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

reply to post by TruthParadox


Im afraid both you and astynax are incorrect. Whilst yes, christians do believe this life is transcient, a beginning to the after life so to speak. They do see this life as a test. One cannot expect to go to heaven if they act as if this life did not matter, that their actions were not judged and that they shouldnt strive to be better people.

Originally posted by TruthParadox

Originally posted by Toughiv

Originally posted by Astyanax
And to live as if this life did not matter, that all our hopes and fears should be focused on 'the life to come' is not merely dumb - it is idiotic.

What religious followers act as if this does not matter?

Just about any fundamental Christian.
It's what baptism, essentially, represents.
Your flesh is dead, or crucified, and the desires or pains of this world are supposed to mean nothing because of this. Only the soul matters.

But I think it's relevant that you said "act", because it truly is an act - in the end.


[edit on 12-8-2009 by TruthParadox]

Baptism is not to represent that your flesh it dead. Its to "wash away" original sin, inherited from Adam and Eve.

So...if religious believers have a lower IQ, maybe atheists are generally more ignorant? Since Atheists see no reason behind learning someone elses beliefs and traditions?

Cheers!

Originally posted by Toughiv
Baptism is not to represent that your flesh it dead. Its to "wash away" original sin, inherited from Adam and Eve.

You're arguing a belief about a belief.
I'm just saying that many Christians DO believe (I used to be one of them) that when you are baptized (or saved, depending on specific beliefs), you're born again and your flesh is 'dead'. The idea is that the soul is what matters, and the cares, temptations, and pains of this world are to have no effect, or mean very little in the grand scheme of things.
Just because you don't hold this specific belief doesn't magically make it disappear.
There absolutely ARE religious extremists who want to see the world burn because it would fulfill the prophecies of revelations.
That's not an opinion, it's a fact.
And for you to ignore it says a lot about where your bias lies.

Originally posted by Toughiv
So...if religious believers have a lower IQ, maybe atheists are generally more ignorant? Since Atheists see no reason behind learning someone elses beliefs and traditions?

I know what some people believe.
I don't know what all people believe.
Nor do you.
So I really don't see what your point is...

reply to post by Astyanax


For the record, remember earlier when you called me wrong about quantum physics and dimensions etc. I just saw a show last night on the history channel call "universe" or something like that, and it talked about parallel worlds and such, and how extra dimensions were all around us. Basically, it was saying the same things I said earlier.

Even showed Miko Kaku arguing with himself over 2 different dimensions. In which one he was saying parallel dimensions were impossible and such, and then he would argue with and prove himself wrong in the other dimension. Was quite entertaining.

Only a matter of time before they realize what I have said here. And a short one at that.

reply to post by TruthParadox


Well, to be completely honest with you. I see no poitn in holding the belief that nothing matters apart from the soul. If you read Genesis again, it says god created man in his image (most christians adopt this to mean that it is our nature that is the same as gods) and then in the second genesis story it says we are to till and care for gods work.

Therefore, if nothing in this physical world matters, why did god put us in a position where we are meant to look after his creation?

Thanks!

Originally posted by badmedia
reply to post by Astyanax

 

For the record, remember earlier when you called me wrong about quantum physics and dimensions etc. I just saw a show last night on the history channel call "universe" or something like that, and it talked about parallel worlds and such, and how extra dimensions were all around us. Basically, it was saying the same things I said earlier.

Even showed Miko Kaku arguing with himself over 2 different dimensions. In which one he was saying parallel dimensions were impossible and such, and then he would argue with and prove himself wrong in the other dimension. Was quite entertaining.

Only a matter of time before they realize what I have said here. And a short one at that.

First of all, it's Michio, not Miko.
Second of all, string theory and the popularly accepted idea of 11 dimensions does not prove "god exists".

Quite frankly, I am tired of hearing you tell us how you are right and we are definitely wrong, all the while providing nothing worth mentioning as evidence or testable backing.

Your limited understanding of quantum mechanics and your faith-based prejudice make you entirely arrogant, and uncannily naive.

Your attempt to "stump" Astyanax is quite pitiful really - since when is the "history channel" an authority on scientific research and exploration.
I'm sure Dr. Kaku would be disgusted you mentioned his name in an attempt to substantiate your wishful thinking.

Keep your delusions private Media, or don't try to convince yourself you know better than we all.

Originally posted by badmedia
I just saw a show last night on the history channel call "universe" or something like that, and it talked about parallel worlds and such, and how extra dimensions were all around us. Basically, it was saying the same things I said earlier.

You can't learn physics from the television, Badmedia.

If you're really interested in these matters, why don't you take up the study of physics in a serious way? You would then be able to understand much better what the discoveries of the quantum mechanists really imply.

Just wanted to break the 666 post reply mark. It is now on 667.
2nd line.

Originally posted by Astyanax

Originally posted by badmedia
I just saw a show last night on the history channel call "universe" or something like that, and it talked about parallel worlds and such, and how extra dimensions were all around us. Basically, it was saying the same things I said earlier.

You can't learn physics from the television, Badmedia.

If you're really interested in these matters, why don't you take up the study of physics in a serious way? You would then be able to understand much better what the discoveries of the quantum mechanists really imply.

Oh I see, so they were lying on TV. And where they talked about all the different dimensions existing within our current dimensions was just a bunch of crap.

I guess next, I'll be finding out it's impossible for me to throw and catch a baseball unless I understand and have taken physics classes for it.

reply to post by badmedia


Badmedia, not to jump on the band wagon but string theory is far from proved. It is just that, theory.

Originally posted by makinho21
First of all, it's Michio, not Miko.
Second of all, string theory and the popularly accepted idea of 11 dimensions does not prove "god exists".

Quite frankly, I am tired of hearing you tell us how you are right and we are definitely wrong, all the while providing nothing worth mentioning as evidence or testable backing.

Your limited understanding of quantum mechanics and your faith-based prejudice make you entirely arrogant, and uncannily naive.

Your attempt to "stump" Astyanax is quite pitiful really - since when is the "history channel" an authority on scientific research and exploration.
I'm sure Dr. Kaku would be disgusted you mentioned his name in an attempt to substantiate your wishful thinking.

Keep your delusions private Media, or don't try to convince yourself you know better than we all.

Quite frankly, I'm tired of your hypocrisy. You sit here and scald me for saying I'm right, but then you yourself are doing exactly the same thing.

Do you back it up with anything other than personal insults and claims? No. It's always the same thing over and over.

To sum up your post:

You told me I'm wrong, while scalding me for suggesting that I'm right.

You called me - arrogant, naive, faith-based, with limited understanding, pitiful, delusional and that I should just shut up.

Not to mention putting down a show because it was on TV? As if because it came from the TV, it means it's not to be understood and so forth?

I believe the saying goes that the one who has to resort to personal attacks is the one who has lost the debate.

Oh, and btw, the word god was actually mentioned in the show. And it's kind of funny, because all I keep hearing from scientists are basically the same things I say. They don't seem to have a problem admitting science has it's limits, and most of them say the fight between religion and science is stupid and that we need both.

I'd go on to say that those who think there is a fight between likely don't understand either.



[edit on 8/13/2009 by badmedia]

reply to post by badmedia


Id say there is no fight between religion and the possibility of a God. However, the fight is between what conceptions mankind have built up of this God.

For example, Greeks. They had their Sun god, lighting God and so on. As it goes, they believed that when there was thunder Zeus was angry or just throwing some lighting bolts around etc. Science has now proved that lightening is charge, not a magical guy tossing bolts around the room.

Now apply that to the wonders of today. IVF babies, cloning, stem cell research. All push against what preconceived notions organised religion hold onto.

Originally posted by Toughiv
reply to post by badmedia

 

Badmedia, not to jump on the band wagon but string theory is far from proved. It is just that, theory.

It is the understanding of all possibilities existing that I am talking about. How the want to go about proving they exist - I really don't care. They fact they do exist and that we move among them can be seen with logic alone.

Such things are basic requirements for intelligence. If they do not exist, then real intelligence does not exist either.

Originally posted by Toughiv
Well, to be completely honest with you. I see no poitn in holding the belief that nothing matters apart from the soul.

I don't either .

Originally posted by Toughiv
If you read Genesis again, it says god created man in his image (most christians adopt this to mean that it is our nature that is the same as gods) and then in the second genesis story it says we are to till and care for gods work.

Therefore, if nothing in this physical world matters, why did god put us in a position where we are meant to look after his creation?

To be fair, the Bible also says homosexuals should be killed.
Christians, more often than not, don't go by what their Bible says, but by what their belief system says.
I just know that, from what I've seen, many Christians derive a certain delight from seeing what they believe to be "God's judgment".

But I think we've gone on a tangent long enough... perhaps we should end this here.

reply to post by Toughiv


Those things are the realm of science, and science is best suited for that area. However, there are things beyond science that science can not handle.

Science will never tell us why we are here, what is ethical, what are good morals. It shrinks at the idea of choice, free will and so forth.

Science = realm of creation, logic and action and reaction.
Philosophy = realm of spirituality, choice, reason and understanding.

Failure to put these things in their proper places only highlights a lack of understanding in both. Because only ignorance would use either as a replacement for the other.

All science is doing in realizing all the possibilities/dimensions and multi-verses is opening the door for rational people to have both without conflict.

reply to post by badmedia

Science will never tell us why we are here, what is ethical, what are good morals. It shrinks at the idea of choice, free will and so forth.

Shrinks is an odd way of putting it- I'd say it just doesn't support freewill, it supports choice, just not freewill.

Science = realm of creation, logic and action and reaction.
Philosophy = realm of spirituality, choice, reason and understanding.

Failure to put these things in their proper places only highlights a lack of understanding in both. Because only ignorance would use either as a replacement for the other.

I think that is rather well said, sir, and you'll get a start from me for it. Science is a methodology to A) gain understanding of how things work and B) have power over those things.
Philosophy is more 'what we make of life' kinda thing. Philosophy seems to flourish in the absence of absolutes in morals, ethics, meaning, etc.. It's us filling the blanks that science literally cannot fill, but for that reason there are no real conclusions in philosophy, it's all permanently up for grabs.

Originally posted by badmedia
reply to post by Toughiv

 

Those things are the realm of science, and science is best suited for that area. However, there are things beyond science that science can not handle.

Science will never tell us why we are here, what is ethical, what are good morals. It shrinks at the idea of choice, free will and so forth.

All science is doing in realizing all the possibilities/dimensions and multi-verses is opening the door for rational people to have both without conflict.

Right im going to reply to this as a cold hard reductionist. "Why were are here" ..you are implying that there is a reason behind our existance. I say our existance is mere chance...a brute fact. No more no less. So to ask "why" is already creating a biased answer. NEXT!

What is ethical? "motivation based on ideas of right and wrong ". Please, explain how "right" and "wrong" exist in a universe of brute fact. This "right" and "wrong" that you talk of is merely a humanistic concept, which our genetics naturally turn us toward, so that we can naturally live in communities and therefore ensure higher rates of survival. Dualism is an illusion and you are brainwashed into it from a very early age.
NEXT!


"shrinks at the idea of choice and free will". Quite simple, you have no free will. Look up hard determinism.

Now show me where science is lacking.

Thank you...goodnight.

Originally posted by badmedia

They fact they do exist and that we move among them can be seen with logic

-- Please ellaborate. Dont just state.

Such things are basic requirements for intelligence. If they do not exist, then real intelligence does not exist either.

- After you ellaborate, then show me your argument in terms of "premise - conclusion".

reply to post by badmedia

You can't learn physics from the television. It is too complicated. There's too much of it. And the mathematics is too messy.

When you read science articles in the popular media - even the popular-science media - you aren't reading science. You're reading journalism about science. Big difference. Often - even on dedicated science media like Space.com - what you read is oversimplified, garbled through incomprehension, twisted to play up the 'story value' or just plain wrong.

To say you don't understand physics is not a personal insult. Neither is it an insult to point out that you are totally unqualified to talk about physics. These are simply facts, which you can rectify by taking a course in the subject.

It would be an insult if somebody said you were too stupid, or too crazy or whatever, to understand physics. Nobody here is saying that.

[edit on 13/8/09 by Astyanax]

reply to post by Toughiv


Have you actually read the thread? Because it's been discussed over and over. And then made it's round again, and over and over again. And I'm not about to go through the entire thing again, simply because you find yourself in the unique position of replying without actually reading the thread.