Atheists are more intelligent than religious people according to dozens of studies.

First topic message reminder :

I think I'll regret posting this one......

A scientist looked through 63 studies to conclude atheists are more intelligent than religious people

Atheists are more intelligent than religious people according to dozens of studies.

Miron Zuckerman, Jordan Silberman and Judith A. Hall from the University of Rochester and the Northeastern University conducted a meta-analysis (that's a statistical analysis that combines the results of multiple scientific studies) of 63 studies that showed a significant negative association between intelligence and religiosity.

The association was strongest among university students and weakest in teenagers and children.

It was also stronger for religious beliefs than religious behaviour. In effect, people who believe religious teachings as opposed to those practising religions.

Religiosity was defined as "the degree of involvement in some or all facets of religion." This included beliefs in supernatural agents and "costly commitments to these agents" such as offering of property as a sacrifice. Another 'facet' is participating in communal rituals, such as going to church, and "lower existential anxieties such as death due to a belief in supernatural agents" (i.e. being less scared of death because you believe you're going to heaven).

It's not entirely clear why non-religious people are more intelligent - but the difference varies with age

At University the divide is the strongest.

It may be because more intelligent students are more likely to embrace atheism as a form of non-conformity. University tends to expose people to new ideas and influences, students tend to lose their beliefs or get more religious during this time, according to the study. These changes are often as a result of "the self-exploration that typifies emerging adulthood and that is often observed in students" as "the separation from home and the exposure to a context that encourages questioning may allow intelligence to impact religious beliefs". The study adds that

Using analytic (as opposed to intuitive) thinking, more intelligent college students may be more likely to eschew religion. If atheism is disapproved of at home, higher intelligence may facilitate resistance to conformity pressure.

Whereas later in life, more intelligent people are more likely to get and stay married which makes them less reliant on the attachment that the function of religion provides. More intelligent people are also more likely to have higher level jobs and spend more time in school, which leads to higher self-esteem and "encourages control of personal beliefs" according to the study.

Ageing, however, is more likely to increase awareness of mortality

The research has been going on for almost 80 years and has measured association with individuals of all ages.

Religious beliefs can help manage the terror of one’s impending death

According to the study, there is no evidence pertaining to the relation between intelligence and death anxiety. Although this logic suggests that "the negative relation between intelligence and religiosity might decline at the end of life, the relevant evidence we have indicates otherwise."

The highly intelligent members of the sample retained lower religiosity scores, relative to the general population, even in their golden years (age 75 to 91).

Read the study in full here. http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/The-Relation-Between-Intelligence-and-Religiosity-A-Meta-Analysis-and-Some-Proposed-Explanations.pdf

Thorin wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

stardesk wrote:Hi gang.
I think one or two of you are missing a very vital Godly/contradiction. ie: As God supposedly created the Earth and everything on it, then why oh why didn't he stop a 10mile wide asteroid slamming into the planet killing off the dinosaurs and most other life-forms?

Why didn't he intervene in the catastrophes I mentioned above, and stop them from killing off millions of humans and other life?

He is supposed to be like a loving, caring father, but to my mind he is no more than a bungling twit or he just doesn't care about his so-called creations.

Sermon over. Night night.

Zeus was the child of mother earth and father sky
So what are you talking about ?

Really?

I think you find Cronus (his father) was a Titan and a descendant of Uranus who ruled the skies

you do realize that makes the 'king of the gods' even less of the 'creator' ?

veya_victaous wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Really?

I think you find Cronus (his father) was a Titan and a descendant of Uranus who ruled the skies

you do realize that makes the 'king of the gods' even less of the 'creator' ?  

You do realise that its just a Greek myth?

And that the Titans overthrew the creator and then Zeus overthrew the Titans?

Would have to go down as the dumbest creator going, that its offspring would be more powerful.

Hence why religions are based on the imaginations of humanity

I presume Veya knows that Gaia was the creator of life, and there are twice as many Goddesses as there are Gods. This is obviously due to primitive Man likening a woman having a baby, bringing life into the world. The female principle prevailed until Gods were invented as the fathers of that new life because, obviously, you need a male to fertilise the female.

You only have to sit quiet, push out of your mind our modern world, and think about a primitive group of people wondering about where it all came from. Bingo, a superior being, a father-creator.

stardesk wrote:I presume Veya knows that Gaia was the creator of life, and there are twice as many Goddesses as there are Gods. This is obviously due to primitive Man likening a woman having a baby, bringing life into the world. The female principle prevailed until Gods were invented as the fathers of that new life because, obviously, you need a male to fertilise the female.

You only have to sit quiet, push out of your mind our modern world, and think about a primitive group of people wondering about where it all came from. Bingo, a superior being, a father-creator.

Great point

Umm I would not consider the wiser cultures primitive at all

The Primitive ones have a fucked up sky giant that has almost not correspondence in nature, it is truly the civilized peoples like the aboriginals that based their beliefs around the reality they observed around them.

And again there is no 'creator' as such, references to evolving life forms and divinity based in the NATURAL world not some fairy tale.

P.S> Gaia is earth not creator of earth, thus my concept that celestial bodies are themselves divine is not without precedent

Thorin wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Really?

I think you find Cronus (his father) was a Titan and a descendant of Uranus who ruled the skies

you do realize that makes the 'king of the gods' even less of the 'creator' ?  

You do realise that its just a Greek myth?

And that the Titans overthrew the creator and then Zeus overthrew the Titans?

Would have to go down as the dumbest creator going, that its offspring would be more powerful.

Hence why religions are based on the imaginations of humanity

Yes it is Greek myth so why don't you hold IT's definition of the divine on EQUAL footing to the Abraham one?
And that doesn't mean say it is not true!!! cause NEITHER is true If you hold the definitions in the bible in higher preference than CLEARLY you believe the bible is more correct.
If you where to approach the concept openly with a clear mind unraped by Abrahamism you could see that, Your definition of god to be a creator all powerful and without out fault are not traits universal held in gods at all, most gods had faults most where not creator most did not control the universe.

veya_victaous wrote:

Thorin wrote:


You do realise that its just a Greek myth?

And that the Titans overthrew the creator and then Zeus overthrew the Titans?

Would have to go down as the dumbest creator going, that its offspring would be more powerful.

Hence why religions are based on the imaginations of humanity

Yes it is Greek myth so why don't you hold IT's definition of the divine on EQUAL footing to the Abraham one?
And that doesn't mean say it is not true!!! cause NEITHER is true If you hold the definitions in the bible in higher preference than CLEARLY you believe the bible is more correct.
If you where to approach the concept openly with a clear mind unraped by Abrahamism you could see that, Your definition of god to be a creator all powerful and without out fault are not traits universal held in gods at all, most gods had faults most where not creator most did not control the universe.

I do hold them all equally.

As all are equally stupid

The reality Zeus worship is not effecting anyone today.

The Abrahamic ones are

Again why do you keep spouting crap about the bible?

I approach everything openly

I like to see corroborative evidence.

There is simple no evidence

As to what a God might be, well, to be God like would mean incredible power.

I think if any were to exist, we would be insignificant to them and merely lab rats

Then again that does not mean they are gods, just merely a highly intelligent being.

blah blah blah
Who care if people right now don't believe it in Zeus the concept of his god hood stood for centuries and is just one of thousands of example of a god that differ greatly the one Abrahamic definition you keep referring to

And Do you ever think outside the box or too busy Prosthelytizing you dumb ass opinions to actually consider you Don't know and should try and think for a change, you are nothing but a dumb ass crusader hurting innocents (yes innocents you attacked little aussie girls for wearing headscarf) because they don't follow you unsought self centered opinions in 'what should be' based on some ideas you copied off the people you heard

You personally are little better than a jihadist, Because You care more about what someone else thinks and furthering YOUR world view in some circle jerking hypocrisy THAN what is POSSIBLE!!!

I have stated All Along AGNOSTIC I am the one freely admitting I don't know, but i think i have made it clear to everyone that I know more than you. And am willing to entertain ideas that I personally don't have to believe or not, just entertain that they are possible enough to understand I don't know everything.
It is those like you that practice absolute beliefs that are the problem One thing you did identify but ignore in yourself.

AND For the LAST FUCKING TIME!!! Here is Corroborating evidence!!! No one is saying definitely I just need to produce enough to make it Possible!!! AGAIN i am not the one making a definitive statement to the nature of the universe Like you are by stating ZERO gods.

DO You admit that the Bottom on the food chain is sustained by sunlight? (photosynthesis) DO you believe in gravity? Do you think YOU'D be here or any life would be here if it wasn't for the sun?
No referencing other fairy tales DO you believe these basic scientific facts?
If so then You should be willing to admit the is potential for the sun to be considered divine IF you thought openly

And you have NO backing Even Dawkins has conceded these points!!!

veya_victaous wrote:blah blah blah
Who care if people right now don't believe it in Zeus the concept of his god hood stood for centuries and is just one of thousands of example of a god that differ greatly the one Abrahamic definition you keep referring to

And Do you ever think outside the box or too busy Prosthelytizing you dumb ass opinions to actually consider you Don't know and should try and think for a change, you are nothing but a dumb ass crusader hurting innocents (yes innocents you attacked little aussie girls for wearing headscarf) because they don't follow you unsought self centered opinions in 'what should be' based on some ideas you copied off the people you heard

You personally are little better than a jihadist, Because You care more about what someone else thinks and furthering YOUR world view in some circle jerking hypocrisy THAN what is POSSIBLE!!!

I have stated All Along AGNOSTIC I am the one freely admitting I don't know,  but i think i have made it clear to everyone that I know more than you. And am willing to entertain ideas that I personally don't have to believe or not, just entertain that they are possible enough to understand I don't know everything.
It is those like you that practice absolute beliefs that are the problem One thing you did identify but ignore in yourself.  

AND For the LAST FUCKING TIME!!! Here is Corroborating evidence!!! No one is saying definitely I just need to produce enough to make it Possible!!! AGAIN i am not the one making a definitive statement to the nature of the universe Like you are by stating ZERO gods.

DO You admit that the Bottom on the food chain is sustained by sunlight? (photosynthesis) DO you believe in gravity? Do you think YOU'D be here or any life would be here if it wasn't for the sun?
No referencing other fairy tales DO you believe these basic scientific facts?
If so then You should be willing to admit the is potential for the sun to be considered divine IF you thought openly

And you have NO backing Even Dawkins has conceded these points!!!

PMSL, so the proof you offer is no proof

The whole post was a joke, as there is zero evidence for Gods. Its a human invention to explain things people could not understand. At a time when people knew very little about nature or the universe around them

Throughout you have fail even define a God, let alone prove what one is.

So I could care less what you believe or think

What matters is what you can reason and prove and you have proved fuck all

Saying that something is a possibility, is not evidence.

On that bases then you have evidence for all religions being as anything could be possible, based on your absurd view, which as seen is nonsense as they are based on faith. So what you have is faith and not evidence

The reality is you have to prove the sun is a living sentient being able to control its own power. Even then it could just be a highly intelligent creature

The biggest failing here of all is why see the sun as a god, to then worship?

Are you saying that where we can create life, we want those we create to worship us?

What you go off is human frailty, a need. A need to feel you are or have been created for something more than this human life. The reality is there is no need for Gods, its an emotional need of humans. If there are beings or some things like the sun are actual thinking sentient beings, does that make them Gods?

No, yet you have chosen to deify something because it is a powerful energy source. Of which we humans can now recreate on a much smaller scale.

Does that now make humans gods, as we can create this same so called God of yours?

So many things are possible, that is not evidence for something to exist

So who here really is close-minded?

That simple is you, because an open minded person does not crave the need to feel they are something special or born for some higher purpose, as those with needs most certainly do. Its you that is needy, in need to want something to be the purpose for your life, when the purpose for your life, is the same for everyone. the love of our parents.

So if anyone is a sheep to needs and beliefs, then that is you, making you far more comparable to a Jihadi.

So I live by reason, not absolutes, and yet you still post the most inane drivel, because you have been weighed, measured and left found wanting here.

Look, if you are so needy to deify things in the Universe, because you are insecure and need something to worship. Then knock yourself out doing so, you may on the way doing so, ask yourself even why you need to.

To then claim you know more on a subject that is a human invention, Gods, is what is the most dumbest part of your argument. All you have shown is your need to believe they exist. I have no need or yearning for any God to exist and my life has been the better for it than when I used to believe that a God did exist. You see, I have the unique position of being a former believer, that of being able to see both sides.

So spouting what the sun can do is irrelevant, when you have to show it is consciously doing so to help humans, which we know is simple not the case. As if it was not for the ozone layer, we would all be dead from the sun's harmful rays. Or did you not think about that? Hence why life has been able to form on this planet, because of certain unique factors. So it would quickly rule out the sun being a friendly god, would it not?

What points has dawkins conceded on his beliefs there is no evidence for Gods?

This should be hilarious

So cut the crap, grow the fuck up and relaise everything you have posted is based off what you believe, not any facts and its based off your need for Gods to exist. Failing to even ask yourself why you would want them to.

That boils down to your insecurities