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

[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/2...-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

[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.