Summary of studies: Religiousity and intelligence

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Only cuz you aren't smart enough to figure out an anagram.

I am afraid that isn't it.

The anagram is just too stupid.

Wrong anagram, wrong time, wrong place.

-Drachasor

[Sava]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
it should be noted that religious people tend to be poorer and therefore not exposed to as much education...

sometimes, those exposed to education still end up stupid

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
it was really unintelligent to be an atheist in the 1920s

so therefore in general intelligent are more sure of themselves and don't want to beleive in a god

the bible says something about this (something like the foolishness of God s better than the wisdom of man)

Jon Miller

This is a misrepresentation.

It was unwise to publically declare yourself an atheist in the 1920s, that doesn't mean you were stupid if you were an atheist.

Heck, it isn't entirely wise to publically declare yourself an atheist these days. More Americans would vote for a Muslim candidate for President than they would for an Atheist one (The Muslim is about at 50%, and the Atheist is at 40%--the question in the survery was roughly "If a candidate has _____ belief, and you agreed with their policies, would you vote for them?").

America is a very religious country, and most people don't see it because they are religious. The people that see it best are atheists, agnostics, and immigrants (generally speaking).

Of course, Europe is much better about accepting atheism.

-Drachasor

[Jon Miller]

no, there was no alternate, scientific explantation of the universe that didn't envolve a god

therefor it was unintelligent to be an atheist in 1920s

Jon Miller

[Kuciwalker]

There is no scientific explanation of the cause of the universe now, beyond the assertion that there is no cause.

[Jon Miller]

I thought hawkings bowl shaped theory worked

although I admit that I am not too interested in that area

JM

[Jon Miller]

if what you say is true now, than it is unintelligent to be an athiest now

the only intelligent thing to be is an agnostic

JM

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
no, there was no alternate, scientific explantation of the universe that didn't envolve a god

therefor it was unintelligent to be an atheist in 1920s

Untrue. Just because I can't explain how the universe came into being doesn't mean that therefore the only intelligent conclusion is to believe in a diety.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
if what you say is true now, than it is unintelligent to be an athiest now

the only intelligent thing to be is an agnostic

JM

Occam's razor deals with that nicely.

[Jon Miller]

no it doesn't

and occams razor is ****

(and to Che, no, but it does make beleiving there is no deity to be unintelligent)

JM

[Kuciwalker]

Two ways to deal with it:

To demand a creator would demand a creator of that creator, ad infinitum. That's just stupid.

We only believe that one event causes another by the repeated conjoining of those two events. Since we cannot observe even any potential creator except through the supposed effect, the universe, we can only assign that creator exactly the power to cause the observed universe, no more. Since this is meaningless, we can safely say there is no creator.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
no it doesn't

and occams razor is ****

(and to Che, no, but it does make beleiving there is no deity to be unintelligent)

JM

Yes it does.

And agnostiscism, technically speaking, is a type of atheist.

An atheist is someone that isn't a theist. Agnostics aren't theists. Typically the term "agnostic" is used by people to try to soften the blow of them being atheists (not always the case, but often).

And Occam's razor is a very valid principle. The idea that you should use the simplist explanation possible is a very good one.

Anyhow, requiring god to explain the origin of the universe works like this:

1. God is sitting around and suddenly decides to make a universe.

2. Universe comes out of seeming nothingness.

This can be simplified by one step: Remove God.

Proposing god doesn't explain anything better. Afterall, where did God come from and what is your evidence for that origin? All it does is move the problem from the origin of the universe to the origin of god. You still have the same problem essentially.

Being an atheist does not require that you can explain everything in terms of science. It is perfectly acceptable to not have explanations, afterall there are many things that cannot be fully explained with theory *and* evidence by anyone.

-Drachasor

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Two ways to deal with it:

To demand a creator would demand a creator of that creator, ad infinitum. That's just stupid.

We only believe that one event causes another by the repeated conjoining of those two events. Since we cannot observe even any potential creator except through the supposed effect, the universe, we can only assign that creator exactly the power to cause the observed universe, no more. Since this is meaningless, we can safely say there is no creator.

no, because a creator/supernatural event is not bound by physics

you can't say the same abotu physics because than you lose one of the basic assumptions of physics

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Drachasor


Yes it does.

And agnostiscism, technically speaking, is a type of atheist.

An atheist is someone that isn't a theist. Agnostics aren't theists. Typically the term "agnostic" is used by people to try to soften the blow of them being atheists (not always the case, but often).

And Occam's razor is a very valid principle. The idea that you should use the simplist explanation possible is a very good one.

Anyhow, requiring god to explain the origin of the universe works like this:

1. God is sitting around and suddenly decides to make a universe.

2. Universe comes out of seeming nothingness.

This can be simplified by one step: Remove God.

Proposing god doesn't explain anything better. Afterall, where did God come from and what is your evidence for that origin? All it does is move the problem from the origin of the universe to the origin of god. You still have the same problem essentially.

Being an atheist does not require that you can explain everything in terms of science. It is perfectly acceptable to not have explanations, afterall there are many things that cannot be fully explained with theory *and* evidence by anyone.

-Drachasor

agnostics admit they don't know, even now the only intelligent choice

I actually do thing that it is stupid to be an athiest (whlie it is not stupid to be a theist) if there is no explanation for the creation of the universe (and no exaplanation appears possible)

JOn Miller

[Jon Miller]

OCcam's Razor is well known to me, doesn't stop it from being **** most the time

Jon Miller