Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God'

[Pliny]

Another poster who wants to talk about me!

How flattering...

Now, any thoughts to add to the thread?

The thread is about you..

You are attempting to define intelligent people and fit yourself into that category.

[Pliny]

And why not address the argument instead of making a false charge that someone is claiming intellectual superiority by raising the issue? The issue is raised by fundamentalists such as Ann Coulter and the creationists at answersingenesis, to generate fear and hostility to scientists and academia. The survey of N.A.S. members that I linked previously, which shows the majority don't believe in a personal, transcendent creator or a soul animating the human body -- are used by answersingenesis as evidence that believing in evolution leads to godlessness!

There are people on both sides of the science/religion divide that claim some sort of n0n-overlapping magisteria that enables people to believe both equally; while fundamentalists such as the creationists, and a few brave scientists like Richard Dawkins, say upfront that scientific discoveries in fields like cosmology, biology and neuroscience, cannot be harmonized with the religious worldview that the majority of people share.

What would be the purpose of raising the issue? Ann Coulter has a purpose in denying it, I suppose. Drea has a purpose in bringing it up. Can I now argue from a religious point of view that the conclusion is false or would I be viewed as less intelligent? The person who presented the thread is simply attempting to position herself as more intelligent.

In the final analysis, Drea believes people of religious faith are less intelligent than people with no religious faith.

What needs to be defined is intelligence.

That you are still talking about the creation of our universe indicates that what you think I am saying seems to be out of sync with what I am trying to say; I am not concerned with the creation of our universe, I am concerned with the creation of the very state of being itself.

Mull over the above for awhile. Remiel is light years ahead of string theory.

[WIP]

Leaving it as an unresolved question is more or less the equivalent of just taking existence on faith anyway.

OK, I could say I have faith that the world exists. As to the origins of the universe, if we don't have a clear, definitive answer, why not just say so, instead of invoking a higher power. From what is known about our universe, it began in a very simple, homogenous state called the Big Bang, and has grown in complexity as it has expanded and increased in entropy.

If you insist there has to be a first cause to explain the existence of our world, the next question is who or what created the creator? Some theologians like William Lane Craig have noticed this problem and for his part, he tries to get around the problem of infinite regresses by using the interpretation many physicists have of the Big Bang - that it began as a singularity (no dimensions) and was the beginning of matter, energy and space-time, therefore time had no previous existence before the universe and the causal chain can't go back previous to the Big Bang.

But physicists who study cosmology admit that there is no absolute reason why the beginning of our universe, would also have to be the beginning of space-time! They just made this assumption based on the enormous amount of energy that was unleashed. The new theories proposed to harmonize gravity with quantum mechanics, so that a model can be made of the very beginning, all indicate that the Big Bang was not the beginning of time: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/0707...m_big_bang.html

The other problem with Prime Mover arguments is that rules of cause and effect and conservation of energy that apply in our everyday world, are meaningless in the subatomic world of quantum mechanics, where "virtual" particles briefly borrow the energy required to create them and then, a short time later, they pay the "debt" back when they re-unite and annihilate each otherand disappear again into the space-time fabric.

If the Uncertainty Principle of the quantum world that literally means anything can happen, given enough time, can produce virtual particle pairs out of nothing, what's to stop an entire universe from being produced out of "nothing" as well? In A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking points out on page 129 that a modern understanding of physics, shows that the positive mass energy of matter in the Universe, subtracted by potential energy stored in its gravitational fields (expressed as negative energy) always equals zero.

There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty [five] zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.

So, nothing needs to be added to create an entire universe! Just the right set of physical laws that will enable the universe to unfold with the capacity to spawn atomic particles that form the building blocks of matter and an expansion that was just right to allow everything to coalesce into planets, stars, galaxies and of course some giant stars that went supernova and gave us all of the organic compounds necessary to make living organisms. A universe that supports organic life depends on very finely balanced physical laws, and this raises the main argument for design today -- the Argument From Fine Tuning. Explaining where the stuff of the universe came from is easy! The big question is how did our universe get just the right recipe for life.

That you are still talking about the creation of our universe indicates that what you think I am saying seems to be out of sync with what I am trying to say; I am not concerned with the creation of our universe, I am concerned with the creation of the very state of being itself. Speculative mathematical models might look nice on paper, but expecting them to accurately depict reality is like asking you to give me i pies. Ultimately they are just figments, perhaps useful figments, but figments nonetheless.

Now, you've really lost me! What does "the creation of the very state of being itself" mean?

[WIP]

What would be the purpose of raising the issue? Ann Coulter has a purpose in denying it, I suppose. Drea has a purpose in bringing it up. Can I now argue from a religious point of view that the conclusion is false or would I be viewed as less intelligent?

Can you elaborate on this "religious point of view" and explain how it falsifies the conclusions made in the article from the opening post?

The person who presented the thread is simply attempting to position herself as more intelligent.

In the final analysis, Drea believes people of religious faith are less intelligent than people with no religious faith.

Do you know this for a fact? This seems to contradict your claim: Drea Jun 13 2008, 07:13 PM

I know some very intelligent people who are religious. They simply refuse to discuss their religion, but are analytical in all other matters. There must be a fear inside of them that keeps them from questioning it... of course, the fear of hell is pretty powerful stuff for some.

That would indicate to me that contrary to your charge, Drea is not claiming that all non-religious people are smarter than the religious. The article in the opening thread is not much different than many that I have read which compare level of religious belief with education levels. The conclusions are that on average, people with a greater understanding of science and nature, are less likely to look for supernatural explanations than the people with less knowledge or education.

What needs to be defined is intelligence.

There are many different areas of intelligence, and most people have their strengths and weaknesses. Some people can have extraordinary math skills and yet are subpar in other areas like language, memory and spatial skills.

Mull over the above for awhile. Remiel is light years ahead of string theory.

Oh I'm mulling it over all right! Since you understand what he mean't by " the creation of the very state of being itself." maybe you can explain it to me if he doesn't get around to it.

[Remiel]

To answer one of the early questons in that post (with a question): Why not invoke a higher power? Would the existence of some higher power (paradoxically) make you feel " less special " ? It is not as if I pretend to understand the creator I believe in though. And I also acknowledge that just because there could be a creator does not necessarily mean we have souls or anything like that.

Next, I would say that a creator would not need a creator, because they by definition are outside the laws of the universe.

And when I say the state of being I mean existence itself, abstracted out to the point where even the concept of nothing is notable for the fact that nothing exists (which is I suspose in a way means that nothing as we usually think of it is not nothing at all).

I still am looking for my i pies though.

[WIP]

There is nothing stopped you from asking a question at least.

Obviously it would look rather silly for a Deist like myself to suggest that you cannot form a moral code without commands from on high, since I do not believe in commands from on high.

However, that does not really tell me anything about whether people ought to have a moral code or not. Moral instincts like altruism do lend to the survival and prosperity of the community as a whole, but why does the community really matter? What is particularly significant about one arrangement of sub-atomic particles over another? Even if people did not fear the consequences of anything, logically speaking, what reason is their to do anything that gives them pleasure either? It is all equally meaningless.

Spoken like a true nihilist! Okay, some people, especially since the age of post-modernism, believe everything is relative and nothing matters, we live in an absurd universe, therefore life is meaningless........I think that covers the basics, but I cannot accept this bleak, depressing outlook on life because I enjoy living and discovering new things everyday. I don't depend on a cosmic sign or even evidence that the universe cares about us and has a purpose for the human race, in order to find meaning in my own life.

I guess if you want a life with purpose, you have to find whatever provides a meaningful life for yourself, and for most people, a purposeful life cannot be achieved without having family and friends and being an active part of your community. I think these are things we are hardwired to value and that's why altruism and the survival and prosperity of the community matter to most people.

I do not really think we should care so much about what people believe. We should only care about the effects of what they believe on their actions. This means that what belief system is suitable for each person varies on a case by case basis.

It seems you've provided a good argument for why we should care about what people believe! If we only care about the effects and say nothing about the beliefs that motivate harmful actions like flying planes into buildings or running in to crowded restaurants with bomb belts, we are doing nothing to address the source of the problem. If we find that the pilot who hijacks a DC10 and flies it into a building has been taught that this action will absolve him of his sins and guarantee his entry into a heaven with 72 virgins, along with a guarantee that he can choose 70 family and friends to be given the divine guarantee of entry into heaven, are you going to tell me that we should not care about this belief, and only be concerned about the effects that result from it?

Some folks are dangerous as theists, others are just as dangerous as atheists (see Stalin, Joseph). You can decry the apparent horrors of what people have done in the name of Gods and Prophets, but I have no doubt that were the situation reversed, and 95% of the world was atheistic and only 5% theistic, then we would still have plenty of bloodshed to complain about (and it would not be just because of the 5%). While it hardly follows the pattern well and is maybe orders of magnitudes different, I would suggest that you beware of blaming religion in the same way that people should beware of blaming video games, comic books and Dungeons & Dragons for all of the worlds ills.

Keep in mind that atheist is a lack of belief in gods or supernatural, and not a belief system. An atheist who is a Marxist, especially a follower of Stalinism, is going to have a different outlook on life than an atheist who is a humanist. A communist may be an atheist regarding religion and the supernatural, but that doesn't mean they don't have protected beliefs. The Marxist theory of class struggle and history has never been a subject open to debate in any communist regime that I am aware of. So in that sense, they have the same capacity for violence that a fascist, theocratic government would have. They would both be inclined to come down hard against anyone who disputes their perfect knowledge. And that's why I don't engage in the "who would create bigger massacres" debate. If the 95% of the world were Communists, things would be much different than if they were freethinking humanists who had no beliefs protected from scrutiny.

[WIP]

To answer one of the early questons in that post (with a question): Why not invoke a higher power? Would the existence of some higher power (paradoxically) make you feel " less special " ? It is not as if I pretend to understand the creator I believe in though. And I also acknowledge that just because there could be a creator does not necessarily mean we have souls or anything like that.

But my question is still why invoke that higher power unless we have a clear reason for doing so, and an understanding of its meaning. Is the higher power proposed just to explain a lack of knowledge? I still don't get why the deist creator is necessary or why that makes the universe a different place than if he wasn't there.

Next, I would say that a creator would not need a creator, because they by definition are outside the laws of the universe.

But there is still no physical reason to assume that our universe needs that creator in the first place.

And when I say the state of being I mean existence itself, abstracted out to the point where even the concept of nothing is notable for the fact that nothing exists (which is I suspose in a way means that nothing as we usually think of it is not nothing at all).

I still am looking for my i pies though.

I'm still at a loss to understand how this gives me any real insight into my existence that will provide more benefit than what I can glean from reading about the latest discoveries in physics, neuroscience or evolutionary psychology.

[Remiel]

For the record, I am not a nihilist. I choose to believe in a world view that does have meaning. I only pointed out the nihilistic view because I am not convinced that it might not be technically true, though for my own sake and others I ignore its implications.

As for the plane flying folks, the effect I would be particularly worried about is not the one where they fly the plane into the building, it is the one before that when someone else teaches them to fly the plane into the building. Obviously if the effect of your belief is to teach others to kill people, then you likely run afoul of what I was meaning.

I think it is mostly an issue of semantics on whether atheism constitutes a particularly variety of belief system. I do not really think we should worry about debating that particular point.

In any case, if you do not think that a Deist type creator makes a difference, there is little I can (or at least am willing) to do to try and change your mind. Suffice to say we can probably agree to disagree on that particular point.

And if you do not want to look for insight in abstract metaphysical concepts, then that is up to you as well. Physics, neuroscience and evolutionary psychology are all nice, but as I said before, do not expect them to yield any insights on how you should actually act. If they appear to yield such insights, it is because of normative premises you already had, not anything inherent in those sciences.

I hope that this conversation has gotten a few particularly people to think a little more, instead of just ranting angrily. I freely admit that I am annoyed by pronunciations of absolute truth and authority by both atheists and theists, and the more haughty and arrogant they appear, the more annoyed I tend to be.

[White Doors]

The problem is not religion - it is fanaticism that does not respect the right of other people to have different views. Fanaticism in the name of one's tribe or nation is just as likely to lead to bloodshed as fantacism in the name of one's religion.

exactly!

[White Doors]

Intelligence isn't a one-time event; it's the entire life of learning experiences.

sorry, that's wisdom.

Maybe you should find the definition of what it is before you declare you have it and others don't.

lol

btw, are all atheists this fanatical that you care what others believe?

What ever happaned to live and let live?

Why the over power need to be 'right' and others 'wrong'?

If you were so sure of your beliefs in atheism, you should not care.

telling..

[sharkman]

The thread is about you..

You are attempting to define intelligent people and fit yourself into that category.

Careful Pliny, Wip does not take kindly to people criticizing Drea, he's butted into 2 or 3 conversations I was having with her. Some kind of weird atheist kindred spirit or something. But you're spot on, Drea seems to think intelligence is as you say.

[Drea]

Careful Pliny, Wip does not take kindly to people criticizing Drea, he's butted into 2 or 3 conversations I was having with her. Some kind of weird atheist kindred spirit or something. But you're spot on, Drea seems to think intelligence is as you say.

"Closed minded" would probably be a better description for people of relgious faith. While they may be intelligent, they are not necessarily open to religious scrutiny.

If your religion is "true" then you need not worry that it be scrutinized. Only those that don't have unshakeable faith in their beliefs should be wary of analysis.

Seems to me a good many people are afraid to look into their religion (and other religions or non-belief) becasue they might learn something that is contrary to what they want to believe.

If god were to show up this afternoon, you bet I would change my belief! In the face of seeing for myself... but the religious are more likely to close their eyes and ears and maintain their "faith".

And that's really what it all boils down to. Either you are open to discussing your beliefs (or lack thereof) or you are not. One is open minded, one is not.

I have, throughout my life, entertained the notion of "god" and "jesus"... even went to church for a bit. So I opened my mind, I simply expect others to do the same.

And don't be jealous of WIP... you guys are still my biggest fan-atics (besides AW and guyser that is) LOL.

(/kidding, jeeez don't get all bent out of shape!)

[sharkman]

I will simply repeat what I said in my first post of this thread. For an atheist, you sure talk about God a lot. And you are closed minded yourself, although I'm sure there are some religious types who are as well. My experience with God is not going to be cast aside simply because I talk to someone on a forum who says there is no God. Are you so naive to think you can change people's minds about foundational things in their lives in a forum?

But I'm not sure what you expect religious people to do, open up about their experiences and everything else simply because you start a thread implying that the intelligent are not religious? Good luck with that. Some intelligent people are religious even though they don't believe in God. They worship their brainpower.

[Pliny]

Firstly, I apologize if I was being annoying. The pomposity of the premise in the opening article stirred my own pomposity.

Can you elaborate on this "religious point of view" and explain how it falsifies the conclusions made in the article from the opening post?

The acceptance of a belief system is a conclusion. Upon the adoption of a belief system all questions regarding life and the universe must now be explained within the primary premises of the belief, other explanations must be ignored unless one changes his mind and adopts a different set of beliefs. Science claims the upper hand in belief systems, and it is a "belief system". Like others. Because it is entirely based upon perception and analysis of perception and ignores all that falls outside of perception and concerns itself with measurement and proof it cannot conceive of anything prior. Religion concerns itself with cause science concerns itself with effect. It doesn't presume to know cause. It will never prove the existence of life. It has in fact concluded that life is a series of electro-chemical reactions. This is their belief system and there is nothing else to life. No other scientific evidence exists regarding life.

Life for an individual must revolve around ones accepted system of beliefs. A belief system does not explain everything but promises to, even if only death provides the answers.

The article is fallacious because it presumes science is a superior belief system because it does not require beliefs only proof of existence through measurement and perception. It's failure is that it always finds effect but never cause. And it assumes cause to be something measurable or observable, such as an electro-chemical reaction.

Since it measures intelligence it defines it within it's own terms - that is the fundamental error.

Do you know this for a fact? This seems to contradict your claim: Drea Jun 13 2008, 07:13 PM

I know some very intelligent people who are religious. They simply refuse to discuss their religion, but are analytical in all other matters. There must be a fear inside of them that keeps them from questioning it... of course, the fear of hell is pretty powerful stuff for some.

Even in that statement she indicates that these intelligent people are analytical in all other matters but are lacking intelligence in religious matters. She suggests fear as a possible reason.

That would indicate to me that contrary to your charge, Drea is not claiming that all non-religious people are smarter than the religious. The article in the opening thread is not much different than many that I have read which compare level of religious belief with education levels. The conclusions are that on average, people with a greater understanding of science and nature, are less likely to look for supernatural explanations than the people with less knowledge or education.

There are many different areas of intelligence, and most people have their strengths and weaknesses. Some people can have extraordinary math skills and yet are subpar in other areas like language, memory and spatial skills.

You will note that the article is not conclusive in it's statement. You will find that the bell curve leaves room for exception in all statements. There is nothing conclusive in the science of the humanities because there are no conclusions, other than nothing is conclusive, only measurements, facts and observations exist, as is the case in all belief systems.

Oh I'm mulling it over all right! Since you understand what he mean't by " the creation of the very state of being itself." maybe you can explain it to me if he doesn't get around to it.

He is looking for a start because he has found nothing that explains the start. He is looking then in time, when in actuality, there is no "creation" of being there only is being. Buddhism probably defines it best. Time is a creation, being is not.

You look at things from a scientific point of view and accept science and it's statements, that is your belief system. Quantum mechanics, while interesting, evolved out of the anomalies of the theory of relativity. Because it has anomalies means it is just a theory. Science wishes to believe it is fact and has proceeded from the premise it is accurate. Although, the theory of relativity has made accurate predictions it is not that practically usable. Newtonian theory is used in the calculation of space travel for example. These are the only two scientific theories of the universe that we currently have. They are theories, just as creationism is a theory or intelligent design a theory. Claiming the adherents of one theory more likely to be intelligent means that intelligence is defined by the belief system making the claim and nothing more.

Whatever theory one adheres to it must provide for him purpose and direction. Studying effects leads to studying effects but will never lead to answers about life because life is not a result, it is not an effect, it just is. That's my belief.

I will cut Drea some slack as she probably sees religion as an acceptance of dogmatic rite and ritual and unquestioning belief. Once again a definition provided by an alternate theory.

[JB Globe]

Drea, you're a fanatic:

You believe that people who do not think what you think are less-than yourself.

You also believe that a form of utopia will descend upon the world once people start to think what you think.

If you were Christian, you'd be a Christian fanatic, but since you're an atheist, you're an atheist fanatic.

It's unreal how much fanatics like yourself say they despise Christian fanatics, and how identical the two of you sound.

Also, the same professor did studies that showed that men were smarter than women. If you accept the findings of this religion intelligence study, does that mean you accept his study on gender & intelligence?

Edited June 16, 2008 by JB Globe

[Guest American Woman]

Drea, you're a fanatical athiest.

Exactly. Something I've pointed out more than once. No one on the board is as fanatical when it comes to religion as she is.

[Drea]

Drea, you're a fanatic:

You believe that people who do not think what you think are less-than yourself.

You also believe that a form of utopia will descend upon the world once people start to think what you think.

If you were Christian, you'd be a Christian fanatic, but since you're an atheist, you're an atheist fanatic.

It's unreal how much fanatics like yourself say they despise Christian fanatics, and how identical the two of you sound.

Also, the same professor did studies that showed that men were smarter than women. If you accept the findings of this religion intelligence study, does that mean you accept his study on gender & intelligence?

I have already gone over this with another poster... I had not read his other works regarding the brains of women vs the brains of men. If you would like to start a thread about it I would be happy to participate... although I don't believe either gender has cornered the market on "better" brains.

Now, on topic:

I did not write the article, I simply agreed with the premise of it. One must have a certain level of close-mindedness (which is a sign of a lacking intelligence imo) to accept religious dogma.

All you can do to refute the article (and my opinion) is to throw out insults. Why not find a link that supports your view? But no, you would rather insult me. This simply proves my point that belief in religion is the domain of those with lower intelligence... heck even you can't provide a link... imagine trying to talk sense with a staunch believer! Holy shamoly!

"fanatic" ... the flavourful word of the decade... nice to see you've jumped on THAT bandwagon. Now why not jump on the brainwagon next time? Ask yourself "Am I afraid to lose my afterlife or risk burning in hell to question my religion?"

It is not my fault that people who are of lower intelligence tend to believe in an all powerful, thought-reading, judgemental skydaddy.

Once again, it is NOT MY FAULT that believers are closeminded. I did not make them that way... they evolved into idiocy all on their own.

Once again, I did not make you who you are so quite blaming me for your inadequacies already... sheesh. I know you can't get enough of me, but really.

[Drea]

Exactly. Something I've pointed out more than once. No one on the board is as fanatical when it comes to religion as she is.

You're just pissed because you realize that I am correct.

It takes closed-mindedness to accept religion. You know this, but are loathe to admit that you are closed-minded.

So what are you going to do, vote for Obama the "muslim" (Obama's half-brother is religious after all, so you should believe him when he says Obama is muslim!!), or vote for the repubs?

You poor thing! Wouldn't it be nice if your vote wasn't based on scary religious crap, but on actual issues?

Yes I laugh, because it's funny that an invisible sky-daddy competition has America all in a tither.

[sharkman]

Okay drea, snap out of it. You can do the "happy" dance about this one study you found, but the reality is one can find studies to say absolutely anything. I think even one with only an average intellect could see this. I'm not going to bother digging up one to counter yours because I am fine with you holding personal views about God, something you seem unable to reciprocate. Also, I see no point in having yet another debate on the existence of God.

What I am not fine with is you then branding every person who disagrees with you on this issue a narrow-minded religious zealot.

You are a bigot, so I give you a little slack in these matters, but how much slack should anyone deserve?

[Drea]

Okay drea, snap out of it. You can do the "happy" dance about this one study you found, but the reality is one can find studies to say absolutely anything. I think even one with only an average intellect could see this. I'm not going to bother digging up one to counter yours because I am fine with you holding personal views about God, something you seem unable to reciprocate. Also, I see no point in having yet another debate on the existence of God.

What I am not fine with is you then branding every person who disagrees with you on this issue a narrow-minded religious zealot.

You are a bigot, so I give you a little slack in these matters, but how much slack should anyone deserve?

*sigh*

The religious will tell you that they KNOW the "truth" and will not accept that they could be wrong. Whereas the atheist realizes he could be wrong.

If god showed its face right now... we would all be believers! But that isn't going to happen so atheists will continue to wrestle with varying theories which will change as new evidence comes to light.

Studies have found that the higher one's level of intelligence, the less likely they are to believe in a god. If you don't like it -- change it! Become open minded! Read! Ask questions! Learn! For god sake don't just sit there and accept what you are told.

I can't believe the amount of people afraid to question their own motivations. If god loves you then you have nothing to fear do you?

Edited June 16, 2008 by Drea

[Guest American Woman]

Okay drea, snap out of it. You can do the "happy" dance about this one study you found, but the reality is one can find studies to say absolutely anything. I think even one with only an average intellect could see this. I'm not going to bother digging up one to counter yours because I am fine with you holding personal views about God, something you seem unable to reciprocate. Also, I see no point in having yet another debate on the existence of God.

What I am not fine with is you then branding every person who disagrees with you on this issue a narrow-minded religious zealot.

You are a bigot, so I give you a little slack in these matters, but how much slack should anyone deserve?

I'm in complete agreement, although I'm not so sure one could find a study showing there are ignorant people that don't believe in God because people of faith don't seem to have the need to try to "prove" such a useless claim; people of faith aren't trying to prove they are superior to atheists, which I think says a lot. But if a study weren't out to prove a preconceived notion, any study on religion would show that the of IQs of the religious and atheists all range from the exceptionally intelligent to the low end.

What's amazing is people who have the need to convince everyone that there is no God, to insult and belittle religious people's beliefs, are as close-minded as one can get as they accuse the religious of such traits. Bottom line, the fanatics on both ends share the same traits.

As for your last point, I too have wondered "how much slack should anyone deserve?"

[Drea]

I'm in complete agreement, although I'm not so sure one could find a study showing there are ignorant people that don't believe in God because people of faith don't seem to have the need to try to "prove" such a useless claim; people of faith aren't trying to prove they are superior to atheists, which I think says a lot. But if a study weren't out to prove a preconceived notion, any study on religion would show that the of IQs of the religious and atheists all range from the exceptionally intelligent to the low end.

What's amazing is people who have the need to convince everyone that there is no God, to insult and belittle religious people's beliefs, are as close-minded as one can get as they accuse the religious of such traits. Bottom line, the fanatics on both ends share the same traits.

As for your last point, I too have wondered "how much slack should anyone deserve?"

BUT but but

women's brains see better peripherally than men's so women are better than men

BUT WAIT!

men's brains can tell how far something is away very accurately so men are better than women...

Oh right. wrong topic.

If you don't like the thread... you do not need to post.

Atheists welcome new ideas and theories-- do the religious? No, they don't. They all think they have cornered the "truth" when there has never been one single piece of evidence that an invisible entity exists. Not one bit. Nothing, nada, zip... for thousands of years... yet you are not willing to entertain the notion that perhaps religion is wrong and there is no invisible entity at all?

I base my thoughts on measurable facts... you base yours on nothing.

[MontyBurns]

BUT but but

women's brains see better peripherally than men's so women are better than men

BUT WAIT!

men's brains can tell how far something is away very accurately so men are better than women...

Oh right. wrong topic.

If you don't like the thread... you do not need to post.

Atheists welcome new ideas and theories-- do the religious? No, they don't. They all think they have cornered the "truth" when there has never been one single piece of evidence that an invisible entity exists. Not one bit. Nothing, nada, zip... for thousands of years... yet you are not willing to entertain the notion that perhaps religion is wrong and there is no invisible entity at all?

I base my thoughts on measurable facts... you base yours on nothing.

Your rebellious nature is making Jesus very angry. :angry:

[WIP]

For the record, I am not a nihilist. I choose to believe in a world view that does have meaning. I only pointed out the nihilistic view because I am not convinced that it might not be technically true, though for my own sake and others I ignore its implications.

And so do I! If nihilism means that we may not have a special place in the Universe, then we have to accept that possibility. The new theories which attempt to develop a theory of gravity that would work under the physical conditions of the Big Bang, lead the researchers to the conclusion that our universe is not unique, but one of an infinite number of universes that can be created. The problem is that the supersymmetry string theories and alternatives like loop quantum gravity also work out to show that a universe's laws that govern its physical properties could also come in infinite variations. So, the wasteful prospect of having an infinite number of failed universes with a tiny number of success stories, like ours', again raises arguments for design. But again, this argument for fine tuning is based on a lack of knowledge, because although some physicists have proposed a number of intriguing possibilities, the strength of the argument for a designer rests on the present inability to answer the question of why our universe has the perfect force relationships to make a universe capable of producing organic compounds possible.

As for the plane flying folks, the effect I would be particularly worried about is not the one where they fly the plane into the building, it is the one before that when someone else teaches them to fly the plane into the building. Obviously if the effect of your belief is to teach others to kill people, then you likely run afoul of what I was meaning.

Exactly! And that's why the issue of what people's beliefs are matters. For every Al Qaeda terrorist who tries to commit a terrorist attack, there are thousands who accept Osama's argument that anything is permitted in waging jihad. It's only been very recently that any prominent Muslim clerics have ventured out to dispute this doctrine.

That's the most dangerous aspect of jihad ideology, but I still would argue that the general principle that waging war for the glory of God is a dangerous belief accepted by an even larger number of Muslims.

I think it is mostly an issue of semantics on whether atheism constitutes a particularly variety of belief system. I do not really think we should worry about debating that particular point.

In any case, if you do not think that a Deist type creator makes a difference, there is little I can (or at least am willing) to do to try and change your mind. Suffice to say we can probably agree to disagree on that particular point.

And if you do not want to look for insight in abstract metaphysical concepts, then that is up to you as well. Physics, neuroscience and evolutionary psychology are all nice, but as I said before, do not expect them to yield any insights on how you should actually act. If they appear to yield such insights, it is because of normative premises you already had, not anything inherent in those sciences.

I still practise Buddhist meditation, but I no longer accept the interpretation that we gain mystical insight into the workings of the mind this way! We already know that mind-altering drugs can deceive us about external reality and even about our own nature. Improved studies of brain function indicate that we have to construct a mental image of our conscious identity that combines input from many regions of the cortex that is integrated together and interpreted as conscious, unitary thought. The best example is recent followup experiments on free will decision making that confirm the results of Benjamin Libet's volition experiments 20 years ago, that by the time we are aware of making a conscious "free will" decision, the committee at work in the executive thinking areas of the cerebral cortex, have already come to a consensus and hammered out a decision. Our conscious awareness of the decision seems to be more of a notice of what the decision is, then an actual conscious choice on our part. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/02/science/...amp;oref=slogin Keeping this in mind, if we can be this thoroughly deceived about what is actually going on in our heads, we have to apply as much skepticism about mystical insight as we do to the cognitive interpetations of external information coming to us from the senses. But being aware of these limitations will provide a better understanding of ourselves and our world, and this knowledge should provide the keys to how we should act and live our lives.

I hope that this conversation has gotten a few particularly people to think a little more, instead of just ranting angrily. I freely admit that I am annoyed by pronunciations of absolute truth and authority by both atheists and theists, and the more haughty and arrogant they appear, the more annoyed I tend to be.

I agree with you on that one! It's probably a debate more suited for philosphy and apologetics forums than a primarily political forum, but the problem I have whenever I join in on one the philosophical forums is that they are filled with professors and university students who want to strut their stuff and write long, complicated posts to prove their school of thought against rivals. For any non-academic who just wants to cut to the chase and learn what ideas and arguments make sense, its usually a waste of time.

[WIP]

sorry, that's wisdom.

Maybe you should find the definition of what it is before you declare you have it and others don't.

lol

btw, are all atheists this fanatical that you care what others believe?

What ever happaned to live and let live?

Why the over power need to be 'right' and others 'wrong'?

If you were so sure of your beliefs in atheism, you should not care.

telling..

But you should care what others believe! The problem with conservatives is that they don't care what Muslims, atheists, liberals, aboriginals, homosexuals........and there must be others on the list that conservatives either want to kill, subjugate or just make disappear without having to take the time or trouble to understand what they believe.