Are religious people really less smart, on average, than atheists?

[Based and White Pilled]

Yes, people can believe in something and not be certain that it is real. Maybe we're talking past each other a bit.

You are either convinced of a proposition or you are not. Regarding belief, there is no third option.

You said your friend believes in a higher power and the soul. I would need to know more about what the higher power is, but if is a type of god, then your friend is a theist.

I added to that post that you just responded to.

To what extent does it matter what the higher power is? I think most would accept that anyone who believes in something that is supernatural or spiritually greater than man would not be an atheist. Do you think that belief in an eternal soul does not preclude you from being an atheist? How literally are you taking the linguistic origin of this word?

It seems like you're really trying to expand the atheist umbrella to include more people than it does in common use of the term.

 

[ShadBo]

When I read posts like these, I begin to run away from all categorization at 100 m.p.h. Talk about a semantic clusterfuck. I'm just uniquely me. There.

Honestly, labels don't matter. It's the concepts that matter.

You either believe or you don't, there's no middle ground.

How certain you are of the position you currently hold is irrelevant.

 

[Based and White Pilled]

When I read posts like these, I begin to run away from all categorization at 100 m.p.h. Talk about a semantic clusterfuck. I'm just uniquely me. There.

I agree. It's silly.

 

[Based and White Pilled]

Honestly, labels don't matter. It's the concepts that matter.

You either believe or you don't, there's no middle ground.

How certain you are of the position you currently hold is irrelevant.

That's so untrue that it's annoying just to read it. I know it's not true because I've lived in the middle ground. It's called being unsure. Your belief can waffle back and forth on an hourly basis. You can have beliefs that conflict and be in the middle of attempting to sort them out.

 

[ShadBo]

I added to that post that you just responded to.

To what extent does it matter what the higher power is? I think most would accept that anyone who believes in something that is supernatural or spiritually greater than man would not be an atheist. Do you think that belief in an eternal soul does not preclude you from being an atheist? How literally are you taking the linguistic origin of this word?

It seems like you're really trying to expand the atheist umbrella to include more people than it does in common use of the team.

How would you define theism?

I define it as having a belief in a god or gods.

Let's ignore the labels for now.

On any particular claim, you are either convinced or not, correct? There is no third option, right?

 

[BEER]

I think your poll is flawed.

It isn't asking "how religious". So it's basically asking "are people who follow any tenants of any religion more or less intelligent than people who follow no tenants of any religion?"

At that point, you have to confront whether or not atheists are following certain tenants naturally or from the environment they were raised it. Because, if raised in a Judeo-Christian society, it's likely they gained their moral values from a religious source. But would it be fair to deem them "religious" for doing so?

 

[Post 2 Decision]

Not that there aren't geniuses who happen to be religious...

There's just so many poor, uneducated people in the 3rd world who are taken advantage of by being tricked into religion

 

[Based and White Pilled]

How would you define theism?

I define it as having a belief in a god or gods.

Let's ignore the labels for now.

On any particular claim, you are either convinced or not, correct? There is no third option, right?

No, that's not correct. There are three options for any claim.
1. Convinced it is true
2. Undecided/uncertain
3. Convinced it is not true

You're lumping #2 and #3 together and it makes for an inadequate framework for meaningful discussion.

 

[ShadBo]

That's so untrue that it's annoying just to read it. I know it's not true because I've lived in the middle ground. It's called being unsure. Your belief can waffle back and forth on an hourly basis. You can have beliefs that conflict and be in the middle of attempting to sort them out.

Yeah, talk about frustrating.

Being unsure is functionally the same as being unconvinced.

I'm not talking about your experience as a human wrestling with these topics. I'm talking in a broad sense, about these concepts in general.

It's either the null hypothesis or not. There is no third option.

 

[HereticBD]

On any particular claim, you are either convinced or not, correct? There is no third option, right?

Nah, there's always a third option. I think that's more of Atheist talking point, to inflate their numbers. I'm certainly not as confident as an Atheist to say that there is nothing at all, nor do I believe religious folks have all the answers either. I'm comfortable in my ignorance of the unknown, and wouldn't even begin to try and claim that I know one way or the other.

 

[Based and White Pilled]

Yeah, talk about frustrating.

Being unsure is functionally the same as being unconvinced.

I'm not talking about your experience as a human wrestling with these topics. I'm talking in a broad sense, about these concepts in general.

It's either the null hypothesis or not. There is no third option.

Setting it as a binary of belief vs non-belief is inadequate for any kind of philosophical discussion because it ignores those who have an opposing belief lumping them in with those who have no belief.

They are not functionally the same.

 

[Based and White Pilled]

Nah, there's always a third option. I think that's more of Atheist talking point, to inflate their numbers. I'm certainly not as confident as an Atheist to say that there is nothing at all, nor do I believe religious folks have all the answers either. I'm comfortable in my ignorance of the unknown, and wouldn't even begin to try and claim that I know one way or the other.

Thank you. I'm glad to have another person who occupies the middle ground echo my sentiment.

 

[ShadBo]

No, that's not correct. There are three options for any claim.
1. Convinced it is true
2. Undecided/uncertain
3. Convinced it is not true

You're lumping #2 and #3 together and it makes for an inadequate framework for meaningful discussion.

Explain how undecided/uncertain is in any way distinguished from not convinced it's true.

If you have a gum ball machine, you would agree that the number of gumballs is either even or odd, correct?

So let's say I make a claim that the number of gumballs are even.

You can either be convinced I am correct, or not. You may be convinced I am incorrect, but if you aren't sure either way then you are not convinced. There is no third option.

 

[HereticBD]

Explain how undecided/uncertain is in any way distinguished from not convinced it's true.

I think you're playing the semantics game, as I doubt many Atheists would merely claim not to be convinced. They would vehemently argue that they KNOW there is nothing, and anyone entertaining an idea that there still might possibly be something based on factors we can not possibly comprehend, would be denounced by them.

This is the key difference between Atheists and Agnostics. Atheists claim to know for a certain that there is nothing. Agnostics do not. I don't know why this is so difficult to understand.

 

[ShadBo]

I think you're playing the semantics game, as I doubt many Atheists would merely claim not to be convinced. They would vehemently argue that they KNOW there is nothing, and anyone entertaining an idea that there still might possibly be something based on factors we can not possibly comprehend, would be denounced by them.

This is the key difference between Atheists and Agnostics. Atheists claim to know for a certain that there is nothing. Agnostics do not. I don't know why this is so difficult to understand.

You're wrong. Look it up.

 

[Based and White Pilled]

Explain how undecided/uncertain is in any way distinguished from not convinced it's true.

If you have a gum ball machine, you would agree that the number of gumballs is either even or odd, correct?

So let's say I make a claim that the number of gumballs are even.

You can either be convinced I am correct, or not. You may be convinced I am incorrect, but if you aren't sure either way then you are not convinced. There is no third option.

That is true if your only distinction is whether or not the person is convinced of X being true.

I'm saying that this binary paradigm you're presenting is less useful and a less accurate depiction of real life than if you add a second distinction between people who are undecided and people who are convinced that X is false.

You can set up your own framework of discussion. There is no logical reason not to make a distinction between people who think X is false and people who are unsure. I agree that both groups do not believe that X is true, but that does not make those groups the same.

Why lump them together? What is the benefit?

 

[franklinstower]

This whole topic is extremely interesting to me but I just dont know enough about it to make any definitive statements about it.

I don't really understand how IQ is measured and am not certain this kind of measurement takes into account all of what intelligence actually encompasses.

I tend to think IQ tests only measure a certain range of intelligence but don't mean to discredit them on that account.

I am a firm experiencer (made up word) of God and the spiritual realm. I KNOW that God exists and that there are spirits too. For me these are matters of lifelong experience.

I would not be surprised if it were fully demonstrated that religious people were slightly less intelligent on average though--- but I would also not be bothered by that fact in any way.

It is a matter of curiosity to me though why belief in a higher power would lead to less intelligence, or vice versa (if it does). I would not be surprised to find that I score lower on an IQ test at this point in my life than I did when I took one around the age of 19 and IF it is possible to score lower years later I would not be surprised if spiritual practices were part of the reason why either.

I feel like I use my brain very differently having spent years doing a regular meditation practice. I like my experience of life MUCH better than before but I care about details and factoids so much less as to almost find them bothersome. I am attracted to deep meaning, emotional and spiritual growth and improved relationships instead.

Overall this thread makes me extremely curious about all of this but I don't have enough data to form any real understanding. I wish I did thought because it is very interesting.

 

[ShadBo]

That is true if your only distinction is whether or not the person is convinced of X being true.

I'm saying that this binary paradigm you're presenting is less useful and a less accurate depiction of real life than if you add a second distinction between people who are undecided and people who are convinced that X is false.

You can set up your own framework of discussion. There is no logical reason not to make a distinction between people who think X is false and people who are unsure. I agree that both groups do not believe that X is true, but that does not make those groups the same.

Why lump them together? What is the benefit?

Because we're talking about the usage of certain words. Either we can agree and have a conversation, or we don't agree and we need to hash it out.

It's 20 to one so I'm gonna hit the hay, but I'll take another crack at this tomorrow when I'll have a keyboard and mouse.

Maybe we'll be able to get this worked out then

 

[ajccoming]

I feel like this isn't a fair poll because Muslims are allowed to marry their first cousins and we know that first cousin marriages brings down IQ points. With that in mind all religious people are at a disadvantage, lol jk

 

[Based and White Pilled]

Because we're talking about the usage of certain words. Either we can agree and have a conversation, or we don't agree and we need to hash it out.

It's 20 to one so I'm gonna hit the hay, but I'll take another crack at this tomorrow when I'll have a keyboard and mouse.

Maybe we'll be able to get this worked out then

Language evolves to be more useful. If you want to be strict about the origin of the words, you're being a pedant. The word "atheist" has a connotation that obviously bother you. That's reasonable. However, fighting against the nuanced meanings atheist and agnostic have developed to differentiate between people who believe there is no God and people who are unsure is fighting a losing battle. There are many people who identify as agnostic intentionally because they don't want to be lumped in with people who believe confidently that there is no God.

You can use whatever words you want. People who believe there is no God can be warlocks and people who are unsure can be kilngons. I don't care. The point is that it's useful to make a distinction between those groups. Fighting against it is either just being a pedantic twat or making a desperate attempt to combat the image of the pretentious atheist who confidently asserts that there is nothing. Either way, it's silly.

Goodnight