well, i would wager anyone who intellectually identifies with a certain philosophical position is of above average intelligence. the reason why the majority of the self-identified religious are rather dull is because they identify non-critically, as a matter of birth, which generally isn't an option for atheists (so far). however, i bet if you restricted your examination of religious people to those who consciously take a side in the controversies of their traditions (e.g., those who identify as baptists and have reasoned arguments why it is better to be a baptist than, say, a methodist), or those who actively engage in debate with other traditions (i.e. those who bother to look into the opposing arguments before producing a counter-argument), or especially those who either change positions within their traditions or change traditions entirely for intellectual reasons (baptist to methodist, christian to jew), then you'd find the intelligence numbers between the atheists and the religious tally up a bit more evenly.

Interesting. The "critically and non-critically" observation of the human is important. Most people who follow a religion are not critical of the religion. They follow it blindly. Kneel. Stand. Chant. I remember that from my stint being in my family of Catholics. I would go to church with my family and when I was really small I was allowed to sit while others stood or knelt. I remember there was a time when my mom and dad forced me to start doing those things because I was tall enough. When I reached a certain age where I could speak out for myself I finally asked "Why?"

It was the beginning of the end for religion with me. I was critical of the dogma and kept asking questions which other people in my family would instead respond "That's just the way it is" or "Because the priest/church/pope said so". I believe this is why so many people look away from the child molestation cases of the Catholic church. They aren't critical of the churches authority. They don't challenge it vs their morals (which they have none).

I remember going to this 'youth bible study' and the leader of the group wasn't much older than me. We were all sitting around in a circle talking about the bible when several of us started to ask questions about the bible's stories. We were critical of the subject and kept asking "Why?". The leader of the group was stumped and the entire session fell apart. We were all laughing and out of control. I believe I eventually walked out of the group and went out front to wait for my ride home.

If more people were critical of what they have been taught, if they would "kill the buddha" then the world might be a better place to live.

 

 

There is not, PERIOD!

I have seen EVERY religion wordwide including Buddhist, pull this crap.

When they cannot flat out point to their writtings, they do 1 of two things, they try to debunk science and when they cant do that they try to co opt sceince.

Buddhism is not a universal science class. The laws of thermodynamics are taught in science classes without any religion at all being mixed into those science classes.

 

Now please do not bring up woo bullshit. Our species is still far older than even Buddhism. 

I don't like it when Christians point to Aquinus. I don't like it when Muslims point to algebra. So please explain to me why I should treat Buddhism any differently?

Buddhism is a religion, just like any other, it is not a scientific method.

All you have to do to know every religion pulls this crap is to do a simple google search.

"Buddhist science"

"Muslim science"

"Christian science"

"Jewish science"

"Hindu science"

 

You do that for each and you will find out that all of them try to co opt science. 

 

Our species ability to be curious and make discoveries it from evolution, not labels. Yes religous people can accept science and make discoveries, but it is NOT the religion doing that, it is our evolution doing it.

We know other primates use tools, like sticks to poke termite hills to get them out of the mound for food.

If your logic worked then the Greek polytheistic gods were correct because they were the society that coined the word "atom".

You know that is nonsense, because the word "atom" back then did not have the modern meaning science uses now.

Even Victor Stenger in "The New Atheism" takes issue, not only with the big three monotheism, but also Buddhism. 

Now if anyone had anything they could beat all the other religions to the patent office and win a nobel prize.

Scientific method is not a religion, it is a neutral tool, and while the religious can and do accept science, it is still NEUTRAL, and is not there to point to any club or any writing. 

Nope sorry, in 13.8 billion year old universe, I put all religions in the same camp, nothing but products of human's imaginations. When anyone of any religious label tries to use science to point to their club, it is simply a horrible attempt to retrofit after the fact. 

 

 

 

Aheists tend to do their own thinking and crutinize the information. Governments and religions (same thing to us Old Seers) do the thinking for thier followers. According to Vastet, logic has to come into play, I agree. No need for logic if one lets the determinations to others. Blind belief stumps the use on intellect. Governments create their own circle of logic. If government invents momey it's only logical to use money---or one will starve if money is the only way.

 

I agree with this assessment. Would you consider Gregor Mendel a religious scholar or a religious scientist?

(edit) never mind. I did a little reading on Mendel and he is no scholar, but was an interesting review of his studies.

I've never heard of the guy.

In relation to what others have said, I think it is important to have critical thinking. The key is to be critical of the subject. To challenge it. To rip it apart. To study it.

This is why religion doesn't work for me any more. I've been critical of it and it failed all possible tests.