Views you have that are unpopular

May 31, 2012
10,190
4,017
yet many of them do and higher power belief is highest in those with genius IQ levels

I’d be interested on seeing some stats to back that up. I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I’ve read before that 90%+ of people with degrees in science who work in the STEM sector believe in evolution.
 

Clarence Worley

leaner than mandy...
Nov 19, 2018
4,021
2,448
I’d be interested on seeing some stats to back that up. I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I’ve read before that 90%+ of people with degrees in science who work in the STEM sector believe in evolution.
I need to remember where i read that because a 30 second search has pretty much said the opposite.

Perhaps they just chose big hitters from history to come up with that claim rather than a current survey. If I find it i will post it
 
May 31, 2012
10,190
4,017
I need to remember where i read that because a 30 second search has pretty much said the opposite.
Yeah, pretty much what I’d read, tbh. I’m not saying that some great minds aren’t open to the existence of a higher power, but I’d estimate that the percentage of legitimate science professionals who believe in the literal version of any holy book is fucking tiny.


Clarence Worley said:
Perhaps they just chose big hitters from history to come up with that claim rather than a current survey. If I find it i will post it
Yeah, I’d like to read it.
 
Jun 4, 2012
27,812
18,360
I’d be interested on seeing some stats to back that up. I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I’ve read before that 90%+ of people with degrees in science who work in the STEM sector believe in evolution.
It is wrong. There's plenty of people who are highly intelligent and religious, but it's not something that increases as you go higher up in IQ. For a kick off, the majority of people have never sat an actual IQ test, let alone the geniuses of the past. Regardless, of the actual studies done the correlation is the reverse of what Clarence is saying, meta analyses show the more intelligent the less likely to be religious.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23921675

The above paper is the most comprehensive meta analysis of the studies done on this.

Guys like Einstein are regularly misquoted as being "religious" when in actual fact he made it painfully clear that he did not believe in a sentient God or the notion of a higher intelligence, watching and judging us. He chose to use terms like religion and God to relate to philosophical concepts and he described himself as agnostic, with a distinct lack of belief in life after death.

Here's a summary of the aforementioned meta analysis:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mr-personality/201312/why-are-religious-people-generally-less-intelligent

A quick look through the 19th and 20th Century's most influential scientists and most of them were/are non believers...

Einstein
Feynman
Sagan
Hawking
Schrodinger
Crick
Watson
Urey
Russel
Sacks
Dawkins
Curie
Pavlov
Pauling
Oppenheimer
Nobel
Mach
Hoyle
Higgs
Bohr
Tesla

There are notable exceptions like Faraday and Maxwell, but it's also worth noting the times and attitudes they grew up in, the further into the 20th Century you go, the less likely such a mind is to also be religious.

That's not me saying smart people don't believe, as it varies and plenty of elite minds do believe, but it is categorically false to say that the highest IQ's tend to be found in religious people.
 

Haggis

CHB World Championship People's Champion
May 16, 2013
34,700
11,909
But Haggis, he never claimed any of the shit you just attributed to him.

He just said he was a Christian.

That means different things to different people.

To some, it means Adam was created 6000 years or so ago, and Eve came from his rib, and God had to invent language to keep Adam's descendants from building a tower so high it would reach God's pad, and a great flood wiped out all living things (including sea creatures) that weren't in the ark and so on... Stuff that clearly didn't happen.

To others, it mans following the teachings of Christ and maybe hoping for an afterlife situated somewhere outside of the physical universe as we know it.
There's a wide range of religious beliefs that do not involve fire-breathing fundamentalism...of the Christian, Islamic or other persuasion.
Bit of a ship of Theseus argument though, isn't it?

If you're just looking at Christianity and taking the message "don't be a cunt" from it, but you don't believe in the Tower of Babel, or the Great Flood, or Adam and Eve, or Jesus feeding thousands of people with a couple of fish and five loaves of bread, or any of that ridiculous Harry Potter-type magical/supernatural stuff....... well, at what point are you basically just saying "I just call myself a Christian because that's easier than upsetting my older family members"?

I mean, the Bible is just fine with human slavery. Never condemns it, rather it acknowledges slavery as just a fact of life and instructs slaves to dutifully obey their human masters. Is Mexi-Box OK with slavery like the God of the Bible very clearly is, or does he look at that and just decide to overrule God because ugh, condoning slavery in the 21st Century, that's not a good look?

And if this is the manual for all of human existence, history and morality...... except Mexi-Box wants to pick and choose which parts of it he'll pay lip service to and which (massive) parts of it he'll completely ignore because they're barbaric and/or scientifically ludicrous....... well...... why should I or any other non-religious person respect that or pretend like it's anything other than intellectual cowardice?

:hat
 
Last edited:

Haggis

CHB World Championship People's Champion
May 16, 2013
34,700
11,909
I need to remember where i read that because a 30 second search has pretty much said the opposite.
Fancy that.

Perhaps they just chose big hitters from history to come up with that claim rather than a current survey.
You mean that people from eras in history where the Church basically ran society, athiesm essentially didn't exist and you could be tortured or (if lucky) just socially ostracised and professionally ruined for committing blasphemy........ that in those times, public intellectuals were more likely to profess belief?

If I find it i will post it
Spoiler alert - you won't, and you won't. But you will just keep on believing it anyway. :thumbsup

:hat
 
Last edited:

Clarence Worley

leaner than mandy...
Nov 19, 2018
4,021
2,448
Fancy that.



You mean that people from eras in history where the Church basically ran society, athiesm essentially didn't exist and you could be tortured or (if lucky) just socially ostracised and professionally ruined for committing blasphemy........ that public intellectuals were more likely to profess belief?



Spoiler alert - you won't, and you won't. But you will just keep on believing it anyway. :thumbsup

:hat
piss off haggis

 
Reactions: Tuff Gong
May 31, 2012
10,190
4,017
It is wrong. There's plenty of people who are highly intelligent and religious, but it's not something that increases as you go higher up in IQ. For a kick off, the majority of people have never sat an actual IQ test, let alone the geniuses of the past. Regardless, of the actual studies done the correlation is the reverse of what Clarence is saying, meta analyses show the more intelligent the less likely to be religious.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23921675

The above paper is the most comprehensive meta analysis of the studies done on this.

Guys like Einstein are regularly misquoted as being "religious" when in actual fact he made it painfully clear that he did not believe in a sentient God or the notion of a higher intelligence, watching and judging us. He chose to use terms like religion and God to relate to philosophical concepts and he described himself as agnostic, with a distinct lack of belief in life after death.

Here's a summary of the aforementioned meta analysis:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mr-personality/201312/why-are-religious-people-generally-less-intelligent

A quick look through the 19th and 20th Century's most influential scientists and most of them were/are non believers...

Einstein
Feynman
Sagan
Hawking
Schrodinger
Crick
Watson
Urey
Russel
Sacks
Dawkins
Curie
Pavlov
Pauling
Oppenheimer
Nobel
Mach
Hoyle
Higgs
Bohr
Tesla

There are notable exceptions like Faraday and Maxwell, but it's also worth noting the times and attitudes they grew up in, the further into the 20th Century you go, the less likely such a mind is to also be religious.

That's not me saying smart people don't believe, as it varies and plenty of elite minds do believe, but it is categorically false to say that the highest IQ's tend to be found in religious people.

Yeah, pretty much what I thought. I’d read about it somewhere before, probably to aid an ESB debate or something.

Good post.
 
Reactions: Strike

Clarence Worley

leaner than mandy...
Nov 19, 2018
4,021
2,448
Too much sense, eh?

The smarter you are, the more likely you are to wholeheartedly believe in Iron Age magical fairy tales that deny evolution. :lol:

:hat
Thats not really what people mean when they say higher power belief haggis.
 
May 31, 2012
10,190
4,017
piss off haggis


To me, it’s obvious that we don’t know. That’s literally the beauty of science. It doesn’t know, so it finds out, then if further proof comes along it finds out more. It’s ever improving. Imagine if we hadn’t looked, and had just stuck with the biblical explanation. Bats would still be classified as birds.

However, ‘not knowing’ whether there was ever a creator or not is vastly different to believing the literal version of any holy book. If Russell Brand had asked Brian Cox about the chemical process Jesus used to turn water into wine he’d have probably laughed and left.
 
Reactions: Strike

Haggis

CHB World Championship People's Champion
May 16, 2013
34,700
11,909
Cox is right, and that's my stance too. However, it's worth noting that Cox doesn't believe in God or religion either, as he says in that clip.
And science isn't in the business of proving or disproving God. How would you do that, anyway? If I say that the infinite wonders of the universe are proof by themselves of God even if it is not quite the Biblical God, then how are you or anyone going to scientifically disprove that? "Prove that a supernatural omniscient unmeasurable force that exists outside all laws of physics is NOT there!"

Okay........ um....... how?

:hat
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Strike

Haggis

CHB World Championship People's Champion
May 16, 2013
34,700
11,909
To me, it’s obvious that we don’t know. That’s literally the beauty of science. It doesn’t know, so it finds out, then if further proof comes along it finds out more. It’s ever improving. Imagine if we hadn’t looked, and had just stuck with the biblical explanation. Bats would still be classified as birds.
Yep. And that's the difference. Science says "we don't know, and anything we do know, we have to constantly reevaluate and verify and square with new evidence."

Whereas religion says "yep, we already know everything we need to know. People speak different languages because once we all got together and built a clay brick tower almost all the way to heaven, and then God got insecure about that (even though he knew we'd do exactly that since before we even existed at all) and so he smashed the tower and scattered us all and made it so we couldn't understand each other. Now shut up with your questions."

:hat
 

Setanta

BAD MOTHERFUCKER
May 24, 2013
6,786
2,246
Emain Macha
It is wrong. There's plenty of people who are highly intelligent and religious, but it's not something that increases as you go higher up in IQ. For a kick off, the majority of people have never sat an actual IQ test, let alone the geniuses of the past. Regardless, of the actual studies done the correlation is the reverse of what Clarence is saying, meta analyses show the more intelligent the less likely to be religious.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23921675

The above paper is the most comprehensive meta analysis of the studies done on this.

Guys like Einstein are regularly misquoted as being "religious" when in actual fact he made it painfully clear that he did not believe in a sentient God or the notion of a higher intelligence, watching and judging us. He chose to use terms like religion and God to relate to philosophical concepts and he described himself as agnostic, with a distinct lack of belief in life after death.

Here's a summary of the aforementioned meta analysis:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mr-personality/201312/why-are-religious-people-generally-less-intelligent

A quick look through the 19th and 20th Century's most influential scientists and most of them were/are non believers...

Einstein
Feynman
Sagan
Hawking
Schrodinger
Crick
Watson
Urey
Russel
Sacks
Setanta
Dawkins
Curie
Pavlov
Pauling
Oppenheimer
Nobel
Mach
Hoyle
Higgs
Bohr
Tesla

There are notable exceptions like Faraday and Maxwell, but it's also worth noting the times and attitudes they grew up in, the further into the 20th Century you go, the less likely such a mind is to also be religious.

That's not me saying smart people don't believe, as it varies and plenty of elite minds do believe, but it is categorically false to say that the highest IQ's tend to be found in religious people.
I'm thoroughly crushed that I had to enhance that list of thinkers you cited !
:sad
 
Reactions: Strike

Setanta

BAD MOTHERFUCKER
May 24, 2013
6,786
2,246
Emain Macha
Bit of a ship of Theseus argument though, isn't it?
Not at all.

That might be the case if we had a singular definition and understanding of what it means to be a Christian.


If you're just looking at Christianity and taking the message "don't be a cunt" from it, but you don't believe in the Tower of Babel, or the Great Flood, or Adam and Eve, or Jesus feeding thousands of people with a couple of fish and five loaves of bread, or any of that ridiculous Harry Potter-type magical/supernatural stuff....... well, at what point are you basically just saying "I just call myself a Christian because that's easier than upsetting my older family members"?
Again, not at all.

And again, you are citing examples of what you believe to be the essential components of Christianity. (Even worse, you are, without any evidence whatsoever, attributing motive to Mex regarding his take on the issue). One can be a 'believer' in Aesop's fables without believing that a hare and a tortoise ever had a foot race, or that Androcles ever pulled a thorn out of a lion's paw.

You can call yourself a 'Shakespearian' and be extremely sceptical of the historicity of Shylock.

You're being a bit to literal here, Haggis.

I mean, the Bible is just fine with human slavery. Never condemns it, rather it acknowledges slavery as just a fact of life and instructs slaves to dutifully obey their human masters.

Is Mexi-Box OK with slavery like the God of the Bible very clearly is, or does he look at that and just decide to overrule God because ugh, condoning slavery in the 21st Century, that's not a good look?


Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were OK with slavery too, even while espousing the notion that all men were created equal.
That was just in keeping with the mores of the day.

There are probably a lot of things you do (me too) that future generations might well come to abhor and term barbaric or savage.

Times change, outlooks evolve.


And if this is the manual for all of human existence, history and morality...... except Mexi-Box wants to pick and choose which parts of it he'll pay lip service to and which (massive) parts of it he'll completely ignore because they're barbaric and/or scientifically ludicrous....... well...... why should I or any other non-religious person respect that or pretend like it's anything other than intellectual cowardice?
As I already stated, but which you don't seem to have gotten, is that again, different folks hold to different meanings of what Christianity entails. It's scarcely a matter of 'picking and choosing which parts.'

Would you argue that the US constitution and Bill of rights are worthless because they were handed down by men who were seriously misogynist and racist by today's standards ?
 
Reactions: BigPete