Are Atheists Smarter Than Theists?

[Rational Agnostic]

Leibniz 1646
Newton 1643
Pascal 1588
Euler 1707
Descartes 1596

I think that without exception you'd find they all believed in Noahs ark.
They may have all believed in slavery,
Smart guys, but they lived in a sea of ignorance and superstition.

Dont you suppose that if they lived today that they'd have a different view?

Yes, most likely, which indicates that beliefs do not correlate with intelligence necessarily, but instead with the dominant cultural norms. But of course I agree that socieities, culture, and values have generally gotten better since those times.

 

[Audie]

Yes, most likely, which indicates that beliefs do not correlate with intelligence necessarily, but instead with the dominant cultural norms. But of course I agree that socieities, culture, and values have generally gotten better since those times.

Zactly. You could have found precious few who didnt believe in those days. Plus, nobody would admit it even if they were unbelievers. Too dangerous.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

"It is well established that religiosity correlates inversely with intelligence"

I forget who said that, was it Stalin, Mao, or Il Sung?

Any belief that claims 'intellectual superiority' is a red flag. When a good argument stands on it's own merits, ad hominem is unnecessary.

'people who boast about their IQ are losers' Stephen Hawking

 

[Jumi]

"It is well established that religiosity correlates inversely with intelligence"

I forget who said that, was it Stalin, Mao, or Il Sung?

I tried google. Apparently it was Dawkins.

'people who boast about their IQ are losers' Stephen Hawking

Any boasting is silly, I think most people know that.

 

[stvdv]

'people who boast about their IQ are losers' Stephen Hawking

You need someone with a high IQ making this statement to have people accept it

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I tried google. Apparently it was Dawkins.


Any boasting is silly, I think most people know that.

He also yes, and anyone who dares question evolution is also 'insane or wicked'

 

[DonnieLD]

The problem is that the real answer is neither. Theists, those connected to a specific religion, tend to only promote, study, and research the ideas which fall within the scope of their religion, as deemed fit by mankind.

Atheists however do the exact opposite. Sure, they may tend to seek a logical explanation to the universe around them, but if there is an answer which arrives anywhere close to reinforcing the existence of a God being, they will do exactly what theists do, simply in reverse.

The issue is that we should all be open minded enough to seek the truth, no matter where it leads, and only if that truth is one that is founded in logic and facts supported by evidence, then whatever that truth is it must be correct.

I personally believe in God, I have pushed away from Christianity, and honestly any religion as I think it has become far too butchered by us over the millennia to be absolutely trusted anymore. But I still believe in a God and I believe in the science placed to keep our universe in a chaotic order. I also believe in quite a few other things and have my own ideas about the world around us, but that's for another time.
--D

 

[Shaul]

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.

Yes, using the argument of “self evidence” surely bolsters the claim that atheists are more intelligent. See how overwhelming and intelligent that argument is!

 

[Shaul]

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



Your example please.

.

I said the were presumed atheists based on the clear bias of their work, not because scientists must be atheists. The example is the report itself. It’s design is scientifically flawed.

 

[Sunstone]

As it happens, I am myself scientifically proven to be smarter than both theists and atheists --- but only on the internet.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

He also yes, and anyone who dares question evolution is also 'insane or wicked'

Incorrect. Dawkins stated that anyone who claims to disbelieve in evolution is either "ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)." I think ignorant is the most common of these four possibilities, and ignorance of evolution is almost always willful.

 

[Skwim]

I said the were presumed atheists based on the clear bias of their work,

No you did not. You said: "And yet the presumed atheists that did this research." You didn't mention bias whatsoever.

The example is the report itself. It’s design is scientifically flawed.

So just because it arrived at a conclusion you don't like, by default it has to be biased. I would hope you'd realize that your type of thinking here is exactly the kind the study is talking about when it said, " religiosity is associated with poorer reasoning performance," but I'm not holding my breath.

.

 

[Skwim]

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?

FYI, that is NOT how intelligence is determined. As for being smart, smart generally hinges on the amount of knowledge one has and how well that knowledge is used.

Because to my way of thinking, these are not synonymous.

Correct. They are not.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Incorrect. Dawkins stated that anyone who claims to disbelieve in evolution is either "ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)." I think ignorant is the most common of these four possibilities, and ignorance of evolution is almost always willful.

Dawkins concedes his ignorance of information technology and -separately- that evolutionary biology has become in many ways a branch of it. His ignorance is not willful, he is as curious and capable of critical thought as anyone, just born a little early and without the qualification or experience to better grasp some of the key issues.

I would not even consider that anyone is remotely stupid, insane or wicked simply for sharing a widely held belief like Darwinism. And those words should certainly not be carelessly cast via mass media over the majority of free thinking humanity, that's getting into very dangerous territory

'stupid' 'insane' 'wicked' 'willfully ignorant' these are words people hurl at points of view they do not understand and/or are afraid of. I understand why you, Dawkins believe what you do, I used to also. skepticism, dissenting views, are nothing to be afraid of, science can never progress otherwise.

 

[godnotgod]

Take an atheist, or just a plain old Westerner who touts Reason and Logic, and drop him into the Australian outback with an Aborigine, and let's see who's smarter.

 

[sayak83]

Have you done any online research for 'religiosity associated with intelligence'? Because all the evidence I have seen confirms what this says - that the more intelligent usually are less religious - and for obvious reasons - they tend to look at the evidence and reject that supplied by most religions as being substantive proof of their assertions.

But religiosity is different from theistic and atheistic beliefs. Committed Marxists will score very high in religiosity and not have a God belief. Flexible nuanced thinking is a marker of intelligence and is negatively correlated with secular or theistic religiosity...obviously.

 

[Mock Turtle]

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].

I would plump for a more stable community and social life perhaps with less querying of stuff that might trouble the non-religious, and where the latter have a wider range of options to choose from for explaining all events and experiences - hence perhaps more conflict in their lives. Plus the fact that they have to live in a mostly religious world. Can hardly take that last one as not having an impact on them.

 

[Mock Turtle]

But religiosity is different from theistic and atheistic beliefs. Committed Marxists will score very high in religiosity and not have a God belief. Flexible nuanced thinking is a marker of intelligence and is negatively correlated with secular or theistic religiosity...obviously.

No matter how you look at it, the evidence seems to point to the fact that 'the more intelligent usually are less religious', for whatever reasons - be it intellectuals or scientists or those with above average intelligence.

 

[stvdv]

I would plump for a more stable community and social life perhaps with less querying of stuff that might trouble the non-religious, and where the latter have a wider range of options to choose from for explaining all events and experiences - hence perhaps more conflict in their lives. Plus the fact that they have to live in a mostly religious world. Can hardly take that last one as not having an impact on them.

I think that was what I also was implying. Living longer is not about religious [artist, musicians live long, not all religious], but maybe of "living from the heart", and not so much "from the mind". Though using common sense and discrimination is a good thing. All need to be in balance.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I think that was what I also was implying. Living longer is not about religious [artist, musicians live long, not all religious], but maybe of "living from the heart", and not so much "from the mind". Though using common sense and discrimination is a good thing. All need to be in balance.

Quite. I think it is those with more rigid thinking in whatever way might be the less happy for being so.