Atheists outperform theists at nearly all reasoning skills

[Audie]

What are you trying to say about gamma waves and how does it apply to any of this? I suggest that you give some peer reviewed articles on the subject, especially those that relate to intelligence

And superhuman powers.

The link provided went to something with much the
look of a woo woo site, where a quick scan showed
an article of how scientists found that people are
aware that they have died. I

 

[charlie sc]

And superhuman powers.

The link provided went to something with much the
look of a woo woo site, where a quick scan showed
an article of how scientists found that people are
aware that they have died. I

The title said superhuman, but the psychologist in the video did not mention superhuman powers at all, unless you call biting into an apple a superhuman power lol. I've read some of Goleman's work before, he's pretty cool on emotional intelligence stuff. It seems like he's into meditation and mindfulness, which is great. Though, superhuman?
The person who wrote the title was exaggerating and it's pretty misleading, to say the least

Some poor sap will fall for it though.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

You employ usual demeaning tactic, without any concern for the actual subject under discussion. I understand what aberrant means. You need not teach me.

Ability to be in a state when gamma waves dominate is not an aberrant state. It is a super-human state, as the BT article points out. You have no experience of it. So please do not comment.

(Put on ignore list).

Classic Passive-Aggressive: Insisting on the Last Word, then blocking someone to enforce that arbitrary demand....

 

[atanu]

I didn't play into your little insulting game. Perhaps you wanted a certain response but I refuse to take part in it. You said, "As if you know what is true.".
What, are we in kindergarten? Nah ha, as if you know what it is! Pfff, I'll pass, thanks.


I appreciate this longer-than-usual response, because I've mostly seen your responses as little snippets. Therefore, I apology for what I'm about to do.


First, this is not the general public. The survey was done in the USA, so I suggest you get some more surveys in order and perhaps ones more recent. Big mistake here on your part. Second, the more recent surveys, even from the institution you linked, have changed their figures for the USA in more recent years. Other surveys actually have found non-religious to be, in America, around 30-36%
Irreligion in the United States - Wikipedia. From the very pewresearch centre and link you gave, the more recent articles suggest that the non-religious may not say what they are because of the stigma attached. Here's a quote from this more recent article, ""While nationwide surveys in the 1970s and ’80s found that fewer than one-in-ten U.S. adults said they had no religious affiliation, fully 23% now describe themselves as atheists, agnostics or “nothing in particular.”" The factors driving the growth of religious ‘nones’ in the U.S.


Absolutely false. First, You have no bases for this claim. Bring evidence, my friend. As I said in the OP, assertions are useless beyond words. Second, this particular study measured people of all education backgrounds. They measured from some high school to college on a 5 point Likert scale. Every scale showed the same results. You are demonstrable wrong and it seems you haven't read my OP nor have you read the article. Third, I think you're going down a fallacious argument but I don't think I need to address it because you failed to get there in the first place.


You want musicians and scientists to administer tests? Do you mean administer or participate? You want to test the scientists in the general population or do you mean compare to the general population?
This makes no sense at all and I addressed the intelligible part above.


I don't know if you're claiming this or continuing your example with this line of reasoning. Either way, it makes no sense. If it is the prior, give evidence pl0x.


I have no idea what you're talking about with gamma waves. I actually studied some of this topic. EEG is actually quite convoluted, complex and esoteric as a topic.
What are you trying to say about gamma waves and how does it apply to any of this? I suggest that you give some peer reviewed articles on the subject, especially those that relate to intelligence or cognitive/reasoning skills

I am not aiming to prove anything. I have least interest to do that.

There are different kinds of intelligences/competencies and there are differently abled people. There are documented yogic abilities about which science has little explanation. The paper in the OP is abjectly deficient in dealing with these.

 

[atanu]

Classic Passive-Aggressive: Insisting on the Last Word, then blocking someone to enforce that arbitrary demand....

No. No. Please have the last word.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I am not aiming to prove anything. I have least interest to do that.

There are different kinds of intelligences/competencies and there are differently abled people. There are documented yogic abilities about which science has little explanation. The paper in the OP is abjectly deficient in dealing with these.

"documented"? Really? By whom? True Believers©? I don't think that qualifies as "documentation" in the Scientific Sense.

No more than one can use the bible to "prove" the bible...

 

[atanu]

"documented"? Really? By whom? True Believers©? I don't think that qualifies as "documentation" in the Scientific Sense.

No more than one can use the bible to "prove" the bible...

Yes documented. In original peer reviewed papers, in review articles and in scientific blogs.

Search google please.

 

[BilliardsBall]

It's almost as if this 'god' of yours deliberately and with malice, created us humans with such reasoning abilities....

.... why?

Perhaps god was tired of being god, and wished to be reasoned away in a puff of logic?

(with apologies to the late Douglas Adams for shamelessly stealing is idea)

Why do atheists complain that God hasn't given us the tools we need to do better, then complain when He does do so (reason, logic, love)?

 

[BilliardsBall]

How does one do this? I understand you said it takes great effort but you haven't said how it's done.


You have quite a high opinion of yourself. If I might give my humble opinion oh master of reason. Perhaps this is not what is actually going on. You may be perceiving this, but a neutral party may observe the opposite.

Just as suggestion. Don't mind me.

My reason must exceed yours, since you were unable to reason how I was being facetious with my earlier remark.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Yes documented. In original peer reviewed papers, in review articles and in scientific blogs.

Search google please.

I did. Nothingburger was the result. Oh well.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Why do atheists complain that God hasn't given us the tools we need to do better, then complain when He does do so (reason, logic, love)?

Why is it, that God's Principle Aspect, is one of deliberate and malicious hiding from anyone looking directly?

That's rather the opposite of "loving"....

As for "logic"? I have yet to see any "logic" in any Holey book, to date-- most especially the illogical bible.

As for love? The bible's god is described as a being who is the exact opposite: you don't create custom torture-pits out of love...

 

[tas8831]

Free will

Oh, Hi Leroy! Wondering when you were going to come back.

Eagerly awaiting several replies from you, especially to the post wherein I caught you trying to engage in historical revisionism:

leroy said:
My original point was that sometimes you need to change both the gene and the regulator in other to change a trait. (Making the problem harder to solve).​

A big problem here:

NO, that is NOT what your original point was:

"You don’t have to speculate much, we know that at least a big portion of non-codingn DNA has a function…. For example they control gene expression …………this represents more problems for Darwinist, since in order to have an advantage you have to shuffle a gene + you have to shuffle the non coding DNA that controls the expression of that gene, if you don’t have both you don’t have an advantage."​

Were you engaging in free will in order to engage in deception?

 

[Audie]

Nope-- it's born out by observational information: Every theist, when questioned, always-- no exception--has a slightly different definition of the term 'god'.

That right there, says that all notions of 'god' come from people-- not external godlike sources of information.

It also explains why there is in excess of 45,000 different brands of 'chrisitan' in the world today.. . the majority of whom cannot get along with the rest...

Slight modification.

Some differences are slight, others are huge.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I do find it amusing that the theist replies, so far, have been passive-aggressive.

Probably because they don't really have any kind of defense to offer that would come across as reasonable enough to pass muster.

 

[Quintessence]

Probably because they don't really have any kind of defense to offer that would come across as reasonable enough to pass muster.

So it's not reasonable to point out the study was talking about those who self-identify as "religious" not "theist" and that both of these are extremely heterogenous categories? And that the study itself mentions there are pretty strong limits to its implications?

Okay then. Nice selective reading you have going on there.

 

[Sand Dancer]

If atheists are so smart, how come they don't believe in God, any intelligent person would. And I have an IQ of 150.

Why believe in things we don't even know exist?

 

[Audie]

The title said superhuman, but the psychologist in the video did not mention superhuman powers at all, unless you call biting into an apple a superhuman power lol. I've read some of Goleman's work before, he's pretty cool on emotional intelligence stuff. It seems like he's into meditation and mindfulness, which is great. Though, superhuman?
The person who wrote the title was exaggerating and it's pretty misleading, to say the least

Some poor sap will fall for it though.

"Did"

 

[charlie sc]

From my own experience, it seems that it does not often require intricate and detailed knowledge of something to get the big picture or a generally-true concept.

It is similar to how one who designs computers or programs them may not be as proficient in their use as the end-user. Those who write computer games, for example, must be able to do things a gamer need not.

A religious person might "see" or "feel" that creativity was necessary for the universe to exist as it does -without knowing how to explain it beyond something like... Birds build nests, people build houses, God creates a universe.

That does not mean they are incorrect -they just are not able to show the work their mind is doing for them in detail. It is not stupidity, but a different kind of smart.

Science -by its own rules -really can't make such huge leaps in reasoning and draw conclusions -even if perfectly logical or correct.

When the various types try to tell each other their business, however, there is conflict.

A religious person might be more likely to possess or be subject to things such as strong conviction or even fear to question certain things -and may abandon their type or level of reasoning ability. While it may be "obvious" that an extremely complex and purposefully-specific creation required a capable creator, their conviction and fear might cause them to get stuck on one incorrect idea -such as the earth being very young (not actually biblical, by the way), no matter how much evidence is presented to the contrary -even of the sort they ought to be able to understand.

ScienTISTS are also human. They may not possess or be subject to the same convictions or fears, but they may refuse to consider certain things for very unscientific reasons -such as religious people being so frustrating that they do not want to even consider the idea of a creator, and proving them wrong about specific things is enough for them -or concluding there need not be a creator because they have considered it only to a certain point and to their own satisfaction -rather than allowing evidence to lead them beyond their comfort zone.

(I just watched an episode of "river monsters". The investigator travelled to meet a "primitive" tribe immune to the otherwise-deadly effects of a very powerful type of electric eel -which actually left severe burn marks on its victims.
Before they hunted and caught the eels with their bare hands, the local shaman burned two small holes into the arms of the hunters -put some sort of frog poison in the wounds -the hunters puked and went hunting the next day. They were then able to hold the eels. They described a slight shock -but were otherwise not affected.
They didn't need to understand every detail of how it worked, they just knew it worked. They also probably arrived at the procedure by general observation and "intuition" rather than investigating exactly how the eel shocked -what might counter it -and then trying to find something to counter it.)

I absolutely know God exists, but I probably have more reason to than most.
However, I am also eager to hear every valid point from every "side" -because every valid point describes the one overall reality -and must be put in order.
I actually agree that some man in the sky always existing as such -responsible for all things -is not even possible.
First of all, an eternal being could not possibly be responsible for its own existence, the existence of that of which it would be composed -or that which allowed for its ability to create. Furthermore, development is logical -whereas always existing in a complex and capable state is not.

However, that does not negate the fact that a capable creator must precede that which requires and is indicative of such.

I enjoyed reading your argument and relating the topic to a story. I think you're right saying intuition is important. To quote a character from Star Trek, Spock said, "logic is the beginning of wisdom not the end."
What remains to be seen is how important intuition is? Logic is not emotional, but, I think, intuition is. When it comes to the suffering of another human beings, I'd far choose logic over emotions any day. If intuition carries emotions with it or is motivated by emotions, then that means fear and anger influence decisions. These are bad combinations any way you look at it. This, I think, is the downfall of intuition. However, affection, love, hope, awe and happiness are its redeemers. The problem I see with some religions is that there's far too much fear and anger intertwined in their ideologies. Sadly, It may be inseparable for some.

 

[charlie sc]

I am not aiming to prove anything. I have least interest to do that.

There are different kinds of intelligences/competencies and there are differently abled people. There are documented yogic abilities about which science has little explanation. The paper in the OP is abjectly deficient in dealing with these.

You didn't address my responses to you, but, to be honest, I don't blame you. I have the psychologist's book from the link you gave. If you have a claim about yogics, then I can see if your perception accurately reflects the only evidence were able to provide. Nonetheless, I don't think it'll come to this and the argument seems to have deteriorated to faith on your part.
Fair enough. Next time you have evidence, don't be shy to share it

 

[charlie sc]

Probably because they don't really have any kind of defense to offer that would come across as reasonable enough to pass muster.

Indeed. I can't help think of Tyrion Lannister's quote somehow applies here, "Let me give you some advice, *******. Never forget what you are, the rest of the world will not. Wear it like armour and it can never be used to hurt you."