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

reply to post by TruthParadox


Its exactly what you are saying.

I don't believe there is or isn't a God. I do not accept either side. Neither side has a viable arguement. Neither side can put forth proof they are right.

If neither side can show me they are right then why would I choose between the two? Its like saying that 2+2= 6 or 8 and those are my only two choices and I have to pick one.

Originally posted by badmedia
The acceptance stuff is deception, and yes (religious) people are deceived. But so are atheists, as they accept the religions as being the authority on god, and so they still are accepting what is said by religion, rather than the understanding.

I think this is rather simplistic. Atheists do not get their ideas about God purely from religious doctrine.

You seem to imply that your own position transcends all atheistic objections to the concept of God. I'm afraid you could not be more wrong.

It is a mere truism that people get their ideas about God from religion. All thoughts of God (yours very much included) are sure to have been had by many other people at many different times and places, and thus to have been incorporated into one religion or another. Some faiths, such as Hinduism, offer more incompatible ideas about the divine than anyone could feasibly make use of. But this trivial sense is the only one in which your statement is true. Many atheists, myself included, have intrinsic objections to the concept of God - objections that arise from science, from ethics, sometimes from the very pit of the stomach, and have absolutely nothing to do with religious doctrine. It is not a particular faith or a specific concept of God that atheists have trouble with; if this were all, we could simply convert from the faith of one's fathers to one that suited us better.

A thinking atheist (and atheists tend to be thinkers) is someone who finds the idea of any kind of God unfeasible.

Reading your posts on this and other threads, badmedia, I have learnt that you believe yourself to have had a direct and personal encounter with the divine - what some people would call a mystical experience. I will not argue the truth or falsity of your experience with you - that would be futile - but I ask you to consider a demonstrated fact: that such experiences are almost vanishingly rare and only a very tiny fraction of the human race appears to be capable of having them. It is not I who make such an assertion; it is a fact to which history clearly testifies.

You have a right to your experience and the belief (or knowledge, if you prefer) it engendered in you. Long may it sustain you. But as proof of the reality of God to anyone but yourself, it is hopeless. We poor groundlings, granted no epiphanies, must yet find our way somehow in the loveless dark. Some of us use reason to light our way and end up as atheists; others illuminate their paths with hope and are soon lost among the thickets of faith.

The drawback to personal revelation is that it cuts absolutely no ice with a rationalist. The religious tend to be more accepting of such things; your proposition is far more likely to work with them.

By the way, has anyone noticed that the atheists on this thread, to a man or woman, write (and spell) far better than their opponents?

Just something I noticed...

Originally posted by Astyanax
By the way, has anyone noticed that the atheists on this thread, to a man or woman, write (and spell) far better than their opponents?

Just something I noticed...

You just proved atheists are smarter then everyone else.

reply to post by jd140

If I thought that, my friend, I would have said so.

By the way, it's atheist, not 'athiest'. 'Athiest' means 'most athy'. I thought everybody knew that...

reply to post by Astyanax


See you are smarter then me.

Thought provoking post.

Since many religions discourage questioning the teachings - accepting everything on faith, perhaps it weakens a person's analytical skills. Think about it - if you are taught something from birth as truth that you should not question, regardless of contradictions in that teaching, it would have to have some effect on you.

The people I know who are atheists are thinkers, questioners and take a more scientific approach to their beliefs.

I don't really fall into either category. I am spiritual, but not religious.

Originally posted by Republican08

Originally posted by jd140
reply to post by Republican08

 

They believe in God so they lack critical thinking skills?

I know from your past posts that you believe this, but I don't buy it.

Lol, creationist, don't necessarily completely lack critical thinking, just don't need it as much.

Me personally, when I converted, or unconverted really. Life took a new hold onto me, I no longer looked at flowers as gifts from god, or his little beauties, but wanted to know there names, there classes, how they got there, why they were there, what purpose does that do to the surroundings.

And i'll tell you that's just from a single flower.

I'm sure creationist, tend to let a lot of things go, without critically attacking, well mainly one thing they've gone after is evolution, but then again the only time before really is when the religions cracked into different sectros, catholic, protestant, whatever.

Thats the exact reason they were found to have higher IQ's but does the study differentiate from those who simply accepted a taught religion, and those who looked into their own belief system to find reassurance of said belief systems validity? Not all atheists are enlightened scientists questioning everything and like wise, not all those who believe in a religion haven't thought about it in further detail. I'd conclude that the study has a solid basis in its findings but that its overall conclusion is off.

Originally posted by makinho21
reply to post by badmedia

 

I don't accept Christianity or Judaism or Islam as an authority on god at all. I think they got it all quite wrong (if I had to define a god/creator that would make sense to me) - it's actually disheartening they couldn't have been more creative with it, because basically modern religion just distorts older polytheistic views - they didn't even bother coming up with their own idea. Lazzzzzzzzzy

Also I'm glad I put up that title that says "please come share with us how much smarter you are compared to all of us", otherwise we would have never got the chance to read about your intellectual awesomeness.

False. Atheist always base their non belief in god based on what the religions say. Even if you disagree with them, you are still accepting them.

Sure, it's not obvious and getting someone to admit and see it is another story, but it's the truth of the matter. Otherwise, you would just be agnostic.

I have debated enough atheists to know, as well I use to be one myself. Each and every debate is always about finding something that the bible or a religious person says are being the reason why god doesn't exist.

If I say the sky is green, and someone accepts that and repeats it then they lack understanding. Atheism is like saying - I don't see anything that is green, the sky obviously doesn't exist. In both cases they have accepted me as being the authority over the sky.

Atheism is in itself an ignorant religion. It postulates that anything which has not crossed our tiny perspectives is by default false.

Now, many people are simply agnostic and not atheist. And that is fine and dandy, because it's an honest position. Rather than saying anything that doesn't come across your perception is false, it's just a simple - I do not know. It's honest and I can respect that.

As for the personal attack of "intellectual awesomeness" - did you even read what I posted? IQ is not a measure of intelligence, but a measure of potential if anything.

First of all Atheism is just another form of religion: some people believe that there is no God, and sometimes they are real fanatics- look at the homicidal "revolutionaires" kiling innocents during the French Revolution or the Soviet Communists...
As for the statistics...as uncle Stalin said: "is not important who is voting, it only counts who is counting the votes"...

[edit on 28-7-2009 by ZenOnKwalsky]

Originally posted by Astyanax
I think this is rather simplistic. Atheists do not get their ideas about God purely from religious doctrine.

Atheists in general do. But I do believe there is a difference between atheism and agnostic. JD for example is agnostic, not atheist. He simply admits that he doesn't know one way or another. That is healthy, honest and a perfectly reasonable position.

What I consider to be atheists are those who go beyond agnostic and claim there is no god. And that is a religion. And it is most often based on the hypocrisy of the church, religion and people who seek power.

I see it over and over in thread after thread. I myself was once atheist and I use to make the exact same arguments, and so I do know the flaws in them.

So if you are simply agnostic, I have no beef with you. It's honest and honesty is a big step towards wisdom. To "believe" one way or another is ignorant and exactly the same. I see no difference between Christians and Atheists outside the individual claims.

As such, I recognize 2 positions as being valid. Agnostic and Gnostic. With or without personal knowledge/understanding.

As Einstein once said, any fool can know something, the point is to understand. So even if someone can repeat 1+1=2, if they can't add(understand) it's still worthless.

You seem to imply that your own position transcends all atheistic objections to the concept of God. I'm afraid you could not be more wrong.

As a former atheist, I know what is wrong about it. I know what made me go hmmmmm. I am not someone who just accepts things at all. If not for my own personal experiences, I would not say much at all on these things.

It is a mere truism that people get their ideas about God from religion. All thoughts of God (yours very much included) are sure to have been had by many other people at many different times and places, and thus to have been incorporated into one religion or another. Some faiths, such as Hinduism, offer more incompatible ideas about the divine than anyone could feasibly make use of. But this trivial sense is the only one in which your statement is true. Many atheists, myself included, have intrinsic objections to the concept of God - objections that arise from science, from ethics, sometimes from the very pit of the stomach, and have absolutely nothing to do with religious doctrine. It is not a particular faith or a specific concept of God that atheists have trouble with; if this were all, we could simply convert from the faith of one's fathers to one that suited us better.

I am god and I am arguing with myself. I don't belong to, or need any religion. But in understanding I see much truth in pretty much all religions. You assume I operate off faith and acceptance, and that is not the case at all.

Knowing how to add is understanding. But how we might express that understanding will vary from person to person. I see people arguing over religions as people who don't know how to add, arguing that 1+1=2 is right, and another side arguing 2+2=4 is right. As they lack understanding they can't see that both are true expressions of the same understanding.

I have nothing against Science. I am a programmer and I create technology with logic on a daily basis. It has it's place and it is best suited for the physical realm/universe. But it is simply not equipped to do with the spiritual side of things. Science is all about action and reaction which allows things to be repeated over and over. But it breaks down fundamentally when choice, free will, consciousness and soul enters into the picture, to the point where it flat out ignores those things by default. When choice enters into the picture, the nature of science breaks down because it's not repeatable over and over.

Science = realm of logic, action and reaction.
Philosophy(religion in it's pure form) = realm of reason, understanding and choice.

The fight between them is seriously dumb. Both sides are needed, and both need to be in their proper places.

A thinking atheist (and atheists tend to be thinkers) is someone who finds the idea of any kind of God unfeasible.

Because you are not looking in the correct places. You are asking to be feed the answer, you want others to prove it to you, but it's something you have to seek out and find for yourself. It's not something men can give each other. Doors can be pointed out, but it's up to you to walk through that door.

Reading your posts on this and other threads, badmedia, I have learnt that you believe yourself to have had a direct and personal encounter with the divine - what some people would call a mystical experience. I will not argue the truth or falsity of your experience with you - that would be futile - but I ask you to consider a demonstrated fact: that such experiences are almost vanishingly rare and only a very tiny fraction of the human race appears to be capable of having them. It is not I who make such an assertion; it is a fact to which history clearly testifies.

That is correct, I do not "believe", I know. But what good is my experience doing you? None. Everyone needs to have their own experience, and that only comes from honesty and an open mind.

I think more people have the experience than you realize. Plus, it's unique for everyone, and as it is understanding it is expressed in many different ways.

Even if most people don't have such experiences, I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean. That I am crazy? Well I thought I was crazy at first too. It's not like I actually expect you to believe me, if I was in your shoes then I probably wouldn't believe me either. I completely understand and I don't want you to believe me - because you would still be ignorant to it, you have to find out for yourself. Everyone needs to have their own personal experience.

You have a right to your experience and the belief (or knowledge, if you prefer) it engendered in you. Long may it sustain you. But as proof of the reality of God to anyone but yourself, it is hopeless. We poor groundlings, granted no epiphanies, must yet find our way somehow in the loveless dark. Some of us use reason to light our way and end up as atheists; others illuminate their paths with hope and are soon lost among the thickets of faith.

The drawback to personal revelation is that it cuts absolutely no ice with a rationalist. The religious tend to be more accepting of such things; your proposition is far more likely to work with them.

I'm not religious at all. I dislike religion very much, and consider them to be anti-christ, or against the father. They teach acceptance rather than understanding. They manipulate people, enslave them and keep them blind for their own personal gains. I get it, it's the reason I use to be an atheist. And if I wasn't able to separate them from the father, the I wouldn't understand what I do today.

Should someone "accept" what I say, then I will call them a fool. Because that is stupid and exactly the problem to begin with. When people accept, they do not understand. And the bible says things like this too, but people still just accept what the religions tell them.

Always go the way of understanding, always. Do NOT accept anything. You doom yourself to do such things.

You and others are simply poor in spirit. That's all. You are blessed, and you don't really have much to worry about honestly. If you seek the father out early, you will find him, otherwise it's not that big of a deal. Eventually truth and understanding will come to you, and then you will know for yourself.

If you'd like, I can debunk the entire Christian marketing scheme of "only Jesus" with 1 quick bible verse, directly from the words of Jesus and in the same chapter they will quote to tell you such a thing.

Believe it or not, but the bible is not on the side of Christians and religious fanatics. Quite the opposite, that is the kind of stuff it's against, and the things Jesus fought against.

Proverbs 9

4Whoso is simple, let him turn in hither: as for him that wanteth understanding, she saith to him,

5Come, eat of my bread, and drink of the wine which I have mingled.

6Forsake the foolish, and live; and go in the way of understanding.

7He that reproveth a scorner getteth to himself shame: and he that rebuketh a wicked man getteth himself a blot.

8Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee.

9Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be yet wiser: teach a just man, and he will increase in learning.

10The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.

Fear of the lord btw doesn't mean be scared like a shark is about to eat you. It means, respect, to be in awe of, and to realize exactly what it is etc.

So it's great that you do not accept what people say. But you have to be careful not to get trapped in the duality and throw yourself to the other side of the coin. Where you reject it all based on what "they say", rather than the understanding that is available to you. It's not obvious, but it is there.

[edit on 7/28/2009 by badmedia]

reply to post by OmegaPoint

...I love how religious people have learned the term "quantum physics" from people like Deepak Chopra and that gives them an authority to claim it somehow backs up god and creation. One fella actually told me the double slit experiment proved god...because...well...we didn't understand it - which we do (to a point).

Originally posted by makinho21
reply to post by OmegaPoint

 

...I love how religious people have learned the term "quantum physics" from people like Deepak Chopra and that gives them an authority to claim it somehow backs up god and creation. One fella actually told me the double slit experiment proved god...because...well...we didn't understand it - which we do (to a point).

Would you like to have that debate? I'll be your huckleberry. Quantum Physics actually is the best hope for the future, as it is the first time science has included consciousness into the mix(which is god).

God is not some sky fairy. He is within all of us. It is that which allows you to observe, feel, understand, reason and so forth. It is that which separates you from a robot. In the end, there is but only 1 observer of all things, the father.

Thats kind of the funny thing about atheism to me, they aren't really denying god, they are denying themselves.

This thread is easily logical when considering the contrast in mind sets between athiest and dogmatic people(s).

Athiest rely on faith OF themselves to gain insight and intelligence, whereas religious peoples think of their intelligence as being relied on by outside forces of whom they believe.

Though there are religious practices that have nothing to do with looking away from yourself but within yourself.

It's actually quite bias when considering such a general statement, maybe certain religions but not religious people in general.

[edit on 28-7-2009 by Psychonaughty]

reply to post by badmedia


False? I didn't know you could see into my brain and read my thoughts. I guess you really are intellectually supreme compared to all of us - now you have the power to read minds! Man you are awesome!
(this is exactly why a "personal attack" came your way, if you want to call it that - I prefer sarcasm but whatever). Sure you talked about the problems of IQ, but not without first letting us know that "[you] have a very high IQ and am deemed much smarter than many of [your] classmates" or something like that. Somewhat irrelevant if your point was IQ is worthless, or atleast, deceptive - which I don't think is completely true.
From my experience they test all sorts of cognitive abilities - not just memorization. Pattern recognition, math, grammar, intuition are all part of the IQ tests I have participated in. Anyways on to your other point:

It seems like you are trying to say that when an Atheist rejects a definition of god/creator put forth by, for example, a Christian, this signifies the Christian is an authority on god, therefore the Atheist was actually acknowledging the belief - do I have that right?
I don't see it that way at all. The Atheist is simply discarding the definition as unlikely, unjustified, and plain ol' dumb (in some cases).
I have now sat here for a couple minutes attempting to think of an example that mimics what you say about Atheists and "accepting authority", but I really can't even put one together.
Maybe someone can post one for me to help explain how flawed that premise is.
I have to obviously know about the god/creator they have defined - in order to reject it. Does that mean I give credence to their belief?

I am not the one defining a god then claiming it exists. I am responding to claims, that are neither backed nor supported, that a god does exist - and which has already been defined.
It is perfectly ok for me to say "false" to something like that because it is an assertion that tells us this god/creator is real and can be experienced, without having any evidence. I don't need to give religion authority to oppose it. I believe your point is highly illogical and misses, well, the main reason for why "Atheists" are "not theists".
Also gnosticism and agnosticism aren't separate and apart from Atheism and theism...I am not sure if you brought this up or not.
Atheism/Theism is about what you believe, agnosticism and gnosticism are about what you know - these principles can be superimposed.

Originally posted by badmedia
Thats kind of the funny thing about atheism to me, they aren't really denying god, they are denying themselves.

That is precisely true, they would rather deny their own existence, consciousness and free will before ackowledging God even as a self aware universe, they will go that far.

Originally posted by Astyanax
What self? What is a 'self'? What do you mean by 'choosing'? Who told you that you had a choice about anything?

[edit on 28-7-2009 by OmegaPoint]

Originally posted by makinho21
reply to post by badmedia

 

False? I didn't know you could see into my brain and read my thoughts. I guess you really are intellectually supreme compared to all of us - now you have the power to read minds! Man you are awesome!
(this is exactly why a "personal attack" came your way, if you want to call it that - I prefer sarcasm but whatever). Sure you talked about the problems of IQ, but not without first letting us know that "[you] have a very high IQ and am deemed much smarter than many of [your] classmates" or something like that. Somewhat irrelevant if your point was IQ is worthless, or atleast, deceptive - which I don't think is completely true.
From my experience they test all sorts of cognitive abilities - not just memorization. Pattern recognition, math, grammar, intuition are all part of the IQ tests I have participated in.

If I am saying IQ is not a measure of intelligence, then how am I saying I am smarter than you? I mentioned it because that is what the thread itself assumes. I then went on to give examples of what the advantages to having a higher IQ are, in an attempt to show that while there is an advantage, IQ is not a limit on what someone is able to learn and understand.

IQ is based on other factors like age and so forth. Because it's really a measure of how fast the person is learning, not a measure of what is capable. I even said that even while I have a high IQ, there are many more people out there with lower IQ's who know more than I do.

The entire premise of the study is wrong. I am so sick of this "atheists are smarter" crap. It's baseless.

Anyways on to your other point:

It seems like you are trying to say that when an Atheist rejects a definition of god/creator put forth by, for example, a Christian, this signifies the Christian is an authority on god, therefore the Atheist was actually acknowledging the belief - do I have that right?
I don't see it that way at all. The Atheist is simply discarding the definition as unlikely, unjustified, and plain ol' dumb (in some cases).
I have now sat here for a couple minutes attempting to think of an example that mimics what you say about Atheists and "accepting authority", but I really can't even put one together.
Maybe someone can post one for me to help explain how flawed that premise is.

And so the best you can say is that their individual claims are false. But proving their claims wrong doesn't prove god false in anyway. As I said before, there is a difference between someone who is agnostic and someone who is atheist. Many people are actually agnostic and call themselves atheists. But atheism is a belief that no god exists. It is faith based. And as it's basis is within proving what other people claim is false, then yes you have accepted them as the authority on god.

It's like saying Freedom sucks because of the actions of what GWB did while "promoting freedom". Proving what he did was wrong doesn't mean that freedom is wrong.

And the bible even talks about this stuff exactly. Which is why it drives me nuts that Christians, Muslims and Jews don't get it. You'd think as they supposedly have such high regard for the bible, they would actually understand it. But they don't.

There is a difference between those who do things in the name of something, and what that something actually is.

I have to obviously know about the god/creator they have defined - in order to reject it. Does that mean I give credence to their belief?

As you have allowed them to define the topic for you, then you have accepted them as being the authority on that topic. Accept or Reject does not matter at all, because you have accepted them as authority on the topic either way. They want people to pick one or the other, the choice is an illusion. You each play the role of "enemy" to each other. You are the evil to them, they are the evil to you. No, it's BOTH, because BOTH have only accepted rather than looking for real understanding.

I am not the one defining a god then claiming it exists. I am responding to claims, that are neither backed nor supported, that a god does exist - and which has already been defined.

Exactly, you have allowed others to define it for you. As such, you have accepted them as the authority on the subject of god, and it is only their claims that you base your entire opinion of.

It is perfectly ok for me to say "false" to something like that because it is an assertion that tells us this god/creator is real and can be experienced, without having any evidence. I don't need to give religion authority to oppose it. I believe your point is highly illogical and misses, well, the main reason for why "Atheists" are "not theists".

Evidence. You ask for people to prove it to you, and as such you will never find it. You are asking for other people to feed you. Well if you can't get up and feed yourself, you are always going to be stuck being feed whatever BS they can shove down your mouth to be accepted. There is no such thing as proof that can be given to you, none. It's like trying to find proof of Bill Gates inside your Windows OS. You can keep on looking, you can keep on expecting people to prove it to you, or you can actually take a bit of time and start to seek yourself if you really want to know. It's not something you just accepted, it's not something a church can give you, it's not something you will find in the bible, it's not something I can even begin to express to you. It's an understanding.

But what are you? Who are you? What is your purpose? Why are you here? Know thyself. You are never going to understand the father, or even the basic concept of god if you don't even know who or what you really are. It's like trying to understand the concept of a forest without a clue on what a tree is.

If the light hits your eyes, is refracted to the back of the retina, is then transformed into electrical signals, which then travel to the back of the brain, where they are transformed once again into the image you see, then to what is that image produced to? Whom is it that is viewing that image?

If we are our body, why do we refer to it as a possession? My arm, my leg. Who's arm? To whom/what possesses it? My consciousness? It can't even really be expressed. A

Also gnosticism and agnosticism aren't separate and apart from Atheism and theism...I am not sure if you brought this up or not.
Atheism/Theism is about what you believe, agnosticism and gnosticism are about what you know - these principles can be superimposed.

Gnostic and agnostic is the reality of it. Beliefs are just beliefs no matter what they are, if one simply believes, then they do not know.

Acceptance vs Understanding. Those who accept(belief) deny themselves of understanding. Beliefs create the box, understanding removes it. And if you are unable to be honest enough and admit such things, then good luck.

Gnostic and agnostic are the only 2 honest positions. Now there are many ways one might express it, doesn't matter to me if someone says Jesus or Muhammad, Buddha or otherwise. It's the understanding they express that matters, and it's as universal as math. You either know and understand or you don't.

And there is nothing wrong with being agnostic. Again, it's an honest opinion. It is not asserting beliefs, and as one is honest and realizes they do not know, then they will perhaps one day search to know, and as they do not accept they will be the ones who ultimately find understanding, as those with beliefs do not seek.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
As an atheist i hate to say this but those statistics are rather small. I am one of the very high IQ pool but i don't believe IQ is a brilliant way of judging intelligence. Are atheists more intelligent? Utter nonsense, i have known some very intelligent religious followers.

Let's be fair with our criticism guys, i see many atheists jumping on what i can only call a fundamentalist bandwagon.

You misunderstand what this was saying - the trend shows that Athiests are more intelligent in general. There are geniuses who believe in God, and idiots who don't. But the trend shows intelligence is linked to athiesm with plenty of good reasons why already mentioned, so I won't mention them again.

Although I agree that those who believe in god but are flexible with their beliefs (obviously not christians who believe in the bible), are going to be the more intelligent in the believers group. And if you leave the interpretation of god to be "anything" then there is little distinction between those and athiests. Both would require evidence, and both would likely accept the evidence either way.

Eye beeleave inn Gawd sew eye iz a more ron. Really? Keep in mind most of the populous consider any ATSer an idiot for believing in aliens or ufos or govt conspiracies as well. In fact that seems to be mankinds line of thought. Atheists are smarter than Christians, Democrats spend less on hookers than Republicans, football is more manly than baseball, Coke is better than Pepsi. When will someone do a study designed to actually benefit mankind and unite us instead of pointing out our flaws or differences and further keep us segregated socially. Studies like this make me wish Hitler had burned every book and library on the planet. Knowledge is useless if it is not used and I cannot really see how his study helps or benefits anyone, well, except for Atheists of course. Another puppet for the Anti-Christ movement.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by OmegaPoint

That is precisely true, they [atheists] would rather deny their own existence, consciousness and free will before ackowledging God even as a self aware universe, they will go that far..

Generalise much? This kind of reasoning is about as annoying as the old 'foxhole atheists' argument. Also, you are going to have to prove that free will exists and that the universe isn't hard-deterministic which I understand it to be - even as a Christian I did. Causality is a harsh mistress.

Lastly, learn to spell.

[edit on 28-7-2009 by Welfhard]