It's "Official": Massive Study Shows Religious People Are Less Intelligent Than Atheists.

  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Aug 24, 2013 11:43 AM GMT
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/religious-people-are-less-intelligent-than-atheists-according-to-analysis-of-scores-of-scientific-studies-stretching-back-over-decades-8758046.html

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 24, 2013 1:43 PM GMT
    As if this were news. The stupider you are, the more religious you seem to become. The more intelligent, the less likely you will need some crutch to make you feel better about the future and what happens when you die.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 24, 2013 2:39 PM GMT
    Good. Now we gays can hate religious people even more than we do now.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 24, 2013 5:27 PM GMT
    Go figure ! A group of non religious academics produce a "massive study" that "proves" that they are the most "intelligent" group of people on the planet. Nobody saw that one coming, did they?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 24, 2013 5:49 PM GMT
    GoNYMets2012 saidGood. Now we gays can hate religious people even more than we do now.

    Or offer them our sympathy and support. It's a societal duty to help those less fortunate in life than ourselves.

    I know that's not a Right Wing concept you follow, self-interest & greed being their rule. But we Liberals must be true to our principles, and help these deprived religious unfortunates, to whom life has been so wanting.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 24, 2013 6:15 PM GMT
    I'm skeptical, I can debate that their claim is partially biased...perhaps unintentionally.

    Did anyone noticed it? If not...I can show you.
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Aug 24, 2013 6:18 PM GMT
    shybuffguy saidGo figure ! A group of non religious academics produce a "massive study" that "proves" that they are the most "intelligent" group of people on the planet. Nobody saw that one coming, did they?


    You did read the article, yes? "The" study has been going on for....oooh..just under A HUNDRED YEARS...and you're suggesting all those "dead" scientists have been colluding with each other?

    Now do you see WHY they can so easily prove..... oh, never mind. icon_biggrin.gif
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3274

    Aug 25, 2013 2:55 AM GMT
    WrestlerBoy saidhttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/religious-people-are-less-intelligent-than-atheists-according-to-analysis-of-scores-of-scientific-studies-stretching-back-over-decades-8758046.html



    First , "its official" hardly. Its a Meta analysis. Meaning he looked at other psychological studies.

    There is inherit bias and these studies are less useful scientifically .

    In addition intelligence was predetermined

    The study’s use of intelligence only considered an analytic framework of intelligence and did not address the impact that other forms, such as creative and emotional intelligence, had on a person’s overall aptitude in relation to an individual’s religious identity.

    Last it only considered the " religious " fairly rigidly.

    The study also narrowly defined a person’s religious influence as one’s involvement in part or all aspects of religious practice.


    The study took into account only the US, UK and Canada without looking at other cultures.

    Also, the predominant religion is the study is Protestantism, while other beliefs are not investigated.

  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Aug 25, 2013 3:30 AM GMT
    musclmed said
    WrestlerBoy saidhttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/religious-people-are-less-intelligent-than-atheists-according-to-analysis-of-scores-of-scientific-studies-stretching-back-over-decades-8758046.html



    First , "its official" hardly. Its a Meta analysis. Meaning he looked at other psychological studies.

    There is inherit bias and these studies are less useful scientifically .

    In addition intelligence was predetermined

    The study’s use of intelligence only considered an analytic framework of intelligence and did not address the impact that other forms, such as creative and emotional intelligence, had on a person’s overall aptitude in relation to an individual’s religious identity.

    Last it only considered the " religious " fairly rigidly.

    The study also narrowly defined a person’s religious influence as one’s involvement in part or all aspects of religious practice.


    The study took into account only the US, UK and Canada without looking at other cultures.

    Also, the predominant religion is the study is Protestantism, while other beliefs are not investigated.



    Try to grasp what the quotation marks around my "official" mean.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3274

    Aug 25, 2013 3:56 AM GMT
    WrestlerBoy said
    musclmed said
    WrestlerBoy saidhttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/religious-people-are-less-intelligent-than-atheists-according-to-analysis-of-scores-of-scientific-studies-stretching-back-over-decades-8758046.html



    First , "its official" hardly. Its a Meta analysis. Meaning he looked at other psychological studies.

    There is inherit bias and these studies are less useful scientifically .

    In addition intelligence was predetermined

    The study’s use of intelligence only considered an analytic framework of intelligence and did not address the impact that other forms, such as creative and emotional intelligence, had on a person’s overall aptitude in relation to an individual’s religious identity.

    Last it only considered the " religious " fairly rigidly.

    The study also narrowly defined a person’s religious influence as one’s involvement in part or all aspects of religious practice.


    The study took into account only the US, UK and Canada without looking at other cultures.

    Also, the predominant religion is the study is Protestantism, while other beliefs are not investigated.



    Try to grasp what the quotation marks around my "official" mean.


    Thank you your grace. I should have known what you meant by the quotations.
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Aug 25, 2013 2:33 PM GMT
    musclmed said
    WrestlerBoy said
    musclmed said
    WrestlerBoy saidhttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/religious-people-are-less-intelligent-than-atheists-according-to-analysis-of-scores-of-scientific-studies-stretching-back-over-decades-8758046.html



    First , "its official" hardly. Its a Meta analysis. Meaning he looked at other psychological studies.

    There is inherit bias and these studies are less useful scientifically .

    In addition intelligence was predetermined

    The study’s use of intelligence only considered an analytic framework of intelligence and did not address the impact that other forms, such as creative and emotional intelligence, had on a person’s overall aptitude in relation to an individual’s religious identity.

    Last it only considered the " religious " fairly rigidly.

    The study also narrowly defined a person’s religious influence as one’s involvement in part or all aspects of religious practice.


    The study took into account only the US, UK and Canada without looking at other cultures.

    Also, the predominant religion is the study is Protestantism, while other beliefs are not investigated.



    Try to grasp what the quotation marks around my "official" mean.


    Thank you your grace. I should have known what you meant by the quotations.


    Ego te absolvo.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 25, 2013 7:59 PM GMT
  • BryUSC88

    Posts: 198

    Aug 25, 2013 10:00 PM GMT
    That not a surprise. I work with a few very religious people...and it doesn't take long to figure out that their intelligence is not up to par.
  • carew28

    Posts: 658

    Aug 25, 2013 10:08 PM GMT
    WrestlerBoy said
    musclmed said
    WrestlerBoy said
    musclmed said
    WrestlerBoy saidhttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/religious-people-are-less-intelligent-than-atheists-according-to-analysis-of-scores-of-scientific-studies-stretching-back-over-decades-8758046.html



    First , "its official" hardly. Its a Meta analysis. Meaning he looked at other psychological studies.

    There is inherit bias and these studies are less useful scientifically .

    In addition intelligence was predetermined

    The study’s use of intelligence only considered an analytic framework of intelligence and did not address the impact that other forms, such as creative and emotional intelligence, had on a person’s overall aptitude in relation to an individual’s religious identity.

    Last it only considered the " religious " fairly rigidly.

    The study also narrowly defined a person’s religious influence as one’s involvement in part or all aspects of religious practice.


    The study took into account only the US, UK and Canada without looking at other cultures.

    Also, the predominant religion is the study is Protestantism, while other beliefs are not investigated.



    Try to grasp what the quotation marks around my "official" mean.


    Thank you your grace. I should have known what you meant by the quotations.


    Ego te absolvo.



    Ego te absolvo....a peccatis tuis in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti....... It sounds as though there's a little bit of latent sublimated religious sentiment here.
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Aug 25, 2013 11:47 PM GMT
    That's easy to believe, because atheists are open to new thoughts and ideas, prefer to do their own research and thinking, rather than let someone else tell them what to think or believe, where religious nuts adhere to a strict set of beliefs drummed into them by others who want to control them.
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Aug 26, 2013 12:01 AM GMT
    carew28 said
    WrestlerBoy said
    musclmed said
    WrestlerBoy said
    musclmed said
    WrestlerBoy saidhttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/religious-people-are-less-intelligent-than-atheists-according-to-analysis-of-scores-of-scientific-studies-stretching-back-over-decades-8758046.html



    First , "its official" hardly. Its a Meta analysis. Meaning he looked at other psychological studies.

    There is inherit bias and these studies are less useful scientifically .

    In addition intelligence was predetermined

    The study’s use of intelligence only considered an analytic framework of intelligence and did not address the impact that other forms, such as creative and emotional intelligence, had on a person’s overall aptitude in relation to an individual’s religious identity.

    Last it only considered the " religious " fairly rigidly.

    The study also narrowly defined a person’s religious influence as one’s involvement in part or all aspects of religious practice.


    The study took into account only the US, UK and Canada without looking at other cultures.

    Also, the predominant religion is the study is Protestantism, while other beliefs are not investigated.



    Try to grasp what the quotation marks around my "official" mean.


    Thank you your grace. I should have known what you meant by the quotations.


    Ego te absolvo.



    Ego te absolvo....a peccatis tuis in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti....... It sounds as though there's a little bit of latent sublimated religious sentiment here.


    Not "sublimated" no; I went to the oldest Jesuit boarding school in England, and my oldest brother, like the pope, is himself a Jesuit priest. And - as you can see - Jesuits, brilliant group of men that they are, only turn out two other groups of men: other Jesuits, or atheists icon_smile.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 26, 2013 2:19 AM GMT
    If You Have To Say It's > " < official > " < ................................................................................... STFU! icon_rolleyes.gif
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Aug 26, 2013 2:23 AM GMT
    TheRece25 saidIf You Have To Say It's > " < official > " < ................................................................................... STFU! icon_rolleyes.gif


    Second idiotic dolt put on ignore today...damn, bad Sunday. Wonder why he has no "buddies" (notice the quotation marks).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 26, 2013 4:16 AM GMT
    WrestlerBoy said
    TheRece25 saidIf You Have To Say It's > " < official > " < ................................................................................... STFU! icon_rolleyes.gif


    Second idiotic dolt put on ignore today...damn, bad Sunday. Wonder why he has no "buddies" (notice the quotation marks).


    I just want you to know you are So Smart... And Witty... This probably isn't new information for you though icon_lol.gif
  • carew28

    Posts: 658

    Aug 26, 2013 8:00 PM GMT
    WrestlerBoy said
    carew28 said
    WrestlerBoy said
    musclmed said
    WrestlerBoy said
    musclmed said
    WrestlerBoy saidhttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/religious-people-are-less-intelligent-than-atheists-according-to-analysis-of-scores-of-scientific-studies-stretching-back-over-decades-8758046.html



    First , "its official" hardly. Its a Meta analysis. Meaning he looked at other psychological studies.

    There is inherit bias and these studies are less useful scientifically .

    In addition intelligence was predetermined

    The study’s use of intelligence only considered an analytic framework of intelligence and did not address the impact that other forms, such as creative and emotional intelligence, had on a person’s overall aptitude in relation to an individual’s religious identity.

    Last it only considered the " religious " fairly rigidly.

    The study also narrowly defined a person’s religious influence as one’s involvement in part or all aspects of religious practice.


    The study took into account only the US, UK and Canada without looking at other cultures.

    Also, the predominant religion is the study is Protestantism, while other beliefs are not investigated.



    Try to grasp what the quotation marks around my "official" mean.


    Thank you your grace. I should have known what you meant by the quotations.


    Ego te absolvo.



    Ego te absolvo....a peccatis tuis in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti....... It sounds as though there's a little bit of latent sublimated religious sentiment here.


    Not "sublimated" no; I went to the oldest Jesuit boarding school in England, and my oldest brother, like the pope, is himself a Jesuit priest. And - as you can see - Jesuits, brilliant group of men that they are, only turn out two other groups of men: other Jesuits, or atheists icon_smile.gif


    Well, Jesuits and atheists have always had a lot in common. They both tend to be somewhat secular and left-wing in their thinking and politics. The Jesuits were in the vanguard of liberation theology, and God only knows if they are even Christians anymore. They probably rely a lot more on thinking, and less on faith. If you can remain Christian after 4 years of Jesuit education, you probably have a very strong faith indeed. And at least the atheists wind up with a Jesuit education.

    Four priests (a Benedictine, a Franciscan, a Dominican, and a Jesuit) were attending mass in a church. Suddenly, all of the lights go out and the building is plunged into complete and utter darkness. The Benedictine feels his way to the altar, falls to his knees, and begins to chant psalms giving glory to God. The Franciscan feels his way to the rear of the church, grabs a basket, and begins to take up a collection for the poor, imploring God's mercy. The Dominican feels his way up into the pulpit and begins to preach a sermon beseeching God's forgiveness for their sins. The Jesuit feels his way down to the basement, locates a fuse-box, and resets the breaker.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 26, 2013 8:34 PM GMT
    carew28 said
    WrestlerBoy said
    carew28 said
    WrestlerBoy said
    musclmed said
    WrestlerBoy said
    musclmed said
    WrestlerBoy saidhttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/religious-people-are-less-intelligent-than-atheists-according-to-analysis-of-scores-of-scientific-studies-stretching-back-over-decades-8758046.html



    First , "its official" hardly. Its a Meta analysis. Meaning he looked at other psychological studies.

    There is inherit bias and these studies are less useful scientifically .

    In addition intelligence was predetermined

    The study’s use of intelligence only considered an analytic framework of intelligence and did not address the impact that other forms, such as creative and emotional intelligence, had on a person’s overall aptitude in relation to an individual’s religious identity.

    Last it only considered the " religious " fairly rigidly.

    The study also narrowly defined a person’s religious influence as one’s involvement in part or all aspects of religious practice.


    The study took into account only the US, UK and Canada without looking at other cultures.

    Also, the predominant religion is the study is Protestantism, while other beliefs are not investigated.



    Try to grasp what the quotation marks around my "official" mean.


    Thank you your grace. I should have known what you meant by the quotations.


    Ego te absolvo.



    Ego te absolvo....a peccatis tuis in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti....... It sounds as though there's a little bit of latent sublimated religious sentiment here.


    Not "sublimated" no; I went to the oldest Jesuit boarding school in England, and my oldest brother, like the pope, is himself a Jesuit priest. And - as you can see - Jesuits, brilliant group of men that they are, only turn out two other groups of men: other Jesuits, or atheists icon_smile.gif


    Well, Jesuits and atheists have always had a lot in common. They both tend to be somewhat secular and left-wing in their thinking and politics. The Jesuits were in the vanguard of liberation theology, and God only knows if they are even Christians anymore. They probably rely a lot more on thinking, and less on faith. If you can remain Christian after 4 years of Jesuit education, you probably have a very strong faith indeed. And at least the atheists wind up with a Jesuit education.

    Four priests (a Benedictine, a Franciscan, a Dominican, and a Jesuit) were attending mass in a church. Suddenly, all of the lights go out and the building is plunged into complete and utter darkness. The Benedictine feels his way to the altar, falls to his knees, and begins to chant psalms giving glory to God. The Franciscan feels his way to the rear of the church, grabs a basket, and begins to take up a collection for the poor, imploring God's mercy. The Dominican feels his way up into the pulpit and begins to preach a sermon beseeching God's forgiveness for their sins. The Jesuit feels his way down to the basement, locates a fuse-box, and resets the breaker.

    icon_lol.gif That is excellent! Good laugh!
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Aug 26, 2013 8:55 PM GMT
    Upper_Cdn said
    carew28 said
    WrestlerBoy said
    carew28 said
    WrestlerBoy said
    musclmed said
    WrestlerBoy said
    musclmed said
    WrestlerBoy saidhttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/religious-people-are-less-intelligent-than-atheists-according-to-analysis-of-scores-of-scientific-studies-stretching-back-over-decades-8758046.html



    First , "its official" hardly. Its a Meta analysis. Meaning he looked at other psychological studies.

    There is inherit bias and these studies are less useful scientifically .

    In addition intelligence was predetermined

    The study’s use of intelligence only considered an analytic framework of intelligence and did not address the impact that other forms, such as creative and emotional intelligence, had on a person’s overall aptitude in relation to an individual’s religious identity.

    Last it only considered the " religious " fairly rigidly.

    The study also narrowly defined a person’s religious influence as one’s involvement in part or all aspects of religious practice.


    The study took into account only the US, UK and Canada without looking at other cultures.

    Also, the predominant religion is the study is Protestantism, while other beliefs are not investigated.



    Try to grasp what the quotation marks around my "official" mean.


    Thank you your grace. I should have known what you meant by the quotations.


    Ego te absolvo.



    Ego te absolvo....a peccatis tuis in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti....... It sounds as though there's a little bit of latent sublimated religious sentiment here.


    Not "sublimated" no; I went to the oldest Jesuit boarding school in England, and my oldest brother, like the pope, is himself a Jesuit priest. And - as you can see - Jesuits, brilliant group of men that they are, only turn out two other groups of men: other Jesuits, or atheists icon_smile.gif


    Well, Jesuits and atheists have always had a lot in common. They both tend to be somewhat secular and left-wing in their thinking and politics. The Jesuits were in the vanguard of liberation theology, and God only knows if they are even Christians anymore. They probably rely a lot more on thinking, and less on faith. If you can remain Christian after 4 years of Jesuit education, you probably have a very strong faith indeed. And at least the atheists wind up with a Jesuit education.

    Four priests (a Benedictine, a Franciscan, a Dominican, and a Jesuit) were attending mass in a church. Suddenly, all of the lights go out and the building is plunged into complete and utter darkness. The Benedictine feels his way to the altar, falls to his knees, and begins to chant psalms giving glory to God. The Franciscan feels his way to the rear of the church, grabs a basket, and begins to take up a collection for the poor, imploring God's mercy. The Dominican feels his way up into the pulpit and begins to preach a sermon beseeching God's forgiveness for their sins. The Jesuit feels his way down to the basement, locates a fuse-box, and resets the breaker.

    icon_lol.gif That is excellent! Good laugh!


    Yes! It's an "oldie but goodie" in Jesuit circles, as they said, but it's a great punchline! My brother is a PhD (nothing unusual there)....and a lawyer....and a medical doctor (heights you cannot actually reach on "faith alone", one would think).

    The Basque who was Jesuit General for quite a long time, Pedro Arrupe, was also an M.D., and happened to be in Hiroshima the day the bomb fell. That shaped the Society for an entire generation.

    And yes, they played a very active role in Liberation Theology. My (Mexican( grandfather is great friends with both Ernesto Cardenal (a priest who studied under Thomas Merton) and his brother Fernando Cardenal (who is a Jsuit). They were respectively Minister for Culture and for Education in the first Sandinista government, and I have met them both a couple of times in Cuernavaca: Two of the most beautiful minds it has been my honor to meet.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 26, 2013 10:16 PM GMT
    Despite the obvious problem of this not being a single study but a conglomerate of 63 studies which all have different methods many of which are probably outdated or flawed, isn't it just the case that atheism is a belief held largely by those of the upper classes? It strikes me as much more likely that being in the upper classes makes one more likely to be atheistic than being atheistic signals a higher intelligence which makes one more likely to be in the upper classes.

    The poor are never at the cutting edge of the trajectory of a society's thought. It is clear that our society is heading in an atheistic direction. One should therefore expect that dumber poorer people will be more religious. Back in 350 AD, however, I imagine the reverse was true. I imagine that Christians were the more intelligent ones in comparison to their pagan and atheistic confreres. Why? Because society was headed in a more Christian direction, and Christianity was the "cutting edge" of the time.

    Strikes me as rather arrogant to even consider the conclusion of this study plausible. Many people throughout human history have believed vastly different things. It isn't simply a matter of having a higher intelligence. The choosing of first principles goes way beyond one's intellectual capacity.
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Aug 26, 2013 10:46 PM GMT
    KJSharp saidDespite the obvious problem of this not being a single study but a conglomerate of 63 studies which all have different methods many of which are probably outdated or flawed, isn't it just the case that atheism is a belief held largely by those of the upper classes? It strikes me as much more likely that being in the upper classes makes one more likely to be atheistic than being atheistic signals a higher intelligence which makes one more likely to be in the upper classes.

    The poor are never at the cutting edge of the trajectory of a society's thought. It is clear that our society is heading in an atheistic direction. One should therefore expect that dumber poorer people will be more religious. Back in 350 AD, however, I imagine the reverse was true. I imagine that Christians were the more intelligent ones in comparison to their pagan and atheistic confreres. Why? Because society was headed in a more Christian direction, and Christianity was the "cutting edge" of the time.

    Strikes me as rather arrogant to even consider the conclusion of this study plausible. Many people throughout human history have believed vastly different things. It isn't simply a matter of having a higher intelligence. The choosing of first principles goes way beyond one's intellectual capacity.


    One of the central problems with "christians", of course, is their incessant need to dwell on the past. This "First Principles" cache of "thought" is always their last haven. To say "society was headed in a more Christian direction..." (with the onslaught of the Dark Ages? the coming of the Inquisition? the murdering of innocent single women (witches?) ), would lead one to wonder what your definition of "christian" was, post 350AD?

    And the day Charlemagne (a great "christian" emperor, if ever there was one) was crowned in 800 CE on December 25 in Rome, there were more books in, yes, the MUSLIM library (ONE library) in Córdoba, Spain, than in the REST of "christian" Europe....combined.

    So, it's always interesting to "chat", but why do you assume atheists/humanists are "non-christians" only? We're also non-muslims, and non-jews..and non-etc.

    This is how one knows that your purported "scholarship" is nothing more than the usual....proselytizing. This isn't about your "christ"; it's about humanity.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 26, 2013 11:50 PM GMT
    WrestlerBoy said
    One of the central problems with "christians", of course, is their incessant need to dwell on the past. This "First Principles" cache of "thought" is always their last haven. To say "society was headed in a more Christian direction..." (with the onslaught of the Dark Ages? the coming of the Inquisition? the murdering of innocent single women (witches?) ), would lead one to wonder what your definition of "christian" was, post 350AD?

    And the day Charlemagne (a great "christian" emperor, if ever there was one) was crowned in 800 CE on December 25 in Rome, there were more books in, yes, the MUSLIM library (ONE library) in Córdoba, Spain, than in the REST of "christian" Europe....combined.

    So, it's always interesting to "chat", but why do you assume atheists/humanists are "non-christians" only? We're also non-muslims, and non-jews..and non-etc.

    This is how one knows that your purported "scholarship" is nothing more than the usual....proselytizing. This isn't about your "christ"; it's about humanity.


    None of that is relevant at all to the subject at hand. Everything I said is equally applicable to Judaism and Islam. I do tend to speak from the perspective of Western Civilization instead of "humanity," but that doesn't affect the claim I make at all. "Reason" does not neatly lead to one conclusion. In very few fields does it do so...in fact, only in one - mathematics.