Ever Notice this about all religion ???

Oh that's odd, according to this study (more complete than the one you've linked to) it shows that 2/3rds of general scientists believe in God. This study consisted of a larger amount of scientists polled and more questions than the one you've linked to - so its probably more accurate.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8916982/

Not quite. The study was topped by Anglicans (Christian), and Jews outranked Atheists.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2008/dec/19/religion-iq-atheism

I can attest to that. Living in Mexico there are many people who are very religious here, and they are also very poor and uneducated (no free public education). Religion for many people I know is the only thing they have - the only thing that brings the community together. Seeing this firsthand I can easily understand why the poorest countries are also the most religious, and it has nothing to do with IQ.

Furthermore, I found an interesting examination of that study comparing the household incomes of all of the groups mentioned in it.

lol is that you Stox?

 

More questions doesn't make a study more complete or more accurate, It just gives people an easier way of dissecting the results in a way which suites the outcome they want. If you want to find out how many scientists believe in god you need but one question, "do you believe in god?". Not 36 separate questions about "spiritual practices" (which could be anything), None of which are detailed.

Who was top out of believers and disbelievers? or are we going to slice up the stats in order to find the outcome we want again? What data set is going to be selected next? Muslims born in june, left handed christians or Buddhists called dave? this isn't how statistical data is analysed.

Whichever way you chop the results, whichever data set is carefully selected, the conclusion that "people with a low intelligence are more easily drawn toward religions" is a sound one and one that Helmuth Nyborg was right to come to. So i was right to conclude that, on average, atheists have a higher IQ than the religious.

 

That's funny you say that, because the poll you linked to does quite the opposite of what you're saying.

1. I believe in a God in intellectual and effective communication with humankind, i.e., a God to whom one might pray in expectation of receiving an answer. By "answer", I mean more than the subjective psychological effects of prayer.

Notice how it doesn't ask, "Do you believe in God?" - now does it?

And it of course continues on with questions meant to skewer results. Political polls do it best, but it looks like these kinds of polls are also easy victims.

lol what? I was just showing you who scored at the top since you conveniently failed to mention that 2 religions scored above atheists.

Helmuth Nyborg... I want to talk more about him but I'll have to save it for tomorrow since it's getting late for me (or rather early, the suns coming up time to get to bed lol).

But I will explain why Helmuth Nyborg is an idiot for you tomorrow.

Good night (good morning)

 

It asked two specific questions, tells you what the questions were, along with the answers given. What it didn't do is ask 36 questions, not tell you what the questions were and then draw it's own conclusions from it's apparently secret set of results.

You don't need to be a statistician to know which is the more reliable study.

It's important that the respondents understand exactly what it is they are being asked. Defining "god" is a requirement of that. The question is essentially "do you believe in god?" (the generally accepted definition of god) though.

so was i right when i said atheists are, on average, of higher intelligence than the religious? Do the results support that conclusion?

You are probably going to mention his study on the IQ of various races. My reply is simply that we can't deny the findings simply because they don't sit well with us and they aren't politically correct. The study was conducted, The results were published and now we have to rely on political scientists to draw the correct conclusions.

 

Aeroplane's fly, people don't, but I would love to see you try.

Have you never heard of the heart defibrilator? This machine brings dead things back to life.

 

The definition I'm used to:
A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.

The one you're following:
Bio: a gradual change in the characteristics of a population of animals or plants over successive generations.

There all clear now.

 

well all i can say quickly is if you believe in god then you are as close to Mentally Retarded as they get.

the picture of Peter griffen proves it

Normal People (Non creationism Believers)
-------------------

Chimpanzee

peter Griffin

Mentally Retarded
------------------
















Beyond Mentally Retarded
----------------------


I dont know how much lower i can go to make the point.
Creationists

 

lol don't even try to defend that survey which is obviously manipulative.

I would answer a resounding "No" to that first question, yet I believe in God. According to that survey I myself would be counted as a nonbeliever.

True you don't need to be a statistican to know which is more reliable, you just need to have a little bit of common sense.

True we can't deny the findings, but its important to look at them more closely like that bunk poll you referenced and linked to.

Helmuth Nyborg (fired for negligence) who also claimed that men are smarter than women, which was later disproved because of flawed scientific practices.

If you look at similar IQ tests done you'll notice IQ tests written by women, women will score higher on. IQ tests written by men, men will score higher on.

Who is writing the IQ test? Well you can read more about your friend Helmuth Nyborg in the skepticreport. How Intelligent is the Average IQ Test Designer?

Go ahead, have a laugh.

Meanwhile Stox, as our funny debate rages on we have living proof here that continues to rear his ugly head and show us that atheists are not more intelligent than religious people hahahaha.

By the way Reeper, creationists are pretty silly, but belief in God doesn't make you a creationist.

Study more please.

 

aletheides

How can you believe in a god and not believe he/she/it created you and all around you.

or well there be a definition change of what it means to believe in god again ???

So if you believe in god and not that he actually created you THATS JUST AS STUPID AS CREATIONISM.


we evolved there is nothing on this planet created by a higher power GOD (Its just for the weak minded)

closest is cloned animals so does that make us god ???

and I would love to
push my point harder but i am going on hols for 4 days so give something to read wen i get back hahaha

 

There are many creationists who believe the world is only 10,000 years old, that Satan put dinosaur bones on earth to test our faith, and that humans started with Adam and Eve - none of these things I believe.

I also believe in evolution, but evolution doesn't explain the creation of life.

Maybe you could help me understand how nonliving chemicals assembled themselves to create the first living cell? It's scientifically impossible, and more research will never give us the answer to this.

 

this post make me laugh in the morning...
and the last thing i know is the normal people are the people who believe in god.

 

You aren't talking about biological evolution then, You are just talking about the definition of a regular word and how it's used in everyday day life.

If you are going to talk about the evolution of organisms, Which we are, then you will have to use the definition i am using which is, a gradual change in the characteristics of a population of animals or plants over successive generations..

What you have done is the equivalent of having a discussion and physics and then at the end saying that when you spoke about black holes you were actually talking about holes which were painted black and not balls of super condensed matter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8nYTJf62sE

That video explains the most popular hypothesis. We don't know for sure yet, but we are working on it. The answer isn't going to as hard to find as most people think. All science has to do is explain how a self replicating molecule could find it's self coated with a protective layer and evolution done the rest. No magic required.

As for the IQ studies, aletheides, You done what a lot of religious do with scientific studies, usually evolution, (which is a shame because you seem more intelligent than most of them). you first tried to explain away the results the study found and when that didn't work you try to discredit the study it's self, All because you didn't like the result.

 

To actually believe a god (AKA imaginary friend) is just foolish.

The only people who believe in god are non-intelligent people who are too ignorant to read books. I don't even want know why I am writing this because this topic pisses me off so much. I don't know how in our modern time people can still believe in this crap.

Believing in god is no different than a kid believing in Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, ect.

There all just legends passed down over time. There is just so much proof on the science side. I mean how can anyone believe in a heaven or hell. Or that god could part the red sea or walk on water... HAHAH FOOLISH PEOPLE.

Everyone knows inside them the real truth. Stop trying to lie to yourself and use your brain a little and you might realize how stupid you look to believe in a imaginary friend.

I can't take anyone serious who believes in god. no joke! lol

 

another post take makes me laugh
obama is a religious people so based on your smart thinking so he must be a stupid people.
he won the election of the president of the US.
so people that are elected a stupid people must be very stupid.
conclusion, based on your smart thinking, then are more stupid people in the US rather than the smart one like you.

not ALL atheist people are smart people.

 

danc1122
I can't take anyone serious who believes in god. no joke! lol (I cant either its a sign of lower intelligence.)

mate i have been fired from 2 jobs becoz i told my boss they were mentally retarded because they believe in god wich i beleive is almost true like you say children believe in santa then wen get old they relies HOLY SH1T he is not real
why do people let down the human population by believing in a god that at most exsits in there feeble brians

With NO VALID Argument to his existence (with all the evidence lif evolved you think you religious types would shut up or at least have the most convincing evidence yet that god is real (THIS will NEVER HAPPEN so real areal book other then the Bible it does nothing but rot your brain and lowers your IQ level GREATLY)

 

The most popular hypothesis for now at least, until some new fad theory takes its place.

I never tried to explain away the results, I merely pointed out that some religions scored higher on your end-all IQ test and you obviously didn't like it very much - started babbling about a left handed muslim or something I don't really remember.

But I will give you one thing. I am definitely certain atheists and agnostics are more intelligent than creationists and the religious right.

In some ways we're different Stox, but in others I heartily agree with you. The religious right does nothing but damage and spread retardation, and I really wish they'd go away and practice faith in "moderation" (for lack of a better word). Religious extremism is a bane of society - but religious moderation does nothing but bring positive things to the table.

 

It's not the current most popular hypothesis because it's a fad, it's popular because it is supported by everything we know about chemistry. DNA is just a molecule, It's different from most other molecules in the sense that it can replicate it's self.

While the hypothesis isn't conclusive - that's to say we don't yet know that it did happen like that - it's viable because we know, for a fact, that it could have happened like that, simply because of what we know about chemistry and how molecules, amino acids, nucleotides and compounds form.

So to demonstrate that there is at least a way the DNA molecule could have formed naturally negates the requirement for a supernatural hand. That's to say, Does it prove god didn't no it? No. Does it prove god isn't required? yes.

 

Still can't break out of that box of "if there's a scientific explanation, G-d probably didn't do it." huh? But why wouldn't he use the laws of science to create everything? It seems the most logical to me. The study of science is basically reverse engineering, but you're trying to use it as the first cause. But where is that first cause in science?

 

Oh, so the logical way to put it is "if we don't have a scientific explanation, then god surely did it". wow. amazing logic.

 

You missed the point entirely (what a shocker). I tried making it as simple as i could because i know creationists and theists love nothing more than to intentionally misunderstand and misrepresent what people are saying. Seems some things can't be simple enough for some people.

What i said, In plain English, is that the existence of a natural possibility negates the REQUIREMENT of a supernatural hand when it comes to the origin of life.

Though, if you want to concede that the diversity of life doesn't need your god, the origin of life doesn't need your god and reduce your argument to; "well, god probably made chemistry the way it is so life can arise naturally" i'd be happy with that. I wouldn't agree with it, But it would certainly be a big improvement on the adam and eve bollocks that people used to be taught and would make even yourself question how this could support your particular branch of theism..