Are Atheists Smarter Than Theists?

[Nakosis]

That is like not knowing what values people who are not interested in
Rhodesian stickball have in common.

Well, perhaps they see less value in relying on intuition?

In Christianity for example, I see believing in guidance from God or the Holy Spirit as really reliance on intuition. Of course that's my intuition, no study involved, so I could be wrong.

 

[Audie]

The huge and glaring question to be asked, here, is how intelligence is being determined. If, for example, "Jeb" grows up on a farm, never leaves his small agricultural community, or advances past 10th grenade in school, while "Vic" grows up in a wealthy suburban enclave, travels to various countries and cities, and goes through college to get a law degree, is "Vic" really smarter that Jeb? Or is he just more worldly? Because to my way of thinking, these are not synonymous. And yet if we were to test both these characters for "intelligence" we would probably assume that having knowledge of the world equates to intelligence. When that is not necessarily the case.

Nobody is going to ever fully answer those questions. Still, IQ tests probably mean something , dont you think? maybe even something important?

You find Singapore / Hong Kong / Korea / Finland etc. up around the top.

You find like Chad and Equatorial Guinea at the bottom.

Which would you guess are more prone to superstition and religiosity?

 

[Shushersbedamned]

You mean atheists? Might be true of atheists that are part of the academic community. Peer pressure to conform to whatever values are accepted in academic circles.

Outside of that, I don't know what values atheists would need to have in common.

Cultural values, Charlie.

 

[Audie]

Well, perhaps they see less value in relying on intuition?

In Christianity for example, I see believing in guidance from God or the Holy Spirit as really reliance on intuition. Of course that's my intuition, no study involved, so I could be wrong.

Intuition has its uses, but it is of limited utility in research.

 

[Shushersbedamned]

Well, perhaps they see less value in relying on intuition?

a person who sees 'less value on relying in intuition' could be said to simply have less of it.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

I think it's self evident that those that are capable of 'just believing' on faith alone(all theists) are less intelligent than those that can and will not.

This isn't exactly a huge revelation.

 

[Skwim]

And yet the presumed atheists that did this research

Because one cannot be a decent scientist without being an atheist. Yes, we're quite familiar with this kind of silly bias.

couldn’t figure out the difference between association and causality.

Your example please.

.

 

[George-ananda]

I might surprise people by leaning to a ‘Yes’ answer to the OP’s question. However, I think the people that see neither traditional theism or atheism as satisfying understandings to be the most intelligent group.

 

[Shushersbedamned]

I'm sure all of this has nothing whatsoever to do with emotional intelligence.

 

[stvdv]

I don't know why there is so much resistance to this. There is also evidence that those who have a religious belief are happier and tend to live longer. I'm not going to dispute that if the evidence for this truly exists

Interesting information: "...Have a religious belief are happier and tend to live longer".
Artists and Musicians also live longer they say
Do Artists and Musicians Live Longer Lives?

What do they all have in common? Find that and you know how to live longer. Then if you don't use optimum intelligence, the sum total used intelligence might be even higher. But of course "if not happy", maybe better to live shorter [or longer if your goal is to become happy].

 

[stvdv]

I'm sure all of this has nothing whatsoever to do with emotional intelligence.

Very smart observation:
1: Mental: Atheist intelligence is higher
2: Emotional: Atheist less happy
3: Physical: Atheist dies earlier

In a way the theist can now say "Our God Lord is very gracious towards the Atheist letting him die sooner, because he is not happy. And giving him more powerful intellect is also a nice boon". Sometimes Atheist complain God is so cruel, but here is shown some compassion, or not?

 

[stvdv]

However, I think the people that see neither traditional theism or atheism as satisfying understandings to be the most intelligent group

But still "thinking"

 

[Audie]

Let's ask that question in the next 'eternity' life, who will be there to answer it?
ronandcarol

Who wants to just be given answers?

That sounds like hell, no riddles, nothing to figure out .

 

[stvdv]

@ronandcarol: Let's ask that question in the next 'eternity' life, who will be there to answer it?
ronandcarol

Who wants to just be given answers?
That sounds like hell, no riddles, nothing to figure out .

Seen from advaita view this belongs to the category "smart question to ask"
who will be there to answer it

 

[PureX]

Nobody is going to ever fully answer those questions. Still, IQ tests probably mean something , dont you think? maybe even something important?

You find Singapore / Hong Kong / Korea / Finland etc. up around the top.

You find like Chad and Equatorial Guinea at the bottom.

Which would you guess are more prone to superstition and religiosity?

How does any of this matter?

The Bell Curve can be applied to any group of people about any possible characteristic. Always some will land on the right and some on the left side of the general mean. Then if we equate one side of the curve with "good" and the other with "bad", our bias will prove itself. Are superstition and religiosity "bad"? Then of course those on that side of where you draw the mean will be "bad", as well as being superstitious and religious. But you could draw the mean through religion itself, putting superstition on one side and rational skepticism on the other. Then overlay the "good" and the "bad", again, with a different result. And so on.

My point is that the Bell Curve and the bias are not logically connected. Being prone to superstition or religion does not make one a "bad" person. Nor does it make them a "stupid" person. Unless we falsely and illogically apply our own bias to the criteria governing the curve.

 

[Audie]

Seen from advaita view this belongs to the category "smart question to ask"
who will be there to answer it

Oh come on, like I did not see that lame quip first time around, sans the arrows, quotation marks and red ink.

No comment on the actual content of what I said?

 

[stvdv]

No comment on the actual content of what I said?

I did give you a "Creative", didn't I
If I give "Creative" then I mean it. So I liked your comment. And not a little. Because I love riddles myself. I never want other humans to tell me answers. And lucky for me God likes to talk in riddles also.

@Audie Who wants to just be given answers?
That sounds like hell, no riddles, nothing to figure out .

 

[Audie]

How does any of this matter?

The Bell Curve can be applied to any group of people about any possible characteristic. Always some will land on the right and some on the left side of the general mean. Then if we equate one side of the curve with "good" and the other with "bad", our bias will prove itself. Are superstition and religiosity "bad"? Then of course those on that side of where you draw the mean will be "bad", as well as superstitious and religious. But you could draw the mean through religion itself, putting superstition on one side and rational skepticism on the other. Then overlay the "good" and the "bad", again, with a different result. And so on.

My point is that the Bell Curve and the bias are not logically connected. Being prone to superstition or religion does not make one a "bad" person. Nor does it make them a "stupid" person. Unless we falsely and illogically apply our own bias to the criteria governing the curve.

You are familiar with the idea of a strawman argument?

Now-

Lets say you go to some place like Chad, or some other low IQ place and grab a hundred teenagers at random.

And a like number from Denmark.

Which group will score higher on any cognitive sort of test you care to give them?

Look at it this way. In WW2, American soldiers had
a very hard time training Chinese troops to use any
of the equipment. The American soldiers learned much faster.

Are Chinese inherently or genetically less intelligent?
Why was it so hard for them to learn?

See if you can come up with an answer.

Oh, and see if it would be the same today.

What is the difference? HK and Singapore score
way higher than any US average. Why those two cities? Genetics? Bias?

Would needed to pick someone for partner in something, and the person needed to be smart, but, you have to pick totally at random other than choosing a country.

What countries might you choose from? Which would you not? Why?

 

[Audie]

I did give you a "Creative", didn't I
If I give "Creative" then I mean it. So I liked your comment.

oh, missed that. Why wont you argue.

 

[stvdv]

oh, missed that. Why wont you argue

Because I Love you