Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Being intelligent and having common sense is not a given. I know of many very smart people who are total social retards.
You appear to be referring to emotional intelligence rather than cognitive ability which is tested on standard IQ tests; Charles is not talking about EI and is demonstrating a correlation between atheism and higher IQs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr5150
So the question is: (since you raised it) would you rather be smart or happy? This is a real question given what social scientists have discovered. Smart does not equal having a good life.
As Charles was not discussing EI, I don't think he raised the question of happiness. Regardless, the studies I've read did not find any correlation between IQ and happiness nor did they find any correlation between IQ and EI. The studies did find a correlation between EI and happiness. But, since IQ and EI are not linked, a person could have a high IQ and high EI or any combination of the two. Bottom line, atheists with high IQs can also be happy.
1) Still believe everything your mom and dad and pastor/priest/rabbi/etc told you
or
Your life at one point was so bad, so miserable, maybe suicidal, so depressed, that you "bit bottom" and the only way to pull out of that tailspin was to "See The Light", and "Find jesus" and now you just can't stop Spreading the Good News.
Neither, I am just a regular guy. Had a great life growing up. Never had any needs. My parrents loved me. My dad would play catch with me and do stuff with me and my siblings. My mom always took care of the home. My parrents paid for all my University and after 4 years they paid for a year of College study and also gave me money for the down payment on my first house. I have bought and sold homes, making money. I have a great job, great wife, great children.
I did go to church as a child (almost everyone did at the time), then I questioned all I learned as a teenager and young adult. I then realized that there is a God. I am very analytical, but have also had some spiritual experiences on my own outside of the church setting. I began to study the bible aswell as everything I could get my hands on. And I confirmed to myself the veracity of the bible. So, I think that I have become more zealous of religion (much more then my parrents). Specifically concerning Jesus Christ. I did study Biology and evolution at the University level, but found out how lacking evolution is.
I never hit rock bottom, never did drugs, never smoked or drank any alcohol. I never needed to. I never drove fast or did anything daring. I never felt I had to do anything to get any high. I enjoy living just as it is.
I find that the more I live, the more I see God. I know that he is creator. I know that the bible is true. It is written: "Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God" (Matt 5:8)
You appear to be referring to emotional intelligence rather than cognitive ability which is tested on standard IQ tests; Charles is not talking about EI and is demonstrating a correlation between atheism and higher IQs.
As Charles was not discussing EI, I don't think he raised the question of happiness. Regardless, the studies I've read did not find any correlation between IQ and happiness nor did they find any correlation between IQ and EI. The studies did find a correlation between EI and happiness. But, since IQ and EI are not linked, a person could have a high IQ and high EI or any combination of the two. Bottom line, atheists with high IQs can also be happy.
While I agree that Charles did not equate intelligence with happiness, I am willing to do so. If you're smart, you don't find anything in this world to be happy about. You recognize the reality that bad things happen to good people, and good things happen to bad people.
I still believe that there are outliers in this study, there may be some very stupid atheists, and some very smart...spiritualists? I've personally been rated with a genius IQ way back in grade school (not that I've gotten any smarter since) and I recognize that there are things that science has not explain and cannot explain. I wouldn't necessarily claim that religion is THE answer to that, but it is AN answer. Astrology is not considered a science today, but sometimes astrologers get a wrong answer, and sometimes scientists get a wrong answer. The problem is that scientists are generally content with providing a wrong answer, if they feel it's the best answer they have at the time.
Doctors once believed that it was stress, and not Heliobacter pylori that caused ulcers. They've since been proven wrong. But that didn't stop them from giving out bad information or espousing the wrong view for years.
As I said, if they were open to the possibility, they would then be agnostic. They would say that they don't know, one way or the other.
I can neither confirm or deny the existence of extraterrestial life. That doesn't make me a believer...or a non-believer. I simply don't know.
Belief is not knowledge. You're confusing the two. "I don't believe it is" is not the same as "I know it isn't". You don't believe, and you also don't know. They are different answers to different questions, not conflicting answers to the same one.
Agnostic or not answers the knowledge question. Atheist or not answers the belief question. They're simply different.
Belief is not knowledge. You're confusing the two. "I don't believe it is" is not the same as "I know it isn't". You don't believe, and you also don't know. They are different answers to different questions, not conflicting answers to the same one.
Agnostic or not answers the knowledge question. Atheist or not answers the belief question. They're simply different.
For me to either believe or disbelieve something, I would have to have knowledge one way or the other.
I believe water is wet. I also know it. I don't believe that I'm wealthy. I also know that I'm not. If I believe, it is because I know it.
I see what you're getting at but most of the atheists I've come to know (over the internet during the past 8 to 10 years) are quite vocal in expressing their convictions that "God does not exist. Period." When I've seen theists ask them if they think they could possibly be wrong, they generally (not always, but very frequently) say something sarcastic like, "Absolutely. I could be wrong about Leprechauns not existing, too." I'm sure that's how they feel, but is a put-down always necessary? I mean, a little tact would be nice sometimes (not that theists have any kind of monopoly on tact).
So in your experience atheists have told you or others that it is possible that god exists, they just think it is unlikely. You obviously don't like the way they go about it, but that doesn't change the fact that even you admit it's pretty common to see non-believers admit that there might be a god. Looks like sanspeur had a point after all.
And can you tell us how you'd find it acceptable to say "your god is remotely possible in theory but fails to meet even the basic requirements necessary to believe in it"? I think the objection here is really to the message, not the wording.
For me to either believe or disbelieve something, I would have to have knowledge one way or the other.
So how do you treat stuff that you don't have knowledge of one way or the other -as if you believe in them or as if you don't?
A meteor is going to hit your house tomorrow or it isn't. You can't know for sure which is the case.
Do you empty out your house as if you believe it's going to hit, or do you go about your normal life as if you don't believe it is? You can only choose one. There's no imagined middle ground where you both lack belief and lack non-belief. If you do believe, you'd clear out your house, save your family, and so on. If you don't believe enough to clear out your house, your non-belief is showing, despite what you claim.
Put simply - either you believe X or you don't believe X. If you don't actively believe in it, by definition you lack belief. There's no third option here.
That's exactly the case for non-believers in religion. They don't play word games trying to find something between "do believe" and "do not believe". They're willing to admit that they don't believe right now but if anything changes they''ll let you know. There's no other way to do it. You can't waffle and both go to church and pray to all of the different gods you may or may not believe in while at the same time avoiding doing so. You're stuck making a decision with the information you have and moving on.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) and I recognize that there are things that science has not explain and cannot explain. I wouldn't necessarily claim that religion is THE answer to that, but it is AN answer. Astrology is not considered a science today, but sometimes astrologers get a wrong answer, and sometimes scientists get a wrong answer. The problem is that scientists are generally content with providing a wrong answer, if they feel it's the best answer they have at the time.
