Scientific studies: Religious people are less intelligent than atheists

@neologist,

Quote:

Let's see, where may we find a large assembly of highly educated people that we may bask in their genius?

How about congress?

God-fearing all of them, by their own protestations. And their average IQ is solidly in double digits.

1 Reply

re Neologist believing in Noah and the flood:
There are on the order of 350,000 species of beetles. Beetles can't live underwater. How long do you think it took Noah, on his hands and knees, with magnifying glass, tweezers, and matchboxes in hand, to identify and capture 350,000 breeding pairs of beetles?

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Ya got me there

0 Replies

Good thing he allegedly lived 600 years or so. He must have spent most of them collecting beetles. Of course by the time he'd got them all, most of them had died. Then in whatever time he had left, he could have started collecting the 250,000 or so species of plants, which also couldn't have lived underwater, but are still around today., so Noah must have spent centuries gathering them too. Unless of course there was another chlorophyll Noah the bible doesn't tell us about.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

You also asserted that it is more likely that there is no god than that there is one...yet you have no evidence to validate that assertion.

No reasonable scientist would do that.

Again, I think I've clearly made my point with you on how illogical your methodology is. The weight does not lie upon the negative side of the assertion.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Some atheism is just a lack of belief...I acknowledged that in my remarks.

But some atheism is a belief...and that is what I said.

Are you prepared to assert that no atheists operate on the belief that there are no gods?

The textbook definition of "atheism" is "lack of belief".
Are you going to go changing the definitions of words now to support your pseudo-intellectual, pseudo-neutral argument?

Quote:

You ought really to save those hackneyed atheistic rejoiners for back in school, Jimmy. They do not work here.

Answer my question up above.

They work just fine. They show how ridiculous your claim is and that's exactly what I intended for it to do.

Quote:

Horsefeathers! Many atheists guess. And you are a guessing atheist.

I certainly do not guess, and neither do the majority of all atheists. A "guess" would be saying that a magical being (be it noodle-monster, abrahamic god, santa claus, or Nicolas Cage) created the universe with no evidence whatsoever.

Quote:

The word atheist comes to us from the French (who derived it from the Greek)...and means without a god (or without gods). The only way one can assert they are without gods...is if there are no gods.

Classically, atheism has been about the denial of the existence of gods. But now we have "weak" atheists...because most atheists realize that the classical take was absurd.

No, what is absurd is your view-point (as is evident from the other thread). You are just a coward who thinks that by pretending to be neutral on all subjects and simply saying "you can't prove one or the other" that it somehow makes you appear more intellectual.

1 Reply

@neologist,

Educated people are in general more intellectual than non-educated people.

Are you saying Congress is not intelligent (mind you, these are people who attended Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc.)??

Don't mistake rhetoric for actual idiocy. There was a time when I thought many in congress were idiots. Now that I've taken a few political science classes I know that's not the case.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

LOL I was going to say the same thing about him living 600 years.

0 Replies

@neologist,

Didn't have much to say? Liar.

In that case, we are hard up against the completely reasonable question of why your boy god would go to that trouble. If you boy god can make an abortion of naval architecture such as "the Ark" as described in Genesis seaworthy, and seaworthy for months and months in the worst possible conditions, why isn't your boy god able to just zap the sinners and let that sobering example instruct the descendants of Noah? If all of us are descended from Noah, the implication is that nobody else survived. Therefore, if Noah was a righteous man, for whom was the example constructed? If it was to instruct Noah's descendants, why all this implausible bullshit about an impossible boat (and it was impossible, without even canvassing the ability of a 600 man existing, never mind building an absurdity such as the Ark), what was the point of all of that? Your boy god had a short way (allegedly) with Sodom and Gomorrah, so why this elaborate and unbelievable song and dance with Noah.

For all this claptrap about omniscient, your boy god sure comes off as an idiot.

I'm also calling bullshit on Smiley, who never really wanted to confront objections to the contents of scripture. It must have sounded good to him, until he was actually confronted with objections he apparently is not prepared to respond to.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

On the evidence of that drivel atheists are not only dumb but obtuse with it and must actually believe that members of A2K need such enlightened instruction and for it to be repeated over and over again.

0 Replies

Quote:

Quote:
JimmyJ said:
"I will sweep away everything in all your land," says the LORD. "I will sweep away both people and animals alike. Even the birds of the air and the fish in the sea will die. I will reduce the wicked to heaps of rubble, along with the rest of humanity," says the LORD. "I will crush Judah and Jerusalem with my fist and destroy every last trace of their Baal worship. I will put an end to all the idolatrous priests, so that even the memory of them will disappear. For they go up to their roofs and bow to the sun, moon, and stars. They claim to follow the LORD, but then they worship Molech, too. So now I will destroy them! And I will destroy those who used to worship me but now no longer do. They no longer ask for the LORD's guidance or seek my blessings."

If you don't see the evil in that I question your morals.

You're too soft mate, what are you, a lefty social worker?.. Smile

By getting rid of them, God improved the breeding stock of the human race by removing them from the gene pool. They asked for trouble and they got it-

"Lord,pour out thy wrath upon the heathen that have not known thee, and upon the kingdoms that have not called upon thy name" (Psalm 79:6)

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/fury.gif

1 Reply

Quote:

JimmyJ said: The Qur'an states that Jesus was no more than a prophet of god, whereas Christians state that he was an incarnation of god himself. Both are almost equally historically inaccurate, but the Qur'an has gotten a few more things right in history than the Bible has.

Muslims are forbidden to like Christians-
"O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends" )Koran 5:51)

so although the Koran admits Jesus was a miracle man-
"Allah gave clear miracles to Isa [Jesus] son of Marium [Mary], and strengthened him with the holy spirit" (Koran 2:253)

it still can't bring itself to admit he was God's son.. Smile

1 Reply

Quote:

JimmyJ saidf: if evidence were ever presented that God existed we would all flock to theism. No such evidence exists, hence the word "atheist".

But isn't the earth and the universe evidence of a Creator?
Or did it just suddenly decide to appear out of nowhere on its own?

PS- but to return to the "intelligence" debate, Jehovahs's Witnesses call themselves "christians", yet they let themselves and their kids die for want of a blood transfusion, which doesn't sound very intelligent to me.
I bet no atheist would ever refuse a transfusion for themselves or their kids.. Wink

2 Replies

Romeo fabulist wrote:

Or did it just suddenly decide to appear out of nowhere on its own?

This only shows how very limited is your mind.

There are countless possibilities other than a god..

0 Replies

Everything is made of individual atoms like this one.
So how did it suddenly pop into existence?
I mean, one second there was just an empty spot in the void, and the next second an atom was there!

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/atom-classic_zpsc236b502.jpg~original

2 Replies

@JimmyJ,

JimmyJ wrote:

Quote:
You also asserted that it is more likely that there is no god than that there is one...yet you have no evidence to validate that assertion.

No reasonable scientist would do that.

Again, I think I've clearly made my point with you on how illogical your methodology is. The weight does not lie upon the negative side of the assertion.

That was a positive assertion on your part, Jimmy. You asserted that it is more likely that there is no god than that there is one.

Where is the evidence that validates that assertion?

And if you do not have it...and it was just an atheistic throw away line like the theistic throw away line of, "It is more likely that there is a GOD than that there are no gods"...grow the spine to acknowledge that it is.

C'mon, Jimmy, if you do...we can have more fun discussing less absurd notions...and you will be able to put away all that silly, " I think I've clearly made my point with you on how illogical your methodology is." Wink

1 Reply

@Romeo Fabulini,

First, you don't know if it was void or something else.

Second, you define time as continuous. You don't know if it was.

Not everything is made of atoms. Space between them is not made of atoms.

Forces are not made of atoms.

Your arguments are lame..

0 Replies

@JimmyJ,

JimmyJ wrote:

Quote:
Some atheism is just a lack of belief...I acknowledged that in my remarks.

But some atheism is a belief...and that is what I said.

Are you prepared to assert that no atheists operate on the belief that there are no gods?

The textbook definition of "atheism" is "lack of belief".
Are you going to go changing the definitions of words now to support your pseudo-intellectual, pseudo-neutral argument?

My...you are all worked up. Have I gotten to you that much in the short time we've had to work together, Jimmy? We've got so much more to do...so try to get a grip on it.

Many "textbooks" do not use "lack of belief" as a definition of "atheism"...and if you are suggesting there are no atheist who "believe" there are no gods...I can introduce you to some right here in A2K.

Quote:

Quote:
You ought really to save those hackneyed atheistic rejoiners for back in school, Jimmy. They do not work here.

Answer my question up above.

They work just fine. They show how ridiculous your claim is and that's exactly what I intended for it to do.

Jimmy...there is nothing ridiculous about any "claims" that I make.

But if it calms you down a bit to "believe" that there is...please continue to delude yourself. It is interesting (and a bit entertaining) to watch.

Quote:

Quote:
Horsefeathers! Many atheists guess. And you are a guessing atheist.

I certainly do not guess, and neither do the majority of all atheists.

Ahhh...so you are acknowledging that some do. Big improvement. Keep it up.

And you do guess!

Quote:

A "guess" would be saying that a magical being (be it noodle-monster, abrahamic god, santa claus, or Nicolas Cage) created the universe with no evidence whatsoever.

Wow...you really do have trouble presenting logically coherent arguments, Jimmy.

For the record...a guess can be in exactly the opposite direction. Some atheists, for instance, GUESS that there are no gods.

Quote:

Quote:
The word atheist comes to us from the French (who derived it from the Greek)...and means without a god (or without gods). The only way one can assert they are without gods...is if there are no gods.

Classically, atheism has been about the denial of the existence of gods. But now we have "weak" atheists...because most atheists realize that the classical take was absurd.

No, what is absurd is your view-point (as is evident from the other thread). You are just a coward who thinks that by pretending to be neutral on all subjects and simply saying "you can't prove one or the other" that it somehow makes you appear more intellectual.

Ah, Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy. You have got to control yourself...and stop making yourself look like an out-of-control. That makes you look ridiculous.

Not sure where you get this strange idea that I am (or pretend to be) "neutral on all subjects"...but you couldn't be more wrong. When I do not know something, I have the spine and the sense of ethics to acknowledge that I do not know it. That is not being neutral on all subjects. Keep on growing...and some day you might achieve that ability also.

Hey, this is fun. We have got to keep talking. You really are an enjoyable debate companion.

2 Replies

@JimmyJ,

JimmyJ wrote:

Educated people are in general more intellectual than non-educated people.

Are you saying Congress is not intelligent (mind you, these are people who attended Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc.)??

Don't mistake rhetoric for actual idiocy. There was a time when I thought many in congress were idiots. Now that I've taken a few political science classes I know that's not the case.

This is classic. Thank you for it.

Take a few more classes...you may get to love them. Good grief, you ARE a treasure.

(I know several personally...and for the most part they are decent people doing an almost impossible job.)

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Many "textbooks" do not use "lack of belief" as a definition of "atheism".

The Oxford Companion to Philosophy edited by Tom Honderich has an entry by Prof. Mavrodes of the University of Michigan which says, among other things, that " much Western atheism may be better understood as the doctrine that the Christian God does not exist."

I think it is better understood as a gambit to throw off Christian sexual teaching in as respectable a manner as maybe and to persuade others to do the same in order that the comfort of numbers may be obtained from them.

0 Replies

Scientific studies: Religious people are less intelligent than atheists

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know