/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.12318346]

Are religious people inherently less intelligent?

[Anonymous No.12318349]

cope midwit atheist

[Anonymous No.12318353]

>>12318349
Lol because people openly advertised irreligiousness for most of that time right?

[Anonymous No.12318363]

>>12318346
Why does it matter? Are you of the belief that if there was no religion that people would become more intelligent?

[Anonymous No.12318369]

>>12318349
>baptized as little kid
>LOL you a devout Christian!

[Anonymous No.12318373]

>>12318346
einstein here thinks that correlation is causation
>if im an atheist im more of a scientist than a religious person therefore im smarter than them

[Anonymous No.12318376]

>>12318363
I hate religious people.

[Anonymous No.12318381]

>>12318376
If they weren't religious, do you think they would become likable?

[Anonymous No.12318386]

>>12318381
No, they should be killed.

[Anonymous No.12318394]

>>12318386
edgy atheist is edgy

[Anonymous No.12318397]

>>12318394
I also think you should be killed.

[Anonymous No.12318401]

>>12318346
More likely that universities tend to be socially liberal and are hostile to religious people.

[Anonymous No.12318436]

I don't hate religious fags. I only hate opinionated and vocal people, and religious fags happen to make a lot of those people. Fedora fags are also part of those people.

[Anonymous No.12318624]

The SJW religion shows that a large percentage of the population has a deep need for a religion of some kind. High IQ people might be able to handle atheism but most of the rest of the population will find something to fill that void if they're atheist. Perhaps it is communism, critical race theory, or any of a large number of other unsupportable belief systems, but that void must be filled with something for most people. Even among high IQ people there seems to be an emerging belief in simulation theory that looks to be a way of filling the religious void in their lives.

[Anonymous No.12318635]

>>12318624
>communism
Marxism-Leninism is a science you brainlet.

[Anonymous No.12318637]

>>12318346
>Scientist with B.S.
LOL

[Anonymous No.12318650]

>>12318376
>>12318386
>>12318397
based

[Anonymous No.12318655]

>>12318346
Not all of them. Some are quite smart. But most of them definitely are more stupid than an average atheist.

[Anonymous No.12318672]

>>12318346
all religions (including blind scientism) are for people who lack agency and empathy and need a stern father to decide for them.
Does that necessitate lower intelligence?

sage for off topic

[Anonymous No.12318717]

>>12318655
In math terms, the stupidity value of atheism is exactly the sum of the stupidity value of all other potential religions, factorial.
Agnosticism is the only intelligent position.

I. Saying that a God definitely exists is asserting something that is by definition unprovable. That's the whole point of "God." It's not provable either way.

II. Saying that God definitely DOESN'T exist is asserting some infinite combination of things that are all by definition unprovable.

III. The stupidity value of atheism is something like ∞!

[Anonymous No.12318740]

>>12318717
Atheists are pretty much always agnostic. It’s inherent to the position. Rocks are atheistic. Double digit IQ animals like you who use this semantical argument are profoundly uninsightful

[Anonymous No.12318868]

>>12318740
>Appeals to semantics
>Accuses others of resorting to semantics
Let's put your gay word games aside. There are three groups:
Believe that a supernatural god exists
Believes that a supernatural god might exist
Believes that a supernatural god does not exist
Stick whatever label you want on these three but if you're in the third category, you're a moron.

[Anonymous No.12318905]

>>12318635
>science isn't religion
LOL

[Anonymous No.12318941]

>>12318868
I’m not appealing to semantics, I’m appealing to the fact that gnostic atheists don’t/barely exist. You are just as dumb as I originally suspected.

[Anonymous No.12318953]

>>12318868
Not really, believing a supernatural god exists is many, many, many times dumber than believing one doesn’t exist. They aren’t even in the same category.

[Anonymous No.12318961]

>>12318905
Science is exactly the opposite of religion. Science starts with a hypothesis and collection of evidence to form a conclusion. Religion starts with the conclusion. They are antithetical.

[Anonymous No.12318973]

>all these scientists in history
>am I forgotten

[Anonymous No.12318975]

>>12318941
>gnostic atheists
The only people who use that term are ones who argue semantics. The popular common usage of the words atheist and agnostic do not require extra modifiers as you have added on. You're trying to show what a smart boy you are by using the non-standard forms and then getting butthurt over being called out for playing semantics. You likely tried to preempt this by accusing another of playing semantics first. That might work on plebbit but it doesn't work here. It's a dishonest form of debate and shows you have no intention of arguing in good faith. Also you have shown zero proof to back up any of your claims about how many people believe what you claim they believe.

[Anonymous No.12318982]

>>12318953
You cannot prove either. Show your work why one is dumber than the other. No appeals to emotions.

[Anonymous No.12318988]

Your graph is pure falsehood:
>Newton
>Heisenberg
>Poincare

Naming just three of the very greatest minds ever to be born all of whom believed in God.

[Anonymous No.12318994]

>>12318975
Virtually 100% of atheists are agnostic. So regardless of your attempt at lying about definitions, reality disproves your claim. There are zero atheists who claim to “know” god isn’t real. There are atheists who claim to know for certain specific gods aren’t real, which is accurate. We can be 100% certain the Christian or muslim god doesn’t exist.

[Anonymous No.12319000]

>>12318346
Yes, they are brainwashed dummies.

[Anonymous No.12319006]

>>12318982
By that logic, you can’t prove anything exists or doesn’t. God fails to meet even the loosest standards of evidence. Even religious idiots admit this, which is why the belief system is supported by a buzzword: faith. Blind faith means being wrong and stupid but claiming you’re right anyway, exactly the same as people who say rocks are conscious.

[Anonymous No.12319013]

>>12318346
Do you believe in god?

I can believe in god but not be religius. e.g. God as somebody's else fictional character and I believe imagination of him is real.

Or other examples.

It's not straight question.

You should ask if they prey, go to church, read a bible, their said perception of god, then evaluate if you even mean ONE SAME GOD, BECAUSE YOU DON'T.

[Anonymous No.12319017]

>>12318346
science is some people's god as well.

[Anonymous No.12319026]

>>12319017
Scientists exist and are sometimes correct, so even in the most exaggerated case this is nowhere close to as bad as religion.

[Anonymous No.12319050]

>>12318988
Galileo was pretty religious too.
Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi, the father of Algebra, was a muslim.

[Anonymous No.12319071]

>>12318349
agnostic and athiest lumped together is ignorant, agnostic itself is not a religious denomination.

agnostic means you don't wholly believe. gnostic means you wholly believe. you have gnostic athiests, and you have agnostic christians. it's a pointless label for a graph like this.

[Anonymous No.12319097]

>>12319071
There are many atheists who have been tricked by the media into thinking the word "atheist" means some rabid anti-religious blue hair liberal. Anecdotally, I have 3 friends who outright deny the term atheist, yet they say believing in a supernatural being or any god is plain stupid. They are atheists who don't like to be called atheists.

[Anonymous No.12319120]

>>12319026
islam is always correct, science is only less wrong over time under ideal circumstances which are not even present today.

[Anonymous No.12319172]

>>12318650
based on what?

[Anonymous No.12319188]

Scientists simply abide to a different set of beliefs and rituals

[Anonymous No.12319193]

>>12318635
>marxism
>science

These two things are not compatible.

[Anonymous No.12319196]

>this one class of people who have a rigid belief system and are unwilling to question orthodoxy is dumber than this other class of people who also have a rigid belief system and are unwilling to question orthodoxy.
>the book of genesis isn't true, but this identical story about the big bang is inarguably true
>humans don't have souls which gives them innate characteristics and potential, they have this dna stuff which does exactly what a religious people say a soul does

[Anonymous No.12319210]

>>12319196
this post isn’t even 1% as insightful as I think it is. imagine being stupid enough to make these comparisons between ideas with empirical evidence is nonsense fantasy. you utter moron.

[Anonymous No.12319218]

>>12319196
literally two different statements you people are not remotely as smart as you think you are

[Anonymous No.12319221]

>>12319196
The Big Bang is based on a huge amount of scientific evidence. The book of genesis is based on absolutely nothing. It should be illegal for people like you to speak

[Anonymous No.12319240]

>>12319097
Atheist just means you don't believe in God. Note that this is not the same as thinking God does not exist. One can be atheist without ever having heard of God.

I would refer to the radical types as "antitheists", not only is there an absence of belief, there is an outright rejection and opposition to it.

[Anonymous No.12319248]

for me, it's Deism

[Anonymous No.12319250]

>>12319017
Such people have misunderstood the point of science. Science doesn't want to be believe, science wants to be questioned and scrutinized for any potential errors. That is how science grows. We may use science, knowing that even if science fails us, we may correct it. That is what makes science so powerful, it adapts. If we just blindly believe science, we are stripping it of its most powerful weapon.

[Anonymous No.12319281]

>>12319218
the literal meaning of the two statements differs, but it should be clear to any non-autist that the rhetorical intention, i.e., to elicit pathos from our common humble yet profound origins, is the same

[Anonymous No.12319438]

>>12318369
>baptized as kids
No, just people who identify as christians.

[Anonymous No.12319445]

>>12318349
>freethinker
what did he mean by this?

[Anonymous No.12319487]

>>12318346
it's a bell curve as always

[Anonymous No.12319508]

Define religious

[Anonymous No.12319527]

>>12318346
He who knows nothing, must believe everything.

[Anonymous No.12319551]

>>12319050
https://youtu.be/tJJLvoDg2_E?t=4m30s

[Anonymous No.12319563]

>>12319240
No, that's what you think it means. That's not the common meaning. That's beside the point anyway, which was that people was that people who are sure there is no god are stupid. Playing word games and coming with with a four square matrix of various terms is a cope for cowards who are too afraid to stand up for the beliefs they spout when they're around people who agree with them.

[Anonymous No.12319722]

>>12319221
they are both based on you accepting the word of an authority figure. you haven't explored any of the evidence you're quoting, you're just accepting the word of some robed priest

[Anonymous No.12319742]

>>12319722
your logic is horrendously bad

[Anonymous No.12319749]

>>12319742

[Anonymous No.12319750]

>>12319722
you're an idiot
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model

[Anonymous No.12319824]

>>12318346
Religious people who literally believe what's written in religious texts are as dumb or even dumber than atheists who outright deny the existence of god. In both cases there is a belief in something that is unprovable.

However, most religious people do not believe word by word what is written in religious texts, so I woud say that atheists are probably the dumber group. This is especially the case because they miss the whole point of religion; religion is more about regulating the behavior of people living in a society to maintain stability. This is why it prescribes things like not stealing and limiting the number of sexual partners one should have. This is why departure from religion could be a bad thing; you get the degenerate, blue haired crazies populating college campuses.

Genesis should be read more in terms of the lessons that it teaches rather than as a factual account of the origins of the universe and life.

So no, I don't think religious people are less intelligent.

[Anonymous No.12319853]

>>12318346
No, academics often turn to politics to fulfill the religious impulse

[Anonymous No.12319878]

>>12318346
no. there is a point at which science has no answers and there is some evidence of oddities across different fields. its a question as to weather you believe any 1 specific religion or if god even made life on this planet intentionally

oddities range from electronics. why do wire coils do so much? its like 3/4 of electronics.its a inductor , capacitor and resistor. thats the electronics holy trinity. you can make a self resonate oscillator from that alone. it could be a resistor (not carbon film obviously) , basic inductor, light bulb filament, resistive element for heating, tesla coil secondary or its primary, bose super audio rf choke (it was infact just wires), if 2 wires are flat and coiled around each other and have insulation you get a capacitor (yes flat wire is a thing and sheets of foil count as wire its just really thin).

you can also make a magnetically driven diode with 3 coils where coupling goes 1 way but not the other. thats a inductive diode that some people had shown off years ago

it can also play a meaningful role in a battery like a lithium ion cell which has a 2 metal foil lengths that are basically flat wires coiled. so with that radio broadcasts like a star can be made ringing at set frequencies. if they shared space they would influence each other. with the inductive diode added you can make a computer (in the same sense that a abicus is complete with designated intervals like say 10 signifying something due to radio noise cumulative effect on frequency and the relaxation of such things due to new pathways openig up as coils in magnetic diodes tun off) singals going 1 way ina magnetic circuit and influencing each others oscillation by proximity. and 3/4 of the materials going by weight is just the wires and going by components part of all of them

[Anonymous No.12319919]

>>12319750
you're ignorant of the facts, but if you want to try quoting wikireddit then explain observed redshift quantization in the context of any conventional big bang model.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift_quantization
while you're at it explain galactic rotation curves without invoking obscene amounts of unobservable magical invisible mass which doesn't radiate or absorb any energy.