Religious people aren't as smart as Atheists

[Relambrien]

Re: Religious people aren't as smart as Atheists

Dark Ronin, you need to familiarize yourself with the definition of atheism.

"Atheism" refers to the lack of belief in a god or gods. It comes from the word "theism," roughly meaning "religion," and the prefix "a-" meaning "not."

"Strong atheism" is a subset of atheism which asserts the total nonexistence of divine beings.
"Weak atheism" is a subset of atheism which asserts the nonexistence of divine beings until evidence is shown to the contrary.

Agnosticism also falls into the category of atheism, as does things like apatheism. Coming from "apathy" and "theism," an apatheist is someone who generally doesn't care about the question of a higher power.

I believe you'll find that you're grouping all atheists into the "strong atheist" category when strong atheism is only one of many parts of atheism as a whole.

[Dark Ronin]

Re: Religious people aren't as smart as Atheists

Dark Ronin, you need to familiarize yourself with the definition of atheism.

First off athiesm falls into the very broad catagory of secular humanism. Here is a brief summary of an essay I did on the topic for a religion class. As you should see I fully understand what atheism is.

The Faith of Secular Humanism

Secular Humanism is a faith-based system (i.e., a religion) whose adherents believe, among other things, that the material world is all that exists. Secular humanists believe that the highest being that exists is mankind. They do not believe in a supernatural God.

Since secular humanists do not believe in God, obviously they do not believe in a Creator. They hypothesize that life simply sprang into existence, through a process of chance events. Higher life forms came into existence, they believe through the process of biological evolution. They believe these things on the basis of faith, as many of the more honest scientists who are evolutionists have admitted. Many scientists who are evolutionists have explained that to believe in a supernatural God is not “scientific”. Therefore they hypothesize evolution to explain the existence of life. They hope to find evidence to support their hypothesis.

Since, to secular humanists, God does not exist, any appeal to His authority would be considered to be foolish. The only authority that secular humanists appeal to is the authority of men who are perceived to be highly educated, brilliant and wise.

Secular humanists believe the Bible to be simply a book of human traditions and ideas. To them, it has no authority. The only writings that have authority for them would be the writing of men and women whom they perceive to be especially brilliant and wise.

Secular humanists generally reject the concepts of moral absolutes and of “sin.” In a situation in which Christians might see a need for repentance and forgiveness and forsaking sinful behavior, secular humanists would more likely see a need for every person to decide for himself what is right or wrong, and to try to build personal self-esteem regardless of an individual’s behavior.

While a Christian’s goals are determined by God and are influenced by the reality of an eternity after this life has passed, the secular humanist goals are entirely focused on this present physical existence.

[devonin]

Re: Religious people aren't as smart as Atheists

Well, while your excerpt certainly suggests that you've done a deal of research into secular humanist tradition, your definitions still seem to be rather prone to the hasty generalisation. Relambrien was pretty much spot on making the distinction between Strong and Weak Atheists and Agnosticism (Though as he seems to keep doing, left out the distinction between Strong and Weak Agnosticism)

The problem comes in when you try to affix the label of a religion to secular beliefs. While you can make the argument (And I enjoy that argument) that science meets many of the same requirements as a religion, the key difference as it pertains to this discussion is this (Or at least as it pertains to my post in the discussion)

"Religion" especially western religion, most especially Christianity is "faith-based" Many of the questions don't have answers, or their answer contains no evidence, and followers are told to simply accept and believe.

"Science" especially western science, is "Proof-based" Many of the questions don't have answers, but the ones that do have answers contain evidence: visible, testable, reproducable evidence that can allow you to understand and accept.

So even if Science has some of the trappings of religion, and even if your average non-religious person may accept the "proofs" of science in the same way they accept the "faiths" of religion, that doesn't change the integral difference that science -has- that proof that you can confirm yourself.

And that is why I can perfectly understand the claim that people who are more intelligent, more critical in their analysis and evaluation of things, will be less prone to be religious.

[Relambrien]

Re: Religious people aren't as smart as Atheists

Well, while your excerpt certainly suggests that you've done a deal of research into secular humanist tradition, your definitions still seem to be rather prone to the hasty generalisation. Relambrien was pretty much spot on making the distinction between Strong and Weak Atheists and Agnosticism (Though as he seems to keep doing, left out the distinction between Strong and Weak Agnosticism)

Well, the reason for this is that I don't particularly understand the difference myself. I think it has something to do with strong agnosticism stating it's not possible to know about the existence of divine beings, and weak agnosticism stating that it could be possible, but the person doesn't know it at the moment. I'm not even entirely sure if that's correct, and I don't know any further differences.

As you should see I fully understand what atheism is.

And it appears you do, except that the following excerpt from one of your posts points to an extremely hasty generalization:

Any atheist I have ever head of completely refuses to believe that there could possibly be some higher power, but what if there is a god?

This implies that you believe all atheists are strong atheists, since every atheist you have ever heard of completely refuses to admit to the possibility of a divine being.

[devonin]

Re: Religious people aren't as smart as Atheists

Just for clarification's sake.

Atheist - "A" meaning "Not" and "Theos" meaning "Religion" - Not Religious
Agnostic - "A" meaning "Not" and "Gnostos" meaning "Knowing" - Not Knowing (Not Knowable)

Weak Agnosticism is largely analagous to weak Atheism. A Weak Agnostic says "Having reviewed all the evidence on both sides, I'm still unable to make a choice, so I'll continute to withhold judgement until more evidence presents itself"

Strong Agnosticism is not at all analagous to strong Atheism. A Strong Agnostic says "Asking questions about this at all is a total waste of time, because whether there is evidence or not, that evidence is necessarily beyond human comprehension"

I should really make a sticky defining a lot of these commonly used terms.

[ZanasoBayncuh]

Re: Religious people aren't as smart as Atheists

Doesn't this entire conversation really mostly boil down to the fact that both, the completely religion and completely non-religious, are completely without mind to accept the other?

Shouldn't it have been pointed out to anyone referring to "IQ" that an intelligence quotiant refers to one's ability to learn and not what they know?

Admittantly, I'm Christian and I don't believe in evolution, at least to the extent that modern scientific research claims it. I have studied the subject and am not ignorant of the information, just my opinion.

Also admittantly, I only read about 50% of what is in this thread, hope I'm not retreading already made observations.

[devonin]

Re: Religious people aren't as smart as Atheists

I would agree with the sentiment that the completely devoutly religious are prone to be unwilling to accept alternatives to that religion. I say so because many western faiths anyway, have as part of their doctrine that they have access to divine and universal truth and that in order to be called completely devout, you would have to believe that your religion does in fact have access to divine and universal truth, thus making you understandably close-minded when it comes to contrary claims.

I would also say, however, that one of the "articles of the faith" if you want to call them that, of science is that a scientist has to be willing to go wherever the evidence leads them. I think most "devout scientists" would tell you that if evidence was revealed to "prove" the existance of God that they would absolutely believe in God.

Therein lies the key difference, and why science is usually viewed by the average person as "more prone to be correct, in the long run" than relgion, because science never says "Okay, we understand it perfectly, lets never question it again"

[ZanasoBayncuh]

Re: Religious people aren't as smart as Atheists

Whereas at the same time, left with no one to look over their shoulder, anyone with a finite amount of funding that is nearing its end will claim they've found whatever miraculous evidence that - "PROVES God DOES or DOES NOT exist." Which is probably the biggest annoyance to me on the topic of science, so many are so incredibly faithful (yeah, using that term to describe it) that they are somehow being fed 100% truth, even though a lot of the textual accuracy is hopeful on the accuracy of the original studies the information came from. People in general usually accept that 99% of everything that you hear/read is totally bull**** and that half of what you see is just as reliable (in other words, not reliable).

In light of these facts, after realizing that history books have been acknowledgely altered time and time again to make one thing look better, one thing look worse, completely remove information about a huge event, or even make up a small to medium size event here and there... along with many other types of informational reference, including by the normal logic, the Bible, as any debator will say / point out / refer to (trying to phrase as non bias as possible)... and yet somehow science is beyond reproach, and nothing in that field of study is, was, or will ever be falsified in any way shape or form. Then we come up with huge arguments and excuses to why science is so invulnerable to such a folly.

So, my simple point is that everything is prone to be falsified. I'm not going to be so foolish as to say that everything that implies something I don't believe is crap. But you are never going to get total and confirmed truths beyond witnessing such truths for yourself. Yes that might be a little extreme, but unfortunately, it's also reality.

[devonin]

Re: Religious people aren't as smart as Atheists

So...you seem to be saying "All scientists will lie outright about discovery in order to maintain funding, and all scientists believe that they are 100% correct, and therefore everyone defends science as always and only coming up with correct answers, so science is stupid and not worth considering" Correct me if I've missed something there,

What you've described is bad science that leads to invalid conclusions, and is done far more rarely than you seem to say. In fact, commercial research is actually not all that common at all anymore, and that is where your "Have to conclude the right thing" mentality was actually a problem.

My issue is your claim that science is constantly "concluding" that God does or does not exist. I think that is ridiculous. I think there is not a scientist around whose experiment's thesis is "Does God exist or not" I think very strongly that if good evidence suggested the existance of God, that good scientists would believe in God. I think the main reason most scientists don't believe in God is that none of the evidence they've come across suggests such to them.

Science is invulnerable to the folly of "Concluding I'm right no matter what" because the Scientific Method doesn't allow for such an absolute conclusion. Religion not only allows for such a conclusion, in many cases it demands it. That is the weakness of religion.

[ZanasoBayncuh]

Re: Religious people aren't as smart as Atheists

So...you seem to be saying "All scientists will lie outright about discovery in order to maintain funding, and all scientists believe that they are 100% correct, and therefore everyone defends science as always and only coming up with correct answers, so science is stupid and not worth considering" Correct me if I've missed something there,

What I'm saying is that people act as if ALL of it is completely pure and without infidelity.

What you've described is bad science that leads to invalid conclusions, and is done far more rarely than you seem to say. In fact, commercial research is actually not all that common at all anymore, and that is where your "Have to conclude the right thing" mentality was actually a problem.

I'm not saying that it always happens, what I'm trying to point out is that as it does happen more than we would like to think, and more often than the scientific body would like to portray.

My issue is your claim that science is constantly "concluding" that God does or does not exist. I think that is ridiculous.

I must apologize, the phrasology that I was using was very influenced by past debates where people who are desparate to make a point will turn to anything that they can, be it relevant or not. Saying that "It has been scientifically proven that certain paint compounds can be toxic, which is proof for evolution, and this means God does not exist." (actual argument, I kid you not) And I was writing partly in angst to this mentality. You know, the type that will somehow find a way to excerpt blasphemy from the existance of gravity, and ONLY gravity.

I think there is not a scientist around whose experiment's thesis is "Does God exist or not" I think very strongly that if good evidence suggested the existance of God, that good scientists would believe in God. I think the main reason most scientists don't believe in God is that none of the evidence they've come across suggests such to them.

It's true that the majority of scientists are atheistic, I have no evidence that the poll I've seen is true, but it stated that the atheistic population in the scientific community is 53%... which leaves the remaining 47% to be whatever religious preference that believes in a higher power. But why does not the 47% that believes not a concern at all? Because to be told truthfully, this argument means little to nothing, a lot of people, or hell, EVERYONE can believe something and be completely wrong. And in any testiment to human capacity, we are probably all wrong, the standard theists and the everyday atheists could both be wrong. There could be higher powers out there, giggling at the very idea of being called things like "God" or "omniprescent", and even more entertained at the idea that we are trying to talk to them like they care.

Science is invulnerable to the folly of "Concluding I'm right no matter what" because the Scientific Method doesn't allow for such an absolute conclusion. Religion not only allows for such a conclusion, in many cases it demands it. That is the weakness of religion.

You seem to have the idea that I'm speaking partisanly, by that last sentence. But as for the rest of it, yes there is Scientific Method, by which no one... or at least no science textbook that I've seen can even agree to how many steps there are or what they are past the first two. The fact is anyone could test something get some results then say they got other results and get several to attest to it. Not every other group has the time to spend testing every little result out there especially when they agree with the findings naturally and biasly. It isn't necessarily a big conspiracy... if someone walked up to you and asked a question based on opinion, offering you a possible answer, if that answers sounds good to you then you might not bother looking into it. All it takes from time to time is liar #1.

[devonin]

Re: Religious people aren't as smart as Atheists

What I'm saying is that people act as if ALL of it is completely pure and without infidelity.

Some people, I suppose, just don't have a proper understanding of how science works. Those people, who simply accept everything scientists say as the equivalent of holy writ, are in my opinion an exception not a rule.

I must apologize, the phrasology that I was using was very influenced by past debates where people who are desparate to make a point will turn to anything that they can, be it relevant or not. Saying that "It has been scientifically proven that certain paint compounds can be toxic, which is proof for evolution, and this means God does not exist." (actual argument, I kid you not) And I was writing partly in angst to this mentality. You know, the type that will somehow find a way to excerpt blasphemy from the existance of gravity, and ONLY gravity.

Once again, some experience with people who don't understand what they are talking about should not be used to draw conclusions about the whole of the people. Religious people who consider themselves to be reasonable and intelligent -hate it- (and rightly so!) when people point to the few pure fundamentalists who insist on a ludicrous position on things like transubstantiation, the literal interpretation of the bible etc. So why should it be okay in turn, to point to the pure fundamentalists of science who claim that all science is correct and infallible as being indicative of the scientific community as a whole?

You seem to have the idea that I'm speaking partisanly, by that last sentence. But as for the rest of it, yes there is Scientific Method, by which no one... or at least no science textbook that I've seen can even agree to how many steps there are or what they are past the first two.

My point had nothing to do with the particular mechanics of the scientific method. I was pointing to the fact that one existed at all to be a strength of science, because the Scientific method, whichever iteration you prefer, is based on testing, experimentation, and requires you to have provably, verifiable, testable, repeatable processes to justify your conclusions. And once those conclusions are made, anyone is allowed if not encouraged to challenge the evidence, the basis for the test and any other aspect of the process. Religion lacks such an encouragement which is why I said that it is the weakness of religion. Once religion has drawn a conclusion, you are to simply accept it. Once science has drawn a conclusion, you are simply to continue challenging it to the best of your ability.

The fact is anyone could test something get some results then say they got other results and get several to attest to it. Not every other group has the time to spend testing every little result out there especially when they agree with the findings naturally and biasly.

But the -real- fact is (That is, the fact that is relevant) is that anone who -wants- to spend the time testing the results is freely able to do so, and if they test the results and find them wanting, and say so, the scientific community will analyze both sets of information and make the decision as to which seems to bear the closest resemblance to reality. As opposed to declaring the dissenting view heresy and burning some books.

It isn't necessarily a big conspiracy... if someone walked up to you and asked a question based on opinion, offering you a possible answer, if that answers sounds good to you then you might not bother looking into it. All it takes from time to time is liar #1.

So because some people can lie, and some people don't care to fact-check, the entire scientific process is called into question? If you don't bother checking that what you've been told is actually the case, that is a failing of you, individually. That is not a failing of science or of analysis.

[ZanasoBayncuh]

Re: Religious people aren't as smart as Atheists

So because some people can lie, and some people don't care to fact-check, the entire scientific process is called into question? If you don't bother checking that what you've been told is actually the case, that is a failing of you, individually. That is not a failing of science or of analysis.

Because I am experiencing a bit of my food poisoning symptoms coming back, and they are quite painful and I'm getting foggy headed, I will only attempt to embarass myself by responding to this part without my full mental capacity as it is rather difficult to think at absolute clarity with what may as well be a cloud of pins and needles in the center of my forehead.

For the most part, I'm saying what I'm saying in the area of things that the average person, and quite possibly very few scientific institutions can actually test. Then there are "scientific conclusions" that really, in their original thought, are nothing but individual assumption that eventually gets agreed with. An untestable aspect that is accepted because it makes sense to another scientist who happens to believe the same ideology/theology (whatever you'd like to call it). What I'm mostly saying, is not that all science is bogus, and not that most of it is, not even that half of it is. But what I can easily say is... here I'll put it like this. If you have a huge math problem, countless variables, sure you can put it into a computer and get the right answer... but if part of your information is falsified, even one part of it... then the rest of your equation is moot, completely destroyed, because you are now moving in the wrong direction. It's really a bad metaphor, I know, I'm operating at partial capacity. But probably a better metaphor would be, if I were to give you a hundred 'facts' and I simply told you "one of these is an outright lie and I know it for a fact." Assuming that I'm not lying that there's a falsehood within the list... how do you, the common man, know which one in the list is the fallacy? Common sense and firsthand knowledge can only eliminate so many of them.

...please be gentle with me for right now, I'm certain that after I sleep or if I give it a couple of hours, I'll probably look at this post I'm writing right now and slap the headache right back into my head... but maybe if we can get a lighthearted chuckle out of the next post I won't be too bad off.

For the most part, I think we both agree on one thing, there's a lot of bull****. Truth is, there's a lot of bull**** on both sides, LOTS OF IT. And that should always lead to Dasken's view of "If the atheists are right, it doesn't matter what I believe."

[Xx{Midnight}xX]

Re: Religious people aren't as smart as Atheists

You can't judge IQ based on if a person is religous or not. It doen't work that studies full of lies. My friends who are religous are acually doing better in school than me. There is no way to prove without an invalid result that religous people are dumber.

[Tokzic]

Re: Religious people aren't as smart as Atheists

What I'm mostly saying, is not that all science is bogus, and not that most of it is, not even that half of it is. But what I can easily say is... here I'll put it like this. If you have a huge math problem, countless variables, sure you can put it into a computer and get the right answer... but if part of your information is falsified, even one part of it... then the rest of your equation is moot, completely destroyed, because you are now moving in the wrong direction. It's really a bad metaphor, I know, I'm operating at partial capacity. But probably a better metaphor would be, if I were to give you a hundred 'facts' and I simply told you "one of these is an outright lie and I know it for a fact." Assuming that I'm not lying that there's a falsehood within the list... how do you, the common man, know which one in the list is the fallacy? Common sense and firsthand knowledge can only eliminate so many of them.

...please be gentle with me for right now, I'm certain that after I sleep or if I give it a couple of hours, I'll probably look at this post I'm writing right now and slap the headache right back into my head... but maybe if we can get a lighthearted chuckle out of the next post I won't be too bad off.

For the most part, I think we both agree on one thing, there's a lot of bull****. Truth is, there's a lot of bull**** on both sides, LOTS OF IT. And that should always lead to Dasken's view of "If the atheists are right, it doesn't matter what I believe."

You don't seem to have a very keen grasp on science or sociology. Science is not a conspiracy out to kill us all. Science is based on logical conclusions, and your metaphors are completely uncomparable to what it's really like.

For one, you act as though every single scientific claim is based on the scientific claim before it. Science isn't a series. Making a false claim that drinking coffee every day gives you huge muscles doesn't mean that the guy after him who claims that people have skin is automatically wrong.

The bigger problem, however, is that people aren't sheep - when one scientist makes a claim, it is going to be subject to double-checking and criticism from the entire scientific community. It's not like when someone says "HEY GUYS DID YOU KNOW THAT I JUST DID A STUDY AND IT TURNS OUT THAT THERE'S A CABBAGE FACTORY IN THE MOON'S CORE IT'S SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN" every single scientist goes "oh okay well if it's scientifically proven then i have no problems with it". Theories are constantly checked against one another and further delved into, and usually flaws get found out pretty quickly.

In any case, none of what you're arguing has any context with the topic at hand. There is no scientific evidence being hidden from us that proves that your religion is right. Theories that contradict your religion weren't made by evil fake scientists out to ruin your day. None of this has anything to do with intelligence in relation to belief in or rejection of a god.

[ZanasoBayncuh]

Re: Religious people aren't as smart as Atheists

You don't seem to have a very keen grasp on science or sociology. Science is not a conspiracy out to kill us all. Science is based on logical conclusions, and your metaphors are completely uncomparable to what it's really like.

Headache at the time, I said in the post that I felt poorly and wasn't going to be incredibly lucid.

For one, you act as though every single scientific claim is based on the scientific claim before it. Science isn't a series. Making a false claim that drinking coffee every day gives you huge muscles doesn't mean that the guy after him who claims that people have skin is automatically wrong.

Actually that's not what I'm doing at all. What I'm implying is that when you get a bad answer to one question, you are led to ask wrong questions of the next problem, the original fallacy can be either of a mistake or a lie and we can no longer tell the difference because by then we have gotten that much further into wrong questions. Or they could all be right altogether, I am not necessarily debating what has been right or what has been wrong, or what is currently now. But my prodding was more in the line of, (exaggerated, I know) "I have determined sky is green. But if sky is green. Why do I see blue?"

The bigger problem, however, is that people aren't sheep - when one scientist makes a claim, it is going to be subject to double-checking and criticism from the entire scientific community. It's not like when someone says "HEY GUYS DID YOU KNOW THAT I JUST DID A STUDY AND IT TURNS OUT THAT THERE'S A CABBAGE FACTORY IN THE MOON'S CORE IT'S SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN" every single scientist goes "oh okay well if it's scientifically proven then i have no problems with it". Theories are constantly checked against one another and further delved into, and usually flaws get found out pretty quickly.

This seems to have been written without having noticed what we mentioned earlier. It is logical, once you think about it, as many "scientists" as there are moving about and everyone on their own types of tasks and such that not every small claim or finding is necessarily likely to be given the time of double checking by multiple groups. It isn't that most aren't, but no one could possibly say with full clarity that nothing slips through the cracks, it's human error and it is everywhere regardless of our efforts to minimize it.

In any case, none of what you're arguing has any context with the topic at hand.

I agree... however I'm pretty sure that it was easily enough established that IQ and a person's choice of belief or theology are not relevant factors in the first place. So devonin and I (I assume he/she was aware) took it in a different direction. It is likely that this is largely due to the fact that he/she and I were the only two posting at the time. No biggie, I'll just let it get back to the topic and stop posting here after this since there's really nothing left to say on the topic past the fact of the two key factors of the topic being absolutely irrelevant to each other.

There is no scientific evidence being hidden from us that proves that your religion is right. Theories that contradict your religion weren't made by evil fake scientists out to ruin your day.

That isn't what I was saying. Though, no offense, this is very cliche of a response and goes along with what I was saying earlier about people placing science in this "magical, can never do wrong" pedistal.

None of this has anything to do with intelligence in relation to belief in or rejection of a god.

Agreed, I'm gonna go quietly now, having enjoyed this conversation. Hope I haven't particularly gotten on anyone's nerves, just came and spoke for one reason really: I like debate, it makes me think.

"We learned to talk and we learned to listen. Speech has allowed the communication of ideas, enabling human beings to work together to build the impossible. Mankind's greatest achievements have come about by talking, and its greatest failures by not talking. It doesn't have to be like this. Our greatest hopes could become reality in the future. With the technology at our disposal, the possibilities are unbounded. All we need to do is make sure we keep talking." ~Steven Hawking