Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

atheists and intelligence

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Overblood
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,359 ✭✭✭Overblood


    Anyone who takes the bible literally, ie. believes without question in the creation story, noah's flood, water to wine etc. in spite of contradictory scientific evidence is dumb, definitely less intelligent than an atheist, and possibly mentally retarded.

    But the idea of religious people as a whole being less intelligent I'm not too sure of. Too many factors and variables to juggle. I'm sure undiscovered Amazonian tribes have their gods, but does that really make them less intelligent than us? (Could you survive in the Amazon like they do?) They don't have access to books or the internetz like we do, so... tis a tough one.

    I picked "yes but not in all aspects."


  • Options
    #33
    Goduznt Xzst
    Registered Users Posts: 1,353 ✭✭✭Goduznt Xzst


    Valmont wrote: »
    So there you have it, saying people with IQ will usually be under people with high EQ, doesn't mean squat and these the studies proposing these effects have not stood up to the scrutiny of the many many articles critiquing them over the years (in peer reviewed journals).

    hmm... well if your stance is that anything based around EQ is untenable, then any studies or papers I link to that deal with it will be instantly shot down in your opinion.

    Do you hold the opinion that there is not enough evidence yet to support it? Or do you think as a concept it is wrong?

    Anyway, here is a link to one of the sources I was referring to:

    http://www.atypon-link.com/JGSCU/doi/pdf/10.2189/asqu.51.1.1?cookieSet=1


  • Options
    #34
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Overblood wrote: »
    Anyone who takes the bible literally, ie. believes without question in the creation story, noah's flood, water to wine etc. in spite of contradictory scientific evidence is dumb, definitely less intelligent than an atheist, and possibly mentally retarded.
    You are discounting the power of indoctrination. Have you seen Jesus camp? Kids on tours of the Creation Museum? Some of those people never stand a chance at making an informed decision.

    bday-party-banner.jpg


  • Options
    #35
    Overblood
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,359 ✭✭✭Overblood


    Dades wrote: »
    You are discounting the power of indoctrination. Have you seen Jesus camp? Kids on tours of the Creation Museum? Some of those people never stand a chance at making an informed decision.

    Yeah kids will believe anything, if you have kids I'm sure they believe in a big fat guy in a red suit who flys around with reindeer. I was talking about adults or adolescents at least. Like the guys who run the Creation museum. Definitely stupid, dumb..... and quite possibly retarded. Maybe their mothers were on moonshine when they were incubating in the womb.


  • Options
    #36
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    Anybody have a birthday coming up? :p


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Goduznt Xzst
    Registered Users Posts: 1,353 ✭✭✭Goduznt Xzst


    Dave! wrote: »
    Anybody have a birthday coming up? :p

    better yet, with the recession hitting hard, it looks like the Creation Museum is hiring :eek: and all you have to do is sign away your integrity agree to their statement of faith

    makes for some interesting light reading:
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith

    particularly:
    Section 3: General wrote:
    6. By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.


  • Options
    #38
    Valmont
    Registered Users Posts: 5,856 ✭✭✭Valmont


    Goduznt Xzst wrote: »
    hmm... well if your stance is that anything based around EQ is untenable, then any studies or papers I link to that deal with it will be instantly shot down in your opinion.

    Not anything, just the studies that link it to ridiculous measures of occupational success and achievement. It's not my personal stance, I'm just relaying the evidence as it stands.
    Goduznt Xzst wrote: »
    Do you hold the opinion that there is not enough evidence yet to support it? Or do you think as a concept it is wrong?

    I think as a concept it holds a lot of promise and it does tap into important aspects of intelligence that IQ scales neglect but some EI proponents have generalised these positive facts above and beyond what the scientific evidence should allow. The worst of these generalisations have been made within the realm of work and occupational psychology imo.


  • Options
    #39
    Overblood
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,359 ✭✭✭Overblood


    OP I think you might be onto something here....

    http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055532450


  • Options
    #40
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Schuhart wrote: »
    Well, as with other things, its really nothing to do with our opinions. We just look at the evidence.

    And then look at the other evidence from the US and Australia that there are more graduates attending church than the average.


  • Options
    #41
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Dades wrote: »

    bday-party-banner.jpg

    You fiend, you knew I'd click that! :mad:
    Dave! wrote: »
    Anybody have a birthday coming up? :p

    YES! :mad:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    ChocolateSauce
    Registered Users Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭ChocolateSauce


    Schuhart wrote: »
    Well, as with other things, its really nothing to do with our opinions. We just look at the evidence.

    Thank you! I've been looking for this page for ages.

    Anyway, no, I'm not more intellegent than theists by default. I may be more intellegent that certain individuals, and I may use my intellegence better than others who are "by default" smarter than me, but to say we're smarter is so vague I wouldn't really debate the matter.

    Besides, the evidence does speak for itself. This doesn't mean atheists are smarter, just that smarter people (and better educated people) tend to be atheists.


  • Options
    #43
    Valmont
    Registered Users Posts: 5,856 ✭✭✭Valmont


    ChocolateSauce wrote: »
    Besides, the evidence does speak for itself. This doesn't mean atheists are smarter, just that smarter people (and better educated people) tend to be atheists.

    Exactly, the evidence is only correlational after all.


  • Options
    #44
    bubonicus
    Registered Users Posts: 715 ✭✭✭bubonicus


    I wonder how Intelligent Atheists feel about coming to a conclusion on untestable metaphysical claim?


  • Options
    #45
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    That something is an untestable metaphysical claim is a conclusion.

    A further conclusion might be to not support said untestable metaphysical claim due to it's lack of testability coupled with, for example, it's invisibility, intangibility, etc.


  • Options
    #46
    bubonicus
    Registered Users Posts: 715 ✭✭✭bubonicus


    Yes it is, but one conlcusion is drawn from the other....


  • Options
    #47
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    bubonicus wrote: »
    Yes it is, but one conlcusion is drawn from the other....
    If both conclusions are sound, there is no issue. Do you have a point?


  • Options
    #48
    bubonicus
    Registered Users Posts: 715 ✭✭✭bubonicus


    Dades wrote: »
    If both conclusions are sound, there is no issue. Do you have a point?

    I guess. Maybe some Atheists are Skeptics....


  • Options
    #49
    midlandsmissus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,838 ✭✭✭midlandsmissus


    Goduznt Xzst wrote: »
    Yes the question is indeed phrased incorrectly. Do I think I have a higher IQ than the average religious person. Yes. But the word "smarter" is very vague. I would not have the same life experiences as a lot of religious people, nor the wisdom they have gained from them. There is also emotional intelligence (or EQ), the ability to empathise etc, which I'd say a lot of religious people would have a higher level than myself.

    and funnily enough this is usually where the line in the sand is drawn, the religious claim their morals and happiness and try to grab at also having intelligence, whereas we claim our intelligence and try to grab back their claim on happiness and morality. I've always mused that the Atheist mantra should be:

    "we'll try being nicer as soon as you try being smarter"

    "We'll try being nicer if you try being smarter", not the most diplomatic of mantras as they come is it! I totally agree that alot of atheists are very arrogant about intelligence, automatically assuming they are more intelligent because they feel they have analysed and come to a judged evaluation.

    They tend to automatically assume that the religious person blindly follows the religion without analysing it, and that hard physical evidence is the only evidence worth talking about.

    What about religious people who have analysed everything to do with religion and have come to their decision to believe in God. What if they use the name God to broadly sum up that they think there is a higher power than humans, that maybe its slightly arrogant to think we are the highest power in the universe. We are after all mammals. We die. Energy can only be changed form one form to antother, it never dies. I think it is highly likely that we could exist on as energy after our mortal bodies die, and there are energy planes we go to.

    Do you think that point of view is stupid? Because that is my point of view.
    There are other religious points of view that I think have alot of deep thought and analysis behind them. I think it is very arrogant for any one person to assume that they are solely right, and call others stupid if they do not believe what they believe. I see so many atheists doing this. We are all constantly learning from each other, I can say I personally no matter what I believed in , would never think somebody else was stupid if they did not believe in the same thing I did. That is a very shallow appriach to take.


  • Options
    #50
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    midlandsmissus wrote: »
    What if they use the name God to broadly sum up that they think there is a higher power than humans, that maybe its slightly arrogant to think we are the highest power in the universe. We are after all mammals. We die.
    With all due respect, the atheist notion of our existence is far more humble than the Christian one. The universe was not created for us, we are not going to be rewarded over other religions for siding with a particular God.

    And quite a few, myself included, would be very open to the idea of other life in the universe and would never deign to suggest we are the highest "power".


  • Options
    #51
    Naikon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,564 ✭✭✭Naikon


    No, but i do believe that non religious people are more observant in general.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    pH
    Registered Users Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    Naikon wrote: »
    No, but i do believe that non religious people are more observant in general.

    Needs a capital I, lucky I spotted that eh?


  • Options
    #53
    Naikon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,564 ✭✭✭Naikon


    Meh, I am human:pac:


  • Options
    #54
    Goduznt Xzst
    Registered Users Posts: 1,353 ✭✭✭Goduznt Xzst


    midlandsmissus wrote: »
    "We'll try being nicer if you try being smarter", not the most diplomatic of mantras as they come is it! I totally agree that alot of atheists are very arrogant about intelligence, automatically assuming they are more intelligent because they feel they have analysed and come to a judged evaluation.

    Saying I am intelligent and saying I am arrogant are too completely separate things. If I was to note that recent surveys have shown that Atheists have, say, blue eyes, would you assume arrogance in that statement? I noticed you weren't objecting to the arrogance in the other thread where Christians where claiming from studies that the religious are happier than Atheists.

    You also fail to see that that mantra accomplishes 2 things, it tries to say that we may be smarter but we are also less nice because of it. It was meant to be taken as tongue-in-cheek (read the paragraph before the mantra)

    Also, if you read my following point, I went on to say that being on average more intelligent is not always a good thing. Anyway, it's all statistics and surveys. Which are interesting to examine but shouldn't stop the individual from being whoever they want to be.
    midlandsmissus wrote: »
    I think it is very arrogant for any one person to assume that they are solely right

    EXACTLY!!! :confused: you have just defined the majority of religions on this planet. Atheists DO NOT THINK THEY ARE RIGHT, they think the Religions are wrong, because they are arrogantly saying they "know" things about the Universe and God(s) and dogma that they can't possibly know.


  • Options
    #55
    Zillah
    Registered Users Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    midlandsmissus wrote: »
    Do you think that point of view is stupid?

    Yes absolutely. This 'energy plane' nonesense is complete gibberish, cobbled together from new age spiritualism, sci-fi and misunderstood scientifc tidbits.


  • Options
    #56
    SWEETCAN2000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 66 ✭✭SWEETCAN2000


    Valmont wrote: »
    Thank you. I only have one serious gripe with modern atheism and it's the "we are smarter than theists" argument. Having studied psychology for four years and covered a course in psychometrics, it just isn't an inference you can make. There are just too many variables that come into play, some of which have already been mentioned.

    I agree.
    I would class myself as agnostic not because I want to be, but because I 'find' myself to be at this point in my life (my mother is very religious btw). It boils down to arrogance and self importance when atheists harp on about being more intelligent than theists. As said above, there are too many variables to prove one way or the other.
    Ultimately, who cares?
    The same crap pops up in a variety of categories - people finding the need to categorise themselves in the intelligence spectrum. For example, I've read a lot of articles about vegetarians supposedly being more intelligent than the omnivores of our species. I'm a vegetarian as well as an agnostic, but I don't feel the need to gather 'evidence' to prove my 'superiority' over meat eating religious nuts, if you'll forgive me.


  • Options
    #57
    Tigger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,707 ✭✭✭✭Tigger


    christians are sheep
    they know they are sheep
    they call "god" their shepherd
    they like being sheep, being a shep is not about figuring things out which is a very important part of intelligence.

    It acually amazes me that people still believe in all the things that people believe in, I mean originally religion was a product of the human need to give reason meaning and understanding to the world.

    I a physics lecturer i thought was very clever once refered to inteligent design as his theory on the universe.I was shocked!


  • Options
    #58
    Goduznt Xzst
    Registered Users Posts: 1,353 ✭✭✭Goduznt Xzst


    btw, if anyone wants some further reading this might be of interest. Would be pretty easy to fit it into an atheists current diet ;)

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0595002366?ie=UTF8&tag=wwwfriendlyat-20&link_code=as3&camp=211189&creative=373489&creativeASIN=0595002366


  • Options
    #59
    Mickeroo
    Administrators, Computer Games Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 32,145 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Mickeroo


    Goduznt Xzst wrote: »
    btw, if anyone wants some further reading this might be of interest. Would be pretty easy to fit it into an atheists current diet ;)

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0595002366?ie=UTF8&tag=wwwfriendlyat-20&link_code=as3&camp=211189&creative=373489&creativeASIN=0595002366

    That looks top notch :P I'm also intrigued by Pride & prejudice and zombies, how could it not work!


  • Options
    #60
    aidan24326
    Registered Users Posts: 5,925 ✭✭✭aidan24326


    midlandsmissus wrote: »
    They tend to automatically assume that the religious person blindly follows the religion without analysing it

    Has it not dawned on you that that is exactly what the majority of religious believers actually do?

    ...and that hard physical evidence is the only evidence worth talking about.

    What other 'evidence' is there?

    I think it is highly likely that we could exist on as energy after our mortal bodies die, and there are energy planes we go to.

    Like Zillah said already, this is meaningless gibberish. In what possible way could you exist as energy in some mysterious 'energy-plane'. In what meaningful way would that be you? If you think carefully about it you'll see how ridiculous this is.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Max Cohen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 51 ✭✭Max Cohen


    it does break down to a lot of people being born into religion and for want of a better word being brainwashed into it.
    the whole 'only life you know' scenario like.
    so for them its not necessarily an intellegence issue but just what you 'know' to be true all your life.

    i sometimes would love to have that belief, stupid or not.
    that death fella's a dodgy character y'know


Advertisement