Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by MightyMateo on March 8, 2009 at 8:55pm

No, you read it right Chiz, definitely broken.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DD_8630 on March 27, 2009 at 10:26pm

chiz, MightyMateo, how is my logic 'broken'? I was talking about how, even though we haven't been into space, we trust that other people have. Creationists often conflate "You weren't there!" with "You have no reason to believe!", and I was distinguishing between the two.

Unless, of course, you're both Creationists yourself - in which case we have a whole other conversation.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DD_8630 on January 28, 2009 at 6:01am

The way I see it, there are two types of people: those who believe because that's how they were brought up, and those that believe because they're sat down and thought about it (i.e., implicit and explicit believers). Children grow to (initially) believe what their parents believe (or don't believe); it is only through exposure to new ideas and reflection upon old ones that children aquire new beliefs and shed old ones (or don't).

Now, it follows from the definitions of theism and atheism that the latter engenders scepticism more than the former: blind faith never led one to explicit atheism, but it [i]does[/i] lead to explicit theism. That is, those who don't reflect on their beliefs are very likely to keep them: the atheist remains an atheist, the theist a theist.

But those who do reflect have a tendency towards atheism: more theists become atheists after reflecting on their beliefs, than do vice versa.

This is, of course, related to the nature of atheism: in the absence of evidence, it is the logical stance to take on the existence of deities (namely, no stance either which way). Since there is little to no evidence whatsoever for the existence of deities (I'm sure you're aware of how tenuous theistic arguments can get), logic dictates that we be atheists.

And this leads on to your question: are theists inherently less intelligent than their atheistic counterparts? Well, on average, yes: atheism has a greater proportion of explicit (non-)believers, logical-minded people who have rejected theism on rational and deductive grounds. Theism, by contrast, has a greater proportion of people who believe simply by blind faith: while atheism engenders scepticism, theism does not.

And who is more likely to be intelligent: the logical sceptic, or the faithful zealot?

Hope that makes sense! :p
Basically, atheism tends to attract logical, rational sceptics, while theism does not. This skews the proportion of 'intelligent' people in favour of atheism.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by AtypicalAtheist on March 8, 2009 at 8:39pm

I think that atheists have a higher average intelligence, only because Christians make up the majority and the bell curve is different. As Atheism becomes more mainstream, the bell curve will move back and the average atheist I.Q. will decrease.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by MightyMateo on March 8, 2009 at 9:00pm

I agree, I think that the more atheism spreads the less intelligent the group will be. Intelligence is a tricky thing to measure though. One thing I noticed when I was still involved in the church is that there is a huge "bubble" effect going on there. They are trapped in their own little world, when they have questions they are less likely to go to the library or google for answers, they will consult their pastor, remaining ignorant. The trend bothered me and still does. I have family that is involved in the church, they are intelligent people they are just blind to the facts because of the environment they are surrounded by....

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DD_8630 on March 27, 2009 at 10:30pm

So when you say "the more atheism spreads the less intelligent the group will be", you're talking about the theistic group? That is, atheism engenders intelligence?
Just so I'm clear; your wording is ambiguous!

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 3
• 4
• 5
• Next ›
• Page