Scientific studies: Religious people are less intelligent than atheists

... The science is settled. It's time for the rest of the world to catch up.

Romeo asked: Well why does Dawkins say "There's probably no God"? What evidence does he base that conclusion on?
Anyway "probably" is a very unscientific word, for example it could mean he's 51% sure, and 49% unsure
JimmyJ replied: Because there probably isn't, lol.
Dawkins famously says that he's 99% sure that there is no god

JimmyJ said: @RF- If you're talking about the christian god then I'm about 99.9999999999% sure he doesn't exist based on discrepancies in the bible and other holy texts plus the poor logic of the belief system itself.
If we're talking about god in general it's the simple word "likelihood". We can get into that if you want to.
What exactly do you mean "russian roulette"? Do you mean that atheists are going to get their head metaphorically blown off?

If you're talking about the christian god then I'm about 99.9999999999% sure he doesn't exist based on discrepancies in the bible and other holy texts plus the poor logic of the belief system itself.

But many eschew a careful study of the Bible because it represents recognition of God's sovereignty.

the reason I assert that God is not the same as fairies and goblins is that these creatures are just that. Created beings of our imagination. However, the existence of something supernatural(whether God, the force, or a flying spaghetti monster) is NECESSARY for the universe.
Science has proven that the universe exploded into everything from nothing(General Theory of Relativity). The Law of Causality(The very basis of all science mind you, so if you disagree with this point, citing any scientific observations at all would be hypocritical) states that the universe exploding into being needs a cause.

You are left with the choices:
A) Nothing caused nothing to become everything
or
B) Something caused nothing to become everything

A is clearly illogical and since it is in reference to the origin of the natural world logic applies. Since A is illogical, the logical mind would rule it out.
That leaves us with B. Something caused the universe to be. This something had to be conscious as it had to choose to cause the universe to be, because if it did not choose to cause the universe to be then something ELSE caused it to cause the universe. And that's just adding more layers until you get to something having consciously chosen to create(causing the universe to be is the same as creating it, though we could get into semantics on that, it's beside the point) the universe.
If you accept that the universe was created by a conscious being unbound by the natural law - as it would be because it CREATED the natural law - then you accept that there is, in some form or another, a God. Whether you believe it to be the Invisible Pink Unicorn or Jehovah or Allah is a different matter, but forensic science DOES prove that the universe was caused to be by something outside of the universe, which is what we call God.

I would then assert that in light of this evidence, and more that I can provide if you wish, your belief that God does not exist is simply and purely because you don't WANT him to.

Yes. that's my proof. That proof that you so cavalierly dismiss is based on the General Theory of Relativity, the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, the presence of cosmic background radiation consistent with the universe exploding from nothing into everything, and the Law of Causality(the BACKBONE of science). Your infinite sequence of big-bangs is a theory that is proven wrong with the basic fact that infinite numbers are not possible with finite things such as time. Additionally it goes against the General Theory of Relativity(proven to 9 decimal places, mind you) as well as the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.

But let's assume that the universe HAS been around forever. The First Law of Thermodynamics says that no new energy is being created and no energy is being destroyed. The Law of Entropy(second law of thermodynamics) tells us that the energy in the universe is becoming steadily less usable, meaning that there is no less energy in the universe, but it is in a form that cannot be used. Think of a flashlight. If you leave it on, the light eventually will start to get dim and go out. The battery is out of energy, the light bulb is not producing any more light or heat, but there is no less energy in the universe. It is just unusable now.

So if the universe had been around for eternity, we'd be a dead flashlight by now. All that exploding and contracting and stars exploding really takes a toll, ya know? No stars would be shining, the universe would be a completely cold box of gases and matter and of course, unusable energy.
The idea that the universe has had 'infinite big bangs' seems to me to be asserting that either A) there are multiple universes, each having its own big bang(which there is no evidence for. After all how could we examine something OUTSIDE of the universe?)
or B) that our universe, though expanding faster and faster will eventually collapse on itself and then explode again.
The problem with B is that eventually, since the universe whether expanding, contracting, or exploding, is still the universe. Because of this, the universe is still limited by the laws of thermodynamics and would have run out of usable energy by now.

As for separating the creator from the creation, I don't really see your point. Using that logic would seem to imply the following:
You build a house. You maintain this house, pay for the electricity, water, and keep it in good shape. You fill it with furniture and make it a nice, comfortable place.
You are now that house.
Of course that is a silly thought, you are the builder of this house. You aren't bound to the limits of the house, you can enter and leave it as you please. Yet you can impose your will on the house. You can destroy it, remodel it, get a dog that'll poo and pee all over the carpet, whatever you decide to do with the house, you can do.
In the same way, God would have created the universe. He is not bound by its limits, but the limits that hold us in do not keep Him out or negate His will.
And would the builder being separate from the house result in something 'bigger than the house and the builder?' Like say a motel? This isn't monopoly, so no.

"And then there´s the transcendent aspect of God that presented as a purely spiritual entity had no logical way of "communicating"/interacting with matter...how would he manifest itself, in "mechanical" terms ?"
Now this is an interesting thought. But being a spiritual being would simply mean that God is - as we've said - supernatural. He isn't bound by the limits of this universe. Why then, if he is unlimited and omnipotent would it be hard to believe he could manifest himself in his own creation? And no logical way of communicating/interacting... would you not consider creating everything to be interacting with it? And since your thoughts themselves are not physical entities, why would it be a problem for a non-physical entity to communicate with it?

I would like to point out that you said nothing to refute my points, which are all firmly rooted in well-documented science rather than 'cutting-edge' theories with no real meat to them. Your statements only redirect the conversation to a mere argument of semantics and throw in a theory that disagrees with the General Theory of Relativity as well as the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics and the Law of Causality. If you're willing to throw out these very fundamentals of science, then you choose to ignore good science(not my science either, I'm talking about Einstein and that whole field of thermodynamics).
As for your mathematical model... if it's math you're after, look at the odds that there would be life - excuse me, that's the CHANCE of a planet being able to support life, not the chance that the life would be there.
That number was 1 in 10^138 or 1 in 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 as calculated by an AGNOSTIC scientist, not a Creationist.
That number is 58 zeros longer than the number of atoms IN THE UNIVERSE. Even IF that lucky 1 was drawn out of the cosmic hat and life COULD form on a planet spontaneously(also against the law of entropy, that nature naturally brings disorder while a nearly incomprehensible amount of order is necessary for even an amoeba), then you would also have to calculate in all the hurdles life faces to be formed by chance. But chance is not really a cause, it is a mathematical expression of probability, right(another semantic argument waiting to happen)? So what we mean by chance is that it happens by natural processes. But again, Entropy will have nothing to do with this, and science has not yielded life from a test tube that contained only non-life before. They have produced amino acids, but without INTELLIGENT intervention(and there's a lot of intelligence working on those experiments, mind you), the amino acids cannot form into the RNA and DNA necessary for life. Have we completely given up on Pasteur's experiments and the Law of Biogenesis as well? There's a lot more to be said on that topic, but that's for a different thread and I'm sorry to be crossing into different territory, but it is related.
The amount of science you have to ignore to get around the universe having been created is rather overwhelming. I am a Christian, but I am making no case for Christianity from this. I am doing my best to look objectively at the facts that I'm presented and I am doing my best to draw a logical conclusion. The conclusion I have reached is what I see as fitting best with the evidence, rather than following an a priori commitment to a philosophy or theology.
Faith fills in the gaps where our knowledge can't explain something. I admire the faith of the atheist, it's much stronger than my own to be able to believe in a non-created universe.

That's quite a statement. All of the discrepancies have a reasonable explanation? The Bible itself is NOT reasonable, so how could the discrepancies in it have a reasonable explanation? I'm sorry, but magical gardens, talking snakes, man-eating whales, separating oceans, and gigantic arks is not reasonable.