Intelligent people = 'less likely to believe in God'

[magekillr]

This is totally taken out of context, but in my opinion, context or not, it serves the same purpose and has the same message:

 

 

 

When you learn how to speak to a person's conscience, and circumnavigate the intellect, the subject of evolution seems to disappear.

 

 

 

Although this is how brainwashing goes about...

[Satenza]

Well, according to the Bible...

 

Wisdom Is Meaningless

 

12 I, the Teacher, was king over Israel in Jerusalem. 13 I devoted myself to study and to explore by wisdom all that is done under heaven. What a heavy burden God has laid on men! 14 I have seen all the things that are done under the sun; all of them are meaningless, a chasing after the wind.

 

 

 

 

I always felt there was something romantic about chasing after the wind.

[fakeitormakeit]

Well, according to the Bible...

 

Wisdom Is Meaningless

 

12 I, the Teacher, was king over Israel in Jerusalem. 13 I devoted myself to study and to explore by wisdom all that is done under heaven. What a heavy burden God has laid on men! 14 I have seen all the things that are done under the sun; all of them are meaningless, a chasing after the wind.

 

 

 

 

I always felt there was something romantic about chasing after the wind.

 

Your not suppose to literally interpret, well I can't tell you how to interpret, but in my views I don't think your suppose to literally interpret the Bible, its like literally interpreting one giant poem, in alot of poems if you just look at it as written, it wouldn't make any sense compared to when you interpret. It can also be compared to an abstract painting, you shouldn't pick out similiarities between actually things, rather look for a deeper meaning and only you can apply a meaning because everyone looks at it different. Another example is a diamond cuz of all the persceptives, must I continue?

[Satenza]

I don't see how your post had anything to do with mine.

[Kwisatz]

See, this is why I can't say I'm atheist although I probably qualify as being so at this point, or at least agnostic. Religion is a highly personal matter of faith or lack thereof, and it should be made based upon one's life experiences and personal philosophies and morals, not somebody going "lolol bible is teh fixtions lolol."

 

 

 

Although science certainly can be used to explain many natural phenomena that were formerly attributed to supernatural causes, science still cannot explain precisely where the universe came from. It can offer a theory as to how it was made, but now who made it or what set these events in motion.

 

 

 

Until this happens I say there is absolutely NO reason for everyone to be quoting the Bible OR lampooning it since it's ultimately a moot point anyway. As the computer says in Wargames, "there only way to win is to not play." (that's paraphrased, but you get the point). The argument is insignificant because you cannot sufficiently discount either theory.

[Lateralus]

See, this is why I can't say I'm atheist although I probably qualify as being so at this point, or at least agnostic. Religion is a highly personal matter of faith or lack thereof, and it should be made based upon one's life experiences and personal philosophies and morals, not somebody going "lolol bible is teh fixtions lolol."

 

 

 

Although science certainly can be used to explain many natural phenomena that were formerly attributed to supernatural causes, science still cannot explain precisely where the universe came from. It can offer a theory as to how it was made, but now who made it or what set these events in motion.

 

 

 

Until this happens I say there is absolutely NO reason for everyone to be quoting the Bible OR lampooning it since it's ultimately a moot point anyway. As the computer says in Wargames, "there only way to win is to not play." (that's paraphrased, but you get the point). The argument is insignificant because you cannot sufficiently discount either theory.

 

 

 

Do you actually read these religion threads? The people who know what they're talking about generally don't argue about whether or not there is a God, because of what you just said. However your point is much more of a defense of deism than theism, and in a debate about theology there's much more possible give and take than an argument about the existence of a deity.

 

 

 

The lack of an opposing theory doesn't give an existing one strength. There could be any number of supposed explanations for the start of the universe, but the unfalsifiability of them is not to their credit.

[Barihawk]

The amount of irrational quoting the Bible in no context in here makes intellectual arguments and commentary cry.

 

 

 

Don't quote the Book out of context. Please.

[Dalcyte]

Then why cant they explain why the big bang happend etc ... Ask most scientists and they'll relate it to religion.

 

But seriously...prove god...you can't just turn and say "OMGOMGOMGOMG BIG BANG CAN'T BE PROVEN!!!!" and then just forget about the whole..."umm what happened then" question.

 

 

 

Eh, having just read Freud's "Civilization and its Discontents" it kinda makes sense. Religion is a dillusion of the masses. Goes along with Nieztche too...that religion makes us see the world in a lense that we think is the right one, preventing us from seeing the world in different lights. So consequentially, scientists see the world in a different sense, and are above the lense that most religions claim to have. I mean the whole with Christianity and the world being 4,000 or however many years old...eh...we got Uranium-Lead dating...evolution...in the end, we can't prove religion one way or another. You can't prove the lack of it either.

 

 

 

But i'm getting off subject again...

 

 

 

Well, according to the Bible...

 

 

 

Ecclesiastes 1:12-18 wrote:

 

Wisdom Is Meaningless

 

12 I, the Teacher, was king over Israel in Jerusalem. 13 I devoted myself to study and to explore by wisdom all that is done under heaven. What a heavy burden God has laid on men! 14 I have seen all the things that are done under the sun; all of them are meaningless, a chasing after the wind.

 

 

 

15 What is twisted cannot be straightened;

 

what is lacking cannot be counted.

 

 

 

16 I thought to myself, "Look, I have grown and increased in wisdom more than anyone who has ruled over Jerusalem before me; I have experienced much of wisdom and knowledge." 17 Then I applied myself to the understanding of wisdom, and also of madness and folly, but I learned that this, too, is a chasing after the wind.

 

 

 

18 For with much wisdom comes much sorrow

 

 

 

(Something along the lines of) Intelligence is overrated

 

 

 

Ok, yeah according to the BIBLE. The Bible may be self-proving to Christians, but not to everyone else. What if i adhere to the beliefs of Plato, who believes that wisdom is the most powerful element in the soul? Or John Dewey, who believes that intelligence is a key factor in attaining freedom? And why does what this guy says apply to everyone? I'm being educated, and i'm personally enjoying it...not much sorrow here, sorry. Intelligence is helping me understand how i live better. As someone else stated, i feel like religion is almost the easy way out. We just use it to understand that which we cannot and is too hard to understand. It almost holds us back in some senses. As Freud states,

 

 

 

 

Religion restricts this play of choice and adaptation, since it imposes equally on everyone its own path to the acquisition of happiness and protection from suffering. its technique consists in depressing the value of life and distorting the picture of the real world in a delusional manner--which presupposes an intimidation of the intelligence...forcibly fixing [those who follow religion] into a state of physical infantilism...

 

 

 

 

now he puts it kind of harshly, but yeah. I feel like it's almost the easy way out. As you put it so intelligently, BTTF_Man,

 

 

 

Hot piss! I was thinking the same thing.... after all, people of higher IQ can ALL definitely prove the origins of the Universe, beyond the shadow of a doubt.

 

 

 

Yes, indeed, for your average preacher can, without a doubt, prove the origins of the universe as well. But he'll probably use the bible. So how do you prove the bible...? God said so. Can't you see we're running in circles? Maybe people with higher IQs can't discover the origins of the universe, maybe they can't even come close, but sure as hell can try. You know what else they can do? Discover cures for cancer, AIDS, malaria, SARS. Explore the frontiers of space. Determine how we humans came into existence. Create a better, more efficient government and attempt to gain world peace.

 

 

 

Please look at history. Go back to the enlightment. Notice how the big thinkers really started to emerge there. Notice how the big break throughs started there. They weren't restricted by the church (Freud).

 

 

 

I'm perfectly fine with religion, and i might be religious, i don't know. But when people start to get into the dillusion that they're way is the right way, that's when i have a problem.

[insane]

Please look at history. Go back to the enlightment. Notice how the big thinkers really started to emerge there. Notice how the big break throughs started there. They weren't restricted by the church (Freud).

 

 

 

Have you looked at history? The church played a major role in encouraging scientific advancement. For a time, the church was the only functioning educational system in Europe; a large reason the church started to suppress scientific thought was because scientists started rejecting the church.

 

 

 

For example, people often cite the case of Galileo of a prime example of the church suppressing science... but what people often forget to mention about Galileo was that he asked the church to immediately accept his views on Heliocentrism and insulted the Pope when asked to let the church investigate first.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm perfectly fine with religion, and i might be religious, i don't know. But when people start to get into the dillusion that they're way is the right way, that's when i have a problem.

 

 

 

So your idea that science is "above the lens" and superior to other modes of thought... what is that? It appears you have a double standard.

[magekillr]

insane, have you read the letters between Galileo and his daughter?

[hoffman44]

While southern states such as Texas and Louisiana top the charts as the most religious. And well, we all know the stereotypes of the south.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tell me about it... people in Oklahoma..... *shudder*

 

 

 

I'm just gona go ahead and jump in here.

 

 

 

I don't have the time to go through the rest of the pages.

 

 

 

I live in OKC, what would you like to know?

 

 

 

I live in SouthOKC/Moore ;)

[bet you fail]

oh hahah!

 

I would say where I live is mostly surrounded by illogical religious zombies

 

 

 

;)

[insane]

insane, have you read the letters between Galileo and his daughter?

 

 

 

As far as I know, only letters from the daughter survived... none from Galileo exist..?

[Ginger_Warrior]

Have you looked at history? The church played a major role in encouraging scientific advancement. For a time, the church was the only functioning educational system in Europe; a large reason the church started to suppress scientific thought was because scientists started rejecting the church.

 

Suppressing any thought doesn't really strike me as encouraging either educational or scientific advancement.

 

 

 

Secondly, how does your argument work?

 

 

 

"We encourage scientific development by suppressing scientists who don't agree with us"

[insane]

Have you looked at history? The church played a major role in encouraging scientific advancement. For a time, the church was the only functioning educational system in Europe; a large reason the church started to suppress scientific thought was because scientists started rejecting the church.

 

Suppressing any thought doesn't really strike me as encouraging either educational or scientific advancement.

 

 

 

Secondly, how does your argument work?

 

 

 

"We encourage scientific development by suppressing scientists who don't agree with us"

 

 

 

It wasnt really an argument per-se, it was just a response to someone elses argument that historically the church has only hindered scientific development. In reality the church initiated it and was often the first institution to jump on the bandwagon. It may have also suppressed it, but it also did a lot of good things in and for the name of science. It was more to get the guy saying look at history to look at history himself, since he seems to have a selective memory.

[Kwisatz]

See, this is why I can't say I'm atheist although I probably qualify as being so at this point, or at least agnostic. Religion is a highly personal matter of faith or lack thereof, and it should be made based upon one's life experiences and personal philosophies and morals, not somebody going "lolol bible is teh fixtions lolol."

 

 

 

Although science certainly can be used to explain many natural phenomena that were formerly attributed to supernatural causes, science still cannot explain precisely where the universe came from. It can offer a theory as to how it was made, but now who made it or what set these events in motion.

 

 

 

Until this happens I say there is absolutely NO reason for everyone to be quoting the Bible OR lampooning it since it's ultimately a moot point anyway. As the computer says in Wargames, "there only way to win is to not play." (that's paraphrased, but you get the point). The argument is insignificant because you cannot sufficiently discount either theory.

 

 

 

Do you actually read these religion threads? The people who know what they're talking about generally don't argue about whether or not there is a God, because of what you just said. However your point is much more of a defense of deism than theism, and in a debate about theology there's much more possible give and take than an argument about the existence of a deity.

 

 

 

The lack of an opposing theory doesn't give an existing one strength. There could be any number of supposed explanations for the start of the universe, but the unfalsifiability of them is not to their credit.

 

 

 

 

 

I do read these threads... I read the entire thread, as opposed to the people who just sit and post a reply. I just quoted the article. I realize that people who know what they are talking about know that, but not everyone knows what they are talking about on this thread ;-).

 

 

 

As for your second point, I am not making that stipulation. I am saying that, logically speaking, in order for a single theory to be proven to be the solution to something which can only have one, then the others must be disproven sufficiently. That is, by process of elimination we as of yet cannot rule out evolution or the existence of a higher being to any real extent, so I think it foolish to try to make a determination.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Have you looked at history? The church played a major role in encouraging scientific advancement. For a time, the church was the only functioning educational system in Europe; a large reason the church started to suppress scientific thought was because scientists started rejecting the church.

 

Suppressing any thought doesn't really strike me as encouraging either educational or scientific advancement.

 

 

 

Secondly, how does your argument work?

 

 

 

"We encourage scientific development by suppressing scientists who don't agree with us"

 

 

 

It wasnt really an argument per-se, it was just a response to someone elses argument that historically the church has only hindered scientific development. In reality the church initiated it and was often the first institution to jump on the bandwagon. It may have also suppressed it, but it also did a lot of good things in and for the name of science. It was more to get the guy saying look at history to look at history himself, since he seems to have a selective memory.

 

A point which could so easily be applied to you.

 

 

 

The Church did not initiate science by any stretch of the imagination. Ancient civilisation was making scientific breakthroughs long before the Church came along.

 

 

 

Science extends far beyond atoms and plants. Mathematics is itself a form of science, if not, its very language. Are you seriously telling me the Hanging Gardens of Babylon could not possibly have been built, or currency exchanged, until the Christian Church came along and 'initiated' such projects?

 

 

 

I don't believe the Church stopped all scientific development. In fact, I know it didn't having done a case study of the development of medicine through history. But you're going too far towards the other end of the scale.

[hoffman44]

oh hahah!

 

I would say where I live is mostly surrounded by illogical religious zombies

 

 

 

;)

 

 

 

I think thats a great way to describe them! :thumbsup:

[Dalcyte]

Please look at history. Go back to the enlightment. Notice how the big thinkers really started to emerge there. Notice how the big break throughs started there. They weren't restricted by the church (Freud).

 

 

 

Have you looked at history? The church played a major role in encouraging scientific advancement. For a time, the church was the only functioning educational system in Europe; a large reason the church started to suppress scientific thought was because scientists started rejecting the church.

 

 

 

For example, people often cite the case of Galileo of a prime example of the church suppressing science... but what people often forget to mention about Galileo was that he asked the church to immediately accept his views on Heliocentrism and insulted the Pope when asked to let the church investigate first.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm perfectly fine with religion, and i might be religious, i don't know. But when people start to get into the dillusion that they're way is the right way, that's when i have a problem.

 

 

 

So your idea that science is "above the lens" and superior to other modes of thought... what is that? It appears you have a double standard.

 

 

 

Seriously?

 

Ok, sure, sorry. I should correct myself. The church supported scientific works that did not conflict with Christianity. You said it yourself, the Church began to suppress scientific thought because it went against the Church. The Church restricted science to things that would only benefit the church or not harm its position. How does that not restrict science? You're right on the Galileo thing though, and a pope later appologized for how the whole thing was handled. But the Church did suppress individualism and science (that went against the church), please don't try to deny that.

 

 

 

I never said that. For all we know, science is that lens (but science has been proven, except theories). But all i'm saying is that i have a problem with RELIGION (yes, i would have a problem if our society began to be based on science, mathematics and data alone) when people claim that their view is the only view. I adhere to no God really (or i flip flop), but i don't try to say that there is no God, and anyone who belives in one is wrong. I think you're interpreting my statement in relation to the subject wrong. When he says people with higher IQ are typically athiest, it means they see the world in a different light than religious people do, with each thing caused by something else and not just BAM! CREATION! That's all.

[Sly_Wizard]

*Sigh*

 

 

 

Okay. First of all, this is REALLY old news and isn't worthy of a response. But I'm bored.

 

 

 

First and foremost (I mean, the absolute most important fact), most atheists are *white* (This can clearly be evidenced by the demographic shift in Christianity alone, whereas by the year 2050 less than 20% of Christians are to be of white European descent). Within the United States, there are clear socio-economic differences between whites and non-whites-- The most important being income distribution. Why is income distribution important? Because college ain't free and the costs are rising. What does this mean in the long-run? Well, it's rather simple. Minorities, who on average tend to be more religious than non-minorities (This isn't a knock on anyone) attend college at a less rate than those non-minorities who tend to be less religious, so you get the appearance that non-religious folk are smarter than less religious folk when this isn't the case.

 

 

 

Don't believe me? Then try to find a study which compares the IQ of non-religious persons to that of religious persons. Then plot those factors against, for example, GDP. You'll notice that GDP and religiosity are negatively correlated. Next, within two countries with vastly differing GDP's, pick out a certain ethnic group and compare their views on religion-- They're *fairly* consistent. What does that mean? Well, it's simple. GDP affects IQ, but IQ doesn't directly effect religiosity. In other words, the level of education or that of the achievements in IQ tests proved to be highly correlated with social class and with cultural indicators. Thus, there is no actual direct connection between religiosity and intelligence, since the elements that set the level of educational achievements are different than those of religiosity.

 

 

 

...Oh, and for the record, IQ doesn't measure intelligence.

[jackattack]

atheists = 'more likely to be jerks'

 

 

 

religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly non-religious charities

 

 

 

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=2682730&page=2

[demonfirzen]

atheists = 'more likely to be jerks'

 

 

 

religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly non-religious charities

 

 

 

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=2682730&page=2

 

1. The religious have been brainwashed into doing that.

 

2. That statistic is for the USA.

 

3. That survey is laughable at best too, for example.

 

"And almost all of the people who gave to our bell ringers in San Francisco and Sioux Falls said they were religious or spiritual."

 

Well, idk, maybe because your in a country where 90% are religious!

[insane]

 

Suppressing any thought doesn't really strike me as encouraging either educational or scientific advancement.

 

 

 

Secondly, how does your argument work?

 

 

 

"We encourage scientific development by suppressing scientists who don't agree with us"

 

 

 

It wasnt really an argument per-se, it was just a response to someone elses argument that historically the church has only hindered scientific development. In reality the church initiated it and was often the first institution to jump on the bandwagon. It may have also suppressed it, but it also did a lot of good things in and for the name of science. It was more to get the guy saying look at history to look at history himself, since he seems to have a selective memory.

 

A point which could so easily be applied to you.

 

 

 

The Church did not initiate science by any stretch of the imagination. Ancient civilisation was making scientific breakthroughs long before the Church came along.

 

 

 

Science extends far beyond atoms and plants. Mathematics is itself a form of science, if not, its very language. Are you seriously telling me the Hanging Gardens of Babylon could not possibly have been built, or currency exchanged, until the Christian Church came along and 'initiated' such projects?

 

 

 

I don't believe the Church stopped all scientific development. In fact, I know it didn't having done a case study of the development of medicine through history. But you're going too far towards the other end of the scale.

 

 

 

Yep, you're right, I hyperbolized :P. If someone pushes, I'll push back equally. Wait... isn't that science... ;)?

[Dalcyte]

atheists = 'more likely to be jerks'

 

 

 

religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly non-religious charities

 

 

 

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=2682730&page=2

 

 

 

Ok, so first off, giving to charity doesn't mean your exempt from being a jerk. By saying "jerk" (or the article, it doesn't matter), you're getting neck-deep into a huge debate in normative ethics. Would you say that a man who gives to chairty and lives hospitable life--but inside is a complete and total jerk, and loves duping people into thinking that he's a nice guy--is a nice guy? It's hard to say. I'd personally say that since he's lying to himself and everyone else, he'd be a jerk. So watch how you frame that. Charity does not imply virtousness. And what's to say that non-religious people don't contribute in other ways besides charity? Is being a jerk seriously defined by not doing charitable deeds? I think there's a lot more to it than that.

 

 

 

Second, that's not to say that every athiest or non-religious person is not charitable. I'm not saying anyone said this, but i'm just putting it out there. It isn't a blanket statement that religious folk are more charitable than non-religious.

 

 

 

Third, they mostly do that out of their church organized programs, that they are obliged to attend. Who knows if people who are religious generally tend to want to do charitable acts out of the goodness of their heart? Of course, you can say that their conscious doesn't matter if they're helping people, but then we're back to the sinister man who does good deeds.

 

 

 

Fourth, when you say "explicitely non-religious charities", that's not really a big deal...i'm not sure if you think it's one, but it isn't. There are tons of non-profs out there that are non-religious--in fact, most of them are. So that's not a really a big deal.

 

 

 

Fifth, this has nothin to do with the topic. I'm not sure why i wrote all this, but i don't to waste it lol. Maybe you're feelin defensive or something--trying to say that non-religious people are dispicable jerks. Regardless of that, the topic at hand is IQ relating to faith.

[fenrir321]

The younger you are, the more blindly you follow. As you age you (hopefully) become more intelligent and thus more logical and actually analyze your religion very closely. For example, "all non-Christians are going to hell." That blanket statement is not only very inflammatory (which is an understatement) but it is contradictory to what the Bible says. All babies who are born but not raise in a religion don't believe in ANY god (Christian or non-Christian) which makes them atheist. By logic that means that all unborn babies, dead children who weren't "converted" are going to hell. Yet, Jesus said that anyone who hurts the children would be better off being thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around his neck. Obviously God would not throw these people into the depths of hell. That's an example of logical analysis as you age.

 

 

 

I find that many religions that haven't died out are very peaceful and teach equality to your neighbor, love and/or respect to all people/animals/plants. The one's that are not like the above (communism. YES it IS a religion.) are most likely going to die out eventually because of the conflicting principles with the human nature.

 

 

 

One last thing: history is written by the victors. Congress gets payed billions of dollars a year by special interest groups, what makes it impossible that the information of the studies isn't false or slanted? ;)