Atheists are Smarter?

mwwjr
mwwjr's picture
Posts: 6
Joined: 2006-08-30
User is offlineOffline
Atheists are Smarter?

I can't find ANY documentation of studies that support this. Though I have heard and believe it to be true. This is the closest i could find and it isn't pretty. http://danish.newsvine.com/_news/2007/02/05/554043-professor-atheists-are-more-intelligent-than-believers

 

A little help?


AtheistInWonderland
RRS local affiliate
Posts: 80
Joined: 2006-07-25
User is offlineOffline

Angelic_Atheist
Silver Member
Angelic_Atheist's picture
Posts: 264
Joined: 2006-04-06
User is offlineOffline
I found the links provided

I found the links provided highly interesting. Thanks for posting.

This is slightly off topic but what is the IQ range and what score qualifies one as a genius?

Is a 19 point difference in IQ scores significant?

What exactly does an IQ test measure?

What level of credibility does such a test hold?

We must favor verifiable evidence over private feeling. Otherwise we leave ourselves vulnerable to those who would obscure the truth.
~ Richard Dawkins


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Angelic_Atheist wrote: I

Angelic_Atheist wrote:

I found the links provided highly interesting. Thanks for posting.

This is slightly off topic but what is the IQ range and what score qualifies one as a genius?

Is a 19 point difference in IQ scores significant?

What exactly does an IQ test measure?

What level of credibility does such a test hold?

IQ tests have some drawbacks that might make them not credible for people other then what it's destined for.

First, it's the cultural bias of them, since they have, for instance, to measure linguistical capacities as well, and that, of course, can only be done in the native language.

Then there is the IQ range barrier, meaning that some tests are destined for certain ranges of IQ, as anyone with the above range might finish the test too easily, and thus give a much higher reading that he might actually have.

Then there is the age, because, although people don't get "smarter" or "dumber" through their life very much, certain tests you cannot give to a 4-year-old, because of the lack of experience.

There's also economic bias, as some higher-wealth people are more likely to know certain terms than low-wealth people, thus leaving the lower-wealth people in the impossibility of answering something, because they do not know what it means.

Also, there's specialization involved, as clearly a doctor will know different terms than a computer programmer and vice-versa. This generally only applies to tests given by employer.

 

An IQ test measures different things based on the above, but, generally, they all include speed of response and pattern recognition. From that on, they may include: calculus, serialization of numbers, linguistical challenges, linguistical associations of words, subconscious association and recognition, RCE, RRT, etc.

 

If you really need something teasing, try the Mensa Association. it was www.mensa.org I think.

 

I believe these results should be obvious, since it does take more intelligence to understand physics, biology, astronomy, chemistry, maths, etc. than to simply say "God is enough for me!"

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10136
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Rigor_OMortis

Rigor_OMortis wrote:

Angelic_Atheist wrote:

I found the links provided highly interesting. Thanks for posting.

This is slightly off topic but what is the IQ range and what score qualifies one as a genius?

Is a 19 point difference in IQ scores significant?

What exactly does an IQ test measure?

What level of credibility does such a test hold?

IQ tests have some drawbacks that might make them not credible for people other then what it's destined for.

First, it's the cultural bias of them, since they have, for instance, to measure linguistical capacities as well, and that, of course, can only be done in the native language.

Then there is the IQ range barrier, meaning that some tests are destined for certain ranges of IQ, as anyone with the above range might finish the test too easily, and thus give a much higher reading that he might actually have.

Then there is the age, because, although people don't get "smarter" or "dumber" through their life very much, certain tests you cannot give to a 4-year-old, because of the lack of experience.

There's also economic bias, as some higher-wealth people are more likely to know certain terms than low-wealth people, thus leaving the lower-wealth people in the impossibility of answering something, because they do not know what it means.

Also, there's specialization involved, as clearly a doctor will know different terms than a computer programmer and vice-versa. This generally only applies to tests given by employer.

 

An IQ test measures different things based on the above, but, generally, they all include speed of response and pattern recognition. From that on, they may include: calculus, serialization of numbers, linguistical challenges, linguistical associations of words, subconscious association and recognition, RCE, RRT, etc.

 

If you really need something teasing, try the Mensa Association. it was www.mensa.org I think.

 

I believe these results should be obvious, since it does take more intelligence to understand physics, biology, astronomy, chemistry, maths, etc. than to simply say "God is enough for me!"

I would also add that many if not all IQ tests are biased on location. An IQ test in the US may ask to name a capital city or some such where a foreigner could not be expected to know the answer.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
A real IQ test, which does

A real IQ test, which does not measure general knowledge but rather logic processing, visual-spatial understanding and linguistic development would consider a "genius IQ" to be >140

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: A real IQ

deludedgod wrote:
A real IQ test, which does not measure general knowledge but rather logic processing, visual-spatial understanding and linguistic development would consider a "genius IQ" to be >140

True. Unfortunately, most mainstream tests are made to measure one up to 120.

A true understanding of brain power can only be applied if a series of specialized tests are given, and a score for each possible brain development is issued.

For instance, my case: very high resonation (don't think I translated correctly, it's got to do with the way one relates to others and is able to understand their thoughts) and pattern recognition, high calculus and serialization, medium language, low connection skills and very low response time and verbal output (I'm not good at explaining what I want to say, as Todangst found out a while back, doubt he remembers, though - that of course, unless what I want to say is quite obvious - nobody has a problem there Smiling ).

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/


George (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Generalizing on intelligence?

Hm, seems a bit ignorant of you to believe that. IQ is more or less a biologically determined factor and all else tends to be age, activity, brain processing and cognitive usage that tends to increase it. It more or less has no relation with your beliefs, however knowledge especially in particular subjects such as religion or biological sciences probably does. I would say that atheists are more knowledgable that theists in those areas and probably others, but as far as IQ rates go I have seen both low and high on both sides of the fence. If you want me to be honest with you, don't be an ass. In other words intelligence is a big thing that leads to knowledge which leads to our interests, studies, personalities, and basically everything that we are, do, and represent. Putting all that progression, work, and achievement under one word of ones religious belief is degrading and ignorant. Accept and see that there's more to people than their beliefs when it comes to intelligence.

 

ps. I'm an agnostic with many friends and family on both sides of the fence.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I have the informal opinion

I have the informal opinion that believers can be crudely divided into the less intellectual, who maintain their belief because it is the easier course for them, and they aren't so concerned with rigorous standard of logical reasoning, and OTOH the highly intellectual who are nevertheless for whatever reason committed to their belief and employ their reasoning skills in devising ever more convoluted and subtle 'arguments' and justifications for a position which, AFAICS, is logically and rationally indefensible (belief in a creator entity which is sentient in some meaningful sense, and even more indefensibly, is presumed to be 'good' and omnipotent etc.).

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology