"Religious people tend to be smarter"

[Alex K]

But we knew that already.

[bennyboy]

Excluded-middle. Certainly you're aware that many creators in the various fields of the arts are religious. Being religious doesn't preclude creativity. Surely someone as smart as you would know that.

I'm not even going to respond to that.

What?  Deprive us of your genius?  You will make baby Jesus cry if you don't let your little light shine.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Excluded-middle. Certainly you're aware that many creators in the various fields of the arts are religious. Being religious doesn't preclude creativity. Surely someone as smart as you would know that.

I'm not even going to respond to that.

Of course not, because you find it impossible to acknowledge your own errors.

Ok, you are both idiots.

Well, that's a cogent and well-considered reply.

Perhaps you should go back to the kiddie table and let the adults continue their discussion without your "insights".

[Excited Penguin]

I didn't make any errors. You two jumped to preposterous conclusions. You're being so ridiculous as to not even be worth engaging.

So, let me repeat myself. You're a complete moron. Get off my case, you're not even entertaining.

[Bard A Madsen]

I didn't read all the posts, about half.  I heard that atheists know more about religion than theist.  I would think it would be the opposite, sort of like they say junkies have a higher IQ.  Then, it isn't too smart to shoot up heroin.  Also, someone said "can one believe the study anyhow?", it all depends on what smart, educated, and IQ are.

That's a completely crazy comparison to make. It's not even in the same spectrum. Here we are talking about philosophical ideas, and knowledge, not physical actions that detriment your health, the comparison doesn't even make sense. Not all Atheists know more about religion than theists, careful generalizing, however a majority of Atheists do indeed know more about religion than Theists, because theists are most likely indoctrinated in to their religion from birth, and continue believing this belief without really taking time to analyze it or learn about it. Atheists know more generally speaking, because they are atheists as a result of learning about Religion. 

Plus it's irrelevant. To use an obtuse comparison, it would be as though someone believed Harry Potter was real, and I did not. It's irrelevant in terms of the knowledge about either position, because either one of us could be more knowledgeable than the other about the subject. There is no direct coorelation. However, if we want to base it on today's statistics as well as most probably the future's, Atheists tend to know more about religion because knowing-knowledge, is a form of logic, in the context of this, of reading and analyzing the book, and people more often than not convert to Atheism because they end up learning and gaining more knowledge about religion. 

I can see why you are confused at first glance. It's because of societal upbringing, it's completely obtuse comparison. The default position should mean that hardly anyone believes religion is true, and because of that there is no real reason to learn about it, as it has no impact on daily life. However, we've flipped it, so religion is what is taught as the default position, and this is why atheists are more often than not theists before turning to atheism, because that's what's become a social norm. and once you realize this belief is false you also have an impulse to gain more and more information because of how long it may have held value in your life, and how prominent it is in others.

What?    Maybe I didn't say just right or you read it wrong.  I tend to believe just by gut instinct and what I read years ago that atheist and heroin users are more intelligent statistically than straight theists.

"Not all Atheists know more about religion than theists, careful generalizing, however..."   Who said 'all' or 'none' ???  "obtuse comparison"  "flipped it"  I'm not fallering ya. 

Also, it depends on who cherry picks the numbers and interprets the meaning of IO, intelligence, smart, innovative, monetary success, logic, or the longest life with a sense of well being.

[Excited Penguin]

I wouldn't insult you if I didn't think you did this on purpose. It's still not an excuse to blame you for your own bias or intellectual myopia(you are who you are), but it gets to me. Be more considering of what I have to say in the future, if you're not able to perceive at a glance what the other person means. I was pretty clear on what I had to say on the topic discussed in this thread. Read my statements again and then reconsider what you implied I was saying about religious people's creativity.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I didn't make any errors. You two jumped to preposterous conclusions. You're being so ridiculous as to not even be worth engaging.

Translation: Thump had a point because I misspoke, but I'm too high on myself to acknowledge it.

So, let me repeat myself. You're a complete moron.

Oh, dear, you hold a bad opinion of me.Whatever am I to do?!

Forgive my apathy.

Get off my case, you're not even entertaining.

This is a discussion board; I'm discussing a flawed point you made. You can reply or not, that ain't my business.

You don't like it? You've got several options. You can think before pressing send next time, so that you don't get butthurt when someone points out your mistake. You can listen to what others are saying so that you can actually see what they're talking about, instead of projecting your obvious defensiveness into the discussion and looking like the bag of dicks that you apparently are.

Or you can simply log out.

I wouldn't insult you if I didn't think you did this on purpose. It's still not an excuse to blame you for your own bias or intellectual myopia(you are who you are), but it gets to me. Be more considering of what I have to say in the future, if you're not able to perceive at a glance what the other person means. I was pretty clear on what I had to say on the topic discussed in this thread. Read my statements again and then reconsider what you implied I was saying about religious people's creativity.

Here's what you wrote:

I would think one would be deemed creative if they wrote a work of fiction, not admired one(let alone holding it to be real - that's what we call madness/stupidity).

There is one logical error in there, and one simple misunderstanding on your part. The misunderstanding is that you think people are being called creative because they admire their religious book; they're not. The logical error is that the belief of the artist is the determinant of his or her creativity.

You're welcome. Next time, you will have to do your own thinking.

[Excited Penguin]

You're hopeless. I didn't say any of that and you're quoting out of context anyway. But even if you weren't, that statement alone doesn't entail what you think it does.

I said religion doesn't factor in more creativity. It does exactly the opposite - obviously, since it's a closed set of thinking. That's all I ever said. I wouldn't make such a crazy assumption as religious people can't be creative. Of course religious people are creative. It's a basic human trait we all share. But religion doesn't make you more creative, nor does it make you more intelligent. That's my opinion on the matter. Nothing else.

[Excited Penguin]

Now I expect an apology from you. If you don't, I'll stop explaining myself to you. Not that I had to this time - I wasn't vague in saying it to begin with.

[Excited Penguin]

But I can see you taking issue with the way I formulated that. Sure, I was indulging in a bit of sarcasm there. It's nothing unusual though when talking about religion. So just because I took some stylistic liberty with how I delivered my point you thought it ok to call me out on bullshit I never even hinted at?