Jamie_L

You've wrapped up two separate issues, I think:

1) Is there something inherent to most atheists that makes us different from the "average" person?

2) Does being more intelligent than average lead one to atheism?

Number 2 could be related to one - the inherent "something" could be intelligence. However, it's not necessary to assume that to ask question 1, and I think you do question one a disservice by doing so.

I'm coming to the conclusion that there is something different about me (and other atheists - though perhaps not all). I don't know that it's intellect, though (although I did excell in school). The difference I notice is this: I've never worried about my "purpose" in life, the "reason for existence", or anything like that. I've never longed for the answers to questions like "why am I here?" These are the questions that I think lead a lot of people to religion. These are the voids that theists complain atheism can't fill. True, perhaps, but I don't have those voids.

Jamie

Koyaanisqatsi

Well, I can't speak to anyone calling somebody an "idiot," but I can address why some atheists (myself included) consider anyone who continues to believe anonymously authored two to five thousand year old Middle Eastern warrior-deity myths to be factual accounts of actual historical events either ignorant or, as I prefer, indoctrinated cult members (bearing in mind that I used to be one myself).

It is not just illogical or irrational to believe that burning bushes and snakes and donkeys speak, it is patently absurd; the obvious stuff of fable and myth. Likewise with a god who trifurcates into flesh in order to kill himself as a necessary sacrifice to himself in order to save all of us from himself, when he's to blame for creating us all that way to begin with.

What's worse is the ridiculous lengths people go to in order to rationalize and/or justify continued belief even after all of the contradictions, lies and obvious mythic elements are granted by these people.

In one thread I was involved with, someone went through the most tortured semantics dance I've yet seen in order to convince themselves that, in effect, Hell is actually Heaven.

It is the fact that otherwise intelligent men and women do not immediately recognize the obvious flaws in their own reasoning that leads those of us who are deprogrammed and/or never indoctrinated to begin with to want to shout from the rooftops, "The rabbit is up his sleeve! It's up his sleeve! Don't you see? How blind can you possibly be? It's a trick!"

The other problem, of course, is that America is guided and controlled by christian cult doctrines (slavery, gender inequality/bias, anti-Judaism--not to be confused necessarily with anti-Semitism--elitism, sheep/shepherd/do-not-question-authority/render-unto-Caesar control mentality, goddidit, humans are inherently worthless just because they were born oppression, false piousness/members only mentality, etc., etc.,etc.)even though our "founding fathers" went to great pains to establish a separation of church and state (and yes, that is accepted by constitutional scholars, historians and Supreme Court justices to be implicit if not explicit in the constitution and the "founding fathers" intent).

I don't know, Atticus. What would you call someone who obstinately refused to acknowledge what is as plain as the nose on their face? Someone who, no matter how many times they were placed in front of a mirror, said, "That's not a nose at all, it's a protrusion of cartilage covered by skin with two openings that allow the passage of oxygen into the body, but that's not what a nose is and you can't prove that it is not what I claim it is, therefore it's not a nose?"

Wouldn't you eventually--eventually, after (let's see, how many posts do I have?), after 1400 times of sitting that person in front of that mirror and painstakingly showing them how there is no other conclusion to come to other than "nose"--wouldn't your frustration at their irrational obstinacy kick in and reduce you to concluding that they are either ignoramuses or, at the very least, hopelessly indoctrinated "no nose" cult members?

If not, then you are indeed a better man than I, because to so fervently deny the irrefutable, after it has been painstakingly and conclusively demonstrated hundreds if not thousands of times to be, in fact a "nose," is to demonstrate a level of blind ignorance or otherwise aberrant conditioning that just cannot be addressed any further without some sort of personal venting, in my experience.

A nose is a nose. To deny it can only mean one of two things: blind ignorance or cult programming.

If you can think of a third, let me know.

Does that mean any of us are justified in resorting to invective? Of course not. I should know; I'm one of the worst violators of that tenet.

Is it understandable? IMO, yes. You can't bang your head against a wall hundreds of times without concussion.

As to the OP, if it isn't already obvious, the reason "we" can think outside the box is because we escaped the deliberately imposed confines of that box.

I don't think it has anything to do with intelligence per se, as Atticus is right. There have been many intelligent people who were/are also cult members.

Anybody can be indoctrinated into a cult if you get them young enough. Don't take my word for it.

Here's the Right Honourable Dr. James Dobson on the subject:

Bone chilling, isn't it?

free12thinker

The Bell Curve Theory is what it is. And data is what it is. A majority of people in any given survey can speak volumes about the question at hand. And if we do a survey on individual traits and a high percentage of people fit a particular mold (artistic, impatient, educational level acheived), than the statistic that come out can certainly mean something to trends and generalizations.

I'm not sure what Bell Curve theory information you were talking about in regards to racists, but I'm interested. I'm sure that whatever data they compiled, came as a result of the overall mood of people in this country when minorities were thought of as much lower; a feeling that was more ingrained with the times than ingrained within our fundamental feelings about human beings, hence, the change in our laws.

And if the most artistic person in the world was right-handed, that wouldn't mean anything against the next 99.

And by the way, I'm not stating a case. I'm not sold that such a pattern exists. But that's why I asked people for their thoughts, I like posing questions to people on this board because they offer terrific insight. This is something I am interested in.

[ April 26, 2002: Message edited by: free12thinker ]</p>

Koyaanisqatsi

What is your source for this? I'm an armchair expert on Doestoyevski (having read everything he ever wrote at least five times now, and I do mean everything) and heard that he was an avowed atheist to the grave.

I would also strongly disagree with your interpretation of Raskolvikov's "rebirth" as being at all reflective of the author's views regarding theism, but that's probably a topic for another thread (and just as long as C&P )

IMO, none of his writings would support your contention, so I'd appreciate, on a side note, a source for this.

Thanks.

Brad Messenger

I don't think there is a direct correlation between intelligence and atheism. Just as children who live in a Christian-dominated country will most likely adopt such beliefs, so to will children most likely accept atheism if they are exposed to those viewpoints most of their youth.

The example of these communist countries show that many people accepted atheism because of their education as youths, similar to Church education in the U.S. Most likely, then, unintelligent children became (or remained depending one's perspective) atheists.

I will agree, though, that the more intelligent a person is, the more likely they will reject the rigid structure of Church doctrine. They will either reject it entirely, or manipulate the doctrines in order to fit with their observations while retaining their religious beliefs. Therefore, I think if theists as a whole are less intelligent than atheists as a whole, it is because the unintelligent have been educated in their theism and will accept it without question. In other words, the ability to rise above one's education to see the faults and strengths in one's views regarding religion and incorporate this knowledge into new beliefs is an important part of being intelligent.

brighid

As much as I find the theist position to be nonsensical and painfully dishonest, I think we should stay away from blank statements like “atheists are smarter, etc.” This just isn’t true. Also, just because one is book smart, does not mean one also possess even a modicum of common sense or the ability to contemplate beyond their field of study. I know far too many intelligent people who are soooooo dumb – IMO!

I think, that in some cases intelligence and education plays a role in whether or not one will or will not be a theist. I think the uneducated poor tend to be more superstitious and more easily swayed by miraculous claims then their more educated and wealthier counterparts in theism. I think this because large populations aren’t provided with the intellectual skills or resources to know anything different then what they have been force-fed. An example of this would be the children in Pakistan or other theocratic dictatorships where they are coerced into submission and dissenters are killed under Muslim law, or those children in the deep and rural South who are brought up in similar repressive and hostile environments.

I also think there are degrees of theism – from the rabid and radical to the salad bar theist or the disinterested theist. I don’t think our concern should be with those people who define themselves as theists, and believe in a God of some form who do not act to restrict the freedoms of others. The rabid, radical, orthodox and fundamentalist theists are the ones we should be concerned with, not just the banal label of “theist.” There are also plenty of well-educated rabid theists, specifically those in a position of power. But I think this rabid theism is not necessarily a product of a desire for power and control, the need for attention (negative or positive) and in the case of the extremist perhaps even an expression of mental instability or defect. I wonder what kind of results would be concluded from studying the personalities of Evangelical preachers, such as Benny Hinn, Jerry Falwell and that whole ilk of men and women. What sort of personality disorders would be found in common?

The average, run of the mill theist really doesn’t contemplate the deeper questions as those in those forum have. They have no reason to. They generally pick and choose what dogmas to follow and disobey and the concept of a loving, powerful God is comforting and familiar. Many of their familial traditions surround religious ritual and a valuable part of their identity would be lost in rejecting their religious and cultural upbringing. Most of the theists that I know are of this brand – salad bar or holiday theists. Degrees of theism are also going to vary according to geographic region and the influence the theist society of that area has within that area.

Theistic belief is not really a matter of intelligence, even though many uneducated and arguably unintelligent people are theists. I think that one finds a higher degree of atheism within highly educated circles as opposed to uneducated or poorly educated circles, therefore leading one to conclude that education is ONE part of the equation but not the only factor one should consider.

As atheists, we should really hold ourselves to a higher standard of proof, even in those areas we are naturally biased against so we don’t fall prey to the same hypocrisies that infuriate us about theists. So, lets examine the situation critically and as objectively as we can and draw conclusions for reliable evidence and not from our own and sometimes prejudicial notions of others.

I understand why poorly educated people cling to fantastical notions. I have a hard time understanding why educated and highly educated people cling to those same notions. It has to be something more then intellectual ability that is pivotal in the retention of superstitious beliefs amongst the intelligent and highly educated members of theistic groups.

Perhaps it has something to do with the way each persons mind has developed. I positively hate Geometry and to my mind, it’s like attempting to decode an alien language. However, I pick up foreign language with great ease, much to the frustration of some of my peers. I am not exactly sure the biological or environmental reason why Geometry (and chemistry) is such as stumbling block for my brain and languages are not. Perhaps there is a mental stumbling block for some theists (or as they may argue for atheists) and their inability to comprehend what is so obvious to us. I doubt that is the only factor, but perhaps it plays a more significant role then has yet to be thoroughly examined.

Brighid

Hans

free12thinker

I honestly believe the only difference between a theist and an atheist is that an atheist has questioned his theistic beliefs or the theistic beleifs of others and having found they lack substance has disregarded them as myth.

An atheistic person requires only three properties:

One is to question. The next is an ability to dismiss myth (false belief). The last is to identify that which can not be shown, as myth.

Having these three qualities and appling them to all of one's beliefs leads inavoidably to atheism. Even agnosticism requires the application of some weight to unfounded suggestion. An atheist says there is no god not only because an atheist sees no evidence that there is a god but an atheist also sees no evidence that there might be a god or even a reason that a god might exist.

None of the above require any great intelligence. However, with some of one's beliefs, it can require a little courage to dismiss them; as the redifining of one's self that can accompany the dismissal of coveted beliefs can be challenging for sure. One should, however, find resolve in the fact that one is only discovering who they were all along.

I think the atheist is no more than one who has discovered through their own experience what perhaps the greatest philosopher of our times, George Carlin, sums up so eliquently - "It's all bullshit."

Samhain

Darwin's Finch:

The reason I have mixed feelings about Dostoyevsky's beliefs or non-beliefs has largely to do with Rebellion and The Grand Inquisitor in The Brothers Karamazov. Of course, it seems that all proclaimed atheists suffered some kind of horrible death, etc. in the end. As we see, even Ivan, the focus of those two chapters eventually goes insane. It just seems that Dostoyevsky displays some terribly persuasive arguments, and they truly do seem to be taken from an atheistic perspective. Maybe it's just his amazing ability to objectively observe and portray the human mind. *Shrug*

free12thinker:

I will further note once again upon the differences in the human psyche, the differences in the ways of thinking between atheism & theism. I think that said ability to "think outside the box" can largely be attributed to the questions posed to the atheistic perspective. A whole lot of us, as we all know, are constantly forced to defend our views, the problem is that we do not have all of the answers. It seems to me to be more along the lines of "thinking inside the box by always looking for logical and reasonable explainations for all things within life, never resorting to shifting the burden of proof, which theists can be found guilty of on numerous accounts. At the same time, examing the differences in the ways of thinking of the regular theist or atheist seems largely to have to do with different "worldviews" extracted from totally different areas of the human psyche. While our, atheistic, perspective is based solely upon logic and what we can prove through nature and science, theists (most, for I will not generalize this statement) base their being off of what they feel, in a more emotional sense. Proof (as we constantly see from Koy ) doesn't seem to matter to the said theist, only a general feeling about a "higher order" and the lack of need for some kind of naturalistic, logical explanation for human existence. Most said theists have been pulled in by the appeal to emotion that an omnibenevolent all-loving, all-knowing god can portray. Thus, they see this loving god, are comforted by the idea, become emotionally attatched, and allow that that is what they want to believe, holding logic and reason as secondary to their emotional feelings on the issue.

Maybe that will clear this up a bit for you, even though I'm bound to catch shit for that one from the theists (or so I think )

free12thinker

As noted earlier, my approach to equating smarts with atheism was simply a possibility. I also noted that I posted this question because I wanted some thoughts from others.

That said, I have to say, your approach in noting that it's probably not "less smarts", but instead more "emotion over logic and smarts", makes a lot of sense. Theists are turned on by the guiding light of God, and the ideas that someone will watch over them. They use the emotions of such promises and intrigue to help them through their everyday lives, thus, finding it more to their satisfaction to accept the magical over the logical.

[ April 26, 2002: Message edited by: free12thinker ]</p>

Tristan Scott

That is fine and good, Freethinker, but on a message board all I have to go on is what you type. When you typed:

It seemed to me that you were drawing conclusions that just are not true.