PDA

View Full Version : Smugness/intelligence of atheists [sf DGE]



Capablanca-Fan
17-08-2013, 12:51 PM
How atheists became the most colossally smug and annoying people on the planet (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100230985/how-atheists-became-the-most-colossally-smug-and-annoying-people-on-the-planet/)
By Brendan O'Neill, http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/ Religion: August 14th, 2013

When did atheists become so teeth-gratingly annoying? Surely non-believers in God weren't always the colossal pains in the collective backside that they are today? Surely there was a time when you could say to someone "I am an atheist" without them instantly assuming you were a smug, self-righteous loather of dumb hicks given to making pseudo-clever statements like, "Well, Leviticus also frowns upon having unkempt hair, did you know that?" Things are now so bad that I tend to keep my atheism to myself, and instead mumble something about being a very lapsed Catholic if I'm put on the spot, for fear that uttering the A-word will make people think I'm a Dawkins drone with a mammoth superiority complex and a hives-like allergy to nurses wearing crucifixes.

These days, barely a week passes without the emergence of yet more evidence that atheists are the most irritating people on Earth. Last week we had the spectacle of Dawkins and his slavish Twitter followers (whose adherence to Dawkins' diktats makes those Kool-Aid-drinking Jonestown folk seem level-headed in comparison) boring on about how stupid Muslims are. This week we've been treated to new scientific research claiming to show that atheists are cleverer than religious people. I say scientific. I say research. It is of course neither; it's just a pre-existing belief dolled up in rags snatched from various reports and stories. Not unlike the Bible. But that hasn't stopped the atheistic blogosphere and Twitterati from effectively saying, "See? Told you we were brainier than you Bible-reading numbskulls."

Kevin Bonham
17-08-2013, 01:27 PM
This week we've been treated to new scientific research claiming to show that atheists are cleverer than religious people. I say scientific. I say research. It is of course neither; it's just a pre-existing belief dolled up in rags snatched from various reports and stories.


I don't think he should have passed it off so lightly. According to the link it is a review paper that reviews 63 other studies, 53 of which find religiosity and intelligence to negatively correlate. Whether it is a sound review I cannot say but he provides no evidence that any of these should be considered to be just "reports and stories" nor that the totality should be considered "rags". In dismissing a paper so lightly just because it is a research review he comes across as about as smug and overbearing as he accuses atheists of being.

It shouldn't be a surprising finding - there are more atheists among highly intelligent people for whatever reason. Doesn't prove they're right but it is a fact that a journo shouldn't be trying to play down in such a hurry.

Rincewind
17-08-2013, 02:16 PM
in today's news from UK that born agains are advising AIDS patients to pray for God's healing and stop their medicine. So some poor suckers are taking it on and becoming seriously sick. It shows what type of people are attracted to believe in absurdities, a common thread.

Sounds like a dangerous belief in a spiritual "truth" (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=10231).

And sadly, this is nothing new (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14406818).

Capablanca-Fan
17-08-2013, 02:21 PM
I don't think he should have passed it off so lightly. According to the link it is a review paper that reviews 63 other studies, 53 of which find religiosity and intelligence to negatively correlate. Whether it is a sound review I cannot say but he provides no evidence that any of these should be considered to be just "reports and stories" nor that the totality should be considered "rags".
It looked suspect. One likely explanation is that more intelligent people stay longer around the infamously leftatheopathic environments of the education system so are indoctrinated longer.


In dismissing a paper so lightly just because it is a research review he comes across as about as smug and overbearing as he accuses atheists of being.
He's an atheist himself. He just can't stand the pseudo-intellectual smugness of the Dawkbots, and presumably the soi-disant ‘Brights’, also supported by the Dawk.


It shouldn't be a surprising finding - there are more atheists among highly intelligent people for whatever reason. Doesn't prove they're right but it is a fact that a journo shouldn't be trying to play down in such a hurry.
Among USA MENSA members, open to people who score at the 98th percentile or higher on a standardized, supervised IQ or other approved intelligence test, 49% are professing Christians (including a Mensa Creation Group), 19% Jewish, 3.6% atheist, among other categories. Of course, MENSA attracts only those high-IQ people who care enough about it to pay dues, but is at least an objective measure. Both Christians and atheists are under-represented in proportion to their numbers in America (79% and 10%, respectively), but atheists are more so. And Jews are really over-represented, but then they are also over-represented in other intellectual areas. Even the persistently anti-biblical New York Times had to admit (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/12/opinion/12brooks.html):

Jews are a famously accomplished group. They make up 0.2 percent of the world population, but 54 percent of the world chess champions, 27 percent of the Nobel physics laureates and 31 percent of the medicine laureates. [Rather sucks for atheopathic antisemites like Antichrist, huh?]

Rincewind
17-08-2013, 02:40 PM
Among USA MENSA members, open to people who score at the 98th percentile or higher on a standardized, supervised IQ or other approved intelligence test, 49% are professing Christians (including a Mensa Creation Group), 19% Jewish, 3.6% atheist, among other categories.

Where are these statistics published?

Kevin Bonham
17-08-2013, 02:49 PM
It looked suspect. One likely explanation is that more intelligent people stay longer around the infamously leftatheopathic environments of the education system so are indoctrinated longer.

If that is true then the review study finding is true. So far as I'm aware the review study did not attempt to claim causation.


He's an atheist himself. He just can't stand the pseudo-intellectual smugness of the Dawkbots, and presumably the soi-disant ‘Brights’, also supported by the Dawk.

I can very well relate to that but it's not an excuse for rubbishing studies on threadbare grounds.


Among USA MENSA members, open to people who score at the 98th percentile or higher on a standardized, supervised IQ or other approved intelligence test, 49% are professing Christians (including a Mensa Creation Group), 19% Jewish, 3.6% atheist, among other categories. Of course, MENSA attracts only those high-IQ people who care enough about it to pay dues, but is at least an objective measure.

It is an opt-in group and therefore not a valid sample. Especially, those who would qualify for it in their sleep often do not bother to join because they have nothing to prove by so doing, and it is likely that cultural and even political factors affect decisions to join/not to join.

antichrist
17-08-2013, 02:59 PM
I...............

Jews are a famously accomplished group. They make up 0.2 percent of the world population, but 54 percent of the world chess champions, 27 percent of the Nobel physics laureates and 31 percent of the medicine laureates. [Rather sucks for atheopathic antisemites like Antichrist, huh?]

I am against their achievements when accomplished at the expense of other peoples, which is why there is a international divest campaign against Israel, that even Stephen Hawking adhered to:
http://org.salsalabs.com/o/641/p/dia/action3/common/public/index?action_KEY=13380&start=100

Rincewind
17-08-2013, 03:06 PM
I can very well relate to that but it's not an excuse for rubbishing studies on threadbare grounds.

It seems that Brendan O'Neill is not well qualified to pontificate on the scientific merits of the study as he is a journalist without AFAICF scientific training. Regarding his journalistic style however he seems more of a satirical columnist than anything else. Perhaps he was just trying to be funny?

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
17-08-2013, 08:00 PM
Of course, MENSA attracts only those high-IQ people who care enough about it to pay dues, but is at least an objective measure.

christians are obviously notorious for relying on the bible as a crutch to define their identity.

i wouldnt be surprised if this inclination was responsible for the statistical anomaly in regards to composition of mensa members.

are you a member jono ? :D

antichrist
17-08-2013, 08:02 PM
christians are obviously notorious for relying on the bible as a crutch to define their identity.

i wouldnt be surprised if this inclination was responsible for the statistical anomaly in regards to composition of mensa members.

are you a member jono ? :D

it is possible the more intelligent christians deliberately queue up to register for the test to skewer the results, whereas non christians don't have to prove anything

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
18-08-2013, 02:52 AM
it is possible the more intelligent christians deliberately queue up to register for the test to skewer the results, whereas non christians don't have to prove anything

I dont think they do it deliberately (if in fact the statistics are correct).

Theyre somewhat predisposed towards segregating themselves into exclusive cliques so what jono has mentioned would not surprise me.

Its really just another club to aid in bridling the scope of ones perspective.

Desmond
18-08-2013, 07:26 AM
Where are these statistics published?
The "10%" sounds pretty suspect too.

Capablanca-Fan
18-08-2013, 01:36 PM
It is an opt-in group and therefore not a valid sample. Especially, those who would qualify for it in their sleep often do not bother to join because they have nothing to prove by so doing, and it is likely that cultural and even political factors affect decisions to join/not to join.
I said that that lots of people who would qualify can't be bothered. But I'm not aware of Christians being more prone than others to be bothered to join. Yet this is still a better indication than the self-congratulatory assumption of the atheists that they are more intelligent by virtue of being atheistic, which is what annoyed their fellow atheist Brendan O'Neill.

antichrist
18-08-2013, 02:12 PM
I said that that lots of people who would qualify can't be bothered. But I'm not aware of Christians being more prone than others to be bothered to join. Yet this is still a better indication than the self-congratulatory assumption of the atheists that they are more intelligent by virtue of being atheistic, which is what annoyed their fellow atheist Brendan O'Neill.

well it has already been stated by KB that atheists greatly outnumber theists in top circles.

But answer to answer your point, atheists are more sensible, mature, non-impulsive, intellectual etc

All the differing concepts of god/s and actual gods worshipped makes a mockery of theists having knowledge of god. They only have knowledge of being confused that they refuse to contemplate.

Rincewind
18-08-2013, 02:41 PM
Yet this is still a better indication than the self-congratulatory assumption of the atheists that they are more intelligent by virtue of being atheistic, which is what annoyed their fellow atheist Brendan O'Neill.

But that isn't what the study did. They performed a meta-analysis of 63 previous studies which looked that intelligence and religiosity. Perhaps this point was lost on Brendan as he isn't a scientist. But someone like you with some training as a scientist sometime in the distant past should know the difference between an assumption and a finding.

BTW this is what the paper says about intelligence and atheism...


...the most common explanation for the inverse relation between intelligence and religiosity is that the intelligent person “knows better” than to accept beliefs that are not subject to empirical tests or logical reasoning. But why would intelligent people know better? It does not take a great deal of cognitive ability to understand that religion does not arise from scientific discourse. One does not generally hear from believers that their faith is based on fact or logic, but they continue to believe anyhow. What is it exactly about intelligent people that makes them more resistant to religion? The answer to this question may be related to cognitive style.

So the truth about what the meta-analysis presented was in fact the opposite of of what you claim. The authors, if anything, play down the intelligence required to accept atheism and one explanation is cognitive style which they go on to describe as people with analytical rather than intuitive thought processes both being less religious and scoring better on IQ tests.

ER
21-08-2013, 06:58 AM
I saw this article written by Sean Thomas on "The Telegraph" (UK) earlier this morning as I was watching the football game PSV vs AC Milan.

I don't agree with the rather provocative if not insulting heading.

I haven't read it but just looking through it en passant I noticed that it contains some statistical figures (not sure how accurate they are) which may or may not provide some points for discussion.

Here's the link:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/seanthomas/100231060/are-atheists-mentally-ill/

Capablanca-Fan
21-08-2013, 07:32 AM
I saw this article written by Sean Thomas on "The Telegraph" (UK) earlier this morning as I was watching the football game PSV vs AC Milan.

I don't agree with the rather provocative if not insulting heading.
Might have been a response to the likes of Dawkins claiming that [theistic] religion is a disease of the mind, and that religious instruction was worse than physical child abuse.

Kevin Bonham
21-08-2013, 10:07 AM
I'll see if I can ferret out all of the nonsense in that article at some later stage. But "studies" of the kind mentioned are frequently dodgy. They tend to confuse correlation with causation.

For instance, people who go to church do tend to have better health than people who don't, but to a large degree that's because people who have poor health are physically less able to go to church. (Also people with a history of poor health might be more likely to realise the God thing is a crock, but that's another story.)

Even if on some underlying level there was a genuine health benefit to religious beliefs, that would say nothing about whether or not such beliefs were actually true.

Rincewind
21-08-2013, 10:56 AM
I'll see if I can ferret out all of the nonsense in that article at some later stage. But "studies" of the kind mentioned are frequently dodgy. They tend to confuse correlation with causation.

There may be some health benefits from being religious in terms of lower stress levels. Belief (for example) in a divine system of justice may be a coping mechanism for perceived material injustices and the like.

Regarding the nonsensical piece by Sean Thomas, it was laugh-out-loud funny in parts. My favourite was the claim that believers were "nicer". I agree but would add that this is not a positive quality.

Capablanca-Fan
19-05-2018, 06:06 AM
ON RICHARD DAWKINS TELLING ME WHAT NOT TO ASK (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/on-richard-dawkins-telling-me-what-not-to-ask/news-story/e8947876558c0b435b2ca26bab92aa6a)
Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun, 18 April 2018

Richard Dawkins, the famous atheist, agreed weeks ago to come on my show. I am agnostic and had planned a conversation, not a confrontation, about his published views on Islam and Christianity.

But just 90 minutes before showtime Dawkins started to bombard me with lists of questions I could not ask.

Here's how I responded last night.

Patrick Byrom
19-05-2018, 09:09 AM
ON RICHARD DAWKINS TELLING ME WHAT NOT TO ASK (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/on-richard-dawkins-telling-me-what-not-to-ask/news-story/e8947876558c0b435b2ca26bab92aa6a)
Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun, 18 April 2018
Richard Dawkins, the famous atheist, agreed weeks ago to come on my show. I am agnostic and had planned a conversation, not a confrontation, about his published views on Islam and Christianity. But just 90 minutes before showtime Dawkins started to bombard me with lists of questions I could not ask. Here's how I responded last night.What has this got to do with either smugness or intelligence?

Desmond
19-05-2018, 11:37 AM
What has this got to do with either smugness or intelligence?

Bolt has smug covered.