Atheists are smarter , but it seems also more creative.

[attofishpi]

Well, I understood the op to say "Atheists are smarter, but it seems also more creative" .

By which I took it to mean that some questionnaire made up by some people
(whom I haven't met)
used some criteria
(that I'm not familiar with)
to arrive at a comparison of theists and atheists
whereby they determined that atheists [on average] are the smarter
(which we already knew from an earlier, much-discussed posting)
and - this is the new addition - also more creative of the two sample groups under comparison


And I took that to mean:
we can use some definition of creativity
(which I did)
and some criteria for measuring and comparing this attribute
(which I have postulated)
and discuss why the atheist sample group might have shown more of the attribute than the theist sample group.
(So I did. Expressing my own opinion and claiming no clairvoyance.)

bravo!

[Hobbes' Choice]

mmm pissed at myself for stating 'of a God' rather than 'of God' considering any argument of God is of the one God no matter how many variations man has implied via religions.

So what do you mean by "God", or "a God"?

Panentheism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism

So what do you mean by god or GODS?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Well, I understood the op to say "Atheists are smarter, but it seems also more creative" .

By which I took it to mean that some questionnaire made up by some people
(whom I haven't met)
used some criteria
(that I'm not familiar with)
to arrive at a comparison of theists and atheists
whereby they determined that atheists [on average] are the smarter
(which we already knew from an earlier, much-discussed article)
and - this is the new addition: also more creative of the two sample groups under comparison.


And I took that to mean:
we can use some definition of creativity
(which I did)
and some criteria for measuring and comparing this attribute
(which I have postulated)
and discuss why the atheist sample group might have shown more of the attribute than the theist sample group.
(just as we had previously used some definition of "smart" or intelligence to discuss the finding of that earlier study)
So I did. Expressing my own opinion and claiming no clairvoyance or omniscience.

Skip, personally I don't believe that any, so called, group is smarter than another, and is where I was going. Could you please answer my previous question? Hobbes won't do it, he's scared to death of me. I guess his BMW isn't big enough. but enough with my vindictiveness, as it gets so old and trying sometimes.

Seriously, can you please tell me why it is that you would have to talk to the entities of my world, before passing judgment, as to which of the two factions, were more intelligent that the other.

I do very much value your input on this, as you have up till now, seemed as one of the most level headed and thoughtful in formulating your responses. And I require something well thought out.

Thank you for your time, my friend!

[Skip]

I wasn't sure which question you wanted answered.
The post I responded to (?top of last page) was where you asked about all the people thinking their belief was smart and one guy saying it's wrong. That world? Those entities?
They sounded to me like an overwhelming majority who [claim to] have a united belief in an earth-centric, human-purposed, God-directed universe, while Giordano Bruno [the brilliant damn fool] holds out for life on other planets.
I'm for Bruno, but I'm not with Bruno, if you catch my drift.

In an analysis of 63 studies conducted since 1928, a researcher at the University of Rochester found “a reliable negative relation between intelligence and religiosity” in 53 of the studies. While 10 of the studies showed a positive correlation, only two of them showed a significant link.

Thirty-five of the studies, however, showed a significantly negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity, according to researcher Miron Zuckerman.

http://www.medicaldaily.com/proved-athe ... ple-250727

This corresponds to my own experience, and I've suggested several reasons why it should be so. Why anyone would make an issue of it being so, rather than make nice, the way we did in the placatory ecumenical 60's, is probably because we're sick of being pushed around by ignorant religious megalomaniacs.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Here you go skip, a play by play:

So now that you understand, which are the more intelligent, all the ones that agree, or the one that differs? Have you had any dealings with probability? If so, what would it lean toward?

I have no way of assessing his intelligence.

Why?

Why I have no way to assess his intelligence is that I haven't met him.

I'm asking for the dynamics involved contained within that meeting.

In other words how would 'you' conduct the meeting so as to ascertain his/their intelligence? Apparently, you'd have to meet all of them to judge which group is more intelligent, right? Of course, you have no tests, just your mental faculties.

[Skip]

In other words how would 'you' conduct the meeting so as to ascertain his/their intelligence?

In that instance, I just figured face to face conversation is a quick way to bypass the controversy over IQ tests and questionnaires. My - only slightly facetious - slant was that, being fairly bright myself, I'm more competent to judge another bright one than some anonymous test.

Apparently, you'd have to meet all of them to judge which group is more intelligent, right?

No, just the exception. I couldn't face interviewing the believers.... don't know how Saint Peter can stand his job, for that matter. Of course, you never said what belief-system they all subscribe to, and it's just possible that the exception is a delusional fanatic.... but he'd still be more interesting than 7 billion conformists

Of course, you have no tests, just your mental faculties.

Perhaps in the hypothetical. But in reality, I accept the result of those 63 various studies.

Skip, personally I don't believe that any, so called, group is smarter than another, and is where I was going.

The problem is, it's not just any old so-called group. It's a comparison between a whole lot of people who buy into an implausible story that's used to oppress them and stunt their critical thinking from cradle to grave, and the people who have either broken out of that mind-control machine or have never been deformed by it.
It's hardly surprising if the free-thinkers think more freely.

[Obvious Leo]

The problem is, it's not just any old so-called group. It's a comparison between a whole lot of people who buy into an implausible story that's used to oppress them and stunt their critical thinking from cradle to grave, and the people who have either broken out of that mind-control machine or have never been deformed by it.

It strikes me that this is the point which sums up the question posed by the OP. When we use terms such as "smarter" or "more intelligent" we load our conversation with a lot of subjective baggage which obscures what it is that we're really talking about. I don't buy into the commonly accepted story that some people are smarter than others, although naturally I would exclude those unfortunates with a structural brain disorder or some electro-chemical dysfunction which impairs their capacity for learning. Essentially we all start out with the same hardware but the important point about the human mind is that it is a computer without a programme. We have to write our own software, if I can stretch the analogy slightly further, which means that the way we use our minds is totally self-determined. The environmental factors which affect this self-programming function begin in utero and continue throughout our lives but when push comes to shove we are entirely alone inside our own heads and thus we are the quintessential autodidacts.

I see intelligence as an expression of intellectual freedom and not much else. To me it's all about adopting the contrarian's stance and assuming that everything you see, read and hear is bullshit until you have persuasive evidence to the contrary. Question everything and believe nothing. Be a person of opinions by all means but ensure that all your opinions are infinitely malleable and subject to modification or change in the light of further information. To me this is what intelligence is but this is not a definition which is applicable to a theist, who has a ready-made suite of opinions handed to him on a plate which he is forbidden to question. This doesn't make the theist stupider than the non-theist but it effectively denies him access to a richer domain of external and internal enquiry. He gets to live only half a life, in my opinion because most of it goes unexamined.

[Skip]

Ye-e-es... up to a point. Several points, really. But I don't want to get into the nature-nurture-autonomy question just now.

To me, the main problem with any discussion on this topic is that it's back-ass-ward. We're not measuring or comparing the subjects' native potential at any time in their lives. We're measuring differences after whatever happened is too late to reverse - and not all of it has happened for the same reasons or in the same circumstances in every subject. All we're getting is an average sub-par output from units that have had a variety of inputs... that always include the factor we're testing for. It's something - but it's too bloody predictable to be informative. Its only value is ideological - feels kind of grubby to use, even in self-defence.

[Lacewing]

I see intelligence as an expression of intellectual freedom and not much else. To me it's all about adopting the contrarian's stance and assuming that everything you see, read and hear is bullshit until you have persuasive evidence to the contrary. Question everything and believe nothing. Be a person of opinions by all means but ensure that all your opinions are infinitely malleable and subject to modification or change in the light of further information. To me this is what intelligence is but this is not a definition which is applicable to a theist, who has a ready-made suite of opinions handed to him on a plate which he is forbidden to question.

I think this is very nicely said. It makes me think of how ANY ready-made plate of opinions that people accept and sit in front of, keeps them from noticing or questioning or, even, accepting what else there is. It's nuts. And it can be served up in so many ways. Ready-made plates of opinions EVERYWHERE! Why are humans so drawn to a trough? What ever happened to the hunter/gatherer mentality?

[Hobbes' Choice]

I see intelligence as an expression of intellectual freedom and not much else. To me it's all about adopting the contrarian's stance and assuming that everything you see, read and hear is bullshit until you have persuasive evidence to the contrary. Question everything and believe nothing. Be a person of opinions by all means but ensure that all your opinions are infinitely malleable and subject to modification or change in the light of further information. To me this is what intelligence is but this is not a definition which is applicable to a theist, who has a ready-made suite of opinions handed to him on a plate which he is forbidden to question.

I think this is very nicely said. It makes me think of how ANY ready-made plate of opinions that people accept and sit in front of, keeps them from noticing or questioning or, even, accepting what else there is. It's nuts. And it can be served up in so many ways. Ready-made plates of opinions EVERYWHERE! Why are humans so drawn to a trough? What ever happened to the hunter/gatherer mentality?

I glad you think so. But from what I can see, you, yourself, are a very long way off following this advice. If you don't know what I mean; from time to time I'll offer you the phrase "believe nothing; seek to know". And then we can chew the fat over a bunch of stuff you have swallowed. Deal?

[Lacewing]

I think this is very nicely said. It makes me think of how ANY ready-made plate of opinions that people accept and sit in front of, keeps them from noticing or questioning or, even, accepting what else there is. It's nuts. And it can be served up in so many ways. Ready-made plates of opinions EVERYWHERE! Why are humans so drawn to a trough? What ever happened to the hunter/gatherer mentality?

I glad you think so. But from what I can see, you, yourself, are a very long way off following this advice. If you don't know what I mean; from time to time I'll offer you the phrase "believe nothing; seek to know". And then we can chew the fat over a bunch of stuff you have swallowed. Deal?

You don't need to offer me any of your stupid phrases. You've already shown that you can't/won't answer hard questions... and that you prefer to throw your projections and monkey shit around. So I'm not interested in what you offer.

[Kayla]

could it be that it is the case that people holding unconventional views are smarter?

in southern USA your views are unconventional if you are an atheist

in many other places that is pretty conventional

in some places believing in god can make one pretty unconventional


and there are two distinct types of atheists

those who have thought things through themselves

and those who are mindlessly quoting Richard dawkins

[Skip]

Dawkins is still a choice, rather than inherited dogma. In order to quote him, you must have read him, and I doubt anyone can read Dawkins mindlessly, as he's rather less accessible than Doctor Phil.

Anyway, all the comparative studies were conducted in the US, so it doesn't signify if religion is unconventional in China.

[Obvious Leo]

Anyway, all the comparative studies were conducted in the US, so it doesn't signify if religion is unconventional in China.

Indeed. A comparative study of religion in the US could hardly be regarded as representative of the wider human race. Only in theocracies such as the US and the Islamic world is religious belief a mainstream component of one's personal or cultural life. In most countries it is seen as a quaint and anachronistic cultural curiosity.

It makes me think of how ANY ready-made plate of opinions that people accept and sit in front of, keeps them from noticing or questioning or, even, accepting what else there is.

This is a comment particularly relevant to my own field of the philosophy of physics. For a century this so-called "science" has anchored itself to a paradigm which is logically unsustainable and yet anybody who dares to question it is immediately labelled as a crackpot. So entrenched is this group-think that anybody seeking a career in physics is compelled to remain inside the tent pissing out and yet the very unification model which physics is looking for will only be found by somebody outside the tent pissing in.

[Skip]

Given that picture, I'm glad I was chosen by another profession. Not that medical science doesn't have its set menus, but in the late 20th century, there were still plenty of a la carte options. .. and not so much pissing.