Thread: The Nonreligious Are More Intelligent

Originally Posted by Invader

Your hand may have slipped up somewhere!

Oh you are right, I made a typo lol.

Why is the belief for immortality dropping? The human lifespan increases as time
progresses and new breakthroughs are made, I was under the impression that it was rather
popularly believed that we would eventually overcome natural death.

I am not sure. Although it is not really pertinent to the point, I did not really look into what "immortality" they are speaking of.

Our IQ tests require basic reasoning skills, and not so much the understanding of
scientific concepts. There's a section that measure's one's capacity for visual/spatial
problems, for example.

I will address this simultaneously with Xaqaria's.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Intelligence quotent is determined through standardized tests that typically measure spatial awareness, linear and verbal reasoning and rational problem solving. They do this with various visual, linguistic and arithmetical puzzles. The tests are designed by scientists and are inherently scientific in nature. For the most part, they measure the so called "left brain" rational and linear brain functions.

The IQ tests were utilizing the Raven's similarities tests and Wechsler IQ tests (WAIS).

In regards to the WAIS:

"Verbal Scales
Information: Range of knowledge
Comprehension: Judgement
Arithmetic: Concentration
Similarities: Abstract thinking
Digit Span: memory, anxiety
Vocabulary: Vocabulary level
Letter-Number-
Sequencing

Performance Scales
Digit Symbol: Visual-motor functioning
Picture Completion: Attention to detail
Picture Arrangement: Planning ability
Block Design: Nonverbal reasoning
Object Assembly: Analysis of part-whole relationships
Matrix Reasoning
Symbol Search

Each subtest has a scaled score of 10 with a SD of 3.






Reliability Information:

Test-Retest: Done for two age groups 25-34 and 45-54. Given in a 2 to 7 week interval. Reliability coefficient ranges from a low of .67 (Object Assembly 45-54) to a high of .94 (Information 45-54). VIQ = .94 (25-34) and .97 (45-54). PIQ = .89 (25-34) and .90 (45-54). FIQ = .95 (25-34) and .96 (45-54)

Split-Half: Spearman-Brown for all subtests except for Digit Span and Digit Symbol for age ranges from 16-17 to 70-74. Reliability coefficient ranges from a low of .52 (Object Assembly 16-17) to a high of .96 (Vocabulary across many of the age ranges). VIQ = .97. PIQ = .93. FIQ = .97.

Alternate-Form: none given

Interitem Consistency: not done. However, correlations between subtests (intrasubtest) and VIQ, PIQ, and FIQ are given but a Cronbach Alpha was not done.

Inter-Rater: not applicable


Standard Error of Measurement: each subtest has a SEM a low of .49 (Vocabulary 16-17) and high of 1.91 (Object Assembly 16-17). Average SEM were VIQ 2.74, PIQ 4.14, and FIQ 2.53


Validity Information:

Face Validity: has face validity

Content Validity: has content validity

Criterion-Related Validity: with academic success, tests of achievement, and formal education

Construct Validity: convergence with similar IQ measures, no divergence given

Standardization:

Size and Composition of the Standardized Sample: 2,450 people comprised the standardization sample reflecting ages 16-89
Describe the Sampling Procedures: Stratified Random Sampling based on the most current census data.

Administration Procedures: individual administration procedure, should be done by a trained evaluator.

Scoring: is done by hand by the evaluator

Interpretation: guidelines for interpreting each interval of scores is given: very superior - mentally retarded.

Comments:

Appropriate Client Use: people for whom the test was standardized. It is a test of intelligence so caution should be used when interpreting it for occupations, education, and training.

Appropriate for Which Groups of People with Disabilities: generally those people who would not fall into the categories below.

Groups of People with Disabilities not Appropriate: people who were institutionalized for mental illness, people with traumatic brain injuries, people with severe behavioral or emotional problems, people with physical impairments which restrict responses to test items, people whose primary language is other than English."
+ http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&l...Nh4ENB42OVHgcE

As for the Raven's similarities test:
+ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven's...ssive_Matrices
+ http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...558f47dc222ade

These tests utilize more than what you have limited the frame to. Do not be so quick to ignore the full dynamic of these tests.

Basically what you are saying is that there is a correllation between Scientific, or materialistic minded people and their ability to score highly on a test that is meant to test rational and linear thought processes.

Religious beliefs usually coincide with the more non-linear intuitive thought processes, so it would seem to make sense that someone who leans more in the direction of religious belief would be less likely to score highly on a test of reasoning.

No. You did not read what I said. ACH thinking is not rational and linear thought processes and this is where we find the significance that I am focusing upon.

It seems that all you've managed to show is that the average human tends to lean either towards reason or intuition, and that most people do not have a balance between the two.

You are making prejudice remarks on these IQ tests; they test a lot more than this. Please consider the above to elaborate on the depths of ACH thinking.

I'd also like to point out that all of the correllative studies you cited have been done by scientists who more than likely are not particularly religious. I'm sure with the proper bias someone could come up with some good looking graphs showing a correllation between some perceived measure of intelligence and religious belief.

That is simply speculation. You have not provided any grounds for bias.

Furthermore, most of these cited articles are peer-reviewed and confounding.

Edit: Is your source the article in Skeptic? Don't you think a magazine dedicated to not believing in anything is a just a bit too biased for a balanced judgement of beliefs in general?

I already said, at the very beginning of my post, that I read an article by Dr. James Allan Cheyne. You cannot possibly argue that it is a bias because that just shows your ignorance to the magazine. The magazine has reverends writing and several people of faith. Furthermore, the last months magazine focused entirely on Christian origins conspiracy theories (that being the defense of Christianity against Atheists bombardment of conspiracies regarding religious conjuration.)
+ http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/.../vol15n01.html

I also thought of a few more holes in the theory. The available religions in the global society are stereotypically dogmatic and unyielding which is by definition opposed to critical thinking which is what you are comparing here. There are many people who believe that there is or may be something more than what materialism has to offer but do not believe in any of the established Religions. These people tend to associate more with Atheism especially since many people seem to believe that agnosticism is a subset of atheism.

So, in your first point, it just demonstrates that you are ignoring ACH thinking, which is not specifically critical thinking.

Also, it is a good point to say that Atheism is a implied by other beliefs. I mean, I do not explicitly consider my self Atheist but Humanist Existential. Thus, it is a bit misleading to even say that Atheism itself, alone, is a religious or belief doctrine itself. I think the idea is that, those doctrines that imply or include Atheism, are correlated with higher IQ (as those all encompassing beliefs integrate ACH thinking as opposed to direct dogmatic beliefs).

What do you think..?

~

It is already known that being religious or spiritual is the work of the right brain. IQ tests on the other hand, is the product of the left brain.

Don't you think that an argument that atheists are more intelligent, is an argument that religious or spiritual individuals are inferior?

Did you think the need to feel superior above others is something unique? Haven't we seen these kinds of arguments in the past, about who is and who isn't superior? Haven't these arguments been backed up by so called "logical" information? .......................Haven't they always led to the suffering of another human being?

I'll give you small hint. left brain intelligence.

right brain........................wisdom

What do we get with super high intelligence without wisdom??? We get imperialism, dictatorship, communism, racism, genocides, unspeakable experiments, global warming, mass extinction, weapons of mass destruction, and millions of dollars poured into science for the sake of science instead of the sake of humanity

I'd rather be a whole brain than half brain

But if I had to be half a brain, then I'd gladly choose to be a retard who still understood that the worth and measure of a human being can not be measured with numbers and graphs

Juroara, you did not read my post then. Firs of all, left/right brain psycholgy is a myth propogated by laymen - not academics.

Second of all, I included the type of broad abstract categorical and hypthetical thinking; ACH thinking is where the significant difference is and atheists score higher.

Furthermore, you use the word wisdom but don't define it. I suppose wisdom, to you, is being faithful. Considering you have no other substance I. Your argumet, that is the only presumption that can be made.

From your demonstration of ignorance to the WAIS IQ tests and conjecture of wisdom, I can tell that what you have said was said out of desperation rather than contemplative thought.

Ironic that your post actually supports the main point and proves yourself e
wrong.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Juroara, you did not read my post then. Firs of all, left/right brain psycholgy is a myth propogated by laymen - not academics.

Second of all, I included the type of broad abstract categorical and hypthetical thinking; ACH thinking is where the significant difference is and atheists score higher.

Furthermore, you use the word wisdom but don't define it. I suppose wisdom, to you, is being faithful. Considering you have no other substance I. Your argumet, that is the only presumption that can be made.

From your demonstration of ignorance to the WAIS IQ tests and conjecture of wisdom, I can tell that what you have said was said out of desperation rather than contemplative thought.

Ironic that your post actually supports the main point and proves yourself e
wrong.

~

thank you


you have proven my point as well

My post clealry illustrates your complete misunderstanding of the point and content and you think I have proven left/right brain pseudo-science? Ok, how?

I think responses like juroara ought to be referenced for the inability to commit ACH thinking as juroara is utterly stubborn to the idea.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

My post clealry illustrates your complete misunderstanding of the point and content and you think I have proven left/right brain pseudo-science? Ok, how?

I think responses like juroara ought to be referenced for the inability to commit ACH thinking as juroara is utterly stubborn to the idea.

~

I'm ignorant and stubborn! please tell me what else I am o'nus?

go ahead..judge me

Originally Posted by juroara

I'm ignorant and stubborn! please tell me what else I am o'nus?

go ahead..judge me

You realize you are proving his point further by reacting emotionally instead of with a thought-out response...

I am not judging if you admit the behaviour.

Is that really the best you got? I was hoping for something a little more, dare I say, intelligent?

~

Originally Posted by juroara

go ahead..judge me

Everyone judges everyone else. Some of us just don't pretend not to do it. Nor is it a bad thing.

the IQ vs. religiosity doesn't go up to 145 IQ (my score)... but if it did, the importance of religion would be at 0%. i have 0% interest and therefore this chart is true 100%. =P lol

O'nus, can you give more info on ACH thinking? I can't seem to find any reason why you might think that this is a good judge of intelligence. In fact, I can't really find anything about it, since all that comes up in internet searches is this thread, and a thread on another forum (the atheist's toolbox) called "Atheism Rising".

I feel like you ignored a lot of what I was trying to say in my post. IQ tests judge people on the kind of analytical thinking that is valued in our society that has made it illegal to teach religion in schools. People who do well on this sort of test are more likely to question the things that authorities are telling them, both academic and religious. There is information made available for people who would question academia and science, but virtually no information available for those that would question their parent's religion. In my mind, this is most likely to lead people to be "atheists" only because they don't really see that validity in what they have been taught and yet have no access to alternatives.

Originally Posted by Licity

Logic is a lot more than just the three R's - One of the greatest works of the scientific and logical process was brought about indirectly by an apple hitting a certain mathematician on the head... and another important one was brought about by bored musing about electricity while working in a patent office. It's pretty hard to get anything done by what you think logic is, one has to think creatively to even find a starting point! Logic is simply thinking without contradictions, and the vast majority of religions tend to make statements that directly contradict things we know...

Who are you addressing? Do you understand what the concept of ACH thinking is?

Originally Posted by guitarboy

Like religious nut or a spiritual person?
I've scored higher on IQ tests then all of my atheist friends. I'm not incredibly religious, and while I'm 'Catholic', I'm probably agnostic.

Of course, you must understand the fundamental concept of statistics; there are still instances where Theists will score higher than Atheists. However, this is not a proper representation to take your subjective conjecture as statistical inference to the population. It is simply insignificant.

Originally Posted by juroara

my post isn't rocket science, it isn't that hard to get

religious ideals have nothing to do with my post

You are right - they are not hard to get. But I do not see why you are upset if you are not religious?

my post has to do with the two sides of the human being, best illustrated with our two brain halves. one side is more intellectual, the other is more intuitive. also known as one side being masculine and the other side being feminine. the IQ test is still not perfect.

Left/right brain psychology is a myth. Do you understand that yet? It is a layman term that is let slid by the academics as it takes a deeper understanding of the field to get a proper understanding of the matter. IQ tests do not work like that and neither does psychology.

IQ tests assess what you are speaking of, and, in part, it is ACH thinking; which Atheists score higher in.

But even less perfect and less reliable are statistics as a way to measure someones intellect!!

You can not use a statistic to decide what an individuals intellect is going to be. A random atheist can not use these statistics to go up to a random theist and say "you are less intelligent than me". That is the same as racism.

I already provided statistical evidence that the WAIS and Raven's similarities tests are reliable. It is not my fault if you do not have the understanding to see that or the patience to read it and than spew lies and hypocrisy. I am reading you points, the least you could do is give respect to mine - even if you do not have the education (ironically) to understand them.

my argument is a CONCERN of why this type of thread is made anyways, except to boast atheist elitism.

I provided facts. You respond with conjecture.

Tell me, how am I boasting anything? I am not ignoring the Theists IQ, the difference is minimal but it is significant. Perhaps you ought to consider why this is.

Do you really think I am out to say, "Yo, atheists are smarter, dawg, join us!"? Come on now, I have no other purpose than mutual enlightenment; something you are not offering in respect.

some atheists came to the conclusion that atheists scored higher on the IQ test because they question more than any other group, and the capacity to question means they have a higher intelligence

I am not sure what you are talking about here. Can you clarify? It seems to me that you do no have an understanding of the WAIS test and simply conjecturing on the content than actually giving research.

by their reasoning I am more intelligent than atheists because I question religion and science! elitist atheists are blind and ignorant if they honestly believe no one else has their capacity to question

I am sorry, you do not think scientists question science and religion? Do you understand what peer-review is? Have you ever been through a publishing panel before? There is no one more critical and scrutinizing than the science community. However, the religious are certainly more stubborn and closed-minded. Perhaps the evidence in this thread can prove why.

I brought up the feminine side of the human being as a way to remind that intellect alone is not enough to view any group of people as superior. That such ideology that intelligence is the superior human quality, is what creates elitism of every kind. I brought up the feminine side of the human being as a way to humble the super intelligence of atheist scientists, who without the feminine side of their being, miss the obvious truths in life. And we, as a masculine society, have missed the subtler obvious truths that native and feminine cultures have never forgotten. Such as, not destroying your own habitat!

What is this masculine/feminie jargon? I have provided nothing but evidence and facts and you respond with vague concepts? It really appeals to me to be reaching for straws when you cry out to a patriarchy society as the blame for IQ score differences.

Statistics are statistics are statistics.

In other words, even super intelligence can still be blind and ignorant

I never said otherwise. Stop presuming. Read what I am saying.

There is an entire history of elitism here, and it's always had to do with suppressing the feminine side of the human being. For example, people get annoyed if I get emotional in this kind of atmosphere? Why aren't I allowed to be emotional? I'll tell you why. Because once upon a time women were suppressed, and thought of as inferior. Therefore it was believed, and created a stigma for a long time, that emotions and intelligence don't go together.

Entirely irrelevant. Emotional responses do not provide any substance or proof or anything. If you simply started crying in a court trial, would that count for anything? No. If you started pleading the tough history of your ethnicity for your court trial, would that help your case any further? No.

If you want to talk about tribulations, then how about we look at the long oppression to science by religion. Do not be so damn arrogant to ignore that fact. It is irrelevant and selfish to try and frame yourself as a victim.

Look at the history of the IQ test. Why do we even have or need an IQ test? In the past men statistically scored higher than women. It was concluded this meant women are less intelligent than men. Sound familiar?

You are taking this completely out of context and ignoring a massive part of history; how many women, proportionally, graduate compare to men? Especially when IQ scores were first invented, women were just on the bring of gaining independence. As a result, it was society that suppressed womens accessibility to education. Thus, we can say that, yes, their intelligence was lower. However, it was because of a patriarchy society.

But, how that is at all relevant to religion, you tell me. That does not even make sense considering that Atheism is a minority and still rates higher IQ's. Thus, your point is entirely moot and irrelevant.

Critics of the IQ test then pointed out that men created and designed the test, and men score higher. And not just any men, but white men, and white men above colored men were scoring higher. It was suggested that the IQ test was biased. And it turns out, it was. Changes have been made.

Of course, changes are always made, this is the beauty of science; it is open-minded and falsifiable! It can be modified to accept new and wondrous facts.

Furthermore, you have no evidence at all. I find it insulting that I put a lot of time into my research and you provide none.

Now the IQ test scores atheists higher. We also know that a large number of scientists are atheists. We also know scientists have been 'battling' religion for a while now, weeding out creationism. And sure enough in these statistics that's what I see.......Atheists and Religion. Where the hell is spirituality in the mix? Why are these statistics so cookie cutter? Exactly who is creating these tests and statistics anyways and for what purpose?

Your ignorance is profoundly insulting to the entire science of psychology. It is your attitude that is detrimental to the progression of good education and science.

Benefits of IQ Tests
+ Learning appropriate learning methods for children
+ Assessing environmental factors for socio-economical calsses (ie. correlations)
+ Warranting benefits and enrichment programs for the gifted
+ Assessing differences in mental attitude in longitudinal studies as humans grow

For these reasons alone, the IQ tests are the best method of assessment. Namely, the WAIS. If you knew anything about it, you would know it does not include anything about religion of spirituality because those things have no concrete grounds for reliable proof or evidence.

Furthermore, are you saying that religious and spiritual people ought not to take these tests because of science understanding? In that case, you already admit to the point anyway; theists are less intelligent than atheists.

And no, I don't have an alternative to the IQ test. Nor do I see a need for one. Tell me a good reason why we need the IQ test except to divide and conquer

You really disappoint me. I would assume that you would want to be able to find ways to assess knowledge and enrichments. Divide and conquer? This is the silliest thing I have ever heard - are you seriously arguing that IQ tests are a means to world domination?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

O'nus, can you give more info on ACH thinking? I can't seem to find any reason why you might think that this is a good judge of intelligence. In fact, I can't really find anything about it, since all that comes up in internet searches is this thread, and a thread on another forum (the atheist's toolbox) called "Atheism Rising".

ACH thinking is very recent and has yet to really be set forth as a public definition. I providing some privy information. However, you can find the WAIS and Raven's similarities tests in the links I have already provided.

I feel like you ignored a lot of what I was trying to say in my post. IQ tests judge people on the kind of analytical thinking that is valued in our society that has made it illegal to teach religion in schools. People who do well on this sort of test are more likely to question the things that authorities are telling them, both academic and religious. There is information made available for people who would question academia and science, but virtually no information available for those that would question their parent's religion. In my mind, this is most likely to lead people to be "atheists" only because they don't really see that validity in what they have been taught and yet have no access to alternatives.

Pardon me, I am finding it difficult to understand your point. I will respond, but correct me if I am digressive;

You are saying that, society tries to teach us proper questioning and critical thinking methods to criticize authorities such as religion and parents? As a result, these people, who are taught properly, will do better on these IQ tests?

If that is the case, then it really reinforces my point; people who are taught and can learn turn out to be more intelligent and often Atheist. What other test ought we enforce that would be reliable? Spiritual IQ tests..? How could anyone, in their right mind, statistically justify such a test..?

Again, correct me if I mis-understand though.

~

So.....when someone spends one half of their life religious, and the next half nonreligious, does that mean their intelligence goes up?

This is a little silly IMO, because so many people (and dare I say, a great chunk of nontheists) don't hold the exact same beliefs system (or lack thereof) throughout their entire lives.

I spent part of my life Christian, part, pagan, part agnostic, part atheist, and part deist. So what does that say about my intelligence? How do I fit into the equation? I am religious or nonreligious depending on what part of my life you happen to find me. Many others are just like me. People start out Christian and become atheists later, and vice-versa. Did those people who grew up atheist and suddenly found Jesus later in life have a lower or higher IQ?

I assume that the statistics are based on the person's present belief system. The entire argument only makes sense to me if people's belief systems remain static. While some do, others do not.

So how do these statistics account for this? Is there really any validity in a correlation between intelligence and a belief system?

I did read that most people gravitate toward their religion during their teen years. But even then, many people still change their beliefs later in life, sometimes more than once. It would be oversimplifying things to imply that one chooses or accepts their belief system during that period and just keeps it forever.

IMO, it's good to remember that correlation does not mean causation. IQ and atheism are rising. So is obesity. Are they connected? Maybe they are, loosely. But one thing does not necessarily directly cause another.

Originally Posted by Naiya

So.....when someone spends one half of their life religious, and the next half nonreligious, does that mean their intelligence goes up?

When someone goes half their life not knowing about Chemistry and then learns it, does their IQ go up?

Remember, the IQ tests are not arbitrary scores; they are based on reliable testing techniques. I have already provided evidence of the WAIS reliability.

This is a little silly IMO, because so many people (and dare I say, a great chunk of nontheists) don't hold the exact same beliefs system (or lack thereof) throughout their entire lives.

This is true. In fact, Atheism alone is not really a belief system at all but a constituent of another belief system (unless you are a fundamentalist, of course). However, this really does not say anything about the persons IQ score. I did not always know about Chemistry, but one day I did and, of course, my IQ would have gone up because of that. Also, I can learn a lot about Chemistry in just one lecture. This argument does not really hold any water.

I spent part of my life Christian, part, pagan, part agnostic, part atheist, and part deist. So what does that say about my intelligence? How do I fit into the equation? I am religious or nonreligious depending on what part of my life you happen to find me. Many others are just like me. People start out Christian and become atheists later, and vice-versa. Did those people who grew up atheist and suddenly found Jesus later in life have a lower or higher IQ?

Again, this is really insignificant because, analogously, I did not know about Chemistry till I was older and, because of that, my IQ went up.

You could not say that Atheism is not the same because the reason I brought this evidence up in the first place is because of the belief systems affect on their IQ scores. Also, it does not really matter how the person qualifies their belief system, the point is that they identify with it. Of course, the statistics do account for lying and manipulating their own scores. You can review the variables in my OP.

I assume that the statistics are based on the person's present belief system. The entire argument only makes sense to me if people's belief systems remain static. While some do, others do not.

Belief systems obviously do not remain static just as our plasticity is always changing. Did you actually review how the WAIS works..??

So how do these statistics account for this? Is there really any validity in a correlation between intelligence and a belief system?

See my OP - I already provided this.

I did read that most people gravitate toward their religion during their teen years. But even then, many people still change their beliefs later in life, sometimes more than once. It would be oversimplifying things to imply that one chooses or accepts their belief system during that period and just keeps it forever.

No one said this. You are digressing.

IMO, it's good to remember that correlation does not mean causation. IQ and atheism are rising. So is obesity. Are they connected? Maybe they are, loosely. But one thing does not necessarily directly cause another.

This is a good point, and I have acknowledged this. I never said that one causes the other, but that there is a statistical significant correlation. Although it does not necessitate causation, it most certainly indicates a relationship. That, is undisputed.

~

Seems fairly questionable to me for a few reason. First the short term 1982-2007, the chart shows no real change. Secondly the person said Australia is the most religious country, while the chart says the average Australian has an IQ of 98, 2 points below average, and far from the bottom. Which is very conflicting to what they said.

Third the red orange yellow map is being used out of context. As it is a rating of races and native people in a country, and not a reflection of modern day average population. No the average austrialian isn't mentally retarded, which you can double check on the other chart, which says they are not. Fourth the first poll is asking about belief in a personal god, and doesn't address any other form of religion, that believes other things.

Also, I have no clue what a "Greater" scientist is supposed to mean, so that chart has no meaning. Also Austria has a above average IQ yet, appears to be on the lower side of the chart for believing in evoultion, also conflicting what the person said.

Overall, there is a lot of questionable data, as well as data that does not match from one chart to the next, and some are taken out of context.

People that are way to submissive, only be of one religion and not questioning about it, yeah aren't that intelligent.

People that have a balanced left and right side of their brain , usually don't fall into fanatism.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I don't remember any of your charts matching specific test scores to individual's religious affiliation. Like I said before, you showed a correllation between two different statistics. You showed that countries and time periods in which test scores are higher, fewer people identify with a religion. This means that statistically speaking, the fewer religious people in countries with high I.Q.'s also scored higher.

Of course. I am always acknowledging the statistical leniency for non-generalizations. Come on people, learn statistics.

It sounds like you've never had a glorious emotional experience. You may not know if it exists, and maybe that is why you don't explore it. those of us who do explore it know.

That's a pretty prejudicial thing to say; I must not believe it because, if I had experienced it, then I must truly believe it then. Could I not say the same to you? Is that any more convincing?

Of course not, it's a simple bias you are stretching for.

The human spirit cannot be found in academia. It can only be found in humans. The easiest place to start is with yourself. Do you read a book in order to learn what its like to see, or do you simply open your eyes?

I do both. You are talking to someone who firmly believes that "the human spirit" is nothing but the over-glorification of the already amazing beauty of the weak mortal humans. There is nothing outside or further fact of the context - we are weak fragile mortals and there's nothing more to it than that.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

Atheists calling superiority of intelligence over religious people just makes you look like an assclown.

I provided evidence. Making prejudicial and simple rebuttals actually makes you look like an ass if all you got is ad hominems.

Has atheism really came to the point that they need to spread propaganda or faulty correlations? Reminiscent of the church telling us to abandon our other religions for Heaven, now we must abandon religion for intelligence I assume? After all his study shows us.... lol

How are they faulty again? It sounds like you have no argument and just squirming to find any sort of defense. Remember, none of this is saying that no religious person can be smarter than another non-religious one.

This is a disservice to the atheist movement.

Nice try.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

The studies are propaganda. Nothing but.
Thinly veiled correlations, used in conjunction with a specific objective.

I would say this too if I had no better rebuttal or substantial way to debate the topic.

You can't just assume these two things are related without evidence.

It is evidence. Do you read?

Next time, I recommend you actually understand the post before commenting. And perhaps stepping back and looking at this terrible use of data.

This comment is terribly ironic as you have demonstrated your clearly obvious hypocrisy. You ought to consider the context before jumping in and making a mockery of yourself.

I quite understand that, but atheism as a whole is being dis-serviced by movements like this. And regardless of it being a very individual path, it's not necessarily viewed at that by the rest of the population. Just like people group all groups of Christians together... not necessarily fair, but reality.

It's not a movement - it's truth; Atheists are more often smarter than Theists.

Deal with it.

Originally Posted by C-Fonz

These are the most useless posts possible. You think IQ is the best measurement of human intelligence? That is ridiculous. IQ tests only apply to one part of the brain, left brain. Precise, exact, linear. What about the right part of the brain...EQ emotional intelligence, abstract thinking creativity?

No one in academia uses the terms "left and right" brains. You clearly have no idea what the science of intelligence is.

Furthermore, if you do not think that visual spatial reasoning, mathematical skills, verbal skills, abstract thinking, writing, and more are not measures of intelligence, please tell me what you do think is.

How is it that most of these countries are seen on an IQ average as close to mentally handicapped....wtf? Obviously if other countries citizens not as proficient in some of the sub tests within the IQ tests will do horrible, their education system isn't as good, their left brained education system. There is a reason the U.S was not following the line in that graph, we're more educated, we have more resources, but we are still relatively religious.

Mentally handicapped is < 70. Please double check your posts before making asinine rebuttals.

There will never be an accurate way to measure intelligence. You need a whole brain test and not a half brain test.

Again, using such terms as "whole" and "half" brain only demonstrates your ignorance to the WAIS.

Originally Posted by Alric

Seems fairly questionable to me for a few reason. First the short term 1982-2007, the chart shows no real change. Secondly the person said Australia is the most religious country, while the chart says the average Australian has an IQ of 98, 2 points below average, and far from the bottom. Which is very conflicting to what they said.

You saw no change in the 1982-2007 chart? Take another look.

Also, the chart clearly shows that Australia's is averaging 60. Where are you misreading this?

Third the red orange yellow map is being used out of context. As it is a rating of races and native people in a country, and not a reflection of modern day average population. No the average austrialian isn't mentally retarded, which you can double check on the other chart, which says they are not. Fourth the first poll is asking about belief in a personal god, and doesn't address any other form of religion, that believes other things.

Yeah, native people to a country.

Also, mentally retardation is relative to culture contexts. In Australia, it is regarded mildly retarded to have an IQ of 50.

Also, I have no clue what a "Greater" scientist is supposed to mean, so that chart has no meaning. Also Austria has a above average IQ yet, appears to be on the lower side of the chart for believing in evoultion, also conflicting what the person said.

Perhaps you should actually consider reading the articles before jumping to conclusions to make the most jumbled rebuttal you could possibly muster.

Greater is used in parenthesis because it is referring to:
+ Greater = National Academy of Scientists (NAS)
+ Lesser = Non-members

The results are still similar. You can easily look this up, if you had the open-mind to do so.

Overall, there is a lot of questionable data, as well as data that does not match from one chart to the next, and some are taken out of context.

No, there are a lot of questionable responses.

It seems people are far too defensive and would rather debate the truth to their death rather than possibly learn and grow from it. Remember, even Atheists have varying dynamic beliefs and still debate the quality of research to. Something that Theists have a significantly difficulty in doing.

I look forward to quality responses.

~

It almost seems as if people who are more religious/spiritual have a tendency to be somewhat anti-intellectual. Perhaps that has something to do with all this...I mean, look:

it came out of a scientific journal so it must be right.....

I'd gladly choose to be a retard who still understood that the worth and measure of a human being can not be measured with numbers and graphs and science oh my!

What do we get with super high intelligence without wisdom??? We get imperialism, dictatorship, communism, racism, genocides, unspeakable experiments, global warming, mass extinction, weapons of mass destruction, and millions of dollars poured into science for the sake of science instead of the sake of humanity

I don't think that religious/spiritual people are born with less intelligence (on average), it has more to do with being raised to think a certain way, which often leads to misplaced skepticism.