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

Originally posted by makinho21
reply to post by 297GT

 

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

But who puts them in a fruit salad? I'm pretty sure that the fact it is a fruit, but you don't put them in there. He even said that a tomato was a fruit in his post.




[edit on 8/2/2009 by badmedia]

reply to post by makinho21


Wow, nice assumptions there. First off, I have nothing against science. I am a programmer and I am one of the people who help advance technology and things. Chances are, at one point or another, you have indirectly or directly made use of technology I created.

Science is great in terms of logic, action and reaction and so forth. This creation is made out of those things, and in general Science is best suited in giving us better understanding of how these things work.

But science can not handle things which are not of that domain. Understanding and reason is the realm of the scientist, which is needed in order to have science to begin with. And that is the realm of philosophy, which is religion in it's purest form.

The fight between the 2, and peoples determination to pick one or the other is ignorant.

All things need to be in their proper place in order to have proper understanding.

You live in an objective reality. I live in a subjective reality. My subjective reality allows and understands the objective reality, but your objective reality in no way understands or allows my subjective reality.

Originally posted by badmedia
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.

The same two examples (along with Pol Pot) that religious people like to share with us.
Sure non-religious people can do bad things, and I don't know why Stalin killed so many, or why Pol Pot exterminated free-thinkers and academics.
Hitler was religious though, and he used pagan dogma and Christianity in his quest for domination.
Did he believe it himself? Questionable, but used it to control others. Same with Stalin. He took over from a Tsar who was considered "holy" (above the Pope), and the people did whatever he said.

Even then, religion and dogmatic beliefs were being used to enslave, control, and issue forth commands that normal humans would never do.
The same today. Perhaps on a much smaller scale, but it's still existent.

Did that doctor deserve to die because he was performing medical procedures that, really, only find opposition from the religious corner. Why? Because they have decided the bible somehow tells them "abortions are evil".
That is an unintelligent way of thinking, if there ever was one.

I am not responding out of collectivism, I am responding out of recognition that some of the most saddening, angering acts I see, take place with 'faith' as their driving force.
When generalizations are true, then we can use them.
Which is what this study implies exists - a generalized correlation between intelligence and one's religion, or lack thereof.





[edit on 2-8-2009 by makinho21]

reply to post by badmedia


...# I totally missed that one.

reply to post by makinho21


Right, but somehow you mysteriously only want to associate the bad things with belief in god, and ignore the bad things for atheists and focus on the good things.

Such is an an old media manipulation trick(old, but still in use), and is collectivism.

Claiming otherwise doesn't make it so, your actions make it so.

That you actually believe religion is the problem is laughable at best. You know why Stalin did what he did? Because people who seek power will always do whatever it takes to get and keep that power, and they will attach and blind people with any tools possible.

Originally posted by badmedia
reply to post by makinho21

 

Wow, nice assumptions there. First off, I have nothing against science. I am a programmer and I am one of the people who help advance technology and things. Chances are, at one point or another, you have indirectly or directly made use of technology I created.

Science is great in terms of logic, action and reaction and so forth. This creation is made out of those things, and in general Science is best suited in giving us better understanding of how these things work.

But science can not handle things which are not of that domain. Understanding and reason is the realm of the scientist, which is needed in order to have science to begin with. And that is the realm of philosophy, which is religion in it's purest form.

The fight between the 2, and peoples determination to pick one or the other is ignorant.

All things need to be in their proper place in order to have proper understanding.

You live in an objective reality. I live in a subjective reality. My subjective reality allows and understands the objective reality, but your objective reality in no way understands or allows my subjective reality.

"My subjective reality allows and understand the objective reality, but your objective reality in no way understands or allows my subjective reality".

Subjective suggests you are, again, talking about personal experience. Personal conclusions and feelings about your environment - subjective views - in this debate, are totally useless and unwarranted.

Ofcourse your view of the world describesthe objective - real - world. You can make connections and rationalizations that don't actually exist, nor can they be properly examined, because they reside in areas of contemplation that science can't touch.

"But science can not handle things which are not of that domain. Understanding and reason is the realm of the scientist, which is needed in order to have science to begin with."

Again, we have been through this countless times. That is a entirely pointless argument. It gets us nowhere, and one can always fall back on such absolute garbage when confronted with a problem that may contradict certain personal conclusions.

If you come on here telling us god, or whatever interpretation you have, does exist, or that we are wrong in taking the stance of Atheist, you have determined some sort of evidence (that you find reasonable) that supports such a view.
Such a claim deserves scrutiny because it surely does not fall smoothly in place with organized scientific understanding.
If you fail to provide evidence (other than personal experience) I rule you completely mislead and full of doggy doo.

As soon as someone announces faith to everyone else, it opens those claims up to criticism - they are no longer individual personal views - they are being pushed on everyone else as if they are true.

"All things need to be in their proper place in order to have proper understanding."

Again - theological language. Religious fog. This statement means nothing. You said I made assumptions. You have already assumed because you do have this spiritual, divine view, you are inherently, more profoundly, understanding than we of no faith. You have a spiritually based bias.

Why? Have universal inner secrets of life been revealed to you?
Where you taken a trip through time to the beginning? Did you witness our start?


My objective reality would welcome such a realization, if it had evidence. I have no problem with creation or purpose to this life - if it can be demonstrated, tested, and it can make observable results.
Otherwise, like every other post you have wrote, you are arguing from personally experienced, faith claims - which fall into the same categories as boogy-monsters, unicorns and leprechauns.

Originally posted by badmedia
reply to post by makinho21

 

Right, but somehow you mysteriously only want to associate the bad things with belief in god, and ignore the bad things for atheists and focus on the good things.

Such is an an old media manipulation trick(old, but still in use), and is collectivism.

Claiming otherwise doesn't make it so, your actions make it so.

That you actually believe religion is the problem is laughable at best. You know why Stalin did what he did? Because people who seek power will always do whatever it takes to get and keep that power, and they will attach and blind people with any tools possible.

No I don't media. I already added an extra example to your post - Pol Pot.
I just wanted to point out that both Hitler and Stalin used religion as a means, as a tool, to control the masses. Hitler is not an example of an "atheist". Stalin and Pol Pot are the most accurate ones.
Stalin was fortunate: the Soviet people were used to being trodden upon.

I don't really know much about Pol Pot's atrocities, but I recognize what he did was demonically evil.

Just as I recognize the evil that religion does and commits in this world. It is 2009, not 1959, and Stalin and Pot are not with us thankfully.
Sure there are good things associated with faith belief, but our beliefs influence our actions. This can lead to people acting in ways that oppose and contradict the accepted moralistic views: killing a doctor because he performs abortions.
Let me broaden my statement - irrational beliefs. Not just out of faith, but out of ideas and conclusions that are not founded in fact and logic (except personal logic I suppose).
The view that "we are all really aliens", could potentially, lead someone to act in a destructive, hurtful manner.

Hitler had an irrational view of the German ancestry.
Stalin had an irrational, paranoid view of political threats his adversaries posed - and thus he disposed of them.

Religion and faith are irrational beliefs.
Argue this as you will, but it is evidently true.

Honestly, all you are doing is confirming that those who live in an objective reality will not allow for the subjective reality, and will by default dismiss anything about it.

On the other hand, I completely understand the objective reality. Work and live in it everyday. I just realize it is but a single reality of many.

I don't need to prove anything to you, nor does it matter to me what you believe. I don't post to convince you of anything. I post in defense of those who are falsely accused and to defend. Because I am sick of the stereotypes and such, so I aim to break each and every one of them whenever possible and show them for the low level of thinking they are. While you personally may never change your mind, there are countless others who just read. Not everyone is locked in or defending an objective reality.

In other words, I post for those with ears.

I will be your huckleberry.

Originally posted by mamabeth

Originally posted by makinho21
reply to post by mamabeth

 

Congrats. You would die for a mystical being that, I would assume only made itself known to you through personal experiences. A mystical being that has neither scientific credibility, nor physical, testable evidence? IQ represents more than just book smarts lady.
A Low IQ also does not mean you will be unsuccessful in life, or school, or financial freedom.

I noticed that you wrote mystical,you probably meant to write mythical.
I will accept your Freudian slip as a sign there is hope for you still.








Yes,I would die for my beliefs...it's called FAITH !
I know in my heart that God IS REAL!One of these days,even YOU will
know He is real.There will come a time when every knee shall bow,
every tongue confess that Jesus Christ IS LORD!!!!
I will do you a favor...I will add you to my prayer list!!!Have a good day!

reply to post by badmedia


Welf pretty much hit the nail on the head, with respect to your posts up to this point:
"Ohh! OW! Wow, what a retort! Blew me away that's for damn sure.

So we're back to more more appealing to spirits and other metaphysics then..."

So far, any position or thought you have shared is based entirely on personal experience.

This is why your "subjective" reality is not considered reasonable.
Please, Media, show us the readers, the "objective" conformers, why your faith-based stance merits any consideration? You can't provide us with
objective observations...

subjective view = personal experiences
personal experiences = faith based claims
faith based claims = unsatisfactory

That's really all you can bring up though. Blend and twist it with your first-year level understanding of philosophy as you will, but that fact remains the same.

Funnily enough, you make a statement that is similar to the response I provided Totakeke - in regards to why I bother replying to his ignorant posts:

"Unfortunately for you, I don't write these responses to give you attention - no quite the contrary. I think it helps others to see how ludicrous Christianity is (and how delusional it's followers can become). Remember, others are reading what you and I write. I try to present my thoughts and ideas within a logical boundary, whereas I think you neglect such a criteria. I wonder what readers think of such a philosophy? Hopefully your responses have made a few people think better of taking on a personal god."

Media - defender of spiritual justice. Makinho21 - harbinger of societal recognition.

You talk alot of smack Media, and routinely fail to back it up. Which is why this entire thread has become redundant. I have already admitted, many many times before, I can not disprove creation/purpose/god with absolute certainty, but that is fine with me. Our models and observations tell us that such a proposition is highly unlikely, and entirely irrational.

Consider what you said about the sun though:

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

Patterns and understanding are evidence. They reside in the objective reality. They provide us with testable, observable predictions that have been confirmed.

We know from our rotation about the earth, and our daily spin on our axis, that yes, our predictions tell us, (from our perspective) the sun will "come up" tomorrow.

It is not faith at all - it is backed, factual realization. Something you have yet to do, completely, when arguing from your "subjective" view of the spiritual.
Science doesn't just stop working on occasion.

If you can't give us anything substantial, other than personal faith-based bias and personal conclusions, then I have every right to respond, especially if someone from this position says something akin to:

"One of these days,even YOU will
know He is real.There will come a time when every knee shall bow,
every tongue confess that Jesus Christ IS LORD!!!! "

this warrants inspection. A entirely faith-based claim that encompasses not just the speaker, but the reader and everyone else - doggy doo.

You aren't as fanatical as this woman, but your stance is the same.
We aren't going to get anywhere arguing from "subjective" realities, that allow escapism and cop-outs, the second something does not support your personal understanding.

If you want to be taken seriously, and not just live off in your own little world:
provide us with a reason to consider what you say.
No personal experience, no faith-based thoughts and conclusions.
Objective, testable, predictable theories and observations - but you can't.

Your insults grow tiring Media, and your statements provide nothing concrete.
If you merely want to get angry and insult me when you respond that is fine, but think of your own words:
Other people are reading and considering what we both say. Character insults and angry writing undermine anything a poster wanted to say.
Peace I'm done with this thread for a bit






[edit on 2-8-2009 by makinho21]

Originally posted by Welfhard

Originally posted by mamabeth
Yes,I would die for my beliefs...it's called FAITH !
I know in my heart that God IS REAL!One of these days,even YOU will
know He is real.There will come a time when every knee shall bow,
every tongue confess that Jesus Christ IS LORD!!!!
I will do you a favor...I will add you to my prayer list!!!Have a good day!

It's not called faith, it's called extremism, it puts you in the same box as suicide bombers - except maybe you don't hate people as much, yet still you're willing to die for faith (defined as 'belief without evidence')

What astonishes me is that you people don't even know the name of your messiah, many don't know that 'Christ' is a title, hence "the Christ."

I personally am more of a fan of some of the other Solar Deities like Mithras and Dionysus. But to each their own I guess.

I know that Christ is a title.In hebrew His name is Yeshua,in english it's
Jesus.
I have no intention of wearing a suicide belt and blowing everyone up.
The christian faith considers suicide self murder and is forbidden.
The only faith I know that practices suicide is islam.

reply to post by makinho21



Since you really enjoy berating me and my faith.I am aware that anyone can view what we're writing.I thought I would let you know that my son
is a regular on ATS.He reads his Mamabeth's posts,have a nice day.
I have to get ready to go back to church for evening services.

reply to post by makinho21


Knowledge of the holy is understanding. Because you lack that understanding, you will never see what I am talking about. You can listen to my words, but you do not at all hear what I say. In order to hear my words, you need understanding.

You can say that is unsatisfactory and that is fine. It should be. I am of no authority, and to accept what I say at face value is foolish. If you follow me, accept what I say as fact without understanding and so forth, then I will let you know just how amazingly stupid that is. But if someday you come to understand what I do, then out of my words you will hear a truth that is deep and profound. Until that day, it's all going to be jibberish to you.

As if I expect you to change your mind. Or even admit or see the truth I speak. I do not.

Sorry, but just because you can admit you can't prove god false doesn't mean anything. Am I supposed to give you some kind of brownie points? Is that supposed to mean you are open minded? It's nothing but to state the obvious. If you could prove god false, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. You'll have to do better than that to impress me.

The truth of the matter is you do not even have a clue what the bible is talking about. So what is the point? There is none. If you want to pretend to be more intelligent than me, or pretend that intelligence has anything to do with such a topic, then I am your huckleberry and I will prove your wrong. Such is my purpose, such is why I am here.

Please don't dominate the rap Jack
if you got nothing new to say
If you please don't back up the track
This train got to run today

Spent a little time on the mountain
Spent a little time on the hill
Heard some say better run away
Others say you better stand still

Now I don't know but I been told
it's hard to run with the weight of gold
Other hand I heard it said
it's just as hard with the weight of lead

Who can deny? Who can deny?
it's not just a change in style
One step done and another begun
in I wonder how many miles?

Spent a little time on the mountain
Spent a little time on the hill
Things went down we don't understand
but I think in time we will

Now I don't know but I been told
in the heat of the sun a man died of cold
Do we keep on coming or stand and wait
with the sun so dark and the hour so late?

You can't overlook the lack Jack
of any other highway to ride
It's got no signs or dividing lines
and very few rules to guide

Spent a little time on the mountain
Spent a little time on the hill
I saw things getting out of hand
I guess they always will

I don't know but I been told
if the horse don't pull you got to carry the load
I don't know whose back's that strong
Maybe find out before too long

One way or another
One way or another
One way or another
this darkness got to give
One way or another
One way or another
One way or another
this darkness got to give

[edit on 8/2/2009 by badmedia]

reply to post by mamabeth

I know that Christ is a title.In hebrew His name is Yeshua,in english it's
Jesus.

I would argue that since 'Jesus' comes from the Greek bastardisation of the Hebrew that that is therefore not his name and should not be used. Yeshua, after all, also is the root of Joshua. Might as well call him that - it's not bastardised.

I have no intention of wearing a suicide belt and blowing everyone up.

But you are willing to die for faith.

The christian faith considers suicide self murder and is forbidden.

Some of the 1000's of denominations feature this as their dogma, which I find odd for two reasons. The god of the Bible killed people, left right and centre with the flood and such. He killed almost every newborn son of egypt apparently - and when a woman miscarries or it is stillborn, some priest or pastor will come along and say "God giveth and god taketh away." effectively apologising for God doing an abortion without the will of the parents.
Secondly, suicide can be justified. There was a movie I watched awhile ago with Denzel Washington. His son needed a heart transplant but they could not afford anything, but the end of it Washington was lying on a stretcher with a gun to his head so his son could have his heart.
There is also euthanasia, relieving the suffering of people on the way out the door (particularly gruelling and painful) then Euthanasia is perfectly reasonable.

..Not that I think suicide bombers are reasonable, but more that this kind of extreme fundamentalism leads to unreasonable thinking.

reply to post by badmedia

As if I expect you to change your mind. Or even admit or see the truth I speak.

Many claim truth, such is the mark that a person has not found it.

"Believe those who seek the truth; doubt those who find it."
- Andre Gide

reply to post by Welfhard


Did you miss the part where I said you would be a fool to just believe me, and that you should doubt me?

Gotta understand for yourself, accepting or believing what I say is true is a good way to not understand.

People just accepting and believing is a major flaw/problem with organized religion.



[edit on 8/2/2009 by badmedia]

Reply to post by makinho21

Actually , if the sun was to go nova tonight and destroy Earth the Sun would not rise tomorrow.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by badmedia

No I was more pointing out the pointlessness of declaring "I know truth." when it's completely unverifiable. It's made all the more pointless by actually telling people not to accept it.

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by badmedia

 

No I was more pointing out the pointlessness of declaring "I know truth." when it's completely unverifiable. It's made all the more pointless by actually telling people not to accept it.

"Any fool can know. The point is to understand. " — Albert Einstein

That is why I say that. To simply accept and "know" in that matter is to not understand. To question, or doubt as your quote said is required no matter what. Because if you do not, then you do not understand.

It's the difference between repeating 1+1=2 because someone told you so, and actually know how to add. Any fool can repeat 1+1=2, or repeat what I say. But it's all for nothing if they do not understand, and that understanding comes from not accepting and doubting.

Please don't throw wisdom quotes at me if you do not understand their meaning.

reply to post by badmedia

Please don't throw wisdom quotes at me if you do not understand their meaning.

That's a little out of left field. This isn't about wisdom quotes, I was pointing the stupidity of saying "I know truth" as you did.

No need to be insulting, this thread really seems to have gotten your back up.