Liberals and atheists smarter?

[SPman]

This, from the ScienceDaily (Feb. 24, 2010) —


More intelligent people are statistically significantly more likely to exhibit social values and religious and political preferences that are novel to the human species in evolutionary history. Specifically, liberalism and atheism, and for men (but not women), preference for sexual exclusivity correlate with higher intelligence, a new study finds.
<hr>The study, published in the March 2010 issue of the peer-reviewed scientific journal Social Psychology Quarterly, advances a new theory to explain why people form particular preferences and values. The theory suggests that more intelligent people are more likely than less intelligent people to adopt evolutionarily novel preferences and values, but intelligence does not correlate with preferences and values that are old enough to have been shaped by evolution over millions of years."
"Evolutionarily novel" preferences and values are those that humans are not biologically designed to have and our ancestors probably did not possess. In contrast, those that our ancestors had for millions of years are "evolutionarily familiar."
"General intelligence, the ability to think and reason, endowed our ancestors with advantages in solving evolutionarily novel problems for which they did not have innate solutions," says Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics and Political Science. "As a result, more intelligent people are more likely to recognize and understand such novel entities and situations than less intelligent people, and some of these entities and situations are preferences, values, and lifestyles."
An earlier study by Kanazawa found that more intelligent individuals were more nocturnal, waking up and staying up later than less intelligent individuals. Because our ancestors lacked artificial light, they tended to wake up shortly before dawn and go to sleep shortly after dusk. Being nocturnal is evolutionarily novel.
In the current study, Kanazawa argues that humans are evolutionarily designed to be conservative, caring mostly about their family and friends, and being liberal, caring about an indefinite number of genetically unrelated strangers they never meet or interact with, is evolutionarily novel. So more intelligent children may be more likely to grow up to be liberals.
Data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) support Kanazawa's hypothesis. Young adults who subjectively identify themselves as "very liberal" have an average IQ of 106 during adolescence while those who identify themselves as "very conservative" have an average IQ of 95 during adolescence.
Similarly, religion is a byproduct of humans' tendency to perceive agency and intention as causes of events, to see "the hands of God" at work behind otherwise natural phenomena. "Humans are evolutionarily designed to be paranoid, and they believe in God because they are paranoid," says Kanazawa. This innate bias toward paranoia served humans well when self-preservation and protection of their families and clans depended on extreme vigilance to all potential dangers. "So, more intelligent children are more likely to grow up to go against their natural evolutionary tendency to believe in God, and they become atheists."
Young adults who identify themselves as "not at all religious" have an average IQ of 103 during adolescence, while those who identify themselves as "very religious" have an average IQ of 97 during adolescence.
In addition, humans have always been mildly polygynous in evolutionary history. Men in polygynous marriages were not expected to be sexually exclusive to one mate, whereas men in monogamous marriages were. In sharp contrast, whether they are in a monogamous or polygynous marriage, women were always expected to be sexually exclusive to one mate. So being sexually exclusive is evolutionarily novel for men, but not for women. And the theory predicts that more intelligent men are more likely to value sexual exclusivity than less intelligent men, but general intelligence makes no difference for women's value on sexual exclusivity. Kanazawa's analysis of Add Health data supports these sex-specific predictions as well.
One intriguing but theoretically predicted finding of the study is that more intelligent people are no more or no less likely to value such evolutionarily familiar entities as marriage, family, children, and friends.

[mashman]

Funny though, I would have thought the "intelligent" ones would have been agnostic and not atheist... primarily as the article clipping says "General intelligence, the ability to think and reason, endowed our ancestors with advantages in solving evolutionarily novel problems for which they did not have innate solutions"... we can't disprove God and we can't disprove the Big Bang... could be wrong though...

I'm a genius... in my lunchtime...

[slofox]

Liberals and Atheists Smarter?

Course! Only dense bogans believe all that stuff they are told to believe...:whistle:

[Edbear]

Funny though, I would have thought the "intelligent" ones would have been agnostic and not atheist... primarily as the article clipping says "General intelligence, the ability to think and reason, endowed our ancestors with advantages in solving evolutionarily novel problems for which they did not have innate solutions"... we can't disprove God and we can't disprove the Big Bang... could be wrong though...

I'm a genius... in my lunchtime...


Liberals and Atheists Smarter?

Course! Only dense bogans believe all that stuff they are told to believe...:whistle:

It was written by an evolutionist, what else is he going to write..?

Is IQ the measure of intelligence it should be? Mine is apparently 134. I don't go much by IQ tests, too dependent upon education.

[slofox]

Is IQ the measure of intelligence it should be? Mine is apparently 134. I don't go much by IQ tests, too dependent upon education.

As a psychology student (centuries ago now) I studied intelligence tests in some depth. By the time i had finished, my IQ was close to 200 - IF I used a test I knew well...not so crash hot on others though...:angry:

[mashman]

It was written by an evolutionist, what else is he going to write..?

Is IQ the measure of intelligence it should be? Mine is apparently 134. I don't go much by IQ tests, too dependent upon education.

Heh, fair point, but that doesn't mean he's wrong :innocent:

Aye... certainly seems to be education and experience specific... i did mine when i was 23 (part of a psycometric test as i got fed up with doing them to get a job, so created a "portfolio"), so 15 years ago, in amongst a group 17 - 18 year olds at a private school and wiped the floor with the little bastards... My score was quite high, can't remember what exactly, but it painted me as a genius :lol: and stunned my dad... which, in itself, goes to show how useless IQ tests can be... cause I iz a spaz...

[Edbear]

As a psychology student (centuries ago now) I studied intelligence tests in some depth. By the time i had finished, my IQ was close to 200 - IF I used a test I knew well...not so crash hot on others though...:angry:


Heh, fair point, but that doesn't mean he's wrong :innocent:

Aye... certainly seems to be education and experience specific... i did mine when i was 23 (part of a psycometric test as i got fed up with doing them to get a job, so created a "portfolio"), so 15 years ago, in amongst a group 17 - 18 year olds at a private school and wiped the floor with the little bastards... My score was quite high, can't remember what exactly, but it painted me as a genius :lol: and stunned my dad... which, in itself, goes to show how useless IQ tests can be... cause I iz a spaz...

LOL!!! Personally my measure of intelligence is how many of all the people you know, like and respect you, value your opinion and enjoy your company. :yes:

[Slyer]

Funny though, I would have thought the "intelligent" ones would have been agnostic and not atheist... primarily as the article clipping says "General intelligence, the ability to think and reason, endowed our ancestors with advantages in solving evolutionarily novel problems for which they did not have innate solutions"... we can't disprove God and we can't disprove the Big Bang... could be wrong though.
An atheist is anyone who lacks a belief in a god. One does not have to explicitly disbelieve in gods to be an atheist.

[avgas]

Funny ain't it. None of the questions were in Hindi, Japanese or Mandarin...........got to love statistics.

[SlashWylde]

Six of my friends hold, or are soon to complete, a Ph.D - broadly in fields of science and language. They are all highly intelligent, worldly, analytical individuals and all but one of these people are Christians who firmly believe in the existence of God and personal salvation through Jesus Christ. Most of my other friends are also very intelligent, some of whom hold degrees in other fields and some of whom also have a strong Christian faith.

So I'm not convinced that a high level of intelligence, as measured by an IQ or any other test, is a good arbiter for deciding who is likely to believe in the existence of God. It's probably fair to say however, that those of relatively low intelligence are more likely to attribute the origins and workings of the universe to one or more gods.

For the record I class myself as an Atheist.... and I'm marrying a wonderful Christian girl in November. Being a parent is gonna be extra interesting :shit:

As a foot note I really must have a good conversation with my Christian Ph.D scientist mates some time, as to how they reconcile a scientific view of the universe and it's history with the teachings of their faith and their relationship with their God.

[mashman]

An atheist is anyone who lacks a belief in a god. One does not have to explicitly disbelieve in gods to be an atheist.

Ahhhhhhh, thanks for that... Definition updated... there's soooo many ifs, ands and gotchas that I never realised where connected with atheism...

[Ender EnZed]

Funny though, I would have thought the "intelligent" ones would have been agnostic and not atheist... primarily as the article clipping says "General intelligence, the ability to think and reason, endowed our ancestors with advantages in solving evolutionarily novel problems for which they did not have innate solutions"... we can't disprove God and we can't disprove the Big Bang... could be wrong though...

I'm a genius... in my lunchtime...

The "Big Bang" could be disproved (in the sense that scientific opinion could reject it as a likely, or even plausible, event) by the discovery of new evidence (of sufficient weight) contradictory to that which currently stands. It is a valid scientific proposition as it is falsifiable. The assertion that God exist is unfalsifiable as it cannot be disproved.

As such, there is absolutely no reason why 'the "intelligent" ones' would be more likely to be agnostic than atheist.:yes:

If you were interested...

[R6_kid]

Funny ain't it. None of the questions were in Hindi, Japanese or Mandarin...........got to love statistics.

That's the bad thing about Psychological studies - they are usually only relevant to the population used for the sample study. The good thing is that Psychologists know this and don't readily cross-reference research results without further testing. The same can't be said for those at religious extremes (belief or non-belief).

My guess is that somewhere in the full report it will have said "this research is relevant to men/women aged X-Z from a middle socio-economic background in Western Society". Or something to that extent.

[Badjelly]

Ahhhhhhh, thanks for that... Definition updated... there's soooo many ifs, ands and gotchas that I never realised where connected with atheism...

An atheist is a person who does not believe in a god or gods. There are no "if"s or "and"s in that definition and I don't see any "gotchas".

I don't know if atheists and liberals are smarter, but it's well known that reality has a liberal bias (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/30/reality-has-a-well-known-liberal-bias/) these days. But that's more a statement about the conservatives' headlong flight from reality than a statement about liberals.

[avgas]

That's the bad thing about Psychological studies......"this research is relevant to men/women aged X-Z from a middle socio-economic background in Western Society"
Its not just limited to them. I have pretty much found every 'statistic' can be questioned.
I am starting to wonder if a thesis is anything other than a feel good factor for people who feel they need to prove themselves. But I don't have the statistics to prove this yet, something tells me I never will.
If something told me, "oh but this only fits a very constrained set of parameter" I would question if their result is actually a result, or self-fulfilling prophecy. Sadly science/maths etc can't separate the 2 these days.

[Motu]

I dunno man....I think liberal use of chemicals trying to find Dog has had a severe impact on my smarts....

[mashman]

The "Big Bang" could be disproved (in the sense that scientific opinion could reject it as a likely, or even plausible, event) by the discovery of new evidence (of sufficient weight) contradictory to that which currently stands. It is a valid scientific proposition as it is falsifiable. The assertion that God exist is unfalsifiable as it cannot be disproved.

Agreed.. I am, as I understand it, agnostic and completely subscribe to anything being possible, whether it be scientific, religious, governmental, human "failures/triumphs/rights/wrongs..." etc... is that what you're meaning.


As such, there is absolutely no reason why 'the "intelligent" ones' would be more likely to be agnostic than atheist.:yes:

If you were interested...

Ok, my definition of intelligence is being able to see all of the angles, both sides of any argument, being as reasonable as possible and yet still being human, for good-inbetweenbits-bad motives... in the case of religion... the agnostic "intelligent ones" would be in the in between bits, could be true, might not be

[mashman]

An atheist is a person who does not believe in a god or gods. There are no "if"s or "and"s in that definition and I don't see any "gotchas".


According to flickmybeenia there's implicit/explicit/strong/weak and a twist on strong/weak with positive/negative... i couldn't take it all in lol.

[Usarka]

Six of my friends hold, or are soon to complete, a Ph.D - broadly in fields of science and language.

Personally i think a phd is an intellectual paradox.

[Ender EnZed]

Agreed.. I am, as I understand it, agnostic and completely subscribe to anything being possible, whether it be scientific, religious, governmental, human "failures/triumphs/rights/wrongs..." etc... is that what you're meaning.

Maybe? I have no objection to your subscription of anything being possible. I can't see the future either. However that doesn't put the existance of God in the same category as the most scientifically established cosmological model of the creation of the universe. God could exist. If I drop a pen it could fly up to the ceiling in opposition to gravity. I won't know for certain until I let go of the pen.




Ok, my definition of intelligence is being able to see all of the angles, both sides of any argument, being as reasonable as possible and yet still being human, for good-inbetweenbits-bad motives... in the case of religion... the agnostic "intelligent ones" would be in the in between bits, could be true, might not be

I wasn't suggesting agnosticism and high IQ were in any way mutually exclusive. Just that it is quite alright to draw a conclusion that - whilst is not deductively valid either - is still far, far better than the alternative.

[Ender EnZed]

Personally i think a phd is an intellectual paradox.

How so?

10ch

[Edbear]

Thanks for the red SPB, I thought I was on your ignore list...:innocent:

Still, if it makes you feel better or strokes your ego, you just go ahead and spread the anti-love... :yes:

[SixPackBack]

...............Did the article mention emotional cripples?

[Edbear]

...............Did the article mention emotional cripples?

Oh, well, if that's the case I guess we can cut you some slack...

[mashman]

Maybe? I have no objection to your subscription of anything being possible. I can't see the future either. However that doesn't put the existance of God in the same category as the most scientifically established cosmological model of the creation of the universe. God could exist. If I drop a pen it could fly up to the ceiling in opposition to gravity. I won't know for certain until I let go of the pen.

Unless before you left go of the pen a body in space with enough gravitational pull, passes by and the pen is taken from your hand... quite possibly along with you... True, God could exist and the big bang may have been Gods science experiment for deity school... chicken and egg i guess... The big bang and the resultant planet we're on, conflicts directly with how the stereotypical Christian (no offence anyone, just from my own experience) views how the Earth was created... So that's my reasoning behind throwing the 2 together. Yes I have made assumption and have the bias of it being my opinion, but that's how I got there...



I wasn't suggesting agnosticism and higher intelligence were in any way mutually exclusive. Just that it is quite alright to draw a conclusion that - whilst is not deductively valid either - is still far, far better than the alternative.

I suggested it... it's a possibility, it's also, what's your word falsifiable... the alternative exists doesn't it?

[Ender EnZed]

Unless before you left go of the pen a body in space with enough gravitational pull, passes by and the pen is taken from your hand... quite possibly along with you...

Even under those circumstances I still wouldn't know about it in advance.


The big bang and the resultant planet we're on, conflicts directly with how the stereotypical Christian (no offence anyone, just from my own experience) views how the Earth was created... So that's my reasoning behind throwing the 2 together. Yes I have made assumption and have the bias of it being my opinion, but that's how I got there...

I agree that the big bang conflicts directly with stereotypical/fundamental Christian views but the existance of God doesn't so I don't quite grasp your reasoning.

Regardless of your reasoning, the big bang could be disproved. As it is falsifiable. If it weren't it wouldn't be a scientifically valid proposition, which it most certainly is.



I suggested it... it's a possibility, it's also, what's your word falsifiable... the alternative exists doesn't it?

I'm going to apologise in advance if you interpreted the words "higher intelligence" as some sort of supernatural being (i.e. God), I meant a greater than average intelligence.


If you interpreted my words "higher intelligence" correctly then:
It is indeed falsifiable however to suggest it, which you are, you would (or you would seem to at least) be declaring that no one who is an agnostic (yourself included) is of greater than average intelligence.

I would dispute this on the grounds that there are many people who are agnostic who score significantly greater than 100 on an IQ test.


If you interpreted my words "higher intelligence" to mean God then:
What? Your reply doesn't make sense as agnosticism, by definition, has to include some concept of God. Otherwise it's just atheism.

[mashman]

Even under those circumstances I still wouldn't know about it in advance.

I agree that the big bang conflicts directly with stereotypical/fundamental Christian views but the existance of God doesn't so I don't quite grasp your reasoning.

The existence of God inherently comes with the creation of the Earth... on the 7th day he rested etc... No?



Regardless of your reasoning, the big bang could be disproved. As it is falsifiable. If it weren't it wouldn't be a scientifically valid proposition, which it most certainly is.

True... the same could be levelled at any theory that has some form of basis, irrespective of how concrete it is... whether it be taken on faith or is proven in some way...



I'm going to apologise in advance if you interpreted the words "higher intelligence" as some sort of supernatural being (i.e. God), I meant a greater than average intelligence.

If you interpreted my words "higher intelligence" correctly then:
It is indeed falsifiable however to suggest it, which you are, you would (or you would seem to at least) be declaring that no one who is an agnostic (yourself included) is of greater than average intelligence.

I would dispute this on the grounds that there are many people who are agnostic who score significantly greater than 100 on an IQ test.


I interpreted it as those of above average intelligence (If God exists then I don't think he's very intelligent... just take a look at the place :innocent:)... same as your meaning... and my original definition of "intelligence" can be disputed irrespective of what I think... but... I agree with you and would personally class the "agnostic thinkers" as those more likely to have above average intelligence... primarily as they generally weigh up the pros and cons and undertake the course of action most likely to yield the "best" result (yes falsifiable)... But again, I realise that it's not a thick and fast rule and that we all think differently irrespective of our personal beliefs, behaviours etc... some put their own bias to the side and argue an "issue" logically... some don't... and while we're making up our minds the world turns into a shittier place, because money is King.

But that's just a theory...

[Mudfart]

They have started bible classes at my kids school. I was shocked to hear this, because I never read the letter the school sent out, asking for parents points of view. And apparently not enough people objected, so now its in all classes.
Im extremely disappointed, but thats what I get for living in a dominantly WASP rural area I spose. Cant wait to move! Effin morons. Sooooo righteous.

[mashman]

They have started bible classes at my kids school. I was shocked to hear this, because I never read the letter the school sent out, asking for parents points of view. And apparently not enough people objected, so now its in all classes.
Im extremely disappointed, but thats what I get for living in a dominantly WASP rural area I spose. Cant wait to move! Effin morons. Sooooo righteous.

Whilst i don't mind kids learning about religion etc... I would have thought in this day and age, that this sort of class would be optional... well, with a suitable alternative... Although if you're teaching Science in school... I suppose you should teach religion... or you end up with confusion and possible segregation of schools (and that'll be the parents choice... not the students)... as is the case in the US...

[puddytat]

The great thing about Religion (mainstream) is that you can Sin for 6 days of the week & repent on the 7th....

" Stained glass windows, its cold outside
While the hypocrites hide inside
with thier lies & statues to hide behind
where the Christian religion, made them blind
Where they hide & pray to a "god"
Of a bitch spelt backwards is dog
Not for one race or creed
but for MONEY, effective,absurd
Fat pig priest,sanctimonious smiles
they take the money, you take the lies
This is what they've done...this is youre religion."
J.Rotten & PIL (abridged somewhat)

[Ender EnZed]

To the first bit: I think we might just be confusing/not understanding each other here.:done:


True...

Very good. Your first post in this thread stated otherwise. We're in agreement on this point now then.


the same could be levelled at any theory that has some form of basis, irrespective of how concrete it is... whether it be taken on faith or is proven in some way...

Any faith based theory cannot be disproved as by requiring faith it is by definition unfalsifiable.


I agree with you and would personally class the "agnostic thinkers" as those more likely to have above average intelligence...

I wasn't suggesting that. Just that it is possible to have an agnostic of greater than average intelligence. I have no reason to expect an average agnostic to be of greater than average intelligence.


primarily as they generally weigh up the pros and cons and undertake the course of action most likely to yield the "best" result (yes falsifiable)...

In my opinion they tend to be those too embarrassed to admit that they still believe in God despite knowing it is an illogical and irrational belief.

[Mudfart]

we hold such high opinions of ourselves we moulded god in OUR image. coz we so smart.

[Skyryder]

Yep any one who believes in the 7 day thing has got to have lost their smarts somewhere. And that horny guy that walks around carrying a trident that some believe is the cause of their own lack of self control is the manifestation of some loose change jingling in the cranial cavity.

To think that the sky is full of guys and gals singing in harmony amongst the clouds is just another sign that lost marbles is no substute for conkers. Why anyone would aspire to live in a place where there is no sex for all eternity is further proof that such people are bonkers.

Skyyrder

[mashman]

To the first bit: I think we might just be confusing/not understanding each other here.


What do you mean? :innocent:



Very good. Your first post in this thread stated otherwise. We're in agreement on this point now then.


"True" in that there's nothing incorrect in your statement... to me anyway... Yes the original statement I made for my initial hypothesis is incorrect in that I didn't say the big bang and god could also be proven... A lesson learned.



Any faith based theory cannot be disproved as by requiring faith it is by definition unfalsifiable.


I would have thought faith based theories would be even more suseptable to falsification... primarily because faith can be "misplaced"... potentially falsified by further reasoning, further education, further understanding of the area that you may or may not have had faith in?



I wasn't suggesting that. Just that it is possible to have an agnostic of greater than average intelligence. I have no reason to expect an average agnostic to be of greater than average intelligence.


From what i can tell... you are saying that brighter agnostics are "possible", i'm saying that I would have thought, logically, that brighter agnostics were more "probable"...



In my opinion they tend to be those too embarrassed to admit that they still believe in God despite knowing it is an illogical and irrational belief.


Are you talking about atheists now? people in general? or agnostics (because they can't believe)? or ???

[Usarka]

The great thing about Religion (mainstream) is that you can Sin for 6 days of the week & repent on the 7th....


Tens of thousands of catholics reckon the great thing about religion is molesting children.

[scissorhands]

1% ers arnt always 'intelligent' by test, but not getting sucked in by the beast shows wisdom....

[Big Dave]

[QUOTE=Skyryder;1129672676 no sex for all eternity is further proof that such people are bonkers.[/QUOTE]

This is a flawed argument. How can they Bonk if there is no sex.

[Pixie]

LOL!!! Personally my measure of intelligence is how many of all the people you know, like and respect you, value your opinion and enjoy your company. :yes:

Funny,my measure of how much money you have is exactly the same

[Edbear]

Funny,my measure of how much money you have is exactly the same

You may have a point...

[Ender EnZed]

What do you mean? :innocent:

That I you quoted me quoting you quoting me but on this line I think we lost each other some way back and i can't really be bothered identifying where and laying it out with tidy quotes. I think it was to do with you saying the Big Bang could not be disproven and I saying the Big Bang could be disproven. Which still leads me to...


"True" in that there's nothing incorrect in your statement... to me anyway... Yes the original statement I made for my initial hypothesis is incorrect in that I didn't say the big bang and god could also be proven... A lesson learned.

Are you saying here that the Big Bang and God could be proven??? That's the same as saying that the Big Band and God could not be disproven!!!


I would have thought faith based theories would be even more suseptable to falsification... primarily because faith can be "misplaced"... potentially falsified by further reasoning, further education, further understanding of the area that you may or may not have had faith in?

Faith requires you to believe something without logical proof or material evidence. I think there might be some misunderstanding of terminology here.
"Falsifiability or refutability is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then this can be shown by observation or experiment." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability)
As such, the proposition "God exists" is unfalsifiable. It cannot be shown to be wrong by observation or experiment. The proposition "God does not exist" is falsifiable as it can be shown to be wrong by observation. If God sat down on a mountain and declared himself to exist, or just did anything suitably God-like in order to convince everyone, then we would have observed the proposition "God does not exist" to be false.


From what i can tell... you are saying that brighter agnostics are "possible", i'm saying that I would have thought, logically, that brighter agnostics were more "probable"...

I am indeed saying brighter agnostics are possible. I see no logical reason to expect brighter agnostics to be more probable (other than in a population in which the majority are theists).


Are you talking about atheists now? people in general? or agnostics (because they can't believe)? or ???

I was talking about the same "they" as you were when I quoted you. Agnostics.

[Skyryder]

This is a flawed argument. How can they Bonk if there is no sex.

No flawed arguement here.

Concise Oxford Dictionary. Bonkers = Crazy. There is no other meaning real or implied.

The only 'floored' aguement here is where some prefer to have a bonk.


Skyyrder

[mashman]

That I you quoted me quoting you quoting me but on this line I think we lost each other some way back and i can't really be bothered identifying where and laying it out with tidy quotes. I think it was to do with you saying the Big Bang could not be disproven and I saying the Big Bang could be disproven. Which still leads me to...


ha ha indeed too much quoting...



Are you saying here that the Big Bang and God could be proven??? That's the same as saying that the Big Band and God could not be disproven!!!


Anything is possible?



Faith requires you to believe something without logical proof or material evidence. I think there might be some misunderstanding of terminology here.
"Falsifiability or refutability is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then this can be shown by observation or experiment."
As such, the proposition "God exists" is unfalsifiable. It cannot be shown to be wrong by observation or experiment. The proposition "God does not exist" is falsifiable as it can be shown to be wrong by observation. If God sat down on a mountain and declared himself to exist, or just did anything suitably God-like in order to convince everyone, then we would have observed the proposition "God does not exist" to be false.


But what about a loss of faith? The person once had it... where did it go, why did they lose it? could it be that somehow they have falsified/disproved their own faith? perhaps off the back of a conversation with others, gaining of more knowledge etc...



I am indeed saying brighter agnostics are possible. I see no logical reason to expect brighter agnostics to be more probable (other than in a population in which the majority are theists).


As you say, anything is possible... I just would have expected agnostics to have been more likely to have had a "higher" intelligence "level"... I know that statement has no scientific basis... tis just an opinion based on my own logic... almost definately flawed logic... but just my opinion underpinned by my own reasons... I would have thought we are ALL theists by default (wether we categorise ourselves or are categorised to be so by others)...



I was talking about the same "they" as you were when I quoted you. Agnostics.


ha ha ha... so they'd rather be seen as an agnostic instead of an atheist?...

I give up...

[Boob Johnson]

An atheist is anyone who lacks a belief in a god. One does not have to explicitly disbelieve in gods to be an atheist.

That may be your own personal take on it but its not the def. of an athiest...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism


Atheism is commonly defined as the position that there are no deities.[1] It can also mean the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[2] A broader definition is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3]

The term atheism originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without gods"

[bogan]

Liberals and Atheists Smarter?

Course! Only dense bogans believe all that stuff they are told to believe...:whistle:

:Oi: we bogans are a smart and intelligent people, I would stay and discuss this more but I'm late for a meeting with king brian to give him all of my moneys ;)

[Badjelly]

An atheist is anyone who lacks a belief in a god. One does not have to explicitly disbelieve in gods to be an atheist.


That may be your own personal take on it but its not the def. of an athiest...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Atheism is commonly defined as the position that there are no deities.[1] It can also mean the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[2] A broader definition is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3]

The term atheism originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without gods"

So Slyer's definition (and mine) is number 3, which accommodates numbers 1 and 2. I'm glad we've got that sorted.

[avgas]

How so?

10ch
Phd is where you write a thesis of what you don't know.
You only get to Phd level by finding out that you don't know.

Paradox.
(I am finding this in my masters right now - ironic isn't it, I am doing my masters in bus, but am a tutor for someone doing masters in engineering..........engineering must be like Hotel California)

[avgas]

No flawed arguement here.
Concise Oxford Dictionary. Bonkers = Crazy. There is no other meaning real or implied.
The only 'floored' aguement here is where some prefer to have a bonk.Skyyrder
Actually there is more to it then that. You are bonkers if you bonked you head. Blow to the head if you will.
It was a good excuse if you had drunk too much in the navy.....told your capt'n ya were bonkers (knocked you head). Origin around the 19th century.
Bonking therefore means doing something you aren't thinking about. Or doing something as if you have had you head smacked.
I believe fat chicks fit in there somewhere.

[Ender EnZed]

Phd is where you write a thesis of what you don't know.
You only get to Phd level by finding out that you don't know.

Paradox.
(I am finding this in my masters right now - ironic isn't it, I am doing my masters in bus, but am a tutor for someone doing masters in engineering..........engineering must be like Hotel California)

But even in only finding out what you don't know you then know more than someone who still doesn't know what they don't know.