It didn't measure intellect or religion, it measured knowledge concerning religion. We normally base intelligence off of knowledge. One who has more knowledge is usually considered more intelligent. Your comment in absolutely no way ended the thread, nor provided any conclusion whatsoever.
I wouldn't say so necessarily, I'm Catholic and very smart, smarter than most atheists i know..as far as IQ tests go those aren't absolute, you have to remember that was developed by one man with his own ideas of what constitutes intelligence.......although I wont argue that a lot of religious people require more education lol
Yea and dude was using this to convey his opinion that people are somehow smarter for knowing their religion. Thus their knowledge of religion makes them "smarter". Religion isn't knowledge, it's really old gossip. That study means nothing in this argument. I feel like im feeding a troll thread now.
I've read 2 people on here say that they are smart. Haven't you ever noticed that most of the truly intelligent people never say such a thing? Sorry to get off topic. And I'm not saying you aren't smart. It just kind of bugs me when people say they are smart. Know what I mean???
I honestly don't know why they even do these. It's already common knowledge that the most intelligent people on the planet reject the concept of personal gods, especially the archaic ones worshipped by most common folk. And naturally, one must understand all religions to fully reject them. If one avoids or shakes off indoctrination, the next logical step is to seek knowledge and truth. Those who have faith that all answers can be found in irrational texts are naturally going to avoid knowledge that conflicts with their beliefs.
My apologies I didn't realize you stated that. However, it still holds true to what I bolded. There's a link, yes, but a link doesn't prove anything. For example, I can say that during the 20th century there were many more radios now and many more insane asylums. That's a link, so the number of radios must mean that more people are going to need to be institutionalized, or the inverse of said statement. The link is pretty clear cut, so it must be true. It can't be invalidated by how ridiculous it is to assume that statement is true, because there is a link! See? Pretty ridiculous. There's no causation, so the study is flawed. Another example I could go with is this; homeless population and crime rate might be correlated, in that both tend to be high or low in the same locations. It is equally valid to say that homelesss population is correlated with crime rate, or crime rate is correlated with homeless population. To say that crime causes homelessness, or homeless populations cause crime are different statements. And correlation does not imply that either is true. For instance, the underlying cause could be a 3rd variable such as drug abuse, or unemployment. What the study is saying is that "crime causes homelessness" or vice versa. We're missing the 3rd variable in this study. So again, flawed.
he was a panthiest who believes in an immanent god..doesnt that mean they believe the creator is everything?
I think you need to research pantheism a bit more. No creator in pantheism. The term "creator" implies a personal deity or being that creates.
That is your perception, that "the most intelligent people on the planet reject the concept of personal Gods". You have taken a position that people are smarter than you because they have embraced common knowledge. Common knowledge isn't concrete fact. You have set yourself up for a slippery slope if indeed these people you've place all your marbles in are wrong. See where im going here?? It's all perception. IQ is a lie, my professor taught me that. The world was flat and at the center of the universe not too long ago.
And there were a heck of a lot more atheists during that time too... I think... Notes: "Although the term atheism originated in the sixteenth century – based on Ancient Greek ἄθεος 'godless, denying the gods, ungodly' and open admission to positive atheism in <span>modern times was not made earlier than in the late eighteenth century, atheistic ideas, as well as their political influence, have a more expansive history." (Source)</span>
Oh yes, exactly like Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism with every atheist having the same clear cut beliefs massing on Saturdays to discuss how they believe in the absence of all deities. You sure got those atheists with an adefinition! Sure showed them.
Intelligence has nothing to do with IQ, we both agree to that...I think. Obviously, the term intelligence is the problem here. It is a very broad term and it can be argued that there are many kinds of intelligence. How about we call it, informed. The most informed people on this planet reject personal gods by a very large majority. Direct belief in gods and even more so with following a set religious doctrine, holds one back from becoming more informed.
You realize that 2 different people posted that and that the latter stated from the beginning that he is an atheist? Just wondering...
More information is better than less which promotes thought and less ignorance or fear associated with learning is conducive to gaining more information. Willful ignorance is as crippling as any sort of other severe physical disability. Simply because someone presents well (in terms of appearance and manner of speaking) doesn't mean they should have a seat at the table of ideas. Welcome to the age of the informed, not everyone chooses to apply.
How did you go about determining the large majority portion? I would go to say that it's honestly about equal. As many bible thumpers as you have, you have the same in bible bashers, being on the spiritual side (personally, I'd say I'm agnostic, because I haven't learned enough in my mind to make a decision) I've encountered many more of the latter than the former. that have tried to tell me that even a possible belief is to much. Both are misinformed and don't care to become more informed.