Atheists are smarter , but it seems also more creative.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Everyone over 20 with a still-intact memory has previous lives. I can count a dozen without taxing the diminished brain-cell population beyond endurance. .

Are you being as crazy as this sounds, or are you just making a joke of some sort.

[Obvious Leo]

Everyone over 20 with a still-intact memory has previous lives. I can count a dozen without taxing the diminished brain-cell population beyond endurance. .

Are you being as crazy as this sounds, or are you just making a joke of some sort.

Is this not a common figure of colloquial speech in British English, Hobbes? Would people assume you were crazy if you said you were a teacher in a previous life or a Manchester United supporter in a previous life. It's a very common turn of phrase downunder which simply means "I once was....."

[Skip]

We simply think of a major break in continuity - getting married or divorced, moving to another country, graduating from school, changing occupations, having children, undertaking or closing an enterprise - as the opening of a historical era. When we look back, these chapters read like discrete life-stories. It's a common metaphor of my generation - never thought it would sound peculiar, let alone crazy ... Gods know, I have more valid claims to craziness than past morphoses.

[thedoc]

I was a biochemist in a previous life, Skip, so I hear you loud and clear.

You believe that you had a previous life? That explains a lot.

Doc. Are you familiar with the term, "a figure of speech"? Perhaps it's a cultural misunderstanding but this term is often used in my country when referring to previous career or lifestyle choices.

I'm actually one of those who reckons that life is something we only get one crack at so we're well advised to make the most of it.

Did you ever hear the phrase "jerking your chain"?

[Obvious Leo]

Did you ever hear the phrase "jerking your chain"?

I assumed this was the case, doc, but it's not always easy to be certain with some folk. Americans in particular appear to have no taste for nuance in language and are practically immune to irony, although in all fairness I would qualify this observation by saying that this is less often the case now than it once was. A very small number of Americans are finally beginning to realise that there are places in the world where people are not like them and don't want to be.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Are you being as crazy as this sounds, or are you just making a joke of some sort.

Is this not a common figure of colloquial speech in British English, Hobbes? Would people assume you were crazy if you said you were a teacher in a previous life or a Manchester United supporter in a previous life. It's a very common turn of phrase downunder which simply means "I once was....."

Just checking.
This is the Internet, you know.

[Scott Mayers]

This video of Noam Chomsky speaking on the topic of "The Machine, the Ghost, and the Limits of Understanding" you-all may find interesting. His 'conclusions', such as they are, are quite interesting.

Is there a way to embed videos on the phbBB board? I could not find the code that would work ...

phpBB has this option but must be turned on by the administration. When or if turned on, above will have the buttons, [ytube] and/or [video].

[Skip]

I watched it for ...what seemed like a year. He just wouldn't get past 1910, or to a point! Chomsky may be immortal, but I'm not.

[SpheresOfBalance]

In other words how would 'you' conduct the meeting so as to ascertain his/their intelligence?

In that instance, I just figured face to face conversation is a quick way to bypass the controversy over IQ tests and questionnaires. My - only slightly facetious - slant was that, being fairly bright myself, I'm more competent to judge another bright one than some anonymous test.

Apparently, you'd have to meet all of them to judge which group is more intelligent, right?

No, just the exception. I couldn't face interviewing the believers.... don't know how Saint Peter can stand his job, for that matter. Of course, you never said what belief-system they all subscribe to, and it's just possible that the exception is a delusional fanatic.... but he'd still be more interesting than 7 billion conformists

Of course, you have no tests, just your mental faculties.

Perhaps in the hypothetical. But in reality, I accept the result of those 63 various studies.

Skip, personally I don't believe that any, so called, group is smarter than another, and is where I was going.

The problem is, it's not just any old so-called group. It's a comparison between a whole lot of people who buy into an implausible story that's used to oppress them and stunt their critical thinking from cradle to grave, and the people who have either broken out of that mind-control machine or have never been deformed by it.
It's hardly surprising if the free-thinkers think more freely.

Well my final analysis is that as to the topic at hand, "Atheists are smarter , but it seems also more creative.", that it was obviously written by an atheist. That as to it actually containing any universal truth, one cannot, at least at this time, bear any factual witness. I see that one believes such things due to their selfish bias alone, that there is no necessary truth to be necessarily found in such a statement. That it's just a self stroking technique. That one tends to believe another is more intelligent, if that other one believes as they do. It's an attempt at qualifying/quantifying self, as if self is necessarily correct. As the funny thing is, in the human case at least, is that any particulars knowledge, is not their own as much as it is the culmination of all the others knowledge that have come before them, that yet others have held in high esteem, usually of lessor education, such that who can in fact be certain on any universal level, that theirs is in fact superior? Most allusions of this type are solely based upon illusion. In the end it's just best to argue ones case, as best as one can, then look to see if any cream has risen to the top, and not to profess that in fact it has, as only time can bear that out.

[Skip]

So, you analyzed your preference and came to the conclusion that the actual, scientifically conducted, studies are all wrong and biased.
The way to prove it is to make up your own test and get your own statistics.

[sthitapragya]

Atheists tend to score higher in intelligence, as we have heard from time to time. But this article also includes creative thinking.
It always seemed obvious enough that a person self-identifying as an atheist is one who had at some point seriously thought about his position , and thus the statistics would mean that atheism was a good predictor of a reasonably good level of rational thinking, whilst those brought up within religion along with people of intelligence is also cluttered up with unthinking, followers.
You may disagree but intelligence can also be the ability to argue any point effectively regardless of the truth; clever obfuscation, goal-post changing; assuming the premise, and a whole host of other tricks that many here will have witnesses in our Theistic friends. So I do not suggest that you have to be stupid to be a Theist - but have another quality. I'll leave that up to you what you think I think that is.

But this revelation, below, requires a different explanation. Whereas Theism does not lead to stupidity, I think there is a good argument that some forms of Theism are perfectly capable of quashing creative thinking. Religiocity requires dogmatic thinking, it denies imagination and enforces rules and fixed ideas. It is less open minded; tends to be conformist, homophobic, misogynistic and even racist. To be part of a religion requires a person to belong. And belonging means sharing an ideology and a system of belief.

All these things might also apply to an Atheist, depending on what they might choose to believe. But for most atheists it is necessary to fundamentally question the nature of belief itself; and in rejecting ONE "Faith", it is more likely that atheism would also score higher for non-conformity, open mindedness - (but not the the point of believing in anything that comes along), and it being suspicious of belief itself. Creativity would enable a range of fantastical ideas to remain that way, rather than accepting any one as true, as the Theists have to.

http://thehumanist.com/arts_entertainme ... y-might-be

I cannot agree with this. Rational thinking and creativity are though interdependent, not directly proportionate. Also, though religion itself might be dogmatic, religious people would not necessarily be dogmatic.There are too many artists, poets, writers, scientists who were theists who created magnificent works of art and provided great scientific breakthroughs for us to believe that atheists are more creative.

[The Inglorious One]

Atheists tend to score higher in intelligence, as we have heard from time to time.

It's been heard only from time to time because the studies are not conclusive and are notoriously difficult to duplicate.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Atheists tend to score higher in intelligence, as we have heard from time to time.

It's been heard only from time to time because the studies are not conclusive and are notoriously difficult to duplicate.

Rubbish.
They are replicated time and again.

[Skip]

It's been heard only from time to time because the studies are not conclusive and are notoriously difficult to duplicate.

Not that difficult!

Out of 63 studies, 53 showed a negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity, while 10 showed a positive one. Significant negative correlations were seen in 35 studies, whereas only two studies showed significant positive correlations.

The three psychologists have defined intelligence as the “ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly, and learn from experience.” In short this is analytic intelligence, not the newly identified forms of creative and emotional intelligence, which are still subjects of dispute. In the various studies being examined, analytic intelligence has been measured in many different ways, including GPA (grade point average), UEE (university entrance exams), Mensa membership, and Intelligence Quotient (IQ) tests, among others.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/08/ ... and-faith/

sthitapragya - - - There are too many artists, poets, writers, scientists who were theists who created magnificent works of art and provided great scientific breakthroughs for us to believe that atheists are more creative.

We don't know whether this is true or not. Artists were commissioned by the RCC to depict religious themes, yes. Writers, artists and scientists who lived under punitive state religion (either Christian or Muslim) had to profess the mandated faith - or else end up like Bruno. We have no way, in retrospect, to ascertain how much they actually believed.

[SpheresOfBalance]

So, you analyzed your preference and came to the conclusion that the actual, scientifically conducted, studies are all wrong and biased.

The way to prove it is to make up your own test and get your own statistics.

No! In fact you seem to be confused, as I see that it was you that was asserting such things. Remember? You said that you would judge my hypothetical being's intelligence, relative to yours, because you believe yourself to be pretty intelligent.

I'm saying that what it is in being considered more intelligent depends solely upon the intelligence, of the governing body, which is in majority, of that which is considered knowledge. That neither that which is governing, nor which is in majority, is necessarily a sufficiently certain indicator of knowledge, thus intelligence. That any majority can build a self serving foundation made of Styrofoam, which shall never actually be solid, especially when supported by greed, power and violence, as those things puff up the Styrofoam with more hot air (falsehoods). Of course fear is at the center of such controversy.

I'm an agnostic! Because, I 'know' that neither a theist nor an atheist can prove their beliefs are true. If either of you believe you can, 'prove' it, with 100% certainty! To me, of course, this is in fact a more intelligent stance.

Most atheists fear, not a creator, rather those people that created their god in their image. They seem to be confused, in their denial of the possibility of a creative force, simply because archaic humans created their god to oppose unjust, and unfair treatment. That in their fear, they created their version of a creator dubbed god, full of holes, is no necessary indicator that there is no creator. Simply that those archaic peoples got it all wrong, actually becoming that which they feared. Which is in fact common for the human species, and why I tend to try and question everything, especially myself.