First off, welcome to wheelhomies.

Saying black people are on average statistically dumber = incorrect. On average, people of african decent earn less and have less of an education because of continuing racist practices in business and school, but that's slowly changing. Had I not had the opportunity to go to school or have a good job, I wouldn't have had access o the information I was able to learn to make me the person I am today...but would that suggest I am dumber? Nope. Also, I have no idea what that has to do with atheism.

My impression of what happened was that you slipped and said something you didn't exactly intend to say. No harm there. I've said things I didn't mean to say before. For example, recently in a lively debate with debaser, I accidentally called the Kuwaitis Kurds. Needless to say, it was embarrassing. I caught my slip and apologized, and was able to move on.

Speaking to a correlation between intellect and atheism or theism, no conclusive verifiable evidence exists to suggest that atheists or theists have the smarter folk. While I am of the opinion that atheists are able to reason in a more effective and scientific way than theists, that doesn't suggest that theists are in any way less intelligent on the whole. Look at Dr. Martin Luther King and Gandhi. Two of the most important people in history, and they were deeply religious.

Well i've never said anyone is more intelligent than anyone else regarding to any group of people. What I said was African Americans are less educated often due to outside factors beyond their control. As for atheists and theists, what I said was I believe theists put more stock into faith and much less into reason and logic, this isn't a knock on their intelligence, this is just the way I see it. If i offended anyone I do apologize because that isn't what i'm trying to accomplish, in fact it's directly counter productive.

I'd agree with that. I'm just not quite sure why race was introduced into the conversation.

Well, I remembered hearing statistics revealing African Americans were more likely to believe in God than Caucasians. I thought it was pertinent to my opinion about the correlation between education and atheism.

I can understand that, but, as said before, that's not a direct link by any means. It could just be a coincedence. There are many reasons that people of african decent (IL, help me out, is 'black' kosher for general respectful use?) are more likely to be religious, and christian and muslim in general. It has a lot to do with a strong cultural tie to religion, I'd imagine. Think of it this way: people of arab decent usually have a high education level, yet they, like people of african decent, are much more likely to believe in allah.

I've not yet seen any evidence of a link between religios vs. non-religious philosophy and education level or IQ. I would say it relies more on environmental factors like upbringing.

thanks willravel. ah, the joys of being a newb.

your point about arabs and african americans has some merit. However, as you said before it also depends on their religious upbringing. Arabs are born into strong religious sentiments, whereas here in the states it's more of a choice. I think there are enough variables at work when you make comparisons about americans, but comparing different countries only amplifies them. Either way it's tough to peg the exact reasons why. Let's put it this way, it's simply my opinion based on the limited evidence I have.

I meant Arab Americans. Those of Syrian or Middle Eastern decent born and/or raised in the US. They are VERY rarely atheist or agnostic.

Former Soviet states have higher degrees of atheism despite generally poor education yet have a very small black population. Your generalization = Phail'd.

I can't believe we've only been looking at intelligence as the correlation between theism and education. What about morality. Do the statistics suggest that African Americans have, on average, a higher moral integrity than Caucasians?

Didn't think so.

The statistics aren't very useful because they are oversimplistic. As has been mentioned previously, we cannot bring about any satisfying conclusion based on them, especially not for our purposes here. The most we can agree on is perhaps a commentary on the status of religious membership by race within America. Not much else can be taken from that; certainly not a reading as deep as: African Americans erroneously believe in God because they are poor and uneducated.

The problem with generalizations is that, on their own, they are possibly as rooted in faith as a dogmatic belief in God.

Get some popcorn, this one's a doozy.


I agree that there is a lot of pop science available for anyone who happens to enjoy such things. The discovery channel is a mixed bag. I like that show "how it's made", but they do seem to have a lot of what amounts to skin deep infotainment(hello shark week).

In this day and age, where there's so much stuff to know, there isn't anyone who knows enough about enough things to not be at the mercy of other people's judgment when it comes to the dissemination of information. Even if someone happens to be extremely intelligent and well read, they're still going to have to rely on other people's interpretation of things which they don't understand.

I'm not sure how the subject of sheep came up, as the herd-like behavior isn't necessarily that important in the context of anything i've said. I don't think the fact that humanity can be thought of as an interconnected, interrelated community(essentially the sheep thing) is that relevant to the notion that in a complex world such as ours it is essentially impossible for one person to go about their daily business without needing to, at some point, rely on the judgement and knowledge of someone with more information or experience.

As it stands, most people have very limited knowledge of math or science, and if you happen to be going to school for anything remotely math-y or science-y they will readily tell you this if your area of study ever happens to come up in casual conversation. The next time you meet someone new, tell them you're taking a multivariable calculus class, probably 7 times out of ten you'll get a pair of wide eyes and algebra lamentations as a response. Then tell them that calculus is the study of the ramifications of division by zero, and 7 times out of ten they won't have any clue that you're full of shit.

These people are vulnerable in a sense; it doesn't take much effort to fool them when they trust your authority on a given subject and have no idea what you're talking about. Just look at the current global warming debate. I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of people who have a firm opinion on the subject have absolutely no clue about the models used to predict its effects. Even when you have two people who do know what the science is, they can and will offer widely divergent opinions on the matter (ustwo and i think superbelt).

All this blabbering is really just to say that the idea that we will be better off if more people fly the flag of rationality and science completely ignores the facts that:

1) Most people hate math and/or science(except perhaps for the pop variety).
2) Even people who love math and/or science are limited in their knowledge by the sheer magnitude of things out there to know.
3) A strong cultural commitment to science as a functional alternative to a cultural commitment to religion is meaningless if the majority of people in a society can't actually be bothered to learn the science; you'll just end up with an identical power structure that's just as liable to hijacked by those with ulterior motives(see stalin).
4) Human beings aren't rational in any sort of consistent way, therefore it is pointless to claim that there is any sort of more rational alternative to the current status quo. After all, the atheist position must assume that humans are self-organizing and therefore completely responsible for the current state of affairs. It isn't religion that has gotten us in this mess, it is us.


Now, none of this is to say that atheism necessarily need by thought of as the more rational alternative to religion, or that a bold new age of rational knowledge awaits us just beyond the horizon if only we can throw of the shackles of spirituality. It's just that this is the way that new atheism is commonly framed.


Yes, i know that stereotypes can sometimes be useful when judging people we don't know. However, if what you're actually seeking is some sort of general truth, i find that it is best to leave them at the door. We aren't in the street here.

I'd be interested in seeing how you were able to correlate belief in evolution with the ability to think rationally. You know that conclusions arrived at through rational means aren't necessarily correct? I can think rationally and believe that the universe revolves around the earth, it would be necessary that i start with some probably pretty ridiculous assumptions, but it could be done rationally.

As far as ignoring threats to comfortable belief systems, did you know that einstein disliked quantum mechanics so much that he spent his dying breath trying to come up with a unifying theory that would render it obsolete? He didn't like the idea that the universe left things up to chance. From what i understand, it's actually pretty normal for more established scientists to discourage people whose theories might threaten the current status quo.

Well, when the six(5 actually) examples are responsible for relativity, genetics, calculus, and mechanics one might wonder, what the hell those hundreds of millions of people ever did for science?

Ask the scientist what happens after you die, or why we exist, i guarantee you that if s/he is an actual scientist the answer you get won't be any more substantial that the one you'd get from your diety of choice.

Empty calories!!! I'll have some dried blueberries.
I love shark week.
ROFL. You're a funny guy. I think the problem may be that people want to appear as if they know everything. It's embarrassing to be uncovered as an idiot, and people generally nod when they don't know what's going on. Maybe if people were able to separate themselves from a superficial intellectual vanity, we'd all be in a better place to learn.
That's just the thing, the ability to go to a library and learn for yourself is available to everyone. I did some research and am convinced that global warming (global climate change) is real. Anyone is free to do this.
Well to that I've said:
I recognize all of the correct points above, except that it's obviously harder to hijack that which is scientifically verifiable. How many Martin Luther's have there been vs. how many Einsteins? Both fundamentally changed their fields, but the Reformation stands in a small group of attempted corrections. Science is corrected every day. Also, there was no diet of Worms for Einstein. He stated facts, and while many backwards scientists disagreed, hey eventually came around.
The only thing I'd like to say to this is the following:
To me, believing in the supernatural suggests a susceptibility to believe in that which is counter intuitive or counter to reason. This isn't a bash of religious people, as many are seeking spiritual enlightenment and peace, it's simply my observation. I wonder about the ability to be skeptical among those who accept that which is unprovable. Atheism is the ability to accept being skeptical and reasonable so far as the supernatural.

You won't hold it against them, but will imply that they are weak?

If one is addicted, that does not require weakness as a prerequisite. The implication simply is to the nature of the relationship between believer and faith as being similar to the relationship between an addict and his or her addiction. I wouldn't disagree with that entirely, but it's obviously more complicated than alcoholism.

Will, you're just lucky we don't hold your addiction to scientific reason against you.

I don't think anything should be held against anyone in the context of atheism and theism. One can be a good theist or atheist, just as one can be a bad atheist or theist. I would say that for something to held against someone, one would need to produce it's effects on them negatively, or visa versa. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a theist, and used his faith to inspire true progress. He was one of the post important people who ever lived. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was a theist of much the same caliber who brought about true progress.

It's only when faith (or a lack of faith) becomes destructive that it should be addressed in the negative.

It's funny, you can actually track the change in my philosophy through my post history. Heh.

Yeah, me too.

This is patently false. How is being religious the same thing as being addicted? I suppose some people could be addicted to religion but that is more of a condition of the individual rather than a wholesale trait of a person with religious beliefs.

ACA's are normally religious.

Leaving an addiction causes withdrawal (irritability, depression, etc.).
Leaving religion causes withdrawal (irritability, depression, etc.).

Google 'religious addiction'.

What is ACA?

Oh, sorry, adult children of alcoholics.

Ah, got it, thanks.

Well, the thing is, while a person can be addicted to religion (just like anything else), just being religious doesn't make you an addict.

No, but I believe there to be some similarities. I'm not suggesting that everyone is addicted to religion. Addiction suggests a negative (to tie into what I said above). Seriously, if you google 'religious addiction' you'll get a good idea.
http://desertpastor.typepad.com/para...ous_addic.html
I believe the other name for it is spiritual abuse. Religion is like any other substance that can be addictive, when used responsibly it can be fine, even good. It can be and is often abused. Many people use it in the stead of healthier connections like friendship and companionship. Some people use it as a tool to judge others.

That's a much better thought out answer.

atheism: the hate cult for wimps..when they get really angry, they beat up Buddhists

Um... I'm an atheistic Buddhist... :uhh: Good thing I don't get angry, or I'd beat myself up... if I weren't so wimpy.... :confused:

Wait... a theist with a 'holier than thou' attitude? You broke my irony meter, damnit!

You owe me an irony meter, son.

I am not an atheist, though I have thought at times it would be much easier to be an atheist. I could spend my whole life looking for answers, only to come up with more questions. When people ask me what religion I follow, I can't really give them an answer..most then assume I am an atheist. But I seek my god in my own way, not somebody else's way.

You're an agnostic, then (by my understanding of the term). You believe that there is probably a higher power, but you are still in the process of defining it. I hope you find peace in your search, no matter where it takes you.

Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense. - Buddha Might that also include the Belief in Atheism? - Josobot

I've always liked that line. Mainly because it does so much to summarize what the Buddha was teaching: find your own path to truth.

If you find the Buddha in the road, kill him...and all that.

Thought for the Year: If one believes that there is an " Enduring Rational Reality", what is wrong with calling that "God" ? Especially if one sees a link between reason and morality. My thanks to Kant and Aristotle.

Why not call it Enduring Rational Reality? If that's too long try the acronym E.R.R. After all, to E.R.R. is human. (I slay myself:) )

but why would you believe such a thing as "there is an enduring rational reality"?
it makes no sense.

Bwahahahaha....
Do you mean that believing in reality is believing in god makes no sense? Or are you saying believing that reality is real makes no sense?

There are things we know we know. There are things we know we don't know. And then there are things we don't know that we don't know. Wait, what was the question again?:)

It's about nine months late, but welcome to TFP, Mr. Rumsfeld.

Reminds me of my favorite theological quote:

Alright, so I definitely didn't read all of this. But I'm more agnostic than atheist. I feel no need to justify my existance with a fairly tale about a big man in the sky. I mean really, I think atheism comes about do mostly to the fact that every day more scientific discoveries prove that religion is nothing more than a cult.

The ideas are preposterous. It was more a ways to control the masses than any real divine intervention that started Christianity. It was a happy fairy tale to impose one man's morals on the rest of society. We no longer feel the need to believe in some higher power.

Quiet a lot of food for thought in this post, some of the comments about addiction to religion interseted me as an alcoholic/drug addict who was involved with the 12 step program a few yrs back. Not to knock that particular method of recovery but for myself I could never get over the whole higher power aspect of it all, and as open-mindedness is a principle central to the 12 step method, I tried it, and got nowhere with it, talking to a 'no one there' is how I felt, so I left. But I could see that addiction to recovery in so many people I met during that time was so similar to the addiction to Religion and/or to substance abuse, maybe by day to day not as damning as getting loaded all the time, but nevertheless just as vacant. I myself am not religious or athiest nor agnostic. Perhaps spirtitualy content to just live my life in the day as best possible and try not to upset others. And in keeping with the thread title, I'm sure as long as people have been predisposed to grow in an envirnoment that preaches a religion (whatever that religion might be) they're have been as many Athiests among them as ever, presuming that non-belief is not anything new to the human mind that asks questions. I feel that many just don't question it that much and are content to agree with the message they hear.
Sorry rambling on my first post....

I for one am an athiest who doesn't want to be. I want to believe hat there is some higher power and life goes on etc.... but with all the thought and scientific fact, I just can't.

I grew up in Catholic school and I had so much exposure to the idea of God that I actually was able to sit back and think things through. I began to reject the concept after I left Catholicism and tried Buddhism. I then realized it's what I naturally am.


I think the case is that we're at a point where science can prove just about everything in the bible to have a natural scientific explanation. Aside from that I believe another problem is that in this age, we have all the exposure in the world to these facts. This means that we hear about God our entire lives and we are told otherwise, therefore it's only natural that we are bound to reject it.