I agree with everyone so far.
the only problem with this thread is nobody is challenging anyone.
Maybe were all too intelligent..

(October 24, 2008 at 7:22 pm)Bungy Wrote: I agree with everyone so far.
the only problem with this thread is nobody is challenging anyone.
Maybe were all too intelligent..

I guess pity we haven't gotten some opposition from fundies yet...it would be almost a privilege on this occasion lol.
Its so calm lol.

(September 20, 2008 at 4:35 am)Giff Wrote: The members of MENSA ,the global organisation for people with high IQ, are nearly all atheists, except two. There is around 100 000 members[/u]

Another fact that is quite intresting is that 98% of all scientists and doctors are atheists too.

Charles Darwin had a speech at the TED where prestented this facts. When I find the video clip I will post it here.

Does this mean that atheists are smarter then people who are religious?

yes.

(October 25, 2008 at 6:26 pm)bozo Wrote:

(September 20, 2008 at 4:35 am)Giff Wrote: The members of MENSA ,the global organisation for people with high IQ, are nearly all atheists, except two. There is around 100 000 members[/u]

Another fact that is quite intresting is that 98% of all scientists and doctors are atheists too.

Charles Darwin had a speech at the TED where prestented this facts. When I find the video clip I will post it here.

Does this mean that atheists are smarter then people who are religious?

yes.

Yeah evidence suggests that indeed they are on average. Evidence suggests that they are quite a lot smarter on average, yes.

(September 25, 2008 at 6:32 am)Alan Wrote: I wouldn't say atheists are more intelligent, but I would say intelligent people are more likely to be atheists (as studies show). In fact, reversing that statement without proof would be a logical fallacy.

I agree ... do you have any links to these studies? I'd really love to see some evidence for what, until now, has just been my opinion.

(October 25, 2008 at 6:42 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Evidence suggests that they are quite a lot smarter on average, yes.

Same question to you Sir (i.e. what evidence?)

Kyu

(October 27, 2008 at 6:32 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:

(September 25, 2008 at 6:32 am)Alan Wrote: I wouldn't say atheists are more intelligent, but I would say intelligent people are more likely to be atheists (as studies show). In fact, reversing that statement without proof would be a logical fallacy.

I agree ... do you have any links to these studies? I'd really love to see some evidence for what, until now, has just been my opinion.

(October 25, 2008 at 6:42 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Evidence suggests that they are quite a lot smarter on average, yes.

Same question to you Sir (i.e. what evidence?)

Kyu

I've just heard (Dawkins say for instance) that surveys have been done that scientifially prove on average that Atheists have a higher IQ. I'm not claiming I know this. It just seems obvious to me so I believe its probably true. I'm speaking of evidence, not claiming I have it or know the details of it. And if enough evidence was to show otherwise obviously I'd change my mind.
Although, Dawkins talks about it in TGD, so I guess I could look up where the evidence for it is there.
But I mean I don't check all the details of the evidence for the proof of gravity.

I just need to correct myself

I mean that Richard Dawkins had a speech at the TED not Charles Darwin (his sinc long dead)

Suprising that nobody noticed that!

Maybe that answer the question if atheists are intellegent or not! (just kidding, if you didnt understand that allready)

(October 27, 2008 at 8:14 am)Giff Wrote: I just need to correct myself

I mean that Richard Dawkins had a speech at the TED not Charles Darwin (his sinc long dead)

Suprising that nobody noticed that!

Maybe that answer the question if atheists are intellegent or not! (just kidding, if you didnt understand that allready)

Lol for some reason I read it as Dawkins anyway unintentionally . Probably because I know of atleast one speech that Dawkins has given at TED. And it couldn't be Darwin for obvious reasons lol.

(October 27, 2008 at 7:01 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: I've just heard (Dawkins say for instance) that surveys have been done that scientifially prove on average that Atheists have a higher IQ. I'm not claiming I know this. It just seems obvious to me so I believe its probably true. I'm speaking of evidence, not claiming I have it or know the details of it. And if enough evidence was to show otherwise obviously I'd change my mind.

Hmmm ... it seems obvious to me too but the difficulty I have is that I cannot directly support it.

(October 27, 2008 at 7:01 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Although, Dawkins talks about it in TGD, so I guess I could look up where the evidence for it is there.

OK

(October 27, 2008 at 7:01 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: But I mean I don't check all the details of the evidence for the proof of gravity.

Sure but you (I suspect) and I both read popular science magazines and both of us know that those books/magazines are based on documented research, that given sufficient time, money, expertise that we could actually check these things ourselves (in simple terms that's the principle behind scientific peer review ... that all of the data is open to the entire scientific community all the time). So yeah you and I both have "faith" that certain scientific theories are correct (gravity & evolution included) but that faith is not blind faith, it's faith for a good reason, faith ultimately based on empirical data.

Kyu

(October 27, 2008 at 7:01 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: I've just heard (Dawkins say for instance) that surveys have been done that scientifially prove on average that Atheists have a higher IQ. I'm not claiming I know this. It just seems obvious to me so I believe its probably true. I'm speaking of evidence, not claiming I have it or know the details of it. And if enough evidence was to show otherwise obviously I'd change my mind.

(October 28, 2008 at 5:37 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: Hmmm ... it seems obvious to me too but the difficulty I have is that I cannot directly support it.

I certainly do NOT CLAIM anything either, other than that I think its pretty obvious imo that its probably more probable to be true than false. I don't claim its true, I just understand that its more probable, atleast in my opinion. So until I fully understand the evidence, and I consider it a priority to go into the details of the evidence some more, I think its still more logical to wager for what I think is atleast rather obviously a LOT more probable than to wager for what I think is very probably a lot less probable. Thats the reason.

(October 27, 2008 at 7:01 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Although, Dawkins talks about it in TGD, so I guess I could look up where the evidence for it is there.

(October 28, 2008 at 5:37 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: OK

Ok then, I'll see if I can find the source of any evidence for this subject in there then, or any direct evidence in the book, (I can't remember the book word for word, or all of it). Just right after I finished this post I'll do it right away.

(October 27, 2008 at 7:01 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: But I mean I don't check all the details of the evidence for the proof of gravity.

(October 28, 2008 at 5:37 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: Sure but you (I suspect) and I both read popular science magazines and both of us know that those books/magazines are based on documented research, that given sufficient time, money, expertise that we could actually check these things ourselves (in simple terms that's the principle behind scientific peer review ... that all of the data is open to the entire scientific community all the time). So yeah you and I both have "faith" that certain scientific theories are correct (gravity & evolution included) but that faith is not blind faith, it's faith for a good reason, faith ultimately based on empirical data.

Yeah I agree, I have faith in TGD that isn't blind, thats based on empirical evidence, indeed. But I would not call it faith, I'd call it understanding the scientiific method, and understanding that it should almost certainly be trusted (just not 100% perhaps, but as close as possible-to pretty much), so therefore scientists that follow it can be trusted (just not totally trusted, you should still question them).
Oh and on the subject of the science magazine thing, funnily enough, I've only been particularly interested in science since a few months ago, after reading TGD, because I find the whole "Origin of the universe" science and how religion is a load of rubbish. And I find the battle between science and reason and religion and delusion, and the battle between evidence and logic and faith and irrationality, particularly interesting. And its got me interested in the whole science thing. Particularly the science of understanding and research, and science about the universe and life and biology. I've never really been interested in the mere 'usefullness' of science, (apart from computers of course, but they help with research and understanding aswell anyways) I'm not interested in non-stick frying pan science, as Dawkins would put it.
I've actually NEVER read a science magazine. In fact I don't ever EVER remember even seeing one.
I have got pretty much much ALL my understanding of science from TGD in just the last month or two, and Dawkins' videos on youtube. The book is just pretty much fresh in my mind I guess and so are the videos. So I am particularly familiar with science and its relationship with the anti-science of religion and pseudo-science. I don't actually know that much at all about science really, atleast I think I don't. I can imagine theres people who know less. Afterall, fundamentalism poisons science, particularly from themselves but also for others atleast somewhat sometimes.
I am also reasonably well read I think (perhaps, maybe not) atleast for my age, maybe. Not that well read really (probably not well read at all, I dunno, dunno what the average is, I dunno, maybe I am).
But like I said, I guess if I seem well read and knowledgeable at all, its probably because TGD and some Dawkins' youtube videos are both probably quite fresh in my mind. Also, since I haven't really read anything else scientific, there is no misunderstanding/confusion between what I've read of Dawkins' and anything else I guess. Because how can there be? I haven't read anything else particularly scientific. Nor have I read anything else about religion either really.
Ok sorry for long post, I'll go find the surverys in TGD or whatever it was that I think there was evidence of in there, about the whole religion vs IQ thing. I'm right on it, brb.