I like the note on monogamy. Single guys should advertise that they are atheist, liberal, and smart to attract the ladyfolk.

I have my doubts. From my experience most atheists have a huge amount of faith in ideas such as the big bang theory which almost none of them understand in the slightest. How this is any different to theists blindly following religious doctrine I fail to understand. In short, generally speaking everyone's as thick as each other :)

Hmm.... So Octavious, you are equating faith in (to atheists anyway) a mythical being to faith in, say, gravity? In order to be intelligent, I need to have a degree in physics so I fully understand the gravity of gravity?

Not at all. I am merely stating that many of those that have given up on faith in a superior spiritual being on the grounds that there is no evidence for it other than a lot of men with beards say He exists, have instead turned their faith to scientific theory due, not to their own observations or experiments, but because a lot of men (often, again, with beards) say it's true. I am saying that having faith in popular scientific theory that you don't understand is no more intelligent than having faith in popular gods.

Gravity is another matter entirely. I would say you need far more than a physics degree to understand the gravity of gravity. Understanding that a magic force pulls you down, however, is perfectly sensible and useful for most people.

"Faith" in science is not at all the same as faith in religion. The basis of science is the scientific method, which creates testable hypotheses. Successful experiments have repeatable results that can and are checked again and again by members of the scientific community until a consensus is formed.

Although advanced physics can be difficult to understand because much of it occurs on a scale either much too large or much too small for us to easily grasp, there certainly are testable experiments that come out of those theories that you could do in your living room and see the results for yourself (just think back to physics lab in college).

I think a lot of the problems with science education here in the US have to do with people who don't see the difference between the scientific method and "this book is true because this book says it's true." The latter is clearly a serious logical fallacy.

Also, the most interesting thing about that study was not that "atheists are smarter," which is what is getting all the press. In my opinion, the really interesting part is this idea that there was significant selective pressure to create a trait in the human population that allowed us to behave in evolutionary novel ways. In other words, we adapted to be incredibly adaptable and act in ways that may be counter to current selective pressures instead of being ruled solely by the environment we lived in. This is why we have spread to all 7 continents (not sure if anyone lives in Antartica year round, but hey, even the ants know better than to live in Antartica) and are, arguably, the most successful species on the planet.

It is exactly the same. I am not talking about scientists who use the scientific method to go about understand the universe, or indeed the thoughful person who, for example, conducts experiments in his shed to further understand his garden (these people are often made up of theists as well as atheists). I am talking about the vast majority of atheists who wouldn't know a scientific method if it danced naked in front of them holding a 20 ft neon sign saying "I am a scientific method". The great masses of random scientific theory believers who only believe because they think it's the right thing to believe. (slight overuse of the word "believe", but I'm too focused on the rugby to bother changing it :p)

@snorry, weird combination: liberal, vegetarian and atheist, wow

agreed, i am liberal and am an atheist, but i like me some good beef

Beef is delicious.

@Octavios - I guess I just don't know any athiests like that. All the athiests I know are pretty thoughtful about the universe and lean towards the "armchair scientist" persuasion.

No matter what, you will always need some amount of faith to believe in either the big bang or evolution as a whole, just like a person would ned faith to believe that God created the world. Neither can be scientifically proven or repeated, and so all that you can do is amass evidence for or against it. NO matter what, you're still using "faith".

but, what does "evidence" mean? however the vary word "faith" is also problematic. a radically esceptic point of view would be: "the world doesn't exist". but i'm not sure it's just a matter of "faith" to accept the very existence of the world

well actually it is. The entire world could theoretically just be inside our heads (MY head). But my point is that anything which cannot be repeated and "scientifically proven" requires that you have faith in it. I can prove the electricity exists by running volts through someone, and then by using those same wires to generate power for a lamp (If i only tested it on a person they might have just had a random spazzing episode). Certain things which are scientifically true can be proved. Ironically, the one thing which cannot be proved to exist is the very universe that we live in. haha

no jmann, the only reality that exists does so within my mental sphere, you are but an illusion (don't think i'm not kidding)

@Nosho. That would be because you are one of those fortunate people who move in circles filled with thoughtful people. I would make a guess that many thiests you know are also pretty thoughtful. I, however, come from a part of the world where, when people heard I was an astrophysicist, asked me such deep questions as "So... Jupiter... you really believe it exists, do you?".

As it happens that person was an athiest, but that is not really important. I have seen no correlation whatsoever between a person's belief or lack of belief in a god and their intelligence and thoughtfulness.

Funnily enough you'd be amazed by how many astrophysicists believe in God. In my experience the religious of us are in the majority. Sometimes I feel I'm missing out... but only sometimes.

Maybe
But are athiests happier? That's the key question.

We all believe in "assumed truths." Assumed truths meaning beliefs, doctrine, or just pieces of information we learned from people who don't know what they're talking about.

Gravity is actually a good example, actually. Scientists have done experiments, produced theories, and everything necessary to make a law out of it. I have not done these things. I have learned the basic laws of gravity and even have been taught some at the particle level, but I do not clearly understand it. Even worse, I haven't tested what I assume to be true. In fact, I'd say 99.9999% of people haven't tested the laws of gravity for themselves.

How are we supposed to know that their tests are accurate?

How do we know they didn't skew the results to fit their theory?

How do we know that the test results haven't been misinterpreted by the few that have done them?

There are a lot of ways to explain gravity and some would be believable to someone who hasn't heard the current law. Likewise, I'm sure there is more than one way to explain the results scientists have got concerning the laws of gravity. Although, gravity has been tested countless times, giving it a strong case to being correct. BUT, there is always the possibility and always the faith that gravity is the way we think it is.
I'm skeptical of believing everything I hear in Chemistry class. I know my teacher thinks he's teaching us scientific truths, but are they? He hasn't done experiments on a particle level himself to know for certain. He just goes by the book he's given that scientists have brought together. Chemistry is a new science with lots of untruthful information out there. I'm just putting faith that what I learn is correct, whether it's correct or not.

i just have a quick question that i've asked people before but got no where.

but isn't being atheist similar to religion? it seems as if even though you don't believe in a religion/ denounce it you are still believing in something even if it is that there is nothing as far as a greater being

probably could have worded that better, and to clarify i am religious but i don't care if you are atheist or anything else i'm not going to judge you based on religion or lack there of.

akilies, i'm not sure (i'm not atheist), but i think it depends of what you understand as "atheist".
for certain kind of "atheism", for instance, i'd say that it's infact similar to religion in that both things make attempts to explain our reality

Gravity has been tested countless times, and somewhat disturbingly has given slightly different answers. As constants go the gravitation constant is one of the hardest to pin down, which has deeply upset scientists everywhere. It could be that the gravitational constant is not a constant at all but varies in a way that will have a profound impact on our understanding of the universe, or it could be that most scientists are lazy sods who can't be arsed to calculate their errors properly. As far as to how gravity works in the first place, there is some popular talk about things like gravitons to make it sound like we have some idea of what's going on, but to be honest we just don't know.

Not that it matters, of course. I don't know of any religion that denies the existance of gravity :p

Ok, as a left leaning moderate agnostic, I've got to say this is stupid - we're talking 6 to 11 , which is within the standard deviation. It's also irrelevant: saying {group x} is {quality} than {group y} is ultimately meaningless, as you don't deal with groups, you deal with individuals. and I've met some brilliant theists, and some fucking moronic athiest vegan liberals.

how do you quantify happiness? I'm pretty damn happy, actually, I could argue that I'm the happiest person in the world, I'm in love, and I'm an atheist. That argument is crap,sir, pure crap!

+1 stratagos

@ zaza- there is a huge difference between something logical and something irrational, that's the difference. either way if there is a scientific or religous conspiracy we're all fucked.

(specially cos of the "you don't deal with groups, you deal with individuals")

Octavious has a point about faith being necessary to be an atheist. This is why I am an "strong agnostic."

However at least with ignorant atheists, they are capable of committing some time to better understanding things like gravity and the big bang, whereas you know as much about the Genesis creation today as you did when you heard it as a toddler.

So I mean.. it's not quite the same but the point is there: that many atheists are in fact ignorant and stupid, just as much as some theists are.

Stratagos is right. Many many theists are brilliant just as many atheists literally don't have their head screwed on right.

Media hype on statistical studies = hype

hype = equals garbage.

lol also this:

right beneath the picture of the chalkboard, this:

"The IQ differences are statistically significant, but experts say the data shouldn't be used to stereotype or make assumptions."

word