Summary of studies: Religiousity and intelligence

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
high level theory hardly uses computers at all

I know string theory at least has equations that even computers haven't been able to figure out fully. And I know the formula for the roots of a fourth-order polynomial is too complicated for anything but a computer.

a lot of peopel say that they have had supernatural experiences (I am not saying that I agree with them)

yet you would say that they haven't, why?

Most of them contradict each other, and pretty much all are easily explainable without resorting to believing them.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
no, because a creator/supernatural event is not bound by physics

Not bound by physics or logic.

Thus, intelligent people will reject such a notion.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
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)

Would you answer "I don't know" when somebody asks you "Do you believe that there is an invisble, non-coporeal dog under your bed?"

"I don't know" is not a legit answer to questions like these.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
there is a lot of stuff that can't be explained by science

there is even a lot of stuff that can never (as far as we know right now) be explained by science

Cannot or not yet?

On what basis do you make such an assertion?

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Flip McWho
Sorry thats crap. I'm agnostic and I don't count myself as an atheist. Being agnostic means that there is no evidence either way. There could be a God, there could not be. The doesn't automatically make me a atheist. Sure some slide towards atheism and some slide more towards theism.

Anyways to whoever said Agnostics are the only intelligent way to go

An atheist doesn't believe in god.

If you are uncertain as to wether god exists, then you do not *believe* that he does. Hence you are an atheist; without active belief in god's existence you cannot be a theist. Atheist is the more general term, agnostics are a particular type of atheist.

All people are either atheists or theists; you either have a belief in god's existence or you do not.

So yes, specifically I am an agnostic, but I shy away from using that term on myself because it is prone to being misunderstood. The term "atheist" typically conveys my position better than "agnostic" to the average person.

-Drachasor

[Drachasor]

Anything that is part of the natural world can be detected. That is the principle basis of science and it is wholly accurate. Two competing scientific theories have to ask this question: under what conditions will they predict different things? Assuming they agree everywhere else when tested (and you have tested them), then you test where they disagree to determine which one is correct (if either one is).

Now, if some phenomenon is detected that falls outside the bounds of *current* scientific theory, then that theory must be revised. In this way scientific theory grows and becomes better and better at explaining the world.

The problem with the term "supernatural" is that it is beyond nature (e.g. everything observable), and hence it can never have an observable effect on the world. For when anything does have an observable effect it is part of nature.

Hence, the problem with proposing "god" as an answer to any question is that "god" is by definition non-observable. Therefore, "god" isn't an answer to anything, but it is putting up a sign saying "I give up, and we shouldn't bother trying to come up with a real answer." In practical terms this produces the "God of Gaps", a god that "explains" everything we don't yet understand and slowly grows less and less significant as we understand more. For all intents in purposes this is pure silliness to engage it; it is far, far better to put the label "we don't yet know" on such things, as it encourages people to figure it out and work on it.

In short, proposing an entity that one can never tell wether it exists or doesn't exist to explain our current ignorance is a worthless endeaver.

-Drachasor

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Originally posted by Jon Miller
high level theory hardly uses computers at all

I know string theory at least has equations that even computers haven't been able to figure out fully. And I know the formula for the roots of a fourth-order polynomial is too complicated for anything but a computer.

a lot of peopel say that they have had supernatural experiences (I am not saying that I agree with them)

yet you would say that they haven't, why?

Most of them contradict each other, and pretty much all are easily explainable without resorting to believing them.

that is because computers are dumber than people

really high level theorists use their mind, just use computers for simple but tedious calculations

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Cannot or not yet?

On what basis do you make such an assertion?

because, for example, for some things we would need an accelerator the size of the universe

Jon miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Drachasor


An atheist doesn't believe in god.

If you are uncertain as to wether god exists, then you do not *believe* that he does. Hence you are an atheist; without active belief in god's existence you cannot be a theist. Atheist is the more general term, agnostics are a particular type of atheist.

All people are either atheists or theists; you either have a belief in god's existence or you do not.

So yes, specifically I am an agnostic, but I shy away from using that term on myself because it is prone to being misunderstood. The term "atheist" typically conveys my position better than "agnostic" to the average person.

-Drachasor

there are agnostics who beleive in god

so your point is wrong

Jon Miller

[Flip McWho]

An atheist doesn't believe in god.

If you are uncertain as to wether god exists, then you do not *believe* that he does. Hence you are an atheist; without active belief in god's existence you cannot be a theist. Atheist is the more general term, agnostics are a particular type of atheist.

All people are either atheists or theists; you either have a belief in god's existence or you do not.

So yes, specifically I am an agnostic, but I shy away from using that term on myself because it is prone to being misunderstood. The term "atheist" typically conveys my position better than "agnostic" to the average person.

Ahhhh I see what your getting at. I myself prefer to force people to accept that I'm agnostic, than atheist because although I see your point I'm not atheistic and i'm not theistic either, I'm trying to walk the middle ground here.

Would you answer "I don't know" when somebody asks you "Do you believe that there is an invisble, non-coporeal dog under your bed?"

Ummmmmm a question concerning a dog with those qualities is a little bit different when compared to a God, especially considering a Dog doesn't really have the other qualities that a God would have (i.e. the three o's)

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


there are agnostics who beleive in god

so your point is wrong

Jon Miller

agnostic

\Ag*nos"tic\, n. One who professes ignorance, or denies that we have any knowledge, save of phenomena; one who supports agnosticism, neither affirming nor denying the existence of a personal Deity, a future life, etc.

That's the typically definition of the word, and the one almost anyone actually means when they use it. There is a broader definition, one that acknowledges belief in a god is irrational (but doesn't state that belief isn't present), but this is almost *never* used.

I prefer to go by the definition that is really in common usage. When almost anyone says they are agnostic they mean "I don't believe in god, but I acknowledge I may be wrong." (and similar positions are held for all religious beliefs). This sort of sentiment is saying that such a person is an atheist, in particular a type of known as a "soft atheist." On the other hand they are clearly not "hard atheists" who actively deny that god exists.

-Drachasor

[Verto]

Standardized tests show Blacks are intellectually inferior to the Great White race.

[Berzerker]

Stefu and Kid are onto something, tagging along with higher intelligence are greater curiosity and skepticism - higher standards of proof. Religion appears to lack the proof needed to satisfy greater enquiry by skeptics, so "Doubting Thomas'" are less inclined to accept a belief in God based on what someone else told them to believe. But frankly, the more intelligent (generalisation alert) have not made a sufficient enquiry into the existence of God to know one way or the other. Simply rejecting religion out of a dis-satisfaction with other people's proof for it is not enlightenment. Look for the proof yourself first...

[Flip McWho]

Agnosticism. Best site I've found on it.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/agnostic.htm

[:) Smiley]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
there is even a lot of stuff that can never (as far as we know right now) be explained by science

Own goal