Do you believe those who are religious

[Toobluntt]

have lower intelligence, in general because they believe in a God, than non believers/non religious people?

I ask because I saw a comment as such on another thread in AIBU, and it's something I've heard/read before, that some people (obviously non-believers) question the intelligence of those who believe in God, or follow an organised religion.

I am not saying this is what I believe, I'm just genuinely interested to know if this is a commonly held view, or not, and if so, why you think this way.

You can believe in religious freedom (live and let live as you say) AND believe that religion is bunkum and has a terrible impact on humanity.

But I'm not rude to people who are religious and tell them that their religion is bunkum.

I don't agree with many of the practices that people carry out in the name of religion though.

But I'm not rude to people who are religious and tell them that their religion is bunkum.
Which is better, a pig satisfied or Socrates dissatisfied?

"Why does it bother some atheists that some people have a faith?"

It doesn't bother me at all. Many people seem to need that crutch to endure their lives and I do not mind it as long as they don't require me to believe in their imaginary friend in the sky, put me in a black curtain with a slit for eyes, or stone me because I had sex outside of wedlock.

Anyway, OP's question isn't "Does religious faith bother you?".

Why does it bother some atheists that some people have a faith?

I don't think non believers care what others choose to believe in (tooth fairy, unicorns or gods). I certainly don't.

The op didn't ask that though. It asked about our thoughts on the correlation between religious beliefs and intelligence.

Round here all the doctors and lawyers (practising or retired) go to church to socialise and be seen as respectable. I highly doubt all of them are actually religious. So I would not use church attendance by professionals to draw conclusions about intelligence/education and religiosity.

I'm stunned and amazed by the "PhDs" and "6 figure salary" folk on here insulted by the question. Presumably despite their achievements, they don't understand the difference between data and anecdata. Nobody is saying "YOU are religious and therefore stupid" more like "there is a positive correlation between low IQ/education/poverty and religiosity". Which, as far as I understand it, is a fact.

The bigots always come out of the woodwork on these threads unfortunately.

You can believe or disbelieve whatever the hell you want. Many people manage yo do so without being nasty about it. But the minute people start using insulting terms like 'sky fairy' you know they're just an asshole.

And - Not very bright either because either they don't know they are being bigots or they think it's an OK way to behave.

Unfortunately there's often an attitude of it being OK to say these things to Christians too. But you ask if they'd say them to Muslims and they clamp up. Bigotry is bigotry either way. Its not nice and it's not smart.

None are so stupid as those who think they know all. And I'll tell you I've met more atheists along those lines than I have people of faith.

@CoteDAzur thank "God" for you! Honestly. If I see ONE more person say "well my cousin is very intelligent..."

It is not bigotry to criticise, or even mock, other ideas. Ideas are not people.

The reason why people are more reticent to mock Islam is quite obvious. And it’s not a good advert for that religion.

God isn't an 'idea' to people who believe in him though.

If I slagged off your grandparents whom you love, would that be OK? No.

What if I didn't like them? Still no.

The claim that the Universe is divinely ordained and governed is an idea, whether you believe in it or not. It is absolutely essential to living in a free society that ideas - any ideas - should not be beyond question or shielded from jokes or satire. Personal discourtesy is not the same thing.

I was taught by people who had multiple MPhils and PhDs (etc) from Oxbridge, Harvard, Yale, completely fluent in 4 or 5 wildly different languages and conversant with rare dialects of them, several world class in their areas of study/publication. They were all ordained in various Christian denominations and yes, believers but unintelligent they were not, by any measurable standard. They were also IME very fair minded about people who did not share their faith.

We're not talking about jokes or satire though.

I'm all for jokes and satire.
Provided they're actually funny at least.

I'm not however, for hateful people. People who try to make others feel stupid for their faith. And unfortunately these threads often attract such people like moths to flames.

It doesn’t matter whether you think it’s funny or not. People have the right to say these things. People have the right to mock God as a sky-fairy. It’s not targeting an individual to say this.

Of course, treating an individual less favourably because of their religious views, or harassing them etc, is wrong. That’s a different thing.

God isn't an 'idea' to people who believe in him though.

Unless there is any proof, a god (or a unicorn) must be based on belief alone.

God is real in the minds of humans.
Without humans, would God exist? We also made him in our image, not the other way around. The idea that he made us in his image is just too convenient imo.

And if you say he had to exist because of creation, then who created him?
And if you say God can simply exist on his own without a creator then so can the universe

Yes, all of us.

I answered every one of your questions. Perhaps you don't agree with my answers, but that doesn't mean I didn't answer your questions. Please don't insult me, or direct me to read more so I understand 'what intelligence is' . Honestly, you seem rather defensive and a bit aggressive. I am have a Masters in Theology, a PGCE and a Masters in Education from Cambridge. I mention.this only because you seem to imply I am ignorant and unable to understand what you are saying. I am just putting across an alternative view. I am perfectly capable of interpretation and of expressing an argument. You have mocked my choice of language rather unkindly. ("I hold a cup of tea?!") It is perfectly standard English to use the term 'hold' when it comes to a philosophical or legal position, or indeed and opinion.You ask me to "look up what the word means before you start arguing about it" which is both patronising and indicative of someone who seems totally unaware of debates which rely on interpretation and semantics.
You asked me what "I would include in a test of intelligence" I pointed out that I didn't think an intelligence test was useful but I did give some areas of knowledge which I think are valuable and not considered in an IQ test but which are useful when looking at the idea of intelligence. I also told you you would not agree with me, because you understand logic/IQ to be synonymous with intelligence. You tell me you do not, and yet you say that IQ tests, which are indisputably formed of a series of tests for Western rationalistic skill, is enough to verify intelligence per se.
You have cited results of studies using IQ as adequate to determine 'as fact' that religious people are likely to be less intelligent than non religious people. I am entitled to point out the limitations of those studies. I am also entitled to point out that there are many definitions of intelligence, without being attacked.
You try to find holes in my argument by saying I wish to expand the idea of IQ. I do not. I want to use a broader understanding of knowledge/intelligence and experience to talk sensibly about themes which are not quantifyable like faith. I think you would do well to consider how offensive your posts are in their tone. I may not agree with you, but I do engage with your opinion, and I have not resorted to personal insults or sarcastic digs. Best wishes.

All of our clergy have doctorates in Theology from Oxford and Cambridge. They're also all university professors at the RG university in our city. Another one is a consultant oncologist. They're certainly not what I would call dim 😂

Love of Christ is subjective. You can't explain it to someone just as you can't explain the love you have for your husband, wife, mother, child etc.

Christ came to deliver the message that we should love one another as He loved us and to treat others as we would like to be treated. To extend the hand of friendship towards our enemies, to forgive others, not to be greedy, to seek peace and practise humility and not follow the shallow and often damaging influences in the world.

What's not to love? 😃🙏🏻🕊️

Love of Christ is subjective. You can't explain it to someone just as you can't explain the love you have for your husband, wife, mother, child etc.

Christ came to deliver the message that we should love one another as He loved us and to treat others as we would like to be treated. To extend the hand of friendship towards our enemies, to forgive others, not to be greedy, to seek peace and practise humility and not follow the shallow and often damaging influences in the world.

Loving someone who did all of those things would be fairly natural, I suppose, and pretty easy to explain. But there's not conclusive proof that he did those things, and there's absolutely zero proof, even if he did exist and preach good things, that he was the son of a deity.

What about the vengeful God "an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth" etc?

I'm a Christian, I follow the New Testament.

Not the old testament? God had a different personality in the old testament didn't He?

I'm not inclined to believe that He didn't exist. Some things have to be taken on faith as to who He said He was/is. I take other things on faith in my life and this is one of them.

It's akin to shooting fish in a barrel asking Christians to provide 'proof' and everyone here knows it of course so we just end up in circular arguments. I tried being an atheist once and found it a hollow and miserable experience, so have chosen to follow Christ. Everyone follows something whether it's the scientific process, money, their work or family, sex, money, alcohol, their hobby, the list is endless. I just happen to follow Christ.

Of course I accept that we're more sophisticated now and that believing in imaginary beings isn't quite the ticket and we have things all figured out.

So why are we still fighting, hating, bullying, beating up teachers, oppressing poor and sick people, killing each other and hoarding wealth for ourselves? We don't have that figured out yet or are trying to stop it.

Everyone follows something whether it's the scientific process, money, their work or family, sex, money, alcohol, their hobby, the list is endless.

I completely disagree with that statement.

We, like all other species, were not born to "follow" anything