Why are religious people generally less intelligent?

OK, and I just did a search for "atheists are morons" and came up with 375,000 hits, so what's your point?
The number of Google hits a search term gets means nothing, except that those sites are visited and cross-linked more, not that those sites are "right" or have "the truth". LOL
Maybe you need to learn how search engines work.

I'm not the only one who wonders about the ACTUAL RESEARCH STUDIES rather than some magazine hacks interpretations of the conclusions.

If you look very very closely you will notice that I am intelligent because I want to see the actual research and methodology parameters before making any final decisions concerning it.
You don't seem to be as concerned but would rather accept another persons opinion and viewpoints concerning the research.

So tell me, who is acting more "religious" and who is being more "scientific" about it?

 

Hmmm, kinda touchy there, Fraggle.

Well at least that one looks at other factors and more or less does not agree with the first article linked.

One says it is due to the a religious person's personal choices and viewpoints, more accurately, points to the environmental, societal, cultural and economic influences.

So I hope you can see the importance of being able to see the actual research and how it was conducted, because you have now cited two articles which in essence contradict one another.

With a topic as nebulous as "intelligence" and "religiosity" it is even more vital to understand the methodology employed in the research.

 

Yes, I'm sure that the 'atheists are morons' study was also funded by the National Institute of Health and researched by scientists. Good call.

There is a MASSIVE consensus that this study took place and that it got these results! It's not like it's some conspiracy to make religious people feel bad about themselves, or a single opinion piece in some left-wing socialist blog. If it was just one site then that's one thing but it's HUNDREDS OF DIFFERENT SITES commenting on the same study and admitting that it reached that conclusion. I get that you're full of yourself but at some point you're going to need to admit that you're just being obtuse to protect your ego.

I think you're (edit) who refuses to even attempt to understand the issue before commenting on it... there is MORE than enough information in that article so that anyone with a degree of critical thought could easily determine whether or not they agree. If you didn't think it was enough, just google it and find another article. LOL you don't know how the Internet works.

So yes, I trust the National Institute of Health, I trust University Professors, and I trust Harvard University more than I trust, say, someone like you to actually know what they're talking about. I would also trust a rocket scientist to build a better rocket than a Buddhist monk could build... I guess that makes me 'religious'!

 

They don't contradict one another AT ALL... they offer different explanations as to how the research could have gotten the same result. But I do find it interesting how you're suddenly more willing to take this 'tabloid' more seriously.

To be honest, I'm really sorry that I brought this up at all... it seems there isn't really anyone on this site who is capable of actually discussing things like this.

 

Because we are not convinced of the conclusion we are not capable of discussing the matter? I hope I merely misunderstand you there

 

Religious people want to know the meaning of aggression. Nevertheless, the concept of chaos and love at unity are not yet thought for the meaning of just being, aggressive or wlllful.

 

I don't think that anyone has actually managed to grasp the conclusion yet, to be honest.

 

There apppears to be a conclusion drawn in the thread title. Perhaps people did grasp that better than you think

 

There were three potential explanations that could explain the correlation. No one has commented on any of them, and has instead chosen to dispute the correlation, as if the researchers didn't actually get the results that they did, or they're just stupid professors and PhDs who don't know what they're talking about, or maybe it's a conspiracy to make religious people feel stupid or win them over to the dark side by insulting their intellectual vanity or something.

I should have known that people would be too eager to get indignant and respond with 'hey, don't call people stupid' over and over.

I think the best solution here would just be to let this thread die. I'm sorry I brought it up.

 

Most organised religions are based on a dogmatic state of mind. There may be exceptions. If you equate atheism with rationalism think again, I have seen plenty of examples . Australian Skeptics on FB is a good example,
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=480986&f=167

 

I really don't think that anyone would say that atheism makes you perfect, or that people don't choose to be atheists for dumb reasons, or that atheists can't be dumb.

But I do think that intelligent people would be more likely to be atheist.

 

Maybe not all atheists can be paragons of rationalism, but it's a good place to start.

 

Is atheism the same as anti-secularism?:bobby:

 

Symbols as such:

Because Religion has no God for the world other than the government's idea. It is a good idea to be against that.

 

They, they, they: religious people don't apply knowledge to unvarying convictions as much as "they" used to. Nowadays, it is the non-believing who use the subject matter of learning knowledge for false promises convicted about instead.

 

i wouldnt say less intelligent, i would say mislead