Thread: The Nonreligious Are More Intelligent

Originally Posted by Invader

It may be that one with abstract critical thinking and reasoning skills is going
to be more able to see the logical shortcomings of modern theistic
doctrine than a person that is lacking in those areas. I don't think there's a
factor that makes atheists more intelligent, but rather that high
intelligence ends up making more atheists!

Yup. I think you're right.

That depends on where technology goes. It may become possible if a means
of communicating mind-to-mind is developed, or upon the discovery of some
new field that is effected by human intention, if such a thing exists. We may
have no variables, but we do have some reason to believe that spiritual
experience is a legitimate phenomenon, the same way relativity was
before we had the ability to conduct the appropriate experiments.

Actually, as far as I know in my academic endeavor, we have more reason to believe that "spiritual phenomenon" is nothing but glorified emotional experiences. How can we explore something, like the spirit, when we do not even know it exists in the first place? Ought we not first prove that it does?

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Actually, as far as I know in my academic endeavor, we have more reason to believe that "spiritual phenomenon" is nothing but glorified emotional experiences. How can we explore something, like the spirit, when we do not even know it exists in the first place? Ought we not first prove that it does?

In order to better know where you stand on the issue, perhaps you can share
some of these reasons? As I understand it, we have been able to artificially
stimulate anger, happiness, sorrow and what have you, but not so with other
extreme moments of 'insight'. My knowledge of the subject is not sufficient
enough to say for certain.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Okay so, in this case, we can then still look at the evidence and wonder why it is then that Atheists score higher than Theists. Emphasis on the wonder and perhaps encourage to hypothesize.

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.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Actually, as far as I know in my academic endeavor, we have more reason to believe that "spiritual phenomenon" is nothing but glorified emotional experiences. How can we explore something, like the spirit, when we do not even know it exists in the first place? Ought we not first prove that it does?

~

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.


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?

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

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

This is a disservice to the atheist movement.

You talk about atheism as if it's a single institution.

It isn't. Atheists are individuals and most of those individuals don't see any point in arguing about the correlation between intelligence and faith.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

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

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

This is a disservice to the atheist movement.

*facepalms*

Really, I don't think I need to say anything; you basically just proved O'nus's point. Had you actually read his post, you would know that Atheists aren't calling themselves superior in intelligence, and that this is NOT propaganda. What studies are showing, time and again, is that atheists and the non-religious in general tend to be stronger in a certain way of thinking known as abstract categorical and hypothetical (ACH) thinking.

ACH Thinking

Abstract Categorical and Hypothetical (ACH) thinking is assessed in the Raven's and Weschler Similarities tests (segments of the primary IQ tests). Now while our ancestors and elders are obviously not complete Neanderthals, they were actually lacking in their scores for ACH thinking. Instead of focusing on developing independent ACH thinking, there was more focus on fundamental learning for immediate pertinent use (ie. writing, arithmetic, and reading - the three "R"'s).

In our later generations, though, we have developed this thinking and learned to become more engrossed in our creative venture. It was because of people like Dewey who encouraged pragmatic learning that encourage this ACH thinking.

Also note which conclusions O'nus draws:

Conclusions

Abstract categorical and hypothetical (ACH) thinking is rising. Atheism is rising. Intelligence is rising. Evolutionary acceptance and knowledge is rising.

It is really just that simple.

What do you think...?

Next time, I recommend you actually read the post before commenting.

Originally Posted by Mario92

*facepalms*

Really, I don't think I need to say anything; you basically just proved O'nus's point. Had you actually read his post, you would know that Atheists aren't calling themselves superior in intelligence, and that this is NOT propaganda. What studies are showing, time and again, is that atheists and the non-religious in general tend to be stronger in a certain way of thinking known as abstract categorical and hypothetical (ACH) thinking.

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


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

Next time, I recommend you actually read the post before commenting.

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

I'm not quite sure who you think you are mario, but perhaps you should go back to the pipe you climbed out of.

You talk about atheism as if it's a single institution.

It isn't. Atheists are individuals and most of those individuals don't see any point in arguing about the correlation between intelligence and faith.

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.

The last thing this topic and others like it will do is convince people to become an atheist, so if your goal is to alienate yourself from the rest of society and attain no new members continue on this path.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

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?

Haha, wow.

It's really that simple.

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?


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.

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

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?


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.

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

That's an ignorant oversimplification of the lateralization of the functions of the brain.

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.

~

That one chart the numbers only change a little and seems to be in no specific pattern. Meaning it was all probably within the margin of error for it.

The map that shows austrila as having an average IQ of 60, conflicts directly with the chart saying they have an IQ of 98. Because the map shows the IQ of the aboriginal population. Not everyone living in the country. The same goes for all the other countries on that map.

Originally Posted by Alric

That one chart the numbers only change a little and seems to be in no specific pattern. Meaning it was all probably within the margin of error for it.

Which chart? Remember, on small numbers, the margin of error too is small.

The map that shows austrila as having an average IQ of 60, conflicts directly with the chart saying they have an IQ of 98. Because the map shows the IQ of the aboriginal population. Not everyone living in the country. The same goes for all the other countries on that map.

After investigating, you are right that the one study is primarily focused on native peoples of the countries. We can still utilize this for the argument.

However, you are wrong that it is similarly applicable to other countries. It is not uncommon for studies to have minor differences, or even a few major ones. However, that is by no means reason to ignore the significant confounding evidence in the other respects.

It would be completely asinine to ignore that fact in favor of a bias.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

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.

Over-glorification of the already amazing beauty of the weak mortal humans? From what existence can you even claim this? The human spirit. Your mind may disagree, but your mind is attached to the words and stories of the book. You may say that you use your eyes, but by that time it is already too late, is it not?

Originally Posted by really

Over-glorification of the already amazing beauty of the weak mortal humans? From what existence can you even claim this? The human spirit. Your mind may disagree, but your mind is attached to the words and stories of the book. You may say that you use your eyes, but by that time it is already too late, is it not?

What the hell? Are you suggesting that the human spirit is, indeed, truth; that all humans have a spirit or soul within them? And you accept this with little evidence and no proof, flinging logic and reason in the face of Occam's Razor?

What I meant to say was...how did you reach your conclusions that the human spirit/soul is a matter of fact, which appears to be how you are treating it? Why, dare I ask, do you appear to place so little confidence in Occam's Razor? Pardon me if I seem a bit arrogant or troll-like, as I do not mean to be.

Originally Posted by Mario92

What the hell? Are you suggesting that the human spirit is, indeed, truth; that all humans have a spirit or soul within them? And you accept this with little evidence and no proof, flinging logic and reason in the face of Occam's Razor?

What I meant to say was...how did you reach your conclusions that the human spirit/soul is a matter of fact, which appears to be how you are treating it? Why, dare I ask, do you appear to place so little confidence in Occam's Razor? Pardon me if I seem a bit arrogant or troll-like, as I do not mean to be.

Do I need to reach the conclusion that I exist? I'm not going to spoil this topic, so I won't elaborate, and I don't think that's necessary anyway.

Originally Posted by really

Do I need to reach the conclusion that I exist? I'm not going to spoil this topic, so I won't elaborate, and I don't think that's necessary anyway.

Yes, you exist, but why does a spirit/soul even need to enter the equation at all? If this is, indeed, the conclusion you have reached, I would be most interested in learning how you arrived there.

Originally Posted by Mario92

Yes, you exist, but why does a spirit/soul even need to enter the equation at all? If this is, indeed, the conclusion you have reached, I would be most interested in learning how you arrived there.

If you read deeply about your existence and your spirit, you will conceptually find that they're identical. Reaching a conclusion is something the mind does. Meditating on it, however, is another beautiful topic altogether.

Originally Posted by really

If you read deeply about your existence and your spirit, you will conceptually find that they're identical. Reaching a conclusion is something the mind does. Meditating on it, however, is another beautiful topic altogether.

I seem to be having trouble understanding exactly what it is you are getting at, here. You claim that, because I exist, I have a spirit...is this not so? If this is what you are saying, then do dogs and bugs, trees and rocks, also have spirits? They exist, so by the reasoning you give, they must also have spirits. Does every grain of sand on any given beach have a spirit, too? If you smash a rock in two, do you create another spirit? Or is the spirit something restricted entirely to humans? You have some s'plaining to do.

Originally Posted by really

Over-glorification of the already amazing beauty of the weak mortal humans? From what existence can you even claim this? The human spirit. Your mind may disagree, but your mind is attached to the words and stories of the book. You may say that you use your eyes, but by that time it is already too late, is it not?

why do i waste my life trying to talk to people.

i give in.

Originally Posted by Mario92

I seem to be having trouble understanding exactly what it is you are getting at, here. You claim that, because I exist, I have a spirit...is this not so? If this is what you are saying, then do dogs and bugs, trees and rocks, also have spirits? They exist, so by the reasoning you give, they must also have spirits. Does every grain of sand on any given beach have a spirit, too? If you smash a rock in two, do you create another spirit? Or is the spirit something restricted entirely to humans? You have some s'plaining to do.

This thread may help you, but I'm not going off topic explaining things in this thread. Thanks for asking.

Supporting arguments for Spiritual Reality

Originally Posted by O'nus

why do i waste my life trying to talk to people.

i give in.

This means.. You think you're wasting your time? Is this an intelligent response?

Originally Posted by really

TThis means.. You think you're wasting your time? Is this an intelligent response?

I think it means he realizes when arguing with someone is a futile attempt, because the person has a tendency to be illogical/irrational/set in their beliefs/stubborn/close-minded/unbending/unwilling to change/etc.