Intelligent people less likely to believe in God

Brother Birchtree informs that some could not appreciate religous bliss... scientific mind just don't get it- I paraphrase.
Well, pilgrim I get it.
You're brain releases chemicals that , among other things, can make you feel euphoric, perhaps even rapturous. Here's a coupla ways this can happen :
1. Stimulation from something you enjoy greatly like sex or a rock concert or church, just ( you understand ) as examples.
2. Drugs.
We all have temporary episodes of crazy or dumb.
This Dumb is an anchor chained about the neck of myself and everyone I love. How long might we have lived in a non religious ( non cop-out ) civilization.
The answer is dude... you're high. This is a general statement and not addressed to the above-mentioned member.
Get with the eight- year -olds and cast off you're imaginary freinds.
Join us, we want to live our life which is right here, and maybe other places if only we were serious enough about this life ...
You see, this is personal.
As for Newton and others- bow down before God or burn ( though perhaps figurativley in his case- or not ). You know what any one of us would do.
aaaAAH !

Many members here on ATS are so hopeful of contact or more contacts with ' Others'. It's so sad that we must look like a pack of rats wit car keys and rockets to anybody intelligent. I think don't hold your breath unless ' they' become generous or decide to eat us.
Rationality is essential- now, for survival.
Fraid we've had it.

Originally posted by Skelkie3
1. Stimulation from something you enjoy greatly like sex or a rock concert or church, just ( you understand ) as examples.

Or, dare I even say it.....

A Christian-Rock orgy!!!!!

A Christian- Rock- Orgy complete starring The Implant Zombies.

reply to post by Skelkie3


We're all looking for contact with "Others". Just last night I traveled with two uncles to Charlotte in order to see an indie film at the McGlohon theater in which one of my uncles played a role as an actor.

That film was so bad. Man, it was bad. The whole film revolved around sexual politics and impermanent relationships. I felt so sorry for the whole project, because I could see that it reflected the rather impoverished view of life that self-congratulating humans seem to think is the epitome of their cognitive evolution. The characters in the film, just like some of the characters in the audience, were connecting and disconnecting with sexual partners in a never-ending attempt to find "happiness". Sprinkled into this was a completely unself-conscious smattering of self-help platitudes. It was just embarrassing.

They were well-dressed and educated. They drove nice cars and at least one of them owned a nice house on a lake. They were good looking. They were the zombies, if you ask me.

From my perspective, they looked like children in a mirrored funhouse. You know the kind I mean, maybe from the State Fair or circus? When your highest conception of reality is the ornamentation you adorn your body with, and when you race through sexual partners, looking for the most flattering reflection of yourself in another person's eyes, you are almost entirely dead. If it takes religion to make a person look up from his shiny toys and his base, monkey desires, then I am all for it.

I was married to a corporate drone for several years. High income. High IQ. Beautiful, symmetrical face. Athletic. Completely driven by the carrot of adoration and the stick of embarrassment. I still feel sorry for her.

[edit on 18-6-2008 by applebiter]

reply to post by applebiter


Too bad the movie was not good ! I bet movies are hard to make, with an audience so jaded as we must be by now.
It seems offering religion as an antidote to the shallowness you percieve is a bit patronizing, especially when shallowness is more often self- destructive than religion often is...
Ah, you know the history.
I might prescribe something ( hypothetically ) to a patient that might kill them, if it offered some hope of life; I would not prescribe something that might cause a person to kill others.

reply to post by Skelkie3


I see what you are implying, but we're probably getting mixed up over the word religion. To be more precise, I think if striving towards something greater than the self-image by way of religion is what it takes, then I'm all for it.

It is rumored that Lyndon Johnson said that good Americans should go to Church on Sundays. He didn't care if you believed - that's your business. He just thought it was good form. I don't agree with this sentiment. On the other hand, some people go to Church and bring plenty of zeal but no critical thinking skills. These folks are pack animals who like to focus their loyalty on the lead dog, and follow him because he is an alpha. I don't agree with this, either.

Just the same, I'd rather that people can find something to occupy their precious minds apart from "how do I look in this dress" or "I can't wait to be seen walking my new dog on the beach".

Let us be reasonable here. It is clear that the atheists who joke and often taunt those theists are actually themselves the less intelligent? Why? It is because while placing precious science on their pedestal they seem to forget that science has yet to prove the anti-thesis to existence of God. Meaning, for an atheist to believe there is NO God and for a member of an Abrahamic faith to believe in God-- is essentially both a demonstration of faith by definition. Neither can prove their case-- both are acting in faith. The scientists, at best, with an unwarranted, impossible hypothesis to explore. However, the counter-argument should be noted here. The Dogmatic texts have revealed prophecies of science that we have not known until the 20th century. The scientists should concern themselves with exploring this "luck" instead of all practicing their religion of atheism by BELIEVING in NO God. :-) Had they picked up their Torahs, Bibles, and Qur'ans instead of tried to figure everything out with Illuminated knowledge-- they could have saved some time to explore the harder questions of life. Namely, what is the purpose of it?

reply to post by applebiter


could you point me in the direction of said corporate drone? She sounds amazingly wonderful and perfect for me, as I sit in first class typing this into my iPhone before a day trip to dc to sell 100k worth of "services" to a client.

reply to post by Quazga


She probably lives in 'Stepford'.
I'm pretty average I.Q., myself.



[edit on 19-6-2008 by Clearskies]

I'm loving how so many people in this thread are doing the whole 'Don King' thing. By that I mean trying to sound intelligent by using big words, meanwhile grammatically, it comes out sounding horrible.

Love the Don King-itis.

reply to post by Quazga

It appears to have become fashionable to be either an atheist or agnostic. Research delineated in the article referenced subsumes criteria that could be either flawed or valid.

Is not faith in reason a faith in and of itself? The genuine problem with that is that all pretext of spirituality vanishes in the ensuing existential dilemma. As an observation, the fellow that went Postal at Virginia Tech was probably quite intelligent. His destruction of fellow student’s lives (and their loved one’s lives) was an existential statement. Intelligence without humanism or spirituality gives us just such lovely people.

The motivation for turning away from God (or Mother and Father Gods) is religious fundamentalism and fanaticism. ((The word 'Eloha' means God, and its plural 'Elohim' = Hebrew אֱלוֹהִים , אלהים meaning 'Gods')). Genesis begins as such, and is misinterpreted to satisfy fundamentalism. Assume that the Gods created the heaven and the Earth, and polytheism gains some ground as Mother and Father God(s) would thus exist.
Anyone with the ability to cross-compare scripture cannot embrace 100% of “sacred text” as being the "Word of God."

The important thing is to recognize an all loving God or Gods as the source of love and abundance in life. To have a measure of intelligence, while living within the Will of kind and loving God(s), is simply a preferable alternative to egomania. Our brains are too small to visualize a universe numbering a billion-billion stars. We are not that intelligent.

Spirituality does not necessitate an obedient and unquestioning faith in ancient texts. Spirituality does enable us to give and to receive abundantly. Ultimately, the God centered life is rich in mysticism, love and spiritual growth.

Recommended reading "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism" by Spong, John Shelby

Originally posted by Flash_dancer

Is not faith in reason a faith in and of itself? The genuine problem with that is that all pretext of spirituality vanishes in the ensuing existential dilemma. As an observation, the fellow that went Postal at Virginia Tech was probably quite intelligent. His destruction of fellow student’s lives (and their loved one’s lives) was an existential statement. Intelligence without humanism or spirituality gives us just such lovely people.

In fairness, a comparable number of psychopaths murdered in the name of god. We can't let the fringe be the example of what atheism or agnosticism can lead to. We have more cases of those belief systems leading to medical and other scientific advancements.

Weren't there some recent studies to show that religious people are less likely to suffer mental breakdowns, commit suicide and generally go off the rails. In short they had better coping mechanism because of their faith.

Before I'm swept away on a tide of righteous anger from non believers, I'm just commenting on it to make the point that you can pretty much bend and tweak any study to fit your own predjudices.

I'm quoting this from memory but pretty sure I read it somewhere.

[edit on 20-6-2008 by Cantwara]

Originally posted by Clearskies
reply to post by Quazga

 

She probably lives in 'Stepford'.
I'm pretty average I.Q., myself.



[edit on 19-6-2008 by Clearskies]

People with average IQ's bore me, unless they are highly motivated and self examining.



Usually it is the ones with the average IQ's or below that live in Stepford. :-)

[edit on 20-6-2008 by Quazga]

reply to post by Quazga


I share that with you. It's probably a character flaw, but it's true. What happens when a person has a high IQ but is stuck in a conceptual trap that makes self aggrandizement the only logical use for their intellect, though? Well, then you get a Ken Lay. In a world where even those who live at or near the poverty line in America still live better than royals in ancient times, we have folks with high IQs who believe that status and toys are the "proof" of their worthiness. It's just gross. It's based on a primitive impulse that was useful, in an evolutionary sense, when resources were limited. At this point in the game, it just looks like we're stuck in a rut. Status and toys have become a substitute for meaning, because in a purely materialist worldview, where is the meaning?

reply to post by Quazga


Why should anyone care about Richard Lynn and his opinion? Intelligent people are less likely to belive in God? Maybe ignorant people. It also appears there is not much this guy has not compared to "intelligence" and what beliefs go with it.

Bottom line, this guys opinion is worthless.

reply to post by Quazga


Are Jesuits highly educated?

So the belief and non belief as evidenced by a very high number of individuals that are both highly educated and believers seems to indicate the title of this thread being in error.

Here are some Wiki links as I dont want to really spend too much time on this thread.

Jesuit Universities around the World:

en.wikipedia.org...

and for additional reference a sampling of Jesuit institution alumni:

en.wikipedia.org...

After reading the above links, does anyone really believe that people of belief are less intelligent?


Peace



[edit on 20-6-2008 by HIFIGUY]

reply to post by HIFIGUY


Many of the higher educated theologians actually lean more toward an agnostic or even deist point of view over the dogmatic side of things (yes, even Jesuits).

For the most part, those who go to church on sunday, read the bible and only the bible, and think Jesus turned water into wine and fed 5,000 with 7 loaves of bread just don't 'get it'.

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
reply to post by HIFIGUY

 

Many of the higher educated theologians actually lean more toward an agnostic or even deist point of view over the dogmatic side of things (yes, even Jesuits).

For the most part, those who go to church on sunday, read the bible and only the bible, and think Jesus turned water into wine and fed 5,000 with 7 loaves of bread just don't 'get it'.

Nice post.


I'd like to add though that the Jesuits were *created* specifically to end the heresy that came with the German Enlightenment. People were beginning to think for themselves and were leaning toward a more mystical and personal relationship with the divine, and less away from dogmatic and doctrinal requirements.

So, in order to combat these and other results of the Reformation, the Jesuits were created to POSE as educators for those "SEEKING TRUTH".

Much like if the Bush Admin tomorrow created an org called "Citizens concerned about our environment" Specifically for covering up Climate Change.