Atheist=smarter and better person?

[Neoteny]

Or it just might prove the nature of the people who are active in the National Academy of Sciences.

Maybe atheists are just more vocal in polls. Surely.

Do you want to include History, Business, and other job outlets before focusing strictly on one group of scientists? Plus the Roman Catholic Church has many high ranking scientists working for it.

If I remember correctly, the study was just on the NAS. After all, all those other professions are unimportant. But really, if you want to survey the League of Extraordinary Historians (I'm not trying to be insulting, I'm just sure there is some sort of organization and I just don't know the name), I'd be interested in seeing the results of that. I'll bet there is at least a higher proportion of atheists compared to the rest of the country.

Anyhow, is it not striking that a huge portion of the best and brightest American scientists comfortable enough to discuss their opinions on religion are atheist? Were both of your knee-jerk responses due to the data or just to the OPs way of putting it?

[Visaoni]

Kagetora, most of the responses you'll get here will allude to this:

"That only proves that the National Academy of Science is biased against christians. IQ tests are biased as well. Even though Christians are the vast majority of the country, godless heathens are taking it over, which is why they might more often be successful. Everyone knows that Christianity is being oppressed."

lol That is sooo untrue. Also I don't know. Just because you're Atheist wouldn't make you smarter like most things wouldn't, but it might be the reverse that smarter people know that Atheism is true. Maybe... Personally I'm agnostic.

Actually, I think you are pretty close to the truth. I highly doubt that being Atheist makes you more intelligent. That is just insane. However, the better educated the more you have been taught to ask why, and surely that has a large impact on believe in things that require 100% faith with no actual answers.

The Bibal wasn't ment to be taken entirley literaly. A lot of the stuff atheists consider nonscene is meant to be viewed at a metephorical standpoint, then it will make sence.

And they used to say it was literal. Times changed and people stopped being willing to accept some of the horrible, horrible things in the Bible. Then it became a metaphor, and the new testament was filled with pink bunnies and sweets. You can't suddenly change your mind to satisfy the people and expect to be taken seriously as the speakers of the truth.

[LYR]

i think there was a topic like this before..... quite an interesting one, called "are atheists smarter than theists?"

let's face it people, no matter how many religious debates we have here, we're never going to get anywhere. i would personally like to look through all the forums on chatter box and see how many of them ended up as a religious debate, but seeing as i'm a lazy sack of crap, thats never going to happen.

STOP WASTING YOUR TIME WITH RELIGIOUS DEBATES!!!

[Nickbaldwin]

Lets hope no one takes this thread seriously.

Are you suggesting that some people take threads seriously?

Who knew?

Coming from Mr. Serious Boring Tit.....

[InkL0sed]

Did william really just say "back when there were no STDs"?

[joecoolfrog]

You're coming off as being more self righteous than Jerry Falwell. If all athiests were so smart they would realise that they can't change people's faith, especially over the enternet.

I guess the rule about athiests being smarter really isn't so absolute...

I dont see any atheists trying to change anyones faith, I do see plenty of posts debunking some of the nonsense peddled by the lunatic fringe of Christianity.

Belief in evolution is logical and consequently shows a degree of inteligence, literal belief in all of the bible shows the opposite. Inteligent Christians reconcile their faith with modern science, others lack the cerebral capacity to do the same.

The Bibal wasn't ment to be taken entirley literaly. A lot of the stuff atheists consider nonscene is meant to be viewed at a metephorical standpoint, then it will make sence.

Well I agree it would make more sense but plenty of Evangelical Christians disagree with you, in fact they say if you dont take the Bible literaly then you are not a true Christian.

[jay_a2j]

Atheists!!!

Do you have a response to about 3:35 in this clip?

[tzor]

Lets hope no one takes this thread seriously.

Are you suggesting that some people take threads seriously?

Who knew?

Coming from Mr. Serious Boring Tit.....

Coming from Mr. Serious Boring Brit.....

[tzor]

If I remember correctly, the study was just on the NAS. After all, all those other professions are unimportant. But really, if you want to survey the League of Extraordinary Historians (I'm not trying to be insulting, I'm just sure there is some sort of organization and I just don't know the name), I'd be interested in seeing the results of that. I'll bet there is at least a higher proportion of atheists compared to the rest of the country.

First let's look at what the NAS is and what it is not. About the NAS: "The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is an honorific society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. ... The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes. Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.The Academy is governed by a Council consisting of twelve members (councilors) and five officers, elected from among the Academy membership. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is the president of the National Academy of Sciences."

It's an honorary society, not a society of the scientific population on the whole. It consists of only two thousand members, again not a good enough sample of the scientific population on the whole. It is involved in the research community, scientists and engineers who are involved in practical applications as opposed to research are not even considered. Doctors who are not involved in research are not even considered.

[Ditocoaf]

Atheists!!!

Do you have a response to about 3:35 in this clip?

that guy looks like a cocky douche. The existence of stars proves there is a god? Huh?

Jay, is that you talking there?

"Athiesm has never cured a disease"?

huh?

"...or even dried a tear"? "given answers to life's questions"?

so we're supposed to decide our beliefs on what's the most comforting? On what simplifies the world's complexities for us the most? I won't even go into how many questions science has answered...

[GabonX]

You're coming off as being more self righteous than Jerry Falwell. If all athiests were so smart they would realise that they can't change people's faith, especially over the enternet.

I guess the rule about athiests being smarter really isn't so absolute...

This coming from someone who spells internet wrong?

I guess if you don't have a real counter argument, attacking an obscure error in my typing is the best course of action. Also, I'm not the one claiming I've got it all figured out.

I thought that athiests were supposed to have some sort of profound logic and wisdom with which they could persuade people to their point of view. So far you're just regurgitating someone else's self righteous drivel.

so we're supposed to decide our beliefs on what's the most comforting? On what simplifies the world's complexities for us the most?

That's what most people do whether or not they believe in God. People are afraid of going to hell so they either say they believe that God exists so that they don't get sent there, or they deny the existance of God and Hell entirely. The same motivation manifests itself in two different ways.

Also, all this talk about science is kind of pointless. If there is a God, science is just the observation of the rules he has set in place, the settings of the Universe so to speak. Should God exist he would have the ability to change these things at a whim and then we would observe something else, a new "science" so to speak. Any obervation could be manipulated so that scientists would observe exactly what God wanted them to. Thats just one of the perks to being all powerful.

As much as all of you self proclaimed athiests don't like to acknowledge this, God can never be disproven while if he exists, he could reveal himself to us. He could also choose not to for his own reasons which he would not need to explain us.

I myself am an agnostic and frankly it wouldn't take much to convince me that God exists. All it would take would be God, but no man could do it.

[Nickbaldwin]

Lets hope no one takes this thread seriously.

Are you suggesting that some people take threads seriously?

Who knew?

Coming from Mr. Serious Boring Tit.....

Coming from Mr. Serious Boring Brit.....

I'll think you'll find that Mr. young, good looking, well dressed, light hearted and interesting Brit actually....

[Neoteny]

If I remember correctly, the study was just on the NAS. After all, all those other professions are unimportant. But really, if you want to survey the League of Extraordinary Historians (I'm not trying to be insulting, I'm just sure there is some sort of organization and I just don't know the name), I'd be interested in seeing the results of that. I'll bet there is at least a higher proportion of atheists compared to the rest of the country.

First let's look at what the NAS is and what it is not. About the NAS: "The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is an honorific society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. ... The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes. Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.The Academy is governed by a Council consisting of twelve members (councilors) and five officers, elected from among the Academy membership. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is the president of the National Academy of Sciences."

It's an honorary society, not a society of the scientific population on the whole. It consists of only two thousand members, again not a good enough sample of the scientific population on the whole. It is involved in the research community, scientists and engineers who are involved in practical applications as opposed to research are not even considered. Doctors who are not involved in research are not even considered.

You and I seem to have a communication issue where I can't ever seem to grasp what point you are trying to make. I never said it was representative as science as a whole. I said it is a community of the most prominent scientists in their fields (basic research, of course; applied researchers have their own honor societies I'm sure). This affects the fact that most of them are atheists how?

[tzor]

You and I seem to have a communication issue where I can't ever seem to grasp what point you are trying to make. I never said it was representative as science as a whole. I said it is a community of the most prominent scientists in their fields (basic research, of course; applied researchers have their own honor societies I'm sure). This affects the fact that most of them are atheists how?

Glancing up at the title ... "Atheist=smarter and better person?", it is clear that in general you were making a blanket statement. It is not obvious that this is the case here. It is not obvious that there might indeed be bias in the membership selection criteria, or simply that the sample size is too small to get a good stastistic from the numbers. All you can say that in general, out of the small population of NAS members, the ones who responded to a poll were for the most part athiests.

[kagetora]

Atheists!!!

Do you have a response to about 3:35 in this clip?

Atheism has never cured a disease? Total BS. The fact that there are medicines in the world prove that Atheism cures diseases. Because the original religious people would have just prayed. "God, make the sore on my toe go away!"

[Neoteny]

You and I seem to have a communication issue where I can't ever seem to grasp what point you are trying to make. I never said it was representative as science as a whole. I said it is a community of the most prominent scientists in their fields (basic research, of course; applied researchers have their own honor societies I'm sure). This affects the fact that most of them are atheists how?

Glancing up at the title ... "Atheist=smarter and better person?", it is clear that in general you were making a blanket statement. It is not obvious that this is the case here. It is not obvious that there might indeed be bias in the membership selection criteria, or simply that the sample size is too small to get a good stastistic from the numbers. All you can say that in general, out of the small population of NAS members, the ones who responded to a poll were for the most part athiests.

Don't blame the blanket statement on me. I'm just saying. There is always a possibility of bias somewhere in the process, but one can't deny the status of NAS scientists regardless of their religious persuasion, which happens to be predominantly atheist.

[Haggis_McMutton]

so we're supposed to decide our beliefs on what's the most comforting? On what simplifies the world's complexities for us the most?

That's what most people do whether or not they believe in God. People are afraid of going to hell so they either say they believe that God exists so that they don't get sent there, or they deny the existance of God and Hell entirely. The same motivation manifests itself in two different ways.

So you`re saying that believing that "all you have to do is accept Jesus blabla, and when you die you will go in a place where there is no sorrow, only eternal happiness yadayada" and believing that " this life is all we have,we`d better make the most of it, cause there`s no second chance" offer the same level of comfort?

Also, all this talk about science is kind of pointless. If there is a God, science is just the observation of the rules he has set in place, the settings of the Universe so to speak. Should God exist he would have the ability to change these things at a whim and then we would observe something else, a new "science" so to speak. Any obervation could be manipulated so that scientists would observe exactly what God wanted them to. Thats just one of the perks to being all powerful.

As much as all of you self proclaimed athiests don't like to acknowledge this, God can never be disproven while if he exists, he could reveal himself to us. He could also choose not to for his own reasons which he would not need to explain us.

Yep, God`s existence is a possibility, just like it`s a possibility that we`re all actually stuck in the matrix. All atheists i know acknowledge this possibility.
However, as i said in another thread, we make all choices in life based on probability(whether conscious or not). For example, tomorrow, while driving, i might get hit by a bus and die. But i consider this possibility to be too small to take action, therefore i think it would be in my best interest to actually use the car to get to work tomorrow as opposed to hiding under the bed in fear.
So even though i acknowledge the possibility of me getting hit by a bus tomorrow, i do not believe this will happen, therefore i will act accordingly.

The same reasoning applies to god, the chances that some omnipotent being is manipulating our science for some odd reason seems rather unlikely, therefore i believe it isn`t true and act accordingly, that is all.

I myself am an agnostic and frankly it wouldn't take much to convince me that God exists. All it would take would be God, but no man could do it.

Yep, if God appeared in the sky and made some undeniable magic tricks, i , an atheist, would also be convinced he exists.

Let me ask you this, do you act as if god exists(go to church, pray, etc), or do you act as if god doesn`t exist?
If it is the latter i would argue that you`re actually an atheist.

[kagetora]

You and I seem to have a communication issue where I can't ever seem to grasp what point you are trying to make. I never said it was representative as science as a whole. I said it is a community of the most prominent scientists in their fields (basic research, of course; applied researchers have their own honor societies I'm sure). This affects the fact that most of them are atheists how?

Glancing up at the title ... "Atheist=smarter and better person?", it is clear that in general you were making a blanket statement. It is not obvious that this is the case here. It is not obvious that there might indeed be bias in the membership selection criteria, or simply that the sample size is too small to get a good stastistic from the numbers. All you can say that in general, out of the small population of NAS members, the ones who responded to a poll were for the most part athiests.

Don't blame the blanket statement on me. I'm just saying. There is always a possibility of bias somewhere in the process, but one can't deny the status of NAS scientists regardless of their religious persuasion, which happens to be predominantly atheist.

It's not exactly a blanket statement. Definitely there are genius people who are religious. I was just posting some statistics. Statiscally, the higher your IQ is, the higher the percentage of athiests.

[Simon Viavant]

I think IQ tests are bullshit that show nothing, but I think, while there are exceptions, in general atheists are smarter, because they see glaring proof and believe it instead of clinging on to some stupid idea because they WANT to believe it. Sometimes I wished I believed in god, but I can see that he doesn't exist.

[tzor]

Sometimes I wished I believed in god, but I can see that he doesn't exist.

Really? You can "see" that god doesn't exist?
So what does god not existing look like?

Honestly some atheists amuse me to no end.
Now "I can't see how he can exist" makes perfect sense.
But "I can see that he does not exist" is just rolling on the floor laughing out loud kind of funny.

Really, you are supposed to be the "smarter and better" person. Please act that way.

[MeDeFe]

Tzor, easy on the lad, he already DID condemn IQ tests, remember?

[FabledIntegral]

Atheists!!!

Do you have a response to about 3:35 in this clip?

lmao.

First, "the earth is at the center of the universe..." hilarious.

Second, to talk about atheism never curing a disease... no fucking shit. Either you're saying "well believing in no god hasn't cured me..." which is a no-brainer, or you're saying that use of science has never cured a disease, then you're just a moron.

Concerning the perfect amount of oxygen/nitrogen ratios and content - that's also not true. There are many living creatures that can survive without oxygen. Which is how science predicts that life would have started out in the first place - so once again a shitty argument.

90% of the time you see Fundamentalist Christians trying to refute scientific theories/postulates/facts, they make total asses of themselves. There are many intelligent Christians that can understand how science works and still debate its fallacies. Fundamentalists pretty much never fall in that category - they are simply ignorant and make huge generalizations.

Jay I believe YOU are the one that posted the peanut butter atheist nightmare? Yeah - right there, as said earlier, shows that fundamentalists make asses of themselves.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504

[kagetora]

Atheists!!!

Do you have a response to about 3:35 in this clip?

After watching the entire video, it just shows me how big of an idiot that guy is.

The earth is tilted at an angle due to the moon's gravitation. And it does not need the tilt to support life. It would make life more difficult yes, but it could exist. This point is void.

The earth is not at the center of the universe, it's not even at the center of the solar system or the galaxy. This point is void.

The position of the earth is situated in the well know habitable zone. That is why life is possible here. THat is chance. This point is void.

The nitrogen and oxygen? Does he even realize that there is life that survived on sulphur? On methane? Hell, even the f*cking plants use carbon dioxide! And of course it happens on other planets! Does this guy even know how many planets there are? Even if only .00000000001% of planets had this mix of elements, there would still be billions of planets like this. This point is void.

If there is a miracle, it is called chance. This point is void.

Woah. Trivia wrong. The atomic clock gets off 1 second in a million years.

Celestial evangelists? Dude. Learn something about orbits. For one, the North Star doesn't circle the earth. We can always see it. This point is void.

Atheism has never healed a fatal disease? What about small pox? Malaria? Typhus? This point is void.

Atheism has never given answers to our existance? Not even gonna start. This point is void.

Basically, this guy comes up with ideas that are infinitely more than the sum of its parts. And some things he just has wrong.

[Ditocoaf]

so we're supposed to decide our beliefs on what's the most comforting? On what simplifies the world's complexities for us the most?

That's what most people do whether or not they believe in God. People are afraid of going to hell so they either say they believe that God exists so that they don't get sent there, or they deny the existance of God and Hell entirely. The same motivation manifests itself in two different ways.

Holy fucking shit. I can't believe you're making that argument. Are you saying only immoral people are atheists, because they're scared of hell, and it comforts them to deny it? I'd like to inform you that I do my very best to be as nice and selfless to people around me as I possibly can -- not because God Told Me To, but because I actually care about people. If there is a god, and a hell, then I'm fairly certain I wouldn't go there... unless God considers Praising his Name more important than Decency, in which case He is an egotistical asshole.

Let's look at a metaphor for a second, shall we?

There are three kinds of drivers: A. Some people drive safely because they are following the law. B. Some people drive safely because they don't want to hurt people. C. Some people don't drive safely. Let's say people of type A suddenly realize that they can actually get away with speeding, or running red lights... then, they become people of type C. People of both types A and C base their driving habits on whether or not they'll get in trouble -- they only differ in how enforced they perceive the law to be. People of type B are safer drivers than people of type A, even if they don't care about the law! Even if the law didn't exist, people of type B would continue to drive safely, and not hurt themselves and others.

So which type has it right?

[PLAYER57832]

72% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences are atheists and 21% are agnostic
According to the leading science journal Nature 394:313, a recent survey of members of the National Academy of Sciences showed that 72% are outright atheists, 21% are agnostic and only 7% admit to belief in a personal God. This survey and many more showing that more intelligent people tend not to believe in religion.

80% of U.S. prisoners are Christian and 0.2% are atheists
Data source is The Federal Bureau of Prisons, March 1997.

The second is easy. Parole boards tend to look favorably on religion. Not to mention that clergy are some of the few people who prisoners have the right to see, often in person.

But, for the first question.

A. Nature is a reputable publication, but I do question this data.

B. The National Academy of Science hardly has a lock on intelligent people. In fact, it is not even necessarily representative of the science community as a whole. Only certain types of scientists with certain types of jobs "belong".

C. Claims that NAS are anti religion, specifically anti Christian seem more and more prevalent. I always take such things with a "grain of salt" since more often than not, those making the claims have a rather narrow view of Christianity (tend to be Fundamentalists who believe in strict Creationism, among other issues -- folks who NAS has definite reason to reject). However, I have been hearing this more and more from nonfundamentalist Christians. Perhaps (???) there is some truth to this? I don't know.

Bottom line -- all religions have intelligent members and idiots. They pretty much all represent humanity. The more intelligent members/adherants tend to know this, above all else.