Religious people are less intelligent than non-believers

This is like having religious people do a long term study about scientific peoples faith levels... It is a pointless study subject because of its forgone conclusions. It is like an IQ test which is geared to single unwed Ugandans mothers about Uganda given to white middle aged stock market analysts from New York. Guess who will score the lowest IQ tests ever...? The poor white guys. This study is idiotic. Seems we may have to mark a few intelligence points off to the people who conducted such research.

Click here for more information.

I believe this topic is best left alone, by everyone.

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


Can you at least find a source where we don't have to buy the book to read the quote. WTF your source wasn't even a source.

reply to post by predator0187


its very logical to understand that in your world/perspective " religion" was there to teach science. however there are religions tht are based on the concept, " you cant have the truth without the proof", ie --- science teaches religion.

however, one major consideration to take, the science of today is not neccessairly the science of tomorrow, like dwarnism. the more scientific you get about the beginnings of man, the less dwarnian minds have to offer.


just for thoughtss, quantum physics today can lead to explaining several subjects like telepathy, emanating energy from your palms, and other doubts we had about the universe. because before we can even attempt o solidify the beginings of man i believe it would be more logical to solidify the beginings of the universe and shat it consists of.

so, when thinking about the article you present, i say its about some low intelligence prank scientists conducting biased study on an isolated group of religios people, or they just assumed that by asking if one believes in God that is sufficient to brand them as religios, and if we consider that to be religious, can that say anything about their personal will to understand the world around them from a scientific/logical approach? because right now most of the world be it " religious" or not is hypnotized by the likes of gangan style or celebritiy names like north west? does that sector of " religios" people have to represent intelligence for that religion? im pretty sure if we gather all the best minds, most of them will admit in believing in some sort of deity.

reply to post by predator0187


All dogs are brown.

I believe that is your argument in a nutshell.

Originally posted by predator0187
There is a huge difference between 'religious' people and 'spiritual' people.

I mean c'mon lets all be honest here, organized religion is a scam. They have ungodly (like that pun?

) amounts of money while there is starving people in the world? If they had followed the words of their true leader, Christ, this could and never would have happened.

Religion has been taken over by money and power. That's all it is.

You can still believe in a higher power, which does not have to be a god, and that would not make you religious.

Pred...

Well said! And because spiritual people were not even mentioned...is why I call BS on their findings. For what it's worth, I consider myself spiritual, not religious, and I have tested numerous times as having an IQ in the 140s...

Hold on a second. I'm still interested in what constitutes a being as a god. I haven't received a clear and reasonable answer on that subject. All answers are fraught with dogma and unreliable standards that tend to fluctuate with both culture and individual personality. In fact, the term "god" seems to be more a label describing our general state of expectations regarding divinity rather than a set of parameters defining the existence of a divine being.

In other words, a deity is defined by those who observe or contemplate it, rather than by what it actually is. And the more abstract it is, the more it falls prey to our expectations.

Any good answers? Anyone?

reply to post by predator0187

and Einstein was less intelligent than me ! it makes me feel more hopeful !!

reply to post by Habit4ming


I've always wondered what it was like getting to ride your own super-special short-bus to school.

Intelligence has nothing to do with what is most important.I have known some people of very high intelligence and some with very low intelligence that equally lacked what is infinitely more important than intelligence....wisdom.

It can't be learned.We are not born with it.It is 100% given with no strings or qualifications...and yet very few people have it even in small amounts.It is the rarest of all attributes yet the majority of people think they possess it in abundance.It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.

Intelligence according to science is the ability to reason, to draw conclusions based on facts, and to discern fact from fiction. Is it any wonder that a religious person would score low? Faith in God is anything but rational because it infers a belief in something that can't be proven.

People of faith are also going to spend more time studying and pursuing their belief and less on earthly facts and reason. How many non-religious "intelligent" people can quote the Bible? Or understand it? These beliefs would force a religious person to score low on intelligence tests.

But you know, I've seen plenty of high IQ people struggle with the basics of common sense, like figuring out which way to turn a screw driver. Many people who spend their lives in books studying and doing everything that it takes to score high on IQ tests are also probably just as dysfunctional as anyone. Intelligence tests are nothing to score high on. Way back when, when I was in high school, I took a placement test that said I shouldn't go into science or engineering. Well, I've had a very successful career in engineering because the "test" failed to take into account the effect creativity would have in such a field.

Knowledge is useless without knowing how to use it. I chose to believe in God, in Jesus, like millions of others, and I find nothing stupid in that.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
Hold on a second. I'm still interested in what constitutes a being as a god. I haven't received a clear and reasonable answer on that subject. All answers are fraught with dogma and unreliable standards that tend to fluctuate with both culture and individual personality. In fact, the term "god" seems to be more a label describing our general state of expectations regarding divinity rather than a set of parameters defining the existence of a divine being.

In other words, a deity is defined by those who observe or contemplate it, rather than by what it actually is. And the more abstract it is, the more it falls prey to our expectations.

Any good answers? Anyone?

Anyone going to answer this? I think it's a very pertinent question.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Well, I'll take a shot. It's two fold.

God: The one true God, creator of the universe, and bear with me a second, because this is a definition of what that God would be. This God, is the force from which everything comes from. It would have to have intelligence and thought, and be uncreatable. In other words, nothing is above it and nothing created it, it just is, was, and always will be. This, I believe, is the God of the Bible, the Alpha and Omega, and He revealed Himself to us when He created us. Strictly speaking though, the definition of God, capitol G, is that there is nothing beyond Him. If you don't like the term Him, well, sorry, you can substitute whatever you want for it, but I will use Him. God has revealed Himself in the Bible to be this definition.

Now god, little g, well, that can be interpreted in many different ways. For this type of god, basically all you need is someone to believe or put faith in you (or it), even if you are powerless. We are all aware of these gods, the ones of the Romans, Greeks, Celts, whoever. These gods could be made up on the spot out of a pile of dog crap if someone could get another person to believe in it. Many of them also could have been alien beings using technology to fool people into believing them. There's a lot of ways a god can be created or appear or be declared. The simplest definition is does anyone believe in it.

reply to post by MRSeeker

The simplest definition is does anyone believe in it.

Then what, in particular, validates your god? What qualifies it as the best or only god?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by MRSeeker

 

The simplest definition is does anyone believe in it.

Then what, in particular, validates your god? What qualifies it as the best or only god?

edit on 17-8-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

Well, the question was what is the definition of god. I gave two.

That I believe in God and what validates it? Kind of in the realm of UFO sightings, but read "Heaven is for Real" and "The Boy Who Went to Heaven". These are the stories of children who died and were allowed to come back with very consistent stories of God the Father and Jesus. Children are terrible liars. They couldn't have made up most of this stuff, and yes, they were Christians before they died, but they are also relating things that most adults couldn't make up.

If, and that's a strong if, I needed validation, I could give my own experiences of how God has revealed Himself to me, but you would need faith to believe them. As to how He might validate Himself to you, or anyone else who reads this, I would only say, you will never find what you don't look for.

reply to post by predator0187


This study completely ignores the cradle of our knowledge (and religions) in the first place.

I can think of at least a couple of extremely religious yet highly intelligent ancient cultures which would blow this study to smithereens...

How can a study like this- in the name of science- be so ignorant and flawed?

reply to post by PhotonEffect

your signatures have a lot of meaning !

Originally posted by maes2
reply to post by PhotonEffect

 

your signatures have a lot of meaning !

Yeah fantastic quotes

I did find the first quote rather ironic though considering the post

reply to post by maes2


Thank you. I like them too.