Atheists have higher IQs and self esteem than religious people…

~ iDikko

a recent study shows… Atheists tend to have a higher IQ and fewer self esteem issues..

Psychologists from the University of Rochester define intelligence as ‘ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly, and learn from experience’. They go on to define religion as some sort of involvement in part or all of the aspects of a belief process.

A meta-analysis of 63 studies showed a significant negative association between intelligence and religiosity. The association was stronger for college students and the general population than for participants younger than college age; it was also stronger for religious beliefs than religious behavior. 53 from the 63 studies displayed a ‘reliable negative relation between intelligence and religiosity’, in 10 of the 63 studies that relationship positive.

Three possible interpretations were discussed.

First, intelligent people are less likely to conform and, thus, are more likely to resist religious dogma.

Second, intelligent people tend to adopt an analytic (as opposed to intuitive) thinking style, which has been shown to undermine religious beliefs.

Third, several functions of religiosity, including compensatory control, self-regulation, self-enhancement, and secure attachment, are also conferred by intelligence.

Intelligent people may therefore have less need for religious beliefs and practices.

In their conclusions, they said: ‘Most extant explanations (of a negative relation) share one central theme – the premise that religious beliefs are irrational, not anchored in science, not testable and, therefore, unappealing to intelligent people who ‘know better’. ‘Intelligent people typically spend more time in school – a form of self-regulation that may yield long-term benefits. ‘More intelligent people getting higher level jobs and better employment and higher salary may lead to higher self-esteem, and encourage personal control beliefs.’

Who knew…

Reference:  http://psr.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/08/02/1088868313497266.short

iDikko

92 thoughts on “Atheists have higher IQs and self esteem than religious people…”

  2. Thank you for posting this interesting little snippet of news…

    I must observe, however, that it’s hardly surprising, but it’s nice to get some empirical confirmation of what one already knows.

    But seriously, how could it be otherwise? Religion, most particularly the Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity, Islam and, I suspect, even the relatively progressive Bah’ai Faith ALL teach the doctrine of ‘Original Sin’… and that we are ALL worthy of nothing better than death and an eternity of torture for the simple fact of having been born in the ‘sinful’ act of procreation…

    I remember many classes as a very young child, that were given to my by nuns on the ‘very real’ tortures of Hell’n’Damnation…

    I’d describe the RCC as a ‘carrot and stick’ philosophy which somehow either constantly forgets the carrot and somehow uses ONLY the stick… as an institutionalized philosophy of child-rearing I’d call it institutionalized child-abuse; the motto, “Spare the rod and spoil the child” is pernicious!

    As someone who has worked, albeit briefly, (15 months…) as a psychotherapist in a home for abused children, I DO have some idea of the kind of damage this does to them; physical abuse and neglect are as damaging to a child’s psyche as is sexual abuse… but I won’t go into the church’s attitude to that… suffice it to say that any form of abuse, whether it’s emotional/psychological, physical, or sexual, is extremely damaging to a developing psyche…

    Liked by 8 people

    Reply

      1. Too many people (adults, that is…) were beginning to realize, and worse, to speak out about just how ridiculous and how sadistic such a concept actually is…

        Funny how adaptable and changeable Christianity can be when it wants to… I hear nowadays they’re even beginning to accept concepts from people they once persecuted into near-extinction as heretics for the same beliefs they are now espousing… From an evolutionist’s perspective this is perhaps admirably adaptable… If somewhat hypocritical! But I suppose it represents a baby-step forward.

        I’m personally convinced, as an atheist, that if there is ANY supreme or governing principle to this universe (other than “Everything changes!”) it must surely be the principle of Irony!

        Liked by 4 people

      3. I don’t think hell, per se has been done away with, certainly not in the catholic religion, but purgatory is never mentioned any more – ever! They (religious people, from the pope downwards) just don’t mention hell, because more and more are believing less and less. One only has to take a look inside a church in Ireland to see the damage that misbehaviour by so called religious people has wreaked. The pews are empty save for a few elderly who just can’t seem to give up their lifelong traditions. Some say that the morality of the world has suffered as a result of the decline of religious belief, I think our own inherent morality can at last come out from its hiding place where it has been pushed by religious doctrine force-fed to us from the time we could talk and walk. I say good riddance! I’m Irish, I’m proud, I’m a non believer. (does that make me intelligent too!!)

        Liked by 2 people

    2. Procreation is not sinful in marriage between a man and woman. No refunds does procreation in or outside of marriage make us sinful. The sin nature is part of the changed human nature after Adam and Eve fell. Knowledge of good and evil but inability to always do good is that part of human nature that we all are born with that makes it a sin nature.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

    3. I agree some what with your opinion.
      Humanity is the greatest religion. No religion is above it. Those who torture or kill their fellow beings are no better than demons or whatever represents evil in their religion.
      But you must understand that these dogmas these inhuman behavior in the name of religion are made by man and not god. These are wrong interpretation of mankind to suit their opinion. Religion is spiritual only when it is practiced for the betterment of humanity.
      I believe that true teachings of any kind religion leads to love and peace and not all this.
      We are all children of God. We are all equal in his eyes. He has not given us envy, hate or dogmas. These are developed by us.
      Humanity is the greatest religion. Those who follow it are true desrvers of this life.
      Also we are not here to suffer for eternity. I am sure there are many good things around you which makes this life worthy to live. Please look for them and never lose hope. I wish you all d best for your life.

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

    4. It would seem that the idea of two choices after your demise seems simplistic and a bit bi-polar. The very act of killing off the individual thinkers and so labeled heretics is counter-productive in a Darwinian kinda way.
      I think that there are several levels of awareness with our species. Third level is where the majority seem to reside in that they have no abstract thinking abilities and must conform to the ideology of the times. In a twisted existence of monkey see monkey do it seems they have no choice to follow because they lack the ability to think for themselves. The fourth level of awareness would be abstract thought and the ability to visualize something other than what they see or hear. I feel like the greatest minds were fourth level thinkers and they helped improve the quality of the gene pool.
      If a third level thinker has to have religion to keep them in line then I say let them stay where they are and believe in creationism if they choose. I find it a bit amusing that the monkey see monkey doers are the ones who cant believe in evolution despite years of research presented to them in a repetitive manner. Therefore, I can concur with the notion that Atheist have higher IQ’s because they question everything and have the innate ability to see beyond the reality presented to them. I hereby present them with an imaginary plaque for being a fourth level thinker…

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. The religulous are trained from birth NOT to think… this is what shapes and limits their consciousness and limits their awareness to ONLY those matters and events which relate to their own particular cosmology and ensures that all events are seen through that filter. All their thinking is done for them and pre-digested in their ‘Holy Scriptures’ and any possibility outside is seen as heresy… which amounts to a denial of what one does not want to believe… wilful ignorance. It is the triumph of prejudice over knowledge…

        But it is most important to note that this is NOT a natural condition! It is taught!

        Just as easily as children can be trained NOT to think, they can also be trained to think… (However it is most important to always remember to teach HOW to think, not WHAT to think…)

        I think your attempt to categorize levels of consciousness is interesting… but are you sure there are only 4 levels of ‘consciousness’…?

        Like

      2. Oh no not just 4 but I don’t think the majority of humans can reach more than the abstract thought level..

        Like

      3. PS: But of course… the limitation religion puts upon people’s consciousness by limiting their ability to think is only HALF the story… The other half lies in the answers to the question why this is done? As you say, it doesn’t seem to have any evolutionary benefit… (actually, this is arguable, but I don’t wish to do so here…) The answers are really relatively simple: Religion, at least in the Judeo-Christian paradigm, takes on an imperial form; the natural and logical result of an hierarchical cosmology… And if you’re an emperor, you need slaves… lots of them. And you don’t want slaves – or ‘sheep’ (to be regularly fleeced and sacrificed whenever necessary) – to think… most especially you don’t want them to question the ‘nature of things’… or their place in a ‘Natural Order’ which is neither natural nor orderly! Mostly what you want from them is obedience… Unquestioning obedience… that makes the best cannon fodder!

        You’ll note how the god-head is always regarded in terms of ‘kingship’… and that the world is currently rapidly being turned into a totalitarian global empire by a Zionist global elite… (regardless of whether you call them the 1%-ers, the NWO or the Illuminati…)

        They hope to actually bring about the return of their messiah by the creation of ‘Eretz Israel’… an Israeli empire which is already far too well established, and which is largely responsible for the state of global chaos that the world is in today… all part of the plan… as was 9/11 and the attack on the USS Liberty… as was WWI and WWII… it’s a long-term plan, fostered by a cabal of jewish banksters led by the Rothschilds, which has been growing for centuries… the next step in the plan is to deconstruct the USA and construct the North American Union, which will include Canada and Mexico… That’s why Obama has ignored the border problems and even encouraged mass migration from Mexico…

        What people still don’t seem to realize is to what extent religion IS the problem! And thus that it can never be part of any REAL solution!

        Liked by 1 person

  5. I seems to me that their definitions created the results. Looks like they used constructs which resemble common stereotypes in both science and religion. Both can produce cool-aid drinkers in their camps. “Problem solving,” what particular problems were they referring to? Problems set within what system? For instance, solving for X in advanced math is truly irrelevant to most people but years are spent in an “educational” system boring and frustrating children when they could be spending that time discovering their genius in art or trades or entrepreneurship. Looks like the research was designed to measure compliance with or integration into a particular program of thought and behavior. That is what IQ measures, not much else. The IQ test is dogma and typically accepted in faith within much reflection. How well kids are trained to sit still and move when the bell sounds and surrender their genius to a system of education that by all accounts (at least in the USA) is mediocre at best.

    Science as it is commonly understood can become a “religion” in itself. A materialist church of “I have the special knowledge” requiring as much or greater faith than religion. Most science does not attempt to integrate quantum physics and other trans-material “Science” into their meta-physical dogma. Once one gets past matter into energy and limitations of human senses I think it is the place that was once understood as spirit. Perhaps both camps should approach their pursuits with a bit more humility and remember that they all “see through a glass darkly.” Anyway, that is what I thought. Thank you for presenting this! I had not intended think much this early:). Be Groovy!

    Liked by 6 people

    Reply

  7. I’m not surprised by the results of this study as it bears out personal observation. Religion is a man made political construct for taming the masses – an exercise I can live without. Spirituality I’m not so wont to lump in the same category. As opposed to the narrow minded, reactionary, superstitions of the lock step religious, for spirituality represents my wonder and awe at the scope and weft of the magnificent, living creation in which I find myself – it’s the gratitude I feel for having a chance at bat in this incredible experience we call life; and it’s the willingness to have belief in things unseen (the driver to search for the hidden things in creation). And even though the most casual observation can only lead to the conclusion that abuse through dogmatic, regressive religiosity has been a source of great suffering for humanity. I’m just not willing to throw out the baby (spiritual enlightenment) with the bath water (religion). Thanks for sharing this thought provoking post.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

    2. It is at least as possible for an atheist as for a believer to achieve some kind of spiritual enlightenment, although it has a different quality; one which is, in fact perhaps more worthy of the name ‘enlightenment’… You see, atheists may not believe in some ‘ghosty-type’ thing called a ‘soul’, or a ‘spirit’… but that doesn’t mean they don’t have ‘soul’ or ‘spirit’… (Notice there’s a conceptual difference between A soul and ‘soul’… in the sense the blues-men use…)

      I think that what atheists should concern themselves is not any notion of any kind of ‘afterlife’, or any attempt at be ‘godliness’, rather but with THIS life, and the cultivation of their Humanity rather than trying religiously, and inevitably failing, to be little ‘god-lings’ by trying to be ‘god-like’ rather than Human!

      The Buddha said, “The nature of the enlightened mind is Compassion!” I think he was exactly correct: the greatest virtue of Humanity is compassion since one cannot possible cultivate Humanity by practising Inhumanity! A life lived with this awareness, in the cultivation of Humanity, is one that is open to even the hardest of lessons that this life has to teach us and so spiritual progress is made… If the word ‘spirit’ seems odd when used by an atheist like myself, I should say that I’m talking about the kind of ‘spirit’ that may live on after a person’s life in their example to the community, and in the works they leave behind. For example the way the spirit of Mark Twain lives on after his death… in the Civil Rights movement which his works had a large part in getting started! (One of my favorite moments in all literature is the moment Huck Finn decided “Well, I’ll GO to hell then!” Instead of betraying his friend, the escaped slave, Jim, back into bondage, as was his Christian duty…)

      I guess what I’m trying to say is that it is not necessary to ‘throw the baby out with the bathwater’… no need to give up being a good person just because you no longer believe nonsense… and think about this too, with regard to spirituality… The kind of spirituality demanded by religion is based on obedience (to god, and to the word of god…) and in order to ensure the obedience of their flocks the preachers offer the ‘carrot’ of Heaven, and the ‘stick’ of Hell… but how can this kind of obedience, which is based on fear and/or reward, possibly be called ‘virtue’? This is the virtue of a donkey… not a Human being… The fact is it is only possible to cultivate TRUE Virtue by doing what is right because it is the right thing to do, regardless of fear or reward; so in fact it is ONLY atheists who are capable of REAL ‘spiritual’ progress…

      (And I haven’t yet said a single word, yet, about the validity of any kind of spirituality which depends on an insistence on belief in the efficacy of a 2,000 year-old human sacrifice phrased as a scapegoat ritual… Nor the morality – or otherwise – of such human sacrifices and/or scapegoat rituals… which, if the truth be known, are all about escaping personal responsibility for one’s less admirable actions in this life… in order to attain the promised ‘carrot’…)

      There are some people who believe that we are not born with a spirit, or ‘soul’, but that, if we practice diligently, we may grow one before we die… I have more sympathy for this kind of view than the common view of ‘soul’…

      So remember, spirituality is NOT the sole province of the religious… regardless of the fact that they would love to think it is!

      Peace.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  9. I have had low self-esteem much of my life but it was really bad during my religious years. Of course, I was always “in sin” and my “righteousness was as filthy rags”. I have always believed kindness to be above everything else and if I ever preformed an act of kindness or love I was told that, “none are righteous, no not one”. It gets to you after awhile. Though I continued to practice kindness I thought I would still going to hell. That is a terrible way to feel all the time.
    As for IQ, I know I am not intelligent. Religion did not make a difference in that area of my life. That said, I do believe there is a force out there but I no longer think if is the God I had been following.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. Hi Birdie… I just want to tell you that you’re smarter than you think! You’re smart enough to see through the deception of religion… And smart enough too, to realize instinctively that kindness is worth a damn sight more than ANY religion! So, ‘Good onya, mate!’ as we say here in Oz! 🙂

      Like

      Reply

    1. Bollox!

      Certainly religion is a tool for the manipulation of people… as is ANY ideology…

      But since atheism consists SOLELY in a denial of (specifically religious) ideologies and DOES NOT constitute ANY kind of ideology in and of itself, it can hardly be a tool…

      If I were to believe in a god then perhaps you or some other ideologue might be able to gain some control over me and get me to do whatever you want me to do… as religious leaders do with their sheep, by simply insisting on the correctness of whatever doctrine you are trying to push… without EVER having to prove the truth of anything you claim because of course, ‘faith’ is required… and if you question, you obviously ‘lack faith’… And if you disagree with ANY point of religious doctrine, you can be labelled a heretic with all the social disapprobation and alienation this conveys… which is still considerable, even if you can’t burn us all at the stake these days, like you used to… Oh dear, how sad, never mind… Indeed this is how religion creates the sheep-like nature of their ‘flocks’ (and they are still not even ashamed to use such terminology to describe their believers! Worse! The ‘sheep’ don’t even mind being seen and referred to as such! Just as long as they have their ‘good shepherd’…)

      The fact that this is NOT possible for atheists is what really bugs the religious… so with the desperation of a drowning man clutching at straws, they attempt to insist that somehow atheism is a ‘religion’ too. (And this is effectively what you are trying to imply, whether you realise it or not!) Like crabs in a bucket, they just can’t bear to see anyone ‘escaping’ from the prison of their hide-bound beliefs!

      Of course, the notion that atheism somehow represents a ‘religion’ or even some other kind of ‘ideology’ is a bare-faced lie, as well as a logical non-sequitur; and religious leaders are well aware of this fact… But they don’t have to convince ATHEISTS that their simple non-belief somehow represents some imagined ‘body of doctrine’ anyway. They only have to convince their own followers of this lie so that then the atheist ‘outsiders’ can be dealt with under the ‘anyone who says we’re wrong is a heretic’ line of ‘reasoning’ (which I put in inverted commas to indicate that whatever it is, it is far from reason, reasoning, OR reasonable!) and shunned… by which means they keep their followers away from any danger of ‘contamination’ from such atheists…

      No… atheism is NOT a tool and you can NOT manipulate an atheist simply and solely by the fact of his/her atheism… because in order to manipulate people, you must have some kind of ideological ‘handle’ to use and this could not be further from the reality of atheism, because no two atheists necessarily agree on any particular item… other than the simple fact of their own disbelief; and even this means different things to different atheists…

      Isn’t it about time to grow up and stop using such, “I known you are… but what am I?” type tactics? They never even made sense to me, even as a child in the school-yard… It is pitiful to see adults using similar forms of logic in deadly earnest…

      Like

      Reply

      1. I’m tempted to just say “A whole lot of words; a whole lot of ‘whatever’.”

        I support your right to believe or not believe. Rabid atheists are just as repugnant to me as the Jesus Jumpers and Jehovahs Witnesses and such like. You need to take a chill pill .

        Like

      2. Meh… whatever…

        So I don’t like being lied about; perhaps you are more permissive?

        ‘Rabid atheists’ according to your usage, would appear to be anyone who objects to Christians lying about atheists…

        Why is it that you seem to assume atheists have no right to defend themselves against the slanders of the religious? You seem to expect us to just allow anything whatsoever to be said about or against us and just keep schtumm… without even raising a word in self-defence?

        Get real! Atheists have been forced into silence for far too long! Get used to it…

        Like

      3. I don’t there is a real connection; you are not talking about me. You don’t know me. I’m not anti-atheism or anti you. I hae no desire in controlling or manipulating you beyond trying to lead you past your anger. Why do you assume I have such motives? What I said is the opposite of what you seem to think I said. Just be careful of how you oppose something lest you become like the thing you are against. That would be as in bigoted, self-righteous, self-absorbed.

        This world would be a really creepy place, not to mention boring if we didn’t have differences of opinion, belief and values. You blast right past that without hearing what I said which was, if I remember correctly something about supporting completely your right to believe or disbelieve whatever you please. Who is forcing you into silence? Maye you could use a little silence to contemplate whether there is worth in unfocused anger and presumptions of hostility. That’s not where I’m at; no where near.

        Like

      4. I appreciate what you say about being careful not to become what one hates, but you are misinterpreting my emotions; you must not mistake clarity of thought and expression for anger… something which sometimes happens simply as a result of the statement of actual facts even in the absence of any emotional attachment.
        I consider believers to be severely misled, but do not ‘hate’ either them, or even their religions, or even those ‘leaders’ who are doing the misleading… but my main emotion towards them is compassion.
        However I do not have much compassion for liars who spread malicious fairytales about anyone who just happens to disagree with them… Such tales are not without effect in the real world, whether you realise it or not… If I take the time and the trouble to object to the lies told by believers about atheists, and if all atheists did the same, without ever raising any objection, we would soon find ourselves on torture-racks in front of another ‘Inquisition’ prior to being burned at the stake… AGAIN! (Btw, you are aware the old one never really ‘went away’…? It just changed it’s name… and softened its methods a little… for the time being…)
        There is an absolute historical necessity for the kind of objection I make and so I consider it a social duty… if you are indeed an atheist, or even an ‘agnostic’ you should thank me for doing so, rather than giving me grief for being able to see what you can’t.

        As for how I oppose ‘belief’… yes, I’m aware of the danger of becoming that which one struggles against… I try very carefully to let truth and reason be my guides…

        What you said about my ‘right to disbelieve’ was, to be honest, both trite and patronizing… so I pointed out that what you were really trying to do, or so it seemed, with such a trite, patronising remark, was to just get me, and who knows, perhaps even other atheists to shut up… You sounded very much like those Christians, (though I never said you were one; I appreciated your ‘neutral’ stance) who say, “Oh, atheists have a right to disbelieve, but I don’t want to hear them talk about it…” When what they really mean is they don’t want atheists to explain their disbelief because they know that in doing so the lies and contradictions within their own faith would soon become apparent and they perhaps even – fearfully – anticipate some negative alteration in their own faith. As an ex-believer I understand the angst perfectly! I did not become an atheist overnight… But atheists tend to tell the truth about those parts of religions that religions would like to forget… but such things must never be forgotten, or they WILL be repeated!

        I agree with what you say about the ‘world would be boring… etc…’ I’ve said exactly the same thing more times than I could possibly remember! And that’s why I still consider that everyone has the right to believe whatever they want to believe; it is futile to attempt to regulate human stupidity…

        Who is forcing me to silence, you ask…? Okay, you can’t ‘force’ me to silence, not matter how forceful your choice of words, and even your words were not very forceful; rather it was ‘just a suggestion’… a ‘polite’ one, even… (if patronizing)… and you even repeat it in the sentence immediately after asking who was trying shut me up… does the word ‘irony’ mean anything to you?
        I hope you will now understand that, although it was ‘just a suggestion’ it was the wrong suggestion; that there is a reason for my protest which has nothing to do with ‘anger’… It’s called ‘self-defence’… a phrase I seem to remember using already in this conversation…
        Perhaps you have lived a comfortable life and, having never been attacked yourself, perhaps you do not even appreciate the value or necessity for self-defence…?
        I hope your illusion continues, but frankly I do not wish to share it…
        Peace! 🙂

        Liked by 1 person

    1. Hitler wrote: “I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord..” As a boy, Hitler attended to the Catholic church and experienced the anti-Semitic attitude of his culture. In his book, Mein Kampf, Hitler reveals himself as a fanatical believer in God and country.

      I find it very humorous how xtians always throw out the “Hitler” card when they have nothing else to offer. It is a last ditch effort; nothing more than grasping at straws.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      1. Hitler’s own book is not a good reference to the true character of the man. It goes without saying that he would have unrealistic bias to himself.
        History records He was a beast, in every manner of the definition.
        He cried a Bible in public to sway what should have been his greatest critics. Only Reverend Deitrich Bonhoffer and a very few others stood against Hitler because they saw what he really was.
        He gave copies of the atheist Friedrich Nietzsche’s books to Stalin and Mussolini.
        Hitler was no Christian.

        Liked by 1 person

    2. Another religious LIE! And I’m so sick and tired of hearing and having to refute this one… It’s so bloody stale it’s mouldy!

      The Nazi regime was ENTIRELY religious! NOT atheistic!

      Every Nazi soldier wore a belt, upon the buckle of which was inscribed ‘Gott mit uns’ (God is with us)… and Hitler was a Roman Catholic… (and yes, so was Stalin… he trained in a seminary) and, as is evident from even a cursory reading of “Mein Kampf,” saw himself as ‘doing god’s work’.

      And if you really knew what you were talking about you might realize that in fact the REAL people behind such horrors as the ‘Holocaust’ (a Jewish word meaning ‘sacrifice’ or ‘burnt offerings’) were in fact Jews themselves… or at least, they were ‘Ashkenazi Jews’, led by the (Ashkenazi Jewish) Rothschild family who not only supported BOTH sides in both world wars (and profited from the sales of arms and other commodities to both sides), but who were, in fact, trying desperately to get rid of opposition to their own abominable religion by eliminating REAL (ie. genetic) Jews, who were – and still are! – appalled by the Zionist agenda of the Ashkenazis because the Torah actually FORBIDS Jews to have a state of their own until AFTER the return of THEIR messiah! (Which is NOT ‘Jesus’…)

      btw, “Christ-centred teaching” = MIS-education! (read “Lies”)

      Like

      Reply

      1. Wow. I’ve never seen a 100 plus word run-on sentence! But the truth of the belt buckle thing is well documented that they were left overs from WW1. Hitler gave copies of Neitche to both Mussolini and Stalin. Hitler’s book written by Hitler is an obviously biased and unreliable resource into the true character of the man who history records was a self absorbed beast who only used the religious reference to advance his scheme. Stalin left seminary because he decided he no longer believed in God. Hitler give copies of Nietzsche to both Stalin and Mussolini.

        Like

      2. I never disputed that Hitler was also influenced by Nietzche; I’ve said so myself, elsewhere…

        But that does not change the fact that Hitler WAS a Catholic. There’s a very famous photo of him shaking hands with the pope; and the Jesuits were more than a little influential in the Nazi movement. There is plenty of evidence if only you would care to look for it. Like most religious people, however, you will simply refuse to believe anything which contradicts your ‘beliefs’.

        And whilst there is much that is certainly questionable in Mein Kampf, Hitler says he feels he is doing ‘god’s work’ and that much I think we can take at face value… (oh, except of course, if you’re one of those religious folk who wish to deny the role of ANY religion in the Nazi movement… usually so they can blame the Holocaust on ‘atheists’… Scapegoating is a traditional and virtually ubiquitous Christian habit!)

        And the fact that the belt-buckles were left-over from WWI is neither here nor there… I cannot imagine ANY atheist ever allowing their army to wear any such device just to save a few marks on buckles!

        I see, however, that you cannot really disprove anything I’ve said, and you know it… So your priority is to criticize, not my grammar, for that is correct, but simply my style… for writing ‘run-on’ (read ‘long’) sentences.

        I’ll take this as an eloquent admission of defeat on your part!

        Like

  16. Newtons IQ had to be astronomical. He was a very devote Christian and wrote more of Christianity than science. The greatest scientist ever.
    Mine is in the top 2.5%.
    This study is as biased as any I’ve seen.
    The criterion makes the outcome in favor of the obvious bias.

    Like

    Reply

  17. Good one.A new poem The Mystery Of Death is waiting for you .I hope you will like it… Please do visit my blog too as i am a beginner blogger and hope every love and support from you.I hope you will like it.Thank you

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  19. It is the concept of heaven. I am Jewish and therefore I have no place in heaven for I do not recognize Jesus as my Savior. Not even a corner, maybe a condo, a back yard dog house. Nay no entrance. You ask me to believe and I find I cannot.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  21. Thank you for the blog and the follow. I enjoyed reading it and look forward to reading more of your blogs. The one thing in the blog that I have problems with is the idea and concept of IQ testing. While I believe your claims to be generally in truth, I find Intelligence testing to be so culturally biased that it’s merit and validity to measure intelligence levels of those who are not familiar with the culture is skewed to those native or well immersed in the culture and how they test.

    For example if any of us were to be dropped off in an Amazon rainforest with a group of Yanamamo I doubt our “intelligence” and how we could survive in their society without years of being immersed in it would prove us anywhere close to intelligent beings if measured by their intelligence scales. The opposite being true if one of the most skilled, keen, productive poison dart hunters, and leader of his band, thought of as the most intelligent of their peoples were to be dropped off here and had their intelligence measured by one of our standard tests would probably score extremely low, yet neither example is one of intelligence but of scoring in an exam that cannot be made appropriate for a body of cultures. I know I nitpick but religion being such a universal concept in cultures this should apply cross culturally.

    I do enjoy the post though and look forward to reading more, and yes I have no religion but my own…one member, no room for more, my beliefs often tested with a skeptics eye for documentation, evidence of the tangible, but open to the possibility of a universe that will always have countless mysteries for which no evidence will be found by humans, or even representatives from the planet earth. I believe us to be extremely arrogant on both ends of the argument, being that we are a bacteria, on a flea, on a dog, on a sheep ranch, in a county, state, country, planet, Galaxy, universe which is one of who knows how many….if we had the answers and the intelligence couldn’t we stop the obvious extinction that our species is responsible for and will continue to do so.

    Is intelligence destroying the most valuable ecosystems containing countless unknown species and genus of animals, insects, plants, bacteria, and other life forms, not to mention the greatest oxygen producer in the world….the Amazon rainforest? Yet the religious folks who ventured there 5 centuries ago knew well enough not to clear cut the rainforest a for cheap sources of fast food. Hum. Guess both could be right or wrong or responsible for a raped species, and planet. Maybe that is just the skeptic in me speaking though.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  23. I’ve wondered before if education is a barrier to G-d for bright people because they learn to use different yardsticks to measure utility or validity. For example, how many professors use the yardstick of science to measure the historicity of the Scriptures? Wouldn’t that necessitate the repeating of lives and deaths, boom times and wars, and other unduplicable events? But science is based on observational and repeatable outcomes of experiments, isn’t it?

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  25. Raised an agnostic liberal, I remember having the mindset your post asserts. Christians were weak minded, and addicted to the “opiate of the people”. They were hypocritical sheeple. Even today I am a lot more fond of Jesus than I am His fan club. As an agnostic liberal, I thought I had a more objective way of looking at the world. When I was an agnostic liberal, I was wrong.

    A journey I took from age 17 – 25 informed me of my agnostic half-mindedness and blind hubris. I had appointed myself, pridefully, as more intelligent than over 80% of earth’s human population. I would have also allowed my self-aggrandizing ego to be fed by the cherry-picked “study” that is the topic of this blog posting. Of course, today I see the shallowness and lack of self-esteem that the purported “study” represents.

    The American Psychological Association was once fearful and misunderstanding of faith, but now they have grown the scope of their understanding. This link will take you to a very interest interview about the APA’s new, better-informed outlook.

    http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2013/03/religion-spirituality.aspx

    If you’re interested in expanding your understanding of applying faith practically to everyday life and events, I invite you to check out my blog.

    All the best to you!

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  27. Maybe the atheists should tutor the religious folk and introduce them to their friends, that might clear up their intelligence and self esteem issues…maybe. But seriously, does a higher IQ and self esteem make a better person? As an indifferent, fence sitting atheists I’m compelled to sum up my opinion thusly:

    Religious folk, let the atheists be and atheists…don’t be so smug about your big brains.

    p.s thanks for visiting my blog, there’s a sharp, satirical sense of humour in these polemical posts that suits me just fine. Keep it up brother. *follows*

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Nah… only the MOST cynical… the smartest want to see religion disappear entirely up it’s own nether region as it seems destined to do eventually, anyway… 😉

      Like

      Reply

      2. I’d accept that too, Shalafi… though, imho, it amounts to the same thing… If nothing else, I think atheists should at least be able to put some faith in Humanity… rather than destroying that faith.

        Like

    1. I suspect he may mean the ‘Jones’ incident… the ‘Jim Jones’ incident…

      Although, there WAS the Mormon ‘Smith incident’… though that one was more successful and ended up with the Mormon church… (which, however, I understand is experiencing some difficulties; it seems many are refusing the Mormon ‘cool-aid’…)

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  37. There is another possible interpretation. Academia presupposes and, therefore, inculcates an atheistic worldview perhaps explaining the shift noted in college age respondents. Skepticism towards religion and religious belief is encouraged. Sociological pressures within academia implicitly or explicitly enforce conformity to atheistic orthodoxy and its various dogmas. Dissidents risk ridicule, loss of academic/scientific/professional credibility and status, and exclusion (excommunion) by peers.

    Hubris may also be a contributing factor to atheists’ higher self-esteem.

    Atheism can, at times, be as irrational as religious belief. For example, evolutionary theory assumes that inanimate matter at some point(s) in the ancient past evolved through natural processes into animate matter. This implicit assumption has, to my knowledge, never been confirmed by replication through scientific experimentation or directly observed occurring in nature. Is such an assumption reasonable?

    Like

    Reply

    1. “…atheistic orthodoxy and its various dogmas…”

      This is simply bullshit… there are so such beasts! There is NO ‘atheistic orthodoxy’ NOR any ‘dogma’ attached to atheism… except in the fervid imaginations of religionists who somehow fail to understand that a simple LACK OF BELIEF is NOT a dogma in and of itself…

      Evolutionary theory has nothing to do with atheism… it is the product of SCIENCE, not ATHEISM… and whilst atheists are far more likely to believe in science due to its abundance of evidence, this is not an ‘atheistic dogma’ (nor even ‘doctrine’) because it is not a pre-requisite for atheism nor is it regarded as any kind of ‘orthodoxy’… (and btw, yes, they have reproduced the production of organic matter from inorganic chemicals in the lab…)

      Before religionists start to call atheists ‘irrational’ first of all they should learn what the word means as they evidently have but the dimmest of ideas of what it is to be ‘rational’…

      Like

      Reply

      1. Such an erudite, well-reasoned, logical, dispassionate response governed by pure reason rather than by a zealot’s blind adherence to a rigid belief system. Your logic is impeccable although me thinks you protest too much.

        Evolutionary theory pre-supposes atheism, not vice versa i.e. Life began and evolved naturally without supernatural initiative or influence. Do not put the cart before the proverbial horse. Supposing that to be the case, one can logically assume the event when life began is scientifically repeatable given the primitive conditions and, possibly, continuous.

        To question evolutionary theory-and it is a theory-is the unpardonable sin of the scientific community.

        Organic compounds are one thing, a living organism is quite another animal. Have scientists produced so much as a living single cell organism from scratch? Who won the Nobel prize for that discovery?

        Atheists, too, act irrationally on occasion (cf. your comment above). Contrary to popular belief among your particular species of atheist, those who hold religious beliefs are not devoid of reason nor anti-science. Quite the contrary. Atheists, the majority of whom I respect, don’t have a monopoly on reason or science. I for one am fascinated by science. I just think uncritically. I challenge assumptions. I consider alternative theories. I do not uncritically dismiss the opinions of others with whom I disagree (cf. your comment above).

        Like

      2. Justin, in order to understand what it is to be rational first you must understand the rules of logic, one of which is that the construction of ‘straw-men arguments’ such as ‘Evolutionary theory pre-supposes atheism, not vice versa’ have no logical validity… Besides, this is merely your own assumption.

        In fact ‘evolutionary theory’ as such, has very little, or even nothing to say on the subject of atheism, though I believes one might make some passing comment to the effect that the natural type of mentality for early hominids, emerging for the first time into self-awareness from the ignorance of animality, would naturally construct all kinds of imaginary spirits and deities to explain all those natural phenomena they do not yet understand… It would therefore not be until the emergence of a truly scientific means of understanding the universe and our place in it, that ‘atheism’ even becomes possible, since the first tendency, which has been observed historically, would be to categorize the religious beliefs and formulate them into a coherent body of dogma to create an orthodoxy of opinion which then becomes religious dogma, before it even becomes possible to investigate the possibility of any of them being, in any sense of the word, ‘real’…

        Besides, ironically enough, Darwin was a Christian… as was Spencer, upon whose work Darwin based most of his own… That what they observed in nature contradicted what they had been taught in the scriptures was something that caused them no small distress… Many atheists only arrive at their atheism after a long, hard struggle with their religious beliefs… often the result of early childhood indoctrination.

        And evolutionary theory is questioned all the time… constantly… but with little success… especially from religionists who still fail to actually understand what it is they criticize, albeit illogically. In fact such testing of scientific theories is mostly what science in general is all about; such testing is in fact WELCOMED by evolutionary theorists and by the scientific community in general… So once again this is merely a false assumption on your part.

        Organic compounds, as you say, are one thing and living organisms another, yet the ability to create organic compounds from inorganic ones in the lab does rather suggest that life CAN emerge from inorganic chemicals, and this kills the old creationist lie that it is impossible for life to emerge from inorganic matter (in spite of its own mythology involving man being formed from ‘dust’…) All it would take would be the right combination of inorganic chemicals… given virtually infinite time, and geological and atmospheric change, this combination has a high probability of happening at some stage… current thinking, in fact, is that this means there is almost certainly other life on other planets elsewhere in our universe…

        We’re all human first, Justin, and as such we all have emotions, which sometimes does take precedence over our rationality… Yes, we’re all capable of acting irrationally… The difference is that atheists try hard to avoid irrationality in the most important facets of their lives; and not to make irrationality a way of life as do the religions…

        What on earth, I wonder, is my ‘particular species of atheist’? Do you imagine for a single second, that you know me from just this one, brief exchange? That’s the trouble with religionists, they’re so full of assumptions… so full of prejudices… It must be hard for them to learn anything when they think they know it all already…

        And where did I ever say that religionists were totally devoid of reason? I merely said most of them had but a tenuous grasp on what ‘reason’ actually consists of… as is evident from the totally illogical nature of your arguments thus far, based as it has been, on false assumptions and straw-man arguments. I’m aware that science has emerged from religious minds too… though the truth of this is that it was always against howls of protest, not to mention threats of excommunication or execution for heresy on the part of the churches… many of whom still long for the ‘good old days’ when they could just burn anyone who disagreed with them at the stake…

        You say you’re fascinated with science, but that you ‘think uncritically’… Don’t you see that science is, in fact, all about ‘critical thinking’…? That this is the ONLY way to discern the ‘real’ from the merely mythological…? Give it a try sometime… You don’t think critically, that much is true… but you not only do you NOT ‘challenge assumptions’, you actually attempt to foist your own assumptions off on others, disguised as (straw-man) ‘argument’.

        Finally, neither do I “…uncritically dismiss the opinions of others with whom I disagree…”

        I gave you plenty of fair criticism before I dismissed your opinions… and have even taken the trouble to elaborate on them further in this post… I have even gone so far as to include a basic lesson in elementary logic…

        Say, “Thank you, Asytages…” 😉

        Like

      3. Astyages,

        First, please forgive the sarcastic nature of my reply and any assumptions I made regarding you. It was a knee-jerk reaction to your reply to which I took offense. Theists and atheists should, ideally, be able to discuss, debate, and disagree respectfully. I regretfully, neglected to do so. In return, I ask the same consideration for religionists and creationists.

        Second, “think uncritically” was a typo. I do, believe it or not, think critically.

        Third, allow me to restate my original comment. I believe there is another possible interpretation. Not intelligence, per se, but the social environment in which intelligence is developed (e.g. College) may better explain the negative relationship between intelligence and religious belief. College campuses, by and large, are secular institutions that promote a secular worldview increasing the likelihood that graduates would adopt that secular worldview. By the same token, highly intelligent individuals educated in a religious academic environment are more likely to hold a religious worldview. Such institutions, however, are in the minority.

        The tacit implication of the study’s findings that religious faith is for the simple-minded who aren’t intelligent enough to know better is false.

        Again, please accept my apologies.

        Ps. As an aside, with respect to evolution and the origins of life I disagree, but do so respectfully. I do not think sufficient time-even an infinite amount if time as you said- exists for life to begin spontaneously. I’m not a mathematician, but I think the statistical probability of the right conditions aligning given enough time is pretty slim. Again, I am no mathematician.

        Have a good day!

        Like

      4. Apology accepted… and you can disagree with me all you like… no skin off my nose.

        Arguments like creationism, however, for which there is little or no evidence and for which such ‘evidence’ as does exist has been falsified, do not, imho, deserve much, if any, respect; neither do those who propose them… but again, that’s just my opinion… to which I am just as entitled as are you to yours.

        Without wishing to offend, I’m not really sure you can truly think ‘critically’… (though I’d accept that you may be trying to…) at least, not yet, as you still don’t appear to be quite certain what that is… if you were, you would be far more careful, when offering your opinions, to make sure they are based on something a bit more persuasive than personal assumptions and straw-men… (said merely by way of correction; not intended as ‘berating’)

        If you are suggesting that the measurable difference between atheist and believer IQs is perhaps because the school/college environment is perhaps a better environment to develop an enquiring mind than churches, and that this in turn is much more likely to lead to non-religious children having higher IQs, I do not disagree… I’d say that certainly this is part of the equation, but the other half of this equation is the actual ‘anti-learning’ which such religions teach… which, as I’ve suggested, amounts really to preaching the assumption that everything is already known and that the answers to all human problems are contained within their particular scriptures (no generic brands, please!), which, however wise (or otherwise) they may be, are still very limited in scope and perspective, due to the inevitably human nature of their authorship.

        More importantly, thinking of such ‘knowledge’ as they contained as ‘sacred’ and that anything which challenged that ‘knowledge’ was ‘heresy’ has held science back for centuries… Does this deserve respect? Does the RCC’s pope deserve respect for preaching against condom use and for demonizing those who do dare to use and/or promote them, in AIDS-ridden Africa? Again you are entitled to your own opinion, but my opinion is, ‘No… this doesn’t deserve any respect at all…’

        A better view of such literature is to see these books for what they are by trying to understand their place in the evolution of the human mind by looking at them from the perspective of the history of ideas… which history is as fascinating a study as any I’ve cared to look at! (Anthropology is the subject to study if you want to do this… and/or perhaps philosophy…)

        With respect to the origin of life, I suppose we shall have to agree to disagree, but that’s fine… I don’t expect anyone to actually start to think like me… I just hope that sometimes I start them thinking… (and I’m no mathematician either, so in either case, our ‘arguments’ are equally weak).

        Again, apology accepted… and have a nice day yourself… I’m pleased that you were open enough to have learned something. 🙂

        Like

      5. Astyages,

        I must not have expressed myself clearly. I was dissenting, not confirming, the interpretations offered in the article. Be that as it may.

        I have read some of your other comments. You have done a pretty good job of cataloging the various sins of religion. I agree with some and respectfully disagree with others, specifically the blanket statements you make regarding religion in general. I think I can safely say, though, that you consider religion itself a sin. I will forego the temptation of returning the favor by making blanket statements about atheism. As you have noted, atheism is not bound to any one ideology. (Incidentally, neither is theism).

        I juxtaposed the words sin and religion for the sake of irony. Better to say that you catalogued the various wrongs committed in the name of religion, by religious individuals, organizations, and religion itself.

        To avoid any logical fallacies and avoid thinking uncritically, I will instead pose a (rhetorical) question or two rather make an assertion.

        From a purely atheistic viewpoint independent of any particular ideology is any behavior intrinsically wrong and, if so, why or on what basis?

        If not, is an individual being controlled or manipulated when accused of wrongdoing by another individual or group?

        Thank you for your consideration.

        Justin

        Like

      6. ” I think I can safely say, though, that you consider religion itself a sin.”

        (Sighs…) You’re doing it again… I thought you’d learned something, but apparently not…

        No I do NOT ‘consider religion itself to be a sin’… And you don’t even know how I conceptualize that phenomenon… (ie. ‘sin’…) so please try to refrain from putting words into my mouth… When are you going to stop trying to do other people’s thinking for them when you so clearly can’t think properly for yourself?

        ” I will forego the temptation of returning the favor by making blanket statements about atheism.” Other than those you have already made, you mean? Well… that will make a nice change, won’t it? I think religion is at best a ‘con’… but no I don’t think it’s a ‘sin’ to believe in religion, however stupid it may be (ie. belief in religion is not a ‘sin’…) I think belief in religion is stupid… but is ‘stupidity’ a sin? The promotion and indoctrination of others into highly questionable but never questioned doctrines, on the other hand…

        Not only is atheism ‘not bound to any one ideology’, it is not bound to ANY ideology, whereas religion IS inevitably bound to very specific, and competing ideologies… Atheism is value-free; religion is value-laden… Do you understand the difference? Whatever values atheists hold have to do with their own individual personal choices… they are NOT the result of any ‘atheist dogma’, since this just doesn’t exist.

        “Better to say that you catalogued the various wrongs committed in the name of religion, by religious individuals, organizations, and religion itself.” Perhaps… but so what? You’re trying to say that the BS used to train and prepare their victims (which is something Christianity does beautifully, btw, since it is ALL about preparing ‘victims’ for the ‘sacrifice’, albeit metaphorically, ‘in imitatio Christi’…) is somehow separable from those victims or their victimization… You may think so, but I don’t see it that way… Again we shall have to agree to disagree; you have every right to believe any old crap you like; no skin off my nose.

        The question about what is ‘intrinsically right or wrong’ is again badly phrased… since it is true that the ‘rightness’ or ‘wrongness’ of many actions are determined by the context in which they occur. What you are really asking is “How do atheists determine ‘right and wrong’?” And this is very simple: If someone gets hurt, in ANY way, a ‘wrong’ has been committed (you’ll notice I don’t use the word ‘sin’… frankly I prefer the word ‘error’ since this at least allows the possibility of correction, whereas ‘sin’ just calls for condemnation…) This is in contrast with what religions believe, because according to them whatever their god says is a ‘sin’ is wrong, regardless of whether or not anyone is hurt in any manner at all… Something is evil just because ‘god’ says so… like shellfish, for example… Do you like prawns…? I do… The bible says they’re an abomination… and eating them is a sin… get the picture now?

        “If not, is an individual being controlled or manipulated when accused of wrongdoing by another individual or group?” You mean, like the way the church used to manipulate people by accusing them of things like ‘heresy’ and ‘witchcraft’?

        This question is really just silly and I really don’t even know what you’re getting at… but of course there is always the possibility of manipulation by others whenever accusations are made, depending on the truth of the accusations and the intentions behind whoever is making them. What exactly is the point you’re trying to make with this silly question? Are you trying somehow to imply that, because I have, in some vague manner, accused the religions of ‘wrongdoing’, that perhaps I (a single, solitary, politically powerless individual) am somehow manipulating the (huge, monolithic and globally very well organized and politically incredibly powerful) religions with my accusations? I do hope you can already see why that whole notion is laughably stupid now…

        If anything I have said has anything whatsoever to do with manipulation, it is only to point out how the various churches use unproven ideologies to train (read ‘manipulate’) their ‘flocks’ into being willing to be regularly fleeced, and to sacrifice themselves (usually in some banksters’ war or other) whenever they are required to do so…

        Btw, you apparently don’t even know what a ‘rhetorical’ question is, since the questions you have asked me so clearly required answers from me… If you’re going to engage in logical debate I’d suggest that you do a course in elementary logic first or you will end up being made dog-meat of in any debate…

        Have a nice life… It’s the only one you can be certain of!

        Like

      7. So much for trying to be nice.

        I respectfully suggest you take your own advice, don’t presume, don’t pre-judge or judge the motives of others, do not use ad hominem attacks to bolster your arguments, listen to the opinions of others without over-reacting, not make sweeping generalizations, not set-up your own straw men to knock down while accusing others of doing the same, not assume belittling the intelligence of those with whom you disagree is a valid form of argumentation, not assume atheism is a prerequisite for critical thinking, consider the possibility that you are not infallible, etc etc etc

        Had you read my post more closely you would have seen that
        1. My use of the word sin was intended as irony as in religious people and institutions sinning-a tip of the hat to you.
        2. I suggested using the word wrong as an alternative to the word sin.

        Having used word such as con, stupid, manipulative, controlling applied indiscriminately to religion in general, I thought I was making a pretty safe assumption.

        My questions were rhetorical. You did not need to respond. That was entirely your choice. The point of my question was to understand the basis upon which you make value judgments of others in the absence of belief in a divine being. You do not want to be manipulated and controlled or lumped together with other atheists. I was attempting to honor that.

        Option A
        Right and wrong are not subjective and nothing is intrinsically wrong.
        If you as an individual determine what is write and what is wrong, then those with whom you disagree are entitled to the same. Every individual is right, none is wrong.

        If right and wrong are determined by voluntary agreement and assent by a group of individuals, the same would apply on a greater level such as a society. Every society is right, none is wrong.

        In either case, you have no objective basis to determine right or wrong for other persons or societies or associations e.g. Religious organizations, but only for yourself.

        Option B
        Right and wrong are objective and certain behaviors are intrinsically wrong e.g. Abuse, manipulation, murder, etc…
        (Are these universal laws similar to the laws of physics? How are they be determined?)

        If so, then an individual or society can legitimately criticize the behavior of another individual or society as you and I routinely do.

        Finally, do not insult my intelligence or the intelligence of others. I doubt I could have earned two Master’s degrees with honors were I unable to think critically.

        Until the resurrection

        Justin

        Like

      8. So many words… with so little accuracy…

        Justin, first let me say that none of my previous posts were intended rancorously, but if you are going to persist in using all the logical fallacies which I have pointed out to you in my posts (and individually explained and critiqued…) and if, on top of this you are going to attempt to do other people’s thinking for them, as you attempted to do mine for me, putting words into my mouth, then you can hardly expect to be taken seriously…

        I can dismiss your whole first paragraph since you do not show where I have actually done any of those things you have accused me of… Feel free to do so…

        I appreciated your use of the word ‘sin’ was intended as an irony, but I did not appreciate the manner in which you were using it to do my thinking for me… I do not really even think in terms of ‘sin’ any more… though I do understand the Christian conception of it… perhaps much more than you imagine I do… that’s one of the reasons I reject it as being a ‘not very useful’ concept.

        And I understood that you were using the word ‘wrong’ as a substitute for sin… that’s neither here nor there… your question was about how atheists determine right and wrong; your assumption being that there is “no objective” means of determining these, even though I actually gave you a perfectly objective form of determining right from wrong in ANY circumstance, and regardless of the ultimately and inevitably relative nature of ‘good and evil’… which, it must be noted, are NOT ‘universal principles’ but specifically human concepts… made by humans for their own purposes.

        The ‘objective means of determining right and wrong’? As I’ve said, if someone gets hurt in any way, a wrong has been committed… the question then becomes one of what to do about it… This is perfectly objective, even though the ‘evil’ is situational and relative (ie. ‘who got hurt?’, and ‘who did the hurting’ and ‘why was the hurting done’ all being relativistic questions… as is the notion of ‘justice’…)

        If you actually take the time to think about and understand what I’ve said with regard to the nature of good and evil (and let me say, first of all, that I’m giving just my own personal opinion here, and do not intend to speak for all atheists who may well see things entirely differently…) you may then understand that neither of your options really apply… not everything is as ‘black and white’ as you have evidently always been led to believe.

        Finally, it is you who have insulted my intelligence, rather than I yours, by using arguments full of assumptions, pre-suppositions and straw-men… and then by accusing me of having done the same to you, without even bothering to say where or how I did so… perhaps because you can’t? (Btw, “Tu quoque” is another logical fallacy…)

        Two masters’ degrees hmmm? Impressive… from which university? A Christian one? Maybe a ‘Creationist’ one perhaps…? (Btw: Argument from authority… another logical fallacy…)

        John, please, don’t take things so personally… it’s you, not I, who is ‘over-reacting’. No need to hate me just because I’ve proven you wrong in our debate; I’ve always tried to be as reasonable as I could in my arguments and most specifically to refrain attacking you personally. (Where are my ‘ad-hominem’ attacks?) It’s only your world-view that I think is stupid and that needs to change to accommodate new facts; not you, or your personality…

        But if you’re going to be a critical thinker, then you must start by critically reviewing all you have been taught that you have accepted, uncritically, as a child (and yes, this is normal and natural thing for children to do; that’s why the religions like to start indoctrination them before they are old enough to be able to think for themselves!) You see, for critical thinkers, “God did it…” just isn’t any kind of adequate explanation for ANYTHING!

        Regardless of what your Christian teachers have told you, however, it is perfectly possible to be an atheist and a good person. Rejecting religion does NOT equate with ‘rejecting good’… NOR does it mean ‘accepting evil’… in spite of the believers’ continual painting of atheists as ‘satanists’ (Fact is, you need to believe in god first, before you can be a Satanist!) These are simply self-serving religious prejudices… designed to keep the ‘sheep’ within the ‘flock’ by making them terrified of everything – and everyone! – outside their church…

        And no, I don’t consider myself infallible either… Did I not earlier admit that yes, sometimes even I allow emotion get the better of my reason? So I really don’t know where you get that assumption from either… or were you just looking for an insult to hurl at me?

        Indeed, one of my main objections to religions (particularly the Abrahamic ones) is the manner in which they force children into an ultimately vain and self-defeating attempt at being little ‘godlings’, as I refer to those who strive in vain to reach a perfection which not only cannot possibly be reached, but which is also never even adequately defined… Besides, ‘perfection’ according to whose notion of ‘perfection’? Yours? Mine? Obama’s? The Pope’s? Some ancient shepherd’s? Instead of forcing children to attempt to emulate the ‘perfection’ demanded by some deity, they should be cultivating their Humanity, imho… since, not only is this far more easily achievable, it is also impossible to practice inhumanity at the same time as one cultivates Humanity; a restraint which is not imposed on religion, whose ‘perfect devotees’ have often been known to commit all kinds of murderous and inhuman(e) acts. It is in this sense that I consider myself a ‘Humanist’…

        And have you ever bothered to consider what perfection would entail, anyway? For a start, it would be absolutely static! Consider a moment, frozen in time… absolutely no movement… Why? Because of course, any movement, or any change at all, would be a movement away from perfection… and such stasis usually gives way, eventually, to stagnation…

        No… for my money, you can keep your ‘Perfection’… Just give me “Human-heartedness”…

        Peace!

        Like

      9. I genuinely pity you.
        No need to respond as this is my final communication and I have no interest in furthering this discussion.
        Until the resurrection,
        The LORD bless you.

        Like

      10. I dunno… you try to be nice and look what you get… now you can just go and get fucked… And you know where you can shove your blessing… along with your fantasies of resurrection and your pity; it’s you who needs to be pitied. What an R-soul! Just goes to show how futile it is to reason with believers.

        Like

      11. P.s. If you are going to attribute to yourself characteristics typically attributed to diety e.g. Infallibility, omniscience, superiority, supreme authority to judge, you may want to reconsider calling yourself an atheist.

        Like

  38. I’m just an agnostic, here for the comments. Boy, what a show!

    *Munches popcorn*

    It would seem as if the anti-theists have simply come to mirror a similar kind of bigotry and dogmatism as the theists. When will everyone learn to stop externalizing evil and fight the true evil within ourselves? I give religion a bit more credit for its wisdom tradition — while bearing the common sense to perceive myths as metaphors and strange/abominable passages as telling products of that particular culture.

    Wait a minute, I just posted about this recently…

    https://adambombwriter.wordpress.com/2015/07/23/atheism-there-and-back-again/

    Shameless plug.

    Like

    Reply
  39. Pingback: Atheists have higher IQs and self esteem than religious people… – Opher's World

Leave a comment