Atheists are smarter , but it seems also more creative.

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

Ah, The Eiffel Tower Con. You almost had me there. But I know for a fact the one on offer is heavily used.

[Obvious Leo]

Ah, The Eiffel Tower Con. You almost had me there. But I know for a fact the one on offer is heavily used.

Be careful of facts, Gustav, for facts are slippery beasts. No sooner do you reckon you've managed to grab hold of one and it can morph into a fiction and slip right out of your grasp. Facts are merely provisional truths which one must always be willing to discard in the light of superior evidence and a fact which doesn't have this property is truly not a fact at all. It is a belief.

"Belief is the antithesis of knowledge".....Bertrand Russell.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I did once come across a person on the Internet who claimed to be both Theistic AND agnostic at the same time.

Sitting on the fence is only a viable option for those with no further use for their wedding tackle. You either buy the story or you don't and if you were a bronze-age goat-herder you could be excused for doing so. An examined 21st century mind cannot be.

HA, are you taking about Gustav??

[Hobbes' Choice]

Almost no autistic people believe in god because they can't. I don't mean they don't want to I literally mean they can't. Their minds are wired in such a way that they can't make the intersubjective connections with other minds needed to accommodate a belief in the supernatural. Religiosity begins with suggestibility and you simply can't bullshit an "autie" or an "aspie". Anecdotally I know this to be true because I have members of both in my extended family and there is also much research which supports this. Autism Spectrum Disorder is unrelated to intelligence but suggestibility is, a proposition which has also been extensively researched. It's not as easy to con a smart person as it is an idiot and if you don't believe me you may be interested in an Eiffel tower I have for sale. It's hardly been used and is in excellent condition.

Very intelligent people can easily be theists. William Lane Craig is such a person. He argues very well and can be a tough nut to break in a debate. His Theism is protected by a deeply protected assumption, which is intellectual capabilities is able to protect from his own reason. The fact of his intelligence merely means that he has skills to suppress the flaw in his argument, even to himself. A less intelligent person accepts that there are many questions they cannot answer, he just coats it with sophistry.

I can't speak for aut/asp, having know them only as children. People you meet in as adults are not in the habit of declaring themselves. But knowing what I do I think I know what you mean.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Ah, The Eiffel Tower Con. You almost had me there. But I know for a fact the one on offer is heavily used.

Be careful of facts, Gustav, for facts are slippery beasts. No sooner do you reckon you've managed to grab hold of one and it can morph into a fiction and slip right out of your grasp. Facts are merely provisional truths which one must always be willing to discard in the light of superior evidence and a fact which doesn't have this property is truly not a fact at all. It is a belief.

"Belief is the antithesis of knowledge".....Bertrand Russell.

Yes, as it is the death of reason.

[SpheresOfBalance]

So you really don't get that I'm saying that Agnostics are actually smarter and better creative thinkers than either Atheists or Theists?

I get that you believe it. It may even be true; I have no way of knowing.
Actually I included a to let you know I was just being selfishly funny, not that I would assert such as actual truth, though it would surely seem so; logically, that is.

The proof of a god's existence or non-existence was not on any of the tests. Agnostics were not singled out, or statistically compared to the other two groups, in the literature I reviewed. It is not relevant to the topic.
No, the topic is: "Atheists are smarter , but it seems also more creative." Written by: Hobbes' Choice, whom referenced an off site source as his proof.

What do you call stating that my language requires a translator, instead of asking for clarification?

I've gone through a couple of rounds of your 'clarification', which only muddled things more.
Your "muddled" is my "much deeper understanding," this is a philosophy site after all.

The subject is: On the majority of a large number of tests for intelligence and various kinds of aptitude, set by different institutions at different times, subjects who identified themselves as atheist scored higher than subjects who identified themselves as religious. That's a recorded fact.
No, the subject is "Atheists are smarter , but it seems also more creative." Written by: Hobbes' Choice, whom referenced an off site article, as his proof.

You've assumed that every one of the tests was set by atheists, tried to redefine intelligence test as tests of a particular kind of knowledge, talked about majority and minority opinions, dragged in irrelevant hypotheticals, kept going around in circles; did everything except address the factual content with any kind of factual refutation.
No, I've only ever addressed the topic at hand, which is Hobbes' article. I've never read his, so called, proof.

Sarcasm at best, condescension at worst.

Extreme exasperation in the middle. You were not making any sense on page 2, and there is very little hope of it happening on page 12.
To your ears, there is no doubt, as you, yourself, profess.

You cannot be reached. I give up
And especially this last sentence proves my point as you assert your 'believed' dominance as to knowledge. When in fact you cannot necessarily know it. Now that I finally know of what is was that you've actually replied, even though I've never read it, I can still honestly say that you've merely used someone else's measuring means, that you 'assume' is correct. I'm saying that it's not necessarily correct; that you and I can only read their words and either choose to believe them credible, or not.

So it's you that cannot be reached, as I'm the first of us to understand that we've apparently been talking about two different things. While I've been talking about the PNF topic of "Atheists are smarter , but it seems also more creative," written by Hobbes' Choice, you've been talking about Hobbes' referenced offsite proof, which I have yet to read.

But the most telling difference between us, is that I'll never give up on you, or anyone else for that matter. Yes I'm dedicated that much!

Thanks for your time my friend, I'd hoped it'd have gone much better, but that doesn't detract from what's been gleaned. After all, all that matters is that one gives.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I realise that there's a technical distinction between atheism and agnosticism in some dictionaries , although interestingly not in all. However in a practical sense the distinction is a trivial one and little more than a bit of semantic obfuscation. In both cases the claimant is basically saying that the case for a god is not made to their conceptual satisfaction. Theists like to muddy the waters by painting atheism as a belief system but most atheists will vigorously deny this by saying that an a-theist is merely somebody who is not a theist. I see no reason to read more than this into such a simple statement and as far as I'm concerned arguing over the meanings of words is exactly the sort of shit that gives philosophy a bad name. Not that I'm suggesting that that's what's going on here, but you know, just saying.

Here is my source, and why I've finally decided to call myself an agnostic:

agnostic
[ag-nos-tik]
noun
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
3. a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic: Socrates was an agnostic on the subject of immortality.

--dictionary.reference.com--

Though for me I shall always add to those definitions, "FOR NOW," because I don't believe in precognition. Who knows what the future, holds, you?
.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I've never seen any of those distinctions in labelling, nor any specific belief by any of the people so labelled, appearing on an intelligence test.
Herring sandwiches.

So are you saying you're a fish, or you believe some others are fish, because to insinuate that I'd throw in a red herring so as to obfuscate just to win some sort of self stroking prize, is quite absurd, and actually only evidence of one either incapable or unwilling to understand my meaning. But then pride is a problem for some people. As I've said before, "some can't see the truth for the self."

If I've misjudged you, then let me say that I'm sorry, in advance. Otherwise...

[SpheresOfBalance]

I did once come across a person on the Internet who claimed to be both Theistic AND agnostic at the same time.

Sitting on the fence is only a viable option for those with no further use for their wedding tackle. You either buy the story or you don't and if you were a bronze-age goat-herder you could be excused for doing so. An examined 21st century mind cannot be.

Wrong! But it's no surprise that you type people, only seeing things as either black or white, would say such things.

In fact their are only ever multitudes of shades of greys between black and white, that some are quite incapable of perceiving, and my heart bleeds for them.

The beauty of sitting on the "fence of truth" is that one is higher than all those standing on the "ground of belief," thus one can see further than they can, much, much further past their inept rationalizations, born most often of fear. It's not about escape or ineptitude for the agnostic, rather quite the opposite, it's about, in the face of truth, not giving up and selling out to belief. Some want their 'version' of truth, NOW! While others are very happy indeed waiting for the 'absolute' truth later, or maybe not, as time is tricky that way. But at least they know that counting chickens before they're hatched, is a fools game.

I have taken pot shots at your words, so I expect the same, OL!

[SpheresOfBalance]

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.

I read the article and it is really only an opinion on some (I would say 'supposed') research, and these sort of articles are a dime to the dozen. The article only suggests the possibility of greater intelligence. But it does seem clear, and thus a fair statement, that the article's intention is to offer idea-support to someone of an atheistic, or humanistic, bent.

However, it is wise not to ignore what is *really happening* not only with that class of pseudo-scientific writing (as I think it must be called), but here among those who establish these theist-atheist game and who desire to then 'argue' their points, but who aprioristically see themselves as having 'won'. One has to understand, I think, that this is the whole purpose: to support a decision already taken. And for people to get together to support their decision as a shared, group ritual. In the forum-theatre the whole purpose is to enact a rite where the 'atheist' is made to win, the 'theist' to lose. Should it happen that the 'theist' begins to 'win' the logical step it to eliminate the platform where that conversation occurs. So for example recently a whole thread was eliminated and for that reason.

But going further I think one must also recognise - as Leo has pointed out - that now a theistic position is beginning to be established and seen in cultural perspective as a form of mental disease. If those who hold this opinion gain more power within institutions it is only 'natural' that they begin to shift perspective to support their a priori. If this is so, and were we to take it to an extreme as a manner of illustration, one could imagine internment camps and mental hospitals in Leo's Australia for the treatment of the disease of belief.

The problem, is, naturally and unfortunately, that some forms of religious practice, say the shamanistic trance, or clairvoyance, can be looked at (the focus is now on the one doing the seeing) as scary and strange evidence of mental unbalance. Take the snake handling sects of the Pentecostals, and Pentecostalism generally. The issue becomes complex when, for example, the lines that connect Pentecostalism and rock-n-roll are traced and explained. (Someone did a study on the Grateful Dead rock band with these comparisons in mind).

But if we can see Pentecostalism as 'an obvious case of mental delirium' (my quotes), how shall we categorise, for example, shamanistic practice among the Australian aborigines? or the tribes that still exist in the Amazon Basin? Or those of Santo Daime of Brasil that use ayahuasca? There comes a moment when one group of 'insane' are called to judge another group of 'insane' and I am reminded of the Ship of Fools.

The 'purpose' of the ritual enactments as they occur on this forum is real and considerable. But it has to be carefully analysed and in a sense dissected. I have begun to understand that the enactors are not fully conscious of their own purposes, or if they are conscious it is only of an aspect of their 'project'. Yet for all that the project is described as 'rational' and 'conscious' and 'positive' in actual fact one quickly notices whole undercurrents of animosity, anger, disturbed emotions, and emotional upset. This is one reason why I continually recommend 'turning the lens of observation around' and examining the examiner.

Indeed, one could say that's the ultimate course in philosophy. That psychology and philosophy go hand in hand, as the solution to the truth of knowledge. Some are only capable of projecting self interests in their version of philosophy. I'm lucky in that way, as I only see one symbiotic biosphere of life. My aim is to unite all it's constituents, a daunting task to say the least, yet I trudge away, feeling much like Atlas.

[Obvious Leo]

I have taken pot shots at your words, so I expect the same, OL!

Be my guest, SOB, I'm not overly precious about the use of language in the robust cut and thrust of the discourse.

In fact I don't call myself either an atheist or an agnostic because of the semantic confusion this might cause in the minds of some people. I simply call myself a non-believer because I am unpersuaded by the god hypothesis. In my personal lexicon the non-believer is one who doesn't believe in ANYTHING which requires belief as a pre-condition for acceptance, which puts gods in the same category as astrology, leprechauns, the tooth fairy, homeopathy and the healing power of crystals. I'm just not a believing sort of bloke.

However I am unquestionably a man of opinions and I have an opinion on bloody near everything. Opinions are not beliefs because opinions are infinitely malleable. They can be modified in the light of further evidence and even discarded altogether if such evidence is sufficiently persuasive, a process commonly known as learning.

You are hereby advised that I reserve the right at all times to modify or discard any of my stated opinions without notice or explanation, but you may be re-assured that in such an eventuality I have not done so without good REASON.

[Skip]

...this last sentence proves my point as you assert your 'believed' dominance as to knowledge. When in fact you cannot necessarily know it.

I didn't claim to know anything. I merely referred - three different times - to a statistical review of a bunch of different tests wherein non-believers scored higher than believers, and/or more subjects who had high IQ's to begin with became non-believers in adulthood.
None of the tests classified their subjects as atheist or agnostic; they only differentiated between religion and non-religion.
Therefore, all of the quibbles, by all of the participants in those quibbles over definitions of agnostic and atheist are irrelevant to the topic; thus red herrings.
The article at the top referenced studies not done by the author - nor Hobbe's Choice - and so I looked for other sources and found a couple of pretty good overviews that do not depend for their conclusion on any single (and possibly biased) source. Yet you keep 'refuting' my argument with the biased opinion that the tests are biased. If you haven't read them or followed them up, how could you possibly know?

Now that I finally know of what is was that you've actually replied, even though I've never read it, I can still honestly say that you've merely used someone else's measuring means, that you 'assume' is correct. I'm saying that it's not necessarily correct; that you and I can only read their words and either choose to believe them credible, or not.

You made that choice before ever reading a word. You also kept shifting the subject away from IQ and aptitude tests to public opinion and judgment. No academics who set the tests to which I keep referring, ever claimed that a religious person can't be intelligent and creative. None of them said that all intelligent people must lose their faith. It's a statistical analysis; all about percents and proportions, not absolutes.

... I'm the first of us to understand that we've apparently been talking about two different things. While I've been talking about the PNF topic of "Atheists are smarter , but it seems also more creative," written by Hobbes' Choice, you've been talking about Hobbes' referenced offsite proof, which I have yet to read.

You can be first if you like. I was addressing the assertion of the OP, and finding my own off-site proofs.... which - let me guess! - you have not read before dismissing.

I'll never give up on you, or anyone else for that matter. Yes I'm dedicated that much!

I'm not making that my problem.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I did once come across a person on the Internet who claimed to be both Theistic AND agnostic at the same time.

Sitting on the fence is only a viable option for those with no further use for their wedding tackle. You either buy the story or you don't and if you were a bronze-age goat-herder you could be excused for doing so. An examined 21st century mind cannot be.

Wrong! But it's no surprise that you type people, only seeing things as either black or white, would say such things.

It's not wrong. It's just that the cesspit you call a mind is stuck in the 18thC.

[SpheresOfBalance]

...this last sentence proves my point as you assert your 'believed' dominance as to knowledge. When in fact you cannot necessarily know it.

I didn't claim to know anything. I merely referred - three different times - to a statistical review of a bunch of different tests wherein non-believers scored higher than believers, and/or more subjects who had high IQ's to begin with became non-believers in adulthood.
None of the tests classified their subjects as atheist or agnostic; they only differentiated between religion and non-religion.
Therefore, all of the quibbles, by all of the participants in those quibbles over definitions of agnostic and atheist are irrelevant to the topic; thus red herrings.
The article at the top referenced studies not done by the author - nor Hobbe's Choice - and so I looked for other sources and found a couple of pretty good overviews that do not depend for their conclusion on any single (and possibly biased) source. Yet you keep 'refuting' my argument with the biased opinion that the tests are biased. If you haven't read them or followed them up, how could you possibly know?

Now that I finally know of what is was that you've actually replied, even though I've never read it, I can still honestly say that you've merely used someone else's measuring means, that you 'assume' is correct. I'm saying that it's not necessarily correct; that you and I can only read their words and either choose to believe them credible, or not.

You made that choice before ever reading a word. You also kept shifting the subject away from IQ and aptitude tests to public opinion and judgment. No academics who set the tests to which I keep referring, ever claimed that a religious person can't be intelligent and creative. None of them said that all intelligent people must lose their faith. It's a statistical analysis; all about percents and proportions, not absolutes.

... I'm the first of us to understand that we've apparently been talking about two different things. While I've been talking about the PNF topic of "Atheists are smarter , but it seems also more creative," written by Hobbes' Choice, you've been talking about Hobbes' referenced offsite proof, which I have yet to read.

You can be first if you like. I was addressing the assertion of the OP, and finding my own off-site proofs.... which - let me guess! - you have not read before dismissing.

I'll never give up on you, or anyone else for that matter. Yes I'm dedicated that much!

I'm not making that my problem.

You missed it skip, no use in proceeding. From the get I was referring to Hobbes' words, as I believed you were, as you never made it clear that you weren't. Here on this forum, one can only assume that when one responds to another's post they are referring to that post.

And the truth is, it doesn't matter where you got your data from, my argument as to why people believe one is less intelligent to themselves is still valid, whether you understand it or not. It's funny how things are that way; that they don't have to be understood by any particular person to be true.

In fact there is no 'necessary' correlation between ones intelligence and either the existence or non existence of a creator of the universe.

As I've said before, IQ tests can only test ones memory of what they've been taught, which speaks nothing of the validity of what they've been taught. Are you starting to get it now? It could be that all those with high IQ's are idiots, so malleable, that they've swallowed bits of what they've been taught, hook line and sinker, without an original thought of their own, that might speak to the contrary.

Of course this should only be applied on a bit by bit basis of so called knowledge. I had to make that clear for all those incapable of fully understanding my point, they just love mob mentality.

In truth much of what I say on this forum is majorly incomplete, because I'm far too lazy to write all that would be required to ensure everyone gets it, just as everyone here is far too lazy to read all they'd have to read to get it.

But the defining line in your argument, was when you said that you'd have to compare one of my creatures intellect to yours to know if they were intelligent or not. That said it all, I'm just really surprised that it came from you.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I did once come across a person on the Internet who claimed to be both Theistic AND agnostic at the same time.

Sitting on the fence is only a viable option for those with no further use for their wedding tackle. You either buy the story or you don't and if you were a bronze-age goat-herder you could be excused for doing so. An examined 21st century mind cannot be.

Wrong! But it's no surprise that you type people, only seeing things as either black or white, would say such things.

It's not wrong. It's just that the cesspit you call a mind is stuck in the 18thC.

So says the boy with his toys, that believes they make him a man.