(October 24, 2008 at 9:18 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

(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.

May I boast of my science degree with math major?

OK, here we are Kyu: In chapter three of the paperback edition of 'The God Delusion': 'Arguments for God's existence', within the sub chapter of it, 'The argument from admired religious scientists', page 129, it says on that page: 'On the subject of religion and IQ, the only meta-analysis known to me was published by Paul Bell in Mensa Magazine in 2002 (Mensa is the society of individuals with a high IQ, and their journal not surprisingly includes articles on the one thing that draws them together).' It continues: 'Bell concluded: 'Of 43 studies carried out since 1927 on the relationship between religious belief and one's intelligence and/or educational level, all but four found an inverse connection. That is, the higher one's intelligence or educational level, the less one is likely to be religious or hold "beliefs" of any kind.'
And under the 'notes' section near the back of the book, it says under the same chapter and sub chapter (within the 'notes' section) what the source is (I think its a source, note 57 in the notes section anyways, and it is very probably about it)...: 'P.Bell, 'Would you believe it?', Mensa Magazine, Feb. 2002, 12-13.'
There you go, hope thats ok, and that this is ok.

(October 28, 2008 at 3:21 pm)ManofGOD Wrote:

(October 24, 2008 at 9:18 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

(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.

May I boast of my science degree with math major?

just proves ManofGOD that a complete tosser can get qualified.

(October 28, 2008 at 4:03 pm)bozo Wrote:

(October 28, 2008 at 3:21 pm)ManofGOD Wrote:

(October 24, 2008 at 9:18 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

(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.

May I boast of my science degree with math major?

just proves ManofGOD that a complete tosser can get qualified.

Unless he's having a joke with us lol.

Well I would not agree that a high IQ = Atheism anymore than a low IQ = reli-fundie. I've read comments from some very dumb atheists and well thought out remarks from hardcore bibble bashers. Proof of that is abundant on Youtube comments.

Perhaps it's the anonimity that brings out the worst in people but I have seen some mind numbingly stupid remarks there.

(October 29, 2008 at 9:04 am)leo-rcc Wrote: Well I would not agree that a high IQ = Atheism anymore than a low IQ = reli-fundie. I've read comments from some very dumb atheists and well thought out remarks from hardcore bibble bashers. Proof of that is abundant on Youtube comments.

Perhaps it's the anonimity that brings out the worst in people but I have seen some mind numbingly stupid remarks there.

I don't think religion is the main enemy but faith/irrational belief, I think atheists who claim they 100% KNOW that gods don't exist, and try to impose their non-belief on others by ranting on and on about it/insulting religious people, being unpleasant etc display some irrationality/"faith". This I believe to also be a problem of "faith" you just wouldn't call it faith. What I mean is, as it takes faith to believe in something there is no evidence for. It takes some faith however small to really "believe" that you 100% KNOW that God doesn't exist. When you can't know that scientifically.
I mean lets round it up/off a bit, I know that the existence of God is far far less probable than 1% chance of existence. But lets just hypothetically assume that the chance God exists is exactly 1% just for the sake of argument. Ok if there is a 99% chance God doesn't exist, and 1% he does, and you think its like this ( for example) that would be scientifcally correct. If however you actually claim to know that God 100% doesn't exist, when in all probability there is a 1% chance he doesn't, then 1% of you is kind of 'faith-based', we just don't/wouldn't call it that. What would you call that then? Well its certainly very irrational, atleast in my opinion to be so confident of something that you believe you 100% know it does or doesn't exist. It can case a lot of problems and I think believing you are 100% certain of something when you just can't be, is the very definition of fundamentalism, dogmatism. IMO atleast.
And I think this 1% (and in reality a lot less than 1%) of irrational belief/faith is actually perhaps quite a big difference from de-facto, scientific belief. Even though it might seem irrelevant. Because however small the difference, I think once you take something as gospel, as in you really believe you 100% KNOW something in absolute certainly, with zero doubt, whether its that something does or doesn't exist, it can cause a lot of problems/arguments/trouble and can be unscientific. And potentially very unscientific and even anti-scientific.
Thats how I understand it anyway.

I had to read your reply twice because I somehow fail to see where the point to what I was trying to make and your response actually had any correlation. First off, I don't hold any value to absolute certainties. This is something useless that is nice to talk about in philosophy or amongst "true" believers, but it holds no water.

We can however assume things based on experience, and as such come to conclusions without scientific basis. We can assume that if a truck gets larger, it is probably heading straight for me, without the aid of mathematics or physics. That gives me time to get out of the way. You don't need to be a brainiac to figure that out.

But a lot of times us atheists are being accused of being 2 sides of the same coin. And looking at a lot of responses atheists make on YT I am not surprised. And that is not because of absolute certainty, but because of trying to feel superiour by knocking the other party down as far as I can tell.

(October 29, 2008 at 12:35 pm)leo-rcc Wrote: I had to read your reply twice because I somehow fail to see where the point to what I was trying to make and your response actually had any correlation. First off, I don't hold any value to absolute certainties. This is something useless that is nice to talk about in philosophy or amongst "true" believers, but it holds no water.

We can however assume things based on experience, and as such come to conclusions without scientific basis. We can assume that if a truck gets larger, it is probably heading straight for me, without the aid of mathematics or physics. That gives me time to get out of the way. You don't need to be a brainiac to figure that out.

But a lot of times us atheists are being accused of being 2 sides of the same coin. And looking at a lot of responses atheists make on YT I am not surprised. And that is not because of absolute certainty, but because of trying to feel superiour by knocking the other party down as far as I can tell.

I don't think I was disagreeing with your post in anyway, I was just replying to it, and saying that I think that while the whole Religion vs IQ thing does seem to favor atheists on average, I think the bigger enemy is faith and that its really, on a higher level atleast, its more of a Faith vs IQ thing. So that includes pseudoscientfic faith-heads, and on very rare occasions what I'd call strong gnostic atheists that are so strong it could be seen as dogmatic. But often, its not that they really believe that its not possible that God can exist. But they just behave that way anyway, and take it too far, so they might aswell think it if they're gonna behave like that.

Well I think the human brain is very capable of compartmentalizing. Some true believers can be sublimely intelligent in all sorts of subjects, but incapable of critical thinking when it comes to matters of their faith.

(October 29, 2008 at 12:58 pm)leo-rcc Wrote: Well I think the human brain is very capable of compartmentalizing. Some true believers can be sublimely intelligent in all sorts of subjects, but incapable of critical thinking when it comes to matters of their faith.

Yes, I think faith is bigger than religion. And I agree its often compartmentalized. I think religion is a huge part of faith. I don't think you can have religion without faith (unless you're faking it) but I think you can have faith without a religion. You can have faith in superstitions/pseudoscience etc. Astrology for example, or in my previous case, 'The Law of Attraction' utter bullshit.
Also, from what I've heard atleast, it seems as though Stalin, for example, had a kind of a dogmatic, anti-faith sort of faith.