Religion didn't spread morality, oh wait, yes it did.

Can you provide some links to these studies?

Keep in mind that just because something is labeled "science" or "research study" doesn't mean it's any good. There is plenty of junk research around -- studies can be made to prove whatever the researcher wants them to prove. If you haven't already read the book "How to Lie with Statistics", I would strongly recommend it.

 

If he was saying that all christians were thick then it would be abusive and untrue. There are obviously christians who have high IQs, that doesn't change anything because there is a general consensus on both sides that a high IQ guarantees nothing. However, he is talking about studies that show a general trend, and have been published in reputable peer reviewed journals. If there is a general trend as indicated by the evidence cited so far that shows people who believe in God tend to be grouped around the lower end of the IQ spectrum then it does have a direct bearing on the content of the debate and is not being personally abusive to anyone. I am sure that there have been plenty of studies done to refute this claim, I can't see it being ignored by christian academics. Why not just debate the point with him instead of coming in so heavy handed using your moderator status.

 

yep, but you gotta ask how is that standard of intelligence derived.

I think what you'll find its just a question of education and not indoctranation.

and uneducated does not mean unintelligent.

These things are far from clear cut, I don't care what tests you site, unless you analyze a persons beleifs you will never know.

 

I've been subjected to professional IQ tests on numerous occasions for various reasons... education has very little to do with them. They test your mental capabilities from many many angles. The only areas where education came in to play at all was in some mathematics... which required merely grade school knowledge, and in the knowledge section, which was a very minor part of the test.

 

Fantasise? I didn't even consider your friend, just pointed out that logically you can't disprove God, by nature you can't apply logic to directly disprove it. Nothing to do with you or your friend.

On an unrelated note about IQ tests, a proper IQ test in my eyes will assume no prior knowledge (ie. no word comparison tests) and be based on innate ability. The last IQ test I did asked me to assemble in my head some ridiculously complex unfolded shapes and tell which one out of a selection could be assembled into a shown shape. You can't really revise for things like this.

As for this IQ and religion correlation, I think what it implies is that people with a higher IQ are more likely to abandon their religion. But much more indepth studies need to be done. Political correctness would no doubt get in the way though.

 

On the other hand though I could understand how groups came to be that way inclined, through an examination of their beliefs and how they came to be.

I don't think that would be too easy, now would it
Unfortunately it is an extremely sticky subject. Sometimes I think what the hell?

There are so many words with religious connotations like faith and morality for example.

Maybe it does take a leap to figure out the trick..

Words lie, numbers don't.

Why rely on words and language written as testament to events that for the most part are either false or unverifiable, mixed in with wisdom and spun into a wonderful.. to define yourself.

why not base it on something a lot more real?
That is why I have absolutely no problem with someone beleiving in higher intelligence or super beings. But 1 omnipotent Creator? nope.

God = design, not designer.

And anyway to subsribe any notion of having any knowledge of such things other than 'feelings' expressed in made up words is ridiculous.

God can be nothing else but the Universe we live in.

IMHO this is a small description of the design.

Fibonacci is a proven “golden ratio” that balances everything...
from sunflowers seeds to Forex!

You see, the special ratio Fibonacci discovered is in the proportion of everything from the tiniest building block of all—atoms—to quite literally...the universe of heaven and earth. It’s nature’s wisdom to maintain balance and order.

Scientists know it. So do naturalists and mathematicians. But it isn’t just the sequence of the numbers, it’s the actual ratio (sometimes called the “golden ratio” or “divine proportion”) that is so stunningly accurate. Fact is, the universe is smarter than all of us and doesn’t make mistakes.

The beautiful complexity is this. The golden ratio of 1.618 has a fundamental function everywhere in nature!

Here’s what I mean...

Take the common sunflower for example. Have you noticed its opposing spirals of seeds? There’s a 1.618 ratio between the diameter of each rotation.

A peek into a beehive would show you that the number of female bees divided by the male bees would be 1.618.

Need something easier to measure then a swarm of angry bees? Try this and discover how you measure up. First measure head to toe. Then divide by the distance from belly button to feet. And if that’s still not enough for you, measure from shoulder to fingertips. Then divide that number by the length from your elbow to fingertips.

You’ll quickly see the fascinating truth emerge over and over. The timeless “divine proportion” in the area of 1.618 seems to be unavoidable.

God(life & the universe) is a design based on numbers, and 'she' is everywhere. Some places may well be obscured..

Anyone for cubes?

 

yep, but did it test your belief and how you got it? if not, what exactly does it really prove? Does it test age, experiences and other myriad things that can be a factor. The conclusion I would draw from those studies is probably abit different to yours. No worries - I was just raising some points about it certainly your view may be a factor - not sure about if it means anything significant if it is bang on info.

 

For all you taoists out there,

" the tao which is the true tao cannot be spoken"
" To be is to do"

-Tao Te Ching

Numbers do without the need to be spoken. Only words are spoken, numbers and their values are communicated, words can only be created by man.
Funny how you have no problem bartering with a foreigner. Most meaningful communication is non verbal anyway.

 

Atheism?

I don't understand how anyone can be a serious atheist. I can easily understand how someone can be an agnostic--that is to say, "I don't know," but how can you say categorically that there is no god? I can understand saying, "I don't like organized religion," or "organized religion ends up doing more harm than good," but this isn't evidence for the non-existence of god, it's evidence for the fallability of man. To say "I'm certain there is no god," is like saying, "I'm certain there is no life on other planets." There may not be any clear evidence to the contrary, but you also have no way to rule out the possibility.

I agree that religion has often been used as a simple way to tell the simple-minded why they can't just do whatever they want so long as they can get away with it--aka the opiate of the masses... This in no way indicates, however, that religion is only for the simple-minded. I actually wouldn't be surprised if the statistic that as IQ increases percentage of religious devotees decreases. This doesn't mean, however, that this trend is necessarily pointing in the direction of the truth. I bet that as IQ goes up so too does the rate of suicide.

The reason people are doubtful of the morality of atheists is because if there is no objective truth there can be no objective standard for right and wrong. And if you're an atheist but believe in objective truth, then where does that truth come from?

 

What really made me laugh in this thread was the text underneath Thaiboxers original post saying Aikimac edited the post; 'Reason; suggestion of molesting boys removed'.

I don't know why but this just made me laugh for ages.

In order to be even slightly on topic i'd like to just bring up the 'Chaos theory', the idea that if the universe is infinite then everything that could exist does exist. And, if our 'equation' or whatever is the only one that could result in life (as someone said earlier), then it was bound to occur eventually, leaving us all to sit round thinking 'wow what a coincidence we exist'. This might have been mentioned earlier but i didn't read all of the dozen or so pages of this debate. What do people think about this?

 

Proof of that is that almost nothing meaningful is ever discussed on this forum.

 

Huh, not at all. What I stated and all I stated if you read my post is that there is a correlation, which is a conclusion which has been drawn by dozens and dozens of studies time and time again. I never stated, intelligent people don't believe in God. I never stated people with low IQ's believe in god. All i stated was a truth that there is a correlation, which is not only true, but I also provided evidence for this earlier in the thread. How does that constitute a warning? All I did was present an empirical, statistical trend, along with the evidence from which it was drawn.

 

What it displays is the level of one's cognitive capacity... the level of one's intelligence. The IQ tests had nothing to do with faith, I don't see what you're saying... it was simply a measure of the mind. Yes btw, age is factored in.

 

You're bordering on labelling all theists "unintelligent," and I won't stand for that. It would be a TOS 4.3 violation. This is your second warning. Don't go down that road.

Boardering on isnt actually violating anyway now is it..

 

Hey, that's not chaos theory. Chaos theory is extreme sensitivity to initial conditions - rendering our ability to predict accurately null.

 

Values, honestly constructed ones.

 

Fair comment, and agreed.

Still, comparing, measuring and testing can still be meaningful. Like the early taoist writers I am distrustful of words..
But that is not to say they cannot communicate anything meaningful, or be constructed in a useful way now and again

 

Ahh a measure of the mind, hmm..excuse me for being a teeny tad skeptical. The mind is notoriously difficult to measure - wouldn't you agree?

I'm sorry if you don't see what I am saying - I can only go by my own experience. When I took an IQ test, I found that the things tested to be fairly spurious and non meaningful. eg. I am probably either marginally above or below average. So what?

My sister is a pshychologist, who has had more experience in these things, and expressed that if you continued to practice and take the MENSA IQ tests this part of the functioning of brain would improve as would your score.

I prefer to base my need and other peoples to 'seek' as nothing more than a requisite for comfort and tranquility that may be born in adversity or other myriad things. Do you consider high intelligence a requisite to honestly examine ones beliefs? Does your capability for mental aerobics change this? I don't in particular... I am just not a big fan of stereotyping and the conclusion of IQ = intelligence = less inclined to belief is a rather spurious one - but I accept and take on board the sliver of 'truth' that can be garnered from these empirical studies - OK!! Thank you for bringing them to light. Prime example: Einstein - probably the smartest guy ever? maybe.. just unprepared to 'ring his own sponge' perhaps?

Maybe finding an alternative that fits, is harder than abandoning those a person has already come to value. I have experienced myself the difficulty in accepting/trying to abandon certain 'modes of thought' :Angel: . There is really no simple test to measure these things. Or maybe there is, I just havn't seen one yet of the type you are talking about. Then there is the powerful intoxicant of 'group thinking' - the madness of crowds - our prediliction to be a part of/ fit in with our social group. Does you IQ test measure this too??

So OK I take your point, but please take mine that these things are far from clear cut.

...Geo steps away from the middle of the road.

 

Would you agree that your beliefs can only be justified (and thus become certain knowledge) by appeal to empirical evidence - what we percieve - or by abstract, a priori (has no basis in experiance) reasoning (e.g. 2+2=4)? This appears to be the only two ways I can think of (aside from synthetic a priori knowledge).

And if you agree then anything that can be justified by appeal to your senses or alternatively abstract reasoning must be true.

God can not be justified by either.

Anything that cannot be justified by appeal to senses or abstract reasoning cannot be said to be true. It is belief, but not justified, not true and not knowledge.

Therefore I am atheist because there is absolutely nothing that can justify the existence of god.

First lets deal with appeal to experiance...

Claiming that god exists because no one can disprove it is lke claiming that you live with a minotaur that only reveals himself when he wants to (and conveniently this is only when you are about). You might claim it is absolute truth, challenging people to disprove it - which they cannot do. However this does not mean that it is true at all.

A thing is not true if it cannot be disproved. For something (theory X) to be a contingent truth it needs to be testable in an environment where we could envisage a factor that could falsify it (factor Y). If this factor Y occurs then it disproves X.

The existence of god can have no basis in experiance as it is inconcievable that the falsifying factor could occur.

Now lets turn to a priori reasoning - idependant from experiance.

There is no way god can be proven via this method. If you can do then I challenge you to do it.

Therefore since theism is unprovable it can only be a point of faith. No religious person can claim (with regards to their religion) "I am right", they can only claim "I believe myself to be right". Agnostics can admit there is a possibility god exists in the same way that the minotaur you live with might exist. Atheists claim that unless it can be proven to be true via one of the two ways mentionned then it can be considered false.

As to your analogy about life on other planets - its bad. We have percieved these other planets, we have percieved that we ourselves are on a planet, we have percieved that the universe is infinite in size (or as good as for all practical purposes). Therefore it is a logical possibility that life on other planets exists. We can never experiance god, we can never prove god a priori. The belief is singularly absurd.

Perhaps theists should acknowledge this and claim this is what gives it life, flavour and meaning.