Intelligent people less likely to believe in God

Okay, you all know me for being a "counter-theist" (anti-religious), but I have to say, this is a rather bold statement.

I won't say people follow religion because they're less intelligent. Easily blindsided perhaps... maybe even gullible. But they aren't less intelligent.

I've met some VERY intelligent religious people. They're the type I love to argue with. But the trend I typically find is that they are either absolute followers (can't do without being told what to do or how), or they are simply easily persuaded, in which case, you can usually twist their arguments around on them and have them believing something completely different by the end of the argument.


There are many sides to intelligence. These are my comparisons so far.

Some can read a manual, and know it by heart. (Usually religious)
Some can instinctively know how to operate the device through a natural understanding of it's theory(Sometimes spiritual)
Some can re-engineer the device to operate the way they want it to.(More atheistic)

It all has to do with independent thought, not IQ.

The question really boils down to "Can you think without the book?"

[edit on 13-6-2008 by johnsky]

Originally posted by johnsky

The question really boils down to "Can you think without the book?"

Ultimately, i dont think it matters whether one believes in a religion or is an atheist and follows science to the very core of his beliefs.

I strongly believe that they lead to the same end - the end in which one puts down his book (regardless of how 'factual' it is) and starts trying to figure things out for oneself.

Originally posted by mOOmOO
Critics being? The religious ones? Well that's to be expected

Not really. I'm much less than religious and can see that such studies can readily lead some to very simplistic interpretations.

If you want to know more about the issues of intelligence and population studies, Steve Gould wrote a relevant book years ago.

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by mOOmOO
Critics being? The religious ones? Well that's to be expected

Not really. I'm much less than religious and can see that such studies can readily lead some to very simplistic interpretations.

If you want to know more about the issues of intelligence and population studies, Steve Gould wrote a relevant book years ago.

Nice you didn't quote me fully and ignored the part about god needing to be "financially" topped up ever week

Originally posted by mOOmOO
Nice you didn't quote me fully and ignored the part about god needing to be "financially" topped up ever week

Heh, I didn't think it was so relevant to the topic, but if you want my opinion - yeah, most religions are like that, eh?

However, I don't think you need such money-grubbing organised religion to be a theist.

reply to post by Quazga



This only a way that the media and powers at hand to play of your ego to enforce their views on.

Look at it what it really is.

OP you believe in God so why would you post this?

Originally posted by malcr
...How about this extraordinary claim : the whole universe and everything in it was created by God.......now please provide the extraordinary proof. In fact I'll be generous provide ANY proof. You know, the sort required for scientific studies.

I know God does not exist because there is no evidence and there is a fundamental flaw in the claim anyway.

You want the proof? Here it is: Ex nihilo, nihilo.

There you go. Let the "moving the goal post" commence!

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by mOOmOO
Nice you didn't quote me fully and ignored the part about god needing to be "financially" topped up ever week

Heh, I didn't think it was so relevant to the topic, but if you want my opinion - yeah, most religions are like that, eh?

However, I don't think you need such money-grubbing organised religion to be a theist.

I swear, God is a mobile phone network. When does God Mobile issue "Top up" cards?

Originally posted by Rasobasi420

And there you have it folks, scientific evidence. But then again, science isn't real, gravity is just God holding us down, and Jesus created the world in 6 days.

I love it!!!

And you're implying that you're intelligent?

If you're going to mock Christianity at least know what you are wanting to mock instead of completely making it up.

[edit on 6/13/2008 by InterestedObserver]

Atheism is only common among the "intellectual" demographic because it is a component of the template that seems to define "intelligence" in the Western world. Yes, even the "intellectual" tend to mimic certain pre-defined molds that are popular among their cliques. Liken it to the gangster rapper who will most likely be interested in chains and rims, or the business executive who will enjoy golf outings and cocktails.

The atheist is a fool, badly blinded by physical science and material logic, who is typically overly anxious to disprove the already errored "stone-age" views of the misguided tangled mess that is modern religion. He squanders about, a microscopic spec on a tiny round rock floating through a vast and infinite mysterious space, claiming to know one particular absolute truth concerning above mentioned space.

He contradicts principles of quantum physics, occult knowledge, the wisdom of the Kabala, and his viewpoint is mocked by the very atomic order/disorder that defines his thought and existence.

However, he is still my brother and I love him.

No one supreme magical being that watches over us manipulating reality in our favor or against it, waiting to punish us for eternity if we slip up morally? Sure, I might agree there. Even that is arguable on certain levels. A lot of this is also dependent on one's definition or perception of God.

This is all just my opinion, however, and I could be completely and absolutely wrong about everything.

-Comm12

The Bible is like a puzzle, you really have to look and think. In the first part it says God created heaven and earth. Somehow, the earth "was"/"became" without form and void. How long did that take, what happened? Did God create earth "without form and void" or did it become that way? Remember, God hasn't created the sun yet so it is not "day" yet. How long was that time from creation to "without form and void". That's the "gap theory", look it up. The Bible doesn't say the earth is only 6000 years old, men only assume that is what it says. It doesn't say at all anywhere.
Do we use "sciene" to enforce our theories on God such as a day must follow night even tho' there's no sun yet? So who wrote the laws of physics anyway? Or do we observe something and after time say it "must" be so since I have seen it? That isn't proof, that's an observation. We have no way of knowing how long that first period of time was because time itself didn't exist.
That's why when I get to wherever I'm going, I request an instant replay of the whole thing.

Originally posted by acewilliams
reply to post by DaleGribble

 

Oh I do understand. Faith and religion have the power to give a person hope, and the ability to accept that which in other circumstance they could not. I am not thumbing my nose at your faith. I am only making the point that even in circumstances, blindly following is wrong. To retrieve hope or comfort from anything does not make it wrong. Religion should be used for such comfort and hope, and even a guideline to live well, but not as fact to follow blindly. We as human beings need hope and comfort, and our instincts make a need for guidelines to live. The stories in any religous text show us a model of life, not rules to follow blindly. We question why musn't we kill? The answer is simple, we wouldnt want to be killed. Why musn't we steal? We wouldnt want to be stolen from. They are all guidelines set by our texts. And most religions have these same guidelines, from Christianity to Muslim, and even Paganism and atheists follow these. How much you know really doesn't indicate your intelligence. It is how much you question that makes you more intelligent. If you come to the same conclustion, that is fine. But if you follow blindly and become one in many head of cattle, that is being herded to their demise... My point has been made. Thank you all for listening.

it would seem then that our views are not too diffrent although they varry alittle. as i said in an earlier post i dont follow blindly. i test my faith everyday. and i constantly adapt my religous convections as i learn or think i learn more about my faith. i am a very openminded person or at leas like to think i am..

Werner Heisenberg quote:
"Der erste Trunk aus dem Becher der Naturwissenschaft macht atheistisch;
aber auf dem Grund des Bechers wartet Gott."

(Babelfish translation: The first pull from the cup of natural science makes you atheistism; but on the bottom of the cup God waits.)

This topic is self evident ... Look at all the metal hospitals .. Most of those people believe in imaginary things .. Thankfully there in the right place now ..


But i think allot of you can be reformed .. I wouldn't stick all the "mentals" in the loony bin .. But a bit of education of science. And our planet would do you good.

reply to post by malcr


And yet...thats not what I said. I said extraordinary claims require extraordinary research methods. Two different things. Although those who disagree with this stance often do so because they realize that they don't have any proof and so its far better to muse about how something _could_ be right than to look at the data.

I know God does not exist because there is no evidence and there is a fundamental flaw in the claim anyway.

Incorrect. You just committed the argument ad ignorantium logical fallacy. The failure to prove God's existence to the level at which you are comfortable with is not evidence that the opposite is true. To suggest such is a elementary logical fallacy, and is incorrect.

[edit on 13-6-2008 by ALightinDarkness]

Originally posted by djerwulfe
But of course, I categorically dismiss anything that may be arguably remotely contrived or confounded. Hence, I dismiss about 95% percent of studies in social sciences that claim statistical significance. It hard enough with elegance and simple well-known parameters to demonstrate anything.

You shouldn't dismiss something on the basis that it is statistically significant. Statistical significance is evidence that the relationship is not random. While it may still be completely wrong, or may be spurious in terms of causation, statistical significance itself...is a good thing. In this case things appear to be statistically significant but there is not enough evidence to suggest causation, which is the basis upon which I think the study is flawed.

Originally posted by djerwulfe
Social Science is psuedo-science without HUGE,HUGE sample sizes. "People like food." Only governments have the resources to collect data on appropriate scales, and many types of questions cannot be explored/described by statistics.

Actually this is one of the myths about statistics. You can generalize with 95% accuracy plus or minus a few percent with a fairly low sample size, as long as its random. Its still expensive to do for larger sample sizes, but it has been/can be done pretty easily. To accurately generalize about the US, a country of 300 million, we only need to survey a little over 1,000 people for a 95% confidence interval and a confidence level of 3 percent.

Originally posted by argentus

Man, did you open a bubbling cauldron of puss with that statement.

Lol, that just produced a disturbing mental image for me.
I hope you meant pus...? If not, shame on you!!
On topic, I don't understand what this man was hoping to accomplish with this study, apart from seeking attention. It's horribly insulting to religious or spiritual people, and supports a common impression that intelligent people are egotistical and elitist.
I have noticed that a lot of intellectuals are very proud and vocal about being atheists, as if it's proof of their phenomenal brain power. I think it has more to do with being seen as acceptable to their peers...after all, how can you be taken seriously in a scientifically minded community if you believe in something of which you have no physical proof? The faulty conclusions of this study will do nothing to help that annoying behavior.

I don't believe that for one moment... can you say Newton..or Einstein?

Yeah well, Albert Einstein did. And he was a hell of a lot smarter than any of us. As did Leonardo da Vinci. On and on. The only hard core non believers seem to be the unlucky people in life. Reminds me of the old saying "some people live their life for God and their life sucks. Maybe God just does not like them" or something like that

I consider myself both Intellectual and super-spiritual....why??? Becuase I have directly experienced God and Divine realities...so for me there is no faith or belief...there is simply knowing that God is real. I know 100%

I find faith and belief, although necessary in the begining, tools used for spiritual babies who are new to the concept of God...or people stuck in religious dogma.

Being an intellectual, I hold debates wth athiests, college professers, theologians, and physicists...all of which I have as friends....

and I will say this....not to stereo-type...but I do find the majority of athiest intellectuals to have "big ego's" which always seem to get in the way of their intellectual progress....i.e. their own egos keep them in an intellectual box that will not allow them to progress futher, beyond building their ego's bigger through the knowledge they posses...in turn putting them in an endless deadly cycle.