Meh. From looking at both specific studies and overviews of the general question "Are religious believers better off than non-believers," (including an excellent overview by Zuckerman), I'm of the semi-considered opinion that the subject is fraught through with methodological issues and selection bias, such that it would be foolhardy to attempt to draw any larger conclusions based on the often fragmented and conflicting studies. Moreover, people neglect that belief isn't the same as surety and confidence, and I suspect the religious struggle with existential questions every bit as weighty as those that trouble the atheist, with likely the same consequences. It's just not possible to draw firm conclusions, I think. I'm certainly willing to entertain the notion that perhaps religion provides some insulation against the existentialist cold, I'm just unsure how one would go about demonstrating the fact in a way that is both rigorous and sound.

But perhaps we don't even need to do so. The question, even if more atheists are troubled with suicide is the same question that arises in the debate over race and intelligence. Looking at the extremes doesn't tell you much about the data sets, you need to look at both variability (distribution) and overlap. If 2% of atheists are significantly worse off than theists, with respect to suicide, is that really an indictment of atheism and belief as experienced by the majority of overlapping, roughly comparable persons, both believers and non? I think not.

(June 9, 2012 at 3:32 pm)Tempus Wrote: Since higher intelligence is correlated with atheism

That assertion is utter rubbish! The moron in this clip representing atheism demonstrates the fact...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8__UWuj8Do

(June 10, 2012 at 9:49 am)StatCrux Wrote:

(June 9, 2012 at 3:32 pm)Tempus Wrote: Since higher intelligence is correlated with atheism

That assertion is utter rubbish! The moron in this clip representing atheism demonstrates the fact...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8__UWuj8Do

The "philosopher" here is the real moron and he proves it quite conclusively.

1. There has been no great philosophical revolution in past fifty years. Most of it, I believe, was just before it.

2. He foolishly equates philosophy with intellectualism.

3. Rather than naming names, he should've pointed out new and revolutionary ideas in last fifty years. Did he do that? Nope, there aren't many.


Edit: I realized in my second viewing that the man talking is William Craig. His stupidity shines through even without his name.

(June 10, 2012 at 10:04 am)genkaus Wrote: 2. He foolishly equates philosophy with intellectualism.

Edit: I realized in my second viewing that the man talking is William Craig. His stupidity shines through even without his name.

Quote:An intellectual is a person who primarily uses intelligence in either a professional or an individual capacity.

Wikipedia

I think a professor of philosophy in a major university would qualify as an intellectual...

William Lane Craig is as full of shit as ever. One day I hope the xtians stop believing things they want to hear by people who are well-paid to say them.

Being a religious person doesn't always make you stupid, but religion is stupid.

---

(June 10, 2012 at 10:31 am)StatCrux Wrote: I think a professor of philosophy in a major university would qualify as an intellectual...

That's what you get for thinking. I'm not saying that he's not smart, educated, articulate, creative, etc. He just uses all that to spread lies and convince people to buy his bullshit, literally. He's smart enough to fool you into thinking he's an intellectual, which isn't saying much.

(June 10, 2012 at 10:31 am)StatCrux Wrote:

Quote:An intellectual is a person who primarily uses intelligence in either a professional or an individual capacity.

Wikipedia

I think a professor of philosophy in a major university would qualify as an intellectual...

But it still wouldn't make philosophy equal to intellectualism.

(June 10, 2012 at 9:49 am)StatCrux Wrote:

(June 9, 2012 at 3:32 pm)Tempus Wrote: Since higher intelligence is correlated with atheism

That assertion is utter rubbish! The moron in this clip representing atheism demonstrates the fact...

I'm not trying to be a smart-ass here, but I'm actually not sure whether you're joking or not.

(June 10, 2012 at 10:37 am)aleialoura Wrote: William Lane Craig is as full of shit as ever. One day I hope the xtians stop believing things they want to hear by people who are well-paid to say them.

Being a religious person doesn't always make you stupid, but religion is stupid.

---

(June 10, 2012 at 10:31 am)StatCrux Wrote: I think a professor of philosophy in a major university would qualify as an intellectual...

That's what you get for thinking. I'm not saying that he's not smart, educated, articulate, creative, etc. He just uses all that to spread lies and convince people to buy his bullshit, literally. He's smart enough to fool you into thinking he's an intellectual, which isn't saying much.

If you were capable of following an argument you would know that I wasn't talking about William Craig. I was pointing out that professors of philosophy in major universities could be considered as intellectuals, so using them as an example of intellectuals is valid. It was in response to a statement by Tempus that atheism correlates to high intelligence.

---

(June 10, 2012 at 10:49 am)genkaus Wrote:

(June 10, 2012 at 10:31 am)StatCrux Wrote: Wikipedia

I think a professor of philosophy in a major university would qualify as an intellectual...

But it still wouldn't make philosophy equal to intellectualism.

William Craig isn't saying philosophy is equal to intellectualism, he's showing that a large number of philosophy professors (who could be considered as intellectual) are also Christian, to counter the assertion that modern universities and the intellectuals are mainly atheist. You can get very clever and very dumb atheists and Christians.

(June 10, 2012 at 11:04 am)StatCrux Wrote: William Craig isn't saying philosophy is equal to intellectualism, he's showing that a large number of philosophy professors (who could be considered as intellectual) are also Christian, to counter the assertion that modern universities and the intellectuals are mainly atheist. You can get very clever and very dumb atheists and Christians.

Firstly, by confining the examples of intellectualism to philosophers, even though the other guy explicitly commented on other fields, he is implicitly equating the two.

Secondly, unless he gives percentage figures about rate of atheism among intellectuals compared to that in layman population, these examples are meaningless.

(June 10, 2012 at 11:04 am)StatCrux Wrote: If you were capable of following an argument you would know that I wasn't talking about William Craig. I was pointing out that professors of philosophy in major universities could be considered as intellectuals, so using them as an example of intellectuals is valid. It was in response to a statement by Tempus that atheism correlates to high intelligence.

Ok, I see you are being serious. Firstly I'll just point out that when someone makes an assertion (which I did) it makes more sense, to my thinking anyway, to ask them for evidence for that assertion than to begin by refuting it. I'll address your refutation anyway.

You say that intellectuals, as listed by WLC, run counter to my claim that atheism correlates positively with intelligence. This isn't a particularly good refutation of my claim because several individuals (out of a vast number of people) don't prove or disprove anything. It would be akin to objecting to the claim "being human correlates with bipedalism" by pointing out that some people have one or no legs. While that is an imperfect example, it does illustrate that specific instances to the contrary are not important to the truth of the statement unless they're statistically significant. Now, had I said "only atheists are intelligent" your refutation would be relevant.

Have a look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity...telligence
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2...n-God.html

There were some surveys done regarding belief in the Royal Society (it's actually referenced in the second article) which I can't seem to find. I also vaguely recall one done at the US equivalent (NAS?). Both showed very low rates of belief in god(s).