Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God'

[Drea]

You couldn't be more wrong. I wasn't trying to "bait" you in any way for any reason. I was simply stating the truth.

Professor Lynn also says men are more intelligent than women. Did you "know" that all along too?

You don't consider that "bait"?

If you don't believe Professor Lynn's thoughts/views/studies/whatever regarding the intelligence of men vs women, why do you find his thoughts/etc. regarding religion credible?

I told you why... but you ignored what I said. I had never heard of this author until I found this specific link. It supports my position, so I used it. So... your problem with this is what exactly? That posters should research everything written by a specific author before linking to an article? Sorry, but I work for a living and don't really have that kind of time on my hands. Why not find that other article and start a new thread. I'd be happy to debate the workings of the male and female brain with you -- but that really has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

"Troll bait?" ( a thousand times over) Gee. And you say religious people you know won't discuss their beliefs with you? Wow. Hard to believe. (repeat of a thousand times over)

Grow up. Or grow a brain. Or preferably, both.

This is your response LOL. Do you see an insult there?

I never said your belief was "bad", I just said an intelligent, analytical mind questions belief. Obviously you are not inquisitive nor analytical. That's not a bad thing. The world needs people of all intelligence levels. Would be pretty boring if we were all the same. My sis in law is not analytical either, but she is a kind, loving person. We just don't discuss intellectual topics as they go over her head.

On this forum, if you can't handle the debate, get out of the thread. No one is forcing you to post.

I've told you time and time again that most religious people don't simply "accept what they are told." There's no point in trying to "discuss" anything with someone who refuses to listen. Wrong. That may be your interpretation of what "religion" is, but it's not the interpretation that countless people who consider themselves "religious" believe. You cannot seem to open your mind to that fact.

Then they are not religious, but vaguely "spiritual". Not the same thing as pointed out already.

You make post after post knocking religion and the religious as you make a ludicrous statement like this. A statement that would easily apply to you. I don't see any religious people on this forum starting threads saying everyone must believe as they believe. I don't see any religious people calling non-believers less intelligent. I don't see any religious people saying what non-believers believe.

It is not my fault that the higher a person's intelligence, the less likely they are to believe in a god. I didn't make it up. Nor did I give birth to all those non-believing intellectuals. So you are shooting the messenger here AW.

Religious people don't "detest debate" when it's truly debate, nor do they "fear" true analysis. These are traits that you continually put on the religious in spite of what any person of faith says to the contrary.

Ok, prove it. Read this book and get back to me (see you in six months, there are some BIG words in there! ) -- you wanted an insult so badly that I gave you one.... you're welcome.

No one is more close-minded about religion than you are. No one posts more about it than you do. No one is more demeaning about differing religious beliefs than you are.

Once again, it is not my fault. I am simply pointing out the futility of jumping through religious hoops. It's much more than that but I am not going to get into the topic of Warriors for Jesus or Armageddon in this thread. I will probably start another thread on how the religious folks think the end is coming and what to facilitate Jesus' return and how their nutbar beliefs affect all of us.

THIS thread is about the level of intelligence of those who believe and those who do not.

Why you should care if people believe in God or not is difficult to understand. I couldn't care less that you don't believe in Him, but for reasons I've yet to discover, you sure seem to be upset that a great many people do believe.

I notice by the capitalized G and H that you truly are a staunch believer. As a believer what are you doing to herald Jesus' return? Are you expectant? Are you eager to meet him? Is this a goal in your life -- to see the world annihilated? Have you read Revelations and do you believe it is true?

I care because relgious nuts are going to try to bring on "Armageddon". And I have a son who I want to have a long life. I don't want him killed by some idiot who thinks Jesus is on his way.

[sharkman]

Waa waa waa waa! Is this the "oh yeah, well she says worse things than I do argument?" I could care less about the post you linked since it was from another thread (which I wasn't involved in) and that quote wasn't even addressed to you in the first place! But your comment was made in this thread and you expressed your displeasure with the thread topic and I offered you an opportunity to elaborate on why you took offense, but instead you slinked back into the shadows again

No it's the "You can only see fault when the post is from a pro-religious point of view" argument. Your Hysterics do not further your goals(Waa waa waa waa!). The point was not where the post was or who it was addressed to, it was a post from the person you were defending, I thought you would see that. You termed my 1st post a snide attack and I was demonstrating an actual snide attack, by Drea. I am not interested in your offers since your hypocritical views will not permit you to converse with an open mind. I did not express displeasure with the thread topic. I simply posted a minor dig at Drea. Since you haven't been around here long enough, you wouldn't know that we sometimes used to do this to each other. Your intervention was not needed by Drea, she can take care of herself pretty good actually when she chooses to.

And once again, if you really felt there was nothing wrong with it, what was the point of your first observation then?

Look bud, I don't agree with Drea on everything and we had our differences on the abortion debate, but I guess we were in close enough agreement to keep it civil. As far as rude behaviour goes, I confess I have more tolerance for someone who's abrasive, as long as they are expressing ideas they believe in and answer questions, than I am with someone who seems polite but cannot or will not debate honestly, by shifting positions, making statements and then denying them, and refusing to respond to questions.

I am befuddled that you still don't see the point of my first observation, but never mind, Drea got it just fine and responded. You don't seem to realize that you are not a moderator here. You are a fairly new member who seems to have a chip on his shoulder regarding religion. Fine. plenty of us have biases one way or another, but informing me of what you prefer in a response as if I will now make sure all my posts meet the WIP standard is not going to happen, because it's not up to you to decide how other posters respond. Tone down your tendency to police those you don't care for and you'll get along fine around here.

I just went to your member page and noticed Drea is an official Friend. That explains a lot. Welcome to my ignore list. After 3 years, you are the first.

Edited June 15, 2008 by sharkman

[Drea]

I just went to your member page and noticed Drea is an official Friend. That explains a lot. Welcome to my ignore list. After 3 years, you are the first.

LOL

I tried the ignore feature once but ending up clicking anyway!

You'll never be able to resist the temptation of reading his posts (especially now that you've decided to ignore) !

His posts still show, but it will say "you have chosen to ignore this poster. click here to view post"... you WILL click. LOL

I just scroll by or briefly scan those posters I cannot stomach reading. LOL

[Guest American Woman]

Professor Lynn also says men are more intelligent than women. Did you "know" that all along too?

You don't consider that "bait"?

Of course not. I consider it a legitimate question/response in regards to the "controversy" Dr. Lynn's "studies" have generated; I consider it a legitimate response to your post, ie: your claim. If my response was "bait," then your original post was bait. You seriously need to get over the "baiting/trolling" accusations when someone refutes/shows the flaws in your posts. In this case, your source is not credible, and by my question, I was able to show that. If you don't like it, then research your sources before you post them. It took me all of two seconds to find out that his findings are controversial.

[Drea]

Anything, anything to add to the thread at all?.. or perhaps you would like to start a new one about me (flattery will get you everywhere LOL)

Did you click the link regarding the book? It's called Genesis of the Grail Kings and is about historical lineage.

Can you answer any of the questions I posed to you?

1. Have you read Revelations and do you believe it will happen?

2. Are you looking forward to Jesus' apparent return?

3. If so, what are you personally (as a true believer) doing to facilitate this return?

[Drea]

Just found this article... again, it supports my view (why would I link to an article that doesn't?)

We live in a world full of insane people. Sanity is an island battered in an ocean of frothing delusion. The people who believe in science are the minority. The people who believe in bloody fairytales are the overwhelming majority.

Excellent! Couldn't have said it better me-self. LOL

[GostHacked]

I take it all back when I say we should be putting more faith into each other and ourselves.

This thread has shown me the err of my ways.

No one can dispute the fact that CO2 levels are rising; do the global warming skeptics deny that there is any limit to how high carbon dioxide levels can rise before they have an impact on climate? Will anything happen at 500 ppm? Or 1000? When CO2 levels hit 10% of the Earth's atmosphere, will G.W. skeptics still claim it will have no impact on the climate?

CO2 is good for plants.

[Remiel]

We live in a world full of insane people. Sanity is an island battered in an ocean of frothing delusion. The people who believe in science are the minority. The people who believe in bloody fairytales are the overwhelming majority.

Excellent! Couldn't have said it better me-self. LOL

I have to wonder if you realize that if you (or anyone) wish to rely purely on " science " , that all philosphy is just a fairy tale. Truth may be a fairy tale as well. And yet, somehow people persist, have faith, in the belief that a world of empirical facts is a world of happiness and joy and lovey-dovey singing and dancing in greener pastures. It is not. You are fooling yourself if you think a world of only scientific " facts " is not the most cold and heartless of all.

[Drea]

You are fooling yourself if you think a world of only scientific " facts " is not the most cold and heartless of all.

Religion is not warm and fuzzy -- on the contrary it is harsh and brutal. Even some guy was willing to kill his own child to satisfy the bloodlust of your "god". Another guy was willing to have himself tortured and killed in public to please that brutal "god".

Yet, your "god" is benevolent and kind and you get warm, fuzzy thoughts from your belief that he is "walking with you". LOL, with the brutal reputation that he has, I'd be scared shitless if I were a believer (no wonder they believe, they are scared of the brutal bastard).

You want warm and fuzzy, get a puppy.

At least a puppy has a body temperature and soft fur. Much much more than your god offers. Your god offers "reward" to those who follow "rules" and "eternal torture" those who break the rules.

I'll take the puppy thanks.

[Remiel]

Maybe you missed the part where I mentioned I was a Deist. I presume nothing about the divine except for its existence.

Warm and fuzzy is not a description of a religion, it is the description of an illusion.

Science is about describing (or attempting to describe) what is. You cannot derive an ought from an is, therefore science is WORSE THAN USELESS for determining what we ought to be doing with our existence.

[Drea]

Maybe you missed the part where I mentioned I was a Deist. I presume nothing about the divine except for its existence.

Sorry Remiel, I am not understanding, please help me by clarifying...

What is "the divine"?

What proves to you that it exists?

Warm and fuzzy is not a description of a religion, it is the description of an illusion.

Science is about describing (or attempting to describe) what is. You cannot derive an ought from an is, therefore science is WORSE THAN USELESS for determining what we ought to be doing with our existence.

I disagree, when Pluto was found the scientists found evidence that there "ought" to be a planet there even though they could not see it. They could see the evidence of it (it ought to be there, as they could see it's affect on other planets)

In my opinion there is only one "ought", we ought to live as humanitarians. Helping one another, not killing one another and saying it`s what we "ought" to do to get reward.

[Remiel]

I often use the term " the divine " mostly where others would use " God " , because the popular conception of what " God " is (for instance, singular) is rather conceited given my views. But, as to what it describes, I mean something that exists outside of the rules of our cause and effect existence. I do not accept endless loop theories of the universe, because they fail to account for existence itself. There is no proof of what I believe, just as there is no proof of what you believe.

You are mistaking the meaning of the normative ought. When you say, " We ought to find Pluto, " you mean, " We expect to find Pluto, " which is rather different from, " We are morally compelled to find Pluto (which may or may not even exist). "

[Pliny]

Intelligent people less likely to believe in God.

People with higher IQ's less likely to believe in God."

Ergo:

Drea is intelligent and has a higher IQ than people who believe in God. Proof at last!

Any denial of this fact would be a preposterous argument against science itself!

Unfortunately, there is a qualifier. "Less likely" Awwww...the jury is still out!

[Drea]

Intelligent people less likely to believe in God.

People with higher IQ's less likely to believe in God."

Ergo:

Drea is intelligent and has a higher IQ than people who believe in God. Proof at last!

Any denial of this fact would be a preposterous argument against science itself!

Unfortunately, there is a qualifier. "Less likely" Awwww...the jury is still out!

Another poster who wants to talk about me!

How flattering...

Now, any thoughts to add to the thread?

Did you read the article at all? Do you believe in a god? If so, have you ever questioned why you have your belief? If you've never questioned your belief, why not? If you have analyzed and read every book on the subject and still believe... what drives your belief aside from the fear of not getting your promised afterlife?

Funny that none of you naysayers will answer any of the questions I have posed.

[Drea]

I often use the term " the divine " mostly where others would use " God " , because the popular conception of what " God " is (for instance, singular) is rather conceited given my views. But, as to what it describes, I mean something that exists outside of the rules of our cause and effect existence. I do not accept endless loop theories of the universe, because they fail to account for existence itself. There is no proof of what I believe, just as there is no proof of what you believe.

You are mistaking the meaning of the normative ought. When you say, " We ought to find Pluto, " you mean, " We expect to find Pluto, " which is rather different from, " We are morally compelled to find Pluto (which may or may not even exist). "

I do not "believe in" anything.

I know it is difficult to understand but there are people who do not believe in divinity in any way. I also don't believe science is infallable. Used to be leaches were used by the medical community... seems their science was wrong, as we no longer use leaches.

That is the point. When science is wrong, it changes it's stance -- when religion is wrong, it does not try to correct itself.

[WIP]

Intelligent people less likely to believe in God.

People with higher IQ's less likely to believe in God."

Ergo:

Drea is intelligent and has a higher IQ than people who believe in God. Proof at last!

Any denial of this fact would be a preposterous argument against science itself!

Unfortunately, there is a qualifier. "Less likely" Awwww...the jury is still out!

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.

[Remiel]

I do not "believe in" anything.

I do not think that that is true. If it were, you would not have made a statement like this:

In my opinion there is only one "ought", we ought to live as humanitarians. Helping one another, not killing one another and saying it`s what we "ought" to do to get reward.

Obviously you must believe something (not in divinity, obviously, but some kind of moral standard), or else you would not be making normative statements like that. So, what is it that you believe, and more importantly, why do you believe it?

Edited June 15, 2008 by Remiel

[WIP]

I often use the term " the divine " mostly where others would use " God " , because the popular conception of what " God " is (for instance, singular) is rather conceited given my views. But, as to what it describes, I mean something that exists outside of the rules of our cause and effect existence. I do not accept endless loop theories of the universe, because they fail to account for existence itself. There is no proof of what I believe, just as there is no proof of what you believe.

You are mistaking the meaning of the normative ought. When you say, " We ought to find Pluto, " you mean, " We expect to find Pluto, " which is rather different from, " We are morally compelled to find Pluto (which may or may not even exist). "

It's those same rules of cause and effect that we experience in the everyday world, which have created the belief that a Prime Mover is necessary to explain where the world came from. Why not just leave it as an unresolved question, especially since theoretical physicists such as Alan Guth and Neil Turok, who are working with two different models proposed to harmonize Relativity and Quantum Mechanics (SuperString Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity) end up with multi-universe theories, where our's is only one of a near infinite stream of universes that pop into existence, grow and then give it all back when they disintegrate and vanish into the background of the Multiverse. If these speculative mathematical models are on to something, the need to invoke a God to create our universe also vanishes! The need to invoke a magical solution to the question of where the universe came from is not based on any sort of knowledge; it's based on a lack of knowledge, just as supernatural explanations for disease, earthquakes, wind and thunder and lightning, were necessary in the past before natural explanations became available.

[Remiel]

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

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.

[Drea]

I do not think that that is true. If it were, you would not have made a statement like this:

Obviously you must believe something (not in divinity, obviously, but some kind of moral standard), or else you would not be making normative statements like that. So, what is it that you believe, and more importantly, why do you believe it?

If I answer your question, will you answer mine?

I should have clarified... I do not believe in the supernatural. I do not "worship" anything, including nature.

I do have a moral conscience, but I wouldn't exactly call it a belief. As animals don't go around killing each other for the fun of it (human beings are just animals after all) I suspect (as it has not been studied and qualified, I use the word "suspect", because I don't "believe it", I suspect it) that we all have built-in moral compasses. Ever do something and then feel guilty? That's your innate moral conscience speaking to you.

Many people think that the only morality humans have comes from an outside source (god). I think that our morality is innate, that it is born in us to feel guilty when we do something we consider "bad". Yes, there are people with no moral conscience - I consider them mentally handicapped.

And if the only thing stopping you from killing your neighbour is the idea of "hell" then I suggest you see a shrink to determine why you feel no guilt. (General "you", not specific "you"). Many religious folks think if there was no religious "moral code" we would all be screwing in the streets and killing everyone on sight. These same people think nothing of killing or raping those they are afraid of (ie, those of different religions).

[WIP]

I do not think that that is true. If it were, you would not have made a statement like this:

Obviously you must believe something (not in divinity, obviously, but some kind of moral standard), or else you would not be making normative statements like that. So, what is it that you believe, and more importantly, why do you believe it?

If I can offer up a solution here, I would say that religious ethics is based on a false premise that there is no basis for an objective moral standard without invoking some sort of divine source. Some atheists don't accept objective moral standards, I don't know if Drea feels this way, but I don't! The objective basis for forming ethical standards is done by social consensus, even in societies that think that their ethics come from the Ten Commandments or similar sources. Do we really need a Ten Commandments to say that murder is bad, or that stealing is bad. These are universal values, and no society would function well if they allowed them within the group. Notice that even in the Bible, specifically the Old Testament, killing, enslaving, raping, and stealing from enemies is okay! Treating members of the group well is considered much more important than worrying about outsiders. As civilization has progressed, the in-group has steadily increased in size to the level of nation-states. Note how many patriots on other threads consider people living in Arab countries to be sub-human and not worthy of our consideration regarding human rights!

Humans are social animals, and our ethics and morality come from the less lofty sources of reciprocal altruism (I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine) and kin-altruism (being good to family). Some sociologists and anthropologists believe there is good evidence that this kin altruism instinct, which developed when humans lived in small family groups, is applied to non-family members today, now that we live and interact with people that we're not related to. Now that the world is connected together in the Information Age, is it possible to create a worldwide ethic that goes beyond the petty borders of various nationalisms? I don't know, but our ultimate survival may depend on it!

[Remiel]

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.

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. 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.

[Guest American Woman]

For some reason I have yet to discover, the religious believe that everyone must follow their specific religion's set of rules.

Even if that were true about "the religious" rather than fundamentalists, it shouldn't be that much of a mystery to you. Those who think that everyone must follow their specific religion's set of rules are just like you.

QUOTE Drea on Jun 13 2008 @ 06:05 PM: "As soon as my friend from Iran gets here (2010) I will be giving her every book I can find supports my view that there is no god."

Yep. Make sure you convert her to atheism-- just like the fundamentalists who want to convert everyone to their religion.

[Drea]

Even if that were true about "the religious" rather than fundamentalists, it shouldn't be that much of a mystery to you. Those who think that everyone must follow their specific religion's set of rules are just like you.

QUOTE Drea on Jun 13 2008 @ 06:05 PM: "As soon as my friend from Iran gets here (2010) I will be giving her every book I can find supports my view that there is no god."

Yep. Make sure you convert her to atheism-- just like the fundamentalists who want to convert everyone to their religion.

No *sigh* troll-baiter... give her INFORMATION so she has some basis of knowledge. All she currently knows about religion, she learned from Imams. I would like to show her that there is a whole other dimension of knowledge that she can tap into. She wants to learn, she wants to analyze and question everything... good on her.

You certainly are one bull-headed human being aren't you? Like a pitbull once you get a hold of a notion, nothing short of a dousing with ice water will get you off it.

Try reading a book (other than romance novels and westerns) once in a while and you just might learn something.

[Drea]

And if it weren't for religious idiocy this would not even be an issue.

Do you believe your president should be *insert your religious flavour here* or *insert that scary religion here* or do you think perhaps it would be better if the president (who represents all American citizens apparently) not have a religious affiliation?

Booga Booga -- better vote for the Repubs there AW... if you don't you could be worshipping allah and wearing a burka by the time the decade ends.