God makes you stupid, researchers claim

A psychology researcher has controversially claimed that stupidity is causally linked to how likely people are to believe in God. University of Ulster professor Richard Lynn will draw the conclusion in new research due to be published in the journal Intelligence, the Times Higher Education Supplement reports. Lynn and his two …

[Anonymous Coward]

No longer cool to be an atheist

agnostics still hanging in there, though.

How about; Writing Psychology Reports Makes you a Moron.

Same premise, but slightly more insulting.

[Alan Fisher]

@Rob Pomeroy

I have read the bible from cover to cover mate; just because I don't beleive does not mean I belittle and don't bother to inform myself...I could go on for some time about how the Gospels argue with one another, disagree and never quite add up but I'm not getting into that kind of debate now

(have a look at Genesis then, God makes Woman TWICE..why would He do that then?)

the book is not the belief, surely one can believe in God while accepting monks may have made a mistake or two while copying the bible out? Why get angry when people criticse the Dogma...surely the Belief is what matters?

[Anonymous Coward]

@Josh, @Ferry Boat @James Anderson

@Josh -

"* I don't see what's so hard to believe about being inside a whale for three days. It would be completely possible if it didn't swallow you either."

Look, I don't want to be critical of "one of my own", so to speak, but this is exactly why we have so much trouble persuading people that I exist. You see, it *is* hard to believe - if you are a normal rational person who knows full well that a whale isn't constructed internally like a Japanese micro-hotel and that a man probably couldn't survive more than 3 seconds in there, let alone 3 days.

Of course, we both know that I made up a special magic whale, because I'm like a sort of large-scale David Copperfield, but that doesn't make it easy to believe. So I would suggest easing back a bit - you don't want to look too gullible or else people will think you're a nutter.

@Ferry Boat - cheers, nice one. I've reserved a spot for you on my right hand (no, not in that way, I'm not like Frankie Howerd).

@James - two words for you mate: "Sodom" and "Gomorrah". You can't tell God to piss off without consequences, know what I'm saying?

PS - I'm using this flame icon because it looks rather like a burning bush. However, I'm sure it won't be too long before the Reg gives me a proper icon, worthy of my deity-style position.

[Steen Hive]

@Religious people

Centuries of burning women at the stake in misogynist orgies isn't really paid back by a little withering scorn, now is it?

[Donkey]

God has left the building

It was necessary to invent God(s) because people were afraid of the unknown. As countries become more civilised we don't need gods any more.

Any one who seriously believes that the so called creator of the universe (if such a creature existed) would be interested in the activities on this tiny insignificant planet, any one who thinks that such a being would require people to meet in groups and sing songs to it or kneel down and talk to it (let alone prostrate themselves on some sort of rug 3 times a day) has serious mental problems and in my opinion should not be allowed to vote or hold any form of high office.

In fact they should all be held in contempt for their stupidity. If God Botherers are offended by that then tough titty! I am offended by the credence given to their risible antics and the effect it has on my every day life. However none of us has the right not to be offended. So I say keep ridiculing these morons and eventually the whole stupid concept will degenerate and disappear.

BTW God told me to say that.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not compatible

Losing belief in God = God not compatible with a person's desires

Being an academic (or, more generally, an adult striving for recognition and success) is a cut-throat business and it can make a person very uncomfortable behaving in certain ways if they believe in God. They can think that belied in God is limiting them and stopping them from reaching their true potential. Which is true. I prefer the constant introspection, empathy and thought about my own behaviour that maintaining belief in God demands.

[Nameless Faceless Computer User]

Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics

Is it that belief in God makes you stupid? Or do stupid people believe in God? Who funds this type of research? I suppose if you're stupid and watch an apple fall to the ground, you might be temped to say, "It was God's will" rather than "Gravity made the apple fall." Everyone needs a security blanket to explain the unknown. In algebra, we call that an unknown variable.

[Anonymous Coward]

@Donkey

I haven't left the building, I'm still here.

Actually, I'm still *everywhere* - that's one of my best tricks IMHO.

I'm quite enjoying this thread and I'm wondering if it holds the Reg record for most comments yet?

PS - I didn't tell you to say anything. Those voices in your head are just delusions.

Tux, because I made penguins as well.

[Anonymous Coward]

Doubts

From the article: "but as their intelligence develops they tend to have doubts or reject religion".

This suggests that intelligence demands that a person reject anything they have doubts about... which makes me think that perhaps trust is something that intelligent people find harder than others (are divorce rates higher for people with higher IQ?). Another thing many, many "intelligent" people seem to have a problem with is looking stupid, or the thought that someone thinks they're stupid. "How dare you!", they'll say furiously, "I've got a first class honours degree in Mathematics and an IQ of 148". I think that stems from a doubt in oneself. Doubt oneself and you start to doubt your beliefs and trust becomes difficult.

Intelligent people have it hard. I'm glad I'm a thicko.

[Mike]

@Rob Pomeroy (Not enough evidence for god?)

Biblical contradictions:

Start here, it's a long read, but there are lots of contradictions in the damn bible.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

"And remind me what Hitler, Stalin and all the other Nietzsche disciples were up to"

How about, Hitler was a christian (it was well documented in Mein Kampf and in many of his speeches) , and even if you want to argue the point and say he was trying to claim to be Aryan and just using the christian faith for his own ends then you must accept that his anti semitic views and worship of god(s) were perhaps a little theistic?

Stalin was almost certainly an Atheist, but was that the reason he did bad things to people? what bad things in this world are done in the name of not beliving in god compared to all the bad things done in this world because of believing in god?

Theism make people do bad things to other people, Atheism doesn't

[Steven Goddard]

North Korea must be the most moral country on earth

Now that we understand that "religion is the root of all evil," we are enlightened to realize that the genocide of 90 million people by atheists Stalin and Mao, were acts of kindness and intelligence. Kim Jung Il is no doubt a moral giant

Some quotes from a man of above slightly average intelligence - Albert Einstein

"Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble."

"The scientists' religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection."

[Doug Lynn]

People who believe in God are stupidier, yes in an athesist opinion only...

Hi, this is a crock of crap, i had an IQ of 155 in high school and I had already come to Christ and was born again at 12. I read the Bible, saw its message as a whole and believed in the Jewish Messiah Jesus Christ. My SAT showed only 3% of kids my age above me, they were my friends and they believed too. Also God more intelligent than any man, for the wisest man's knowledge is but foolishness to God. I am that I am.

[Mike]

Re: North Korea must be the most moral country on earth

>genocide of 90 million people by atheists Stalin and Mao, were acts of kindness and intelligence

Nope, but they were clever people who did bad things, more importantly they didn't do it in the name of Atheism, Atheism wasn't a factor i what they did, whereas it's a little bit easier to find people who do bad things in the name of their god (they're just a stones throw away ;-)

p.s. stop trying to imply Einstein was a theist, he was smarter than that.

[Disco-Legend-Zeke]

If there IS a god, It's the SUN. And he has a bet with his star buddies:

Who can make the doofiest life form.

I think he is winning

[Yogesh]

God and Religion too are based on some scientific fact

May be the conclusion is right for a majority of people. Commonly people don't want to trouble themselves with details of the fact and researching. But it doesn't mean that God and religion are responsible for this.

Even God is a scientific fact, after all what is god, a super natural force and it stands for every things that goes into this universe, things that govern these universal truths, laws of science all stand for god.

[Steve]

Curiosity killed the cat?

A biblically-based Christian cannot argue against this principle in my opinion. Jesus even taught that the wisdom of this world, quite possibly measured by IQ and/or intelligence tests, was foolishness to God (and his followers) and visa versa. Maybe this is one case where ‘ignorance’ is either a benefit or a curse... depending on where the truth lies.

[Anonymous Coward]

the Darren Gallagher Marketing Campaign For Intelligent Design

Because even god likes Science!!

* Tag under a poster of Buddy Christ wearing a T-shirt with Einstien Poking his togue out*.

Science says if it doesn't work crack on with something else. religion says if it doesn't work , lets just bend the story a little and all will be well.

Christ on a Bike, although a very well designed bike by Raliegh. Lets look at Scientology for this one, please. Darth Vader scooping up souls and making the world a bad place. A bastard five year old athiest would tell you to piss off. Adn yet still believe in Santa. Bizarre that huh? May be the gift aspect!

Mines the Red one with the Fur collar and the bike for Jesus in the pocket.

[Philip Galanter]

What "agnostic" and "atheist" mean

Much of the disagreement here is due to ambiguity and lack of precision in the language being used.

Atheist simply refers to anyone who doesn't believe that God exists. Some problems turn on the word "believe." Some atheists deny they are saying they *know* God doesn't exist, they simply believe God doesn't exist. Others don't like it when others point out that atheism is also a faith based belief.

In fact both have a point, but what an atheist can't claim is both formulations. If an atheist wants to claim rationality leads them to *know* God doesn't exist, then they are obliged to provide rational proof. If they merely want to say they *believe* God doesn't exist but can't prove it, then they have to acknowledge that there is some degree of faith beyond pure rationality involved.

In other words every atheist has a choice. They can either offer a proof or admit that their atheism is to some extent an article of faith. What they can't say is "I can't prove God doesn't exist, but I nevertheless know for sure he doesn't."

When it comes to agnostics there are two kinds, sometimes called hard-boiled and soft-boiled.

The hard-boiled agnostic says that not only do they not know whether God exists, they don't believe anyone else can know either.

The soft-boiled agnostic says that they don't know whether God exists, nor do they know whether it is even possible to know one way or the other.

I embrace soft-boiled agnosticism. It seems to me that if God as posited did exist, that God by definition could see to it that individuals *know* that he exists. In other words, if God exists then divine revelation must be a possibility.

I don't think the hard-boiled agnostic has a reasonable response to the observation that if they don't know whether God exists or not, they also can't know whether divine revelation is possible or not.

[archie lukas]

God likes war, death, pain and sufferring - personal experience

I've been in war Zones where two opposing forces kill each other claiming God is on their side.

When fails they try to kill women and children.

Medics from one religion help the other wounded.

Men swearing allegiance to their own God then kill the medics.

People cry for food, children die - starving

but there's always money for guns and bullets -always

yet no-one ever asks how?

Why not?

Nations maim and injure each other singing the praises of their Gods, some even induct them into the army as chaplains - holy soldiers if you like.

In peace time these various priests hurt, maim and rape children

or simply for not toeing the religious path or love-line.

This happens in ALL the Major religions -so don't try to get prissy and clever

Ignorance decrees that we ignore these obvious truths because we don't like them

Ignorance is Humankinds enemy and ignorant men with guns are the Devil incarnate

Religion = Ignorance?

Scientists design weapons - does that make them ignorant?

[Insert extreme expletives of your choice here to the contributors of this misery]

Personally - I have nothing whatsoever to do with any of them anymore.......

Medic

[Philip]

Doesn't Matter

It is all good debating whether god(s) exists or not, if one does a risk analysis, then you should believe in god. If one takes risk to mean probability of occurrence multiplied by consequences, then, if there is say only a one in a billionth chance that god does indeed exist and that the consequences for not believing in him is eternity in hell.

Thus, 0.000..(add arbitrary finite amount of zeros)..0001 x eternity in hell = very big risk. So, one should believe in god, if one is willing to admit that there is a non-zero possibility that he exists. The problem is, that believing in a god for fear of eternity in hell, might not necessarily pass as believing in god, in which case you are doomed.

I have resigned myself to the fact that regardless of what any religious person says, I shall doubt whether god exists, and conclude that if he does, he is very uninterested and uninvolved in my life. If god created me, he created me to question his existence for I cannot do otherwise. All I can do is hope, that if he does exist, he won't hold the fact that he created me this way against me.

Perhaps, in a way, it could be said that I have a great deal of faith in the grace of God (if he happens to exist).

[Steven Goddard]

Re: Mike

You seem to be having difficulty interpreting Einstein's words, yet he is extremely clear. Perhaps some further quotes will help.

"There are people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views."

Albert Einstein

"God is clever, but not dishonest." Albert Einstein

"When the solution is simple, God is answering" Albert Einstein

"God does not play dice with the universe." Albert Einstein

"What separates me from most so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos" Albert Einstein

"The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who--in their grudge against traditional religion as the 'opium of the masses'-- cannot hear the music of the spheres.

" Albert Einstein

[Taskis]

@ Mark

<< Why is it the god botherers keep putting up someone for the "hey, look, I'm being reasonable here" spiel who then fuck it up by saying "and all atheists are hateful meanies" in there? >>

I didn't say that. I don't believe that. I said 'anti-religious' people, which means people who're anti-religion, not just those who happen not to believe.

The simple truth is that both sides have their reasonable people and a comparative handful of 'hateful meanies'. The problem is that too many people don't want to bother making a distinction between the two. It's easier, and more comfortable, to hate a preconceived idea of someone than to take time to find out who they really are.

<< There are people who HATE that people don't believe what they do. They are the god-botherers. No atheist HATES the god botherers because of what THEY believe in but they do hate what they try to make everyone else believe. >>

That's the common enough defence, sure. "We only do it because of what they do". But the fact is it's gone on too long now. No-one knows who fired the first shot, and furthermore it doesn't make any real difference at this point. Yeah, sure, there are fanatical religious idiots who want the world to bow before them (in the name of their god/s, of course). There are equally fanatical anti-religious idiots who assume all religion is one religion and that every religious person is the same.

The fact is that religion isn't the root of all evil. Neither is atheism. Neither is money, for that matter; or sex. *Human nature* is the root of all evil, and everything else is just excuses.

<< The god-botherers have some people who have a MASSIVE amount of vitriol for people who don't believe in god. >>

There's more than enough vitriol on both sides: all of it worthless.

<< They keep trying to point out how silly the deep science is. >>

Some, maybe. Not most, and certainly not all. I'll offer my religious belief as an example: as a God-botherer myself, I consider science a way to find out about the universe, and trying to separate the universe from divinity is a pointless exercise akin to trying to separate salt from sodium chloride. The earlier question about whether an apple falls because of gravity or the will of God misses the point that they are, in effect, the very same thing.

<< At the moment, things like The Big Bang is a tentative theory. It does explain things but we don't know yet whether it's true. >>

We're pretty sure. It's not as tentative as you suggest. Theories generally aren't. But if you want tentative, there is plenty of it around. Consider the Copenhagen-versus-Many-Worlds question; or more interestingly still, the question of whether particles (and by extension reality itself) have any objective qualities while they're not being measured. *Those* are tentative we-don't-knows, and fascinating for it.

<< See the difference? Science allows it can be wrong. Religion doesn't. >>

And do you see where *you've* gone wrong? You've assumed that all religion must conform to your preconception of it.

Many of those acting as champions for, or opponents of, science labour under the misapprehension that science and religion are fundamentally (pardon me) opposed. They're not. They're not competing for the same prize. Science is a matter of the objective, the empirical, and the material. Religion is matter of feeling; of the soul (whatever you consider that to be). The one does not require or deny the other.

Still, at 200-odd comments and climbing, it's still worth bearing in mind that this discussion will probably change no-one's mind about anything, or serve any constructive purpose.

[ratfox]

Belief and science

It's debatable whether you have to be stupid to believe in God...

But you do have to be stupid to believe such a scientist^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H statistician.

(for some reason, Firefox did not want to load this page... what is Firefox's IQ?)

[Anonymous Coward]

Notice how stupid the god-botherers are here?

.....they seem to have trouble with their spelling. Poor shrill dears...

Also notice they are prone to lie in support of their irrational beliefs?

Albert Einstein was not in any way a god-botherer:

"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)".

It is an intellectual impossibility to be in possession of an advanced intellect and to maintain irrational beliefs, unless you have a mental illness.

Personally, I am a non-practising atheist, but I must say it drives me nuts spending that hour a week at church listening to all that utter baloney.

To the poster who says there is an inverse relationship between "intelligence and bigotry": rubbish. I have a massive IQ and also have an intense loathing for backward cultures and their idiotic religions.

[Anonymous Coward]

Irrationality hiding behind fake "reasonableness"

"there are fanatical religious idiots who want the world to bow before them (in the name of their god/s, of course). There are equally fanatical anti-religious idiots"

EQUALLY FANATICAL????

Absolute balls, rubbish, crap, nonsense.

Religious idiots go around persecuting people and murdering them with bombs and guns in the name of their irrational beliefs.

Non-religious people do nothing of the sort.

Religious idiots gather together in groups and commit mass suicide/polygamy+child molesting/female genital mutilation/etc... in the name of their idiotic religions.

Non-religious people do nothing of the sort.

Non-religious people go about their business using reason and intellect - usually trying to make the world a better place.

That there is a clear observable link between intelligence and atheism is hardly suprising - we all know that dumber people have dumber ideas, and religion is a pretty big dumb irrational idea, up there with Astrology, Homeopathy, Aliens, etc...(which are observably all ideas that the dumbest among us cling to.

Oh, and those of you who can't even spell - PLEASE go back to school before imposing on us any more of your atrociously mis-spelled and brainless contributions.

[archie lukas]

To debate or not to debate?

Quote: "Still, at 200-odd comments and climbing, it's still worth bearing in mind that this discussion will probably change no-one's mind about anything, or serve any constructive purpose."

But surely debate is a good thing?

Or should it only be allowed when it re-inforces ones tightly held viewpoint?

Religious characters - this means YOU AND the unwashed characters

[Jon Harvey]

WOW! The Bible is proven right again!

Errr. Sorry but Paul the Apostle beat you to the punch! He said in 1 Corinthians 1:18-31 that God has chosen the foolish things of this world. The things that are not (stupid people) to bring to nothing the things that are (Intellegent people) . That no flesh should glory in His presence.

Oh the depths of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God. How unsearchable are his judgements and His ways past finding out.

HeadScrewedOnRight

[Bruce Sinton]

IQ - out of date

I read some time ago that this IQ idea had been rejected as , well a bit of bullshit,

unscientific and all that.

Actually I have no idea what I would register on the IQ scale, or even how it is obtained , or who does it.

Is there a standard test?

My favourite icon, good girl.

,

[John Angelico]

Must be Friday...

Even Paris would know that...

[Dave]

visualisation could help settle it

without playmobil we'll never have a true answer.

[Mike]

@Steven Goddard

>You seem to be having difficulty interpreting Einstein's words, yet he is extremely clear. Perhaps some further quotes will help.

Many people have quoted bits of Einstein to their own ends, this made him angry (as you point out), you are continuing this and it insults his memory, he tried to clarify this because, no, a one-liner by itself is not "extremely clear";

These are his words, written in english (24th March 1954):

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

I think either you are ignoring his own words as they don't meet what you want to hear from him (deluding yourself) or you are (as the study finds) incapable of logic, stupid, perhaps.

[Steven Goddard]

Re: Mike

Einstein was angered by people such as yourself, who used his words to claim there is not a God. He said that in no uncertain terms.

"There are people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views." Albert Einstein

The fact that he did not believe towards the end of his life in a "personal God" hardly negates his lifelong belief in a "vastly superior" spirit and intelligence, which manifests itself everywhere in the universe. Most people call that spirit and intelligence "God."

"Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble." Albert Einstein

Your attempts to deride others' intelligence belies your immaturity and lack of confidence in your position. Perhaps you are not "seriously involved in the pursuit of science?"

Every natural culture on the planet shares the same basic concept of God. Only perverse, forced, autocratic belief systems like Communism deny it. Your belief system should make North Korea a land of geniuses - because they are not burdened by religion.

"Science without religion is lame" Albert Einstein

[Kenneth]

Hey Josh #2

The articles was called "God makes you stupid"

I dont know you but know you must be religious. You said it was perfectly possible to live inside a fish. Obviously you know fishes live underwater? How did Jonah breathe or survive for 3 days? Please explain

You have proven the article title as having some relevance that "God makes you stupid"

[Anonymous Coward]

trouble ahead for those intelligent, questioning minds

Many wars, mass murders, etc...can be linked in some way to to one religion or another. Those killed in these conflicts are of opposing beliefs (having no belief is an opposing belief). The intelligent, questioning mind that decides god does not exist are often those same minds labeled bleeding heart liberals and highly opposed to war, harsh criminal sentences, etc..So in conclusion I would suggest that they should really get RIGHT WITH GOD cause when the war and revolution come they'll need something upon which to cling.

Paris because she's hot baby

[Kenneth]

hey Josh

* I don't see what's so hard to believe about being inside a whale for three days. It would be completely possible if it didn't swallow you either.

In order to get inside a fishes stomach it has to swallow you first

And supposing he did live inside a fish for 3 days - what did he do to pass the time?

[Taskis]

My last post on this one

... Assuming the mods allow it, of course.

@ Anonymous Coward

<< EQUALLY FANATICAL???? >>

Yes. Equally fanatical.

The accusations you direct at 'religious idiots' are fair - to an extent - so long as they're directed at people who are idiots because they abuse religion to justify the crimes they want to commit. If, however, you then extend your assumption of idiocy to everyone religious *and assume based on that that they all commit such crimes*, then that's *not* fair. And at that point, yes, you're the sort of fanatic I'm talking about.

As I said, there are people on both sides who're unwilling to question their own comfortable preconceptions. In the case of the non-religious fanatic, that's the sort of person who blames religion, and all the religious, for all the evils that some have done in its name. It's easy to accept the most obvious cause for these various immoralities, because it saves one having to think - and the fanatic (on either side) prefers not to bother thinking too much. But where religion is offered as justification for wickedness, you'll find - if you look - that there's always something else behind it: the desire for power, or wealth, or whatever.

Religion does not cause people to behave shittily towards each other. People do that anyway. Religion gives them something to hide behind while they do it. Yes, abhor the killers. Abhor the abusers. Abhor the rapists and the thieves. Abhor them *whether they're religious or not*. But save your bile for those who do these things. Those who don't, whether they're religious or not, don't deserve to be treated as though they're guilty, and only a bigot would do so.

<< religion is a pretty big dumb irrational idea, up there with Astrology, Homeopathy, Aliens, etc... >>

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume that, by 'aliens', you mean the X-Files kind of alien, rather than the idea of extraterrestrial life. Extraterrestrial life as a possibility causes no particular problems for science, and indeed some would argue that dismissing the possibility out of hand would be irrational in such a big universe.

@ archie lukas

<< But surely debate is a good thing? >>

Sure, it is, if anyone involved has the slightest intention of listening to anyone else's point of view. Unfortunately, where this subject is concerned, as you can see from this comments page, that's not the usual attitude. There are some, yes, but the 'passionate' advocates for each side, safe in the knowledge that theirs is the superior position, usually feel no need to try to see things from the other's point of view. And while debate can be a good thing, endless repetitions of the same fruitless arguments and epithets demonstrably serve no useful purpose except to give the irate types on both sides a chance to indulge themselves.

By the way, to all those quoting and counter-quoting Einstein: first, he wasn't religious in the sense of recognising a personal God. Second, and more important, Einstein's opinions about religion are *absolutely irrelevant*. Both sides clearly want to claim the genius for themselves: but just because Einstein was a genius in certain terms doesn't mean he was any better qualified than the rest of us to know the answer to this particular question. Let the poor guy rest in peace.

[Anonymous Coward]

Fanatical religious idiots

<< EQUALLY FANATICAL???? >>

"Yes. Equally fanatical."

Who are you trying to kid?

Religious people all over the world are busy blowing up the "other side"'s churches/mosques/temples and killing people on account of their religious views.

Just last week, a gang entered a mosque in Algeria during friday prayers, hauled two men out of the assembly, took them out into the courtyard and shot them dead, telling everybody "we are doing Allah's will".

These stories happen every day of every week.

Now, find me the equivalent story where these "fanatical" atheists you imagine to exist go around murdering anybody on account of their views about religion.

IT DOES NOT HAPPEN.

[Anonymous Coward]

Lame attempt at rational argument by god-botherer

"Atheist simply refers to anyone who doesn't believe that God exists. Some problems turn on the word "believe." Some atheists deny they are saying they *know* God doesn't exist, they simply believe God doesn't exist. Others don't like it when others point out that atheism is also a faith based belief.

In fact both have a point, but what an atheist can't claim is both formulations. If an atheist wants to claim rationality leads them to *know* God doesn't exist, then they are obliged to provide rational proof."

Thanks for the classic exposition of the sort of intellectually-challenged mish-mash spouted by those whose lack of brains puts them in danger of being religious.

The above utter nonsense has no basis in logic or rational thought. Atheists don't "believe" anything about god, they simply "don't believe". There is nothing to "know" about something which is a complete fantasy.

If you have proof to back up your fantasy about god, we'll be delighted to see it - if not, stop wasting our time with your irrational and non-factual beliefs.

[Martin TURNER]

IQ

In that same hour he rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said, ‘I thank thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes; yea, Father, for such was thy gracious will.’

Luke ch. 10 v. 21. Revised Standard Version (RSV).

[Roger Brown]

Douglas, where are you?

I thought Douglas Adams sorted this out in the radio version of Hitchhiker's Guide years ago: God vanishes in a puff of logic.

Given the current state of world behaviour, who can tell where the intelligent ones are right now anyway?

[Michael]

IQ attempts to measure problem solving ability

So far as it goes, I tend to agree with the result of this kind of study, but what they are measuring is not religion per se, but acceptance of what they've been told uncritically. It is entirely possible to approach God and religion critically and the outcome is not predictable. For an intelligent, critical thinker, if you have evidence of God, then it cannot be dismissed. If you don't, that too cannot be dismissed.

IQ: I was thoroughly examined when joining the Navy in particular as I was a candidate for the Academy and some sort of Engineering. Portions of these tests examine "learning" and portions test visual and spatial task solving capacity and are not related to learning and culture. I was even tested on my ability to perceive whether two audio tones were the same pitch or different.

I am a very rational person. Facts are important to me; but so is friendship and happiness. These things need not be "rival". I have not yet discovered a basis for Morality that does not involve God.

I had no conspicuous religion growing up. It is the existence of a small miracle in my teenage life that started me on the road to belief. Since then, many more such things have proven to my demanding satisfaction that there is indeed some kind of God; a being that is aware of what I am doing and can suggest alterations in what I am doing with immediate beneficial consequence, but the benefits usually are to someone else. To me, these are facts. For to you they become anecdotes, thrown in a big pot of soup along with everyone else's anecdotes. I don't need you to believe me but it would be nice if atheists would quit calling me and my kind deluded, insane, etc.

You can review the relative merits of atheists on the newsgroup alt.atheism and judge for yourself whether this class of person represents the next stage of human evolution. They are every bit as tied to their beliefs as I am to mine.

[Anonymous Coward]

@Kenneth

Dude,

Before you get too over-excited and start calling people stupid, please remember that Jonah spent 3 days in a whale. Whales aren't fish. They are mammals.

Obviously a whale isn't any easier to live in than a fish, which is why I sent him a magic one - durrr.

Still, I thought I'd better point that out.

By the way - I'm *always* watching you. So stop it.

[Richard Irvine]

I urge people to get their facts straight before saying things like "it does not happen"

To the most recent Anonymous poster: I'm not really interested in getting bogged down in a statistical argument about whether belief makes you more bloodthirsty, but before you say "IT DOES NOT HAPPEN" you might want to look up the anticlerical purges of President Plutarco Elias Calles of Mexico. You might also want to consider the 100 martyrs canonised by the Russian Orthodox Church in August 2000, who were representative of the approximately 100,000 Orthodox killed for their beliefs by the atheistic Soviet administration.

As I say, I am not going to make any claims about whether reading the Bible makes you more bloodthirsty than reading Dawkins ;) But I would say that blanket claims that atheists have not killed religious people for their beliefs are empirically false, and I would urge people to read up on their history before getting involved in this debate.

[Mike]

@Steven Goddard

Stephen, Stephen, Stephen (tut tut, it looks like rain)

Yet again with the misquotes, and for you own interpretation of Einstein (very presumptiuous of you), trying to say, how, after a long lifetime of believing in god, he changes his mind and that somehow diminishes what he had to say?

Einstein clearly said (exact words) "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

To me, it sounds like he was trying to say that he had not believed in a personal god for a long time (one who considers the fates of people), but even if I'm biased and he had come to this conclusion after years of scientific study and introspection (if the "never denied" was a recent thing), surely this conclusion has even more weight?

I suspect that you'll always believe what you want to believe, ignore any facts that don't fit with your beliefs, use interpretations that defy logic, but you're only fooling yourself, stengthing the resolve of the willingly blind and appearing more transparrent with every keystroke, please reply again, leave out some important details, misquote, you're just like the so called christian who quotes leviticus because it says what they want it to say.

By the way, the whole quote is "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." and you do wish to blind us all don't you Stephen.

[Mike]

@Taskis (My last post on this one)

Cool, so I can say whatever I like and you won't disagree?

Why is what Einstein thought so important in ths debate? It's actually really obvious, he is one of the greatest scientists ever, I suspect, ever will be, sure he might pale against the geniuses to come, like Aristotle and Volta have, but he'll be remembered forever, this whole article is about IQ and Theism, he was smart and not a Theist (and the Theists won't accept this).

Is debate pointless? will the ardent (non)believers change their minds? nope, but this is not a private discussion and it will promote other readers to think about things, either deepen their delusions or open their minds.

[Anonymous Coward]

Predictable nonsense

Ah, these people are the self-proclaimed "Brights"... Well, this "research" is totally predictable and completely wrong. There are many thousands of academics who are "religious", as the "researcher" almost certainly knows.

Debbie Kean

[Ign R. Amis]

@Debbie Kean

Thousands of academics means nothing when schools have departments devoted to theology - the study of a bunch of made up fairy tales, lent weight by virtue of the fact that millions of people profess belief in them.

Even Paris is smart enough to know there's no such thing as god.

[Onionman]

@Dave Oldham

You say: "The atheist position is quite simple; you live, you die, you decompose, the end. They claim that they "KNOW THIS FOR A FACT." They build easily knock-down able straw man arguments and think that they are clever. "

Well, not really so.

I suggest most atheists (and probably most scientists) would say something more like:

You live you die, you decompose, then end. At the moment, and given the currently available evidence, this is a hypothesis that is viable, as there is no evidence to disprove it. However, if evidence were to appear that there is more than this, we would be forced to review the hypothesis.

I really think you'd find few of them saying they "KNOW THIS FOR A FACT" as that would be blind faith, something I'd probably be surprised to find in an atheist.

Talk about putting up straw men...

V

PS, Is this "spitting venom" or a rational argument? I'm confused.

[Ronny Cook]

Definition of atheism...

Most professing Christians with whom I have discussed this in the past counted atheists as those who affirmatively state that there is no God (or deity of any sort). Agnosticism was regarded as the "I dunno" position.

Most people who regard themselves as atheists would put their position more as "In the absence of evidence to positively confirm the existence of a deity, I work on the assumption that no divinity exists." Agnosticism is less positive - "I dunno, and you dunno either."

If you are ever arguing with a theist on the existence of God, keep the distinction in mind. You may think (s)he's missing a brick or two because there's no evidence affirming their position. They think that *you* are missing a brick or two because they think there is a *lot* of evidence (most notably the Bible) and there's no evidence proving that they're wrong.

The Bible is taken (assumed) to be true because it *says* it is. "All scripture is inspired by God..." and if you can't trust the Bible in such things, who CAN you trust? The circular logic is missed by a lot of people.

Personally I gave up on the literal truth of the Bible about six pages into a book that professed to explain every single noted inconsistency, then used such a lot of sophistry and weasel-wording that I couldn't stand to side with the author.

If arguing this stuff with a theist, keep in mind that they may just be working on a different set of base assumptions. Automatically assuming that any theist is stupid is likely to be a mistake. There are a lot of stupid theists, but there are also a lot of stupid atheists - intelligence and atheism are correlated, but the causal relationship hasn't been demonstrated. You'll never convince anyone by making step one an assumption that your axioms are true and theirs are false.

...Ronny