OK So this is elitist at best, but here’s the rub. Religion is a stupid thing. It doesn’t take brains to believe in stupid things. It DOES take brains to QUESTION stupid things, and then to identify them as stupid.
A study published in the journal “Intelligence” shows the smarter a person is, the less likely they are to believe in God.Ulster University Psychology Professor Richard Lynn found a large percentage of people with a high IQ considered themselves to be atheists.His survey of the Royal Society found that just over three percent believed in God. That compares to nearly 69 percent of Britain’s general population who are believers.During the 20th century, as intelligence levels rose, religious belief in 137 developed nations declined. Critics dismiss Lynn’s research as too simplistic.
Oh joy, the return of Everdense.
Yeah, we all laugh at you too.
What is Everdense’s point? Honestly, that chap is dense!
What,
I understand that you were in Raleigh. Next time you come by, let me know. We can go out for a beer. You might even enjoy Drinking Liberally, which I regularly attend: http://livingliberally.org/drinking/
Spanders
Maybe in September.
Spanders-
Thanks for that link. There’s a group here in town, so I think I’ll check out their next meeting.
Do you get a decent attendance?
What,
The point is that in our brief lifespan on the earth, who’s really better off – the intelligent godless person with unanswered questions or the not-so-intelligent religious person who’s content with his answers? Does it matter, seeing each one is happy with their existence?
Evidence:
As long as the the content are content w/their own lives, & leave the rest of us the hell alone, who cares?
Everdense
or the intelligent atheist with a passion for the investigation of reality? What a discontented mental midget you are!
Boise Jim
We have a bunch of regulars (about 12 or so) and then we get new people showing up periodically. I’ve made most of my good friends by going to the group, but I think what you get varies from group to group. Let me know how it goes!
what,
…and, according to the above article, has gotten you where? I’m guessing that you’re happy with your unanswered reality.
That “something” is what we call “independent thought.”
May I suggest that you develop some?
Everdense
The meanings of your posts are difficult to decipher. Your chaotic posts are a symptom of your chaotic mind.
brain user,
Independent from what or whom?
That is relative. My thoughts are independent from yours.
What,
You’re not using much of your intelligence here. I’ll explain it differently. The “intelligent atheist with a passion for the investigation of reality” is not necessarily happier or more content than a religious person with a passion for his/her religion. Although asking “why” has yielded great technology which we enjoy, it still has its consequences (i.e. meth, pollution, wmd, global warming etc.) Technology in and of itself doesn’t guarantee a fulfilling existence. As in the article above asking why has yielded more questions. In addition, there are plenty of religious intellectuals with a passion for the investigation of reality.
dense,
independent from that which is believed to come from or be inspired by their imaginary friend.
Everdense
Theists like yourself dedicate a lot of your resources to propping up your fantasy yet you are no happier than nonreligious folks. In the end you have simply wasted your resources. Good job dufus.
I hear this a lot from theists. So what if I’m wrong as long as I’m happy, right?
Well, my observations tell me that there are lots of happy people getting ripped off by both televangelists and collection plates, that the members of that religious suicide cult that tried to board that comet a few years back were happy when they died, and that people with superstitious beliefs are less able than me to understand what is going on with various phenomenon in the world. So there are real-world harmful consequences to having supernatural beliefs.
Your argument is that because one theory at the edges of scientific inquiry is being debated and compared with observations and math that therefore science proves nothing and/or contributes nothing to our quality of life.
Well, scientists developed that computer you’re using. Religion never figured it out. Scientists had you vaccinated against polio. Religion never figured out what polio was. The roof over your head is manufactured from scientifically developed materials, not sticks, grass, or bark. You have enough food to eat because science exponentially increased the efficiency of agriculture. You have clean water, sanitation, transportation, heating and cooling, refridgeration, and endless entertainment thanks to science, not religion.
If you had lived a couple thousand years ago, you’d likely be starving, with primitive shelter, and perhaps being stalked by predators. That’s if you hadn’t died during childhood, which was statistically likely. You might not have been worried at the time about whether or not you had a soul, but you’d have a lot of worries on your mind, I assure you.
Chris B
Wow, that’s a stretch. The Heaven’s Gate cult, which was a UFO religion, is quit a unique and minute percentage of the religious community.
So are you concluding that atheists are beyond human wrecklessness? Read this:
Conclusion: Atheism has “real-world harmful consequences” as well.
Plus, you’d have a very difficult task of proving that a religious person has never contributed to any technological advances. As well as proving that primitive cultures were not content or happy with their existence – fresh air, plenty of food, clean water, lush forests, no insecticides. In fact, we’re still trying to figure out how they accomplished some of the things they did.
KA,
If you are questioning the integrity of the study, call the American Journal of Psychiatry and find out. Here’s a few contacts: Kanita Dervic, M.D., Maria A. Oquendo, M.D., Michael F. Grunebaum, M.D., Steve Ellis, Ph.D., Ainsley K. Burke, Ph.D., and J. John Mann, M.D.
Well, of coarse. And atheism itself hasn’t contributed anything either.
Is there any period in history where there has not been any human threats? Which, by the way, still does not prove an overall unhappy existence. With all of our earthly woes are you totally discontent?
Evidence,
Exactly, which is why it’s stupid to use science to attack atheism.
If you have no evidence that a deity exists, then you can’t criticize atheism. Since science takes no stance on the existence of a deity, it is an unrelated subject.
Evidence,
I think you and others missed my point, so I’ll attempt to clarify. What we are comparing are two competing methods of obtaining information: the scientific method and faith. What are the track records of these two epistemologies? That is, what is the evidence by which we will judge their reliability?
The scientific method has produced all the health, safety, comfort, shelter, and economic benefits described earlier. Although quite a few very smart scientific researchers and innovators also believed that supernatural forces governed certain aspects of the universe, they were all using the scientific method when they actually accomplished something (e.g. Mendel and genetic heritability). In summary, the scientific method has consistently resolved real-world questions and problems (e.g. figuring out planetary motion, eradicating smallpox, increasing crop yields, etc.). Also, because scientific findings can be replicated, we finally have a way to conclusively resolve disputes in a way anyone in any culture can accept.
Faith’s accomplishments include the writing of hundreds of thousands of texts, books, scrolls, scriptures, and heiroglyphics, most of which contradict each other. Faith has also motivated people to devote their limited resources and energy to the construction and maintenence of grand temples, mosques, churches, etc. Faith has also motivated innumerable acts of violence and war, as there is no way to achieve religious consensus except through force. Finally, religion has contributed a moral system comprised of books containing every imaginable moral proposition. That way, you can cherry-pick the moral propositions you like and ignore the ones you don’t and yet declare yourself a good person (see violence and war discussed above).
In science, ideas are successful if they conform with observations of reality. In faith, religions are successful to the extent that their adherents win wars.
So the scientific method wins for producing the most reliable information. How does this relate to happiness?
Well, for one I think the romanticism you express for the good ole caveman days is perhaps a bit naive. Imagine needing a tooth extraction! There was a reason why very few of them reached the ripe old age of 30.
Also, when one accepts premises based on bad information, it can lead one to make bad decisions without even knowing it.
The poorly named Christian Scientists believe that (a.) There is a God, (b.) God is all-powerful, (c.) God answers prayers, and (d.) the likelihood of God answering a prayer is increased when one does not hedge their bets by using other methods. As a result, their people regularly die from treatable medical conditions. Believing these four very basic premises can cause your own death, or the death of your children.
Suicide bombers and other religious warriors believe that (a.) there is a God, (b.) that they believe in the correct religion, and (c.) that God will reward them for defending the correct religion from being overrun by infidels. Three very basic premises = suicide.
Perhaps you don’t sense that you are making mistakes of this magnitude, but then again, neither did they. Maybe you’re making smaller mistakes, wasting time, money, or opportunity. Even small misconceptions can lead to negative consequences, so it is important to be right.
Socrates once asked if it would be preferable to be a troubled wise man or an ignorant, but happy, pig. I pick the wise man. If you want to be the pig, it would be logical for you to get an opiate addiction or a lobotomy to prevent wisdom. But those who are already wise typically find themselves unable to wish that they were more ignorant. You just don’t hear that very often.
As for the atheists committing suicide, pick out 100 people from your church, ostracize them, call them evil, discriminate against them, and exclude them from all your town’s social functions, then see how many knock themselves off.
No, I?m questioning your use of it to make a broad, sweeping generalization. If we?re to play the numbers game, I?m pretty sure religious folks win the suicide race ? that is, counting the martyrdom game, & suicide bombers.
1st law of statistics: correlation doesn?t prove causation.
If we agree it was the person or persons who accomplished their contributions regardless of ideology, then many of your points in this thread thus far have fallen flat.
Yeah, Indian reservations, or other ghettoes established for the indigenous population who didn?t happen to be right. Or white. Re-read your query: basically, ?Weren?t they better off?? is terribly subjective.
Depends on what you mean. Am I happy w/the world as it is? No. Am I happy w/myself? Most of the time. If you think I?m going to drop the blue pill of ?religious happy?, well, a good shot of heroin makes folks happy too.
alatham,
Atheists use science to prove their position. Without science you have no answers (i.e. the most recent post “missing link discovered…”). My point was atheism is not the sole contributor and driving force behind technological advancement. Actually, there would be some that would attest that their ideas came from a deity.
Chris B.
Sounds like the christians during roman oppression (before constantine), the jews during the holocost and the blacks during the civil rights movement. If anything, it made them stronger.
Did you read this part from above?
Whoops!
alatham,
Atheists use science to prove their position. Without science you have no answers (i.e. the most recent post “missing link discovered…”). My point was atheism is not the sole contributor and driving force behind technological advancement. Actually, there would be some that would attest that their ideas came from a deity.
Chris B.
Sounds like the christians during roman oppression (before constantine), the jews during the holocost and the blacks during the civil rights movement. If anything, it made them stronger.
Did you read this part from above?
KA,
You should be careful not to do the same. Don’t assume everyone who believes in a deity is not involved with the sciences, doesn’t care about the earth and is willing to kill for their belief. It’s a smaller percentage than you think.
The last I check, martydom was not suicide. You know, someone else does the killing. Suicide bombers more often do it because of heavy social pressure and force. You would probably find a different story if they had real freedom to make a decision. So, it’s reasonable that
these were not included in the study.
My point here is that atheists are not beyond human frailties, crimes or any despicable act. So take note of your arrogance and stop pointing so many fingers.
Evidence (or the lack thereof):
I?don?t recall ever making any of those claims. You could perhaps refresh my memory?
(It?s probably a larger portion that you?d admit, I think.)
Last time I checked, there?s no proof of a deity whatsoever.
So I guess the WTC terrorists were martyrs, then?
Walking willingly into the buzzsaw is still pretty stupid. I count it as suicide.
So who WAS included in the study? Can you tell me? Was it a cross-section of America, a test demographic of secular vs. religious populations in Europe? Was the ME completely excluded?
Oh, you ARE yanking my chain after all.
I?ll point as many fucking fingers as I like, chum. I point fingers @ myself, even.
Not going to soften the blow, sorry.
Religion is an anachronistic throwback to uglier times. It has no place in the 21st CE. Having voices talk in your head is not a talking point, an intellectual discussion, or even a philosophy.
It?s superstition, pure & simple.
Atheism is what adults do.
So please, grow up a little.
Evidence,
I can’t tell if you’re agreeing with me or disagreeing.
No, scientists use science to prove their ideas. Many atheists are scientists, but many are idiots as well. I happen to know an atheist who’s a big fan of Astrology. Don’t make broad judgments about a group of people based on the comments of the Internet population.
I would also suggest that without science nobody has any answers. “God did it” is not an answer, it’s an admission of ignorance.
I agree, science is credited with that. Was someone else trying to claim that atheism is responsible for technology? If so, then they’re wrong.
It’s fine for people to say that, but they shouldn’t expect anyone to believe them unless they can prove it.
KA,
You’re on a tangent here.
Oh, you’re so smart. Sound’s like suicide to me.
The whole world pretty much.
So Lenin, Stalin and Hitler were promoting their religion. And the Civil War, WWI & WWII, and Vietnam were a “holy jihad”. There are plenty of things that make this world ugly…including atheistic influences.
Atheism is what you have chosen to make you happy. Enjoy it, it’s your existence.
Living in the real world has distinct evolutionary advantages over living in a fantasy world especially if you are spending enormous resources propping up the fantasy.
alatham,
Valid point. And “God did it” is not the answer many religious people readily accept. Passion for understanding our environment and improving it is not reserved for the athiest. For some scientists, the study of our world solidifies their belief of a greater being.
What,
What rescource “propping” are you refering to? Ones like having food banks for the poor, giving away back-to-school supplies, helping single parents feed their kids, hospitals, food/education for kids in poor countries, etc.? I haven’t heard of any atheist organizations using their rescources to help others. (You know, “a deed done rather that a prayer prayed”). Mabe you can enlighten me on a few. This fantasy looks pretty nice to me.
Ah, jeesiz fucking kee-rist! Not this shit again!
Stalin was promoting strict Authoritarianism. On the other hand, Hitler was promoting his religion since he was a christian.
See you in the funny pages.