Atheists 'have higher IQs': Their intelligence 'makes them more likely to dismiss religion as irrati

[Taiguaitiaoghyrmmumin]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDGFt2pSpJE

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2395972/Atheists-higher-IQs-Their-intelligence-makes-likely-dismiss-religion-irrational-unscientific.html


Research found those with higher IQs more likely to dismiss religion
Another drawback to being religious, or at least Christian is losing out on top jobs
By DANIEL BATES
PUBLISHED: 17:52 EST, 16 August 2013 | UPDATED: 03:56 EST, 17 August 2013
e-mail
844
View comments
Atheists tend to be more intelligent than religious people, according to a US study.
Researchers found that those with high IQs had greater self-control and were able to do more for themselves - so did not need the benefits that religion provides.
They also have better self esteem and built more supportive relationships, the study authors said.
New evidence: A study has concluded that religious people are less intelligent than non-believers
New evidence: A study has concluded that religious people are less intelligent than non-believers
The conclusions were the result of a review of 63 scientific studies about religion and intelligence dating between 1928 and last year.
In 53 of these there was a ‘reliable negative relation between intelligence and religiosity’.
In just 10 was that relationship positive.
RELATED ARTICLES
Previous
1
Next

EXCLUSIVE: Pictured close-up for the first time,...

Christian bakery under investigation after owners refused to...
SHARE THIS ARTICLE
Share
Even among children, the more intelligent a child was the more probable it was that they would shun the church.
In old age the same trend persisted as well, the research showed.
The University of Rochester psychologists behind the study defined religion as involvement in some or all parts of a belief.
They defined intelligence as the ‘ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly, and learn from experience’.
In their conclusions, they said: ‘Most extant explanations (of a negative relation) share one central theme - the premise that religious beliefs are irrational, not anchored in science, not testable and, therefore, unappealing to intelligent people who ‘know better’.
‘Intelligent people typically spend more time in school - a form of self-regulation that may yield long-term benefits.
‘More intelligent people getting higher level jobs and better employment and higher salary may lead to higher self-esteem, and encourage personal control beliefs.’
Study co-author Jordan Silberman, a graduate student of neuroeconomics at the University of Rochester, said: ‘Intelligence may lead to greater self-control ability, self-esteem, perceived control over life events, and supportive relationships, obviating some of the benefits that religion sometimes provides.’
Detailed: The research analysed 63 surveys comparing intelligence levels and religious beliefs between 1928 and 2012
Detailed: The research analysed 63 surveys comparing intelligence levels and religious beliefs between 1928 and 2012
Research from the UK last week showed another drawback to being religious, or at least Christian - you lose out in the race for top jobs.
Official figures show nearly one in four people who have no religious belief now live in homes headed by someone with a senior executive job or a place in one of the professions.
But well under a fifth of Christians are employed in the best-paid and most influential jobs or are married to someone who is, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS).
The last census, carried out in March 2011, showed a fall in the number of people that call themselves Christian in the UK.
Christian numbers in England and Wales, including children, fell by 4.1 million in a decade to 33.2 million.
However there was a 45 per cent rise over the same 10 years in numbers who say they have no religion, to 14.1 million.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2395972/Atheists-higher-IQs-Their-intelligence-makes-likely-dismiss-religion-irrational-unscientific.html#ixzz4Lx5B5T2t
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkhL0hzWPCY

[Il_Saraceno]

Most atheists became such through critical thinking, a skill which is apparently elusive to us theists.

[Petros Agapetos]

There is no doubt that atheism is linked to intelligence. The best physicists, biologists, and cosmologists are atheists, and they have studied the relevant fields. The people who understand the most about our scientific picture of reality tend to be atheists. The more explanations they have the less they need a vacuous non-explanation such as God that doesn't account for its own existence.

[Bradshaw]

Book smart yes, socially intelligent, no. Most highly intelligent people in my opinion can be pretty antisocial. For example, aspies, savants ect..

[Ziveth]

There is no doubt that atheism is linked to intelligence. The best physicists, biologists, and cosmologists are atheists, and they have studied the relevant fields. The people who understand the most about our scientific picture of reality tend to be atheists. The more explanations they have the less they need a vacuous non-explanation such as God that doesn't account for its own existence.

Yes and many scientists were atheist so they probably had high IQ

[OldBronzeBell]

This is just from my own personal experiences, so I suppose you can take it with a grain of salt, but to me, atheists also have an advantage when it comes to intelligent exploration because they're not afraid to delve deep into certain topics that theists might find scary or potentially upsetting to their religion. For example, I was once on a long car trip with a friend, and to pass the time I thought I would have him listen to a lecture from Neil deGrasse Tyson (brilliant astrophysicist, one of my most favorite intellectuals of all time), and he got extremely upset and refused to allow me to play the recording because he didn't want anything that could potentially challenge his beliefs or give him the faintest idea of reconsideration on his philosophy.

I do disagree though that theists aren't as capable of great scientific achievement as atheists are, but what I'm saying is that atheists do have a clear advantage overall because they are not obstructed by psychological religious boundaries.

[Harkonnen]

Religiousness is basically feminine quality. As highly intelligent people are likely to also be male and hyper-masculine in brain orientation, I would actually argue it is their masculinity which makes them disregard gods.

[Pennywise]

You don't need to be genius to "dismiss" dogmatic thoughts that have little to no sense at all. Average IQ is more than enough.

[OldBronzeBell]

Another, somewhat ironic thing I forgot to mention is my relationship with Pascal. To me, he is one of the greatest polymaths to ever grace western civilization, but his philosophical tail chasing argument - ie, Pascal's Wager, is one of the most frustrating things to argue when it comes to debating theists. (Which is not something I do often). Basically, whenever I find myself in a conversation with a deist about religion, any one of them that is even remotely educated on western philosophy will inevitably bring up this individual and proclaim he made a perfectly valid argument when stating that one had absolutely nothing to lose when choosing to practice a dogmatic religion. I myself am non-religious, and while I generally try to avoid getting into arguments when it comes to religion (I believe if any moderate, non-violent religion is helps an individual lead a happy and psychologically balanced life, they should be more than welcome to adhere to it) there are certain boundaries that theists cross sometimes, and the argument ends up going in circles until the debate ends up with "what could you possibly have to lose by believing?"

I usually don't respond and try to end the argument there. In the end though, I feel like submitting to a religion relinquishes the sense of wonder that the universe we live in is capable of spontaneously and selflessly engineering some truly divine (pardon the expression) wonders. And to me personally - a pale of existence that can do that completely autonomously is far more beautiful and poetic than any god, no matter how peaceful and loving, could ever hope to replicate.

Anyway, the point of this rant in the end was that creationists are certainly capable of intelligent thought, Pascal as an example. Even more so, they are sometimes capable of creating merry-go-round arguments that can be quite trying in patience. :P

[Tietar]

The atheist is a fundamentalist, he has a belief: the non-existence of god, he has no doubt that god does not exist, even though it has not been possible to prove it, and it is impossible to make him doubt the contrary.

I do not see any difference between a religious and an atheist

[Root]

https://www.procurious.com/blog-content/2015/11/image2.jpg

[Harkonnen]

https://www.procurious.com/blog-content/2015/11/image2.jpg

You don't understand what emotional intelligence is. Manipulators have high emotional intelligence. The manipulated have low emotional intelligence. Most extremely religious people fall into the category of lambs led to slaughter which means they have low emotional intelligence.

[Drawing-slim]

This is just from my own personal experiences, so I suppose you can take it with a grain of salt, but to me, atheists also have an advantage when it comes to intelligent exploration because they're not afraid to delve deep into certain topics that theists might find scary or potentially upsetting to their religion. For example, I was once on a long car trip with a friend, and to pass the time I thought I would have him listen to a lecture from Neil deGrasse Tyson (brilliant astrophysicist, one of my most favorite intellectuals of all time), and he got extremely upset and refused to allow me to play the recording because he didn't want anything that could potentially challenge his beliefs or give him the faintest idea of reconsideration on his philosophy.

I do disagree though that theists aren't as capable of great scientific achievement as atheists are, but what I'm saying is that atheists do have a clear advantage overall because they are not obstructed by psychological religious boundaries.

Neil i think is just a good speaker, a tv face. Many others are smarter than him i think.

[Harkonnen]

You can see it like this: a highly emotional child or a woman does not have high emotional IQ simply because she/it has a lot of hissyfits.

It just means she/it can not control hers/it's emotions. Thus has low emotional IQ.

[OldBronzeBell]

The atheist is a fundamentalist, he has a belief: the non-existence of god, he has no doubt that god does not exist, even though it has not been possible to prove it, and it is impossible to make him doubt the contrary.

I do not see any difference between a religious and an atheist

You know, a lot of atheists do get angry when you point this out. Still, even as an atheist myself, I can still seem some logic in your argument, even though it would most likely upset my peers.

You're absolutely right - I'm basing my my assumption that god doesn't exist on a fundamental belief - but how I came to that fundamental belief diverges from how most religious people get their own, in my opinion. I looked at all different religions, read the bible cover to cover, (I was raised Christian so it was the easiest for me to pick up on) researched the other Abrahamic religions and even took an interest in east Asian spirituality, and then I began delving into scientific theory and Darwinism. I went back and forth with a lot of things, but I ultimately came to my own conclusion not wholly by blind faith, but by taking the evidence presented to me and putting it together the best I could. For an analogy, it was kind of like putting together a puzzle with no clear picture at the end, you're just sticking the pieces that fit together and hoping for the best looking end result.

Maybe some atheists blindly adhere to scientific theory because it's new and exciting - it's defiant of a mainstream culture that has been part of human society for countless millennia. But certainly not all atheists are like that - or at least not me personally. Like I said, I took the evidence that was available to me and made the best sense of it that I could. I'll never claim that I know all the answers - in fact I'm sure you know of a famous individual that once said the smartest man in the world is the man who admits he knows nothing.

But the thing I feel that I do different from religious people and certain other atheists on a personal level, however, is that I put my 'faith' in neither religion nor science. Rather, I trust in myself that I had the thirst for knowledge to probe deep into different parts of universal order, and that I came to my own conclusion. In essence, I'm not putting faith in science or religion - I'm certainly incorporating some sequences from the former - but above all, I'm simply putting faith in myself, that I made the right choices, and nothing more.

[Harkonnen]

According to my mom I was the sweetest baby. I never cried or had hissyfits. This was because I was very aware from early on, I was born old.

[Demon Revival]

Human IQ is decreasing. Atheism is increasing. Atheism is default now. Masses generally are not intelligent. Atheism now belongs to the masses.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-8tLHH5DbLRY/VVPiewFHRFI/AAAAAAAAFMQ/Zs0XrnlT6ww/w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu/StupidAtheistBeliefs.jpg

All Atheist high IQ mostly manifests in high school jokes such as "hur hurrr fairytales" or "hur urrr I put a bible in the SciFi section". All my debates with atheists show they have both an analytical and emotional intelligence far behind optimal persons.

Some atheists are too dumb they even start directly parrot Christian stuff with some altered words, to the point of becoming absolutist.
"U gotz to decide between religien and scienz"

[Harkonnen]

Human IQ is decreasing. Atheism is increasing. Atheism is default now. Masses generally are not intelligent. Atheism now belongs to the masses.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-8tLHH5DbLRY/VVPiewFHRFI/AAAAAAAAFMQ/Zs0XrnlT6ww/w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu/StupidAtheistBeliefs.jpg

All Atheist high IQ mostly manifests in high school jokes such as "hur hurrr fairytales" or "hur urrr I put a bible in the SciFi section". All my debates with atheists show they have both an analytical and emotional intelligence far behind optimal persons.

Some atheists are too dumb they even start directly parrot Christian stuff with some altered words, to the point of becoming absolutist.
"U gotz to decide between religien and scienz"

Why did they banned Pepe?

[Demon Revival]

Why did they banned Pepe?

Crucified for your sins.

[OldBronzeBell]

All Atheist high IQ mostly manifests in high school jokes such as "hur hurrr fairytales" or "hur urrr I put a bible in the SciFi section". All my debates with atheists show they have both an analytical and emotional intelligence far behind optimal persons.

Some atheists are too dumb they even start directly parrot Christian stuff with some altered words, to the point of becoming absolutist.
"U gotz to decide between religien and scienz"

I actually agree with you about this. A good portion of atheists of today are immature teenagers that want to argue for the sake of argument. I generally like to keep my distance from this crowd, as they make the rest of us look terribly bad.

[Harkonnen]

I actually agree with you about this. A good portion of atheists of today are immature teenagers that want to argue for the sake of argument. I generally like to keep my distance from this crowd, as they make the rest of us look terribly bad.

Good point except arguing for the sake of argument in a kinda detached way is kinda cool. Truth sucks anyway.

[Era]

Religiousness is basically feminine quality. As highly intelligent people are likely to also be male and hyper-masculine in brain orientation, I would actually argue it is their masculinity which makes them disregard gods.

Right right, except it was always men who fought in the name of religion.

[Demon Revival]

I actually agree with you about this. A good portion of atheists of today are immature teenagers that want to argue for the sake of argument. I generally like to keep my distance from this crowd, as they make the rest of us look terribly bad.

This is the main problem of atheists: They try to hide behind a hollow shield of "science" despite their view is only powered by feelings and beliefs. No different at all than the extremists of the other side.

Why? Because scientific stuff needs to be found in observable evidences, and then tested under measurable conditions. It should not be needed to say the concept of God becomes very problematic in a setting like this.

Basing stuff in "negative evidences" as per, "There is no evidence God exists, therefore he doesn't exist" or the opposite "There is no evidence God doesn't exist, therefore he exists" does not lead to conclusive results because it's 50/50 weight against each other (or more like 0/0 in this case).

The theory of the origin of the universe most Atheists adhere to is too identical to that of the genesis, replacing all the epic adjectives by tech adjectives and replacing "God" with "Nothingness" in every paragraph.

Therefore this silly debate only becomes "I wanna! I wanna!".

I would say religious/deity stuff is better studied from a philosophical perspective. Science is not the apt tool to measure anything like this, because it is not possible for it to yield results in any direction.

This is not even taking into account most people could not properly describe what a God encompasses (this can vary a lot).

Also, not exactly that highly religious myself. Far from atheist though. I also think humanity (for the most part) is better off under religious presence, than in absence of it. Mainly because the moral enforcement.

[Harkonnen]

Crucified for your sins.

I imagine this like the death of Rorschach at the end of Watchmen: too hardcore, no compromises, "outta my way, people need to know." But none of us can handle the truth so the poor favela mutt-dog had to be put to sleep to save our ears from constant barking.

The truth is of course something totally different, but it doesn't matter. Truth never matters. Reality lives and dies. Legends live forever.

[Harkonnen]

Right right, except it was always men who fought in the name of religion.

Of course men fought. If not men, then who? Women have no fight in them. God can be easily inserted into womans brain:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRxfZHr3AxY^

^if that was a dude Rhett was squeezing, he would have had to make a war out of it, beat him real bad before he had accepted a new god. But since Scarrlett is a chick a little squeezing was enough.

[Era]

Of course men fought. If not men, then who? Women have no fight in them. God can be easily inserted into womans brain:

.

They sure can, for their country, for their ideology (communism, Nazism) just not for religion.

https://deathraywish.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/joan.gif

http://68.media.tumblr.com/2d277e6f2fc3fffc781bbecd08fbf141/tumblr_inline_o0hqnknFWH1qcsmdk_500.jpg

[Megadorian]

It's worthy to be noted that religions were the source of certain wars, senseless conflict and scientific decay(dark ages comes to mind)

[Charles Bronson]

The human need a belief to exist in this world, and the Atheist also believes too, that no God exists.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

The atheist is a fundamentalist, he has a belief: the non-existence of god, he has no doubt that god does not exist, even though it has not been possible to prove it, and it is impossible to make him doubt the contrary.

I do not see any difference between a religious and an atheist

It wouldn't be impossible if you have an argument based on evidence that there is a God. It seems silly to say someone is a 'fundamentalist' if there is no argument to counter their atheism. If someone doesn't believe in space aliens visiting Earth, then are they closed minded in their belief? Or is that they haven't been presented with any solid evidence? Why mock someone who worships Odin and not someone who worships Yahweh?

[Harkonnen]

They sure can, for their country, for their ideology (communism, Nazism) just not for religion.



These are just legends, fairytales for little children. In reality no woman has never fought in any war.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

The human need a belief to exist in this world, and the Atheist also believes too, that no God exists.

Maybe they believe in making the most out of their time alive. Life can be wonderful. You don't need a belief in a god to enjoy life.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

These are just legends, fairytales for little children. In reality no woman has never fought in any war.

Um, the Soviets had women fighting in their ranks. Obviously it wasn't in mass but they did have female soldiers.

[Pennywise]

Some atheists are too dumb they even start directly parrot Christian stuff with some altered words, to the point of becoming absolutist.
"U gotz to decide between religien and scienz"

It is true that you don't have to be an atheist to work on engineering, atomics, physics, technology and etc. You can make scientific achivement by believing in god and creation too, there is no practical obstacle for that. However when we go to the bottom we see that modern science was born and based upon logical thinking and falsification which is the exact opposite of dogmatic doctrines of religions. For instance it is simply oxymoron to study on a field that is purely based on logic/falsificiation and hold dogmatic believes at the same time.


This is the main problem of atheists: They try to hide behind a hollow shield of "science" despite their view is only powered by feelings and beliefs. No different at all than the extremists of the other side.

Why? Because scientific stuff needs to be found in observable evidences, and then tested under measurable conditions. It should not be needed to say the concept of God becomes very problematic in a setting like this.

Basing stuff in "negative evidences" as per, "There is no evidence God exists, therefore he doesn't exist" or the opposite "There is no evidence God doesn't exist, therefore he exists" does not lead to conclusive results because it's 50/50 weight against each other (or more like 0/0 in this case).

The theory of the origin of the universe most Atheists adhere to is too identical to that of the genesis, replacing all the epic adjectives by tech adjectives and replacing "God" with "Nothingness" in every paragraph.

Therefore this silly debate only becomes "I wanna! I wanna!".

I would say religious/deity stuff is better studied from a philosophical perspective. Science is not the apt tool to measure anything like this, because it is not possible for it to yield results in any direction.

This is not even taking into account most people could not properly describe what a God encompasses (this can vary a lot).

Also, not exactly that highly religious myself. Far from atheist though. I also think humanity (for the most part) is better off under religious presence, than in absence of it. Mainly because the moral enforcement.

Yes, in theory, we may assume that a some form entity like "god" exists because we still know very little about our universe and we can't "prove" otherwise. The problem is here is not wheter the "god" is objectively exists or not but is the "god" (or "gods") exists as it is depicted by the popular religions. So far we haven't seen any proof of that and there is simply no reason to desing our lives based on it.

[Charles Bronson]

Maybe they believe in making the most out of their time alive. Life can be wonderful. You don't need a belief in a god to enjoy life.


My point was just the "belief". You can believe in everything.

[Loki]

Obvious.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

My point was just the "belief". You can believe in everything.

You were saying that one needs a belief to exist in this world and then use an atheist's belief that God doesn't exist as an example but that's not a belief that is necessary to allow someone to live in this world. It doesn't provide someone with an ideology, values, or anything else to give their lives meaning. Atheism is simply a belief that there isn't a God because there is no evidence that supports such a belief. What values they have may be similar to those of religious people but it's not derived with the belief that those values are dictated by a God. They can argue these values exist for various other reasons and that religion is simply a mystical spin on these values.


The human need a belief to exist in this world, and the Atheist also believes too, that no God exists.

[Tietar]

Atheism is simply a belief that there isn't a God because there is no evidence that supports such a belief.

Many scientists believe that there is most likely to be intelligent life in other worlds. Also that there may be other parallel universes, wormholes, etc.

The logic of an atheist is that there is no such life, no parallel worlds, and so on. Since there is no evidence to support this.

[Pennywise]

Many scientists believe that there is most likely to be intelligent life in other worlds. Also that there may be other parallel universes, wormholes, etc.

The logic of an atheist is that there is no such life, no parallel worlds, and so on. Since there is no evidence to support this.

It's all atheist conspiracy theory dude. Don't believe in anything what scientists say.

https://i.hizliresim.com/8dX7y7.jpg

[Norse]

Meaningless study if not controlled for race.

[Joso]

You don't understand what emotional intelligence is. Manipulators have high emotional intelligence. The manipulated have low emotional intelligence. Most extremely religious people fall into the category of lambs led to slaughter which means they have low emotional intelligence.

Great post.
I'd like to continuate your line of tinking and add another factors that also help us to understand why some are more emotional:
1-Hormones.
Hormones such as Estrogen( the hormone responsible for the typical irritating female behaviour).
Higly estrogened males(also known as soyboys) tend to be endomorph like alpines, baltids and borrebies. That explains why alpinization can also be translated as "addictional annoyingnes";
Im endomorph myself and i guess that explains why i was banned from here for so many times, lol;
2-Bad education and little dicipline when kid;
3-Repression.
In our modern society, specially in the West( but also in areas influentiated by it in the thirld world) masculinity is so repressed that is considerated as a crime.
Inclusive, to end it honouring the topic of the thread,
The instinctual-repressive tool most used is, yeah, it, religion!

[Peter Nirsch]

Kim Jong-un is atheist indeed

[Joso]

Double post.

[Kraftwerk]

Atheism=red pill about life and religions

[Joso]

Atheism=red pill about life and religions

Yeah, fortunately i was able to be iluminated by this noble truth early enough.

[Adamm]

Pseudo Science, most high IQ personalities within human history were believers.

[Lurker1]

https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13776250_f520.jpg

[AAJUPP]

makes sense

im not aware of any scientist or intellectual that is not an atheist.

Yes sure in medieval times or early 20th century, some had to act like they were religious.

The smartest minds Einstein,Nietzsche, Goebbels,Marx,Hawkings etc were all Atheists.

[JamesBond007]

makes sense

im not aware of any scientist or intellectual that is not an atheist.

Yes sure in medieval times or early 20th century, some had to act like they were religious.

The smartest minds Einstein,Nietzsche, Goebbels,Marx,Hawkings etc were all Atheists.

I'm not religious I'm pantheist and Buddhism is atheistic and makes the most sense to me. It's list of Cardinal vices need only be modified twice to be perfect and it lists the vices before virtues since virtues are just a negation of vices. I'm not a Buddhist though. I'm a pantheist like Einstein. Einstein wasn't Atheist he was Pantheist like me which is a sexed up version of Atheism. The problem with pure atheism is that it tends to make people think that life has no moral dimension but only consists of great physical truths like in science. However, the former are part of all great intellectual and philosophical systems. My IQ is in the superior range but not quite high enough for Mensa last time I checked.

I repeat : Einstein was pantheist not strictly atheist. I am a Pantheist not strictly Atheist.

[renaissance12]

makes sense

im not aware of any scientist or intellectual that is not an atheist.

Yes sure in medieval times or early 20th century, some had to act like they were religious.

The smartest minds Einstein,Nietzsche, Goebbels,Marx,Hawkings etc were all Atheists.
Hawking Was Not A Great Genius

[AAJUPP]

Hawking Was Not A Great Genius

Says who?

What kind of ignorant man you gotta be to deny the intelligence of men like hawkings.

The last remotely smart italian man was Da Vinci.

[AAJUPP]

I'm not religious I'm pantheist and Buddhism is atheistic and makes the most sense to me. It's list of Cardinal vices need only be modified twice to be perfect and it lists the vices before virtues since virtues are just a negation of vices. I'm not a Buddhist though. I'm a pantheist like Einstein. Einstein wasn't Atheist he was Pantheist like me which is a sexed up version of Atheism. The problem with pure atheism is that it tends to make people think that life has no moral dimension but only consists of great physical truths like in science. However, the former are part of all great intellectual and philosophical systems. My IQ is in the superior range but not quite high enough for Mensa last time I checked.

I repeat : Einstein was pantheist not strictly atheist. I am a Pantheist not strictly Atheist.

Dont make up terms to avoid being offensive.

If you do not believe in anything supernatural, you are an atheist.

[Aldaris]

Pseudo Science, most high IQ personalities within human history were believers.

I don't agree with the premise of the thread either, it's way too simplified, but this argument doesn't work either. If someone is brought up in a society, where everyone around him is a believer and a good portion of his life revolves around religion, he is most likely to accept it and and see everything through the lense of it's premise way before his high IQ even manifests and the process won't just stop there once it does. Being good at solving logical problems doesn't really affect your large-scale philosophical worldview that much anyway. Plus, throughout history, people didn't really have that much of a reason to doubt their religion's narrative from a scientific standpoint - us having a decent idea about geology, biology, chemistry or physics is a relatively very recent thing. There were some philosophical here and there, but if you're already religious once you might actually be relevant in that area, you're not likely going to undermine your religion, you're gonna take the apologist's side instead.

[JamesBond007]

https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13776250_f520.jpg

*edited out*

[JamesBond007]

Dont make up terms to avoid being offensive.

If you do not believe in anything supernatural, you are an atheist.

I am not making up terms. It is called the dictionary and wikipedia -- use it.

[AAJUPP]

I am not making up terms. It is called the dictionary and wikipedia -- use it.

Do you believe in any superstitions, paranormal activities or general supernatural events?

[renaissance12]

Says who?

What kind of ignorant man you gotta be to deny the intelligence of men like hawkings.

The last remotely smart italian man was Da Vinci.

Hawking Made ZERO discovery........It is a fact as It is a fact that almost every German great genius was not blonde with viking face features....

[AAJUPP]

Hawking Made ZERO discovery........It is a fact as It is a fact that almost every German great genius was not blonde with viking face features....

Hawkings was NOT German, how stupid are you?

[JamesBond007]

Hawking Was Not A Great Genius

Real genius scientists only write in specialized nomenclature and symbols, nowadays, to speed up communication with their peers and they don't write books for layman. That means that pretty much rules out Stephen Hawking, Neil Degresse Tyson and Michio Kaku as geniuses :


...ordinary folk have a deep respect for professional men of every kind. They are unaware that a man who makes a profession of a thing loves it not for the thing itself, but for the money he makes by it; or that it is rare for a man who teaches to know his subject thoroughly; for if he studies it as he ought, he has in most cases no time left in which to teach it. But there are very many authorities who find respect with the mob...-- Arthur Schopenhauer

He discovered that black holes are not that black. They emit radiation due to quantum fluctuations near the Event Horizon and they will eventually explode causing something like a Big Bang. Sure, there is no doubt that is something interesting and significant. However, he discovered that in the mid 20th century when lots and lots of scientific advances were being made. We had Albert Einstein, Max Plank, Werner Heisenberg and many many more brilliant people. Isaac Newton and Charles Darwin, in contrast, where certifiable British geniuses.

[renaissance12]

Hawkings was NOT German, how stupid are you?

It is you who think to be a PRIMITIVE

[Aldaris]

Hawking Made ZERO discovery........It is a fact as It is a fact that almost every German great genius was not blonde with viking face features....

You're not going to have another genius which will single handedly turn an entire field upside down with some relatively simple notions. That's not how modern science works, even the nobel prize winners are making a very small steps in the big picture. And Hawking's contribution to modern physics was undeniably much, much greater than that of an average physicist.

[JamesBond007]

Do you believe in any superstitions, paranormal activities or general supernatural events?

No, because our world is mathematically based. It seems for that reason and others SIMs is likely and being mathematically based rules out paranormal stuff since SIMs would be preprogrammed for certain mathematical limits. I believe that the state of affairs of us living in a computer simulation created by people much smarter than us is more mathematically likely than pure atheism :


https://i.postimg.cc/T10cpvFb/bayesian.png



The simulation hypothesis or simulation theory proposes that all of reality, including the Earth and the universe, is in fact an artificial simulation, most likely a computer simulation. Some versions rely on the development of a simulated reality, a proposed technology that would seem realistic enough to convince its inhabitants the simulation was real. The hypothesis has been a central plot device of many science fiction stories and films.

There is a long philosophical and scientific history to the underlying thesis that reality is an illusion. This skeptical hypothesis can be traced back to antiquity; for example, to the "Butterfly Dream" of Zhuangzi,[1] or the Indian philosophy of Maya. A version of the hypothesis was also theorised as a part of a philosophical argument by René Descartes.

Nick Bostrom's premise:

Many works of science fiction as well as some forecasts by serious technologists and futurologists predict that enormous amounts of computing power will be available in the future. Let us suppose for a moment that these predictions are correct. One thing that later generations might do with their super-powerful computers is run detailed simulations of their forebears or of people like their forebears. Because their computers would be so powerful, they could run a great many such simulations. Suppose that these simulated people are conscious (as they would be if the simulations were sufficiently fine-grained and if a certain quite widely accepted position in the philosophy of mind is correct). Then it could be the case that the vast majority of minds like ours do not belong to the original race but rather to people simulated by the advanced descendants of an original race.

Nick Bostrom's conclusion:
Nick Bostrom in 2014

It is then possible to argue that, if this were the case, we would be rational to think that we are likely among the simulated minds rather than among the original biological ones.

Therefore, if we don't think that we are currently living in a computer simulation, we are not entitled to believe that we will have descendants who will run lots of such simulations of their forebears.
— Nick Bostrom, Are you living in a computer simulation?, 2003[2]

Ancestor simulation

In 2003, philosopher Nick Bostrom proposed a trilemma that he called "the simulation argument". Despite the name, Bostrom's "simulation argument" does not directly argue that we live in a simulation; instead, Bostrom's trilemma argues that one of three unlikely-seeming propositions is almost certainly true:

"The fraction of human-level civilizations that reach a posthuman stage (that is, one capable of running high-fidelity ancestor simulations) is very close to zero", or
"The fraction of posthuman civilizations that are interested in running simulations of their evolutionary history, or variations thereof, is very close to zero", or
"The fraction of all people with our kind of experiences that are living in a simulation is very close to one"

The trilemma points out that a technologically mature "posthuman" civilization would have enormous computing power; if even a tiny percentage of them were to run "ancestor simulations" (that is, "high-fidelity" simulations of ancestral life that would be indistinguishable from reality to the simulated ancestor), the total number of simulated ancestors, or "Sims", in the universe (or multiverse, if it exists) would greatly exceed the total number of actual ancestors.

Bostrom goes on to use a type of anthropic reasoning to claim that, if the third proposition is the one of those three that is true, and almost all people with our kind of experiences live in simulations, then we are almost certainly living in a simulation.

Bostrom claims his argument goes beyond the classical ancient "skeptical hypothesis", claiming that "...we have interesting empirical reasons to believe that a certain disjunctive claim about the world is true", the third of the three disjunctive propositions being that we are almost certainly living in a simulation. Thus, Bostrom, and writers in agreement with Bostrom such as David Chalmers, argue there might be empirical reasons for the "simulation hypothesis", and that therefore the simulation hypothesis is not a skeptical hypothesis but rather a "metaphysical hypothesis". Bostrom states he personally sees no strong argument for which of the three trilemma propositions is the true one: "If (1) is true, then we will almost certainly go extinct before reaching posthumanity. If (2) is true, then there must be a strong convergence among the courses of advanced civilizations so that virtually none contains any individuals who desire to run ancestor-simulations and are free to do so. If (3) is true, then we almost certainly live in a simulation. In the dark forest of our current ignorance, it seems sensible to apportion one's credence roughly evenly between (1), (2), and (3)... I note that people who hear about the simulation argument often react by saying, 'Yes, I accept the argument, and it is obvious that it is possibility #n that obtains.' But different people pick a different n. Some think it obvious that (1) is true, others that (2) is true, yet others that (3) is true."

As a corollary to the trilemma, Bostrom states that "Unless we are now living in a simulation, our descendants will almost certainly never run an ancestor-simulation.

...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis

[Rædwald]

Atheists are by definition following a religion.

[Aldaris]

Atheists are by definition following a religion.

Oh yeah?

[renaissance12]

You're not going to have another genius which will single handedly turn an entire field upside down with some relatively simple notions. That's not how modern science works, even the nobel prize winners are making a very small steps in the big picture. And Hawking's contribution to modern physics was undeniably much, much greater than that of an average physicist.

THEORY IS NOTHING IF YOU ARE NOT ABLE TO PROVE IT......

[Aldaris]

THEORY IS NOTHING IF YOU ARE NOT ABLE TO PROVE IT......

What do you mean? Our models and predictions are based on observations, of course. :laugh:

[ixulescu]

There is no doubt that atheism is linked to intelligence. The best physicists, biologists, and cosmologists are atheists, and they have studied the relevant fields. The people who understand the most about our scientific picture of reality tend to be atheists. The more explanations they have the less they need a vacuous non-explanation such as God that doesn't account for its own existence.

The question of god is outside the realm of science. Science can't prove god does not exist.

Those atheist scientists are only taking the dogmatic position they feel more inclined to.

[AAJUPP]

No, because our world is mathematically based. It seems for that reason and others SIMs is likely and being mathematically based rules out paranormal stuff since SIMs would be preprogrammed for certain mathematical limits. I believe that the state of affairs of us living in a computer simulation created by people much smarter than us is more mathematically likely than pure atheism :


https://i.postimg.cc/T10cpvFb/bayesian.png



The simulation hypothesis or simulation theory proposes that all of reality, including the Earth and the universe, is in fact an artificial simulation, most likely a computer simulation. Some versions rely on the development of a simulated reality, a proposed technology that would seem realistic enough to convince its inhabitants the simulation was real. The hypothesis has been a central plot device of many science fiction stories and films.

There is a long philosophical and scientific history to the underlying thesis that reality is an illusion. This skeptical hypothesis can be traced back to antiquity; for example, to the "Butterfly Dream" of Zhuangzi,[1] or the Indian philosophy of Maya. A version of the hypothesis was also theorised as a part of a philosophical argument by René Descartes.

Nick Bostrom's premise:

Many works of science fiction as well as some forecasts by serious technologists and futurologists predict that enormous amounts of computing power will be available in the future. Let us suppose for a moment that these predictions are correct. One thing that later generations might do with their super-powerful computers is run detailed simulations of their forebears or of people like their forebears. Because their computers would be so powerful, they could run a great many such simulations. Suppose that these simulated people are conscious (as they would be if the simulations were sufficiently fine-grained and if a certain quite widely accepted position in the philosophy of mind is correct). Then it could be the case that the vast majority of minds like ours do not belong to the original race but rather to people simulated by the advanced descendants of an original race.

Nick Bostrom's conclusion:
Nick Bostrom in 2014

It is then possible to argue that, if this were the case, we would be rational to think that we are likely among the simulated minds rather than among the original biological ones.

Therefore, if we don't think that we are currently living in a computer simulation, we are not entitled to believe that we will have descendants who will run lots of such simulations of their forebears.
— Nick Bostrom, Are you living in a computer simulation?, 2003[2]

Ancestor simulation

In 2003, philosopher Nick Bostrom proposed a trilemma that he called "the simulation argument". Despite the name, Bostrom's "simulation argument" does not directly argue that we live in a simulation; instead, Bostrom's trilemma argues that one of three unlikely-seeming propositions is almost certainly true:

"The fraction of human-level civilizations that reach a posthuman stage (that is, one capable of running high-fidelity ancestor simulations) is very close to zero", or
"The fraction of posthuman civilizations that are interested in running simulations of their evolutionary history, or variations thereof, is very close to zero", or
"The fraction of all people with our kind of experiences that are living in a simulation is very close to one"

The trilemma points out that a technologically mature "posthuman" civilization would have enormous computing power; if even a tiny percentage of them were to run "ancestor simulations" (that is, "high-fidelity" simulations of ancestral life that would be indistinguishable from reality to the simulated ancestor), the total number of simulated ancestors, or "Sims", in the universe (or multiverse, if it exists) would greatly exceed the total number of actual ancestors.

Bostrom goes on to use a type of anthropic reasoning to claim that, if the third proposition is the one of those three that is true, and almost all people with our kind of experiences live in simulations, then we are almost certainly living in a simulation.

Bostrom claims his argument goes beyond the classical ancient "skeptical hypothesis", claiming that "...we have interesting empirical reasons to believe that a certain disjunctive claim about the world is true", the third of the three disjunctive propositions being that we are almost certainly living in a simulation. Thus, Bostrom, and writers in agreement with Bostrom such as David Chalmers, argue there might be empirical reasons for the "simulation hypothesis", and that therefore the simulation hypothesis is not a skeptical hypothesis but rather a "metaphysical hypothesis". Bostrom states he personally sees no strong argument for which of the three trilemma propositions is the true one: "If (1) is true, then we will almost certainly go extinct before reaching posthumanity. If (2) is true, then there must be a strong convergence among the courses of advanced civilizations so that virtually none contains any individuals who desire to run ancestor-simulations and are free to do so. If (3) is true, then we almost certainly live in a simulation. In the dark forest of our current ignorance, it seems sensible to apportion one's credence roughly evenly between (1), (2), and (3)... I note that people who hear about the simulation argument often react by saying, 'Yes, I accept the argument, and it is obvious that it is possibility #n that obtains.' But different people pick a different n. Some think it obvious that (1) is true, others that (2) is true, yet others that (3) is true."

As a corollary to the trilemma, Bostrom states that "Unless we are now living in a simulation, our descendants will almost certainly never run an ancestor-simulation.

...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis

You are a fellow Atheist, and thats okay.

[pulstar]

I don't agree with the premise of the thread either, it's way too simplified, but this argument doesn't work either. If someone is brought up in a society, where everyone around him is a believer and a good portion of his life revolves around religion, he is most likely to accept it and and see everything through the lense of it's premise way before his high IQ even manifests and the process won't just stop there once it does. Being good at solving logical problems doesn't really affect your large-scale philosophical worldview that much anyway. Plus, throughout history, people didn't really have that much of a reason to doubt their religion's narrative from a scientific standpoint - us having a decent idea about geology, biology, chemistry or physics is a relatively very recent thing. There were some philosophical here and there, but if you're already religious once you might actually be relevant in that area, you're not likely going to undermine your religion, you're gonna take the apologist's side instead.

Exactly, given how some people here talk about Einstein being religious in some form, you can say that same form of religion stopped him from achieving more when he made up cosmological constant (and so in such way tried to preserve static universe hypothesis) which was later proved to be wrong using those same equation Einstein provided which proved wrong by Friedmann and Lemaitre and create expanding universe hypothesis which was confirmed by observations.

[Joso]

THEORY IS NOTHING IF YOU ARE NOT ABLE TO PROVE IT......

If that was the case then we could use this arguments against religions too lol because most of watch religions teaches are not proved scientifically and are just theories as well, or not even theories, much of it doesnt makes any sense...

[Marmara]

THEORY IS NOTHING IF YOU ARE NOT ABLE TO PROVE IT......

Those theories are mathemathically proven even if they cannot be observed at the moment (such as Hawking radiation) and math doesn't lie.

But still, Hawking didn't get a Nobel prize because his theories were not proven by observation.

[Aldaris]

Those theories are mathemathically proven even if they cannot be observed at the moment (such as Hawking radiation) and math doesn't lie.

But still, Hawking didn't get a Nobel prize because his theories were not proven by observation.

The underlying aparate 'doesn't lie', that's the only thing we can say for sure. But it can still be inaccurate regarding the actual world. That's what happened to Newton, for example.

[Loki]

God did say he would use the foolish to confound the wise. God is not impressed with human intellect, nor does he need that in order to bring about his kingdom. God does not tolerate pride, which is the original sin of Satan that caused him to be kicked out of heaven.

If you want to find God, don't try to be smart. Humble yourself, then God will lift you up and you would know and understand him.

[Insuperable]

Great post.
I'd like to continuate your line of tinking and add another factors that also help us to understand why some are more emotional:
1-Hormones.
Hormones such as Estrogen( the hormone responsible for the typical irritating female behaviour).
Higly estrogened males(also known as soyboys) tend to be endomorph like alpines, baltids and borrebies. That explains why alpinization can also be translated as "addictional annoyingnes";
Im endomorph myself and i guess that explains why i was banned from here for so many times, lol;
2-Bad education and little dicipline when kid;
3-Repression.
In our modern society, specially in the West( but also in areas influentiated by it in the thirld world) masculinity is so repressed that is considerated as a crime.
Inclusive, to end it honouring the topic of the thread,
The instinctual-repressive tool most used is, yeah, it, religion!

So did you experience any rise in your IQ in the last several days or so?

[TheOldNorth]

this is actually a misconception, most religious people (especially christian protestant whites) are smarter then the average joe, its just that geniuses tend to be atheist...

[Wanderer]

Atheism is irrational. It is not "rational" to believe that man came from fish and fish came from goo. It's not "rational" in any sense to believe that genetic information whose complexity exceeds anything man every created came from the combination of slime and time. It's not "rational" to believe that irreducibly complex machinery just "evolved" from nothing:

http://www.arn.org/images2/cafepress_biologicalrotarymotor_intro.jpg

[JamesBond007]

Pseudo Science, most high IQ personalities within human history were believers.

You are totally wrong. Most high IQ personalities in human history lived before Charles Darwin came out with his theory of evolution. They don't call Richard Dawkins Darwin's Rottweiler for nor reason. Also, in the past there was more social pressure to conform to religious norms e.g. you might be burned at the stake for not professing to believe so you can never be sure whether or not they were true believers.

Also, some people like to claim Einstein was religious but he wasn't. He was a pantheist which basically sexed up atheism.

If you believe his quote here makes him believe in a supernatural god you are committing intellectual high treason :

"God does not play dice with the universe."

There are two huge errors in the way many people have interpreted this quote over the years. People have wrongly assumed Einstein was religious, believed in destiny, or that he completely rejected a core theory in physics.

First, Einstein wasn't referring to a personal god in the quote. He was using "God" as a metaphor. The quote was meant to criticize Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.


When Einstein said 'Did God have a choice in creating the Universe?' he meant 'Could the universe have begun in more than one way?' 'God does not play dice' was Einstein's poetic way of doubting Heisenberg's indeterminacy principle. Einstein was famously irritated when theists misunderstood him to mean a personal God. But what did he expect? The hunger to misunderstand should have been palpable to him. 'Religious' physicists usually turn out to be so only in the Einsteinian sense: they are atheists of a poetic disposition. So am I. But, given the widespread yearning for that great misunderstanding, deliberately to confuse Einsteinian pantheism with supernatural religion is an act of intellectual high treason.--Richard Dawkins


https://live.staticflickr.com/121/287450597_0ef0d4a624_b.jpg

[JamesBond007]

Atheism is irrational. It is not "rational" to believe that man came from fish and fish came from goo. It's not "rational" in any sense to believe that genetic information whose complexity exceeds anything man every created came from the combination of slime and time. It's not "rational" to believe that irreducibly complex machinery just "evolved" from nothing:

http://www.arn.org/images2/cafepress_biologicalrotarymotor_intro.jpg

You totally don't understand evolution. Richard Dawkin's in his paradigm shifting and award winning book "The Selfish Gene" gives a good account how life came about. Also, your irreducable complexity nonsense is dealt with in two of his books, at least, "The Blind Watch Maker" and at least one chapter in his book "The God Delusion".

However, like most Americans you don't read books :



"I wouldn’t be surprised if the number truly is 75% of Americans don’t read at least one book of note, to completion, in a year. I’m not talking about some silly book like “The Secret,” or “The South Beach Diet” or a passage of the Bible, or something written by a B-celebrity’s ghost writer, but a full-length book written by a real person who is attempting to be writerly."


"I would estimate that 95% of Americans do not read books on a regular basis.

Among those who do read, older people are more likely to read printed books, and younger people are more likely to read “electronic” books (on a Kindle for example).

Most Americans don’t read books unless it’s necessary for their education (textbooks), as part of their job, or as part of a focused hobby. Very few Americans have the patience to read books as a regular pastime — as compared to TV, internet, radio, etc.

Perhaps a more interesting question would be:

What percentage of Americans buy more than 10 books in one year, or have more than 100 physical paper books in their home?"


https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-Americans-dont-read-books



Dawkins summarises the main philosophical arguments on God's existence, singling out the argument from design for longer consideration. Dawkins concludes that evolution by natural selection can explain apparent design in nature.[3]

He writes that one of the greatest challenges to the human intellect has been to explain "how the complex, improbable design in the universe arises", and suggests that there are two competing explanations:

A hypothesis involving a designer, that is, a complex being to account for the complexity that we see.
A hypothesis, with supporting theories, that explains how, from simple origins and principles, something more complex can emerge.

This is the basic set-up of his argument against the existence of God, the Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit,[16] where he argues that the first attempt is self-refuting, and the second approach is the way forward.[17]

At the end of chapter 4 ("Why there almost certainly is no God"), Dawkins sums up his argument and states, "The temptation [to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself] is a false one, because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer. The whole problem we started out with was the problem of explaining statistical improbability. It is obviously no solution to postulate something even more improbable".[18] In addition, chapter 4 asserts that the alternative to the designer hypothesis is not chance, but natural selection.

Dawkins does not claim to disprove God with absolute certainty. Instead, he suggests as a general principle that simpler explanations are preferable (see Occam's razor) and that an omniscient or omnipotent God must be extremely complex (Dawkins argues that it is logically impossible for a God to be simultaneously omniscient and omnipotent). As such he argues that the theory of a universe without a God is preferable to the theory of a universe with a God.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion


In his choice of the title for this book, Dawkins refers to the watchmaker analogy made famous by William Paley in his 1802 book Natural Theology.[1] Paley, writing long before Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, held that the complexity of living organisms was evidence of the existence of a divine creator by drawing a parallel with the way in which the existence of a watch compels belief in an intelligent watchmaker. Dawkins, in contrasting the differences between human design and its potential for planning with the workings of natural selection, therefore dubbed evolutionary processes as analogous to a blind watchmaker.

To dispel the idea that complexity cannot arise without the intervention of a "creator", Dawkins uses the example of the eye. Beginning with a simple organism, capable only of distinguishing between light and dark, in only the crudest fashion, he takes the reader through a series of minor modifications, which build in sophistication until we arrive at the elegant and complex mammalian eye. In making this journey, he points to several creatures whose various seeing apparatus are, whilst still useful, living examples of intermediate levels of complexity.

In developing his argument that natural selection can explain the complex adaptations of organisms, Dawkins' first concern is to illustrate the difference between the potential for the development of complexity as a result of pure randomness, as opposed to that of randomness coupled with cumulative selection. He demonstrates this by the example of the weasel program. Dawkins then describes his experiences with a more sophisticated computer model of artificial selection implemented in a program also called The Blind Watchmaker, which was sold separately as a teaching aid.

The program displayed a two-dimensional shape (a "biomorph") made up of straight black lines, the length, position, and angle of which were defined by a simple set of rules and instructions (analogous to a genome). Adding new lines (or removing them) based on these rules offered a discrete set of possible new shapes (mutations), which were displayed on screen so that the user could choose between them. The chosen mutation would then be the basis for another generation of biomorph mutants to be chosen from, and so on. Thus, the user, by selection, could steer the evolution of biomorphs. This process often produced images which were reminiscent of real organisms for instance beetles, bats, or trees. Dawkins speculated that the unnatural selection role played by the user in this program could be replaced by a more natural agent if, for example, colourful biomorphs could be selected by butterflies or other insects, via a touch-sensitive display set up in a garden.


In an appendix to a later edition of the book (1996), Dawkins explains how his experiences with computer models led him to a greater appreciation of the role of embryological constraints on natural selection. In particular, he recognised that certain patterns of embryological development could lead to the success of a related group of species in filling varied ecological niches, though he emphasised that this should not be confused with group selection. He dubbed this insight the evolution of evolvability.

After arguing that evolution is capable of explaining the origin of complexity, near the end of the book Dawkins uses this to argue against the existence of God: "a deity capable of engineering all the organized complexity in the world, either instantaneously or by guiding evolution ... must already have been vastly complex in the first place ..." He calls this "postulating organized complexity without offering an explanation."

In the preface, Dawkins states that he wrote the book "to persuade the reader, not just that the Darwinian world-view happens to be true, but that it is the only known theory that could, in principle, solve the mystery of our existence."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blind_Watchmaker

https://live.staticflickr.com/121/287450597_0ef0d4a624_b.jpg

[JamesBond007]

BTW. people with higher IQs read books. You might want to actually try analytically reading some non-fiction books first before replying with some ignorant hackneyed trite arguments that have already been dealt with by people smarter than yourself.:picard2:

[JamesBond007]

Atheism is irrational. It is not "rational" to believe that man came from fish and fish came from goo. It's not "rational" in any sense to believe that genetic information whose complexity exceeds anything man every created came from the combination of slime and time. It's not "rational" to believe that irreducibly complex machinery just "evolved" from nothing.



Before life began on Earth, the environment likely contained a massive number of chemicals that reacted with each other more or less randomly, and it is unclear how the complexity of cells could have emerged from such chemical chaos. Now, a team led by Tony Z. Jia at the Tokyo Institute of Technology and Kuhan Chandru of the National University of Malaysia has shown that simple a-hydroxy acids, like glycolic and lactic acid, spontaneously polymerize and self-assemble into polyester microdroplets when dried at moderate temperatures followed by rehydration. This could be what happened along primitive beaches and river banks, or in drying puddles. These form a new type of cell-like compartment that can trap and concentrate biomolecules like nucleic acids and proteins. These droplets, unlike most modern cells, are able to merge and reform easily, and thus could have hosted versatile early genetic and metabolic systems potentially critical for the origins of life.

Previous work conducted at ELSI showed that moderate temperature drying of the simple organic compounds known as alpha-hydroxy acids, which are found in meteorites and many simulations of prebiological chemistry, spontaneously polymerizes them into mixtures of long polyesters. Building on this work, Jia and colleagues took the next step and examined these reactions under the microscope, and found that these mixed polyester systems form a gel phase and spontaneously self-assemble when rewetted to form simple cell-like structures. [...] Jia and colleagues are not certain these structures are the direct ancestors of cells, but they think it is possible such droplets could have enabled the assembly of protocells on Earth. The new compartmentalization system they have found is extremely simple, they note, and could form easily in primitive environments throughout the universe.

"We have this new experimental system we can now play with, so we can start to study phenomena like evolution and evolvability of these droplets. The possible combinations of structures or functions these droplets might have are almost endless. If the physical rules that govern the formation of droplets are fairly universal in nature, then we hope to study similar systems to discover whether they also can form microdroplets with novel properties."--Jia



https://www.pnas.org/content/116/32/15830

[JamesBond007]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89jt7zJzkNQ

[Daco Celtic]

Most likely. I grew up Catholic but became agnostic by about my junior year of high school.

[JamesBond007]

Most likely. I grew up Catholic but became agnostic by about my junior year of high school.

More than most likely rather it is practically proven by science or at least virtually proven. Dude, we are not only talking about one study here but 63 over the course of many years (more than 8 decades) :



Abstract : A meta-analysis of 63 studies showed a significant negative association between intelligence and religiosity. The association was stronger for college students and the general population than for participants younger than college age; it was also stronger for religious beliefs than religious behavior. For college students and the general population, means of weighted and unweighted correlations between intelligence and the strength of religious beliefs ranged from −.20 to −.25 (mean r=−.24). Three possible interpretations were discussed. First, intelligent people are less likely to conform and, thus, are more likely to resist religious dogma. Second, intelligent people tend to adopt an analytic (as opposed to intuitive) thinking style, which has been shown to undermine religious beliefs. Third, several functions of religiosity, including compensatory control, self-regulation, self-enhancement, and secure attachment, are also conferred by intelligence. Intelligent people may therefore have less need for religious beliefs and practices.

http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/The-Relation-Between-Intelligence-and-Religiosity-A-Meta-Analysis-and-Some-Proposed-Explanations.pdf



Why Are Atheists Generally Smarter Than Religious People?

By Laura Geggel June 05, 2017 Human Nature

https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/cwKxkzr3yNmearXW7n4j33-970-80.jpg

For more than a millennium, scholars have noticed a curious correlation: Atheists tend to be more intelligent than religious people.

It's unclear why this trend persists, but researchers of a new study have an idea: Religion is an instinct, they say, and people who can rise above instincts are more intelligent than those who rely on them.

"Intelligence — in rationally solving problems — can be understood as involving overcoming instinct and being intellectually curious and thus open to non-instinctive possibilities," study lead author Edward Dutton, a research fellow at the Ulster Institute for Social Research in the United Kingdom, said in a statement.

Smart cookie

In classical Greece and Rome, it was widely remarked that "fools" tended to be religious, while the "wise" were often skeptics, Dutton and his co-author, Dimitri Van der Linden, an assistant professor of psychology at Erasmus University Rotterdam in the Netherlands, wrote in the study.

The ancients weren't the only ones to notice this association. Scientists ran a meta-analysis of 63 studies and found that religious people tend to be less intelligent than nonreligious people. The association was stronger among college students and the general public than for those younger than college age, they found. The association was also stronger for religious beliefs, rather than religious behavior, according to the meta-analysis, published in 2013 in the journal Personality and Social Psychology Review.

But why does this association exist? Dutton set out to find answer, thinking that perhaps it was because nonreligious people were more rational than their religious brethren, and thus better able to reason that there was no God, he wrote.

But "more recently, I started to wonder if I'd got it wrong, actually," Dutton told Live Science. "I found evidence that intelligence is positively associated with certain kinds of bias."

For instance, a 2012 study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology showed that college students often get logical answers wrong but don't realize it. This so-called "bias blind spot" happens when people cannot detect bias, or flaws, within their own thinking. "If anything, a larger bias blind spot was associated with higher cognitive ability," the researchers of the 2012 study wrote in the abstract.

One question, for example, asked the students: "A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1.00 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?" The problem isn't intuitive (the answer is not 10 cents), but rather requires students to suppress or evaluate the first solution that springs into their mind, the researchers wrote in the study. If they do this, they might find the right answer: The ball costs 5 cents, and the bat costs $1.05.

If intelligent people are less likely to perceive their own bias, that means they're less rational in some respects, Dutton said. So why is intelligence associated with atheism? The answer, he and his colleague suggest, is that religion is an instinct, and it takes intelligence to overcome an instinct, Dutton said. [8 Ways Religion Impacts Your Life]
Basic instinct

The religion-is-an-instinct theory is a modified version of an idea developed by Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics, who was not involved in the new study.

Called the Savanna-IQ Interaction Hypothesis, Kanazawa's theory attempts to explain the differences in the behavior and attitudes between intelligent and less intelligent people, said Nathan Cofnas, who is pursuing a doctorate in philosophy at the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom this fall. Cofnas, who specializes in the philosophy of science, was not involved with the new study.

The hypothesis is based on two assumptions, Cofnas told Live Science in an email.

"First, that we are psychologically adapted to solve recurrent problems faced by our hunter-gatherer ancestors in the African savanna," Cofnas said. "Second, that 'general intelligence' (what is measured by IQ tests) evolved to help us deal with nonrecurrent problems for which we had no evolved psychological adaptations."

The assumptions imply that "intelligent people should be better than unintelligent people at dealing with 'evolutionary novelty' — situations and entities that did not exist in the ancestral environment," Cofnas said.

Dutton and Van der Linden modified this theory, suggesting that evolutionary novelty is something that opposes evolved instincts.
Philosophical take

The approach is an interesting one, but might have firmer standing if the researchers explained exactly what they mean by "religious instinct," Cofnas said.

"Dutton and Van der Linden propose that, if religion has an instinctual basis, intelligent people will be better able to overcome it and adopt atheism," Cofnas said. "But without knowing the precise nature of the 'religious instinct,' we can't rule out the possibility that atheism, or at least some forms of atheism, harness the same instinct(s)."

For instance, author Christopher Hitchens thought that communism was a religion; secular movements, such as veganism, appeal to many of the same impulses — and possibly 'instincts' — that traditional religions do, Cofnas said. Religious and nonreligious movements both rely on faith, identifying with a community of believers and zealotry, he said.

"I think it's misleading to use the term 'religion' as a slur for whatever you don't like," Cofnas said.
Religion and stress

The researchers also examined the link between instinct and stress, emphasizing that people tend to operate on instinct during stressful times, for instance, turning to religion during a near-death experience.

The researchers argue that intelligence helps people rise above these instincts during times of stress. [11 Tips to Lower Stress]

"If religion is indeed an evolved domain — an instinct — then it will become heightened at times of stress, when people are inclined to act instinctively, and there is clear evidence for this," Dutton said. "It also means that intelligence allows us to be able to pause and reason through the situation and the possible consequences of our actions."

People who are able to rise above their instincts are likely better problem-solvers, Dutton noted.

"Let's say someone had a go at you. Your instinct would be to punch them in the face," Dutton told Live Science. "A more intelligent person will be able to stop themselves from doing that, reason it through and better solve the problem, according to what they want."

The study was published May 16 in the journal Evolutionary Psychological Science.

https://www.livescience.com/59361-why-are-atheists-generally-more-intelligent.html

[Daco Celtic]

More than most likely rather it is practically proven by science or at least virtually proven. Dude, we are not only talking about one study here but 63 over the course of many years (more than 8 decades) :



Abstract : A meta-analysis of 63 studies showed a significant negative association between intelligence and religiosity. The association was stronger for college students and the general population than for participants younger than college age; it was also stronger for religious beliefs than religious behavior. For college students and the general population, means of weighted and unweighted correlations between intelligence and the strength of religious beliefs ranged from −.20 to −.25 (mean r=−.24). Three possible interpretations were discussed. First, intelligent people are less likely to conform and, thus, are more likely to resist religious dogma. Second, intelligent people tend to adopt an analytic (as opposed to intuitive) thinking style, which has been shown to undermine religious beliefs. Third, several functions of religiosity, including compensatory control, self-regulation, self-enhancement, and secure attachment, are also conferred by intelligence. Intelligent people may therefore have less need for religious beliefs and practices.

http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/The-Relation-Between-Intelligence-and-Religiosity-A-Meta-Analysis-and-Some-Proposed-Explanations.pdf



Why Are Atheists Generally Smarter Than Religious People?

By Laura Geggel June 05, 2017 Human Nature

https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/cwKxkzr3yNmearXW7n4j33-970-80.jpg

For more than a millennium, scholars have noticed a curious correlation: Atheists tend to be more intelligent than religious people.

It's unclear why this trend persists, but researchers of a new study have an idea: Religion is an instinct, they say, and people who can rise above instincts are more intelligent than those who rely on them.

"Intelligence — in rationally solving problems — can be understood as involving overcoming instinct and being intellectually curious and thus open to non-instinctive possibilities," study lead author Edward Dutton, a research fellow at the Ulster Institute for Social Research in the United Kingdom, said in a statement. [Saint or Spiritual Slacker? Test Your Religious Knowledge]
Smart cookie

In classical Greece and Rome, it was widely remarked that "fools" tended to be religious, while the "wise" were often skeptics, Dutton and his co-author, Dimitri Van der Linden, an assistant professor of psychology at Erasmus University Rotterdam in the Netherlands, wrote in the study.

The ancients weren't the only ones to notice this association. Scientists ran a meta-analysis of 63 studies and found that religious people tend to be less intelligent than nonreligious people. The association was stronger among college students and the general public than for those younger than college age, they found. The association was also stronger for religious beliefs, rather than religious behavior, according to the meta-analysis, published in 2013 in the journal Personality and Social Psychology Review.

But why does this association exist? Dutton set out to find answer, thinking that perhaps it was because nonreligious people were more rational than their religious brethren, and thus better able to reason that there was no God, he wrote.

But "more recently, I started to wonder if I'd got it wrong, actually," Dutton told Live Science. "I found evidence that intelligence is positively associated with certain kinds of bias."

For instance, a 2012 study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology showed that college students often get logical answers wrong but don't realize it. This so-called "bias blind spot" happens when people cannot detect bias, or flaws, within their own thinking. "If anything, a larger bias blind spot was associated with higher cognitive ability," the researchers of the 2012 study wrote in the abstract.

One question, for example, asked the students: "A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1.00 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?" The problem isn't intuitive (the answer is not 10 cents), but rather requires students to suppress or evaluate the first solution that springs into their mind, the researchers wrote in the study. If they do this, they might find the right answer: The ball costs 5 cents, and the bat costs $1.05.

If intelligent people are less likely to perceive their own bias, that means they're less rational in some respects, Dutton said. So why is intelligence associated with atheism? The answer, he and his colleague suggest, is that religion is an instinct, and it takes intelligence to overcome an instinct, Dutton said. [8 Ways Religion Impacts Your Life]
Basic instinct

The religion-is-an-instinct theory is a modified version of an idea developed by Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics, who was not involved in the new study.

Called the Savanna-IQ Interaction Hypothesis, Kanazawa's theory attempts to explain the differences in the behavior and attitudes between intelligent and less intelligent people, said Nathan Cofnas, who is pursuing a doctorate in philosophy at the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom this fall. Cofnas, who specializes in the philosophy of science, was not involved with the new study.

The hypothesis is based on two assumptions, Cofnas told Live Science in an email.

"First, that we are psychologically adapted to solve recurrent problems faced by our hunter-gatherer ancestors in the African savanna," Cofnas said. "Second, that 'general intelligence' (what is measured by IQ tests) evolved to help us deal with nonrecurrent problems for which we had no evolved psychological adaptations."

The assumptions imply that "intelligent people should be better than unintelligent people at dealing with 'evolutionary novelty' — situations and entities that did not exist in the ancestral environment," Cofnas said.

Dutton and Van der Linden modified this theory, suggesting that evolutionary novelty is something that opposes evolved instincts.
Philosophical take

The approach is an interesting one, but might have firmer standing if the researchers explained exactly what they mean by "religious instinct," Cofnas said.

"Dutton and Van der Linden propose that, if religion has an instinctual basis, intelligent people will be better able to overcome it and adopt atheism," Cofnas said. "But without knowing the precise nature of the 'religious instinct,' we can't rule out the possibility that atheism, or at least some forms of atheism, harness the same instinct(s)."

For instance, author Christopher Hitchens thought that communism was a religion; secular movements, such as veganism, appeal to many of the same impulses — and possibly 'instincts' — that traditional religions do, Cofnas said. Religious and nonreligious movements both rely on faith, identifying with a community of believers and zealotry, he said.

"I think it's misleading to use the term 'religion' as a slur for whatever you don't like," Cofnas said.
Religion and stress

The researchers also examined the link between instinct and stress, emphasizing that people tend to operate on instinct during stressful times, for instance, turning to religion during a near-death experience.

The researchers argue that intelligence helps people rise above these instincts during times of stress. [11 Tips to Lower Stress]

"If religion is indeed an evolved domain — an instinct — then it will become heightened at times of stress, when people are inclined to act instinctively, and there is clear evidence for this," Dutton said. "It also means that intelligence allows us to be able to pause and reason through the situation and the possible consequences of our actions."

People who are able to rise above their instincts are likely better problem-solvers, Dutton noted.

"Let's say someone had a go at you. Your instinct would be to punch them in the face," Dutton told Live Science. "A more intelligent person will be able to stop themselves from doing that, reason it through and better solve the problem, according to what they want."

The study was published May 16 in the journal Evolutionary Psychological Science.

https://www.livescience.com/59361-why-are-atheists-generally-more-intelligent.html

You are preaching to the choir

[Daco Celtic]

More than most likely rather it is practically proven by science or at least virtually proven. Dude, we are not only talking about one study here but 63 over the course of many years (more than 8 decades) :




In the words of your east coast friends "who ya think ya dealin' wit"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_I_Am_Not_a_Christian

[Atlantid]

Yes, I would say those that buy the dogmatism of religion are the least intelligent, the atheists and agnostics are in the middle, and those who find God through reason are the most intelligent, though they are not many.

[JamesBond007]

Yes, I would say those that buy the dogmatism of religion are the least intelligent, the atheists and agnostics are in the middle, and those who find God through reason are the most intelligent, though they are not many.

Unfortunately for you, your opinion is wrong :



If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes.

But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.

If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time--Bertrand Russell


In otherwords the onus or burden of proof is on the people who believe in God. The onus or burden of disproof is not on the Atheists. Good luck trying to prove god exists sucker !

[JamesBond007]

In the words of your east coast friends "who ya think ya dealin' wit"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_I_Am_Not_a_Christian

Very cool this is the second time I have seen you reference Bertrand Russell on this forum
I have read three of his books but not that one.

[Atlantid]

Unfortunately for you, your opinion is wrong :



If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes.

But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.

If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time--Bertrand Russell


In otherwords the onus or burden of proof is on the people who believe in God. The onus or burden of disproof is not on the Atheists. Good luck trying to prove god exists sucker !

I already have the proof, actually there are many ways. The thing is you can't understand unless you already have the talent to. Try to understand Spinoza, he has definitive logical proof, but you need to have a flair for philosophy, otherwise you simply won't understand.

There is also the fact that if a society is in a stage where it benefits from immoral acts (such as greed), it will actually promote atheism and the many cults it brings, because hedonistic people don't challenge authority and are good consumers.

[JamesBond007]

I already have the proof, actually there are many ways. The thing is you can't understand unless you already have the talent to. Try to understand Spinoza, he has definitive logical proof, but you need to have a flair for philosophy, otherwise you simply won't understand.

There is also the fact that if a society is in a stage where it benefits from immoral acts (such as greed), it will actually promote atheism and the many cults it brings, because hedonistic people don't challenge authority and are good consumers.

Sorry Broham but being enigmatic and saying you have proof without stating it or simply saying study Spinoza does not pass muster as a cogent argument especially since Spinoza's writings predate Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. Evolution is really the 800 pound gorilla in the room here.

As far as the consequences for the average Joe in regards to atheism that has nothing to do with the objective truth of the matter as high intelligence confers more self-control so one does not fall into the blackhole of immorality, hedonism and being a spendthrift. Greed may be a vice but necessarily avarice. You should avoid spendthrifts like the plague but not a miser.

Your argument is subjective rather than objective so you lose.

[El_Abominacion]

Speaking as an Agnostic many atheists lack the morals to make the right choices from what i’ve seen, instead of having religion to base their moral belief system off they instead have the choice to become a bright person or descend into the world of nihilism and contribute to the collapse of society. There are lots of exceptions to the edgy teen atheist stereotype of course but the lack of the morals associated with religion or a religious upbringing opens the gates to all kinds of degeneracy and subsequently shitty life choices. With that being said, being overly religious is a massive inhibition because you become too afraid to think abstractly, it also depends on what type of religion you follow. It’s all situational

[Aspirin]

From my experience, many atheists give an impression of low Iq individuals (I myself was an atheist in the past).

[JamesBond007]

Speaking as an agnostic many atheists i’ve met are just sheep, edgy teen hipsters who don’t think for themselves. There are lots of exceptions of course but the lack of the morals associated with religion or a religious upbringing opens the gates to all kinds of degeneracy and subsequently shitty life choices. With that being said, being overly religious is a massive inhibition because you become too afraid to think abstractly, it also depends on what type of religion you follow. It’s all situational

There is two kinds of people those that believe that people need religion to be moral and those who believe philosophy and reason are enough to instill proper ethics in a person without the need for God belief. I would say Buddhism is proof of the latter.

In his book "On Human Nature" Arthur Schopenhauer says the lower classes and Englishmen believe one has to be religious and believe in God to be moral. In America the lower classes are hyper--religious.

As far as being a sheeple that is bullshit since trying to organize atheists is like trying to herd cats. I'll take a shot back at you and say agnostics are milquetoast fence sitters.

[El_Abominacion]

There is two kinds of people those that believe that people need religion to be moral and those who believe philosophy and reason are enough to instill proper ethics in a person without the need for God believe. I would say Buddhism is proof of the latter.

In his book "On Human Nature" Arthur Schopenhauer says the lower classes and Englishmen believe one has to be religious and believe in God to be moral. In America the lower classes are hyper--religious.

As far as being a sheeple that is bullshit since trying to organize atheists is like trying to herd cats. I'll take a shot back at you and say agnostics are milquetoast fence sitters.

I made an edit.

[JamesBond007]

I made an edit.

So did I. I was posting from my smartphone and my smartphone thinks it knows how to spell better than I do but it does not. I am back on a PC now.

[El_Abominacion]

So did I. I was posting from my smartphone and my smartphone thinks it knows how to spell better than I do but it does not. I am back on a PC now.

Regarding fence sitting, I can see why this is looked down upon in many topics (politics for example, where the issues of virtue signalling and bluffing exist) but in terms of religious beliefs I don’t see it as an inherently bad thing. Believing is more than just an immediate choice, a lot of it is dependent on your upbringing and your own style of thinking, so I think at some point it’s natural to question your belief (or lack thereof) in a greater being

[JamesBond007]

From my experience, many atheists give an impression of low Iq individuals (I myself was an atheist in the past).

Congratulations you suck at math. The average atheist IQ is 106 and Atheists are 7% of the world population. Remove that 7% and the world average IQ goes down from 91.3 to even lower. So more than half of the world's population has an IQ below 100 and there are billions religious people, in the world. You do the exact math it is tricky. The average atheist IQ is 106 the average world population IQ is 88 and there are 7.53 billion people on the planet. So how many religious people have lower IQs compared to Atheists ? A shit megaton .

http://maddox.xmission.com/math_moron1.jpg

[JamesBond007]

Regarding fence sitting, I can see why this is looked down upon in many topics (politics for example, where the issues of virtue signalling and bluffing exist) but in terms of religious beliefs I don’t see it as an inherently bad thing. Believing is more than just an immediate choice, a lot of it is dependent on your upbringing and your own style of thinking, so I think at some point it’s natural to question your belief (or lack thereof) in a greater being

Agnostics are fence-sitters. Agnostics, by definition, wish to reserve judgement until all the evidence is in (one way or another), while recognizing the likelihood that it will never happen.

I caution you about the latter assertion, as science has a way of improving humanity's view on things once deemed impossible. For instance, August Comte believed in astronomical agnosticism—that we will never be able to study the composition of stars, a scientific assertion that was defeated even as he first wrote it.

I also don't know why God is always inflated with religion. For instance, it is pretty much certain that religion is man made but the probability of God existing can be regarded as seperate e.g. Deism.

[JamesBond007]

Congratulations you suck at math. The average atheist IQ is 106 and Atheists are 7% of the world population. Remove that 7% and the world average IQ goes down from 91.3 to even lower. So more than half of the world's population has an IQ below 100 and there are billions religious people, in the world. You do the exact math it is tricky. The average atheist IQ is 106 the average world population IQ is 88 and there are 7.53 billion people on the planet. So how many religious people have lower IQs compared to Atheists ? A shit megaton .

http://maddox.xmission.com/math_moron1.jpg

I edited this to fix my comment I was up all night so I am too tired to do more exact mathematical approximations.

[Gwydion]

In my experience there is a gradient of regular Joe religious types, who are below average to average intelligence, atheists tend to be middling, whereas you tend to find more philosophically oriented religious sorts at the upper end of the intelligence spectrum.

In any case God or religion isn't a hypothesis among others, a way of looking at the world. Rather true spiritual perception is a lived reality involving an entirely different organ, the so-called third eye or eye of the heart and so on. The vast majority of people today are completely spiritually blind, including most religious types, which is why there is a proliferation of atheists/agnostics and religion is viewed again as one hypothesis among others, a mere intellectual framework. The ancients of course predicted this spiritual degradation of man, which the Hindus called Kali Yuga, Hesiod called the Iron Age, the Norse called the Age of the Wolf, the Buddhists called the Dharma Ending Age, and so on.

In short the reason the ancients were almost completely "religious" or spiritually oriented and moderns are not isn't because the ancients were less intelligent or knew less about natural philosophy, i.e. science, and it wasn't an attempt by the ancients to explain the nature of reality or phenomena they did not understand. The real truth is that the ancients were able to perceive realities that modern man no longer can.

That said even if we ignore this more fundamental reality there are reasoned arguments to be made for why an Absolute or ultimate divine reality exists. Two Christians I've seen who do pretty well at this that one can look up on Youtube are David Bentley Hart and William Lane Craig.

Though the idea that one could prove the existence of a metaphysical reality which lies outside of space and time, thereby being imperceptible to the normal sensory organs and beyond the limits of the empirical sciences, is a non-starter. The various yogis, mystics, saints, etc. claim though that in the same way one can do a scientific experiment to prove or disprove a hypothesis, one could follow the necessary spiritual regimen and discipline to allow one to perceive spiritual realities and eventually directly perceive, experience, and unite with the Absolute. The so-called open minded atheists have no interest in trying to see if the ancient sages are right and just dismiss them out of hand, proving the majority of them are not real seekers of truth but as obstinate of ideologues as the religious fundamentalists they despise.

[Token]

Zoroastrianism should be the first religious option for every proud European. Atheism comes after.

[Bassem]

I disagree, in our current world, everybody must have the ability to disbelieve/believe in whatever they want.

So basically saying that they "should" have a single/out-dated belief means that they would go back to the dark ages, not due to their religion or beliefs, but it's due to everyone being on the same level of thinking which decreases their critical/creative thinking and they would eventually turn into sheep.

My point is that everybody (including Europeans) are totally free to go back into believing pagan religions if they have a logical reason behind it, other than that I see no need to, interested in knowing why you would think so, though.

[Loki]

Atheists' "intelligence" make them more susceptible to deceptions of the devil, because they think they are so smart ... when in fact they are not. :)

[Joso]

Zoroastrianism should be the first religious option for every proud European. Atheism comes after.

Zoroaster predicted the come of Jesus
Also, Christianism is similar to Zoroastrianism, some argue that judaism was influentiated by Zoroastrianism when Jews were exiled at Babilon.
So Christianity could be like the continuation of Zoroastrianism

[Wanderer]

Zoroaster predicted the come of Jesus
Also, Christianism is similar to Zoroastrianism, some argue that judaism was influentiated by Zoroastrianism when Jews were exiled at Babilon.
So Christianity could be like the continuation of Zoroastrianism

For one, the historical consensus overwhelmingly establishes that Jesus existed and was crucified under Pontius Pilate. Even anti-Christian historians acknowledge this, but many deceivers on the internet with less education would deny this.

The historical record supports that Jesus performs acts that astonished crowds, which the crowds regarded as miracles. The Jews who rejected Jesus and persecuted the early Christians acknowledged that Jesus performed many supernatural acts.

The Jews did not expect the Messiah to be crucified and rise again. Nevertheless, there were multiple eyewitnesses to the resurrected Jesus among these very same Jews, who were willing to endure persecution and martyrdom for their testimony. You can't claim it was a hallucination because there were many eyewitnesses. And the idea that these devout Jews, who had debates concerning such matters as whether they should even eat with Gentile Christians, would make all this up based on some foreign paganism is absolutely preposterous.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfV_tc32diM

[Babak]

Zoroaster predicted the come of Jesus
Also, Christianism is similar to Zoroastrianism, some argue that judaism was influentiated by Zoroastrianism when Jews were exiled at Babilon.
So Christianity could be like the continuation of Zoroastrianism

Except..the only zoroastrians are Parsis and Iranians.

[Token]

Except..the only zoroastrians are Parsis and Iranians.

Are you Zoroastrian?

[Joso]

Well, Native Americans from North America were very spiritual people and they had very large heads, that could suggest something
Maybe intelligence and religion are not always related, though shamanism is certainly not the same as religions like the Abarahamic ones as shamanism is more practical and natural, where as these others are more teorical and moral...
http://images6.fanpop.com/image/photos/40700000/Our-Infinitely-Evolving-Universe-by-Charles-Frizzell-native-pride-40765982-800-625.jpg

[Token]

Well, Native Americans from North America were very spiritual people and they had very large heads, that could suggest something
Maybe intelligence and religion are not always related, though shamanism is certainly not the same as religions like the Abarahamic ones as shamanism is more practical and natural, where as these others are more teorical and moral...

What is interesting is that mythologists says that Indo-Europeans religions are far closer to Turkic and Siberian shamanism than to Middle Eastern religions. Shamanism probably has something to do with Ancient North Eurasians.

[catgeorge]

Atheists are mid-educated people - that run with the belief they are smarter than Jesus Christ. It's just they are more suspect to be overcome by evil.

[JamesBond007]

Atheists are mid-educated people - that run with the belief they are smarter than Jesus Christ. It's just they are more suspect to be overcome by evil.


Owing to the identification of religion with virtue, together with the fact that the most religious men are not the most intelligent, a religious education gives courage to the stupid to resist the authority of educated men, as has happened, for example, where the teaching of evolution has been made illegal. So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence; and in this respect ministers of religion follow gospel authority more closely than in some others. (ESO) --Bertrand Russell


I am not myself in any degree ashamed of having changed my opinions. What physicist who was already active in 1900 would dream of boasting that his opinions had not changed during the last half century? In science men change their opinions when new knowledge becomes available, but philosophy in the minds of many is assimilated rather to theology than to science. A theologian proclaims eternal truths, the creeds remain unchanged since the Council of Nicea. Where nobody knows anything, there is no point in changing your mind. --Bertrand Russell (DMMM)

[JamesBond007]

Atheists are mid-educated people - that run with the belief they are smarter than Jesus Christ. It's just they are more suspect to be overcome by evil.


Man, it would seem, has descended from arboreal apes. They lived a happy life in tropical forests, eating coconuts when they were hungry, and throwing them at each other when they were not. They were perpetually occupied in gymnastics, and acquired an agility which, to us, is truly astonishing. But after some millions of years of this arboreal paradise, their numbers increased to the point where the supply of coconuts was no longer adequate. The population problem set in, and was dealt with in two different ways: those who lived in the middle of the forest learned to throw coconuts with such accuracy as to disable adversaries, whose consequent death relieved the pressure of population, but those who lived on the edge of the forest found another method: they looked out over the fields and discovered that they yielded delicious fruits of various kinds quite as pleasant as coconuts, and gradually they came down from the trees and spent more and more time in the open on the ground. They soon discovered that if you live on the ground it is easy to pick up stones, which are more effective missiles than coconuts. (NHCW) --Bertrand Russell




... Man is at bottom a savage, horrible beast. We know it, if only in the business of taming and restraining him which we call civilisation. Hence it is that we are terrified if now and then his nature breaks out. Wherever and whenever the locks and chains of law and order fall off and give place to anarchy, he shows himself for what he is. But it is unnecessary to wait for anarchy in order to gain enlightenment on this subject. A hundred records, old and new, produce the conviction that in his unrelenting cruelty man is in no way inferior to the tiger and the hyaena. A forcible example is supplied by a publication of the year 1841 entitled Slavery and the Internal Slave Trade in the United States of North America: being replies to questions transmitted by the British Anti-slavery Society to the American Anti-slavery Society.{1} This book constitutes one of the heaviest indictments against the human race. No one can put it down with a feeling of horror, and few without tears. For whatever the reader may have ever heard, or imagined, or dreamt, of the unhappy condition of slavery, or indeed of human cruelty in general, it will seem small to him when he reads of the way in which those devils in human form, those bigoted, church-going, strictly Sabbatarian rascals—and in particular the Anglican priests among them—treated their innocent black brothers, who by wrong and violence had got into their diabolical clutches. ... -Arthur Schopenhauer

[Loki]

[indent]Man, it would seem, has descended from arboreal apes.

No he hasn't! :rolleyes: Man was created by God, as a spirit... and was given a physical body to live in, in this worldly realm created for it. But man essentially is a spirit.. as such, created in the image of God, who is also a Spirit. We cannot die, we have been created eternal beings.

[Loki]

What is interesting is that mythologists says that Indo-Europeans religions are far closer to Turkic and Siberian shamanism than to Middle Eastern religions. Shamanism probably has something to do with Ancient North Eurasians.

No, shamanism can be found in most cultures of the world, from north Eurasia to the forests of the Amazon and the Congo. It taps into the spiritual, where the fallen angels have taught men from different cultures how to make contact with the spirit world.

[Loki]

Well, Native Americans from North America were very spiritual people and they had very large heads, that could suggest something
Maybe intelligence and religion are not always related, though shamanism is certainly not the same as religions like the Abarahamic ones as shamanism is more practical and natural, where as these others are more teorical and moral...


Shamanism is basically native occultism, i.e. contact with the demonic spirit world.

[JamesBond007]

No he hasn't! :rolleyes: Man was created by God, as a spirit... and was given a physical body to live in, in this worldly realm created for it. But man essentially is a spirit.. as such, created in the image of God, who is also a Spirit. We cannot die, we have been created eternal beings.

I don't agree with you but you are free to believe what you want to believe. I really don't feel like arguing with you because you own the site so offending you too much would be unwise.

[Loki]

I don't agree with you but you are free to believe what you want to believe. I really don't feel like arguing with you because you own the site so offending you too much would be unwise.

Well, I already know that you disagree with me about this. And I realise what you believe. Whilst I don't like it, I'm not offended by it, because you cannot pretend to believe if you don't. But I appreciate your politeness regardless. :)

I also once believed as you do now... keep that in mind.

[pulstar]

While I don't know if there is God or not, I firmly think some of the modern professions (some more than other) make you lose your sense of spirituality way easier than others. Are they connected to higher IQ? I'd say yes.

[Token]

No, shamanism can be found in most cultures of the world, from north Eurasia to the forests of the Amazon and the Congo. It taps into the spiritual, where the fallen angels have taught men from different cultures how to make contact with the spirit world.

You clearly didn't understand my post.

[Loki]

Zoroastrianism should be the first religious option for every proud European. Atheism comes after.

Erm..no thank you, I don't think so. Even Europeans would do best to gain eternal life through Jesus Christ. There is no alternative.

[Batavia]

No he hasn't! :rolleyes: Man was created by God, as a spirit... and was given a physical body to live in, in this worldly realm created for it. But man essentially is a spirit.. as such, created in the image of God, who is also a Spirit. We cannot die, we have been created eternal beings.

Evolution is not just a theory, it is fact. I highly doubt that there is a spirit/soul in us; we´re all biology.

[Joso]

Evolution is not just a theory, it is fact. I highly doubt that there is a spirit/soul in us; we´re all biology.
Neanderthals were proto-shamanists, how do you explain that?

[JamesBond007]

Neanderthals were proto-shamanists, how do you explain that?

That is extremely easy to explain -- it is called superstition. In fact all religions can be said to be nothing more than superstitions that have been around long enough to have become respectable. Even lower animals display superstition e.g. pigeons in Harvard psychologists BF Skinner's famous experiments with pigeons in a box with food pellets. If pigeons and humans can display superstition than it is logically easy to explain Neanderthal's abilities to display superstition too.

[Illyrius]

Let us also not forget that atheists are most likely, fat, incels and ugly nerds.

[Joso]

You don't understand what emotional intelligence is. Manipulators have high emotional intelligence. The manipulated have low emotional intelligence. Most extremely religious people fall into the category of lambs led to slaughter which means they have low emotional intelligence.

Is not emotional inteligence mostly related to modern human type of brain? Just like hability to manipulate?
It is certainly a Jewish-like trait, maybe something related with a more developed frontal lobe but a lack of temporal development.
Spiritual people most like tend to be autist or autist-like, which certainly doesn't mean that they are dumb, just have a brain that works differently and likely more natural.
Atheism is modern trait and is likely related with a degenerate brain, just like abrahamism.
Athesim=abrahamism. Both materialist bs.

[Joso]

That is extremely easy to explain -- it is called superstition. In fact all religions can be said to be nothing more than superstitions that have been around long enough to have become respectable. Even lower animals display superstition e.g. pigeons in Harvard psychologists BF Skinner's famous experiments with pigeons in a box with food pellets. If pigeons and humans can display superstition than it is logically easy to explain Neanderthal's abilities to display superstition too.

How is that just a superstition if it actually helped neanderthal "societies" to work?
And how does the fact that animals can display superstition go against spirituality, would not it be rather a confirmation of it since, for example, early spiritualists such as shamanists communicated with animals( according to themselves)?

[JamesBond007]

Religion today hangs on the horns of a dilemma: On the one hand, it is false in the scientific sense, as we shall demonstrate below; but on the other hand, because religion in one form or another has been around as long as recorded history -- and in fact has played a central role in man's social and personal life -- it is almost certain that religion is useful in the sense that it has helped men to survive. The real dilemma of religion, however, is that it must be believed in order to be useful, yet this is impossible when people know that it is false.

The obvious solution to this dilemma -- if indeed there is a solution -- is to discover what is useful about religion, and to try to make use of this knowledge. But we will be stymied in our attempt to accomplish this task -- or at least to bring it to fruition in the sense of teaching others -- if we do not first and finally sweep away the foolishness of religious belief by making a plain and clear statement as to religion's literal falsity. Accordingly, we cite below what we view as twelve compelling reasons why a rational person must regard religion as false.

Reason 1: The nature of scientific vs religious belief: science is actually a religion: Its faith involves such beliefs as that the future will be like the past in certain ways, that explanations should be based on objectively- verifiable evidence, and that the best explanation is the simplest one which fits all the facts ("the Law of Parsimony"). However, science is different from most religions in the way it makes 'converts', and, more generally, in how it gets people to believe in its assertions. In particular, people become converts to science because they see that it works: Science builds buildings and bombs and sends rockets to the moon -- something no religion seriously pretends to do. On the other hand, people become converts to religion because they think they see that it works, but are mistaken: For example, people become converts to religion because of such things as (a) their parents shape their beliefs at an impressionable age (ie, brainwash them); (b) they have a psychic or psychic-like experience which makes them think that God is responsible, whereas in reality they may only have had a pinched spinal nerve, or perhaps a genuine psychic experience, the latter of which does not prove the existence of God, but only that there are things that science still doesn't understand; or (c) they survive some traumatic experience which makes them think that God is the only thing that could have gotten them thru it, eg, military combat ("There are no atheists in foxholes") or taking a subway ride in New Yawk.

Reason 2: The nature of religious theories vs scientific ones: Scientific theories are ones which are supposedly objectively-verifiable by any person of sufficient skill -- a fact reflected in the custom that a theory is not accepted as scientifically correct or useful unless it has been judged publishable in a scientific journal by the author's scientific peers, and experimentally verified by another scientist of recognized credentials. In contrast, religious theories are accepted on the basis of the babblings of religious hermits who beat themselves bloody, refuse to wash, and -- small wonder -- haven't had sex for at least six weeks (OK, make that 40 days).

Reason 3: Religion's logical contradictions: Religion contains many contradictions. For example, the Bible tells us to "love thine enemy", yet all the smiting of their enemies by God's Chosen in the Old Testament makes it plain that the roots of Christianity were far closer to hatred than love. Again, the Bible tells us that God "loves" each and every one, yet those who violate God's laws or don't believe in religious dogma are supposedly going to be sent to eternal Hellfire -- hardly an act of a loving God. One can fill a book with such contradictions.

Reason 4: Religion's incredible shrinking knowledge: About 400 years ago, the Christian religion "knew" everything. It "knew" the earth was flat, "knew" that there were witches, "knew" that animals could be tried for crimes, "knew" that the Bible was the literal word of God, "knew" the difference between right and wrong, "knew" that the difference between man and beast was that only men have "souls", "knew" that the earth was the center of the universe, and so on. Since that time the things that religion "knows" has been shrinking at the speed of light -- or at least the speed of thought. Copernicus showed that the sun was the center of our "universe"; Galileo discovered new worlds; Newton showed that it was physical laws, and not a Godhead, that determined the movement of the planets; and so on. Today, what religion "knows" can be contained in a pinhead, and generally is.

Reason 5: Religion's immoral leaders: Religion has always claimed to offer a code of "absolute morality", yet the behavior of its holiest men have often been far less than moral by any standard, religious or otherwise. For example, numerous Popes have been guilty of all sorts of crimes -- bribery, theft, fornication, murder, torture, warmaking -- you name it. Again, the Inquisition was responsible for treating many people with the most extreme barbarity -- so much so that a strong stomach is required simply to read about it. It is true, of course, that Christianity has cleaned up its act in recent years, but this has much less to do with the character of its leaders than its failing power in a world dominated by science. Accordingly, since Christians are no longer able to express their love of God thru such media as boring tongues with hot pokers, beating people till bloody at the whipping post, dipping and re-dipping them in boiling oil or ripping off their genitals, these gentle and loving people now have to content themselves with beating the bare buttocks of their children, and even this divertissement has been under attack in recent years.

Reason 6: Religion's questionable moral codes: Even with immoral leadership, religion might still claim the moral high ground on the basis of its behavioral codes. As it happens, however, these codes are usually deficient and often highly ambiguous. For example, there is no consensus on many controversial moral issues, including abortion, homosexuality, pornography, serving in the armed forces, and numerous others, tho all sects claim to know that their position on these issues -- whatever it may be -- is endorsed by The Big Guy In The Sky.

Reason 7: Religion's historical origins: The origin of most religions does not encourage belief. Serious investigation of the origins of religion only began in the 19th century with Sir James G Frazer's Golden Bough, and we now know such things as that the Yahweh religion of the Old Testament was actually a cult of phallic worship whose "covenant" was signed in blood by circumcision, and that many of the rituals of modern Christianity were taken from earlier religions, such as the Christmas creche, which was taken directly from the Egyptian Isis-Osiris religion.

Reason 8: Religion's appeal to the human ego: Because we now know that the earth is but a tiny speck of dust in an unfathomably large universe, the notion that human beings are "special creations of God", and in particular are so important that God "gave his only begotten Son" for their "salvation" now seems like such palpable nonsense that anyone who believes it would have to be demented. And inasmuch as all the major religions are built around the notion that they are "special creations" of the Creator of the Universe, we can forthwith assign all such religions to the dustbin of superstition. The argument here is evidently much like what Bertrand Russell had in mind when he said, "That God would bother with humans proves that he is demented; that he is demented proves that he does not exist."

Reason 9: Religion's 'explanatory' appeal: The importance of religion for many people is that it explains how the world came into existence ("Because God created it") and the purpose of their life ("To worship God and do his bidding"). However, these explanations make no sense upon close examination. In particular, 'explaining' the existence of the world as an act of God requires the believer to explain how God was created -- surely he did not create himself -- and this means that the 'explanation' leaves more unexplained about the world than before the 'explanation' was developed. Likewise, 'explaining' one's purpose in life by saying it is to 'serve God' implies that God's purposes are known, whereas in reality we know nothing about "God's purposes" except what is told to us by the babbling of religious fruitcakes.

Reason 10: Religion's psychological origins: Many years ago, the famous Harvard psychologist B.F. Skinner did an experiment on what he called "the development of superstition in pigeons." Religion, of course, falls under this rubric -- as J.B.R. Yant said in his Mortal Words, "Religion is just superstition which has been around long enough to have become respectable." What Skinner did was the following: He would put a hungry pigeon in a so- called "Skinner box", which had an opening through which food could be introduced. Food pellets were then dropped into the box at random times. The result of this setup, when done with a large number of pigeons, was that each one of the pigeons were found to be repeating a single behavior over and over: Some would continually repeat a certain type of preening, some a certain type of stretching, some a certain type of walking, and so on. The reason for these different continually-repeated behaviors was as follows: Pigeons normally are continually engaged in one or another type of behavior -- preening, stretching, etc. If they are engaged in one of these behaviors when a food pellet is dropped into their box, they form an association between their behavior and the appearance of the food pellet, i.e., (in mentalistic terms) they are caused to think that there is possibly some cause-effect relation between their behavior and the appearance of the pellet. This, then, encourages them to try the behavior again, perhaps several times -- i.e., this behavior has been "reinforced". But since this behavior has now become more likely, there is a greater chance that a food pellet will drop into the box at the time that the pigeon is engaged in this behavior. Which means that this behavior will be "reinforced" more. Which means that it will be more likely to be performed again, and get reinforced again, and so on and on, until the hungry pigeon has developed a "superstition" about what "causes" a food pellet to appear -- a superstition that it will practice whenever it is hungry. The parallel with the Skinner experiments and religion is obvious -- a person is taught how to pray, so this causes him to pray occasionally "at random" merely out of habit. Then one day after he has prayed, something he has prayed for comes about. So he is "reinforced" -- even tho there was no relation between his prayer and the happy event. So this encourages him to pray again. And occasionally it will happen that what he wishes for actually occurs following a prayer. So he is reinforced again. And so on, until like a bird-brain pigeon, he has developed a full-blown superstition, i.e., a religion.

Reason 11: The argument from the multiplicity of religions: There are dozens, and perhaps even hundreds or thousands of religions, all of which claim to be 'absolutely true', and all of which contradict one another in fundamental ways. The only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from this is that all of them are absolutely false. In recognizing the above facts, those of an ecuminist bent have argued that, while all religions are probably false in some ways, the fact that all (or at least most) have the same core beliefs about God and morality imply that the true religion is constituted of these core beliefs. While this argument has a superficial appeal, it does not in fact prove the truth of the core beliefs, but only -- at most -- their usefulness: It proves that human beings are similar in the basic moral rules and mental props (god-belief) needed for a stable society.

Reason 12: The argument from impudence: It is the simplest of simple things to prove that God does not exist. Just look toward the sky, raise your middle finger, and say, "Hey, you son- of-a-bitch mother-fucker up there, if you're so God-damned all-powerful, then let's see if you can strike down little old me, you big over-praised, over-blown ass-hole." When nothing happens, the proposition is proved, Q.E.D.


Systems Theory and Religion

The cause of religious belief in human beings is intimately related to the desire on the part of individuals to have an explanation for various phenomena, and in fact, if nature possessed easy, simply-discoverable laws, it is doubtful that religion would have ever developed. As it happens, however, natural law is by no means simple, and thus it undoubtedly appeared to the primitive mind that the forces of nature were chaotic and unpredictable. From this point of view, however, it was but a short step to attributing an anthropomorphic character to nature: Unpredictability became whimsicalness; the raging storm became the work of an angry god who, like an angry man, will become calm again in time; the personal calamity became the punishment of evil-doers; the occurrence of an unusual event became a sign that the deity was engaged in something special that would affect his minions; and so on. Accordingly, primitives came to view nature as the Great Man, and those actions known to please man became, with certain modifications, the sets of formulas that were thought most efficacious for getting into the Great Man's good graces. This, however, meant that religion became the Theory of Divine Psychology, since it was an elucidation of those inputs by which the Great System in the Sky could be made to give certain outputs. Most modern-day religions, of course, usually prescribe that a constant input of morally correct behavior, scripture reading, and contribution to the church's coffers will be certain to yield, in the end, that output which will reserve for the doer eternal grace in the firmament; while if the input includes such things as copulating without the specific intention of adding to the population problem, or wondering how the dictum of "love they neighbor" requires the church to expend huge sums of money for business investments, stock purchases, and ornate bric-a-brac while the poor go hungry, then the output is certain to be hellfire, brimstone and everlasting damnation.

In contrast to present-day religions, the stock-in-trade of the more primitive of man's faiths has usually been a description of those inputs that will stimulate The Great System to produce outputs useful in day-to- day affairs -- the rain dance, the war dance, and the fertility rite being among the best known of these. Nowadays, however, science has largely taken over this most ancient function of religion: If a man wants rain for his crops, he seeds the clouds or rents an ion generator; if he wants to win at war he builds big bombs and develops test-tube plagues; and in order to insure that the harvest will be abundant, he no longer feels the need to fornicate in the middle of his fields -- he simply has his hired hand spade on some manure. All this is not, of course, to say that religion does not have any influence where it was once the prime mover -- the Bible-reading of the astronauts from the moon is a case in point -- it is just that the hegemony has changed hands. Religion, I am afraid, will die very hard. But if it is true, as we have suggested above, that from a functional standpoint God is nothing more than a (markovian) System, it may be asked how man presumed himself to have discovered its laws. The answer to this, I believe, is given by a famous experiment of B.F. Skinner, who placed hungry pigeons in individual cages rigged in such a manner that food pellets would automatically drop in the cage every 10 seconds. The result of this situation was that some of the pigeons began practicing certain rituals, such as turning in circles, stretching their necks and fluttering their wings. The generally-accepted explanation of these rituals is that on one or more occasions when the food pellet was dropped, a particular bird would be performing a particular act, and the appearance of food at that time "reinforced" the act, i.e., (in mentalistic terms) the appearance of food at that time caused the bird to assume that the performance of the act in question would be efficacious in causing the appearance of more food. In short, the birds in question acquired what, at least in functional terms, amounted to superstition. The conclusion to be drawn from this, of course, is that the probable origin of religious beliefs is accidental reinforcement of peculiar behavior.

Now in conclusion, it seems appropriate to remark that the prayer wheel -- each revolution of which is believed by devotees of certain Eastern religions to send a prayer to the Deity, and from which derives the concept of "spinning one's wheels" -- is a mechanism which seems to fit quite well into the analysis we have given here of Deus ad machina. We can only wonder whether the countries in which prayer-wheel religions predominate, as they are drawn kicking and screaming into the machine age, will convert imported Western machinery into dual-tasking devices whose combined effects serve not only to do their initially-designed tasks, but in addition produce as an epiphenomenon the continual massaging of the great underbelly of God's mind.

[JamesBond007]

Let us also not forget that atheists are most likely, fat, incels and ugly nerds.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebLAdFqkd4M


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntVaFGgPGnU

[Samnium]

Many geniuses and outstanding scientists were in fact strong believers I can quote Maxwell or Lemaitre but it would be a list "argument" and not very effective. These are counter-examples to the first affirmation of this thread.

[Loki]

Even if atheists were on average more intelligent than those who believe in God, it wouldn't necessarily mean they are correct about God. In fact, they are wrong about him. And God has clearly revealed this in the Bible, too, that he would reveal himself to the humble to confound the wise. All human wisdom is but foolishness to God -- and those who are really wise would know this, too. :) So many human precepts and ideas they think are based on solid facts, are in fact erroneous, or does not take into consideration things they do not know. In this regard, faith is most useful and important. Believing is seeing in many things, not seeing is believing...

Those who think they are smarter than God will be brought low, and shown their error and lack of humility.

[Samnium]

Even if atheists were on average more intelligent than those who believe in God, it wouldn't necessarily mean they are correct about God. In fact, they are wrong about him. And God has clearly revealed this in the Bible, too, that he would reveal himself to the humble to confound the wise. All human wisdom is but foolishness to God -- and those who are really wise would know this, too. :) So many human precepts and ideas they think are based on solid facts, are in fact erroneous, or does not take into consideration things they do not know. In this regard, faith is most useful and important. Believing is seeing in many things, not seeing is believing...

Those who think they are smarter than God will be brought low, and shown their error and lack of humility.

Moreover using IQ as a benchmark of intelligence is highly contestable.

[Joso]

Even if atheists were on average more intelligent than those who believe in God, it wouldn't necessarily mean they are correct about God. In fact, they are wrong about him. And God has clearly revealed this in the Bible, too, that he would reveal himself to the humble to confound the wise. All human wisdom is but foolishness to God -- and those who are really wise would know this, too. :) So many human precepts and ideas they think are based on solid facts, are in fact erroneous, or does not take into consideration things they do not know. In this regard, faith is most useful and important. Believing is seeing in many things, not seeing is believing...

Those who think they are smarter than God will be brought low, and shown their error and lack of humility.

Agree, atheists are not smarter than believers.
It is probably true that atheists tend to have higher IQ indeed but IQ is not the only way of measuring inteligence.

[Loki]

Religion today hangs on the horns of a dilemma: On the one hand, it is false in the scientific sense, ...

Dude, your whole copy/paste is wrong. I know God exists and there is no "dilemma" whatsoever that I can see. Every day it just becomes more clear that God is true and those who oppose him are liars and idiots.

[Joso]

Religiousness is basically feminine quality. As highly intelligent people are likely to also be male and hyper-masculine in brain orientation, I would actually argue it is their masculinity which makes them disregard gods.

Your nonsense theory would only makes sense if people had all the same type of brain and a modern human brain/skull.
But that is not the case and therefore you are wrong.
In fact atheism is modern phenomenon related to modern brains and modern men are less masculine.
So actually it is the opposite.

[JamesBond007]

The atheist is a fundamentalist, he has a belief: the non-existence of god, he has no doubt that god does not exist, even though it has not been possible to prove it, and it is impossible to make him doubt the contrary.

I do not see any difference between a religious and an atheist

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/is2JS6ZXnE8wZVyg-bB29uFEH4g1Kvk0KZJvEKMG4dnYdzbh3G1LTpTr2xF6q1NzG0c vMdN-y5L1v27GBPD5m2MesCWw535pfRRQvgKn8HVHnY_alROauvdT-h_pm8WoibX_vdSFmw


Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

---Bertrand Russell

[JamesBond007]

Another, somewhat ironic thing I forgot to mention is my relationship with Pascal. To me, he is one of the greatest polymaths to ever grace western civilization, but his philosophical tail chasing argument - ie, Pascal's Wager, is one of the most frustrating things to argue when it comes to debating theists. (Which is not something I do often). Basically, whenever I find myself in a conversation with a deist about religion, any one of them that is even remotely educated on western philosophy will inevitably bring up this individual and proclaim he made a perfectly valid argument when stating that one had absolutely nothing to lose when choosing to practice a dogmatic religion. I myself am non-religious, and while I generally try to avoid getting into arguments when it comes to religion (I believe if any moderate, non-violent religion is helps an individual lead a happy and psychologically balanced life, they should be more than welcome to adhere to it) there are certain boundaries that theists cross sometimes, and the argument ends up going in circles until the debate ends up with "what could you possibly have to lose by believing?"

I usually don't respond and try to end the argument there. In the end though, I feel like submitting to a religion relinquishes the sense of wonder that the universe we live in is capable of spontaneously and selflessly engineering some truly divine (pardon the expression) wonders. And to me personally - a pale of existence that can do that completely autonomously is far more beautiful and poetic than any god, no matter how peaceful and loving, could ever hope to replicate.

Anyway, the point of this rant in the end was that creationists are certainly capable of intelligent thought, Pascal as an example. Even more so, they are sometimes capable of creating merry-go-round arguments that can be quite trying in patience. :P

When people bring up 'intelligent' people who are capable of 'creationist' thought they always bring up people such as Blaise Pascal and Isaac Newton but what they fail to mention is that all those people lived before the time of Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution.


The God Delusion

PASCAL'S WAGER

The great French mathematician Blaise Pascal reckoned that, however long the odds against God's existence might be, there is an even larger asymmetry in the penalty for guessing wrong. You'd better believe in God, because if you are right you stand to gain eternal bliss and if you are wrong it won't make any difference anyway. On the other hand, if you don't believe in God and you turn out to be wrong you get eternal damnation, whereas if you are right it makes no difference. On the face of it the decision is a no-brainer. Believe in God.

There is something distinctly odd about the argument, however.

Believing is not something you can decide to do as a matter of policy. At least, it is not something I can decide to do as an act of will. I can decide to go to church and I can decide to recite the Nicene Creed, and I can decide to swear on a stack of bibles that I believe every word inside them. But none of that can make me actually believe it if I don't. Pascal's wager could only ever be an argument for feigning belief in God. And the God that you claim to believe in had better not be of the omniscient kind or he'd see through the deception. The ludicrous idea that believing is something you can decide to do is deliciously mocked by Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency, where we meet the robotic Electric Monk, a labour-saving device that you buy 'to do your believing for you'. The de luxe model is advertised as 'Capable of believing things they wouldn't believe in Salt Lake City'.

But why, in any case, do we so readily accept the idea that the one thing you must do if you want to please God is believe in him? What's so special about believing? Isn't it just as likely that God would reward kindness, or generosity, or humility? Or sincerity? What if God is a scientist who regards honest seeking after truth as the supreme virtue? Indeed, wouldn't the designer of the universe have to be a scientist? Bertrand Russell was asked what he would say if he died and found himself confronted by God, demanding to know why Russell had not believed in him. 'Not enough evidence, God, not enough evidence,' was Russell's (I almost said immortal) reply. Mightn't God respect Russell for his courageous scepticism (let alone for the courageous pacifism that landed him in prison in the First World War) far more than he would respect Pascal for his cowardly bet-hedging? And, while we cannot know which way God would jump, we don't need to know in order to refute Pascal's Wager. We are talking about a bet, remember, and Pascal wasn't claiming that his wager enjoyed anything but very long odds. Would you bet on God's valuing dishonestly faked belief (or even honest belief) over honest scepticism?

Then again, suppose the god who confronts you when you die turns out to be Baal, and suppose Baal is just as jealous as his old rival Yahweh was said to be. Mightn't Pascal have been better off wagering on no god at all rather than on the wrong god? Indeed, doesn't the sheer number of potential gods and goddesses on whom one might bet vitiate Pascal's whole logic? Pascal was probably joking when he promoted his wager, just as I am joking in my dismissal of it. But I have encountered people, for example in the question session after a lecture, who have seriously advanced Pascal's Wager as an argument in favour of believing in God, so it was right to give it a brief airing here.

Is it possible, finally, to argue for a sort of anti-Pascal wager? Suppose we grant that there is indeed some small chance that God exists. Nevertheless, it could be said that you will lead a better, fuller life if you bet on his not existing, than if you bet on his existing and therefore squander your precious time on worshipping him, sacrificing to him, fighting and dying for him, etc. I won't pursue the question here, but readers might like to bear it in mind when we come to later chapters on the evil consequences that can flow from religious belief and observance.

---Richard Dawkins "The God Delusion"

https://reasonrevolution.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/24131489_538937663128813_4753048181682221599_n.jpg

[Wanderer]

Dude, your whole copy/paste is wrong. I know God exists and there is no "dilemma" whatsoever that I can see. Every day it just becomes more clear that God is true and those who oppose him are liars and idiots.

Amen brother! :thumb001:

What Isaac Newton said, quoted below, is still valid in physics today. Atheism is shown to be untenable, as atheistic models utterly fail to explain the ordering of the cosmos. So they invent things like "dark matter" which we know nothing about, can't be observed--yet not only must it be there, they say, it is actually by far the most abundant type of matter in the universe! And why? Because atheists need it to make their bogus theories work!

Newton:

"... but though these bodies may, indeed, persevere in their orbits by the mere laws of gravity, yet they could by no means have at first derived the regular position of the orbits themselves from those laws."


Not only could they not have derived their regular positions according to the laws of physics, they could not have even formed in the first place! Physics utterly annihilates atheism! BTW, though this presentation is given by a creationist, he is using mostly secular scientific sources to show all the problems with their theories.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiCec8SiDuI

[JamesBond007]

Amen brother! :thumb001:

What Isaac Newton said, quoted below, is still valid in physics today. Atheism is shown to be untenable, as atheistic models utterly fail to explain the ordering of the cosmos. So they invent things like "dark matter" which we know nothing about, can't be observed--yet not only must it be there, they say, it is actually by far the most abundant type of matter in the universe! And why? Because atheists need it to make their bogus theories work!

Newton:

"... but though these bodies may, indeed, persevere in their orbits by the mere laws of gravity, yet they could by no means have at first derived the regular position of the orbits themselves from those laws."


Not only could they not have derived their regular positions according to the laws of physics, they could not have even formed in the first place! Physics utterly annihilates atheism! BTW, though this presentation is given by a creationist, he is using mostly secular scientific sources to show all the problems with their theories.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiCec8SiDuI

Newton lived before Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. If he was born after that there is good reason to suppose he probably would have been an Atheist like Stephen Hawking. Newton was proven wrong in certain aspects, of his physics, by Einstein. Einstein was a pantheist which is basically just sexed up Atheism. Newton may also have been wrong in his theory of gravity :


Physicists have been looking for laws that explain both the microscopic world of elementary particles and the macroscopic world of the universe and the Big Bang at its beginning, expecting that such fundamental laws should have symmetry in all circumstances. However, last year, two physicists found a theoretical proof that, at the most fundamental level, nature does not respect symmetry. There are four fundamental forces in the physical world: electromagnetism, strong force, weak force, and gravity. Gravity is the only force still unexplainable at the quantum level. Its effects on big objects, such as planets or stars, are relatively easy to see, but things get complicated when one tries to understand gravity in the small world of elementary particles.

To try to understand gravity on the quantum level, Hirosi Ooguri, the director of the Kavli Institute for the Physics and Mathematics of the Universe in Tokyo, and Daniel Harlow, an assistant professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, started with the holographic principle. This principle explains three-dimensional phenomena influenced by gravity on a two-dimensional flat space that is not influenced by gravity. This is not a real representation of our universe, but it is close enough to help researchers study its basic aspects. The pair then showed how quantum error correcting codes, which explain how three-dimensional gravitational phenomena pop out from two dimensions, like holograms, are not compatible with any symmetry; meaning such symmetry cannot be possible in quantum gravity.

https://science.slashdot.org/story/20/01/24/2239257/gravity-we-might-have-been-getting-it-wrong-this-whole-time#comments

[PaleoEuropean]

Statics are just grouped anecdotes, they have no great bearing and only show a school of fish in a giant ocean. The only statistics worth while are those such as the census and crime statistics as they are massive and all encompassing.

[JamesBond007]

Amen brother! :thumb001:

What Isaac Newton said, quoted below, is still valid in physics today. Atheism is shown to be untenable, as atheistic models utterly fail to explain the ordering of the cosmos. So they invent things like "dark matter" which we know nothing about, can't be observed--yet not only must it be there, they say, it is actually by far the most abundant type of matter in the universe! And why? Because atheists need it to make their bogus theories work!

Newton:

"... but though these bodies may, indeed, persevere in their orbits by the mere laws of gravity, yet they could by no means have at first derived the regular position of the orbits themselves from those laws."


Not only could they not have derived their regular positions according to the laws of physics, they could not have even formed in the first place! Physics utterly annihilates atheism! BTW, though this presentation is given by a creationist, he is using mostly secular scientific sources to show all the problems with their theories.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiCec8SiDuI




We will describe how M-theory may offer answers to the question of creation. According to M-theory, ours is not the only universe. Instead, M-theory predicts that a great many universes were created out of nothing. Their creation does not require the intervention of some supernatural being or god. Rather, these multiple universes arise naturally from physical law. They are a prediction of science. Each universe has many possible histories and many possible states at later times, that is, at times like the present, long after their creation. Most of these states will be quite unlike the universe we observe and quite unsuitable for the existence of any form of life. Only a very few would allow creatures like us to exist. Thus our presence selects out from this vast array only those universes that are compatible with our existence. Although we are puny and insignificant on the scale of the cosmos, this makes us in a sense the lords of creation.

--Stephen Hawking " The Grand Design"




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89jt7zJzkNQ

https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/tabs.web.media/a/w/awtr/awtr-square-1536.jpg

[Lioncourt]

Atheist-Theist debates are some of the least productive because neither can prove their point with indisputable evidence.

[Zeno]

I don't know where you got the "Atheists are big brains", but in real life, all the atheists I've encountered are not smart. At all. I've humiliated them in every single debate about any subject. Because atheists are all "progress", "diversity", "tolerance", combating "white privilege" etc. They fight for nothing else.

[Bosniensis]

Atheists are more technology oriented people cause they hope to solve mortality issue through technology.

Christians and Muslims believe that death is natural order of things, and that earthly life is ordained by God as well as afterlife.

Since IQ doesn't measure spirituality, it's obviously in favor of non-believers.

[Loki]

Newton lived before Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. If he was born after that there is good reason to suppose he probably would have been an Atheist like Stephen Hawking.

Nonsense. Darwin's theory does not disprove God. His theory also does not prove that animals developed by chance, without a creator. Things don't just happen like that... as I've previously mentioned, natural selection cannot explain all animal diversity. Not even close. Intelligent design is the reality... and the intelligent designer is God. Newton knew that and Darwin wouldn't have changed his mind. And Stephen Hawking is a fool for not seeing the hand of God in creation... and most probably in hell right now. :(

[Wanderer]

Newton lived before Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. If he was born after that there is good reason to suppose he probably would have been an Atheist like Stephen Hawking. Newton was proven wrong in certain aspects, of his physics, by Einstein. Einstein was a pantheist which is basically just sexed up Atheism. Newton may also have been wrong in his theory of gravity :


Physicists have been looking for laws that explain both the microscopic world of elementary particles and the macroscopic world of the universe and the Big Bang at its beginning, expecting that such fundamental laws should have symmetry in all circumstances. However, last year, two physicists found a theoretical proof that, at the most fundamental level, nature does not respect symmetry. There are four fundamental forces in the physical world: electromagnetism, strong force, weak force, and gravity. Gravity is the only force still unexplainable at the quantum level. Its effects on big objects, such as planets or stars, are relatively easy to see, but things get complicated when one tries to understand gravity in the small world of elementary particles.

To try to understand gravity on the quantum level, Hirosi Ooguri, the director of the Kavli Institute for the Physics and Mathematics of the Universe in Tokyo, and Daniel Harlow, an assistant professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, started with the holographic principle. This principle explains three-dimensional phenomena influenced by gravity on a two-dimensional flat space that is not influenced by gravity. This is not a real representation of our universe, but it is close enough to help researchers study its basic aspects. The pair then showed how quantum error correcting codes, which explain how three-dimensional gravitational phenomena pop out from two dimensions, like holograms, are not compatible with any symmetry; meaning such symmetry cannot be possible in quantum gravity.

https://science.slashdot.org/story/20/01/24/2239257/gravity-we-might-have-been-getting-it-wrong-this-whole-time#comments

There's nothing scientific about believing that life in all its complexity came from slime. It's simply impossible. Besides, Darwinism is predicated on an old earth, which is not scientific either. Before you mention dinosaurs, know that these creatures lived with ancient man, which is why dragons are known in diverse cultures. Plus, they've found red blood cells belonging to the T-Rex, which would not have lasted 65 million years. In terms of the earth, there's not enough helium in the atmosphere for the earth to be millions of years old. And the magnetic field is decaying far too fast for the earth to be old. There are numerous indicators in the cosmos, in the solar system, and on earth that show a young age, consistent with a Biblical age of around 6000 years. http://www.nwcreation.net/young.html

[Loki]

Atheists are more technology oriented people cause they hope to solve mortality issue through technology.

Christians and Muslims believe that death is natural order of things, and that earthly life is ordained by God as well as afterlife.

Since IQ doesn't measure spirituality, it's obviously in favor of non-believers.

I totally disagree. There is nothing "obvious" about what you say here. You are wrong.

Those who try to attain immortality in this physical world are absolutely crazy, trying to attain the unattainable. Because they don't realise that we are spiritual beings, only temporarily living in physical bodies. So, we already have immortality... and to keep this physical body of flesh alive for eternity is an absolutely insane idea :D

[PaleoEuropean]

Nonsense. Darwin's theory does not disprove God. His theory also does not prove that animals developed by chance, without a creator. Things don't just happen like that... as I've previously mentioned, natural selection cannot explain all animal diversity. Not even close. Intelligent design is the reality... and the intelligent designer is God. Newton knew that and Darwin wouldn't have changed his mind. And Stephen King is a fool for not seeing the hand of God in creation... and most probably in hell right now. :(

Darwin never once renounced Christianity or harbored Atheist sentiments. This is a common misconception.

[Wanderer]

We will describe how M-theory may offer answers to the question of creation. According to M-theory, ours is not the only universe. Instead, M-theory predicts that a great many universes were created out of nothing. Their creation does not require the intervention of some supernatural being or god. Rather, these multiple universes arise naturally from physical law. They are a prediction of science. Each universe has many possible histories and many possible states at later times, that is, at times like the present, long after their creation. Most of these states will be quite unlike the universe we observe and quite unsuitable for the existence of any form of life. Only a very few would allow creatures like us to exist. Thus our presence selects out from this vast array only those universes that are compatible with our existence. Although we are puny and insignificant on the scale of the cosmos, this makes us in a sense the lords of creation.

--Stephen Hawking " The Grand Design"




Don't you see the problem with the statement, "multiple universes arise naturally from physical law"? Without a First Cause, there's no physical law. God is the uncaused First Cause of all things.

[PaleoEuropean]

I don't know where you got the "Atheists are big brains", but in real life, all the atheists I've encountered are not smart. At all. I've humiliated them in every single debate about any subject. Because atheists are all "progress", "diversity", "tolerance", combating "white privilege" etc. They fight for nothing else.

Atheists live on anecdotes and ad hominem attacks all they can do imo is regurgitate outdated literature.

[Epirus DNA]

Atheists will only be considered more intelligent if in fact God does not exist.
If God does exist, Atheists will be considered stupid.

[Harkonnen]

Your nonsense theory would only makes sense if people had all the same type of brain and a modern human brain/skull.
But that is not the case and therefore you are wrong.
In fact atheism is modern phenomenon related to modern brains and modern men are less masculine.
So actually it is the opposite.

I used to be much more interested in this topic back when I wanted to annoy certain raethelian.

[JamesBond007]

I don't know where you got the "Atheists are big brains", but in real life, all the atheists I've encountered are not smart. At all. I've humiliated them in every single debate about any subject. Because atheists are all "progress", "diversity", "tolerance", combating "white privilege" etc. They fight for nothing else.

That is the most retarded shit I have ever heard and is one giant moronic straw man that has nothing to do with God or religion.

[JamesBond007]

Atheists live on anecdotes and ad hominem attacks all they can do imo is regurgitate outdated literature.

What exactly is outdated that I posted ? Philosophy is not Science so depending on the philosophy it does not go out of date as sometimes philosophy can take the wrong path.

Also, periodicals are more transitory in worth than books and I quoted from at least two books from the modern age.

[JamesBond007]

That is the most retarded shit I have ever heard and is one giant moronic straw man that has nothing to do with God or religion.

Maybe it would not be a straw man if you could prove most atheists believe in the same thing. AFAIK, getting atheists together is like herding cats.

[Samnium]

When people bring up 'intelligent' people who are capable of 'creationist' thought they always bring up people such as Blaise Pascal and Isaac Newton but what they fail to mention is that all those people lived before the time of Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution.

---Richard Dawkins "The God Delusion"[/indent]

https://reasonrevolution.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/24131489_538937663128813_4753048181682221599_n.jpg

Avoid quoting Dawkins though, he's an hysterical guy that speak upon subjects where he doesn't have any clue (history notably). He has done a great job in biology by defining the "Selfish gene" that's a very important contribution to modern science, but please don't take his quotes.

I've read one of his books I have to say that he's interesting when he talks about biology and evolution, then he applies it to "religion" and particuliarly christian one, to claim that's nothing more than a natural process comparable to what lead bugs the night.

He's also a progressist (feminist, pro-abortion etc.), a convicted pro-migrants, in one word : a boomer.

[Zeno]

That is the most retarded shit I have ever heard and is one giant moronic straw man that has nothing to do with God or religion.

Atheists use "muh disbelief in God" in order to make them more credible, and more "valid". Including you. You say "this has nothing to do with religion or belief in God". Dude, you unironically believe atheists revolve around belief in God only? More like the opposite. They revolve around social and historical issues with the most idiotic takes.

[Oneeye]

How many fedora topping yahoos masturbate to this kind of self indulgent crap?

[Aldaris]

Atheists use "muh disbelief in God" in order to make them more credible, and more "valid". Including you. You say "this has nothing to do with religion or belief in God".

Atheist are a diverse bunch. The only thing they have in common is that they are not convinced by s claim that any god exists. For example, I clearly fall under the atheist category, but if you think I somehow support the concepts you've mentioned in your original post, might wanna check my posting history.


Dude, you unironically believe atheists revolve around belief in God only? More like the opposite. They revolve around social and historical issues with the most idiotic takes.

Again, read the above. For some atheists this holds, for some it doesn't. Generalizing statements like that are simply wrong, unless you specify that those are in fact the particular ones you're speaking about in the first place.

[JamesBond007]

Atheists use "muh disbelief in God" in order to make them more credible, and more "valid". Including you. You say "this has nothing to do with religion or belief in God". Dude, you unironically believe atheists revolve around belief in God only? More like the opposite. They revolve around social and historical issues with the most idiotic takes.

Atheists revolve around social and historical issues ? The only thing atheists have in common is they either don't believe in god or think that the existence of God is highly improbable. People who all believe in the liberal political cause are easy to get together for mass movements on the other hand :


“Indeed, organizing atheists has been compared to herding cats, because they tend to think independently and will not conform to authority. But a good first step would be to build up a critical mass of those willing to 'come out,' thereby encouraging others to do so. Even if they can't be herded, cats in sufficient numbers can make a lot of noise and they cannot be ignored.” --Richard Dawkins

[Jacques de Imbelloni]

The reason why atheist are in average more inteligent than religious persons is because: the people that couldn't have access to proper formal education, will be more prone to rely on traditional costumes and system of belief to explain the world around them.
This is particularly true for the muslim world, were there is an iron curtain over information, especially in areas were wahhabis/salafis have control over the goverment.

[Zeno]

Atheists revolve social and historical issues ? The only thing atheists have in common is they either don't believe in god or think that the existence of God is highly improbable. People who all believe in the liberal political cause are easy to get together for mass movements on the other hand :


Yeah, and in their majority, which is a commonplace, is that they advocate for retarded leftist causes, especially in issues that regard society, that certainly doesn't match their IQ.


“Indeed, organizing atheists has been compared to herding cats, because they tend to think independently and will not conform to authority. But a good first step would be to build up a critical mass of those willing to 'come out,' thereby encouraging others to do so. Even if they can't be herded, cats in sufficient numbers can make a lot of noise and they cannot be ignored.” --Richard Dawkins

Except society of today proves otherwise. In all the leftist movements, it's all the atheists that are driven like a herd of cattle to whatever degenerate act their (((headmasters))) direct them too.

[Zeno]

Atheist are a diverse bunch. The only thing they have in common is that they are not convinced by s claim that any god exists. For example, I clearly fall under the atheist category, but if you think I somehow support the concepts you've mentioned in your original post, might wanna check my posting history.



Again, read the above. For some atheists this holds, for some it doesn't. Generalizing statements like that are simply wrong, unless you specify that those are in fact the particular ones you're speaking about in the first place.

Diverse bunch? They're like fedora-tipping, neckbearded, obese retards, who are masturbating in the belief that just because, JUST BECAUSE, they don't believe in God, they are inherently superior in any topic of discussion. No, that is not the case. You're required to have done your research and thinking in any topic of discussion. Just because you're an atheist it doesn't mean you're smart. Prove that you're smart. Don't use "muh disbelief in God" in order to come across as "intelligent". Have evidence in your side. And that is something most atheists don't possess. You and Bond007 are the exceptions.

[JamesBond007]

Yeah, and in their majority, which is a commonplace, is that they advocate for retarded leftist causes, especially in issues that regard society, that certainly doesn't match their IQ.


Except society of today proves otherwise. In all the leftist movements, it's all the atheists that are driven like a herd of cattle to whatever degenerate act their (((headmasters))) direct them too.

Atheists and liberals are probably smarter :

https://www.asanet.org/research-and-publications/journals/social-psychology-quarterly/why-liberals-and-atheists-are-more-intelligent

Also, the smartest are probably not modern liberal atheists but libertarian atheists and libertarians are classical liberals. Most nerds are libertarian , for instance, but you focus on modern liberals because they are more numerous probably because they are less intelligent but not less intelligent than conservative religious people.

[PaleoEuropean]

What exactly is outdated that I posted ? Philosophy is not Science so depending on the philosophy it does not go out of date as sometimes philosophy can take the wrong path.

Also, periodicals are more transitory in worth than books and I quoted from at least two books from the modern age.

Not saying you specifically just a generalization based on the real world.

[Zeno]

Atheists and liberals are probably smarter :

https://www.asanet.org/research-and-publications/journals/social-psychology-quarterly/why-liberals-and-atheists-are-more-intelligent

Also, the smartest are probably not modern liberal atheists but libertarian atheists and libertarians are classical liberals. Most nerds are libertarian , for instance, but you focus on modern liberals because they are more numerous probably because they are less intelligent but not less intelligent than conservative religious people.

You're basically talking about the fringe of atheists.

[Aldaris]

Diverse bunch? They're like fedora-tipping, neckbearded, obese retards, who are masturbating in the belief that just because, JUST BECAUSE, they don't believe in God, they are inherently superior in any topic of discussion. No, that is not the case. You're required to have done your research and thinking in any topic of discussion. Just because you're an atheist it doesn't mean you're smart. Prove that you're smart. Don't use "muh disbelief in God" in order to come across as "intelligent". Have evidence in your side. And that is something most atheists don't possess. You and Bond007 are the exceptions.

Yeah, this type of an atheist is indeed very annoying, but they are a tiny minority, which barely even exists outside of the internet. I don't think I've actually met anyone like that in the real life - most atheists who are also anti-religious in some sense tend to be more like anti-clerical rather than looking down on individual believers in any way. At most, they consider them to be victims of clerical manipulation, not stupid per-se. Hell, even most metalheads (and similar types) around here would tell you something like 'I'm fine with you being a christian, it doesn't make you a worse person in any sense, just don't preach to me, as I personally don't buy that. Oh, and I don't like Catholic Church as an organization'. Plus, more importantly, pretty much everyone I know is an atheist with regards to some actual religion, yet pretty much nobody even cares about religion any more than I care about, say, law (as a field, I mean). Sure, I have some notion of it, but it's not a thing I care much for or think about generally. At most, you can hear some snarky comment about church from time to time, and it's by no means any often. Really, man, not sure where you get your atheists from.

[Tauromachos]

There is no doubt that atheism is linked to intelligence. The best physicists, biologists, and cosmologists are atheists, and they have studied the relevant fields.

This has not always been so many great historical scientist believed in god or something divine

Only few examples: Isaac Newton"physicist",Descartes"Philosopher and Scientist",Leonard Euler"Mathematician",





The people who understand the most about our scientific picture of reality tend to be atheists.

[Zeno]

Yeah, this type of an atheist is indeed very annoying, but they are a tiny minority, which barely even exists outside of the internet. I don't think I've actually met anyone like that in the real life - most atheists who are also anti-religious in some sense tend to be more like anti-clerical rather than looking down on individual believers in any way. At most, they consider them to be victims of clerical manipulation, not stupid per-se. Hell, even most metalheads (and similar types) around here would tell you something like 'I'm fine with you being a christian, it doesn't make you a worse person in any sense, just don't preach to me, as I personally don't buy that. Oh, and I don't like Catholic Church as an organization'. Plus, more importantly, pretty much everyone I know is an atheist with regards to some actual religion, yet pretty much nobody even cares about religion any more than I care about, say, law (as a field, I mean). Sure, I have some notion of it, but it's not a thing I care much for or think about generally. At most, you can hear some snarky comment about church from time to time, and it's by no means any often. Really, man, not sure where you get your atheists from.

I wish it was like that for me in real life. All the atheists I've met are either members of KKE (the Communist party) or KNE (the youth wing of the communist party) or tend to have really leftist views. If only it was like that...

As for your environment, don't you live in the Czech Republic? Which is largely atheist?

[Aldaris]

I wish it was like that for me in real life. All the atheists I've met are either members of KKE (the Communist party) or KNE (the youth wing of the communist party) or tend to have really leftist views. If only it was like that...

As for your environment, don't you live in the Czech Republic? Which is largely atheist?

I do. But I’m not entirely sure about whether there’s actually such a gap between us and other countries. I’ve been often wondering about how many christians on paper are like Homer Simpson - baptized, identifying as a christian for reasons and perhaps even church attending, but not actively convinced. This doesn’t exist in here, if you go to our church, everyone will literally be an equivalent of a Loki-type christian. I’d like to see you elaborating, is that a case in Greece aswell? I’m asking since people tend to define such terms differently.

[JamesBond007]

This has not always been so many great historical scientist believed in god or something divine

Only few examples: Isaac Newton"physicist",Descartes"Philosopher and Scientist",Leonard Euler"Mathematician",

All those people you mentioned lived before Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution. Also, just a heads up math is not a science. Science is inductive and math is deductive.

[Loki]

All those people you mentioned lived before Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution. Also, just a heads up math is not a science. Science is inductive and math is deductive.

Do you really think his theory of evolution explains life on earth? Hmm... let's see... please explain to me how a spider's venom "evolved"... ? And how did a spider's ability to create webs with a special sticky substance evolve? I'm truly curious :) Most people accept evolution without question, but they don't sit and think about things we take for granted... that were created by a glorious God. Don't mock his wonderful creation by saying it merely "evolved" and came out of nothing. Absolute nonsense.

[JamesBond007]

Do you really think his theory of evolution explains life on earth? Hmm... let's see... please explain to me how a spider's venom "evolved"... ? And how did a spider's ability to create webs with a special sticky substance evolve? I'm truly curious :) Most people accept evolution without question, but they don't sit and think about things we take for granted... that were created by a glorious God. Don't mock his wonderful creation by saying it merely "evolved" and came out of nothing. Absolute nonsense.

Brohamulous, you are are died-in-the-wool faith head -- so nothing I say -- will change your mind. Therefore, I choose not to argue with you since I find it counter-productive and I don't try to proselytize atheism, generally, speaking.

[Wanderer]

http://www.halleethehomemaker.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/mutatedTV.jpg

[Roy]

What about agnostics, like me?



The atheist is a fundamentalist, he has a belief: the non-existence of god, he has no doubt that god does not exist, even though it has not been possible to prove it, and it is impossible to make him doubt the contrary.

I do not see any difference between a religious and an atheist

I see one major difference ... they don't waste time & energy worshiping the gods. And don't get pushed to feel the guilt that religion likes to impose on people (obviously it depends on what kind of religion it is too).

[Roy]

Brohamulous, you are are died-in-the-wool faith head -- so nothing I say -- will change your mind. Therefore, I choose not to argue with you since I find it counter-productive and I don't try to proselytize atheism, generally, speaking.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/3e/31/dc/3e31dc61276b746ac6ba73016fca7153.jpg
https://img.memecdn.com/creationists_o_1770811.jpg

[Tauromachos]

All those people you mentioned lived before Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution. Also, just a heads up math is not a science. Science is inductive and math is deductive.

Isaac Newton was a physicist and believed in God and in a cosmic order a code upon which the universe was build which it was
the scientists task to decipher

[renaissance12]

Reason 4: Religion's incredible shrinking knowledge: About 400 years ago, the Christian religion "knew" everything. It "knew" the earth was flat, "knew" that there were witches, "knew" that animals could be tried for crimes, "knew" that the Bible was the literal word of God, "knew" the difference between right and wrong, "knew" that the difference between man and beast was that only men have "souls", "knew" that the earth was the center of the universe, and so on. Since that time the things that religion "knows" has been shrinking at the speed of light -- or at least the speed of thought. Copernicus showed that the sun was the center of our "universe"; Galileo discovered new worlds; Newton showed that it was physical laws, and not a Godhead, that determined the movement of the planets; and so on. Today, what religion "knows" can be contained in a pinhead, and generally is.



The problem it is not what the Church knew.. but what you know.. because you are the epitome of the ignorance.... like a bingo bongo wild savage in the CONGO FOREST..

School of Athen 1509 Vatican City

https://www.lemiemarche.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/zoroastro-scuola-di-atene-1.jpg

[JamesBond007]

Isaac Newton was a physicist and believed in God and in a cosmic order a code upon which the universe was build which it was
the scientists task to decipher

What you just said is not false per se but is a non-sequitur or red herring.

[Teutone]

JamesBond's IQ is 150

just sayin

[Tauromachos]

What you just said is not false per se but is a non-sequitur or red herring.

Why is it a Red Herring?

[Tauromachos]

Most atheists became such through critical thinking, a skill which is apparently elusive to us theists.

Why is it elusive?

If you believe in God don't you believe he gave you a mind and the ability to use it?

[JamesBond007]

Why is it a Red Herring?

I do not have time for games since you have trouble connecting the dots inductively by reading between the lines.

[Tauromachos]

I do not have time for games since you have trouble connecting the dots inductively by reading between the lines.

Ok but Charles Darwin and his Theory is overated anyways he also failed to explain the most fundamental question

Why does life on Earth exist or what is it good for?

Also you can not make precise predictions how species are going to evolve in the future

There is also post Darwin scientists who believed in God or some sort of divine principle behind creation.

I can look for examples but one is Albert Einstein he even declared himself "not to be an Atheist"

[Bandesha]

I read a interesting scientific research , here is summary

atheist are more intelligent then religious people

atheist have high tendency of sociphethic behaviour

atheist generally lack compassion and empathy

religous people have more empathy

in summary religious people have compassion for other people but they are less intelligent then atheist people, also atheist are manipulative and narcissistic

[Tauromachos]

I read a interesting scientific research , here is summary

atheist are more intelligent then religious people

atheist have high tendency of sociphethic behaviour

atheist generally lack compassion and empathy

religous people have more empathy

in summary religious people have compassion for other people but they are less intelligent then atheist people, also atheist are manipulative and narcissistic


Yeah makes sense that they tend to be more narcissistic and manipulative

Anyway if i had the choice to increase my IQ about 20 points from what it is now or to continue believe in God i would still believe
in God

[catgeorge]

When scientists and atheists can explain how humans can think for themselves then i will take their nonsense more seriously.

[Mortimer]

It is good to have reason but if you are reasonable you will see or realise that there is so much we do not understand and cannot understand. And that we never will, because of the infinity of the universe. So whatever religion or no religion, you cannot call all religions or all religion irrational or you are irrational yourself. I do accept science and do believe in scientific approach but that doesnt exclude the idea of a first intelligence or a creator.

[Bandesha]

Yeah makes sense that they tend to be more narcissistic and manipulative

Anyway if i had the choice to increase my IQ about 20 points from what it is now or to continue believe in God i would still believe
in God

IQ test are not entirely accurate, there is no guarantee higher iq mean more intelligence

Albert Einstein wrote, “Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”

The question I have for you at this point of our journey together is,

What is your genius?

https://i.imgur.com/o4FGAjG.jpg

[JamesBond007]

Ok but Charles Darwin and his Theory is overated anyways he also failed to explain the most fundamental question

Why does life on Earth exist or what is it good for?

Also you can not make precise predictions how species are going to evolve in the future

There is also post Darwin scientists who believed in God or some sort of divine principle behind creation.

I can look for examples but one is Albert Einstein he even declared himself "not to be an Atheist"

Dude, honestly several things you say here bespeak to your benighted state. I could answer all this but it would take a long essay that probably nobody here would read entirely. Also, I'm on a smartphone, not a PC, and writing long essays on a smartphone are a pain in the ass.