Support NeoGAF

[Korey]

Or people have taken a good hard look at their faith, thoroughly analyzed it, and have come out the other side with it intact.

The sheer arrogance to assume that anyone who remains faithful has simply not given their faith any deep thought is why these atheist memes exist.

Yea, no.

That person hasn't analyzed it as thoroughly as they thought they had.

I mean, to "thoroughly analyze" the religion they were indoctrinated with since birth by their parents, and then being like "Whew!!! glad to self-confirm that my religion was right all along...lucky me that I was born into the right household on this side of the world in this period of human history! And these super-questionable stories that totally don't mesh with what we observe in real life seem legit!"

...I don't think that person is a great critical thinker, no.

 

[The Adder]

I am sure 50 decades ago there were happy or peaceful families that came undone when a child of theirs decided to marry a black person in the US for example.

I assume you mean 50 years ago.

Also, 50 years ago? That shit gets you disowned today.

Yea, no.

That person hasn't analyzed it as thoroughly as they thought they had.

I mean, to "thoroughly analyze" the religion they were indoctrinated with since birth by their parents, and then being like "Whew!!! glad to self-confirm that my religion was right all along...lucky me that I was born into the right household on this side of the world in this period of human history! And these super-questionable stories that totally don't mesh with what we observe in real life seem legit!"

...I don't think that person is a great critical thinker, no.

"If you draw any conclusion other than the one I deem kosher, your critical thinking is flawed."

 

[lvl99 Pixel]

That's literally the cause though, at least as far as the bible goes.

Homosexuality comes up exactly 5 times Biblically.

Once in Exodus spoken in the word of god.

Four times throughout Romans and Corinthians spoken by Paul.

Paul is literally nobody. He came along 200 years after Jesus. He has no authority and he's in the bible due to the fact that he's responsible in large part for spreading the word. God, Jesus, and Peter, upon whom the church was built, are the ones with Biblical authority God does not call homosexuality a sin. God doesn't even call out homosexuality in general. It is specifically two men sleeping with one another in the context of being a small nomadic tribe in the middle of the desert encountering many other tribes with many foreign diseases. Men who go off to war often commit heinous acts, but itif you're only sticking your dick in your wife when you get home, then whatever you catch stays with you, instead of spreading to Bob next door and his wife.

Paul was the one who started calling it a sin, condemning people to hell for it, and extending it to women. And he did that based on the context of THE PATRIARCHAL SOCIETY IN WHICH HE LIVED.



Perhaps read the context of my conversation with this particular person instead of automatically siding with the person you think you agree with more, yes?

Which makes it more questionable that modern society follows the same book.
I don't see how that justifies anything at all.

Paul is absolutely not the only passage that intends to prohibit homosexuality (this isnt the only morally questionable aspect, just the one I can relate to from the earlier example). Even if he weren't an important religious figure, it still says something that its often just accepted as part of the same text.

 

[FlutterPuffs]

What I want is a study to see if religious people are more driven to succeed in business matters or not.

I've seen and known plenty of devout people, of all religion that are absolutely successful at what they do.

 

[GalacticToast]

Yea, no.

That person hasn't analyzed it as thoroughly as they thought they had.

I mean, to "thoroughly analyze" the religion they were indoctrinated with since birth by their parents, and then being like "Whew!!! glad to self-confirm that my religion was right all along...lucky me that I was born into the right household on this side of the world in this period of human history! And these super-questionable stories that totally don't mesh with what we observe in real life seem legit!"

...I don't think that person is a great critical thinker, no.

Hey, can I run all of my future plans and thoughts by you just to make sure someone super smart and capable of critical thought agrees?

 

[User Name Here]

I don't think i'm less intelligent than anyone else just because I believe in myself.

 

[The Adder]

Which makes it more questionable that modern society follows the same book.
I don't see how that justifies anything at all.

You keep bouncing from one argument to another. No one is justifying anything, my point is "this is why I blame toxic masculinity more than faith. Because plenty of faiths do not have it, and toxic masculinity is the reason it even finds its way into the faiths that do."

Paul is absolutely not the only passage that intends to prohibit homosexuality (this isnt the only morally questionable aspect, just the one I can relate to from the earlier example). Even if he weren't an important religious figure, it still says something that its often just accepted as part of the same text.

1:

Homosexuality comes up exactly 5 times Biblically.

Once in Exodus spoken in the word of god.

Four times throughout Romans and Corinthians spoken by Paul.

Unless you're trying to say I'm wrong on that. Because I'm not, but feel free to try and prove it.

2.

What does it say?

 

[skullmuffins]

Quick note on those: those studies appear to be small sample driven and must therefore be considered 'moot' as far as their claims go.

Video on that by the 'Today I Found Out' people:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAJ2XKqKSRw

or the same thing in text:
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/10/listening-to-mozart-wont-make-you-smarter/

Yes, of course. That was just an example and I wasn't trying to imply any validity or particularly any causal link between the two.

 

[Acorn]

Some people here are jumping to absolutionist Bible arguments to attack the religious. This happens all the time here.

That simply isn't the way the mainstream atleast here (uk) views it. As evidenced by our PMs since Blair being very religious but pushing for gay rights amongst many other examples.

 

[Sunster]

my god, he's an awesome goddd he reignssss from heaven above...

 

[ZehDon]

Atheists make up a disproportionally small percentage of those in prison.

Are they more ethical, or too smart to get caught?

Ha! Asking the real questions now.

 

[Tevious]

I'm an atheist, and I just don't think this is true. Many of history's noteworthy intellects were religious. Isaac Newton was way smarter than me. Charles Darwin was studying to be a pastor when he came up with the theory of evolution. A Catholic Priest came up with the Big Bang Theory.

There certainly are theists that are very intelligent people. However, I think if you look at the population in general, many people who aren't all that intelligent are most likely religious, too. They are attached to faith and don't practice critical thinking skills, which requires more intelligence. I think the real relation between intelligence and religion (or lack of) is that you are more likely to be a critical/logical thinker if you are an atheist, because you probably questioned the merits/factuality of religion to some length to come to that conclusion. That isn't to say that there aren't atheists that are complete dolts. They may have been raised as atheists and have blind faith that there are no gods, as opposed to theists that have blind faith that there is one. Very intelligent people with critical thinking skills who are theists may actually have some logical reasoning for it, or they simply exempt religion from any strong criticism (maybe for social reasons).

 

[LinkAndEpona]

I think it would be more appropriate to say atheists are less prone to ignorance.

 

[GamerJM]

Yea, no.

That person hasn't analyzed it as thoroughly as they thought they had.

I mean, to "thoroughly analyze" the religion they were indoctrinated with since birth by their parents, and then being like "Whew!!! glad to self-confirm that my religion was right all along...lucky me that I was born into the right household on this side of the world in this period of human history! And these super-questionable stories that totally don't mesh with what we observe in real life seem legit!"

...I don't think that person is a great critical thinker, no.

What if they analyzed their faith, found that they didn't really believe in the exact sect that they were indoctrinated into, but still kept faith in a higher power in general in tact?

 

[The Adder]

my god, he's an awesome goddd he reignssss from heaven above...

Our Zod, is an awesome Zod. He reigns, from Krypton above. We kneel, in reverence of our Zod who's an awesome Zod.

(WBC counter-protest parody song made for a friend who went that ComicCon where they were there. They didn't have the courage to try to start it up, however.)

 

[clarknova156]

The source article is fascinating, but the blogspam from "I Fucking Love Science" is high wankery.

Please, please learn about this stuff from better sites.

Yea , from IFLS which is a rag I would require a more credible source.

 

[AoM]

Let's shut down this line of discussion early for once. Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive positions to take.

Worth noting that the graphic leaves out the distinction between deist and theist.

 

[TyrantII]

My confirmation bias is tingling

 

[NoblesseOblige]

On average it's probably true. But hopefully nobody will take this to mean that because they are atheist they are more intellegent than any believer. I've been atheist since birth and the smartest person I've friended is a nuclear physicist who believes in a God.

Spoiler

who am I kidding. There's absolutely going to be many who take this to assume their superiority.

 

[Muppet of a Man]

I guess it's instinctual to believe that there is a higher presence than yourself to qualify moral decisions that you make and to absolve you of any wrong doings to not feel so guilt ridden, and also to comfort yourself with life beyond death, and to believe that something must have created us all. The fact there's so many religions speaks volumes to religion indeed being instinctual, well, at least spirituality.

A fancy way of saying what Desmond Morris said 5 decades ago: we are apes that are subordinate to apes of higher status as a survival instinct (i.e., beta subordinate to alpha). However, even if you are of the highest status (i.e., alpha), you don't just lose this social instinct to appeal to authority. You create an imagined authority (i.e., a diety) if one is not available.

 

[Milkncooke]

Worth noting that the graphic leaves out the distinction between deist and theist.

Well what's the distinction?

 

[Wanace]

So that means people who decide not to have children are also more intelligent, as they've risen above instinct.

 

[AoM]

Well what's the distinction?

From John Orr (on the deism wikipedia):

"Prior to the 17th Century the terms ["deism" and "deist"] were used interchangeably with the terms "theism" and "theist", respectively. ... Theologians and philosophers of the 17th Century began to give a different signification to the words... Both [theists and deists] asserted belief in one supreme God, the Creator... . But the theist taught that God remained actively interested in and operative in the world which he had made, whereas the Deist maintained that God endowed the world at creation with self-sustaining and self-acting powers and then surrendered it wholly to the operation of these powers acting as second causes."

 

[KaoteK]

Do you honestly think they represent the absence of belief in a deity?
why is there such an effort to poison this?

No ofcourse not, but other people do.

It's a real shame that they are the best known atheists these days when there is a far more humanistic side of atheism which gets shat on because apparently being for feminism, LBGTQ rights and against bigotry is bad. So fuck those guys.

 

[Karsticles]

There certainly are theists that are very intelligent people. However, I think if you look at the population in general, many people who aren't all that intelligent are most likely religious, too. They are attached to faith and don't practice critical thinking skills, which requires more intelligence. I think the real relation between intelligence and religion (or lack of) is that you are more likely to be a critical/logical thinker if you are an atheist, because you probably questioned the merits/factuality of religion to some length to come to that conclusion. That isn't to say that there aren't atheists that are complete dolts. They may have been raised as atheists and have blind faith that there are no gods, as opposed to theists that have blind faith that there is one. Very intelligent people with critical thinking skills who are theists may actually have some logical reasoning for it, or they simply exempt religion from any strong criticism (maybe for social reasons).

I agree with you, and I think this is largely a circumstance of unintelligent people largely following whatever beliefs are popular at the time.

 

[Seventy70]

From personal experience, athiests can be just as thickheaded as the religious. Many of them are unable to grasp abstract concepts.

I'll stick by the saying that the smartest person is the one that doesn't claim to know anything.

 

[Dongs Macabre]

I'll stick by the saying that the smartest person is the one that doesn't claim to know anything.

This is a pretty ridiculous thing to say. There are definitely things that are objectively true unless you're into some weird philosophical shit that no one cares about.

And many (if not most) atheists do not claim to know that there is no god. Hell, even Dawkins doesn't.

 

[Haly]

There certainly are theists that are very intelligent people. However, I think if you look at the population in general, many people who aren't all that intelligent are most likely religious, too.

This is sort of self fulfilling. If we accept that average education is higher at urban centers and that urban centers do not hold the bulk of the world's population, and that religion is a stronger cultural institution outside of the urban centers, it follows that the less educated would be more frequently religious as well.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

Yea, no.

That person hasn't analyzed it as thoroughly as they thought they had.

I mean, to "thoroughly analyze" the religion they were indoctrinated with since birth by their parents, and then being like "Whew!!! glad to self-confirm that my religion was right all along...lucky me that I was born into the right household on this side of the world in this period of human history! And these super-questionable stories that totally don't mesh with what we observe in real life seem legit!"

...I don't think that person is a great critical thinker, no.

That you seemingly do not recognize the circularity of this logic is somewhat ironic.

 

[Seventy70]

This is a pretty ridiculous thing to say. There are definitely things that are objectively true unless you're into some weird philosophical shit that no one cares about.

And many (if not most) atheists do not claim to know that there is no god. Hell, even Dawkins doesn't.

The first step to learn something is to admit you don't know. If everyone believed what they perceived the first time, we would have nothing but superstition. Being a scientist is just admitting you don't know anything. Even after you've done studies there's still an uncertainty that there's something deeper.

I've seen too many athiests that claim they are the clear-headed ones. In reality humans are complex. Our inner worlds appear to be irrational when compared to the outside world. Even athiests take part in abstract concepts such as love.

Blindly claiming stuff is the problem on both the religious side and athiests side. Basically, it's is a human problem.

 

[And_Gignac]

Shocking news.

 

[zoleristec]

Not surprising in the least.

 

[Count Dookkake]

Duh.

 

[spekkeh]

This was long known. The interesting thing is the explanatory model that the researchers propose, which does indeed seem to be pretty plausible.

 

[Rushersauce]

Some people here are really inflating their ego. Speaks volumes of them.

 

[TheOctodad]

I know smart atheist, muslims, agnostics, Christians and all sorts.

I also know dumb ones of all sorts.

I can see how religion and more mythic views of the world draw less intelligent people. After all, it's a developmental stage:

However, you can easily have a person that is both religious and an extremely deep thinker. I think a great deal of religion's appeal is that it's a shared language to speak of perspectives and experiences that go deeper than what can always rationally be explained. It's like poetry, music, and art. For many intelligent religious people, their religious beliefs is a way to peer into their soul and the collective soul of their community and give language and meaning to it. That's no inherently a dumb or bad thing.

That's literally the cause though, at least as far as the bible goes.

Homosexuality comes up exactly 5 times Biblically.

Once in Exodus spoken in the word of god.

Four times throughout Romans and Corinthians spoken by Paul.

Paul is literally nobody. He came along 200 years after Jesus. He has no authority and he's in the bible due to the fact that he's responsible in large part for spreading the word. God, Jesus, and Peter, upon whom the church was built, are the ones with Biblical authority God does not call homosexuality a sin. God doesn't even call out homosexuality in general. It is specifically two men sleeping with one another in the context of being a small nomadic tribe in the middle of the desert encountering many other tribes with many foreign diseases. Men who go off to war often commit heinous acts, but itif you're only sticking your dick in your wife when you get home, then whatever you catch stays with you, instead of spreading to Bob next door and his wife.

This, FYI, is the same reason pork is bad and you don't wear certain fabrics together. Because it will get you and the rest of the tribe killed.

Paul was the one who started calling it a sin, condemning people to hell for it, and extending it to women. And he did that based on the context of THE PATRIARCHAL SOCIETY IN WHICH HE LIVED.



Perhaps read the context of my conversation with this particular person instead of automatically siding with the person you think you agree with more, yes?

I'm not disagreeing with most of what you're saying but ermm... where are you getting this 200 year figure?

Also, I think there'd be some scholarly disagreement about the levels of demonization you're applying to Paul. Are you familiar with the "new perspective" scholarly work on him?

Just wondering where you're pulling your theological and hermeneutic concepts from here. It's a lot of good mixed in with seemingly large errors when it comes to most scholar work. I hope this doesn't come across as an attack, but I'm just wondering if I'm blind to some sources or specific interpretations that you're drawing from.

 

[spekkeh]

This is sort of self fulfilling. If we accept that average education is higher at urban centers and that urban centers do not hold the bulk of the world's population, and that religion is a stronger cultural institution outside of the urban centers, it follows that the less educated would be more frequently religious as well.

This is not as selffulfilling as you think if you realize that 'heathen' used to depict exactly the people living outside of the urban confines of religious institutes. It just corroborates the statistic.

 

[nekkid]

Saying "I know there's nothing" is no less dumb than saying "I know there's something" when neither side know that for a fact.

 

[Timedog]

duh

 

[Log4Girlz]

Sometimes instincts win.

Take that atheists



I'm so sorry

 

[Not]

I wonder who's smugger. It'd be a tough battle.

 

[commedieu]

Saying "I know there's nothing" is no less dumb than saying "I know there's something" when neither side know that for a fact.

You can't use the term fact if you can't adhere to evidence. Facts are reserved for logic and science.

Use "magic feelings based on a game of telephone that king James edited and excluded women because reasons" instead. or an archaic rule book that people cherry pick to start wars and punish homosexuals. While no one can live by the universal message of love.

Any outcome, there is no fact that relies on lack of evidence as anything that should be deemed as reasonable evidence.


"I know there is no boogeyman" is grounded in reality and is abundantly more reliable vs "yeah but maybe there's a boogeyman because I believe it."

Religious belief works in a bubble that ignores science. It can't co-opt the terms and bend the rules to qualify.

 

[Count Dookkake]

Saying "I know there's nothing" is no less dumb than saying "I know there's something" when neither side know that for a fact.

Perhaps, but equating "There is no compelling evidence for any god as described by any religion known to man" with "I know there's nothing" is pretty dumb.

 

[Plumbob]

burden of proof efc.

just because there's two possibilities that does not mean both are equally likely

but anyhoo

 

[Timedog]

Would be interesting to see how the statistics would differ if religion were not forced on young children and was a choice to be made as an educated adult.

Way fucking worse for religious people.

 

[TheOctodad]

Perhaps, but equating "There is no compelling evidence for any god as described by any religion known to man" with "I know there's nothing" is pretty dumb.

BvS will eventually be recognized as the best superhero movie of all time.

I know there is no god.

 

[TissueBox]

Hey knowledge is a curse, that's what happened when dang Eve and 'em eat all the apples..!!

 

[commedieu]

Hey knowledge is a curse, that's what happened when dang Eve and 'em eat all the apples..!!

Definitely. As you were killed for saying the earth revolves around the sun.

 

[ISee]

Definitely. As you were killed for saying the earth revolves around the sun.

It worked. Even flat-earthers are still out there. I wonder if we could find some atheists there or among the 'the moon landing was fake' crowd. Certainly not.

 

[Rushersauce]

It worked. Even flat-earthers are still out there. I wonder if we could find some atheists there or among the 'the moon landing was fake' crowd. Certainly not.

You'd be wrong.