Do Athiests think they're more intelligent than religious people?

Drakares

I would have to say in general, yes they do.

As someone who has went from being a non-believer to being a little more open minded on the subject, through scientific study as it was.

With all the variables that make life as it is today. The chances of us being here is zero. Considering how proteins work, how collagen consists of 1,055 amino acids that acids that must be in the right sequential order and makes itself spontaneously has a zero chance of happening. But it does. And humans don't make it, it makes itself spontaneously. If the 1,055 molecules were reduced to 200, the chances of the correct sequence forming itself are 1 in 1 followed by 260 zeroes. This is just one of billions of variables but I digress.

I'm sure half of the keyboard warriors who talk about evolution haven't got the first notion of any of the scientific explanations behind it, never mind all of the other theories that try to explain why we're here. All's I see from a lot of athiests is that they're quick to try to mock people with beliefs and call them idiots while throwing around scientific terms which they barely understand. There are obviously those who have done their research and have come to their conclusions, but such people IMO generally don't bother going out of their way to hassle the religious folk.

The religious fanatics are just as bad, anyone having spoken to one can confirm first hand so I'm not just giving out about athiests.

I'm working and living in Germany, and people here don't really give a toss if you have a religion or not. But religion in any case makes for excellent discussion rather than "Lol, moron believes in invisible being". Some colleagues of mine with Masters/PhDs in the likes of physics and other sciences do believe in God and some don't but the discussion is always fun and doesn't really involve any abuse from either party.

What I'm wondering is if in general, athiests who like to pick on the religious folk think they're more intelligent than those who are religious. I am going to say for the majority, yes they do. And they're more than likely not, IMO.

TL;DR Do Atheists think they're more intelligent than those who are religious?

If you are athiest, do you? If you are religious, do you get this feeling?

stimpson

I don't think that question has ever been asked before. If only there was a specialised forum where we could discuss such things.

Spunge

A lot claim to have a vastly superior intellect due to them not believing in some apparently made-up being. Im agnostic and im more intelligent than both.

c_man

Drakares wrote: »

...the chances of the correct sequence forming itself are 1 in 1 followed by 260 zeroes.

Correct one eh?


I'm sure some do think they're more intelligent, and some might well be. Vice versa also.

maguic24

Wasn't this already posted in A&A (where it belongs?)??

IMO, don't think this is the right forum for that question....

AudreyHepburn

Some do, some don't. Just as some religious people think they are smarter than atheists, and some don't.

It's not as black and white as you make it.

MagicIRL

The fedora. It gives them powers.

Seriously though- I voted yes based on my experiences... or maybe it's because most religious people I've met are just incredibly stupid.

Ave Sodalis

You get bigheaded aholes in all walks of life, OP

iDave

Here we go, another atheist generalisation thread.

Penn

Some probably do. Some don't.

Belief doesn't require intelligence or a lack of intelligence. It's something you believe even though there isn't scientific evidence for it. Belief in the supernatural (God, Heaven etc) is a belief that something exists outside of what we view as the natural laws of physics, reality etc.

Religious belief and intelligence are neither mutually exclusive nor interrelated.

_Redzer_

There's a direct correlation between high education levels and a lower level of faith, or lack of.

Take from that what you will.

Amirani

Spunge wrote: »

A lot claim to have a vastly superior intellect due to them not believing in some apparently made-up being. Im agnostic and im more intelligent than both.

Obviously not if you think that atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive.

kylith

Drakares wrote: »

With all the variables that make life as it is today. The chances of us being here is zero. Considering how proteins work, how collagen consists of 1,055 amino acids that acids that must be in the right sequential order and makes itself spontaneously has a zero chance of happening. But it does. And humans don't make it, it makes itself spontaneously. If the 1,055 molecules were reduced to 200, the chances of the correct sequence forming itself are 1 in 1 followed by 260 zeroes. This is just one of billions of variables but I digress.

Well Jaysus, if only there had a billion years for those molecules to arise. Oh wait, there was!

Have a read up on abiogenesis there.

Shakespeare's Sister

_Redzer_ wrote: »

There's a direct correlation between high education levels and a lower level of faith, or lack of.

Take from that what you will.

Yeh I'm not saying all religious people are thick (far from it) and I'm not completely without faith myself, but looking at societies where people have limited or no education, religion (with its followers being unquestioning) is huge - e.g. poor areas of the deep South in the US, Islamic theocracies in Africa and further east...

The poll options are way too limited - can an "on the fence" option be added?

mickydoomsux

kylith wrote: »

Well Jaysus, if only there had a billion years for those molecules to arise. Oh wait, there was!

Have a read up on abiogenesis there.

Pfffffft, everyone knows that the earth is only 6000 years old.

And human history is the only important history.

Mr. CooL ICE

_Redzer_ wrote: »

There's a direct correlation between high education levels and a lower level of faith, or lack of.

Take from that what you will.

On the flipside, I know of a few highly qualified academics who always seem thick as sh1t. Correlation causation etc

corner of hells

I'm God therefore I am the most intelligent.

old_aussie

Compared to which religious people? :rolleyes:

Drakares

kylith wrote: »

Well Jaysus, if only there had a billion years for those molecules to arise. Oh wait, there was!

Have a read up on abiogenesis there.

This is the kind of ****e I'm talking about.

A billion years is not near enough time for something like abiogenesis to produce something that takes so much time to produce it's practically got zero chance of happening. But clearly it did happen.

iDave

Drakares wrote: »

This is the kind of ****e I'm talking about.

A billion years is not near enough time for something like abiogenesis to produce something that takes so much time to produce it's practically got zero chance of happening. But clearly it did happen.

How long should it take?

sbsquarepants

Drakares wrote: »

With all the variables that make life as it is today. The chances of us being here is zero. Considering how proteins work, how collagen consists of 1,055 amino acids that acids that must be in the right sequential order and makes itself spontaneously has a zero chance of happening. But it does. And humans don't make it, it makes itself spontaneously. If the 1,055 molecules were reduced to 200, the chances of the correct sequence forming itself are 1 in 1 followed by 260 zeroes. This is just one of billions of variables but I digress.

Once something has happened the odds of how unlikely it was for that thing to happen are meaningless. It's like playing the euromillions lotto or something like that - the odds of you winning could be hundreds of millions to 1 - but the day after you've won those odds mean nothing. you did win, therefore the actual probability of you winning before the draw was 1 in 1, not the 1 in 500,000,000 you thought it was. Hindsight, is 20/20.
How likely was it for life to appear given the physical laws we know? Apparently it was quite bloody likely! Look around you:)

kylith

Drakares wrote: »

This is the kind of ****e I'm talking about.

A billion years is not near enough time for something like abiogenesis to produce something that takes so much time to produce it's practically got zero chance of happening. But clearly it did happen.

How do you know that a billion years isn't enough time? And clearly it did happen because we're here. Studies on the composition of the primordial oceans show that the conditions were there for abiogenesis to take place.

The opposing view, that a magic being created us from nothing in an afternoon, has zero evidence for it at all.

sbsquarepants

Drakares wrote: »

This is the kind of ****e I'm talking about.

A billion years is not near enough time for something like abiogenesis to produce something that takes so much time to produce it's practically got zero chance of happening. But clearly it did happen.

This is my point - to go back to the lotto analogy - you'd have to play every week for a million years to guarantee a certain set of numbers - to guarantee it, well to practically guarantee it anyway -or you could get it on the first go, some set of numbers has to be first, some has to be second and so on. No set is any more or less likely than another. if 1,2,3,4,5,6 comes out tonight, it is exactly as likely to come out the next night - most people don't grasp this.
There is no way of saying it would have to take x amount of time for any sequence to occur, only to be practically certain it would occur.

osarusan

Drakares wrote: »

As someone who has went from being a non-believer to being a little more open minded on the subject, through scientific study as it was.

Yeah, you come across as really open-minded alright.

tigger123

Drakares wrote: »

I would have to say in general, yes they do.

As someone who has went from being a non-believer to being a little more open minded on the subject, through scientific study as it was.

With all the variables that make life as it is today. The chances of us being here is zero. Considering how proteins work, how collagen consists of 1,055 amino acids that acids that must be in the right sequential order and makes itself spontaneously has a zero chance of happening. But it does. And humans don't make it, it makes itself spontaneously. If the 1,055 molecules were reduced to 200, the chances of the correct sequence forming itself are 1 in 1 followed by 260 zeroes. This is just one of billions of variables but I digress.

I'm sure half of the keyboard warriors who talk about evolution haven't got the first notion of any of the scientific explanations behind it, never mind all of the other theories that try to explain why we're here. All's I see from a lot of athiests is that they're quick to try to mock people with beliefs and call them idiots while throwing around scientific terms which they barely understand. There are obviously those who have done their research and have come to their conclusions, but such people IMO generally don't bother going out of their way to hassle the religious folk.

The religious fanatics are just as bad, anyone having spoken to one can confirm first hand so I'm not just giving out about athiests.

I'm working and living in Germany, and people here don't really give a toss if you have a religion or not. But religion in any case makes for excellent discussion rather than "Lol, moron believes in invisible being". Some colleagues of mine with Masters/PhDs in the likes of physics and other sciences do believe in God and some don't but the discussion is always fun and doesn't really involve any abuse from either party.

What I'm wondering is if in general, athiests who like to pick on the religious folk think they're more intelligent than those who are religious. I am going to say for the majority, yes they do. And they're more than likely not, IMO.

TL;DR Do Atheists think they're more intelligent than those who are religious?

If you are athiest, do you? If you are religious, do you get this feeling?

OP, if you believe that our existence is improbable, or impossible, then you therefore believe in intelligent design?

To answer your question, I think some atheists can be obnoxious about it, but it doesn't necessarily equate to their level of education on the subject. I've seen Richard Dawkins interviewing people and he can be right arrogant pr*ck.

anncoates

I'm a non-believer but don't feel superior or more intelligent purely on the basis of it.

I mean, I feel superior to some lunatic that ran a Magdalene asylum or a zealot warlord but not to the majority of people that have faith.


Maybe it's because I had a bellyful of it when I was younger, but I find endless intellectual parlour games of debunking belief/non-belief for its own sake (as opposed to opposing actual instances of and oppression connected to religion) incredibly tedious and a indicator of a certain callowness.

tigger123

Drakares wrote: »

This is the kind of ****e I'm talking about.

A billion years is not near enough time for something like abiogenesis to produce something that takes so much time to produce it's practically got zero chance of happening. But clearly it did happen.

Also, if you are making scientific claims in a discussion, you should link where you're getting your info from . Share, so we can all see

Shakespeare's Sister

anncoates wrote: »

I find endless intellectual parlour games of debunking belief/non-belief for its own sake (as opposed to opposing actual instances of and oppression connected to religion) incredibly tedious

Yep, it's never-ending, and just goes round and around and around...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-vhISAq3pI

Shiraz 4.99

I'm an atheist, a fundamentalist atheist according to my wife.

Anyway, by definition an atheist has to be more intelligent than someone who needs to believe in deity.

Sarky

Drakares wrote: »

With all the variables that make life as it is today. The chances of us being here is zero. Considering how proteins work, how collagen consists of 1,055 amino acids that acids that must be in the right sequential order and makes itself spontaneously has a zero chance of happening. But it does. And humans don't make it, it makes itself spontaneously. If the 1,055 molecules were reduced to 200, the chances of the correct sequence forming itself are 1 in 1 followed by 260 zeroes. This is just one of billions of variables but I digress.

That's... not really how DNA, genes or proteins work.

jimgoose

I actually am more intelligent than and generally superior to most people. Rather than pointing to the fact that I do/do not (delete as applicable) believe in God/Dog/Spaghetti Monster/Joe Smith's hat/the postman as demonstration of this, I simply do not waste my time arguing about it. :cool:

BTW, that poll need a "Mu" option.

maguic24

jimgoose wrote: »

I actually am more intelligent than and generally superior to most people. Rather than pointing to the fact that I do/do not (delete as applicable) believe in God/Dog/Spaghetti Monster/Joe Smith's hat/the postman as demonstration of this, I simply do not waste my time arguing about it. :cool:

BTW, that poll need a "Mu" option.

You don't believe in the Flying Spagetti Monster! :eek: What!!

I was a non-believer until I was touched by his noodly appendage.

jimgoose

maguic24 wrote: »

You don't believe in the Flying Spagetti Monster! :eek: What!!...

I didn't say that. Rather than demanding the usual binary Yes/No response, you must unask the question, Grasshopper. :cool:

anncoates

Shiraz 4.99 wrote: »

Anyway, by definition an atheist has to be more intelligent than someone who needs to believe in deity.

You might be on somewhat shaky ground if you're claiming that every person that has been intellectually pre-eminent in human history was an atheist.

Fair enough, you can't isolate people from the historical milieus in which they existed, but still..

Penn

Shiraz 4.99 wrote: »

Anyway, by definition an atheist has to be more intelligent than someone who needs to believe in deity.

I strongly disagree with this. Belief and knowledge are two separate things. A person can be intelligent enough to know there's no scientific proof of a deity, but might still believe there is one, whose existence is supernatural to the point that there can be no measurable scientific proof.

Let's face it, someone like Ken Ham is religious to the point of absurdity. Same with a lot of fundamentalists. But various people believe various things to various degrees. "Religious person" covers a huge percentage of people, some of which might only have a very minor belief without dismissing scientific evidence. It's hugely unfair to tar "religious people" with the same brush when it comes to intelligence.

danniemcq

Closing this before generalisations are made and brushes are brought out. The actions or whatever of a few do not mean that EVERYONE is the same.