Study by Evolutionary Psychologist Reveals Atheists Have Slightly Higher IQs

[curiousgirl]

Apparently, autistics are more proner to atheism compared to the normal population

P(atheism | autism) > P(atheism | not autistic). <--- Mathematical translation of what I said above.

Here is what I didn't say P(autistic | atheism) > 50%.

So, while it may be true that "autistics are more proner [sic] to atheism compared to the normal population," most atheists are going to be part of "the normal population," as opposed to being autistic.

And of course, Ricky, bastard that he is, was rather careful not to imply otherwise. Notice the wording that I chose above. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_probability <-- In case you were not exposed to the formal mathematical concept before.

Ricky, I did not accuse you of saying that most atheists are autistic. I merely wanted to point out that most atheists are not autistic in order to prevent anyone (especially theists) from having misconceptions.

[jetson]

This has been beaten into the ground fairly well, but I have to ask...

Given the distinction between some theists who reject the theory of evolution, and everyone else who have no problems accepting it, what exactly is it within these theists that causes the rejection?  I mean, there is literally no evidence at all that any god ever invented is actually real, so what we have are people who insist that their beliefs in their god, and thus their rejection of actual facts and evidence from science are incorrect.

This distinction, in my mind, makes them less intelligent.  If ten humans stand before a desert plain and nine of them insist there is a mountain, is intelligence not a factor in determining that the nine people have less intelligence than the one?

I am not talking about specialized intelligence, and I don't expect anyone to defend theism as special intelligence. 

[Mr. Blackwell]

Given the distinction between some theists who reject the theory of evolution, and everyone else who have no problems accepting it, what exactly is it within these theists that causes the rejection?  I mean, there is literally no evidence at all that any god ever invented is actually real, so what we have are people who insist that their beliefs in their god, and thus their rejection of actual facts and evidence from science are incorrect.

I remember thinking that there are some parts about the theory of evolution that I had trouble understanding and believing but I am not in a position to extrapolate what specific area/s it was. I can tell you that it had more to do with my skepticism than any bias towards creationism. In a way, I can point to my early childhood indoctrination and shit like Santa Claus as the reason for my skepticism. Later in life I noticed that it was "bad" to eat eggs. Later in life I was told it was "good" to eat eggs. Later in life it was that there were two different kinds of cholesterol and at that point I stopped paying attention and just ate what I liked. I understand that scientists and nutritionists and geologists and evolutionists have to change their previous positions once new information and observation has been confirmed but the effect of the fairly frequent changes does little to instill confidence in the minds of people who are not classically trained in the sciences. Another fine example would be that in the 80's climatologists were ringing the alarm for the coming of the next Ice age. I think it might have as much to do with intolerance to change as it does actual intelligence. Or perhaps the two are connected.

If ten humans stand before a desert plain and nine of them insist there is a mountain, is intelligence not a factor in determining that the nine people have less intelligence than the one?

Observation perhaps not so much actual smarts. What does the tenth person see?

[Graybeard]

Given the distinction between some theists who reject the theory of evolution, and everyone else who have no problems accepting it, what exactly is it within these theists that causes the rejection?  I mean, there is literally no evidence at all that any god ever invented is actually real, so what we have are people who insist that their beliefs in their god, and thus their rejection of actual facts and evidence from science are incorrect.

It is a delusion if you believe an opinion contrary to incontrovertible fact.

If I believe that the government is sending radio waves to my brain and telling me to eat dirt, then I am a suitable case for treatment. If I believe that by wearing a wedding ring the rays will not affect me, then I may lead a normal life.

The religious delusion is accepted in all societies as part of normal life because, bye and large, it is compartmentalised. Nothing stops me from believing in a blue god with 6 arms and being able to waltz through an IQ test, see the faults in other people’s arguments, quote learned writers and generally live the life of an academic.

Dr J Wiles thinks that the earth is 6,000years old and that the Bible is literally true. He has a genuine PhD in nuclear chemistry from a reputable university– you don’t get that if you are a mouth-breather.

This distinction, in my mind, makes them less intelligent.  If ten humans stand before a desert plain and nine of them insist there is a mountain, is intelligence not a factor in determining that the nine people have less intelligence than the one?

No. Not at all. If I call the sea “wine coloured” am I unintelligent? The Greeks called the sea “wine coloured” and their intelligence didn’t seem to suffer. Everyone[1] thought it was normal not to have a name for the colour blue.

If in your example, I insisted there were no mountain, and destroyed all protective clothing, etc., then I would be mad. If we reached the mountain and I said that it was flat but that gravity was stronger as far as the top and weaker to the bottom, then, although I would be deluded, the idea would work for me and not affect anyone else. Intelligence isn’t a factor.

In short, you are not unintelligent just because you disagree with someone else, or even a lot of people. You may, in certain areas, be stubborn, obtuse, inflexible, not open to reason, but your intelligence is not lessened.

1.	i.e. everyone except those who did have a name for the colour blue

[jetson]

In short, you are not unintelligent just because you disagree with someone else, or even a lot of people. You may, in certain areas, be stubborn, obtuse, inflexible, not open to reason, but your intelligence is not lessened.

My bold.  In my opinion, this seems to ignore the actual fact that these people literally cannot be as intelligent overall if they decide to act this way "in certain areas".  If we want to claim that one with a PhD from a respected university is intelligent, yet that same person thinks there is a God, without evidence, or denies evolution, piled high with evidence, then tell me exactly what you mean by intelligence?

I cannot accept that people are equally intelligent, but either "stubborn, obtuse, inflexible, [or] not open to reason".  To me, they are less intelligent.  I mean, take any specialized field, like physics - where someone like me cannot keep up with a PhD.  I do not become stubborn, obtuse, inflexible, or not open to reason regarding physics.  Nor does anyone else with enough intelligence to recognize that science does not make shit up in a vacuum, and heap it upon the masses without supporting what it has learned.  If one decides to join any group that willfully ignores facts and evidence, and instead makes up their own, base on wishful thinking, then perhaps they simply do not possess the intelligence to accept what is more than obvious.

Perhaps we are getting caught up in the problem of defining intelligence, and I can accept that the basic definition may cause my argument to fail.  But I cannot accept that we write this off as a flawed conclusion just because of the methodology in one study.  Maybe IQ is a poor way of representing the difference, but even if only slightly, the results of the study are still intriguing to me, and there certainly could be a very good reason why there is a difference.

[Graybeard]

My bold.  In my opinion, this seems to ignore the actual fact that these people literally cannot be as intelligent overall if they decide to act [stubborn, obtuse, inflexible, not open to reason "in certain areas"]. 

But we are all like this in certain areas. You are disputing my facts, yet I know you are far from unintelligent. In areas such as evolution, physics, art, literature, philosophy, we might well agree.

As I said, religion is a delusion; it is as simple as that. Delusions are independent of intelligence otherwise the asylums of the world would be filled with people as thick as pigshit. The nature of delusion is that it affects certain lines of thought, but not others. As you might place a greater weight on one piece of evidence, so the delusional person puts much weight on a piece that appears inappropriate to the normal person.

We all have beliefs that we will maintain throughout life and others that we will discard and then adopt another that may, itself, be illogical.

If we want to claim that one with a PhD from a respected university is intelligent, yet that same person thinks there is a God, without evidence, or denies evolution, piled high with evidence, then tell me exactly what you mean by intelligence?

It may help if you look at my example of the tin-foil candidate I gave above. Why should such a delusion lessen intelligence? If the sufferer is accepting of his delusion, why should he bother to address it?

If one decides to join any group that wilfully ignores facts and evidence,

This is what I am getting at. I do not believe that, in the majority of cases, it is wilfull. It is a delusion.

Perhaps we are getting caught up in the problem of defining intelligence,

For me, intelligence is one of those things that you recognise when you see it. It is not related to social or financial success, it is not a specific against illness, physical or mental, but high intelligence does seem to allow the possessor to hold vast amounts of knowledge, to see patterns within them and to collate the relevant attributes of knowledge very swiftly and clearly so as to reach a sound conclusion, when combined with normal mental health.

Intelligence is, to an extent controllable. As a man who can run 100 metres in 10 seconds does not do it all the time, so, the genius does not apply his brain all the time, but then neither do you or I.

I asked Dr J Wile PhD why it was that, when he was considering the age of the earth, he chose the anomalous rate of diffusion of hydrogen in zircon to show that the earth was, in fact 6000 years old. His reply was that he found the anomaly interesting, as all scientists should do, and it seemed to him that it was worthy of investigation – which he did do and is doing.

The fact that he ignored the vast difficulties of irregular decay and the huge corpus of evidence that ran against him was not unintelligent – who knows what he might find? (He said) But it was delusional, from my perspective, and that of 99.99% of scientists. On the other hand, he is vociferous in his support for the Measles, Mumps and Rubella inoculation not being anything to do with autism; here he is in agreement with me and 99.99% of scientists.

His intelligence may be misdirected, but it is not a lack of intelligence.

[jaimehlers]

I think what Graybeard is trying to say is that a person who is laboring under some delusion about something is not necessarily smart or stupid, they are simply deluding themselves without realizing it.  They believe the delusion is true, and that affects their perception of reality, but it does not make them less intelligent.  It is just that their intelligence is also affected by the delusion, because their intelligence can only act on things as they perceive them.  Intelligence, by itself, can't break someone out of a delusion.

[oversee]

Let me see if I got this straight.

Since atheist's "in general" are smarter than theists...and since most autistic's are atheists, then if you don't own a weed eater you are gay?

Or another way to put it...My IQ is 107 and I am not autistic so I must be a theist. Since I am a white male living in the southern states of America I must be Christian, most likely Baptist. Since I dropped out of high school I must be a drug addict. Since I am a drug addict I must not be married. Since I am a single, white man addicted to drugs I must be jobless. Since I am jobless I must be homeless. Since I am a drop out, drug addicted homeless man I must occasionally sell my body for money. Since I am a single, white, drug addicted male prostitute who doesn't own a home I must not own a weed eater. But on the plus side, even tho I suck dick for crack I know that when I die I wont spend eternity burning with a bunch of autistic atheists!

I think I got this logic thing licked.

Your logic makes perfect sense to me.
Except that wiki says that 4% of the US population reports they are atheist and autism-world.com  states that 1/4 to 1/2 percent of the US population is autistic. So, if every autistic were atheist, they would only account for 6 to 12 percent of all atheists.
There is another problem, though. Who reports that they are atheist and who do they report it to?
I don't believe I have ever reported my atheism to any government agency or poll taker. So wiki, that most reliable of sources, could be way off in their estimate. The autistic estimate is probably closer to the truth because most parents of autistics seek help from medical professionals and schools so those statistics are available. Some autistics can't communicate so it is hard to know for sure if they are atheists, so probably only high-functioning autistics are atheists.
I just found this article that implies that IQ tests are inaccurate when given to autistics:
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2010/11/17/iq.scores.fail.predict.academic.performance.children.with.autism
So maybe autistic atheism is due to intelligence rather than autism.
I don't own a weed eater. Since I have an higher than average IQ, I earn enough to afford a gardener. Does that make me gay, or does it only apply to people who don't have gardeners? Are there statistics available on the percentage of atheists that own weed eaters?

Maybe those delusional scientists who believe in God just have selective intelligence. They are only intelligent in some areas and blind in others. There are plenty of otherwise intelligent people who, once they make up their mind, refuse to be swayed by reason. They hang onto beliefs even in the face of absolute proof that they are wrong. Those scientists were probably taught about God from the moment they could talk. They can apply logic to new ideas but religion has been permanently burned into their brains.

Another question I would liked answered: How many atheists believe in aliens?

[Nam]

I am pretty sure you knew what I meant and are just nit-picking now.

I reply to what you state; if you're speaking metaphorical or using broad assumptions and expect everyone to just "get it", you're sadly mistaken; such devices should be used in different types of discussions not direct ones, such as this.

And yes, I am stating, not just implying, that trade schools are not real colleges.

So far the only person I've even seen imply that "trade schools" are colleges is you.  I do not think trade schools pretend to be what they are not unless they are purposely trying to scam the person.  As long as it is accredited -- who cares?[1]

There are many subjects in which you could not improve without having feedback.

Really? Such as what?

If you wrote your first essay on your own and never received any feedback, how would you know which of your skills needed improvement?

It's not difficult to write an essay; nor is it difficult to write anything at all; what is difficult would be to find a publisher for such a thing; not because what is written lacks any merit but because the publishing world is full of people who are lazy and expects everything to be perfect before they publish it; why they have editors is beyond me.  Oh, and just to let you know -- writing is my field, and has been for 20 years.  Yes, critical comments on one's work is necessary, at times, however, if one is not critical of themselves its pointless for anyone else to be.[2]

I guess you could consider that discussing things on a forum like this is teaching you debate skills, but I doubt it would prepare you well for an oral debate.

If you're speaking in general, I agree, however if it's just pointed at me: I do this purely for entertainment; however, though I do the latter I still try to participate as much as I can, be productive and all that that way I just don't seem to be trolling, or what not.

I don't know of anyplace in America where you can get a job as a doctor without a medical degree. I don't know of anyone who would want to go to a doctor who didn't have a medical degree. There are plenty of jobs that you can't get no matter how qualified you think you are unless you have the degree.

It seems you're assuming that I think that anyone off the street should be able to get any job they want without something to state they can do it.  That's not what I'm saying at all.  There are certain jobs, I feel, that take no brains whatsoever, like being a garbage man, or janitor, or whatever, and yet in many places where I live one has to have at least a high school diploma to get those jobs; or to go to the places that teach those jobs, or what not.  I find that pathetically stupid; especially since the corporation and/or business usually have a training program that teaches the individual person how to do the job in which they are not only hired for but also as to how they want them to do it.  If I wanted a job sweeping trash off the streets in the city I live in: I need a high school diploma to do it.  These are the ridiculous things in which I'm talking about; how, politicians make it even difficult for the poor and uneducated[3] to even find a job.  They're told, "Hey, you need an education to sweep our streets!" and the poor man/woman says, "I tried to get one but you wouldn't give me one." etc.,

Usually people learn basic skill sets of what they wish to do with their lives (and sometimes not) while a child, and to deny that child as an adult a job that they can do, perhaps better than anyone else, just 'cause they do not have a piece of paper that says they can either do the job or the requirement to get the job, I find ridiculous.

I can type 120 wpm with no errors.  I can read 350-400 wpm with high comprehension.  Yet, I still, to this day, can not get a job as a typest, data entry, or anything simple as those things 'cause I do not have a high school diploma.  That, to me, is ridiculous.  It would be different if I was trying to be the CEO of the company, or perhaps even an editor[4] but just to type some words into a computer or on a typewriter that takes little to no skill at all?  Please...and some say it's just the individual companies that are doing this but it's not; in many cases: it's the state that require the companies to do this for whatever reason; perhaps to keep us poor people in our place.

The statistics show that people with college degrees earn more than high school graduates, and those with graduate degrees earn more than those with bachelor's degrees.

At 19 I was making $30,000 a year.  You know what I was doing?  I was working 12 hours a day processing chicken.  To think, I wanted better for my life and to get better I had to take a huge pay cut and then be rejected a plethora of times.  I still think I should go back doing the same job; I mean, I could be making $50,000 a year now doing that easy as hell job.

You can argue all you want about how your self-education is just as valuable, but there aren't many employers who are going to take your word for it, or give you elaborate tests to see if you really are well-educated, when they can just hire the applicant who has the degree.

Where did I state or imply that my self-education was a value to anyone else but myself?  You're going to have to point that out for me.  It seems to me you think that I stated something to the effect of, "Well, I taught myself so I deserve these jobs!" -- which I never stated.  I'm just giving my opinion on something; I'm explaining, or at least trying to explain to you why some people, such as myself, are self-educated.  Apparently you couldn't comprehend that; I don't know if that's your fault or mine.  I'll assume it's yours.

No offense to you but it is very easy to be accepted to colleges in Florida. You would not have been accepted at any California state college or university (which is why a California degree is worth more than a Florida degree).

How is it you insulting the various colleges in Florida, or Floridians in general, an insult to me? 

(which is why a California degree is worth more than a Florida degree)

Is this your opinion or are you stating a fact?  If it's your opinion I must say that's really cocky, and arrogant of you to say, and pretty much you're insulting more than Floridians because if a degree in California is worth more than one in Florida than every other state equal and/or less in educational eyes of what Florida gives out in education must also be less?

Obviously you are very bitter about your educational experiences.

Not bitter, angry at how poor it was, and how the one I went through didn't care shit about anyone[5] but the educational system me and my brother went through, luckily, wasn't the one my sister went through or she too would have withdrew herself when she had the chance.

I can't get a high school diploma or GED not because I'm stupid, I think I've proven to people on this website a few times that I'm not stupid.  I'm just slow at math; and I always fail the math, usually by 1-5 points, and they do not care that my brain processes math problems at a slower rate than the average person. I have an hour and half just like everyone else in that room.  Which is fine.  I'll probably never go further than I'll ever go; always getting jobs that are beneath my skill set(s), and never be taken as serious in the publishing world if I did have a piece of paper that says I'm intelligent enough for them to take me seriously.  However, I do not see that as a fault of mine but theirs, and apparently yours.

I went to school in a poor area. I didn't get the best education, but I was motivated. I got straight A's.

I could've gotten straight A's, too.  The point I'm making is: is such a poor education worth the straight A's in the long run?  For you, perhaps.  For myself and my brother who also withdrew from school: it wasn't.  Of course he went on to college; he doesn't have my disability of math.  Lucky him.  I score high in every subject I take except Science (which I score average in) and Math (which I score low in, and when I say low, I mean in the teens; however, with the proper amount of time those teens can be turned into 90's).

-Nam

1.	of course there are plenty of colleges out there that aren't accredited
2.	in my opinion
3.	sometimes purposely made that way so the rich can get richer
4.	'less I had years of experience in editing -- which by the by: I do
5.	basically, there were a rare few who cared

[plethora]

Person A: "God exists."
Person B: "Prove it."
Person A: "I can't. I have faith."
Person B: "Until you can prove it, I don't believe it."

Person B's position is justified. Person A's is not. This is a fact.

Their IQ's, level of education, social status, job, credentials, history, autistic tendencies, etc etc etc  are all irrelevant. They do not validate their respective positions any more or any less.

The truth is the truth regardless of who is stating it.

[oversee]

There are many subjects in which you could not improve without having feedback.

Really? Such as what?

If you wrote your first essay on your own and never received any feedback, how would you know which of your skills needed improvement?

It's not difficult to write an essay; nor is it difficult to write anything at all; what is difficult would be to find a publisher for such a thing; not because what is written lacks any merit but because the publishing world is full of people who are lazy and expects everything to be perfect before they publish it; why they have editors is beyond me.  Oh, and just to let you know -- writing is my field, and has been for 20 years.  Yes, critical comments on one's work is necessary, at times, however, if one is not critical of themselves its pointless for anyone else to be.[1]

I can type 120 wpm with no errors.  I can read 350-400 wpm with high comprehension.  Yet, I still, to this day, can not get a job as a typest, data entry, or anything simple as those things 'cause I do not have a high school diploma.  That, to me, is ridiculous.  It would be different if I was trying to be the CEO of the company, or perhaps even an editor[2] but just to type some words into a computer or on a typewriter that takes little to no skill at all?  Please...and some say it's just the individual companies that are doing this but it's not; in many cases: it's the state that require the companies to do this for whatever reason; perhaps to keep us poor people in our place.

1.	in my opinion
2.	'less I had years of experience in editing -- which by the by: I do

Feedback would have made you a better writer. You have made numerous grammar and spelling mistakes. You use run-on sentences. You switch between singular and plural verb usage regardless of the noun. If your spelling mistakes are just typos, then your claim that you can type 120 wpm without errors isn't true. Blaming the people in the publishing world for not accepting sloppy work because "they are lazy" is ridiculous. There are a great many more manuscripts written than there are editors who have time to read them. If you don't know how to use proper grammar, how could you have done a decent job as an editor?

(which is why a California degree is worth more than a Florida degree)

Is this your opinion or are you stating a fact?  If it's your opinion I must say that's really cocky, and arrogant of you to say, and pretty much you're insulting more than Floridians because if a degree in California is worth more than one in Florida than every other state equal and/or less in educational eyes of what Florida gives out in education must also be less?

Here is a list of the top 100 colleges in the world. Nine California colleges are in the top 50. The University of Florida is the only college in Florida to make the list at #53. A degree from the University of Florida would be considered fairly valuable, but I don't see how you would have been admitted.
http://www.ulinks.com/topuniversities.htm

Here are the qualifications to get admitted to the University of Florida:
http://www.admissions.ufl.edu/ugrad/frqualify.html
According to your own admission, you did not qualify. You did not have a 2.0 average. Did you complete and pass all four years of required math? According to what you have said, you didn't take the SAT or ACT. How could you have been admitted?

[Nam]

Feedback would have made you a better writer. You have made numerous grammar and spelling mistakes. You use run-on sentences. You switch between singular and plural verb usage regardless of the noun. If your spelling mistakes are just typos, then your claim that you can type 120 wpm without errors isn't true.

I am writing to you in a discussion board; I have no need to edit my words down to the letter to make my words readable.   

Blaming the people in the publishing world for not accepting sloppy work because "they are lazy" is ridiculous. There are a great many more manuscripts written than there are editors who have time to read them. If you don't know how to use proper grammar, how could you have done a decent job as an editor?

However, I never stated I was perfect; and people in the publishing world do not publish my work because I've pissed a lot of people off.  My friends who own publishing companies publish my work but mainly under a pseudonym, and what I do not know they help me out.  I do not pretend to know everything but with the little education that I have, I think I do just fine. But I am not wrong in my assessment of the editing world of publishing to be "lazy"; many writers agree with me on that point.

The UF didn't base my "qualifications" on my GPA --- however, the requirements set forth that you provide, are they the same from 1994?  'Cause that's when I applied.

-Nam

[oversee]

The UF didn't base my "qualifications" on my GPA --- however, the requirements set forth that you provide, are they the same from 1994?  'Cause that's when I applied.

-Nam

I have no idea how to find out the qualifications for UF in 1994 nor do I want to take the time to find them. However, when I applied to the University of California in 1977 (almost two decades earlier) the SAT was required and your GPA had to be at least 3.0. If you had had to take the SAT, since half of it is math, I don't know how you would have gotten a high enough score on it to be accepted.
Didn't you say you have been a writer for 20 years? Did you start as a teenager?

[rickymooston]

The truth is the truth regardless of who is stating it.

Bit of a false dichotomy I think. At least, I think many theists exist who are neither "A" nor "B". They are in between. Conditional probability may be implicitly involved or at least implied (With God, we have no way of knowing what the probabilities really are.)

Person A John Gotti is a criminal
Person B prove it
Person A - Provides some of the evidence around such as the fact that "rumour has it" he is the guy. Some cases of people turning up dead who Gotti disliked. Some evidence of witness intimidation, etc, etc.
Person B - I'm not putting Mr Gotti in jail until he is proven guilty

The fact is, fuzzy reasoning exists and has some validity in some cases.  John Gotti was, probably guilty, long before he was convicted.

Now lets take the potentially historic figures: Jesus, Mohammed and Buddha.

Did any of them exist? Well, I can't say for sure any of them did but I'd say, the existence of Mohammed has the strongest evidence. I'm not sure between  Buddha and Jesus.

Apparently, we have Mohammad's body. I think the accounts of Mommad's life are such that the confidence in him existing is pretty high. We can reasonably assert both he existed and we know something about him.

In the case of Buddha, I know they claim to have pieces of his teeth. No idea is that is b.s or not. I'm unsure about any other evidence.

In the case of Jesus, we have no body, no grave, no records of birth. We do have records of a huge following. We do have records of letters coming from somebody called Saul that go way back. Records of persecution that go quite far back.

In my opinion, I think, a reasonable case that he probably existed could be made. Clearly, if he did exist, I very much doubt we can tell much about him. The case for his existence isn't rock tight and yet, why did this all come about. Why did one person just invent a guy out of the blue and then create a false religion about him. Most religious cults seem to form around a cult leader who makes claims about himself.

[oversee]

Out of curiosity I asked an autistic person whether he thought that most autistics are atheist and if so why. This is his answer:
"I think that many Autistic people have a deeprooted hold on logic and rationality and taking a leap of faith is at best difficult. That said i think that Autistics will follow mostly what they have been taught to hold as truth and rational irrespectively and deep seeded beliefs are hard to foist off, regardless."

As far as whether or not Jesus or Buddha (or Moses, Abraham, Noah, etc.) were real, IMO there are three possibilities: 1. they were real but their stories include deliberate or inadvertent exaggerations or untruths, 2. the stories told about them are a composite of more than one person and a composite of fiction and reality, 3. the stories were completely made up. Since we can never know with certainty which possibility is true, I wouldn't want to waste any time trying to prove it one way or another.
The argument that Jesus never existed is supported by the many stories about other deities whose stories seem to parallel the story of Jesus, such as the Egyptian god Horus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Christ_in_comparative_mythology
I think that religion evolved and was determined by the people who controlled what was included in the bible, and over time and through translations a lot of the original meaning has changed. I have heard that there were many gospels that were left out of the new testament which might have told a different story. Ancient people knew so little about why anything happened that it was comforting to come up with explanations and it probably didn't take much to convince them that miracles were happening.
I remember reading that many of the ancient people thought that Moses had horns. Biblical scholars believe that this was a misinterpretation of a metaphor. The bible today is probably so distorted from the original - just like that game where you whisper something to someone, and he whispers it to someone else, and so on, until what the last person hears is no where near what the original statement was.
I remember once I saw a burning bush. Actually it was a tree at sunset, and with the sun directly behind the tree, it appeared to be on fire. That is when I figured out that is what probably  happened when Moses saw his burning bush. When this was originally written in the bible, the writers may have been just using adjectives to describe what they knew to be a natural phenomenon or they might have actually thought it was a miracle. We will never know.
I don't know much about Buddha, but I thought I read that he was a prince who lived in wealth until he saw how some people suffered. Then he decided to deny himself all the comforts of life and live like the poor. After awhile he decided that the best way to live was a middle ground between deprivation and overindulgence. Then he decided to meditate to find enlightenment. It is plausible that this really happened.

[catbird]

curiousgirl,

IMO, it's like they automatically assume atheists will stereotype theists or vice versa after reading this. However, their study does suggest that atheists are smarter. What do you guys make of this?

To say that based on their findings that people who don't believe in any god are more intelligent than people who believe that there is a god or many gods is an extraordinary claim. You will need to have extraordinary proof in order to substantiate your claim.

Remember ? King Carl said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof".

[jetson]

curiousgirl,

IMO, it's like they automatically assume atheists will stereotype theists or vice versa after reading this. However, their study does suggest that atheists are smarter. What do you guys make of this?

To say that based on their findings that people who don't believe in any god are more intelligent than people who believe that there is a god or many gods is an extraordinary claim. You will need to have extraordinary proof in order to substantiate your claim.

Remember ? King Carl said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof".

The evidence and distinction in this case are not extraordinary.  And it's not at all an extraordinary claim.  If it is indeed true, it is not at any level something completely unbelievable.  It is quite possible and even likely that believers are not as intelligent as atheists on average.

[plethora]

To say that based on their findings that people who don't believe in any god are more intelligent than people who believe that there is a god or many gods is an extraordinary claim. You will need to have extraordinary proof in order to substantiate your claim.

Remember ? King Carl said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof".

Curiousgirl provided links to dozens of studies that confirm that atheists performed better in certain intelligence tests than theists, namely the IQ test.

Hers was not a extraordinary claim. Saying one has been abducted by anal-probing aliens or has been possessed by demon spirits is an extraordinary claim.

[jaimehlers]

The way I see it, it isn't a matter of a greater level of inherent intelligence so much as it is patterns of thinking that allow that intelligence to be effectively used.  Someone who is used to getting answers from something, no matter how wise that something is, is not going to be able to use their intelligence as effectively as someone who's used to having to discover the answers for themselves.  That's been proven time and time again.  The former could actually be slightly smarter than the latter, just as a swordsman who doesn't practice much could be slightly stronger and more agile than another swordsman who practices all the time[1].  But the latter will be better at using what intelligence they have, whether it's higher or lower.

1.	This is a rhetorical statement, I am certainly not suggesting that most or even many people who score lower on intelligence tests are like this.

[Nam]

I have no idea how to find out the qualifications for UF in 1994 nor do I want to take the time to find them. However, when I applied to the University of California in 1977 (almost two decades earlier) the SAT was required and your GPA had to be at least 3.0. If you had had to take the SAT, since half of it is math, I don't know how you would have gotten a high enough score on it to be accepted.

My apologies, I was incorrect on what my GPA was when I applied.  It was a 3.2 when I applied however in my Senior year in high school the school I attended "corrected" it to 1.5.  Apparently they didn't care for the way I obtained the 3.2.  What I did was, I figured out a loophole or whatever in 8th grade and tried it in 9th grade and when it worked that's what I did for the next 3 years, and was starting to do my Senior year however I was going to withdraw myself anyway and do what my brother did[1].  What I did was I got an A or a B the first semester, flunked the second semester (but took the final exam) and then for the year I would pass with a C or a D.  I did have Honor classes (English and History), and on those classes I mainly got a B so at the end end of the year it'd equal a D -- D, at the time, was passing.  Now, at that school you need a C or higher to pass.  I took Remedial Math in 9th grade, which was easy but I took pre-Algebra my Sophomore year and Algebra my Junior year and Algebra I'm not too bad at, it's just the higher maths like geometry, calculas, and trignometry, all of which is on the GED, and what I normally fail on the math section of the test; or any math section of any test that has those three things. At the time "we" needed 24 credits to pass.  By my Senior year I had 18 1/2.  We took 6 classes a year, so by the end of the year (if I stayed) I would've had 24 1/2 credits more than I needed to graduate.  I did try at a Vocational school to obtain my High School Diploma but by the time I got 20 credits the state rose the credit limit to 28, and where I went, and lived, it was just impossible to get the additional 4.  The last 4 was the math[2], I was saving that for last but it would've been impossible for me to get 4 more credits (elective) to obtain my High School Diploma at the local High School in the town I was living in.  Every time I take the GED I pass everything but the math which I fail by 1-5 points.  The first time I took it I missed it by 5 points, the second time by 2 or 3 (don't remember) so hopefully when I take it again, which I may in the future I will finally pass the math section.

Didn't you say you have been a writer for 20 years? Did you start as a teenager?

Actually I've been writing poems for 20 years, I've been writing in general for almost my entire life. 

-Nam

1.	obtain my GED and then join the Navy; I had already taken the ASVAB and scored high on that but average to low on the math section.  My brother didn't join the Navy, he went to college after he got his GED.
2.	prior to the "new" 4

[jetson]

The way I see it, it isn't a matter of a greater level of inherent intelligence so much as it is patterns of thinking that allow that intelligence to be effectively used.  Someone who is used to getting answers from something, no matter how wise that something is, is not going to be able to use their intelligence as effectively as someone who's used to having to discover the answers for themselves.  That's been proven time and time again.  The former could actually be slightly smarter than the latter, just as a swordsman who doesn't practice much could be slightly stronger and more agile than another swordsman who practices all the time[1].  But the latter will be better at using what intelligence they have, whether it's higher or lower.

1.	This is a rhetorical statement, I am certainly not suggesting that most or even many people who score lower on intelligence tests are like this.

But, in the sword analogy, what is the likelihood that the practicing group will be outperformed on average by the non-practicing group?

[catbird]

Jetson,

It is quite possible and even likely that believers are not as intelligent as atheists on average.

When you use the term "believers" it seems to me that you are making a reference to those who are believers in the Hindu religion. Is this assumption correct?

[curiousgirl]

To say that based on their findings that people who don't believe in any god are more intelligent than people who believe that there is a god or many gods is an extraordinary claim. You will need to have extraordinary proof in order to substantiate your claim.

It is certainly not extraordinary, when compared to your claim that God exists. In fact, I would call it quite ordinary, because I actually can provide evidence for my claim, as opposed to you. BTW, I did provide evidence. Were you just too lazy to actually go back and look at it? Probably, because you would have noticed that I gave up the argument earlier if you had actually read my posts.

Remember ? King Carl said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof".

Naaaaaaaah, that was the Flying Spaghetti Monster wearing Carl Sagan's skin!   

[jaimehlers]

But, in the sword analogy, what is the likelihood that the practicing group will be outperformed on average by the non-practicing group?

Not likely, but that illustrates the point.  It doesn't particularly matter how much natural athletic ability any given member has, only how effectively they make use of what they actually have.  If you have someone who has a slight edge in physical ability, but doesn't practice very efficiently, versus someone who has a better method of practicing, the second person has a reasonable, if not good, chance of outperforming the first.  You can even have someone with lots of natural talent that they squander through ineffective training lose out to someone who's relatively average but learns how to use what they do have very effectively.  As a saying I heard goes, genius only gets you to good on its own.

There's a difference between arguing that skepticism is a more effective means of learning how to use intelligence than religious belief, and arguing that atheists are naturally smarter than theists.

[jetson]

Jetson,

It is quite possible and even likely that believers are not as intelligent as atheists on average.

When you use the term "believers" it seems to me that you are making a reference to those who are believers in the Hindu religion. Is this assumption correct?

All religions with gods.

[madame_zora]

Jetson,

It is quite possible and even likely that believers are not as intelligent as atheists on average.

When you use the term "believers" it seems to me that you are making a reference to those who are believers in the Hindu religion. Is this assumption correct?

All religions with gods.

Hello my old friend!

Interestingly enough, I had a conversation with two Indian men who owned a gas station, haha. I noticed that whoever owned it had my father's name, so I asked who was his namesake when I went in. They got a cackle out of it and I had a chance to ask them about Hinduism. They seemed aghast, and made sure to repeat to me several times that Hinduism is a PHILOSOPHY.

They told me the temples stacked with gods are an allegory to all the gods who have come and gone, that people have held dear- and used to make better people of themselves. It's a way of seeing yourself perfected. But the gods aren't real, only the messengers. I have no idea if this is how all or most Hindus feel, but it was enlightening.

By the way, my father's name was Krishna, haha.

[jetson]

madame_zora...nice to see you pop in!

I'm not convincing anyone in this thread, but it's still been a fun discussion.   

[oversee]

I have no idea how to find out the qualifications for UF in 1994 nor do I want to take the time to find them. However, when I applied to the University of California in 1977 (almost two decades earlier) the SAT was required and your GPA had to be at least 3.0. If you had had to take the SAT, since half of it is math, I don't know how you would have gotten a high enough score on it to be accepted.

My apologies, I was incorrect on what my GPA was when I applied.  It was a 3.2 when I applied however in my Senior year in high school the school I attended "corrected" it to 1.5.  Apparently they didn't care for the way I obtained the 3.2.  What I did was, I figured out a loophole or whatever in 8th grade and tried it in 9th grade and when it worked that's what I did for the next 3 years, and was starting to do my Senior year however I was going to withdraw myself anyway and do what my brother did[1].  What I did was I got an A or a B the first semester, flunked the second semester (but took the final exam) and then for the year I would pass with a C or a D.  I did have Honor classes (English and History), and on those classes I mainly got a B so at the end end of the year it'd equal a D -- D, at the time, was passing.  Now, at that school you need a C or higher to pass.  I took Remedial Math in 9th grade, which was easy but I took pre-Algebra my Sophomore year and Algebra my Junior year and Algebra I'm not too bad at, it's just the higher maths like geometry, calculas, and trignometry, all of which is on the GED, and what I normally fail on the math section of the test; or any math section of any test that has those three things. At the time "we" needed 24 credits to pass.  By my Senior year I had 18 1/2.  We took 6 classes a year, so by the end of the year (if I stayed) I would've had 24 1/2 credits more than I needed to graduate.  I did try at a Vocational school to obtain my High School Diploma but by the time I got 20 credits the state rose the credit limit to 28, and where I went, and lived, it was just impossible to get the additional 4.  The last 4 was the math[2], I was saving that for last but it would've been impossible for me to get 4 more credits (elective) to obtain my High School Diploma at the local High School in the town I was living in.  Every time I take the GED I pass everything but the math which I fail by 1-5 points.  The first time I took it I missed it by 5 points, the second time by 2 or 3 (don't remember) so hopefully when I take it again, which I may in the future I will finally pass the math section.

Didn't you say you have been a writer for 20 years? Did you start as a teenager?

Actually I've been writing poems for 20 years, I've been writing in general for almost my entire life. 

-Nam

1.	obtain my GED and then join the Navy; I had already taken the ASVAB and scored high on that but average to low on the math section.  My brother didn't join the Navy, he went to college after he got his GED.
2.	prior to the "new" 4

I don't know if this is still true but I believe I heard that the GED is actually harder than getting a high school diploma. Calculus is not part of a normal high school curriculum so it shouldn't be on the GED.
Awhile ago, you said that writing isn't hard; anyone can do it. To me that is equivalent to a singer  saying that everyone can sing. I'm sure there are people who believe that about math skills. Writing is a talent. You can teach someone to write adequately but it takes talent to go beyond that. If you are being published  that is proof that you are doing something unique.
If you do a lot of reading, you can tell the difference between adequate writing and excellent writing. These days there are authors who sell well because they can create interesting stories even if their writing styles are sub par. There is no objective way to measure writing skill so it is probably ignored in IQ tests. In math, there is only one answer; in writing, there are innumerable ways to say the same thing. Only someone with a talent for writing will know intuitively the best way.
I do a little freelance writing but for me it isn't easy. It takes me longer to create an article because I have to figure out the most eloquent way to say what I'm trying to communicate. I have to create a rough draft and edit it over and over. Great writers can produce a great product in no time because it is easier for them.

[oversee]

[

By the way, my father's name was Krishna, haha.

I know a woman who is Palestinian but her last name means "Jew" in Arabic.