Jump to content
  • Hey There!

    Please register to see fewer ads and a better viewing experience:100_Emoji_42x42:

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

TruthVsComfort

Religious People Are Less Intelligent Than Atheists, Concludes New Study

Recommended Posts

Who the fug cares if it's knowable or unknowable. Do you believe in a deity?

 

Some would define me as an atheist because I do not know whether any deities exist (therefore no I do not have a belief in a deity).  However, I do not reject the possibility they do, so I don't fit in with a lot of modern atheist definitions.  According to the spectrum of theistic probabilities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability) I'm about a 5.5 or so :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


gnosticism=Knowledge

 

theism= theos, deity

 

it's not the middle ground between atheism and theism since they don't even cover the same question :/

 

 

 

Edit: From your wiki...

 

Edit x2: Eh, thought that was related to what I was saying but maybe not

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This all depends on your definition of atheism, actually.  There is no single definition for it.  The root of the words is largely irrelevant to this discussion; this is getting into strong/weak atheism pretty quick and not everyone that identifies as an agnostic or an atheist enjoys that classification scheme.  I'd be a soft atheist if you wanted to use it.  I tend to go with more of the spectrum idea.  The people that I identify as atheists (and who self identify as such) are people that say "God does not exist."  Most of the people I discuss this with will describe themselves as agnostics because they will say, "I don't know if god exists, but I don't think so."  Which is how I feel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Then you're an atheist. Atheism is not defined as rejecting the possibility. Sorry that doesn't sound as moderate as you'd prefer but there you go.

 

Depends on how the word is defined. I've seen so many slight variations of the definition. I seem to fit every definition I've seen of agnostic but not every definition of atheist.   Then of course there is how everyday people define the term atheist.  My BIL thinks atheist worship the devil and hate god. lol

 

Technically I'm a weak atheist but if I told people that they'd be like what the fug is that?!

 

This is a good break down.

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/strong_weak.htm

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and you say Amen and look at your post count. oooooooooo

3,666!!!

Well oddly I was listening to Iron Madien's Number of the Beast while conjuring an entity from an Oujia board.

So just a typical Tuesday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Study dismissed because of alleged bias, how ironic.

What is ironic about it cat? It's pretty obvious this isn't exactly objective. The majority of instructors i've encountered at institutions of higher learning dont adhere to a religion. In fact, many are coming from that same condescending, hateful, vindictive place of "those with religion are retards that can't think for themselves." So, forgive me for not automatically giving this a ton of credence.

Furthermore, you're assuming someone dismissing this study due to bias is a confirmation of the same characteristics this study is trying to prove... You know, anyone with religion is all like, "oh noes, you're performing your magical voodoo science experiments and my tiny brain can't deal with it! I can't believe in science! I can't question anything because I have relijons!" *brain explodes*

While I think one's habit to question this study, or ANY study or claim for that matter, is a sign of greater intelligence. Isn't that at the root of it all? One's ability to question and seek out answers or truth?

Yes, there are some idiots out there who do NOT think for themselves and simply follow what they are told or taught by someone else - the ones that function on tradition rather than actual spirituality.

But it gets so old listening to those who are without faith writing off everyone who does have it as being dumb or incapable of thinking for themselves. We get it... That's been the whole premise behind non-believers' arguments since the beginning. There are dumb people that dont believe in any religion, just as there are some dumb ones that do.

And of course, there is nothing more intelligent than making sweeping generalizations about an entire demographic regardless of individual differences. I mean, when that is what you're out to prove, that screams of being a sound and reliable study! Can't wait to see how it turn out! Oh, wait...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And my post is not intended to offend or disrespect anyone or their beliefs in this thread, but that's why these threads are disasters...

I've got nothing but love for my fellow Huddlers, I just ask that my beliefs and being be respected as well. We can engage in intelligent, meaningful discussion without all the pretentious and pompous motives that this "study" employs... Well, at least in a utopian huddle, lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is ironic about it cat? It's pretty obvious this isn't exactly objective. The majority of instructors i've encountered at institutions of higher learning dont adhere to a religion. In fact, many are coming from that same condescending, hateful, vindictive place of "those with religion are retards that can't think for themselves." So, forgive me for not automatically giving this a ton of credence.

 

So instead of actually looking at the study, trying to understand the conclusions, and interpret them... You dismiss it as just those hoighty toighty stuck up intellectuals?

 

Why is it obvious it isn't objective?  Because it was done by intellectuals?

 

Do you not understand why it's ironic that you are responding to a thread about a negative correlation between religiosity and measures of intelligence by outright dismissing something as bias and subjective without even looking at it in the least?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The study defined intelligence as the “ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience.”

 

 

A simple IQ test would have been a far better benchmark across the decades.

 

 

What was Question 1 of the study?

 

1) Is there an Easter Bunny?

 

Yes: You're an idiot!

 

No: You're a genius!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So instead of actually looking at the study, trying to understand the conclusions, and interpret them... You dismiss it as just those hoighty toighty stuck up intellectuals?

Why is it obvious it isn't objective? Because it was done by intellectuals?

Do you not understand why it's ironic that you are responding to a thread about a negative correlation between religiosity and measures of intelligence by outright dismissing something as bias and subjective without even looking at it in the least?

Some of that was just venomous because I was pissed.

What is your criteria for intellectuals, mav?

I'm a grad of a VERY liberal university, but because I am a Christian, does that exclude me as an intellectual? That is essentially what this study is presenting. It's a double-edged sword.

You perceived it as irony b/c you assumed I blindly wrote it off as biased without reading it or having any knowledge about the subject matter or metrics used that comprise the study.

I was presenting the counter argument to it. And I didn't immediately write it off as biased. I did read through it before posting that is was likely biased. So, are you also inferring that I automatically assumed and claimed it was biased without reading it first because my spirituality makes my brain the size of a chickpea, according to this highly valid and reliable study? Oops, your bias is showing again.

Why does being P.C. apply to everything but religion nowadays? Assuming a person of faith didn't read through the story before commenting on it is just as bad as assigning any other age old stereotype to someone based off race. White people like nascar. All black people jump high. All hispanics are mexican.

So me being a person of faith disqualifies me from making my assumption, yet a faithless person can make huge sweeping generalizations of all faith-based people completely unchallenged because they CLEARLY have no inherent biases bubbling beneath the surface.

Studies show intelligence can't even really be quantified and IQ tests are limited in scope of measuring it, so how reliable is this study to begin with. Add to that, you most likely have a group of people that are not of any particular faith doing a study to prove the group they represent are smarter than those with faith, who they are constantly at war with. After reading through it, I don't see where I was wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



×