Are Atheists Smarter Than Theists?

[Mock Turtle]

No, an ability to engage in a multiple of intellectual paths would be the more advantageous. Logic and skepticism are only two of the intellectual tools that we have available to us. We also have imagination, intuition, faith, subjective experience/evidence, desire, and our creativity in general. And the latter are equally as important as the former. And even more important would be an ability to determine when to use which, and how to switch, as needed. Something few of us are really much good at, regardless of our "beliefs". In fact, I think we generally place far too much emphasis on what we 'believe', and waste far too much time propping them up and defending them at the impetus of our egos.

I still have a problem with 'faith' in this context - based on what?

 

[stvdv]

I still have a problem with 'faith' in this context - based on what?

Faith based mainly on imagination [No one alive physical saw God, Jesus, Mohammed, Shiva, Boeddha, Brahma I think]

For me faith in schools would be fine. Oh yes, I love this forum. Really getting addicted. No time for my other addictions; so even helpful

But I would vote against "Faith in schools", because IMHE most people have kind of habit to impose their believe system, which I abhor.
[I am working hard to get rid of this habit myself]

 

[PureX]

I still have a problem with 'faith' in this context - based on what?

Based on it's necessity. We humans cannot know the outcomes of our actions in advance of our taking them. So we have to trust in the result that we hope for, and act accordingly. This trust in hope, acted upon, is called "faith". And it is essential to human existence.

 

[stvdv]

Based on it's necessity. We humans cannot know the outcomes of our actions in advance of our taking them. So we have to trust in the result that we hope for, and act accordingly. This trust in hope, acted upon, is called "faith". And it is essential to human existence.

Thanks, very nice, never thought of it in this way. Very good !!!

 

[Drizzt Do'Urden]

Based on it's necessity. We humans cannot know the outcomes of our actions in advance of our taking them. So we have to trust in the result that we hope for, and act accordingly. This trust in hope, acted upon, is called "faith". And it is essential to human existence.

That kind of faith is different than the faith the religious ask you to give though. I'm OK with this kind of faith, because it is faith borne out of evidence that such things we are placing our faith in have happened before. I have faith that the plane I am about to board will get me to the destination in one piece. Do planes sometimes fall out of the sky? Sure, that's a risk I am willing to take though because we know that reasonable measures have been put in place to limit the chances of planes dropping out of the sky all the time.

 

[Onyx]

Internet "intelligence tests" are a bit iffy to me, but this is just a study done through the means available to them. Real IQ tests are given by licensed practicing psychologists in person, so I have a hard time reading too much into this.

Next time, let's do online polls based on musical preferences, the hair color of a first boyfriend/girlfriend, or whether or not one prefers baseball or soccer or golf. I wonder if that would produce similarly dubious results? And where are the test questions they asked so we can examine them, were they neutral or leading?

#junkscience

 

[Mock Turtle]

Based on it's necessity. We humans cannot know the outcomes of our actions in advance of our taking them. So we have to trust in the result that we hope for, and act accordingly. This trust in hope, acted upon, is called "faith". And it is essential to human existence.

When I'm climbing a mountain and I use equipment (ropes and such), I don't have faith in it. It has been tested to a greater level of force that it will likely receive (being an ex-engineer I know this) so I know it is safe. I don't have faith in such and that applies to much of life too.

 

[Drizzt Do'Urden]

When I'm climbing a mountain and I use equipment (ropes and such), I don't have faith in it. It has been tested to a greater level of force that it will likely receive (being an ex-engineer I know this) so I know it is safe. I don't have faith in such and that applies to much of life too.

But you DO have faith that the manufacturer has ensured that the manufacturing process is efficient and tested often, that they are sticking to the process which creates the best mountain climbing equipment, that the relevant authorities are making sure they're accountable, etc...

 

[Mock Turtle]

But you DO have faith that the manufacturer has ensured that the manufacturing process is efficient and tested often, that they are sticking to the process which creates the best mountain climbing equipment, that the relevant authorities are making sure they're accountable, etc...

But it is based on evidence - there are standards and testing done - no faith involved. Accidents occur because of external events like abrasion or cuts but any climber knows the equipment is safe if he has chosen the correct equipment for the job so no faith involved. I might have faith in my ability but that is a separate issue. And this occurs with the majority of technological items we use today - in countries that maintain and ensure such standards at least. I don't think it is legitimate to use faith in this context.

 

[Drizzt Do'Urden]

But it is based on evidence - there are standards and testing done - no faith involved. Accidents occur because of external events like abrasion or cuts but any climber knows the equipment is safe if he has chosen the correct equipment for the job so no faith involved. I might have faith in my ability but that is a separate issue. And this occurs with the majority of technological items we use today - in countries that maintain and ensure such standards at least. I don't think it is legitimate to use faith in this context.

Exactly, it is faith borne out of evidence.

There is NO faith involved in the actual process of testing it, but you have faith that the testing methodology will successfully weed out the defective products from the manufacturing line.

You and I know that every once in a while those measures let lemons through. You have faith that the standards and means testing implemented by the manufacturer caught all of those defective products before they got shipped to a store to be sold to you.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Exactly, it is faith borne out of evidence.

There is NO faith involved in the actual process of testing it, but you have faith that the testing methodology will successfully weed out the defective products from the manufacturing line.

You and I know that every once in a while those measures let lemons through. You have faith that the standards and means testing implemented by the manufacturer caught all of those defective products before they got shipped to a store to be sold to you.

I still don't believe it is fair to describe this as faith - trust perhaps - that all down the chain have done their jobs - and we know this is usually the point of failure more often than not. It is much the same when someone serves us food or drink, etc., we don't have faith here, we have a trust perhaps that they are competent and not serving us poison. Not really faith is it?

 

[Drizzt Do'Urden]

I still don't believe it is fair to describe this as faith - trust perhaps - that all down the chain have done their jobs - and we know this is usually the point of failure more often than not. It is much the same when someone serves us food or drink, etc., we don't have faith here, we have a trust perhaps that they are competent and not serving us poison. Not really faith is it?

The word faith has multiple definitions... One of those is 'complete trust or confidence in someone or something.'

You have faith, trust, that the standards and means testing weeds out the bad products before they get shipped to a store to be bought by you.

This kind of faith is justifiable and OK to have.

The faith the religious ask you to give is another kind of trust, but it's asking for trust that what the religious person is asking you to believe, that god had a son, that he was resurrected after three days of death, is true.

Since you have no other way to verify that god had a son, and you've never seen someone resurrect after three days of being dead, you don't grant them your faith.

 

[Mock Turtle]

The word faith has multiple definitions... One of those is 'complete trust or confidence in someone or something.'

You have faith, trust, that the standards and means testing weeds out the bad products before they get shipped to a store to be bought by you.

This kind of faith is justifiable and OK to have.

The faith the religious ask you to give is another kind of trust, but it's asking for trust that what the religious person is asking you to believe, that god had a son, that he was resurrected after three days of death, is true.

Since you have no other way to verify that god had a son, and you've never seen someone resurrect after three days of being dead, you don't grant them your faith.

My trust has a chain of action and responsibility. Can I do the same for any religious faith?

 

[Drizzt Do'Urden]

My trust has a chain of action and responsibility. Can I do the same for any religious faith?

I'm confused, do you believe I am arguing for religious faith?

 

[Brickjectivity]

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.

Reading the thread I hope to see someone had posted about this. Someone did! The OP conflates theism and religiosity .

 

[PureX]

That kind of faith is different than the faith the religious ask you to give though.

In most cases, it's not.

Some religions dishonesty and inaccurately define "faith" as an unquestioned and undoubtable allegiance to their religious dogma. Those aren't really even religions, though, so much as they are religious cults. They certainly exist, but they are a minority aberration among the full scope of the world's religions, and within realm of religious practice. For most people, practicing most religions, 'faith' is an acknowledgement of their inability to 'know the truth', and a way for them to move forward in life toward what they hope to be true, in spite of their lack of knowledge or certainty.

They hope and trust that God is just, for example, and that His justice will become manifest sooner or later, in this life of perhaps some other. They trust and hope that love, forgiveness, kindness and generosity of humanity will someday prevail over our fear and greed and selfishness, so they try to act accordingly. And so on. These are what most religions help people with, and why most people are religious. Unfortunately, the cults do exist, and do abuse and poison everything they touch. And so they do get the lion's share of our negative attention.

I'm OK with this kind of faith, because it is faith borne out of evidence that such things we are placing our faith in have happened before. I have faith that the plane I am about to board will get me to the destination in one piece. Do planes sometimes fall out of the sky? Sure, that's a risk I am willing to take though because we know that reasonable measures have been put in place to limit the chances of planes dropping out of the sky all the time.

Bear in mind that the vast majority of religious adherents have plenty of evidence to support their faith in their God. The difference is that much of this evidence comes from their personal experience of their practice of that faith, and so is not quantifiable and transferable to others. This does not disqualify it as evidence, however.

 

[PureX]

When I'm climbing a mountain and I use equipment (ropes and such), I don't have faith in it. It has been tested to a greater level of force that it will likely receive (being an ex-engineer I know this) so I know it is safe. I don't have faith in such and that applies to much of life too.

You didn't test the ropes yourself, so you have chosen to truth that someone has. In every circumstance of life, there is much that we don't and cannot know. Yet we have to be able to keep moving forward, to live. And this is how faith helps us. You have faith in the complex systems and multitudes of people that produce and test your equipment. You have to, because you can't do all that stuff, yourself. And so you cannot know that it has been done, and done effectively.

You can ignore all the instances in which you must act on faith because you do so as 'second nature', and you can then pretend that you need no faith to live, but even a little bit of unbiased reflection will make it obvious that you do in fact act on faith all the time. As you couldn't act at all, in nearly all instances, without it. You simply do not have the necessary knowledge.

 

[Drizzt Do'Urden]

In most cases, it's not.

Some religions dishonesty and inaccurately define "faith" as an unquestioned and undoubtable allegiance to their religious dogma. Those aren't really even religions, though, so much as they are religious cults. They certainly exist, but they are a minority aberration among the full scope of the world's religions, and within realm of religious practice. For most people, practicing most religions, 'faith' is an acknowledgement of their inability to 'know the truth', and a way for them to move forward in life toward what they hope to be true, in spite of their lack of knowledge or certainty.

They hope and trust that God is just, for example, and that His justice will become manifest sooner or later, in this life of perhaps some other. They trust and hope that love, forgiveness, kindness and generosity of humanity will someday prevail over our fear and greed and selfishness, so they try to act accordingly. And so on. These are what most religions help people with, and why most people are religious. Unfortunately, the cults do exist, and do abuse and poison everything they touch. And so they do get the lion's share of our negative attention.
Bear in mind that the vast majority of religious adherents have plenty of evidence to support their faith in their God. The difference is that much of this evidence comes from their personal experience of their practice of that faith, and so is not quantifiable and transferable to others. This does not disqualify it as evidence, however.

Let us try an analogy... Let us say I flew a plane to an island in the Pacific Ocean. On this island is a tribe of people who have never flown on an airplane, or even seen one fly overhead. After landing and trading goods with the tribe I might offer to take them for a ride. I tell them to just have faith that what I'm telling them about the plane being able to take them into the sky to fly is true.

They might grant me faith (trust) that what I'm telling them is true, but then they saw me fly in, and land, and get out. They have seen with their own eyes that this contraption can actually do what I say it can do, so they jump in willingly.

Now think of the claims made in the bible. It claims god had a son by impregnating a teenage Jewish virgin, that his son performed miracles such as using his magic spit to make the deaf hear and the blind see. The religious would ask them to believe in these miracles by faith, right? They would ask the tribespeople for their "trust" that what they're claiming is actually true. The religious would ask them to believe that a human being could actually resurrect himself from the dead after three days...

"You just gotta have faith that what I'm claiming and what the bible is claiming, actually took place!"

But the tribe has never before seen a god impregnate a teenage Jewish virgin, they've never before a seen a human being with magic spit that could make the deaf hear and the blind see. Why should they grant you the faith (trust) you are asking them to give you?

The reality is they shouldn't. And neither should you grant your religious minders your faith (trust) that what they say about god is true, that he had a son, that that son could perform miracles (actual suspensions of the laws of nature), that his son could resurrect himself from the dead after three days being dead...

All I can say is THANK GOD the god of Abraham is only a figment of people's imaginations.

 

[PureX]

Let us try an analogy... Let us say I flew a plane to an island in the Pacific Ocean. On this island is a tribe of people who have never flown on an airplane, or even seen one fly overhead. After landing and trading goods with the tribe I might offer to take them for a ride. I tell them to just have faith that what I'm telling them about the plane being able to take them into the sky to fly is true.

They might grant me faith (trust) that what I'm telling them is true, but then they saw me fly in, and land, and get out. They have seen with their own eyes that this contraption can actually do what I say it can do, so they jump in willingly.

Now think of the claims made in the bible. It claims god had a son by impregnating a teenage Jewish virgin, that his son performed miracles such as using his magic spit to make the deaf hear and the blind see. The religious would ask them to believe in these miracles by faith, right? The religious would ask them to believe that a human being could actually resurrect himself from the dead after three days...

"You just gotta have faith that what I'm claiming and what the bible is claiming, actually took place!"

But the tribe has never before seen a god impregnate a teenage Jewish virgin, they've never before a seen a human being with magic spit that could make the deaf hear and the blind see. Why should they grant you the faith (trust) you are asking them to give you?

The reality is they shouldn't. And neither should you grant your religious minders your faith (trust) that what they say about god is true, that he had a son, that that son could perform miracles (actual suspensions of the laws of nature), that his son could resurrect himself from the dead after three days being dead...

All I can say is THANK GOD the god of Abraham is only a figment of people's imaginations.

I don't think you have a very clear understanding of the Bible's purpose, or the purpose of those religious myths. You have succumbed to the cultists admonition that you must accept the stories, unquestioned, and at face value, with no further quest for understanding.

But that's not how myth, metaphor, parable or poetry works. And that isn't how we are intended to read them. The cultists are lying to you, and to all of us, when they claim that the Bible is a factual history of God and man. And if you swallow their lie you will never read the texts in the way they were intended to be read: as "sacred literature": as myth, and metaphor, and as symbolic/poetic story-telling.

Just as the religious cults deny the substance and purpose of these sacred texts, so do their detractors, when they allow the cult's lies be taken as the only possible way of perceiving the texts.

 

[Drizzt Do'Urden]

I don't think you have a very clear understanding of the Bible's purpose, or the purpose of those religious myths. You have succumbed to the cultists admonition that you must accept the stories, unquestioned, and at face value, with no further quest for understanding.

But that's not how myth, metaphor, parable or poetry works. And that isn't how we are intended to read them. The cultists are lying to you, and to all of us, when they claim that the Bible is a factual history of God and man. And if you swallow their lie you will never read the texts in the way they were intended to be read: as "sacred literature": as myth, and metaphor, and as symbolic/poetic story-telling.

Just as the religious cults deny the substance and purpose of these sacred texts, so do their detractors, when they allow the cult's lies be taken as the only possible way of perceiving the texts.

Wait a second... I'm confused...

Are you saying you don't believe that god had a son, that his son performed miracles, that his son was able to resurrect after being dead for three days and that the reason for this sacrifice is to take the collective punishments for mankind's sins against each other and against god?

Are you saying that Jesus wasn't on the single most important mission in the history of mankind, the "saving" of our eternal souls?