Don't shoot the messenger.
http://news.yahoo.com/religious-people- … ml#upCr476
That's nice for them..........................
The Bible speaks on Gnostics.
But Im sure this report is accurate. I can barely tie my own shoes. I have given them up entirely and moved to flip-flops to avoid the tears.
That seems the intelligent thing to do Beth37, maybe you should have gone barefoot to prove their point.
I did... for years, but I couldn't figure out how to not get pregnant at the same time. I found the flip flops helped me slow down the reproduction process... I mean... the baby makin'.
I thought a kitchen fit in somewhere too. Or was that ketchup?
Sure, sure. I was in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant for more years than not.
But that doesn't mean I didn't read. I went thru 2 comic books a week just to keep my reading skills up and I'd always have an O magazine on the coffee table for those times I really wanted to challenge myself.
I always kept my checkbook balanced too. Even if I ran out of fingers and toes to count on, there were always 2 or 3 kids nearby.
Thys cuddint bee morr rite. Eye kan bearly walc an choo gum at duh sayme thyme
I'm interested in how they dealt with gifted children and adults who do embrace a faith and a means of religious expression. I'm by no means unintelligent, even as far as the numbers are concerned.
I'd be interested to see the actual study results.
I wonder if the more concrete thinkers ... Let me touch it, see it, etc, are considered less intelligent than those who are somewhat more intuitive. ??
It was a substantial amount of research projects. Very varied as far as I could tell. What does "Gifted" mean?
Well, the article mentioned gifted children at an IQ of somewhere around 135 or above.
And the sensing v. intuitive thinkers - most IQ tests tend to put intuitive thinkers higher up the ladder. I've got a fairly high IQ but I test as a sensing thinker...which just points to how a person's brain interprets information more than anything else.
Well, not to be contrary, but given the same test, would it make a difference if the believer scored the same as the unbelievers? It would seem then that they are equally intelligent?
Good point, Mo. Now of course this would also raise the question of objectivity. Given the nature of the tests and the people administering the tests it could be easy to question the overall objectivity of the tests because the studies are contingent on a bunch of different factors such as the environment of the test subjects, the socioeconomic class, etc.. When we take these factors into consideration it could be just as easy to accuse one of confirmation bias (Yes, this works both ways). Kinda gives new meaning to the term "controlled environment". How controlled is it and what is the nature of the control.
This is why your religion causes so many conflicts.
lmao... i don't think religion has anything to do with intelligence. lol
If someone opened up a forum post saying something stupid like "Atheists are Less Intelligent than Christians", that person would be booted off Hubpages and banned. But it's okay for someone to do an open attack on believers? I find this insulting and the double standard annoys me.
Are you on HP staff, or an owner?
No? Then why would you ever make such a statement, a statement that you have zero idea is true and that you cannot possibly support with evidence. Faith?
Oh, I can tell you right now that is exactly what would happen. I've read some real insulting words by atheists and NOTHING happens to them, yet a Christian says something wrong and they are booted off the forums for a couple of days. That is some real BULLS%$^*!
Hmmmm.... This thread is not a personal attack against anyone. Christianity, as a religion, cannot be offended. This thread differs greatly from, I don't know, going off the deep end and insulting/condemning someone personally because of their sexual orientation, as you should remember from recent experience on another thread.
I know you could say that - you already did. But I said you can't back it up with facts. Or can you?
Names and dates of those booted for giving a link to a study saying atheists were less intelligent than Christians?
What? Can't give any? Kind of what I said, isn't it?
Do you know how many Christian threads out there that ridicule or mock atheists? Of course, you probably don't see anything wrong with those. Yes, the "double standard" is just so, so wrong. Please recognize that last sentance as sarcastic. It was.
Sorry if reality seems biased to you. Figgered it wood. Didn't bother reading it again huh? Like you didn't bother reading the other posts. LAWL That any proof and facts offered are BIAS. No wonder your religious beliefs cause so much conflict.
Figgered it wood?
Thank you for writing that sentence in such a way that even I could understand.
Im not very smart, but Im a good cook and I like... other things. Do I get credit for that or is my value based solely on my IQ?
Your value has nothing to do with your IQ. It simply means you will believe nonsense because you are not intelligent enough not to. You are still n good advertisement fer Jeebus. Jeebus like em dum. So I understand.
I actually read the whole article and found it quite interesting. My initial response was intentionally humorous as to not seem to take offense to it. I can understand how it correlates, but though it speaks to general differences it really doesn't mean all atheists are more intelligent than all theists. But of course I also understand why you would post the article . You knew it would strike a chord in some.and you accuse others of causing conflict
No - just generally. Generally - atheists are more intelligent than believers. I didn't write it - just shared it. lol
As you asked me to.
Maybe instead of hub scores, our Avatars should show our IQs. Hubpages would have to find a good way of validating tests, but wouldn't that be interesting? (yes, I know I set myself up for a cheap shot speculating that my hub score could already be related to my IQ).
Id probably do better with my EQ showing... though Ive never had my IQ tested. Who knows... I could be as dumb as Mark thinks I am.
I genuinely think the self appointed "brights" would be surprised, or at least exposed for what they really are.
Or perhaps you are as dumb as you said you were?
Intelligent people don't get sarcasm Beth.......
Is that the issue? Sarcasm is pretty much my first language. I wondered why Stephen Hawking was just staring blankly at me the other day.
I asked you to? I don't remember asking that. Please refresh my memory as to when I asked
I thought you were interested in learning things? Not so?
Always interested in seeing and learning things. I was under the impression that atheists want to question everything.. I question this study and everything that factors into this study and everything considered in this study, yet you say I'm rejecting this because of my beliefs.. The funny thing is that I would also question this same study if it was speaking to Christians being more intelligent than atheists because most studies done in a controlled environment can be manipulated to suit the biases of the person or persons conducting the experiment.. Look at your article. There is nothing mentioned about the actual religious beliefs (or lack thereof) of any of the people conducting the study.. I would question this less if it was an even panel (qeual number of theists and non theists) or if there were more theists than atheists that came up with this same conclusion. Now of course I would still question other variables in this study as well such as where the people questioned and studied came from because culture can also play a part of the determination of what is or is not intelligence. Also (as DPH mentioned), whether the nature of the tests themselves because the psychological aptitudes of people are vastly different as well (a mathmetician versus an artist). there are a lot of variables to consider when conducting these types of tests and as such some of the tests are done in a biased manner. This encompasses a lot of areas, whether it is theist vs atheist, rich vs poor, black vs white, etc.
So realistically, there is only so much weight that tests such as this can carry in any scenario unless there is certain mutually agreed upon criteria is met.
I said no such thing.
This was 60+ studies undertaken over several years using IQs as the basis for "intelligence." You don't think measuring IQ is a valid way of determining intelligence?
We can draw a simple conclusion. Higher IQ = less religious. If you choose to think that high IQs do not denote intelligence fair enough, but there was some reasonable explanations as to why higher intelligence as measured by IQs would lead to less religiosity.
I haven't seen the actual data myself but if you want to review it - you can do so here:
http://psr.sagepub.com/content/early/20 … abstract-1
Does it bother you? I mean - this religion you subscribe to does extremely well amongst agricultural peasants. That is who it was written for in the first place.
I must admit I would be interested to see if painters, artists and musicians etc are more or less religious than the general population.
Ugh, everyday a new argument... a new slight... it's all meaningless.
Just live your life, and if you bow to God, then serve Him gladly.
If you don't... don't.
Or I will continue to express my opinion and you can just suck it up. Or not.
Tell you what - you stop preaching god and I will stop telling you it is nonsense.
I respond... I seldom ever instigate.
I didn't say you shouldn't use your right to free speech (as you just asked me to give up.)
I just think discussion is not present in these threads for the most part.
Instead it is used as a bully platform. It's unimpressive. A new tactic should be implemented imo.
Guess you did not understand all those big words we are using to discuss this in that case. Not bullying at all. You are welcome to go read the studies yourself.
I guess you don't want the deal then?
Agenda? Oh you mean presenting facts and information. Does that bother you?
Seems like you're off track from my point, but that's the way these always go.
Pointed comment, defense, insult, defense, mockery, defense... repeat ad nauseam.
No, I don't mind facts and information. They call my husband Mr. Google at work b/c there's pretty much nothing he doesn't know. I guess he just reads a lot. I think that's one of the reasons I was attracted to him, I like to learn... so yeah, facts are great. The difference between you and my husband is he is humble. When you wake up in the morning and think to yourself, "I am going to do my best today to take down religion and finally prove to them all that it is nothing more than farce..." You might add to your diatribe, "And I am going to remember that these ppl hold their beliefs dear to them. They have fallen in love with this entity, God, and I will be as careful as I can not to offend as I attempt to stomp out something that has been embraced for thousands and thousands of years. I will be kind and understanding because it's the right thing to do."
Humble? I don't think your beliefs deserve any respect, nor will I be kind and understanding, because I think these beliefs are actually damaging to all of us. I realize you probably won't understand that though, but I doubt I could get you to see it no matter how humble I was.
Sorry if the facts I presented bother you. Not really much I can do about that. We could have a reasonable discussion about them if you like, but attacking me personally seems to be your preference. Why not try addressing the facts instead?
Burned any witches today or told any homosexuals they are sinners destined for hell? Along with me of course.
This is how religious debates go.. they start out as discussions until one party feels slighted by a comment and return fire. Then they degenerate to what we see often
Not exactly always. Sometimes you gain new understanding and perspective of people as well as the subject at hand because sometimes things are revealed that may not have been considered before. Gaining understanding doesn't always change opinions or beliefs, but they do make people reexamine the reasons they think the way they do.
Oh, you said it to DPH (another believer) My bad..
Undertaken by whom? Using what tests?
Sure it is. IQ is the measure of intelligence last time I checked
Simple conclusions do not equal correct conclusions. High IQ certainly denotes intelligence, but some IQ tests are just as biased as certain studies in some cases and can be used in a manner to confirm the biases of the people administering the tests and giving the studies (this goes several different ways). There are several variables to consider when administering these kinds of tests and testing a certain number of people do not necessarily lead to an accurate assessment of all people.
Yet you are presenting it and apparently (based on some of your comments) standing by it.. Sounds like the same thing believers are accused of
Thanks for providing the link. I will review it when I have time to thoroughly go through it.
It doesn't bother me at all, thankfully. I believe in God and try to live by the principles contained in the bible and to follow the example of Christ. The thing of it though is that most of the moral and ethical principles contained in the bible are actually used in everyday life by everyone and I do my best to be a good person and do good things BECAUSE they are good. I have no control over the reactions of others and as such cannot be concerned with getting a reward or being punished for the good things I attempt to do for others. Either way things go, I can go to my grave happy that I lived the best way I thought and will deal with whatever happens next when I get there.
Thanks again for the link as well as the conversation.. My opinion of you has changed (as if it mattered to you). You're a good guy despite what others say about you
Ah well - people generally see what they want to see, but to be fair I also behave differently depending on the other person's comportment.
There is detailed information on the studies at the end of that link I gave you although I also have not seen the raw data.
I understand that. I do the same, though I try to stay respectful as much as I can, but there comes a time when you have to match what is shown to you.
Okay.. Thanks again.. though I still find it ironically hilarious that you presented info that you haven't examined. I will look at it closely when I get a chance and get back to you
Hilarious? How so? Every major media site on the 'net has "presented" it. I just offered the link for discussion. Having said that - that is rich coming form some one who believes a majikal super being in the sky exists with zero evidence.
Ah, Mark, it's nice to see you back here. Deepes is a cool dude, and I think the two of you will come to enjoy your discussions. Of course, I'll always be your favorite delusional believer.
Not the point. Its the principle that she is female
Deepes, you know that's not true! It's my sunny, genuinely approachable personailty.
It's mostly because, like you, Mark is a genuine person who respects others until they give him reason not to. He doesn't ever candy coat his words, and some may find him abrasive, but he respects honesty.
Every major media site has "presented" religious stuff too.. Does that make the info right?
Without examining it yourself .. please tell me you see the irony
touche'. But that's the beautiful thing about belief... No evidence required.. And evidence is not required for a belief unless it is presented as absolute knowledge. I happily maintain that my belief that is only applicable to ME and nobody else unless and until something comes up that changes it to knowledge. Until then, any "evidence" I can present will only reinforce my belief. But I'm always searching for knowledge.
Yes - I understand the rigorous applications you apply to me do not apply to you.
I cant access the link you gave but the conclusions would be nice to see.
Also did the study quantify
Or was it just a poke at religion?
No. just intelligence. Didn't appear to be a poke at religion. Less intelligent (as measured by IQ) people tend to be more inclined to religion than more intelligent people. Far as I know - they just used IQ as the measurement. The conclusion seems to be that.
Hey Mark, what do you think of this article?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosit … telligence
I too had issues accessing the report from the link Mark provided; I got a request to sign in to OpenAthens, sign up, subscribe, or cough up $25.
However your link Deepes was very interesting as it summarised a number of studies with some key critical responses from academics. It seems that there are so many contributory factors to religious belief such as access to healthcare, education, social media, etc, etc, including such issues as whether the participants had been pre-conditioned to consider reflective or intuitive thinking. There are so many contributory social factors affecting religious belief and IQ independent of belief, that to isolate IQ is simply not being honest.
A number of years ago I took an IQ test and was pleased to learn it scored me in the top 2% of the UK population (that'll be in the top 0.02% of the American ) and was invited to apply for membership of Mensa. It was then I noted that I had taken at least three other IQ tests in the weeks preceding where my score was lower. In short I had learned how the IQ tests worked, the kind of thinking they were looking for, logical sequential mathematical puzzles mainly (if my memory serves me well). IQ tests can be practiced and each time the score is higher; they don't test emotional intelligence or creativity; they don't factor in cultural background; thus demonstrating that they cannot be relied upon as an accurate measure of intelligence.
I agree. I posted this article to point out that there were other factors involved in some of these tests and as such call these types of tests in question. I question any of these types of tests as they all involve some type of bias. I even question tests that are biased in favor of Christians
Interesting. Not only does intelligence (as measured by standard IQ tests) seem to result in less religiosity, but analytic, deductive, and more rational thinking skills do also. Not surprising really. One would not expect analytic, deductive, and more rational thinking to go hand in hand with believing religious claims.
Mark, nobody should be surprised if analytic, deductive and more rational thinking skills result in less religiosity. The continual refrain from these forums is that God cannot be proven/disproven by physical/material testable evidence (either that or he has not permitted this to be the case). Thus if the evidence is absent from a deductive rational thinking point of view, then those people who are more biased to this way of thinking would be the kind of people who would be less inclined to religiosity. As a side note this is one of the primary reasons why I reject the orthodox notion of eternity in hell for unbelievers as a loving God would not reject rational thinking people.
Now the problem occurs when people assume that rational deductive thinking is the epitome of human thought, that this mode of thinking trumps all others. Many people would class themselves as emotional intelligence biased, or prefer to base life decisions of gut instinct and hunches. A theist might call this mode of thinking 'faith'.
Now lets suppose purely hypothetically for argument sake, that God has chosen to operate in the gut feel/hunch method of human thought. If would not be a surprise therefore that those with a rational thinking bias would 'miss' this God.
What is your point exactly? That god causes nothing but arguments?
Rational deductive thinking will be our salvation. 2,000 years of reasonless nonsense with runaway developments has put us on the brink of extinction.
I agree that rational deductive thinking will be the salvation of mankind, however....seriously? What, exactly, do you think religion has done to aid in the march toward extinction? I suppose you think religion pushed the rush for atomic weapons? Nuclear weapons? Global warming? Pollution of the environment? I suppose it could be argued there are secret labs in the basements of the synagogues, mosques and churches....theistic scientists ardently developing new technologies whose sole purpose is to implement Armageddon...however, I doubt this is your argument.
Get real Knowles. Use some rational deductive reasoning, after you've gained an understanding of reality.
My point Mark is that rational deductive thinking is not the nirvana of human consciousness and enlightenment that those who look down their noses at people of faith think it is. Rational deductive thinking is a pretty good antidote to religious fundamentalists and those who would restrict scientific inquiry in favour of myths fables and hearsay, but it has failed to stem the tide of rampant capitalism, social injustice and warfare which arguably have done more harm to society that religionists.
Rational deductive reasoning does not create beauty, art, music, and the like; those things that make our lives richer on an emotional level. It is in this area that religious faiths operate bringing joy to millions of people. Would you want to take away people's happiness just because you look down on their mode of thinking?
Just because religion makes some people happy isn't an argument for it being good.
Giving crack to a crack addict makes him happy, and it makes him feel good, but it's not good FOR him. The problem I have, I think, with the "it makes me happy, and what's the harm in that" argument is that it's not just individual happiness that we should be concerned with.
religious people don't live in a vacuum. Their decisions (often made in line with their religious beliefs) often affect other people. They vote for candidates that line up with their beliefs, and their idea of morality. Those candidates go on to oppose equal marriage rights, for example, or try to put laws on the books limiting reproductive rights. Sure, the religion makes people happy - but that happiness in turn makes a lot of other people suffer the consequences - does it not?
Right you are. There are many religionists who think with their religion and do everything based upon their religious principles even though it is illogical to do so. They blindly follow the dictates of their respective religion even though such dictates do not make any conclusive sense. If one asks them why they realize to carefully and logically analyze the precepts of their religion, they become either evasive or take the remark is a type of umbrage to the religion.
Many religious people are extremely close-minded. If it is not what their particular religion states, they consider it to be invalid. For example, I know one woman who is highly educated with a Master's Degree in Economics yet she believes that the world is 6,000 years. She refuses to believe in anything which is not mentioned in the bible nor in her respective religion The only book that she reads if it is not work-related materials she will not read it. In fact, the only book she reads for pleasure is the bible, she reads and rereads it! Sad, really!
However, NOT ALL religious people fit the abovementioned category. There are many religionists who are quite open minded and accepting of other people. They believe that God is not respecter of persons. They contend that only God knows the heart and that as long as a person is good and does good deeds, it matters in the slightest what religion she is or is not. Yes, there are liberal religionists who are highly progressive in their philosophies and thought. To some people, when the word religionist comes to mind, it is associated with being a highly judgmental people who refuses to acknowledge diifferences and strongly maintain that their purview and outlook is the only acceptable and vailid one. Of course, NOT ALL religionists are like that but a sizeable portion are unfortunately.
So - you think you have abetter way of determining intelligence? The only reason "rampant capitalism, social injustice and warfare," exists is lack of deductive reasoning. Which is the purpose of religion. Yes - I would happily remove the religious art out there to avoid the wars that it took to create it. Wouldn't you?
And I am saying that even though the best argument I have ever seen for believing in Majick is the ceiling of the Sistine chapel.
We can see right here on these forums that less religion does not necessarily equate to more intelligence or rational thinking, in some cases, quite the contrary. For example, I offered a rational argument in another thread, supported by articles and definitions, yet had non-believers chime in with nothing more than their personal, baseless assertions.
Which implies they are believers who haven't thought through their beliefs to the point they can see it.
Perhaps, but I see it more of a condition of complacency, where the non-believer has so many times been reading posts and threads from theists, they just automatically respond without thinking anymore, not realizing that the argument being presented actually has some validity and points they've not taken the time to ponder or research themselves.
That could be true, of course. But, many of the arguments presented show as high a degree of closed mindedness as arguments presented by fundamentalists.
Agreed, I'm beginning to see all sorts of closed minded responses from both sides of the debate. Although, I don't really see what could be categorized as an "atheist" fundamentalist, considering there aren't really and 'fundamentals' with atheism. But yes, closed mindedness does rear it's ugly head on both sides.
I figured that you would pull these things from this article while overlooking some other details of these studies.
So only that factor was studied then. Meaning the study was conducted to prove the point.
Um no. Too lazy to read it for yourself huh? It was a study of 63 studies over several decades. Oh well.
Only about how intelligence or the so called lack of it relates to religion.
And as I said I couldn't access your link for some reason.
So it did relate to the things I said but the only conclusion they could come up with that it was was that it was all religions fault.
I have no idea what my IQ is, why would I, it hasn't made a blind bit of difference to my life.
Not at all what the report actually said. I have accessed it from my tablet, cell phone, laptop and desk top computer. I'm unsure why you can't seem too open it, but until you do you might want to refrain from silly assumptions. Once you've actually read it, THEN you should start commenting on what it actually says instead of creating straw men to argue against.
don't you find it the least bit strange to comment on something repeatedly that you haven't actually read? Especially since no one else seems to have an issue accessing it?
I read it.. It was interesting, but It raises a lot of questions for me
Sorry I thought the conclusion was religious people were less intelligent than atheists. I asked what section of the human race did they base their study on and as of yet no one has replied to that question.
Maybe it's because it's no ones job to copy and paste articles for you, and we expect you to read it for yourself if you're going to start discussing it. Why should we go find answers to your questions when the link is provided, google search pulls it up, and everyone has access to Yahoo. If you were truly interested, you could find a way to access it. It leads me to believe that you don't want to. You just want to comment on it without having to do any of the reading at all and want us to do your research for you.
Ok thanks for your direction.
I have been able to access the original report and some others and still conclude the study’s use of intelligence only considered an analytic framework of intelligence and did not address the impact that other forms, such as creative and emotional intelligence, had on a person’s overall aptitude in relation to an individual’s religious identity.
The study also narrowly defined a person’s religious influence as one’s involvement in part or all aspects of religious practice.
So my own opinion is that they only considered what they saw as relevant to get the results they required.
Good this research in it?
It seems the study was based on research in 3 main countries and 87% of the participants were from the US,UK and Canada with the prominent religion being Protestantism.
The other 2 cultures investigated by the academics were South America and Japan.
Hold on a minute................................
Was it stupid people who invented the atomic bomb?
It seems intelligent people are as stupid as stupid people.
Why would anyone want to conduct such a survey or study anyway?
Oh I know........................................................
To show how intelligent they are!
I can see why that would bother you.
I stopped worrying about studies and surveys when I realised the gapping holes in them,
"WHEN I was young I found out that the big toe always ends up making a hole in a sock," Einstein once recalled. "So I stopped wearing socks."
lol. I love simple logic... but then Ive only got half a brain.
Right. Gotcha. I can see why you would not be interested in any actual facts. lololo
The fact that an intellectual calls me stupid doesn't worry me one iota, I've seen what intelligent people are capable of.
Hey, you should check out this article I found in Cosmo.
Ah - lying. I thought your God burned you in hell for that? Guess you are not intelligent enough to understand that huh?
lol. You're a trip. What's your real name? Are you honest at all times?
This is my real name. Yes - I am honest at all times - except where it might be less painful to tell a white lie.
Is that OK with you Ms. 37?
You can just call me Beth. Good for you. I don't keep secrets either. I think we are all basically the same, with most of the same struggles, though we choose to deal with them differently. Of course sometimes I just hit myself on the head with a blunt object when I can't figure out how to fix a problem... once I see stars, I know it's time to stop.
People who make ridiculous claims and start foolish threads should be given some leeway since they probably aren't as intelligent as they think.
The issue is how is the intelligence being measured and how are they defining it? The trouble with IQ tests is that they don't measure the full breadth of human sentience and they have cultural biases too.
Now if you are going to define intelligence by a measure of problem solving skills only, then you are going to only appeal to those who have a bias that way, and you will ignore those who are creative, those that produce beautiful works of art or music. These creative people accomplish these things without requiring to work through a logical thought process, or solving some esoteric problem test. Perhaps creative types are more intelligent because their brains bypass the logic biased thought process and produce beautiful things by instinct and emotion.
As for claiming success in life as a measure of intelligence, what is used to define success? Is it the narrow interpretation loved by corporate high fliers, the financial industries or the phd scientists? There are millions of very intelligent people in the care and social services, looking after the needs of the unfortunate, but being crap paid they are not credited as being successful.
I would not be surprised that those of a scientific, engineering or mathematical bent would be less inclined to be religious as the entire focus of their work is on evidence, objective, testable and repeatable. So naturally they would be inclined to apply these processes to religion and we all know from forumland that the existence of God is not provable. Does this mean they are more intelligent? It ain't necessarily so.
Take the arts or the care and social studies professional who's wired up with emotional intelligence, who excel in social skills, sensing feelings, acting on instinct and gut feelings, those subconscious thought processes. In a social setting they'd run rings around the geeky emotional retards with beards and obsession with quantum physics or macro economics. Perhaps their understanding of religion is somewhat different to those who love flawed IQ tests. Less intelligent if they believe in God? It ain't necessarily so.
Perhaps you shouldn't believe everything you read Mark without question, it makes you look like an unintelligent religionist. Oh and your spelling leaves a lot to be desired too.
I agree... at least I would if I could understand all them big words. We need more pictures on the forum so the religious folk have something to look at while all y'all are busy reading all them words.
You explained this so much better than I could.. +1.
Admittedly my typing skills are poor. Odd that you think I believed it - I just shared it. I think it is fantastic that you waded through all 63 studies. Well done. Flawed huh? Are you now an expert on such things? Or - maybe, just maybe - there is something to this study. Still - better to reject it as flawed and go back to believing stuff with absolutely no evidence at all.
When I was born, we went to a Methodist church, later my mother converted back to Catholicism so I converted too (At 6 years of age)
Later still I became mostly agnostic.
So, does that make me twice as unintelligent as someone with only one religion to their name? Or does my current agnosticism somehow immunize me?
Studies also show that Fox News viewers are less informed than people who don't watch Fox. I wonder if this means that Foxer's are also more religious.
In the end, no amount of studies will convince anyone to become less religious or more intelligent, after all, they have faith which tells them to believe the unprovable.
Now, my invisible friend that lives in the sky has told me to shut up
I would expect that foxers (being stupid enough to watch that) would also be more religious. Of course no actual facts will convince people to be less religious. That is the point.
I would beg to differ. The facts do not support a creator god. Sorry.
It just means you were a very stupid child, but you are a genius now.
I just saw a study today about Fox news compared to CNN.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/randy-hall … hannel-fox
Please keep in mind, I do not watch Fox news, Im not fond of bias in the media on any side... I just thought since you mentioned it, I'd post the article.
Boy, oh boy, oh boy, the drama continues yet again. Will it EVER end. There are religious and atheistic people who are highly intelligent, some have doctorate and other advanced degrees. Conversely, there are religious and atheistic people who are NOT so intelligent.
There are religious people who routinely critique and analyze their respective religion while there are atheists who parrot their beliefs and accept it blindly! No one group has a monopoly as to who is more intelligent. Any more questions? Enough said regarding the matter at hand.
Perhaps we should look to the third group - the agnostics - for real intelligence. They are the only ones smart enough and honest enough to say "I don't know". The only truthful answer anyone can give.
Atheists are people who believe God exist or they would not have a reason to consistently complain. He must exist to them in order to consistently complain that He isn't real. How can you hate whom you say isn't real? Atheists are confused souls seeking for answers the wrong way.
Good luck getting this one to fly. Atheists do not hate God. They dislike being beaten over the head with things that cannot be sufficiently proven to their satisfaction.
You are beaten down, as you put it because of the "t-shirt" you wear advertising that you don't believe in God! But you must believe in Him in order to dislike Him. Why advertise consistently that you don't believe? I want you to look up in the dictionary the term "atheist" then you may change your views in the response you wrote to me.
You don't know any atheists, do you?
apparently, you don't know Christians either, since deepes is one.
You think that atheists deserve to be "beaten down" because they wear atheist shirts and you disagree with them? Really? Do you beat down people who wear shirts you don't like? For every atheist or secularist shirt out there, there are a thousand religious ones. What about those? Or do you not see a problem with those because they happen too align with your beliefs?
Atheism means a lack in belief in a god. I'm not sure why that's such a difficult concept for you too grasp. Do you have to dislike Bigfoot in order to not believe that he exists? I do not dislike god. I dislike his supposed book. I dislike a lot of the deplorable morality that followers of his book exhibit. I dislike the actions and atrocities that belief in that book has caused. But I feel no differently about your god than I do about the tooth fairy, zeus or aliens. I dislike the way the Christian right have steamrolled a secular country and rewritten history. I dislike three fact that they tryto force through laws based in their beliefs that apply to those who don't share them, and I dislike the blatant arrogance and ignorance that a lot of Christians display regularly.
Or are you saying that atheists should not have the right to the freedom of speech that you so enjoy to slander us?
I was speaking based on conversations that I have had with atheists. Sorry you misunderstood my comment as me being atheist. I am a believer in God. I was actually trying to advise you that your argument wasn't going to go far with the atheists. Sooo many others have tried and it didn't work. But since you want to to on a tirade against someone before you understand who they are and what they believe, I will gladly leave you to it. Good luck (you'll need it)
That's funny. I didn't know I had to believe that Emperor Palpatine was real before I could hate him...
Judging from posts in this forum, I would think that applies all the way around. Atheists can't prove their points. Theists can't prove their points. Round and round they go. Bulls in china shops when it comes to opinions they don't understand, or appreciate.
Shoot the messenger? Naw, Mark. We love ya.
Intelligence has nothing to do with religion. My religious/spiritual youngest brother has an IQ far above 200. Of the 4 Martin boys, I have the lowest IQ at 139 (borderline genius, by some estimates).
I've studied electronic engineering and excelled at it in the 70s. I have a computer science degree, summa cum laude. I've been a Hollywood artist with screen credit. I'm a published author ("Touch the Stars: Emergence," Tor Books, New York), which nearly earned out its advance (not a best seller, but hey, it was my first). And I'm a first-place award-winning essayist ("Outsiderness in the Scientific Community," Krupnick Award, LA), and first-place award-winning short story writer ("Toady," Dutton Books Award, LA).
There are a lot of dumb folk who lap up religious dogma as if it were Truth, and a lot of atheists who do the same by just knowing that religion is the source of all evil. Both camps are full of bias and dogma -- fixed ideas and egotistical worldviews.
A more unbiased view of reality would see that the source of all problems is ego. Ego is selfishness. Ego is separateness -- me versus you.
Humility is the antidote to ego. Love is the cure.
Love you, Mark. Keep it interesting.
No doubt there are exceptions that prove the rule - yes. That is why the study was so comprehensive - because it is not possible to draw any conclusions from a few people with high IQs who are prepared to reject reason and logic to accept religious belief.
Religion - is by it's very nature divisive and separatist. As you have told us many, many times - you see things and understand things far, far better than those of us who rely on reality. Your egotistical fantasy that you are superior, while telling us you have let go of your ego is always entertaining.
Still - clearly there is a correlation between religion and intelligence (as measured by IQ tests). You simply not bothering to read the study and rejecting what it proved is a good example of how damaging religious belief can be in our society. Despite the fact that you appear to be well educated, you immediately rejected the findings of this study in order to defend your irrational beliefs. In days gone by, I would be stood in front of an Inquisitor about now. Thank goodness for progress huh?
what is the means of intelligence means, do not say for seeing some content feel the experience then say the things
Hey, Mark, so what?
It might be true, but I doubt that there is a huge difference in intelligence between religious people and atheists. Not enough to matter.
by ngureco 5 years ago
Why Are Most Atheists More Intelligent Than Religious People?
by Pauline C Stark 3 years ago
Why Do Religious People Get So Angry At Atheists?When it comes to Atheism, most religious people get angry and even combative when it comes to this subject. I wonder why, especially in this day and age, one would feel anger towards another human being with a different perception/outlook/belief....
by arthriticknee 11 years ago
There is no Atheist text.This ensures Atheists can't manipulate the ambiguous writings from 2,000 - 3,000 years ago to justify their actions.As far as I am aware, no one has committed mass murder in there name of there being no God.The vast majority of modern religions have had countless atrocities...
by schoolgirlforreal 10 years ago
I started a comment in the "Does God Exist" thread and it led to this:In the forums many people who say they are atheists or non-believers in God say things like:"if you were to compliment a religious person they wouldn't understand" or something like that.These generalized...
by TheBlondie 10 years ago
I'm an atheist, and even though I'm a generally good person (volunteer at an animal shelter, nice to people, generous, etc.), I've been told I'm going to hell simply because I don't take part in any religion. I'm really not trying to start a fight or argument, I'm really just curious- why are...
by Jacqui 5 years ago
Why is it assumed that Morals are dictated by Religion? Doesn't that scare you?It is mentioned a lot that Morals are dictated by Religion, and the inference (or the direct statement occasionally) is that therefore Atheists are immoral. What makes people think this? I'm curious. Has anyone...
Copyright © 2021 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|