"Given atheists slightly higher than average intelligence..."

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

It means that assuming that AAAS members are on average more intelligent than the general population that they are at least twice as likely to be atheists since members are self-selecting so stupid people would be less likely to join.

So, the 40% that are religious and do join, they are not stupid either? How does this amount to twice as likely? Oh, and let's not forget that it's the atheists that uphold science as means of justifying God's non-existence so, it's no wonder that we should see a higher percentage of atheists here. But still, 40% is quite a significant number to stand in contrast.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Iacchus

So, the 40% that are religious and do join, they are not stupid either? How does this amount to twice as likely? Oh, and let's not forget that it's the atheists that uphold science as means of justifying God's non-existence so, it's no wonder that we should see a higher percentage of atheists here. But still, 40% is quite a significant number to stand in contrast.

Unless you take the time to successfully learn some statistics I am afraid that you are just not going to understand this.

[Iacchus]

Which is to say you can't answer what I'm asking or, that you won't? Thus far all that's been referred to is a 60-40 percent ratio here. Unless you are saying that those who join, who are religious, are also stupid? ...

[Seven of Nine]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Anybody with a desire to explain reality with all natural constructs is a scientist; those that wish to explain reality with supernatural constructs like god are throwbacks to antiquity. As long as a scientist is able to stick to all natural constructs in their particular discipline then what they do would be called science, but if they are unable to keep them apart then what they are doing is theology and they are in the wrong line of work. For an atheist the sciences are a very comfortable and natural fit since we don't have to fuss over how to reconcile what we discover with our preconceived supernatural "beliefs" because we don't got any.

Frankly, I've never really understood why theists have to fuss over how to reconcile scientific facts with their supernatural beliefs, and didn't realize how many do until I became disabled and began taking part in internet community life.

However, since it was my field of study, I did notice early on that a surprising number of Christians seem to experience a lot cognitive dissonance regarding psychology.
For example, I spoke to one young man at length who was an undergraduate in psychology at a local Southern Baptist Bible college, precisely because he wouldn't have to read any primary sources there: he expected his instructors present the material to him, cleansed of any non-Christian 'impurities' (sort of like human Brita filters), and he certainly wasn't going to learn any neurobiology there. He seemed to understand his education would be inferior, but it didn't bother him at all, because he wanted so much to be protected from any direct contact with the writings of Freud, Jung, et al.

Does that strike you as at all creepy? Because it does me.
Imagine, if you will, an English poetry major who doesn't actually want to read any Byron, Keats, Shelly, or Eliot. *The theme from the Twilight Zone plays*

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Iacchus

Which is to say you can't answer what I'm asking or, that you won't? Thus far all that's been referred to is a 60-40 percent ratio here.

I am afraid that you just don't understand what I am saying. And until you make the effort and learn enough statistics to understand it then any further discussion is pointless. But you are of course free to "believe" anything you like.

[Clutch Munny]

It would not surprise me a bit if the average score of atheists on standard intelligence tests was higher than the average score of theists on standard intelligence tests. In fact, I would predict that it is higher.

But this would be largely a selection effect, by which I mean the following:

Most people are theists; most people are born into theism. To become a self-identifying atheist is usually a conscious decision about what to believe, and why. Some real dumbasses do this for spectacularly stupid reasons, of course, but by and large it's a cognitive effort of sorts to make any very deep worldview judgement on the basis of thinking about it. People inclined to make that effort (well or poorly) will be overrepresented in the atheist group, given the preexisting predominance of theism.

In short, if you compare the general population and atheists, the atheist group will have pruned away some of the leftmost tail of the "reflectiveness" distribution -- a group of people who just don't think much about anything very challenging.

If those unreflective people had been raised atheist, they'd probably have remained atheist. But as things stand, they were most raised theist (of one brand or another), and that's what they've stayed. Disproportionately filtering them out of the atheist population would likely produce a higher average (traditional) "intelligence" measure for atheists.

What this doesn't mean is that the smartest atheists are smarter than the smartest theists, of course.

Being intelligent is a horribly confounded and confused notion in any case; people with unfathomably huge intellectual gifts commonly believe demonstrable falsehoods. There are math geniuses who believe that holy water cures cancer; internet linguistic savants and impressive Biblical scholars who believe that Fox News is the best cable news; theistic creative artistic geniuses who believe that missiles struck the WTC; brilliant atheistic engineers who believe that an unregulated free market would maximize respect for human rights. Smart and stupid inevitably take up residence in same skull, to at least some degree. Once the multi-dimensional aspects of human thought and action are taken seriously, it becomes pretty silly to continue talking about some single phenomenon of "intelligence" that could co-vary with one's religious conviction.

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

I am afraid that you just don't understand what I am saying. And until you make the effort and learn enough statistics to understand it then any further discussion is pointless. But you are of course free to "believe" anything you like.

Well, then perhaps somebody else (who is less biased) can explain it to me? It really shouldn't be that difficult if, in fact you are trying to make a point.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Seven of Nine

Frankly, I've never really understood why theists have to fuss over how to reconcile scientific facts with their supernatural beliefs, and didn't realize how many do until I became disabled and began taking part in internet community life.

However, since it was my field of study, I did notice early on that a surprising number of Christians seem to experience a lot cognitive dissonance regarding psychology.
For example, I spoke to one young man at length who was an undergraduate in psychology at a local Southern Baptist Bible college, precisely because he wouldn't have to read any primary sources there: he expected his instructors present the material to him, cleansed of any non-Christian 'impurities' (sort of like human Brita filters), and he certainly wasn't going to learn any neurobiology there. He seemed to understand his education would be inferior, but it didn't bother him at all, because he wanted so much to be protected from any direct contact with the writings of Freud, Jung, et al.

Does that strike you as at all creepy? Because it does me.
Imagine, if you will, an English poetry major who doesn't actually want to read any Byron, Keats, Shelly, or Eliot. *The theme from the Twilight Zone plays*

From what I have seen this "Christian" whitewash of reality is across the board including poetry. The current administration is full of "graduates" of "Christian" schools and we can all see the results. Draw your own conclusions in regards to "Christian" and intelligence.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Iacchus

Well, then perhaps somebody else can (who is less biased) can explain it to me? It really shouldn't be that difficult if, in fact you are trying to make a point.

There are many fine websites that cover the topic. Just use google. Go find out for yourself. It is very unreasonable of you to require that anyone that makes a point must educated you with the background needed in order for you to understand it. Take some responsibility for something!

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by Clutch Munny

What this doesn't mean is that the smartest atheists are smarter than the smartest theists, of course.

Which, of course, suggests that this intelligence nonsense doesn't amount to anything.

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

There are many fine websites that cover the topic. Just use google. Go find out for yourself.

That's okay, I'm sure someone could just as easily come up with an explanation here. In fact, it would probably be better if they did, so that we can all understand what you're talking about, as I'm sure I'm not the only one.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Iacchus

That's okay, I'm sure someone could just as easily come up with an explanation here. In fact, it would probably be better if they did, so that we can all understand what you're talking about, as I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Some topics are beyond the format of a general discussion board and take more effort than simply reading and responding to a few posts.

[Seven of Nine]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

From what I have seen this "Christian" whitewash of reality is across the board including poetry. The current administration is full of "graduates" of "Christian" schools and we can all see the results. Draw your own conclusions in regards to "Christian" and intelligence.

Although I agree that an inferior education does nothing to develop ones intelligence, you appear to be speaking of a certain subset of Christians as though they're representative of all of us when they're a minority, (albeit a vocal one).

[Iacchus]

Actually, I think with n.a., that is, if you've had any discourse with him at all, anyone that has even the inkling of the supernatural fits the bill. This is why I think he is so quick to discount the 40% of scientists who are members of the AAAS ... because they are just as stupid or lame-brained as any other supernaturalist.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Seven of Nine

Although I agree that an inferior education does nothing to develop ones intelligence, you appear to be speaking of a certain subset of Christians as though they're representative of all of us when they're a minority, (albeit a vocal one).

Does it matter when they are in control of the government? And how do you explain that happening in a so-called democracy? It is not as if they hid their agenda.

[MonCapitan2002]

Originally Posted by Iacchus

Which, of course, suggests that this intelligence nonsense doesn't amount to anything.

Pretty much. It really doesn't matter how intelligent a person is. All people on this rock ball are capable of monumental stupidity in one form or another.

[ZEZOZE]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

I just can't imagine anything useful that springs from it so it doesn't really seem worth saying.

maybe not for you, but it is said for the same reason people are told they are special for believing in god.

just another example of the atheist religious mindset...not applicable to all...but most.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Iacchus

Actually, I think with n.a., that is, if you've had any discourse with him at all, anyone that has even the inkling of the supernatural fits the bill. This is why I think he is so quick to discount the 40% of scientists who are members of the AAAS ... because they are just as stupid or lame-brained as any other supernaturalist.

Not exactly but close enough. If I thought that the best way to account for reality was using god then the very last career I would consider would be science. So yes, there are members in AAAS that make one wonder about their intelligence.

[yguy]

Originally Posted by Clutch Munny

To become a self-identifying atheist is usually a conscious decision about what to believe, and why.

That might explain a lot, since the decision making process is inimical to the truth seeking process.

Once you realize the truth, there is no decision to be made unless you egotistically desire to stand over that truth rather than under it, either by rejecting it or by unconsciously harboring the conceit that you make it true by believing it.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by yguy

That might explain a lot, since the decision making process is inimical to the truth seeking process.

Once you realize the truth, there is no decision to be made unless you egotistically desire to stand over that truth rather than under it, either by rejecting it or by unconsciously harboring the conceit that you make it true by believing it.

Which "truth" is that? That a being is beaming thoughts into your head at night and making you think that demons are attacking you?

Some of us think that "truth" is just another nosensical presumption of reality brought to us by the historical religious/philosophical complex.

[ZEZOZE]

if you take the time to deny the being, you create one in the process.

the only non-religious atheist is one that keeps their mouth closed on the subject of god.

[yguy]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Which "truth" is that? That a being is beaming thoughts into your head at night and making you think that demons are attacking you?

Some of us think that "truth" is just another nosensical presumption of reality brought to us by the historical religious/philosophical complex.

Swell. If there is no truth, then neither are there any lies - or illusions, delusions, misconceptions or the like.

So enjoy.

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Not exactly but close enough. If I thought that the best way to account for reality was using god then the very last career I would consider would be science. So yes, there are members in AAAS that make one wonder about their intelligence.

Meaning, the ones that are religious, correct?

[beyelzu]

Originally Posted by InTheServiceOfZeke

if you take the time to deny the being, you create one in the process.

the only non-religious atheist is one that keeps their mouth closed on the subject of god.

You really need to turn on a fan, clear out that haze of smoke and look up some of these terms you throw about, all willy nilly.

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by InTheServiceOfZeke

if you take the time to deny the being, you create one in the process.

the only non-religious atheist is one that keeps their mouth closed on the subject of god.

Yea.