for. If they wanted to honor those people, then they would stand up for the same things they did etc.

It happens in all things, it's how corruption works. And if people are unable to see it in religion, politics and so forth, then even if you get rid of those things it's just going to be something else they do it with. It's in all things of this world, science included(ask Tesla).

reply to post by makinho21


Right, and so by that logic all Humans are bad and we can just use Hitler, Stalin and such people as an example. Judging people in terms of groups rather than individuals is collectivism, and it is the same level of thinking racists and such use. It's a low level of thinking.

I'm going to be honest, I only read about half your post. The formatting is of the kind that gives headaches. Please put a blank line between your paragraphs and such, makes it much easier to read and keep up with. Not being grammar nazi, as it is not valid in the discussion. Just an aside comment saying it helps if you want people to read your opinions. It's like going to a bad website.

Originally posted by makinho21
reply to post by badmedia

 

Science does not suggest a god. Perhaps it will in the future, but so far no.

Check out the writings and works of

David Bohm
www.google.ca... &cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=active

Ervin Laszlo
www.google.ca... s=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=active

And you may see where Science is headed.

Consciousness and it's relationship to the quantum zero point evergy field, giving rise to all manifest phenomenon - that is the future of science, but you are right that they are not QUITE there, yet.. getting there however, and quickly.

What will atheists do when the mind of God is proven to reside at the very heart of existence, creation and evolution, and that the mind of man is in fact, a reflection, and an image of God via conscious awareness..?

The "Quantum God" is coming into view now - in the form of a self aware universe, and implicate order or Zero Point Field (ZPF) or Akashic Field of the Godhead, fully informed at all levels, fully integrated, and containing all information from all past universes via infinite information storage capacity as a wavelike interferenece pattern of the ZPF, and therefore fully aware, at ALL LEVELS ie: God, the light of light and life, embued with infinite intelligence and infinite awareness and infinite memory, and infinite LOVE for all.

That's the new science and it bridges all the various disciplines as a unified field theory of consciousness and of quantum reality, sustained and continually generated by the Tao, by the mind of the living God, within whom we are emerged, no-lessed CREATED in the very image of God, by possessing THE most complex quantum mind phenomenon in the entire cosmos, the mind of man.

To be is to be percieved.

To be is to be given an invitation, to cocreate and play in and with reality, even time, because it's all mind, one huge collective dream of the Godhead.

That's trippy - heading off to watch some Terrance McKenna Youtube Videos..

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by badmedia

 

No it isn't. Take a .45 and shoot someone in the head. If it doesn't kill them, it will give them very very specific deficiencies. Damage to certain areas will impair a persons ability to speak or understand speech. Damage to another area will take away function of sight that is done unconsciously. Countless amounts of very very specific functions are located in different places in the brain. Emotions is another. Situational awareness. Motor skills. subtle brain damage can easily cause personality changes or new disposition. Basically if you change something in the brain, you change the persons mind in a related way.


[edit on 28-7-2009 by Welfhard]

That is the misconception that many people have.

The body that binds you into the reallity is literally a whole different being, a physical being, the one this is YOU the one that is 'being' is a whole seperate entity.

Your body makes you act with it's own instincts within the physical universe, it binds you here.

Originally posted by Psychonaughty
Your body makes you act with it's own instincts within the physical universe, it binds you here.

Until it is used up, and then you "move" into another one, in some form or another, can't not, being already an intricate and most intimate part OF, the Akashic Field of the Mind of God, and so from that perspective, it doesn't matter!

Reality, here and now then is what you make of it, but it's good probably, to try to operate in congruent alignment with the source, and thereby become at one with the underlying creative principal of love. To die to self in other words, to become reborn to and within the Godhead. To die while still alive - I think is in part the goal, which means dying to self, to ego, and to a closed mind.

Our true relative position is much like that of a child, in the midst of the awe and wonder of life, as something which can be explored forever, without any ruse or contraints, even the constraint of time ie: "the kingdom of heaven is like those suckling babes."

Timeless, spaceless, the Tao, our true self, the observer, the witness, abides.

We are already one with God and the evidence is all around, both within and without.

Peace.

reply to post by OmegaPoint


Exactly, but the origin of the being that which are is not pf physical decent, why are we here? Well if you knew you wouldn't be here would you.

reply to post by jd140


It doesn't.

People are people, some smart, some stupid no matter the demographic.
We are always trying to compete, competition is primitive.

We need to grow wise, and learn, that is what is important.
Research why you believe what you believe.

Is that you or TV?

Peace

reply to post by badmedia


Do you want me to tell you when you mispell words? I make paragraphs, I space it out; if you can't read my posts because you are lazy, that is your own fault. How about this:

Are you referencing the idea that the root of "consciousness" resides in some sort of mechanism the size of the Planck Length? I have heard this type of speculation before. That is all it really is at this point - that doesn't mean it is wrong, ofcourse, but your arguing from a point of speculation. We don't yet have to proper methods to measure or test such ideas.
I write out an entire page, and you conveniently ignore it because it is "hard to read". That's great debating media, you really earned yourself a star on that one.

reply to post by makinho21


lol, I even say specifically I'm not trying to be a grammar nazi, that the comment was specifically aside from the actual topic. And still you give me that reply?

I'm just pointing out the fact that some writing formats are hard to read and are hard on the eyes. And that if you would like for people to give more attention to your posts, it would be best to use better formatting.

Sure, I could deal with it. But I was just letting you know, because most people will just skip over such a post completely.

I'm not really sure/familiar on the thing you mention. I don't consider consciousness to be "anything". The closest description I can think of would be the "void", as it is not physical at all. Even to talk about it, we have to but false identities onto, possessive in nature. It is completely illogical in nature, and no logic can describe it. It is that which creates logic, not that which is created by logic, as is the universe.

To view/observe that which does the observing is about like an ant trying to eat it's own head.



[edit on 8/1/2009 by badmedia]

I think any one who believes this 'study' is truly the un-intelligent ones....

To say if one believes in God has less of a IQ is just plain stooopid...
And the comments along the lines of ...Oh dont think about it as God did it, is laughable.

Can I just say that alot of believers were circular before choosing to believe in creation and that take critical thinking and faith, thus utilizing more brain power, and wisdom.

believing in text books which bring knowledge, and this is actually more of what IQ tests are based on.

Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit; Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad.

reply to post by badmedia

Well there you go then, we can't "put a label on things we can't understand." As if we haven't heard that before.
Basically, just like Welf or Asta have said, you make faith claims. You may wrap them up in theological language, but that's what they are.

That's just giving up in my opinion; that's like telling those scientists, who are trying to expand our knowledge and understanding, that their work and experiments are pointless because we'll never make any headway.
Who thinks like that?
Religious folk...

reply to post by 297GT


..tomato is a fruit by the way. Shows you what wisdom is worth eh?