So, Are Atheists Actually Smarter Than Believers??

[17th Angel]

Didn't P off any atheists... Just made a few look at you like.... "wtf?"

 

[c0de]

Didn't P off any atheists..

Mr. nitelite didn't seem 2 pleased. His diatribe alone wuz worth it.

Just made a few look at you like.... "wtf?"

lolz, I am sure no one can match your avatars in that department.

 

[17th Angel]

The aim to just cause aggro? Must be a muslim trait eh? (see the irony in that statement.)

 

[c0de]

The aim to just cause aggro? Must be a muslim trait eh? (see the irony in that statement.)

dun see any Irony... just a desperate plea for attention,

hmm .... must be an Alex trait

DOUBLE SNAP!!!!

 

[Eudaimonist]

Have you ever heard of the term "paying lip service" ???

Yes, I have. What does that prove? The claim is that most believers do this and do not truly believe. Evidence?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[17th Angel]

dun see any Irony... just a desperate plea for attention,

hmm .... must be an Alex trait

DOUBLE SNAP!!!!

Of course you do child, My point being it isn't nice to on purpose pick at a group of people.... It is obvious I hit a nerve and you didn't like it eh? Sad.... Especially by making a thread to do so. Plea for attention, says the child in bold and large text.... Yeah ok.

 

[c0de]

.

@ Eudaimonist

The evidence is contained in the study itself. The statistical phenomenon (in IQ scales) of the "average" vs. "rebels" is reflected in religious AND non-religious societies alike. Why would that be unless the issue was not religion but tradition? And if that is the case, then that basically means that it is not belief in religion which is the deciding factor, but belief in TRADITION. Is it really that complicated?


@ Alex

Hit a nerve??? don't flatter yourself Mr. Afterthought... YOU addressed ME on this thread (not the other way around). I have no interest in having any conversations with you cuz I couldn't care less about you or your opinions. And now you're throwing a hissy fit about my FONT style??? LOLZ

 

[17th Angel]

Nope, no hissy fit...... Dude. Just observing.

 

[Eudaimonist]

.The evidence is contained in the study itself. The statistical phenomenon (in IQ scales) of the "average" vs. "rebels" is reflected in religious AND non-religious societies alike. Why would that be unless the issue was not religion but tradition? And if that is the case, then that basically means that it is not belief in religion which is the deciding factor, but belief in TRADITION. Is it really that complicated?

Perhaps it is that complicated, because I still don't see how this leads to the conclusion that most religious people don't actually believe in the existence of God. So belief in tradition is a factor? So what?

Let me put it this way: if non-traditional people are willing to question the religious beliefs of their parents and neighbors, and this leads them to become atheists, that doesn't mean that traditional people don't have sincere religious beliefs. It simply means that a willingness to question tradition may lead to atheism.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[iBrian]

Let's try and calm down the thread and stay on topic, thanks - discussions should be about the topics, not the posters.

 

[c0de]

.

@ Eudaimonist


geeeez dude, do I have to explain everything???


FINE!

Perhaps it is that complicated,

It really isn't.

So belief in tradition is a factor? So what?

This fact that you are so casually dismissing is the WHOLE GAME.

Tradition isn't "a factor" it is clearly the DECIDING factor according
to the study. Observe:

because I still don't see how this leads to the conclusion that most religious people don't actually believe in the existence of God.

(correction, I said they are likely to be agnostic, not atheist, but still, let's move on)

Why is it that people who are usually born in Muslim countries
usually become Muslim? Why is it that people born in China,
usually become atheist?

You think that the people in Muslim countries are different at
any cognitive level then the people in China at birth? If not,
then the deciding factor HAS to be tradition. In fact, the conclusion
also states that the few people (with "high IQs") who "convert" are
mostly doing it out of a rejection of tradition and not out of sincere
belief. Which suggests the figures for genuine belief are even less.

Tell me, how many Jews and Christians do you know who have actually
read the Old Testament? Because I do not know very many Muslims who
have read the Quran. Let us ask a Hindu member here how many hindus
he knows who have read the Vedas, shall we? You wanna predict the
results, or shall I?

Now I am sure there are many genuine believers who have not read their
scriptures, just as I am sure there are many fake believers who have.
But that was not the point of the hypothesis. The >majority< of people
from every group is statistically likely to be faking it. How else could you
possible explain the uniformity of religious values according to which
family/geography a person ends up being born in?

 

[wil]

Namaste Code and nitelite...its a stretch, but honestly I'm trying!

That is the only reason I started the thread (to piss off the atheists who used the study to deride religion).

Code, surely you know it is an issue to discussion if you believe the admission that you believe this is a valid reason to start a thread in this forum.

Belief and Spirituality forum, Interfaith website, does any of this mean anything to either of you?

 

[c0de]

Code, surely you know it is an issue to discussion if you believe the admission that you believe this is a valid reason to start a thread in this forum.

The reason I posted this thread was because the stankov study was posted here somewhere. If you had noticed, those who have replied with valid points of argument, I have replied to in kind. It is not like I am just mouthing-off to everyone. The "pissing contest" was not started by me, but by nitelite, who was the first one to begin a tirade of personal attacks.

 

[juantoo3]

I think I came across a thread here a while back which cited (the now famous) Stankov study which calculated that atheists tend to have higher IQs than those of believers.

Can't be too famous, I've never heard of it.

How are we to define "higher IQ's?" I am not asking rhetorically, it is a genuine question. It is a question at the heart of a lot of social struggles in the developed world, not least the educational institutions. "IQ tests" have repeatedly been shown to be biased, so any attempt to establish a baseline for intelligence is already biased from the start...be it atheist or "believer," liberal or conservative developing and administering the test. So there is a certain bias and bigoted stance implied by the question...but that doesn't make the question without merit, because it challenges the opposing biased and bigoted stance.

Without even realizing it, the sniping going back and forth only serves to highlight and illustrate exactly what I am getting at. You are both right...in your own minds. Does that make either one of you intelligent? I don't think so, but that is my bias, from which I would say that if there is any genuine intelligence displayed here, it is by those able to discuss this without immediately degrading into a parody of a schoolyard brawl in print.

"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."
~Author unknown, attributed to Mark Twain

 

[juantoo3]

Why is it that people who are usually born in Muslim countries
usually become Muslim? Why is it that people born in China,
usually become atheist?

You think that the people in Muslim countries are different at
any cognitive level then the people in China at birth? If not,
then the deciding factor HAS to be tradition.

It is probably safe to presume that most people in Muslim countries become Muslim, but without the data I wouldn't jump to that conclusion. As for people in China, I certainly would not presume automatically they are all atheist, or even predominantly atheist, without the statistical data.

Even *if* these were valid presumptions, let us consider for a moment the impact of politics / government and culture / society / tribe / family. Could it possibly be that these people, and indeed pretty much any people, are a product of their culture / society and government / politics? Regardless of intellegence?

Now, I can conceive that it may take a bit of intelligence to "buck the trend," to go against the flow, and do so in a rational manner that doesn't invite getting oneself executed for heresy or some such. I can envision that, but even then it would require...demand...an environment that is at least minimally conducive to disagreement and challenging the status quo. If that environment is not there, regardless of IQ, ain't nobody in their right frigging mind gonna say anything but what the culture-government combo wants to hear.

What the people may think is another matter altogether.

But this is a huge luxury, to be able to speak one's mind, and *mostly* (within certain bounds) be able to act on those thoughts. If the majority of Chinese, for example, *are* atheist, it is not because they are more intelligent, it is because their closed society demands it of them.

And while it probably does seem true that many prominent atheists have relatively high IQ's, it also remains that many others with high IQ's follow chosen paths of faith (and routinely are ridiculed for doing so). And the final consideration comes back to defining "what is an IQ?" It is said Einstein was a brilliant man...I doubt anybody here would say he had any less than a high IQ...but he routinely would forget to tie his own shoelaces.

 

[c0de]

Without even realizing it, the sniping going back and forth only serves to highlight and illustrate exactly what I am getting at. You are both right...in your own minds. Does that make either one of you intelligent? I don't think so, but that is my bias, from which I would say that if there is any genuine intelligence displayed here, it is by those able to discuss this without immediately degrading into a parody of a schoolyard brawl in print.

"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."
~Author unknown, attributed to Mark Twain

Well, excuse me for not turning the other cheek, but I couldn't care less
what impression I give to your highness.

BTW, not only did you imply that both me and nitelite lack intelligence, you
conveniently tried to place yourself in the camp which, according to you,
is genuinely intelligent. Failing to realize, that by calling me and nitelite stupid,
you fail to meet the criteria of civility yourself... tsk tsk

It is probably safe to presume that most people in Muslim countries become Muslim, but without the data I wouldn't jump to that conclusion. As for people in China, I certainly would not presume automatically they are all atheist, or even predominantly atheist, without the statistical data.

... are you serious?

Even *if* these were valid presumptions,

WoW.... you are actually serious...

Yes, how stupid of me to presume that Muslim countries are full of people who identify themselves as Muslim....

where do I come up with such crazzzy "assumptions"??

let us consider for a moment the impact of politics / government and culture / society / tribe / family. Could it possibly be that these people, and indeed pretty much any people, are a product of their culture / society and government / politics? Regardless of intellegence?

You do realize that the opening post in the thread said exactly the same thing as you just stated, rite? The point of the article was that there is no correlation between intelligence and traditional stances. Did you even read the article?

"IQ tests" have repeatedly been shown to be biased, so any attempt to establish a baseline for intelligence is already biased from the start...be it atheist or "believer," liberal or conservative developing and administering the test. So there is a certain bias and bigoted stance implied by the question...but that doesn't make the question without merit, because it challenges the opposing biased and bigoted stance.

You are re-stating the obvious. If you think this topic is about the validity
of IQ tests, you have missed the mark completely, like some others here.

 

[nativeastral]

It is said Einstein was a brilliant man...I doubt anybody here would say he had any less than a high IQ...but he routinely would forget to tie his own shoelaces.

yeh, too busy mulling over lovers, er, equations!

 

[Eudaimonist]

.

@ Eudaimonist


geeeez dude, do I have to explain everything???

On this occasion, at least.

Why is it that people who are usually born in Muslim countries
usually become Muslim? Why is it that people born in China,
usually become atheist?

Because that is what they come to honestly believe, given the cultural influences. That doesn't make them agnostic.

You think that the people in Muslim countries are different at
any cognitive level then the people in China at birth? If not,
then the deciding factor HAS to be tradition.

Well, it isn't traditionalism as such, but the environment to which one was exposed. If this is what you mean by tradition, I agree.

In fact, the conclusion also states that the few people (with "high IQs") who "convert" are
mostly doing it out of a rejection of tradition and not out of sincere
belief

Yes, they may not be emotionally tied to tradition, and so they feel free to examine their beliefs, possibly leading to a change. This doesn't imply that they were never believers to begin with.

I also don't see how rejecting tradition necessarily means insincerity. One may reject the authority of tradition, and by implication one is leading a self-reflective life.

Tell me, how many Jews and Christians do you know who have actually
read the Old Testament?

What does this have to do with belief? Christians and Jews who don't read the Old Testament may believe just as passionately in the existence of God as people who are avid readers of the Old Testament.

How else could you
possible explain the uniformity of religious values according to which
family/geography a person ends up being born in?

Simple. Exposure. People may develop genuine belief in that to which they are exposed. We can't say from the evidence that a majority of traditional people are not sincere believers.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[c0de]

Well, it isn't traditionalism as such, but the environment to which one was exposed. If this is what you mean by tradition, I agree.

Yes, that is what I meant.

See, now were finally gettin' somewhere with this thread

Because that is what they come to honestly believe, given the cultural influences. That doesn't make them agnostic.

Catch 22

If you want to say that my claim (that most of them are agnostic) is unqualified, then automatically your own point (that they are genuine believers) is also unqualified. Because we both have no way to actually judge their faith.

It is totally understandable if you say that my assertion is unscientific, as I doubt MRI scans or lie-detector tests can actually gauge the level of a person's faith or not. But this equally applies to your assumption as well.

This is why my argument on this particular point is ultimately just a point of view. I should have made this clear in my first post instead of implying otherwise.

What does this have to do with belief? Christians and Jews who don't read the Old Testament may believe just as passionately in the existence of God as people who are avid readers of the Old Testament.

I already said that there may be many genuine believers who have not read their scriptures. I also said that there may be many posers who have read their scriptures. You are missing my point on this issue.

If a person fervently believes in God, they should at least be interested in reading what their God has revealed with their own faculties and trying to understand His words himself, instead of just listening to what the imam/priest/rabbi has told them. Most of their loyalties are to the church/mosque/temple, rather than to God. Yes, there are exceptions (of course) but my criticism is not directed at individuals, but at organized religion itself.

It is not like I am not the first to make such claims either. Have you read Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov? Do you remember the famous section entitled "The Grand Inquisitor"? The "poem" in which the Church official orders his flock to imprison Jesus PBUH? That, is what I am talking about. This one of the greatest achievements in literature, coming from one horribly awful writer, who nonetheless could peer into the human mind much deeper than his peers.

Yes, they may not be emotionally tied to tradition, and so they feel free to examine their beliefs, possibly leading to a change. This doesn't imply that they were never believers to begin with.

Two problems. You seem to be using the words tradition and religion synonymously. Secondly, it does imply exactly that. Especially when you consider how they ended up as Jews, Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists etc. to begin with (i.e by being born into it).

I also don't see how rejecting tradition necessarily means insincerity. One may reject the authority of tradition, and by implication one is leading a self-reflective life.

This was never my point. I reject most tradition myself, but I do not see myself as insincere to religion. My qualms are with organized religion (i.e. tradition), which is, to me, almost synonymous with society itself.

 

[Paladin]

Dostoevsky was awful? Really?