syo
Well-Known Member
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 all the way
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Atheists outperform theists at nearly all reasoning skills
- Thread starter charlie sc
- Start date
I cant say i have ever heard an atheist say "I don't believe in free will" on the contrary, it tends to be those enamored by a bronze myth that say that. Certainly the threads on RF about free will seem to be started by religious people.
So you think slavery and stoning gays is right? That must be religious morality. Atheist tend to go with the far older and less cherry picked human morality which provided civilization so that religion can flourish and cherry pick morality to exclude those who dont kowtow to your personal god belief
Dont trust the brain, trust the evidence, proof and facts.
Oh, BTW,already been done
leroy
Well-Known Member
1 so you do believe we have free will ?
2 no what I am saying is that you can't deny objective morality and then claim that the Bible is morally wrong.
3 the evidence has to be interpreted by a brain, if the brain is not a reliable tool, then why trusting your interpretations?
Pretend that you are reading a novel about someone who lived in ancient Egypt , and that you take for granted that the author is not even trying to provide accurate historical data (he is doing science fiction) .. given this assumptions would it be reasonable to use the book to learn something about ancient history?
My point is that if evolution (random mutatios and natural) does not even "try" to produce reliable brains, why assuming that your brain is a good tool for determining whether is atheism is true or not .
Last edited:
My understanding is that when people have higher IQ, their leadership capacity goes down.Not necessarily a bad thing, and I'm sure it has an evolutionary advantage. However, I think this line of reasoning is not useful anymore.
I've found the people that give me their rounded high IQ numbers highly dubious. I usually find these people show grammatical errors, inability to discern nuanced arguments, unable to understand what I'm explaining and then I have to explain it to them. They also give these IQ numbers from online sources, unknown tests and/or cd-roms
IQ tests done right are performed by professionals and usually cost money. That's because IQ tests aren't just multiple choice questions and consist of many different aspects, some are even physical objects or the method of the problem solving. Online tests are prone to cheating, and may not even reflect any of the actual test performed by professionals. In other words, it's more for sales and popularity than accuracy.
I'm pretty sure these people that profess their genius IQ number would like to keep their real scores to themselves once they do an actual IQ test. It's also humorous that these people don't know this in the first place or how IQ tests work.
I wonder if their capacity for spirituality goes down too along with their leadership ability and explains why their capacity to hear and understand God goes down? Maybe because they rely too much on their own capacity? Certainly those who decide to hear God, seem to be able to go farther than their capacity, IMHO.
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2017-14279-001
It is reported that once Carver prayed, “Mr. Creator, show me the secrets of your universe.”
“Little man, you’re not big enough to know the secrets of My universe, but I’ll show you the secret of the peanut,” was the reply.
George Washington Carver ca. 1910
His prayer and heaven’s response launched him into a lifetime of discovery.
1 yes, i know we have
2 of course you can claim the bible is morally wrong, all you need to do is read it.
3 fact does not need peoples thoughts to be fact
No,i would consider the book a fiction, to learn about history i will read history books
The fact that there is no evidence for god is factual.
Don't deny what the report admits "Several limitations should be considered. Most notably, both of our cohorts were self-selecting populations of internet users which could have introduced sampling biases."
Atheists are better at reasoning(E.G. logic problem solving) than the religious. I'm sorry agnostics, you're just bellow atheistsA proposed explanation, from this study, why atheists tend to have high IQ than theists is that religious people are more likely to use intuitive decision making. To confirm this theory, the study found working memory increased with religiosity(I.E. strength of belief) but decreased with reasoning/cognitive skills and deductive reasoning stayed the same all-round. Similarly, apostates(I.E. converts either way) showed similar results. This study suggested it's not an impairment but rather a bias, "religiosity effect reflects cognitive-behavioral biases that impair conflict detection, rather than general intelligence." The authors conclude from the results that religious people tend to forgo logical problem solving when an intuitive answer is present. Therefore, if the intuitive answer is it seems like god-did-it or it's a supernatural answer, then nothing else need be examined. Nonetheless, from these results, this cognitive bias seeps into more than just religious dogmatism and axioms. Religiosity generally makes people worse at reasoning. Interestingly, working memory increases with religiosity/dogmatism(not as much as the atheist though) and deductive reasoning is the same as others. Perhaps some people can explain why they think this is the case?
This particular study had 63 235 participants, in total, of all age groups, education and country of origins. These variables were also cross examined to see if there were conflicting co-variables - there were none. The online tests took about 30+- minutes to finish and gave the participants a plethora of test, such as:The Grammatical Reasoning Task, Colour Word Remapping (CWR), Interlocking Polygons task, Paired Associate Learning (PAL), Spatial Span and Self-Ordered Search, Spatial Rotations tasks and so on.
So, my question to you is, how certain are you god(s) exists?
1 = Absolute Certainty, 2 = Strong, 3 = Not Certain, 4 = Very Doubtful, 5 = Atheist
Of course, you may critique the study or anything else. If you are going to question the study, I recommend you put your thinking caps on and either read it(it's free) or give some constructive criticism. Just saying something is wrong, especially if the thing you're against has evidence, is an assertion. Assertions can be answered with assertions and are pointless beyond words. In other words, put because after you said something
This is at least the third time that I am seeing this study being referenced. It is curious as to why this study comes up again and again.
Furthermore, the way the abstract starts " It is well established that religiosity correlates negatively with intelligence....", indicates its bias.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
Atheists are better at reasoning(E.G. logic problem solving) than the religious. I'm sorry agnostics, you're just bellow atheists
This particular study had 63 235 participants, in total, of all age groups, education and country of origins. These variables were also cross examined to see if there were conflicting co-variables - there were none. The online tests took about 30+- minutes to finish and gave the participants a plethora of test, such as:The Grammatical Reasoning Task, Colour Word Remapping (CWR), Interlocking Polygons task, Paired Associate Learning (PAL), Spatial Span and Self-Ordered Search, Spatial Rotations tasks and so on.
So, my question to you is, how certain are you god(s) exists?
1 = Absolute Certainty, 2 = Strong, 3 = Not Certain, 4 = Very Doubtful, 5 = Atheist
Of course, you may critique the study or anything else. If you are going to question the study, I recommend you put your thinking caps on and either read it(it's free) or give some constructive criticism. Just saying something is wrong, especially if the thing you're against has evidence, is an assertion. Assertions can be answered with assertions and are pointless beyond words. In other words, put because after you said something
The chief skill isn't mentioned--reasoning away God's existence. Because this willfulness takes so much effort on a daily basis, one's (twisted) logic skills increase greatly. Fortunately, for me, having heard so many inane arguments from skeptics, then refuting them, has increased my powers of reason far beyond any living skeptic.
Audie
Veteran Member
How does that indicate "bias"?
"it is well established that aspirin will reduce
pain... "
Bias?
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
Indeed. I must wholeheartedly agree: Without defining what a person means by "god"? Can there really be common ground for conversation?
Each person, having a different internal idea (or ideas) about "god", often with such large gaps, that whenever the fine details of "What God Wants" are finally revealed, it can literally lead to open warfare...
I find I must post a photo-meme that better illustrates my point:
.
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
Why? To what end? And how on earth can you call it "love" if the principle agency deliberately and with malice, keeps hiding?
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
Heck-- no, he did not:
"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. "(Albert Einstein, 1954)
Einstein often used the term "god" ironically, I suspect...
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
See, I knew it... I have been saying this for years...
Now, if atheists could only understand the reason to believe in God, they'd be all set.
What "reason"? You often say "the reason" but you never say what the reason actually is!
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
A bunch of random, highly edited "statements" utterly without a single reference or indication of origin?
About as useful as someone claiming to .... Speak For God or something....
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
What means "free will"? You must define your term, here--
Point: If there exists an All Powerful, All Knowing Entity, who interferes with the Universe (including earth), then Free Will in the Classic Sense, cannot possibly exist. Free Will is utterly incompatable with an All Knowing/All Powerful Entity. The expression of Free Will requires power to choose-- and also requires a Future that has not been pre-determined.
All Knowing eliminates an indeterminate future, and All Power eliminates the expression of Free Will (regardless of your definition) .
Incorrect. Absolutely incorrect, in fact-- Philosophers have settled this a very long time ago.
The bible is immoral, because it's many many moral failures by it's principle agent. Yes-- we judge it with Hindsight. That's what humans do.
This is why proper scientific experiments are crafted to avoid this bias. It's not really that difficult. Google "double blind experimental procedure" for some simple examples.
But it does involve ...the Logic of Math... so...
Who is the author? What were his credentials? When was the novel written, and why?
We can test for things. We get results. We then use the results to test for more things.
This computer-- the one I'm using right now-- is based on such testing and results.
Scientific Method produces results-- EVERYTHING we use, in the Modern Day? (that is useful) Is based on such testing/results.
100% of the time? When religious claims are also tested in the same manner? NEGATIVE OR AMBIGUOUS RESULTS. 100% of the time.
Hmmmmmmmmmmm......
If the word 'god' is intended to denote something with objective existence, then indeed I have no idea what is intended to be denoted. No one seems to have a definition that would allow us to tell whether any real candidate were God or not, or even a concept of 'godness' that would let us distinguish God from, say, a superscientist. The conclusion is arguable that deep down even believers think God only exists in your head.
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
It's almost as if this 'god' of yours deliberately and with malice, created us humans with such reasoning abilities....
.... why?
Perhaps god was tired of being god, and wished to be reasoned away in a puff of logic?
(with apologies to the late Douglas Adams for shamelessly stealing is idea)
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
Agreed.