Can Of Worms Status: Opened; Liberalism & Atheism Linked to Higher IQs

OutlawPete

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Indeed, that does make me super-dooper smart. :<

But then, you also Mod the Cuckoo's Nest ..

Sooo, kinda balances out

kraggy

I'm just wondering how the worms were in the can in the first place.

Kasabian

Is hell full of smart people? :P

Tar.Aldarion

OutlawPete wrote: »

But then, you also Mod the Cuckoo's Nest ..

Sooo, kinda balances out

But then again, I mod the Spell Czechs...which makes me more of a cock...and therefore sexually ambiguous. :P

bigeasyeah

All Im gonna say is Ireland won the rugby and Im not wearing any pants.

smegmar

atheist -________________check
liberal -_________________check
vegetarian -_____________check
not wearing pants -_______check
post in cuckoos nest -_____no

I've never had an IQ test, but it's looking good.

/smug

Tar.Aldarion

smegmar wrote: »

atheist -________________check
liberal -_________________check
vegetarian -_____________check
not wearing pants -_______check
post in cuckoos nest -_____no

I've never had an IQ test, but it's looking good.

/smug

Haha exactly the same as me!


1. I should post in the forum I mod
2. Who needs pants anyway?

Mrmoe

Does it really matter who has a higher IQ? This study serves no purpose.

Pompey Magnus

Millicent wrote: »

It's really not! :P

Sure it is. Atheism just means a person having no god, unless you are an agnostic who does worship God/gods then you fit the bill as an atheist.

People seem to miss the subtle difference between not believing there is a God (which all agnostics and many atheists fall under) compared to believing there is no God (which some atheists fall under).

Millicent

Charco wrote: »

Sure it is. Atheism just means a person having no god, unless you are an agnostic who does worship God/gods then you fit the bill as an atheist.

People seem to miss the subtle difference between not believing there is a God (which all agnostics and many atheists fall under) compared to believing there is no God (which some atheists fall under).

Word History: An agnostic does not deny the existence of God and heaven but holds that one cannot know for certain whether or not they exist. The term agnostic was fittingly coined by the 19th-century British scientist Thomas H. Huxley, who believed that only material phenomena were objects of exact knowledge. He made up the word from the prefix a-, meaning "without, not," as in amoral, and the noun Gnostic. Gnostic is related to the Greek word gnsis, "knowledge," which was used by early Christian writers to mean "higher, esoteric knowledge of spiritual things"; hence, Gnostic referred to those with such knowledge. In coining the term agnostic, Huxley was considering as "Gnostics" a group of his fellow intellectuals"ists," as he called themwho had eagerly embraced various doctrines or theories that explained the world to their satisfaction. Because he was a "man without a rag of a label to cover himself with," Huxley coined the term agnostic for himself, its first published use being in 1870.

That describes me much better than your definition. It's not believing there is a God but not disbelieving either.

PeakOutput

Riddle101 wrote: »

Bullsh!t. You can be religous and still have a high IQ or higher then an Atheist. This thread proves nothing but people's arrogance in thinking they're smarter then people who are religous.

he didnt say you cant be religous and intelligent he just said on average atheists are more intelligent than theists

he also didnt say you cant be intelligent if you are very left or very right politically


edit; yes agnostic is someone who isnt sure either way and is willing to be persuaded either way if the evidence swings one way or the other. an atheist is someone who believes there is definitely no god of any sort

Forest Master

Riddle101 wrote: »

We all tend to be cautious about what we read.

Yeah, imagine believing everything you read! Especially a book full of tall tales, mysticism, scare mongering & make-believe! Who, I ask, would have an IQ low enough to blindly believe all that?

Kasabian

The Passion of the Christ in on RTE Two.

partyatmygaff

42.7 percent of all statistics are made up on the spot.

I can almost guarantee that this "study" was carried out by atheist. Had the results been the other way around it probably would not have been published. It's not too hard to skew statistics to suit yourself. Keep adding samples until the results suit your agenda. Besides all of that, IQ is not an accurate way to measure intelligence.

PeakOutput

partyatmygaff wrote: »

42.7 percent of all statistics are made up on the spot.

I can almost guarantee that this "study" was carried out by atheist. Had the results been the other way around it probably would not have been published. It's not too hard to skew statistics to suit yourself. Keep adding samples until the results suit your agenda. Besides all of that, IQ is not an accurate way to measure intelligence.

London School of Economics and Political Science

i think you should research what that college is like before presuming any bias's

he did not conduct the study that got the data so he had no way to maipulate them to suit his views he simply examined the data and published the facts

The study looked at a large sample from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), which began with adolescents in grades 7-12 in the United States during the 1994-95 school year. The participants were interviewed as 18- to 28-year-olds from 2001 to 2002. The study also looked at the General Social Survey, another cross-national data collection source.

he is pretty balanced if you actually bother to read the article one point that i believe is very true that he makes is

Bailey also said that these preferences may stem from a desire to show superiority or elitism, which also has to do with IQ. In fact, aligning oneself with "unconventional" philosophies such as liberalism or atheism may be "ways to communicate to everyone that you're pretty smart," he said.

lugha

PeakOutput wrote: »

edit; yes agnostic is someone who isnt sure either way and is willing to be persuaded either way if the evidence swings one way or the other. an atheist is someone who believes there is definitely no god of any sort

I am an atheist and I don't believe that!:) An atheist simply does not find the evidence for a God sufficiently compelling to so believe. I don't know any atheist who would say there is definitely no God (without at least qualifying it with "almost")
And I would also quibble with your notion of an agnostic. I would say such an animal holds the view that we are not equipped to answer the "Is there a God question".
I'm not sure if there any particular name for the "not sures"?

PeakOutput

lugha wrote: »

I am an atheist and I don't believe that!:) An atheist simply does not find the evidence for a God sufficiently compelling to so believe. I don't know any atheist who would say there is definitely no God (without at least qualifying it with "almost")
And I would also quibble with your notion of an agnostic. I would say such an animal holds the view that we are not equipped to answer the "Is there a God question".
I'm not sure if there any particular name for the "not sures"?

well its been a while since i read dawkins and thats where i read about it so i could have changed it over time to suit me no doubt

i would have thought the atheists are sure that there is no god but agnostics are not sure either way but definitely dont believe in any religon

either way its not a massive difference imo i can never decide which one i am sometimes i cant believe there is an possibility of a god and sometimes i think there could be a supreme being of some sort so ill admit to be ing confused

Millicent

lugha wrote: »

I am an atheist and I don't believe that!:) An atheist simply does not find the evidence for a God sufficiently compelling to so believe. I don't know any atheist who would say there is definitely no God (without at least qualifying it with "almost")

I know plenty of atheists who say there is definitely no God and anyone who believes there is one is deluded.

lugha wrote: »

And I would also quibble with your notion of an agnostic. I would say such an animal holds the view that we are not equipped to answer the "Is there a God question".
I'm not sure if there any particular name for the "not sures"?

How about just calling ourselves open to change? Seems that might be a good answer to the "not sures". Although Huxley's definition does hold that no one can know for certain (as in it can't be proven) so agnostic is apt, IMO.

Pompey Magnus

Millicent wrote: »

How about just calling ourselves open to change? Seems that might be a good answer to the "not sures". Although Huxley's definition does hold that no one can know for certain (as in it can't be proven) so agnostic is apt, IMO.

Are you "agnostic" to the possibility of leprechauns also?

Tar.Aldarion

Well you just met one lugna. I don't believe one exists because there is no such thing that could exist to me that could be called a 'god', as opposed to some powerful entity. Could what people conventionally call a god exist? Possibly, the question doesn't matter to me. The Abrahamic god/s may want worship indeed, most people view that as a picture of a 'god' around these parts, but that god is rather undeserving to me.


In general, there is an infinite class of objects with no proof against their existence, which most of us would say we know doesn't exist. One atheistic towards unicorns, dragons, sauron, teacups orbiting the milkyway breathing fire... without any proof, is one not?

Let's take vampires for a moment. I don't believe vampires exist.
Can I prove it - in a technical 'philosophical sense' - No. So what do I mean when I say "I don't believe that vampires exist" ? To me it means I'm going to behave and act as if the statement is true. So I'm taking no precautions against vampires in my daily life. No garlic or holy water above my head. I don't spend time trying to find them, I don't look for the latest research.

Because I cannot absolutely disprove their existence, I'm supposed to be classified as agnostic on the existence vampires?
Well fine, but then we I need a new term for those who act is their lives as if vampires may exist. Those who might consider garlic above their bed "just in case", who read non-fiction books about vampires, and generally live their lives as I would describe 'Unsure whether vampires exist'.

There are a lot of things we are technically agnostic on, but functionally atheist. A god is just another, just as you would not believe in any Earthly religion without evidence for or against.

There is a lack of empirical evidence for the existence of deities, and the ridiculous things mentioned above. Why entertain a belief in one, and not another? If someone uses the 'can't disprove' argument (for god) then it seems reasonable to point out the same argument can be applied in defence of any silly belief.

Why abandon common sense for scientific imperialism?
Solipsism is pointless. If you had been brought up in a world of atheists you would find the idea of a god as ridiculous as a train falling on your head right now, yet both have very little evidence against them.

However if somebody seems to define god as something which is just powerful, a god could certainly exist to them, but it would just be a powerful being to other people.

Most atheistic philosophers and groups define atheism as the simple absence of belief in deities. I do not strongly disbelieve in superman, I have a lack of belief in him, such as with a god. As is said, atheism is a belief if not collecting stamps is a hobby.

If I went back in time and used technology of today, people might believe I'm a 'god', but I am not, I'm just using a piece of technology.
They think I am a god because I am so much more powerful than them that they could only see that as a possibility. The same applies for people now and something that may have created the universe.

There is always a confusion between 'godlike' and 'God'. Advanced aliens might have powers that we considered godlike - as they say, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic to the primitive. They might even have created us. So what?

Only if we choose to bow down and worship them are we setting them up as Gods - a fallacy exactly equivalent to a remote tribe worshipping a Western explorer because of the latter's technology.

If we advance to a point where we can create a universe etc, become immortal, not have to obey the laws of physics, 'ascend' as it were, would we become gods? I'd go with no.

It''s like if there was no hell in the christian faith, nothing bad happens if they do not worship.
How many would?
Throw in a 'worship me or you are ****ed' and a lot of people will do it.



Blasphemy, the victimless crime :pac:

Millicent

Charco wrote: »

Are you "agnostic" to the possibility of leprechauns also?

Sure, why not? I'm not so arrogant as to assume that what I believe to be proven or correct is the absolute truth. I'm also not so arrogant as to attempt to patronise anyone who I think is not on the same wavelength as me... twice.

Intothesea

lugha wrote: »

I'm not sure if there any particular name for the "not sures"?

Humans

For me, agnosticism is the state of failing to take any issue with the core 'magical' beliefs of any religion. If it cannot be absolutely known, it must be irrelevant.
This undecided state is required due to the nature of man's limitations on one side, and his unerring ability to see incomplete proof of a creative (read: loving)
force on the other.

As for the study results, adolescents are inherently at the deciding crossroads of who and what they are in life. Presumably the smarter of them in general will scope
out their path to individualistic freedom through rejection of the established and 'trying out' the new and exciting. I'd like to see the orientations of the same
group 20 years from now, for evidence of moderation

dublin 16 lad

Riddle101 wrote: »

We all tend to be cautious about what we read.

Obviously not in your case anyway!

lugha

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Well you just met one lugna. I don't believe one exists because there is no such thing that could exist to me that could be called a 'god', as opposed to some powerful entity. Could what people conventionally call a god exist? Possibly, the question doesn't matter to me. The Abrahamic god/s may want worship indeed, most people view that as a picture of a 'god' around these parts, but that god is rather undeserving to me.

For a post which set out to make the case the God definitely does not exist, it didn't begin particularly well!

But it does pick up thereafter and I think I get the general nub of your gist, although I am a little confused as to your understanding of a God as opposed to a "powerful" entity. Broadly your argument seems to be that it is no more reasonable to be agnostic to a God that it is to be agnostic to vampires and the like. To this I say three things.

1. There are many people who vehemently insist that they are agnostic and not atheist, and presumably they don't the need to make this distinction for the likes of vampires and unicorns. That would suggest there is something a little different about the God question, and I think there is (see below)

2. We can often provide a fairly full and convincing explanation for the likes of vampires and unicorns. They come from the fiction of Bram Stroker and Greek (?) folklore respectively. We cannot as yet give a convincing and comprehensive explanation as to why belief in a God emerges independently in almost all cultures. Nor can we explain why someone like Isaac Newton, who perhaps more than almost any other scientist, was able to set aside any acquired prejudice and thus make staggering inroads in understanding how our world works, "wasted" considerable time looking for truth in the bible.

3. The most critical difference for me is that an all powerful God had made the world, then he (?) might have simply made a design decision not to leave any evidence of his handy work. It has been suggested that eventually we will be able to build computers powerful enough to simulate anything we have in the real world, including the sense of conscience and awareness than we all have. Perhaps someone already has. We may all be just an amusing diversion for some nerdy teenager. His mother might call him down for his tea any millennium now, and that will be the end of us! I cannot think of any meaningful way to assign a probability to this being true so therefore I cannot think it is reasonable to say it is definitely not true. It is something that almost certainty will happen (unless we self destruct as race), the question is, has it already?

partyatmygaff

dublin 16 lad wrote: »

Obviously not in your case anyway!

Arrogant much?

liah

lugha wrote: »

We cannot as yet give a convincing and comprehensive explanation as to why belief in a God emerges independently in almost all cultures.

In fairness, yes, yes we can.

Most religions have been around for centuries or millennia (with the obvious exception of scientology) or at least had their basic foundations therewithin. Note that most major religions came prior to most large scientific breakthroughs. Why is this?

Simple.

Early civilizations didn't understand the origins of basic things like rain, fire, thunder, the sun, droughts, wind, plant growth, animals, emotions. Obviously these things were present in all cultures, which explains why religions can be found all over the globe. They understood that they could create things (shelter, clothing, weaponry), so of course the logical step for them was to think there was a larger Creator. "Man was created in the image of God" is the quote, but it's far more likely it was the reverse. They used this "Creator" to explain away the origins of these things because humans are inherently curious beings, and require explanations. This explanation theory is fairly evident in the ancient Egyptian, Greek, and Roman religions where there were gods for pretty much everything-- the elements, fertility, war, the sun, the moon, etc.

Once the idea of a god was harnessed it was an incredibly effective means of controlling people. If you say that if they don't cooperate they're going to be smote, chances are they're going to do what you want them to do, moreso than if some lowly human just like the rest of us had made the same demands. With a god on one's side, one can get away with many things via manipulation (see: The Crusades, Inquisition, WWII, etc).

Perhaps there would be a grain of truth in the whole religion matter if the entire globe had settled on one idea without interacting with each other, but they didn't. All religions are massively different (despite, obviously, the theme of a god), and imo, that points to the fact that it's most likely false and simply found its beginnings in the imagination of man rather than signs from a true god, gods, or creator.

Capt'n Midnight

GaNjaHaN wrote: »

To elaborate on this point with an example:
Statistically, Irish people abuse alcohol more than Swedish people. That doesn't imply that all Irish people abuse alcohol. It doesn't imply that there are no alcoholics in Sweden. What it means is that if you randomly select an Irish person and a Swedish person, the Irish person is more likely to be an alcoholic.

Ireland used to have one of the highest rates of people who abstain from alcohol , may still do.

So the chances are if you pick a Swede and an Irish person the Irish person is more likely to be a tea totaler

IQ tests don't measure intelligence. Cultural differences or having a bad day could easily affect your test rest by more than the difference in the survey.



Were the results by the left hand edge of the bell curve ?
does it show correlation between lower IQ and religion or is it just an average - remember most people have more than the average number of legs

Tar.Aldarion

lugha wrote: »

For a post which set out to make the case the God definitely does not exist, it didn't begin particularly well!

Sure it does.

1. I don't believe one exists - because one can't exist to me. It's a 'parodoxical' term perhaps.

2 A christian god could possibly exist - What people call a god may exist, but it is not a god to me. Simply soemthing that is more advanced than we are. Just because something made a universe doesn't make it a 'god' to me.

But it does pick up thereafter and I think I get the general nub of your gist, although I am a little confused as to your understanding of a God as opposed to a "powerful" entity.

Basically, it sums up as a god can not exist, the term is meaningless.

1. There are many people who vehemently insist that they are agnostic and not atheist,

Technically I am agnostic to everything, and anybody should be, but functionally atheist to some things.

2. We can often provide a fairly full and convincing explanation for the likes of vampires and unicorns. They come from the fiction of Bram Stroker and Greek (?) folklore respectively.

Focusing on specific examples is missing the point. I'm jsut using familiar ones to try and get a point across. I am aware of how one could go about trying to give a case for the non existence of these things...and could also see the case for somebody saying, well maybe Mr. Stoker made something up that is true completely coincidentally, who knows?

Specific examples don't matter, it's the infinite class of entities of things that could exist.

We cannot as yet give a convincing and comprehensive explanation as to why belief in a God emerges independently in almost all cultures.

I don't think it's a hard thing to guess at - You can’t explain the existence of something, so you believe something powerful...a 'god' did it. Lots of possible reasons that I don't think matter much, fear of death, comfort..putting a reason on something so that things fit in place..doesn't really matter too much. What you are saying is that it might possibly be so, because it is true? I don't find it likely myself. Sometimes people want something so much it comes true for them, I want there to be a heaven, there probably isn't and so on.

Nor can we explain why someone like Isaac Newton, who perhaps more than almost any other scientist, was able to set aside any acquired prejudice and thus make staggering inroads in understanding how our world works, "wasted" considerable time looking for truth in the bible.

People are fallible, he was a smart man, many great scientists are religious..he would probably be the first to say that because he believed in something doesn't make it more or less true, being wise is knowing that you are not.

As for why he or any such person believed it in the first place, if I had to guess, education, culture, wanting to feel a meaning, a purpose; it could be anything. Even though such men set aside a lot of bias and cultural conditioning, you can't just set aside it all. He was a great man but what great men think doesn't hold much water as to whether they are right or not. He was jsut working towards what finding out what is right. Him being vegetarian like me doesn't make me feel he was any more right or wrong than joe soap, him beleivign in god unlike me does not make me feel that was any more right or wrong than joe soap.

3. The most critical difference for me is that an all powerful God had made the world, then he (?) might have simply made a design decision not to leave any evidence of his handy work. It has been suggested that eventually we will be able to build computers powerful enough to simulate anything we have in the real world, including the sense of conscience and awareness than we all have. Perhaps someone already has. We may all be just an amusing diversion for some nerdy teenager. His mother might call him down for his tea any millennium now, and that will be the end of us! I cannot think of any meaningful way to assign a probability to this being true so therefore I cannot think it is reasonable to say it is definitely not true. It is something that almost certainty will happen (unless we self destruct as race), the question is, has it already?

Dinners ready. :eek:

dublin 16 lad

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Arrogant much?

Can't take a joke much?

partyatmygaff

dublin 16 lad wrote: »

Can't take a joke much?

Then that was a pretty bad joke.

dublin 16 lad

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Then that was a pretty bad joke.

A bad joke? In after hours? No way!

Lighten up for GODS sake!

*Gets coat*

PeakOutput

IQ tests don't measure intelligence. Cultural differences or having a bad day could easily affect your test rest by more than the difference in the survey.

in this case though the sample was all from the same culture (a westernised one) over a long period of time and with a large sample group

it just an average - remember most people have more than the average number of legs

its just an average and remember most people have lower than average intelligence

PeakOutput

i find it very interesting that people are all hung up on the atheism part of the study and dont care about the political conclusion

Helix

Riddle101 wrote: »

Bullsh!t. You can be religous and still have a high IQ or higher then an Atheist. This thread proves nothing but people's arrogance in thinking they're smarter then people who are religous.

anyone else feel this lends some weight to the article?

partyatmygaff

dublin 16 lad wrote: »

A bad joke? In after hours? No way!

Lighten up for GODS sake!

*Gets coat*

*cringe*

:pac:

Genghiz Cohen

dublin 16 lad wrote: »

A bad joke? In after hours? No way!

Lighten up for GODS sake!

*Gets coat*

...christ...

*Asks dublin 16 lad to hold the door.*

lugha

liah wrote: »

In fairness, yes, yes we can.

Your explanation isn't comprehensive. Is doesn't explain why there are many extraordinary intelligent people who do profess a belief in God. Surely they could see these Gods of the gaps throughout history, and would dismiss their own God along with all the others as readily as they would dismiss any other discredited knowledge. But they don't, Newton being a very telling example. And I don't buy the suggestion that he had a (rather substantial!) blind spot.

kryogen

higher IQ for not believing in mythical figures and not believing homosexuals are evil? sounds about right to me

common sense in fact

partyatmygaff

kryogen wrote: »

higher IQ for not believing in mythical figures and not believing homosexuals are evil? sounds about right to me

common sense in fact

So Isaac Newton (For example) lacked common sense and had a lower than average IQ?

kryogen

partyatmygaff wrote: »

So Isaac Newton (For example) lacked common sense and had a lower than average IQ?

if you apply it to individuals rather then on average

yes, idea thief is all he was sure

why you gotta make it personal man

why


EDIT: i heard he worshipped a frog called sheila anyway

partyatmygaff

kryogen wrote: »

if you apply it to individuals rather then on average

yes, idea thief is all he was sure

why you gotta make it personal man

why


EDIT: i heard he worshipped a frog called sheila anyway

So you're admitting that you're an idea thief then, Isaac?
Physics nuts around the world will never see you the same way again.

kryogen

but if they forgive me i will give them my secret elixer (stolen of course) to keep them young forever like me

Intothesea

Newton possessed both brilliance and humility. For any scientist, part of the response when faced with even a glimpse of the universe's mysterious harmony is to doff your cap to unimaginable creative forces; it's logical and spiritual, or philosophical. Pasteur nailed this with 'a little science distances you from God, but a lot brings you back'.

Turtwig

partyatmygaff wrote: »

So Isaac Newton (For example) lacked common sense and had a lower than average IQ?

Newton was a genius, no one will ever deny that. However, he was also extremely eccentric. He practiced alchemy and was, I believe, heavily interested in the occult. There is also something vital that Lugha has failed to note about many great believers of the past. Universities were controlled mainly by religious institutions and up until around the time of Galileo, the philosophy of using logical deduction to deduce everything suited the Christian Church to the ground so it's not surprising that many of the great scientists of that time also happened to be Christian.

God, is a tricky concept. As far as theology and philosophy goes there is no coherent argument for God's existence. Now, granted, logical reasoning and deduction probably wouldn't have revealed many of the aspects of reality that we know about today from empirical science e.g Quantum Theory. As a concept God's arguments for existence are extremely flawed and filled with logical fallacy after logical fallacy. Now the question becomes why do people believe in such a stoutly flawed concept. The honest answer is that no one actually knows. There could be a God, I mean, what's to say that reasoned logic simply can't deduce His existence, the problem for me though is that many believers even deny these arguments are flawed and there in lies the compartmentalisation problem. God is personal to people, and many people struggle to come to terms with the idea that their own perceptions can be flawed - the whole "Trust your instincts ideas". Our capacity for delusion is so great that I acknowledge my views of reality could be completely delusional, what scares me most is the people who don't.

Now are we ever going to discuss the political side of this study?

Tar.Aldarion

lugha wrote: »

And I don't buy the suggestion that he had a (rather substantial!) blind spot.

So everybody that thinks outside the box of their societal norm with regards this is right, even though they believe different contradicting things?

Duggy747

I could just class this information as "meh!" or I could use it as a pedestal to sit on while I peer down at the rest of you yokels

PeakOutput

lugha wrote: »

Your explanation isn't comprehensive. Is doesn't explain why there are many extraordinary intelligent people who do profess a belief in God. Surely they could see these Gods of the gaps throughout history, and would dismiss their own God along with all the others as readily as they would dismiss any other discredited knowledge. But they don't, Newton being a very telling example. And I don't buy the suggestion that he had a (rather substantial!) blind spot.

thats not hard to explain, not everyone regardless of intelligence will come to the same conclusion when presented with the same information depending on their history and personal experience they will attribute meaning were there is none and take meaning away were there is everyone does this because we are products of our enviroment you will look at the same details that i do but come to different conclusions

on average though, according to this study, more intelligent people come to the conclusion that there is no god than come to the conclusion that there is. by the way the difference is slight in the study it is only around 8 iqpoints

lugha

Malty_T wrote: »

Universities were controlled mainly by religious institutions and up until around the time of Galileo, the philosophy of using logical deduction to deduce everything suited the Christian Church to the ground so it's not surprising that many of the great scientists of that time also happened to be Christian.

Yes, I accept that. I don't think Newton was ever going to be an out and out atheist! But neither did he seem to have private doubts, as presumably (?) Darwin, say, did. I think he spent as much time trying to make sense of the bible as he did doing useful work and I don't think he did this out of obligation to the church controlled universities. But perhpas as you suggest, as well as being brilliant, he was mad as a box of frogs!

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

So everybody that thinks outside the box of their societal norm with regards this is right, even though they believe different contradicting things?

As the little blue man <-- here -- says, confused!

PeakOutPut wrote:

thats not hard to explain, not everyone regardless of intelligence will come to the same conclusion when presented with the same information depending on their history and personal experience they will attribute meaning were there is none and take meaning away were there is everyone does this because we are products of our enviroment you will look at the same details that i do but come to different conclusions

But if this was the explanation then wouldn't you occasionally find some top scientists (and contrary to what some one stated here earlier, there are very few believers in the ranks of the big boys, and rightly so; the two are not compatible) who belived in something that most others would dismiss as nonsense for lack of evidence. But you don't. Have you ever heard a serious scientest say they belived in ghosts, or psychics, or pixies? Religion IS different. Even if they are a minority, scientests with a belief system are tolerated where no other superstition or evidence-less stand point would be.

YourSQL

too bad all atheists are complete and utter ****heads. i suppose thats a trade off, you can get a higher IQ but you have to be more of a ****head to cover up for it. srsly, i havn't met an atheist who wasn't one of the biggest ****heads going.

most of them are just a bunch of yuppies who have an idealistic vision of a futuristic world that involves a lot more government control. a bit like the Greens really

PeakOutput

YourSQL wrote: »

most of them are just a bunch of yuppies who have an idealistic vision of a futuristic world that involves a lot more government control. a bit like the Greens really

well actually according to the study they are liberals not socialists but im sure your anecdotal evidence is far far more reliable