Intelligent people have 'unnatural' preferences

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Lack of evidence is just that......lack of evidence. It isnt grounds for a positive belief that something does not exist.

That's true, but I am not compelled to believe in things without some inkling of evidence. I don't feel a NEED to. So, when I say I don't believe it God, that's just what I mean. If the question is "Do you believe in God"? My answer is "No. I don't believe there is a thing called God." There's a slight possibility that there is, same as the possibility of invisible bok choy. But that doesn't make me agnostic on invisible bok choy.

Unless and until someone presents evidence of invisible bok choy, I'm going to say that it doesn't exist. I feel comfortable saying invisible bok choy doesn't exist (even though there's the slightest possibility that I could be wrong).

The chance of God being real (to me) is the same as the chance of ANYTHING being real. Dogs that fly, pink unicorns, trees that speak English, invisible bok choy and Themogopolis. I'm not going to pick and choose from ALL these things to "believe in" out of the infinite number of possibilities. And I'm also not going to say that I'm agnostic on any one of them.

Agnostic implies a fairly equal chance of the existence of God. Maybe so, maybe not. And that's not my position.

Edit to add: Based STRICTLY on evidence, the chances of God's existence are equal to that of His non-existence. There is no evidence for either. But my position isn't based STRICTLY on evidence. It's based on evidence PLUS the totality of my experience and education in this life. In other words, my context of life, my "belief system", my tendencies, my personality, etc. That is why I'm so open to people who DO believe in God I and support them having their position, while not agreeing with it. Because I understand that they have different experiences, judgments about those experiences and a different education than I have.


[edit on 2/26/2010 by Benevolent Heretic]

Originally posted by die_another_day
By the time your IQ gets to 135 to 140, you start hating people in general.

True. So true.

You hate stupid bull# and you just want to beat the crap out of the dumbass.

I agree with this too. Everyone has an atheistic stance on some position and will say it comes from intelligent scrutinizing - even without evidence of an excluding the possibility of an orbiting invisible tea pot between Mars and Jupiter, it's reasonable to say that it's rather best to disbelieve in it.

reply to post by tgidkp


this is very cool. thanks for contributing!
buck the man!

oh, yeah, i'd like to add, that after watching "avatar" last night, i am reminded that i think it possible the top of the spiral should be attached to the bottom in an orouborous style infinite loop. sort of like the "final fantasy, the spirit within" scenario would be the beginning of the bottom of a new spiral. sorry for all the movie references, but if a picture says a thousand words, than 24 frames per second says a lot more.

[edit on 26-2-2010 by billybob]

Originally posted by truthquest
Atheism is unreasonable and liberalism is immoral.

you said it all, right there. except you said it backwards and upside down.
faith is unreasonable, and religion is immoral.

that said, i have faith in "something higher" gained from observation of life. first i had faith in christ, then realised the bible was heavily edited by men according to their own wants and desires for control and believing what they want to believe, and had faith in nothing.
and then i learned the wonder of the perfection of the unfolding of life and systems according to mathematical formulas, and was awed back into a realisation that coincidence is an unlikely explanation for all that is. i have no "proof/reason" to "believe" that there is a great consciousness guiding the development of life and the cosmos, but i find the odds that a never ending string of happy coincidence has led to the perfection of life on earth.
for example, the sun and moon are EXACTLY the same "size" as viewed from earth, but the moon is actually tiny, and the sun is actually gargantuan. it is just a "coincidence" that these heavenly bodies appear to be equals from our perspective?
crop circles? coincidence? (i don't buy that they are ALL manmade. i believe that "team satan" (the "proof" that they are man-made) is the work of the vatican to quash the backlash against the church that naturally follows knowing that they are miraculous).
or, a moth that looks like snake to scare away predators. or an octopus that can change it's colouring to match it's background. an "evolutionary coincidence"? maybe. i find that hard to swallow. there are hundreds of examples that i know of, and probably millions that i don't.

the history of religion is the history of war, oppression, famine, hierarchy, suppression of knowledge, torture, authoritarianism, propaganda, subterfuge, control, and, basically, EVIL.

so, i happily repeat:
faith is irrational, religion is immoral.

[edit on 26-2-2010 by billybob]

reply to post by randyvs


How can you hold contempt for those who don't believe in God, because they have no proof of his non existence, when your Jesus Christ (Julius Cicerian)exist nowhere but biblical text and one poem,that was deemed a fake? You shouldn't throw stones,,,,,

Everyone believes in God in some way. If you don't believe in a "Higher Power", then you believe that Man is the supreme authority and therefore a God!

Originally posted by SaturnFX


Ya...erm, going to call foul here...Your saying you have a greater IQ than Albert Einstein, Ben Franklin, and Bill Gates.

Well, interestingly enough, there are quite a few people with exceptionally high IQs who are not scientists. And, there are quite a few scientists with pretty average IQs.

Having a high IQ is one thing, what you choose to do with it is another entirely. Some with high IQs opt out of the rat race, and take rather menial jobs that demand little from them after their formal working hours so that they can devote that free time to their own intellectual pursuits.

Christopher Langan is an example of someone with a very high verfied IQ who did not choose to be part of the rat race. In fact, he took a job largely associate with big dumb lunks. He was a bouncer.

en.wikipedia.org...

Some "fields" that intelligent people are drawn to are simply not fields that offer much in the way of employment in the traditional sense. Philosophy comes to mind, having taken that degree myself.

Many philosophers take simple jobs, (Spinoza was a lens grinder for instance) and work on their philosophy alone. However, the idea of a solider having a very high IQ is not ridiculous, at all. I personally do not know whether or not the posters claim is accurate or not, but I certainly would not look to his career as my guide to decide whether that was the case.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I have no problem with that at all. As I said in an earlier post, you are as entitled to believe what you choose, as someone who is a religious dogmatist is.

It isnt logically sound in the strictest sense, but then very few people actually do make their decisions regarding what to believe based on strict logic.

Originally posted by oppaperclip

Regardless of what you believe humans are animals and we are mean animals. If you are not in our specific tribe, in hard, lean times you are likely to be killed for your belongings. This is not unintelligent behavior it is survival behavior brought on by our instincts from Evolution. Yes while peaceful and prosperous time we are sated by being full, and having entertainment. Yet our primal barbarism come out all the time.

Interesting point of view. And, I do know where many of those ideas come from. Dawkins "selfish Gene" really set the world on fire with the idea of individual selfishness.

However, there is something going on in humanity. We are not simply looking out for number one, consciously. And, our idea of whom is "us" or "we" is evolving and has been for a very long time. First it may have been me and me alone, perhaps then to me and my children (immediate family), me and my clan, (extended family), me and my tribe, my town, my city, my state, my nation state, my nation, etc. We are quite capable of extending the idea of "tribe" as you are calling it, out very broadly. In fact one of the things complained about here on ATS is the idea of a One World Government, although in truth, if we continue as we have, that is the next logical step, "my species." Following this could be "all animals," all living things" and "all things that are."

You are presuming that we are not benefiting from this expansion and extension of "self" outward onto "others." I would say that is clearly not so. And, it is very possible that the next big split in our species could be related to whether or not we are able to make that greater extension. Some might say that our current level of selfishness is driving our species, (and many others) right to the brink of extinction. Only time will tell. However I would not count the cooperators out. So far, it has been an enormously successful strategy.

I absolutely believe we are animals. "Mean" animals, I dont know if I agree with that. That is a value statement. We are certainly not above violence, particularly when our survival is at stake, but I dont know if I would call that "mean." Our competitiveness has served a function, as has our cooperativeness. We will just have to see which direction proves the most fruitful. I have my money on greater cooperativeness, personally.

reply to post by randyvs


No one has to make that claim. Until someone proves that he does exist, the default position of critical thinking demands we say "I have no idea", and leave it at that.

To believe in something undemonstrable is delusional.

reply to post by constantwonder


How is this even news?

Isnt it kind of common sense that people who have an IQ of 140 will like different things than someone with an IQ of 40?

Originally posted by billybob
faith is irrational, religion is immoral.

Blind faith is irrational. Believing something just because someone told you it was true is irrational. One must do one's own research. Enough investigation and circumstantial evidence can override one's sense of skepticism. I hesitate to mention the Official 9/11 Story here and fan the flame wars, but it is the perfect example. It is irrational to believe the official story just because "officials" say it's true. It is just as irrational to believe the Truther side just because Alex Jones says it's true. It's so irrational, in fact, that no intelligent person would blindly do either of those things. The version one ends up believing always turns out to be the one that most jives with one's own impression of The Powers That Be. If you're certain that traffic cameras and cellphones are being used by Them to spy on everyone, you're absolutely not going to believe the Official Story no matter what. But if you love your government and believe they love you too (even if only for your money) and have faith that they'd never lie to you, you're absolutely never going to believe Truthers, no matter what evidence they present. Both of these methods of truth determination have the exact same massive flaw: humans lie. Humans make stuff up when it suits them. Humans all want to appear correct. Humans want everyone else to believe what THEY believe. Humans distort facts, manufacture evidence, and falsify data for no other reason than saving face. They could care less about truth. Humans suck, and the smarter a human is, the more believable their lies become. Never ever ever believe anything a human tells you. Go find out on your own instead, and if that's infeasible for some reason, well, all you have left to go on is your gut instinct, and you're back to using your own biases to find out the truth. Good luck with that. Myself, I can't even look through a microscope without marveling at the majesty of The Design of Life. Telescopes give me vertigo. In my opinion, there is no way that the universe could be the way it is now without someone guiding it there, planning it out, making it happen. That gives me faith in God. It's not even a conscious decision; it's a logical conclusion to me. The more intelligent someone is, the more likely they are to believe in some form of Intelligent Design. Myself, I see no reason why I.D. and evolution can't be simultaneously correct. Why couldn't God have used evolution as a tool to create Adam, Lilith, and Eve, hmmm? Yet everyone believes they're mutually exclusive because that's what they've been TOLD to believe!! Now how irrational is that??

Speaking of God...

Organized religions have become immoral. Thankfully, though, one can serve and worship God without ever setting foot in a church. You don't need a preacher to save you. You don't have to donate tithes towards his Cadillac fund to promote the teachings of Christ. You do those things by being the best example of Christianity you can be, no matter who is looking at you (because there is always someone watching you, I guarantee it, whether it's God or the NSA using Celldar). That's why I no longer even call myself "Christian." I call myself a "Yeshuan," in honor of Jesus' real name. Christians of today have perverted the meaning of the religion into just another control method. They want everyone to act as they do, think as they do, consider the same things moral and immoral that they do, etcetera, and it usually has nothing to do with what's in the Bible, only with what some preacher told them to believe. They despise anyone who's different from them. Christians pick and choose which parts of Leviticus they're going to enforce and ignore. They forget the significance of Cornelius' banquet and what happened there. They don't even seem to realize why Jesus sacrificed himself for them, or what that selfless act does for them. The only part that they're doing right is asking Jesus to be their Lord and Savior. Well, and baptisms. After that, the traditional ("fundamentalist") ones start brow-beating everyone over what they should and shouldn't do. They can spout love for Christ and hate for homosexuals in the same breath. They can prostate themselves in pious prayer on Sunday and go right back to handing out sub-prime mortgages and chasing ambulances on Monday. They actually turn people away from Christ with the example they set. Today's Christians benefit Satan more than God, and that isn't a coincidence. Organized religion has been purposely destroyed from within, its followers have been brainwashed into being as un-Christ-like as possible, and that is what makes them "immoral." So, in brief...

Faith is rational; religion is moral. Taking anyone's word for anything? That's when it starts getting irrational.

Cool article, thanks!

Smart people do things differently, that's what it's all about. If you do things the same as everyone else, you're not going to discover anything new. Learning new things is what makes a person smart. It makes perfect sense, really.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Originally posted by SaturnFX


Ya...erm, going to call foul here...Your saying you have a greater IQ than Albert Einstein, Ben Franklin, and Bill Gates.

Well, interestingly enough, there are quite a few people with exceptionally high IQs who are not scientists. And, there are quite a few scientists with pretty average IQs.

Having a high IQ is one thing, what you choose to do with it is another entirely. Some with high IQs opt out of the rat race, and take rather menial jobs that demand little from them after their formal working hours so that they can devote that free time to their own intellectual pursuits.

I agree with this statement 100%. Alot of exceedingly bright people have views of the so called scientific establishment that they just don't agree with. The publish or perish mentality is a huge turn off in my opinion.

That being said I'd like to thank everyone for there input and reasonable respect for decorum. Several very thought proking posts and a great effort by everyone.

I specificaly enjoyed this post by Antonia

I have to agree with you. One of the other problems is humans tend to "compartmentalize" their intelligence so to speak. Even Einstien only had knowledge of certain areas. While that might be useful in some respects it ultimately will not ensure survival. The man couldn't even grasp that he should brush his hair. He couldn't tie he shoes. His personal life was rife with problems because he couldn't fathom responsibility in relationships. Intelligence isn't of much use if one cannot function in society. Much of one's success in life is dependent on how well they can function in social networks.

I don't think anyone here can disagree with that

[edit on 26-2-2010 by constantwonder]

Well I completely agree with this post other than the fact that you shouldn't group the nonbelievers into Atheists. It is only logical to believe in a higher being (possibly a "God") than ourselves. That insatiable urge to find out where we came from is, in my opinion what drives our intelligence. We are Spiritual beings having a Human experience.

[edit on 26-2-2010 by dplum517]

Athiest?

There are people or specimens of all breeds of human species WITHIN EACH ETHNIC AND COLOR GROUP ON EARTH.

This is proof that human "breeds" intermixed completely BEFORE THEIR COLOR AND OTHER SMALL EVOLUTIONRY CHANGES HAPPENED.

Just think DOGS and imagine they had our primary colors and there were daschunds and great danes and poodles all in only our primary colors BUT WITH ALL OF THE BREEDS REPRESENTED WITHIN THE COLOR GROUPS SOMEHOW.
We baked all our different types of cookies the same color then shook them all up then iced them in different shades.Now apply that to the bible and history and you have the truth of our creation and its direction.
Riddle me this and U2U me.

And IQ tests are a sham,me and another girl in my school broke through the ceiling of the scoring system,we were even suspected of cheating because we were in the same class,we re took and absolutely slammed the test.The school had to request our parent s permission to have us retake the test and they told our parents that our two scores were so exceptional that they wanted to challenge us further,both tracy and I talked and knew their agenda was to prove we had somehow cheated by creating a window of opportunity to retest us and hope for a drastic change in the scores,and I guess when two kids blow the roof off you better start figuring some type of song and dance out ,eh?havent said that name in over twenty five years and it sure felt good,a soul mate for sure.

The Bible is written in such a contradictive way, that people are even afraid not to believe the Bible. In the statement `believe` they are trying to merge 2 opposite things. Bible mixes general truths that are derived from human conscience( such as honesty, family values, sacrifize etc.) with fictituous facts of history. They create a non-existent miracle making jesus, then impart him with all the attributes of the best character features of a human and then create fake life story and deeds that he had committed. Thus a person becomes unwilling to `not believe` because by saying, i don`t believe, everyone assumes that the person discards the values propogated by Jesus. yet those who don`t believe Bible, simply don`t believe the events or occurences described in the bible, and not necessarily the values described in the bible.So, next time, when someone asks you do you believe in bible, and jesus simply ask them, what exactly do they mean by that- the events decribed or the human values propogated?

reply to post by constantwonder



Great article, I really enjoyed reading it and this just validate that atheists are more intelligent then the backward thinking superstitious religious folks. Now when they bitch and whine about how atheists talk down to them and act as if their more intelligent, we can link them straight to this article and say it's because we are! I love it!

Although I do disagree with your assumption on agnosticism. There is no such thing as an agnostic in my opinion. You either believe in deity or you don't, there is no such thing as a half way point in belief. In my opinion, and agnostic is someone who does believe in deity but for whatever reasons known only to themselves, refuses to outwardly express that belief openly. This form of belief does not make them more intelligent than atheists, it makes them ridiculous and indecisive. I'm an atheist who accepts the possibility of deity but does not subscribe to belief in deity due to lack of evidence. I can't say if there is a deity or if there isn't. By that definition, one might be able to argue I'm agnostic, but I'm not. I'm just able to decide where to hold my beliefs based on the evidences at hand. An agnostic doesn't seem capable of such a simple feat of thought.

reply to post by sirnex


Thus the reason the biased not-a-study-propaganda was created. Be careful you may hurt yourself patting yourself on the back. And how exactly is "black and white" thinking such as you exhibit intelligent considering very few things tend to be as such?