Professor claims that religious people have a lower IQ than atheists.

[Loki77]

Last night I read an interesting article in online edition of the Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet.no, which stated that a danish professor Helmuth Nyborg from the University of Aarhus claims that religious people have a lower IQ than atheists. http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2007/01/28/490228.html


(Dagbladet.no): Atheists do statistically have a higher IQ than devout religious people. A new survey done by the Danish Helmuth Nyborg, a professor in development psychology, based on an American survey shows this, according to the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. The researcher claims that the difference between the IQ of the believers and non-believers is 5.8 points.

- I am not saying that believing in God makes you dumber. My hypothesis is that people with a low intelligence is more easily drawn towards religions, which give answers that are certain, while people with a high intelligence are more sceptical, the 70-year-old professor says, which has recently retired after a long controverse with the University of Aarhus.


The study is based on a survey made among 7,000 people in the U.S., the so-called National Longitudinal Study of Youth. It contains intelligence tests on a representative selection of the American youth, where they have also replied to questions about religious belief.

This is not the first controversal survey done by the professor. He is maybe mostly known for his research results claiming that men have a higher IQ than women, and has for instance said to the Norwegian newspaper VG that stupid people should not get children.

His survey among men and women about their intelligence received harsh criticism from an investigation committee, and the professor lost his job at the University of Aarhus. But later the criticism was taken back, after several American professors thought that Nyborg and his politically incorrect research was a victim of a witch hunt. Nyborg, which is now continuing his researching career as a private person, admits that also deeply religious people can be intelligent. His main point is that there are a lot less believers in the higher end of the intelligence scale, while the Atheists share is growing.

But what religion you're believe in is also a factor here, Nyborg thinks.

- If you're highly talented, you have a tendency to choose a religion or worldview that gives you a greater intellectual satisfaction and most likely throw away a religion that requires blind faith, he says.

The survey receives criticism from Bente Pakkenberg for instance.

- I don't doubt his data, but I think one should be more careful with the interpretation of it. It is crystal clear that one gets exactly what one is asking for in intelligence tests. The tests might be favoring certain academical skills, which could also affect our religious choices, but we can most likely not use it to say anything about the individual's belief, the professor says.

[Herrmannek]

Terrible... On the other side I've seen survey that suicide bombers have a higher IQ than people loving life. Don't know whats worse...

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Terrible... On the other side I've seen survey that suicide bombers have a higher IQ than people loving life. Don't know whats worse...

How could anyone possibly tell. It's not like they have to do an exam to become a suicide bomber! :)

I think all religion is b0ll0cks but there is simply no way of saying that religious or atheistic people have different intelligence levels. IQ tests are unreliable anyway because they are so culturally biased.

[MoFo]

For us atheists, this news is positively extravagant!

[AgentX]

Atheists must have the same level of IQ as their religious counterparts, for their disbelief is no more viable than the belief of religious people. For this very reason, atheism is only a religon with anti-god agenda.

I, personally, can't say for sure if there are any supreme beings watching us with keen interest. I would soon get pretty bored doing this.

[Herrmannek]

How could anyone possibly tell. It's not like they have to do an exam to become a suicide bomber! :)

Actually its quite easy. Researchers noted unnaturally high levels of people with scientific degree among suicide bombers :)

[Bitogno]

Actually its quite easy. Researchers noted unnaturally high levels of people with scientific degree among suicide bombers :)
May be because the other fanatics don't know how to push the button.rofl

[seraosha]

The logic used to verify these "results" was skewed from the beginning.
where is the sample group, what specific region/culture/economic scale etc...

This seems a bit self-gratification oriented to me.

[Hollis]

That probably comes from the leftist model of cultural evolution. In that view religion is a "lower" form of human behavior.

I really think atheist are some of the biggest evangelist and "believers" out there at times. They preach the gospel of No Religion. I just have a problem with any type of evangelist.

[sir-chimp]

Sad

Could you imagine the out cry had the professor suggested the reverse?

[Herrmannek]

Not so old research in Poland shown that children(no one investigated their faith) of catholic parents end with better grades, higher level of education, and higher pay than other children.

[tsuri]

It´s not suprising but does not tell us anything we do not yet know.

Technically what he did was probably a Scheinkorrelation (do the Anglos even have a word for that) by which he assumes that a Variable A can be represented by B, whereas B actually just shows C.

To say it so even I can understand it:

A larger percentage of educated people are atheists than of normal people. So what he did was indirectly measure that people of higher education have statistically a larger IQ than people of lower education, which is kinda self evident.

Instead of meausuring atheism, he has probably measured education.

If he re-ran the test and chose specific groups of society, e.g. only non academics or only academics, there would probably not be any correlation left.


a religion or worldview that gives you a greater intellectual satisfaction and most likely throw away a religion that requires blind faith
All religions require blind fatih. You are supposed to believe in something without any scientific proof. How can you do that without blind faith?

[kosse]

Not so old research in Poland shown that children(no one investigated their faith) of catholic parents end with better grades, higher level of education, and higher pay than other children.
Would that be due to fact it is beneficial to belong to a church in a society that is strongly affected by religion. That does not necessarily mean they are religious (Like in Finland, 86% christians, maybe 6% care enough to actually go to church).

[rb132]

are people who believe in god deluded?


-yes



are people who believe in god stupid?


-not neccesarily

[thscott83]

Though he means on average... (hehe)

Aquinas, Kierkegaard, C.S. Lewis, St. Augustine and William James were not idiots.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Actually its quite easy. Researchers noted unnaturally high levels of people with scientific degree among suicide bombers :)

That is most definitely NOT the same as saying they are more intelligent.

[thscott83]

How would you measure the intelligence of a suicide bomber? Weigh the amount of identified brain matter recovered?

[Herrmannek]

Would that be due to fact it is beneficial to belong to a church in a society that is strongly affected by religion. That does not necessarily mean they are religious (Like in Finland, 86% christians, maybe 6% care enough to actually go to church).

They weren't simply declared catholics, but practicing ones. practicing ones are 60% of declared and declared are 90% of population... As for secondary benefits, there is no such thing... Poles are really good at separating private matters from professional ones , actually making any statements about you private matters can only hinder you... We are taboo driven society...

[oldsoak]

Eh ? WTF is this ? Each to his own !

[Herrmannek]

That is most definitely NOT the same as saying they are more intelligent.

This is best estimator we can get... like someone above said weighting a brain tissue of the suicide bomber may be a tricky process.... :)

[a_very_ex_STAB]

This is best estimator we can get... like someone above said weighting a brain tissue of the suicide bomber may be a tricky process.... :)

There is no point in making an estimation. It's not relevant to anything.

[kosse]

It´s not suprising but does not tell us anything we do not yet know.

Technically what he did was probably a Scheinkorrelation (do the Anglos even have a word for that) by which he assumes that a Variable A can be represented by B, whereas B actually just shows C.

To say it so even I can understand it:

A larger percentage of educated people are atheists than of normal people. So what he did was indirectly measure that people of higher education have statistically a larger IQ than people of lower education, which is kinda self evident.

Instead of meausuring atheism, he has probably measured education.

If he re-ran the test and chose specific groups of society, e.g. only non academics or only academics, there would probably not be any correlation left.


Sounds a bit too obvious for someone that has propably been conducting studies for decades to fall in.

[kosse]

They weren't simply declared catholics, but practicing ones. practicing ones are 60% of declared and declared are 90% of population... As for secondary benefits, there is no such thing... Poles are really good at separating private matters from professional ones , actually making any statements about you private matters can only hinder you... We are taboo driven society...
Haha sure. You poles must be so much above the rest of us. What's a practising catholic anyway? Once a year in a church? No way that 60% is possible otherwise or the other option is that you are ultra religious bunch of people compared to just about every nation on earth. All in all, I must say that it sounds like a really exceptional religious community if it really does not support it's members.

To the point, don't you see that you don't need more than seen to go to church and you'll benefit? A doctor who goes to church or a doctor who does not take part in that certain community activity..both equal in terms of professionalism. Who do religious people go to? Or that nice boy who goes to church and that other boy who does not - God knows what satanic acts he engages in!?! Let's see to whom I give that summer job to.. Don't pretend you poles are better in that sense than the rest of us. Same goes for just about every profession. Smart people benefit.

[Kaapeli]

Not so old research in Poland shown that children(no one investigated their faith) of catholic parents end with better grades, higher level of education, and higher pay than other children.

Do you have catholic schools in Poland? And are they possibly superior to the public ones?

[kosse]

Do you have catholic schools in Poland? And are they possibly superior to the public ones?
This is another good point and an interesting aspect. Religious clubs usually take care of their members (although Hermannek is trying to claim that it does not matter if you hold a membership card or not).

[strjela]

Maybe religious people see this as a news. I don't.

[Quietscheentchen]

*yawn*
iq-tests, wow, interesting that they still seem to have such an influence on people's opinions...among my friends there are atheists, agnostics, religious people. honestly, i can't see any difference between them regarding their intelligence...
and what is also interesting: the article seems to put all "sceptical" people into the atheistic corner...my agnostic friends wouldn't be very amused about that...

[Superking]

Maybe religious people see this as a news. I don't.

Fixed it for you.

[Herrmannek]

Do you have catholic schools in Poland? And are they possibly superior to the public ones?

Yup they are usually better than public ones(by hardship and discipline rather than anything else), but not many of them quite few actually, and they are for everyone not only catholics, I don't know anyone who finished any sort of catholic school :)

As for numbers they are true, numbers are taken two times a year in ordinary Sunday, people are counted walking out of churches...

No one ever asked about my religion and I never told anyone, of course except my friends on the social ground. What the hell has my faith to the mark from mathematics exam i don't know :). No one put thats in their CV or motivation letter, better no mention you are religious guy on job interview this will make more harm than good, as I said we are taboo driven society. Actually I don't know if my friends are religious except few the closest ones I know everything else about and of course those I know from religious events...

[Lazy Lob]

Atheists must have the same level of IQ as their religious counterparts, for their disbelief is no more viable than the belief of religious people. For this very reason, atheism is only a religon with anti-god agenda.

You are quite wrong. I am an atheist and it is not a religion at all, quite the opposite. For me it is the very lack of an agenda that defines atheism.

The one thing that sends a shiver down my spine is proselytism in all its guises. When if I don’t bite I am condemned to some sort of hell or compared to something less than human. As far as IQ’s go, I don’t really give a toss.

[Loki77]

That probably comes from the leftist model of cultural evolution. In that view religion is a "lower" form of human behavior.
Why???
Marxism was the promise that we could actually create the Kingdom of God...


I really think atheist are some of the biggest evangelist and "believers" out there at times. They preach the gospel of No Religion. I just have a problem with any type of evangelist.
..Atheists are not brainwashed by a fairy tale and do not live in a fantasy world.

[AgentX]

You are quite wrong. I am an atheist and it is not a religion at all, quite the opposite. For me it is the very lack of an agenda that defines atheism.
I can see why people chose not to be religous at all. I'm one of them. But, being an atheist means that you *know* that no such god or supreme being(s) exist. Since this argument cannot be falsified, it's hardly a scientific fact. So it falls under the same category as that of the religions - blind faith.

I'm an agnostic.

[Hunterhr]

..Atheists are not brainwashed by a fairy tale and do not live in a fantasy world.

Well, you just blew Professor Nyborg's research out of the water.

A bit angry at your parents for making you get up to go to church on Sunday perhaps?

[Belrick]

So whats the big deal?

The average IQ for believers in invisible dead people floating among clouds in the sky is lower than those that require proof.

Sounds logical to me and its not like the study claims to be able to predict individuals IQ based on there religious beliefs or lack there of.

[mi35d]

My hypothesis is that people with a low intelligence is more easily drawn towards religions,

Just me or is that just really bad English? Bad translation maybe or maybe he's really, really, religious.

[Kojo]

Simplest answer is allways the right one, if you can't explain something. Making **** up is never the right answer, for it only bites you in the ass later on, by making things even more complicated than they really are or just making you look like a fool :) Still can't belief Occam was a devout christian tho, when he came up with this logic ... :)

[Thor]

Why???
Marxism was the promise that we could actually create the Kingdom of God...
No, marxism was nothing but a self-chosen fews attempt to gain power through a traditional strategy based on divide and conquer. Their aim was to manufacture revolutions (financed from Wall Street) to bring down nations, destroy European civilisation, and make proud peoples subjects to a new a international ruling class. They saw their chance in feeding the problems that followed the wave of drastic transformations caused by industrialization, urbanization, and the first world war.

[khukuri]

Atheists must have the same level of IQ as their religious counterparts, for their disbelief is no more viable than the belief of religious people. For this very reason, atheism is only a religon with anti-god agenda.

I, personally, can't say for sure if there are any supreme beings watching us with keen interest. I would soon get pretty bored doing this.


prettty well put!


I just say i dont believe in anything

[IraGlacialis]

Though he means on average... (hehe)

Aquinas, Kierkegaard, C.S. Lewis, St. Augustine and William James were not idiots.
Lewis was a bigot (even though I like his books). But that's not the point.

I bet that I could do a study that comes to the conclusion that the dead are smarter than the living and be perfectly right. I mean, you don't see the dead do anything stupid. :grin:
Surveys can be slanted to any direction you want and still be perfectly true.

[Loki77]

No, marxism was nothing but a self-chosen fews attempt to gain power through a traditional strategy based on divide and conquer. Their aim was to manufacture revolutions (financed from Wall Street) to bring down nations, destroy European civilisation, and make proud peoples subjects to a new a international ruling class. They saw their chance in feeding the problems that followed the wave of drastic transformations caused by industrialization, urbanization, and the first world war.

Very true...



However, religion isn't only a matter of personal faith, but of political and social context as well. Sees both examples, the Christian promise of eternal paradise and the Marxism promise of paradise on earth. How I said Marxism is a religion. Ironically, Marxism has been tried a worker’s paradise. But, only brought the exploitation and subjugation of the worker...

[Hollis]

Why???
Marxism was the promise that we could actually create the Kingdom of God...


..Atheists are not brainwashed by a fairy tale and do not live in a fantasy world.


LOL, Atheist have their own fantasies, BTW, atheist like any other groups could represent all sorts of variations of the "atheistic" view. I met many self proclaimed Atheist that were really anti-religionists. I met very very few who read dialectical materialism or even knew what materialism is.

The sad fact is religion and philosophy are the same. religious people will greatly deny that and so will "philosophers". One might say religious people are philosophers who accept some kind of deity and Philosophers are religious people who reject any kind of deity. Both provide world view.

[Pook2]

Sure he has a higher IQ, but common sense? Now that's another story...

[LRPV]

The most interesting aspect of this article is the type of responses teased out from members.:roll: Awaiting more threads like "is the pontiff infallible?" and "is there a heaven?".

[ArmyJonHall]

Simplest answer is allways the right one, if you can't explain something.
If you're talking about Occam's Razor, it acutally goes "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one." Just because you can't explain something doesn't neccesarily make the simplest story about it 100% correct.

[akd]

Terrible... On the other side I've seen survey that suicide bombers have a higher IQ than people loving life. Don't know whats worse...

You are confused about the study. An extensive survey has proved that Unabombers are geniuses.


Atheists must have the same level of IQ as their religious counterparts, for their disbelief is no more viable than the belief of religious people. For this very reason, atheism is only a religon with anti-god agenda.


Religion is just a religion with a pro-god agenda. :P

[Wolfe117]

While I respect a person's right to believe what they want to believe and worship whatever they want I do not understand the desire to live a life with religious ideas. Being a born and raised atheist I just have no place in my mind for pondering if there is a god or if living by the bible would make me a more moral person.

What I find troublesome about religion is this, that some people believe so blindly in their faith that they are willing to kill or die for it. From my perspective the only difference between a devout religious person and a trekie is that the trekie knows that the stories he knows by heart are fiction. Also the trekie isn't willing to blow himself up for William Shatner.

I hope that religion becomes less and less a cause of conflict in our future.

[Hunterhr]

What I find troublesome about religion is this, that some people believe so blindly in their faith that they are willing to kill or die for it.

Humans have no problems finding causes they are willing to die for. Religious or not.

[Wolfe117]

Humans have no problems finding causes they are willing to die for. Religious or not.

Of course I just wish that more people thought about the consequences of fighting to expand their religions power over the world. Or for that matter valued this life more than what their afterlife will be like.

The only reason I think that there is good just cause for killing or fighting is to defend one's own survival or the safety of your home.

[Doublethinker]

IQ doesn't record intellectual level. It only shows how fast a man can handle situations with logical puzzles.

Moreover, the more you solve'em, the "higher" your IQ gets.

[Doublethinker]

While I respect a person's right to believe what they want to believe and worship whatever they want I do not understand the desire to live a life with religious ideas. Being a born and raised atheist I just have no place in my mind for pondering if there is a god or if living by the bible would make me a more moral person.


Perhaps, you have no place in your mind for any concerns which surpass the day-to-day experience at all?



What I find troublesome about religion is this, that some people believe so blindly in their faith that they are willing to kill or die for it.


Yeah, right. See China, Stalin's Ussr, Soviet Albania, Soviet Mongolia, North Korea to see how peace-loving atheists can be ;)

[sferrin]

How would you measure the intelligence of a suicide bomber? Weigh the amount of identified brain matter recovered?

How many attempts he made before he succeeded ;)

[sferrin]

While I respect a person's right to believe what they want to believe and worship whatever they want I do not understand the desire to live a life with religious ideas. Being a born and raised atheist I just have no place in my mind for pondering if there is a god or if living by the bible would make me a more moral person.

What I find troublesome about religion is this, that some people believe so blindly in their faith that they are willing to kill or die for it. From my perspective the only difference between a devout religious person and a trekie is that the trekie knows that the stories he knows by heart are fiction. Also the trekie isn't willing to blow himself up for William Shatner.

I hope that religion becomes less and less a cause of conflict in our future.

you never saw the picture of the chick who showed up for jury duty wearing a Star Trek uniform did you?

http://www.cnn.com/US/fringe/9603/03-14/trek.html

[Kant]

I'm not a big fan of religion, but this is just stupid.
Pascalé was in no way obtuse.
Mind you, I've heard arguments put forward by Falwell,Robertson etc that make me wonder.

[SoliDeoGloria]

I know several dozen soldiers in the Rangers, SF groups, and Delta who are believers in God and are quite religious...does that make them less of an intelligent soldier? Obviously not..

[Calanen]

Atheists must have the same level of IQ as their religious counterparts, for their disbelief is no more viable than the belief of religious people. For this very reason, atheism is only a religon with anti-god agenda.

I, personally, can't say for sure if there are any supreme beings watching us with keen interest. I would soon get pretty bored doing this.

Atheism is not a religion with an anti-god agenda, no more than if I say that the pothole in the road was not made by the Pink Unicorn, is an example of my anti-pink unicorn agenda. The default position in any scientific setting must be that something does not exist and we do not believe in it until it has been supported by observable or quantifiable facts. To hold otherwise, just gives rise to an infinite number of mythical beings, places, and locations, which must all be believed, validated and accepted because they cannot be 'disproven' to the satisfaction of the religious.

Religion requires 'faith' - atheism does not require any faith at all. It is the absence of faith, like not believing that Santa Claus is on the North Pole (although you will not get very good Christmas presents if you do).

[Wolfe117]

Perhaps, you have no place in your mind for any concerns which surpass the day-to-day experience at all?

Well considering I am deeply concerned about the safety and security of my country's democracy and the state of democracy over the long term in the world I'd have to disagree with you on that. The existence of the western democratic world isn't just a day to day experience, its a long term venture.




Yeah, right. See China, Stalin's Ussr, Soviet Albania, Soviet Mongolia, North Korea to see how peace-loving atheists can be ;)

Yeah and David Koresh was such a peace loving religious man as well. It is pointless to bring up examples of agreesive religious people or atheists. Being either doesn't insulate you from conflict and I never said it did. All I said is that hopefully religion becomes less and less something people are willing to fight and kill for. It has been well documented the various conflicts and wars that at their roots had religion as a catalyst for their ignitions. It would be nice to see something that most people believe in for peace, to cease being used as a reason for war.

Also North Korean isn't a good example of a atheist nation. Kim Jong Il is more of a cult leader than a Soviet style strongman. In their schools children are taught that Kim's family is decended from divine blood, the stuff of gods. I don't know what's scarier that the DPRK now has nuclear weapons or that the people there actually believe that Kim is decended from gods. But I guess it shouldn't surprise anyone that if you indoctrinate and teach children from a early age they will believe anything you want them to. Especially when they live in areas that are as isolated as Northwest Pakistan or North Korea.
http://www.dprkstudies.org/2006/03/06/the-north-korean-cult-and-information/

[Wolfe117]

you never saw the picture of the chick who showed up for jury duty wearing a Star Trek uniform did you?

http://www.cnn.com/US/fringe/9603/03-14/trek.html


I saw that, she was in the movie documentary trekies, good laugh.

[Lazy Lob]

The problem here is one’s personal definition of atheism, even an established definition whatever that may mean can be argued. When does atheism become agnosticism? If you give it some thought it’s a tricky question. Atheism is our lack of belief and to a greater degree the little or no thought we give it. I do not even try to prove the lack of god’s existence. So some people’s definition of atheism is a pointless argument that just goes round in circles. Great if you believe in an afterlife but I have only one life and I’ve got the internet. p-)

It boils down to burden of proof. Believers believe without any proof, their standard argument now goes “then prove god doesn’t exist”. We can’t, and that isn’t really the point. It is now up to the individual whether these two POVs are equally valid. For me atheism is emancipation through knowledge and not through blind faith. We all have crossovers into both of these realms but not necessarily involving deities.

I refuse to belief the assertion that god exists. Can we prove definitely he does not exist? Of course not but here we enter a branch of philosophy and metaphysics, an absurd one at that and includes pixies, fairies and the like.

AgentX has established one definition and his interpretation as fact. Is lack of belief a belief in itself? I believe (pun intended) it isn’t. We are arguing on his terms. As some one said “words are slippery things”.

Hows that? ;-)

Food for thought from Infidels.org

There are many counter-examples to such a statement. For example, it is quite simple to prove that there does not exist a prime number larger than all other prime numbers. Of course, this deals with well-defined objects obeying well-defined rules. Whether Gods or universes are similarly well-defined is a matter for debate.

However, assuming for the moment that the existence of a God is not provably impossible, there are still subtle reasons for assuming the nonexistence of God. If we assume that something does not exist, it is always possible to show that this assumption is invalid by finding a single counter-example.

If on the other hand we assume that something does exist, and if the thing in question is not provably impossible, showing that the assumption is invalid may require an exhaustive search of all possible places where such a thing might be found, to show that it isn't there. Such an exhaustive search is often impractical or impossible. There is no such problem with largest primes, because we can prove that they don't exist.

Therefore it is generally accepted that we must assume things do not exist unless we have evidence that they do. Even theists follow this rule most of the time; they don't believe in unicorns, even though they can't conclusively prove that no unicorns exist anywhere.

To assume that God exists is to make an assumption which probably cannot be tested. We cannot make an exhaustive search of everywhere God might be to prove that he doesn't exist anywhere. So the sceptical atheist assumes by default that God does not exist, since that is an assumption we can test.

Those who profess strong atheism usually do not claim that no sort of God exists; instead, they generally restrict their claims so as to cover varieties of God described by followers of various religions. So whilst it may be impossible to prove conclusively that no God exists, it may be possible to prove that (say) a God as described by a particular religious book does not exist. It may even be possible to prove that no God described by any present-day religion exists.

In practice, believing that no God described by any religion exists is very close to believing that no God exists. However, it is sufficiently different that counter-arguments based on the impossibility of disproving every kind of God are not really applicable.

[Wolfe117]

Atheism is not a religion with an anti-god agenda, no more than if I say that the pothole in the road was not made by the Pink Unicorn, is an example of my anti-pink unicorn agenda. The default position in any scientific setting must be that something does not exist and we do not believe in it until it has been supported by observable or quantifiable facts. To hold otherwise, just gives rise to an infinite number of mythical beings, places, and locations, which must all be believed, validated and accepted because they cannot be 'disproven' to the satisfaction of the religious.

Religion requires 'faith' - atheism does not require any faith at all. It is the absence of faith, like not believing that Santa Claus is on the North Pole (although you will not get very good Christmas presents if you do).

Good point. It is more a belief in seeing proof that drives atheism. Frankly I was a bit offended when a bunch of religious kids in my elementary class branded me as an atheist so many years ago. It sounded like a religion or a belief system to me. At the time I figured it was just another word that religious people use to brand non-believers.

To me I'm just a human being who believes in what can be measured, observed or quantified. One who believes in democracy and justice as principles to guide my life. There's just no religious thought in my mind because to do so would require me to believe in something you can't test or prove.

[dangerclose]

All that means is that there'll be more intellectuals in hell.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

All that means is that there'll be more intellectuals in hell.

Personally I'd rather end up making like a toast rack for 'Old Nick' than spend eternity locked up in heaven with a load of God bothering twats.:)

[Sheikh Al Stranghi]

Personally I'd rather end up making like a toast rack for 'Old Nick' than spend eternity locked up in heaven with a load of God bothering twats.:)
Haha, great :)

Although I don't believe in any gods or spiritual beings, I think the people who do are not more and not less than atheists. It's just a different way of living, and how you are raised. People can be shaped into any form, they just need other people to do it for them. If someone hears he/she's ugly a thousand times, he/she'll start to believe that.

[Herrmannek]

All that means is that there'll be more intellectuals in hell.

Its not called hell without a reason :)

[DaGreatRV]

Haha, great :)

Although I don't believe in any gods or spiritual beings, I think the people who do are not more and not less than atheists. It's just a different way of living, and how you are raised. People can be shaped into any form, they just need other people to do it for them. If someone hears he/she's ugly a thousand times, he/she'll start to believe that.

That's right, once you are indoctrinated it's very hard to get out of that and start to be sceptical and rational.
I'll have to admit that I was raised catholic, I even went to a catholic school (In The Netherlands you can better go to a public school, much better education, I found that out the hard way). My parentes come from a generation where there was a strict religious dogma, they had the idea to give me a religion and that I would like that.
Looking back on those years (up to the age of 11), I can remember that I really didn't know what was going on and I just participated because it was expected that I did. (that is why I can't really concider me being religious during that time, because I just couldn't fully grasp what it was all about).
I was however lucky that my parentes arn't very religious, they envy me and my brother because when they were little, they didn't have mixed schools so they didn't learn to interact with people of another gender, they had to 'confess' in church every week and they were allways made affreid to do anything because than they would go to 'hell'. They are glad those times are over.

After that I started to dare thinking for my selfe and I gradually grew to the non-religious person that I am today. I allways had the 'nasty' tendancy to ask questions and be critical and sceptic. ;) An added benifit was that I learned to reason with myself and concider my viewpoints(I still do that today), this is because I had myselfe to convince, no-one was convincing me.

To the point where some of you are saying that atheism is a form of religion, I have to disagree on that because the word means 'not religious'

a·the·ism

noun
Definition: unbelief in God or deities: disbelief in the existence of God or deities

[Late 16th century. < French athéisme < Greek atheos "godless" < theos "god"]

[Sheikh Al Stranghi]

That's right, once you are indoctrinated it's very hard to get out of that and start to be sceptical and rational.
I'll have to admit that I was raised catholic, I even went to a catholic school (In The Netherlands you can better go to a public school, much better education, I found that out the hard way). My parentes come from a generation where there was a strict religious dogma, they had the idea to give me a religion and that I would like that.
Looking back on those years (up to the age of 11), I can remember that I really didn't know what was going on and I just participated because it was expected that I did. (that is why I can't really concider me being religious during that time, because I just couldn't fully grasp what it was all about).
I was however lucky that my parentes arn't very religious, they envy me and my brother because when they were little, they didn't have mixed schools so they didn't learn to interact with people of another gender, they had to 'confess' in church every week and they were allways made affreid to do anything because than they would go to 'hell'. They are glad those times are over.

After that I started to dare thinking for my selfe and I gradually grew to the non-religious person that I am today. I allways had the 'nasty' tendancy to ask questions and be critical and sceptic. ;) An added benifit was that I learned to reason with myself and concider my viewpoints(I still do that today), this is because I had myselfe to convince, no-one was convincing me.

To the point where some of you are saying that atheism is a form of religion, I have to disagree on that because the word means 'not religious'

I was lucky, I went to that public school where you wanted to go to!

[Calanen]

While Im not particularly religious myself - I don't mind what other people believe. I think that religion probably staves off a lot of despair and hopelessness, which has to be a good thing.

As to atheists going to hell - this has always puzzled me. Let us say that using your rational processes to the best of your ability, your brain came to the conclusion there is no God. Let us assume that, despite the best usage of your brain...you are wrong.

Now supposedly, your creator will send you to burn in an infinite hell for this. And yet he created you. It is a little like building a computer, putting all the circuit boards together, and then when it does not give you a calculation you like putting an axe through it.

That does not seem to me to be a rational response, especially of a being that is divine. You are asking the machine that you built, to ignore the conclusions it has come to with the hardware you have given it..and come up with answer that is most palatable to you.

Even more astonishingly, you do not meet with, speak with, appear to the machine you have created. You want to keep it guessing, all the time waiting with your axe so as soon as it says 1+1 = 2, its gone because the answer should have been 3. (Actually the axe is an eternal axe, you get hit lots of times.)

More fundamentally, what about those people who lived and died in remote places around the world and never heard of your particular religion. How were they meant to guess? And they are going to hell too? I imagine there are detailed rulebooks for the major religions about such things.

Also - let us assume, contrary to belief, there is a world just like ours, exactly the same, but with no God. Wouldn't man need to create him anyway?

[AgentX]

Religion requires 'faith' - atheism does not require any faith at all. It is the absence of faith, like not believing that Santa Claus is on the North Pole (although you will not get very good Christmas presents if you do).
Science is not without its share of faith and beliefs either. The very assumption that everything can be explained with a few mathematical formulae is a strong belief in itself, since nothing is certain or absolute in scientific methods of learning and knowledge. Take the Universe for example. What is it? Where is it? Why is it? Ask any cosmologist or theoretical physicist worth his salt and you'll know the answers - that there are no answers. No matter how much effort we put in, a few things will always remain unexplained and unknown to us.

Contrary to the popular belief, both theism and atheism adhere to the same principles and follow the same system of faith and belief. You either believe in god or you don't. Agnosticism, OTOH, is about knowledge, not belief. I don't know or claim to know for sure if an unknown-X exists or not.


The problem here is one’s personal definition of atheism, even an established definition whatever that may mean can be argued. When does atheism become agnosticism? If you give it some thought it’s a tricky question. Atheism is our lack of belief and to a greater degree the little or no thought we give it. I do not even try to prove the lack of god’s existence. So some people’s definition of atheism is a pointless argument that just goes round in circles. Great if you believe in an afterlife but I have only one life and I’ve got the internet. p-)

It boils down to burden of proof. Believers believe without any proof, their standard argument now goes “then prove god doesn’t exist”. We can’t, and that isn’t really the point. It is now up to the individual whether these two POVs are equally valid. For me atheism is emancipation through knowledge and not through blind faith. We all have crossovers into both of these realms but not necessarily involving deities.

I refuse to belief the assertion that god exists. Can we prove definitely he does not exist? Of course not but here we enter a branch of philosophy and metaphysics, an absurd one at that and includes pixies, fairies and the like.

AgentX has established one definition and his interpretation as fact. Is lack of belief a belief in itself? I believe (pun intended) it isn’t. We are arguing on his terms. As some one said “words are slippery things”.
There is some truth in there. An atheist is not much different from an agnostic. Their personalities overlap each other, and similarities far outweigh differences. But, the former a mostly a fundamentalist version of the latter. One is a little too quick in drawing conclusions and the other is never too sure.

[SoliDeoGloria]

How many of you in here actually read the bible? How many of you actually take the time to understand what it says...instead of taking the skin deep stereotypes as fact?

[Switek]

I'm religious person but I find out that my IQ level is affected mainly by of daily dose of booze quantity than anything else... ;)

[shocker1]

I'm religious person but I find out that my IQ level is affected mainly by of daily dose of booze quantity than anything else... ;)

Would that be the Whiskeyopalians?p-)

Some of you are very offensive and seem to be in need. It is a shame you guys must express your anti-God agenda in order to make yourself feel vendicated by talking down to those with faith in God. I pray that your spirit will turn from scorn and embrace understanding regardless of your faith or lack there of.

[pascalywood]

Would that be the Whiskeyopalians?p-)

Some of you are very offensive and seem to be in need. It is a shame you guys must express your anti-God agenda in order to make yourself feel vendicated by talking down to those with faith in God. I pray that your spirit will turn from scorn and embrace understanding regardless of your faith or lack there of.

you just made my day
and i dont think religious persons are less intelligent than atheists. they are just more naive

[Switek]

Would that be the Whiskeyopalians?p-)

...

As a typical Pole (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vodka) is beer, mate, nothing but beer :)

[Calanen]

How many of you in here actually read the bible? How many of you actually take the time to understand what it says...instead of taking the skin deep stereotypes as fact?

The same could be said of the Torah, Koran...any religious book. If it works for you that's cool. I have not said what I believe, maybe I'm not sure what I believe. Just talking on a philosophical level. What any of the nameless people say on the forum board should not affect your belief in God, if you have it.

[Switek]

...they are just more naive

Wrong... The thing what you call naive is a kind of credit owing to every human. Risky deal? Sometimes, but not so often to give up...

[Hollis]

Atheism is not a religion with an anti-god agenda, no more than if I say that the pothole in the road was not made by the Pink Unicorn, is an example of my anti-pink unicorn agenda. The default position in any scientific setting must be that something does not exist and we do not believe in it until it has been supported by observable or quantifiable facts. To hold otherwise, just gives rise to an infinite number of mythical beings, places, and locations, which must all be believed, validated and accepted because they cannot be 'disproven' to the satisfaction of the religious.

Religion requires 'faith' - atheism does not require any faith at all. It is the absence of faith, like not believing that Santa Claus is on the North Pole (although you will not get very good Christmas presents if you do).

I guess you never met any atheists that really believed in their theory. BTW, just as "religious" people over simplify the atheistic view, why do atheist over simplify religion.......... is that a need to believe your more correct?


The are some very great scientist, who also have a religious beliefs. You may want to think atheist do not believe but they DO. The theory that there is no deity, is no more valid than the theory that there is a diety. Intellectual pomp is just that. No more profound than the religious "straw man" that you envision but probably less pretentious.

[shocker1]

you just made my day
and i dont think religious persons are less intelligent than atheists. they are just more naive
I do not disagree but with the naive statement. I find that human groups have equal amounts of ****s in their midst. You have Christains saying things that are not true, like the world will end, God Hates insert enemy and never having read or studied the bible. While some strict athiests will say I only care about the facts while saying they refuse to think there is a God regardless. Then state some anti-Christain talking point that has no basis in biblical truth. Trying to argue agianst God using material evidence is a farce to someone basing their faith on things that are of the spirital. This is why this argument never ends.

[Hollis]

I do not disagree but with the naive statement. I find that human groups have equal amounts of ****s in their midst. You have Christains saying things that are not true, like the world will end, God Hates insert enemy and never having read or studied the bible. While some strict athiests will say I only care about the facts while saying they refuse to think there is a God regardless. Then state some anti-Christain talking point that has no bases in biblical truth. Trying to argue agianst God using material evidence is a farce to someone basing their faith on things that are of the spirital. This is why this argument never ends.


Wonderful a person who understands the limits of a material argument (scientific Method). I would expect a atheist too, but so far none has.

[Bia]

Professor claims that religious people have a lower IQ than atheists

Well... most christians I have known claim the planet is only a few thousand years old.

I'd say that's a start to stupidity.

LOLz

[Hunterhr]

Well... most christians I have known claim the planet is only a few thousand years old.

I'd say that's a start to stupidity.

LOLz

I'd say using 'LOLz' means you've got a much better start going.

For the record, of all the Christians I've met (in six different states I've lived in) none have believed that earth is a few thousand years old. All have believed in evolution.

[Calanen]

Wonderful a person who understands the limits of a material argument (scientific Method). I would expect a atheist too, but so far none has.

Put to one side whether in fact God is real or not - who knows. I am just getting to the brass tacks of the arguments about it, which many never consider, because, they have adhered to the same beliefs for a long time.

The argument above about the limits of materialism just means (if I think I know what you are getting at) that you can define your theoretical construct so it can never be tested, and then say, the scientific method cannot test what we know to be true, because it has limitations. But this is a bit like post-modernism, everything is relative, true for me is not true for you...it is reductio ad absurdum.

For a wholly ridiculous example, lets go to the Pink Unicorn again. I can say that my Pink Unicorn only reveals itself to true believers, and as you are not a true believer, you cannot know the joy of the Pink Unicorn, and hence that is why you doubt it. Science cannot test the Pink Unicorn, because he exists outside the laws of physics, time, reality.

It was said that the Pink Unicorn is a straw religion...and of course it is. But there are many competing religions. Not all of them can be true (maybe none of them are), so which one is the straw religion? All of them except mine?

I think also that the point is being missed about atheism. While there may be some true atheists with faith (i.e. I know that if I searched the whole universe there would be no God) more accurately from a philosophical standpoint, the absence of belief is not a belief. If the absence of belief was a belief, then this means that all persons would indeed have infinite competing beliefs denying the existence of every conceivable paranormal or other worldly being, that is everything that can be imagined which a person does not believe in must be a belief system that they hold. The possibilities are infinite.

It seems over time that God or the divine has provided an answer for the curious homo sapiens when he could not explain things. Who made the world..God made the world. There was a social need for a God to give solace and comfort to people who would otherwise feel ill at ease about the universe being a big scary place. And that's a good thing, even if there is no God.

As I say - if there was no God, wouldn't man still need to invent him?

[dangerclose]

I'd say using 'LOLz' means you've got a much better start going.

For the record, of all the Christians I've met (in six different states I've lived in) none have believed that earth is a few thousand years old. All have believed in evolution.


Then they're being intellectually dishonest or lazy. There are those christians who try to reconcile evolution with the account in genesis - that human beings evolved to the point where Adam and Eve came to be. The bible makes it clear that there was no death in this world until Adam and Eve sinned. Evolution is kind of based on things ... dying.

The self-evident, irreducible principle of non-contradiction:

If two claims contradict each other they can't both be true.

[Hollis]

Calanen,

The limits of materialism is that it can not measure non physical constructs/events. One example look at the study psychology or psychiatry, it has subjective interpretations of "facts" because of the lack of ability to adequately measure the occurrences in a concrete and repetitive method. A gram is a gram under the same conditions any where. In psychology inferences that are made from studies and not 100% and may not hold true under the same conditions given another place or time.

One of the greatest aspect of humans is the ability to symbolize. (Abstractions can not be materialistic measured) The so called "soft sciences" are view soft because of the inherent inability to define a event 100% and that the event will always happen when the same conditions are met.

Belief, I feel, is a part of the human nature, such as the ability to symbolize. I agree with you, regardless if there is a deity or not, humankind would invent it. What we have is a transfer of beliefs in the case of atheists.

The evolutionary model of 100 some years ago led some people to believe that religion was a early invention of humankind and as humans evolve, the need to have Deity would disappear, like living in caves. Similarly, it led to the notion that Socialism was a evolved form of social, economical, and political system over capitalism. Sadly the evolutionary model does not work in all cases. It as subjectively applied, I feel, to support the belief in the evolutionary model applied those cases.

[Loki77]

LOL, Atheist have their own fantasies, BTW, atheist like any other groups could represent all sorts of variations of the "atheistic" view. I met many self proclaimed Atheist that were really anti-religionists. I met very very few who read dialectical materialism or even knew what materialism is.

...and after all, no one was born Christian, Muslim or religious in any way. Humans need mystery, wonder, fear of the sacred, the romantic worship of the inexplicable. For example, mythology in all known cultures has arisen from either the need to provide explanations for certain types of occurrences.

[Hollis]

...and after all, no one was born Christian, Muslim or religious in any way. Humans need mystery, wonder, fear of the sacred, the romantic worship of the inexplicable. For example, mythology in all known cultures has arisen from either the need to provide explanations for certain types of occurrences.


No kidding, a lot of people, when they don't know, they fill in the blanks............ with what ever works.

[Calanen]

Calanen,

The evolutionary model of 100 some years ago led some people to believe that religion was a early invention of humankind and as humans evolve, the need to have Deity would disappear, like living in caves. Similarly, it led to the notion that Socialism was a evolved form of social, economical, and political system over capitalism. Sadly the evolutionary model does not work in all cases. It as subjectively applied, I feel, to support the belief in the evolutionary model applied those cases.

I know that is the belief of some...but, I also believe that however much we evolve, there will always be things that cannot be explained. Some will say they are the work of divine beings, others will say not, and others will not think about it.

I believe its more an anthropological model for me - rather than an evolutionary, ie as we evolve further we have no use for religion. Religion is about being a social animal, having something to believe in together. God works fine for a lot of people and I am happy with that - in fact, I would prefer there really was a God. I just cannot bring myself to believe it. So if you gave me a polygraph test, and said 'Do you believe in God' as much as I may want to, I would have to say no. That does not mean I am right. It does not mean I am more evolved, or that I think that I am - its just the conclusion I have come to with my own reason and abilities.

[LaoSexMachine]

To each his own. Just a couple of points separate "genius" and "normal" people.

[Alphonse]

I claim these professors are retarded **** gobblers

[Calanen]

Perhaps interestingly for some of you, Saint Thomas Aquinas the famous Catholic scholar wrote critiques of religious theory and then wrote a reply which said why God was real. Its very interesting reading, if you have the time.

Aquinas believed that you did have to question things, but, that you would address the questions, rather than ignore them and say just have faith.

His arguments are more persuasive for the existence of God than many of those that are touted about the place. Look for his 5 proofs of God and dazzle your atheist friends at dinner parties...