The differences between religious and non-religious brains.

[Punk Hazard]

Yes it is the only driver, all the knowledge in the world is useless if you don't take action and emotion drives action.

And what good will all the emotion in the world do you if you have no knowledge at your disposal? Remove Gates' intelligence and any intelligence at his disposal, do you think he'd have developed Microsoft still?

 

[Le0]

A brain is still a brain z.z

Yes, but the content are not the same.
An average religious individual's brain are not the same as an average atheistic individual's brain.
For example, let's use evolution. A brain controlled by a religion would not accept it regardless the amount of evidence provided - their mind would constantly create an excuse after another to push that idea away. As for atheistic mind, anything that opposes religions can be considered.
You need to either be a former atheist or knowledgeable in science to understand an atheistic mind.

So, brain is still a brain but the content aren't the same.

I'd like to ask a question if being religious holds your mind back, how was bill gates able to become the wealthiest man on the planet if catholic background held back his empathetic thinking?

Intelligence is intelligence.

 

[Hawker]

^^Just wanted to drop that in. Hawker's thread doesn't represent the actual opinion of the people who did the study. Not saying there's anything wrong with Hawker's opinion of course. Just helping you guys get a full picture. The actual source puts the researcher's beliefs into perspective quite well

Yeah I read that too, but the reason I didn't put it into op is, because in the article there wasn't any mention of them being actually religious or just part of a religion. The start of the article clearly asserts: "belief in supernatural".

I'd like to also point out that 90% of the members of American National Academy of Sciences are non-religious.

 

[Yubel]

And what good will all the emotion in the world do you if you have no knowledge at your disposal? Remove Gates' intelligence and any intelligence at his disposal, do you think he'd have developed Microsoft still?

As I said, emotion drives action. You can get knowledge, I'm sure there was alot of trial and error on Bill Gates part. What drove him through everything was emotion.

 

[Edogawa]

A study is there to examine. It doesn't translate to a fact, that's number one.

Now that I have looked more into this study, I found interesting I want to quote about atheists. This is what it says about atheists:

''Atheists, the researchers found, are most closely aligned with psychopaths--not killers, but the vast majority of psychopaths classified as such due to their lack of empathy for others.''

Either way, this study is irrelevant. All one has to look at is the historical civilisations who invented the human moral thoughts, governing system and technology we have; guess who these civilisations were? Religious civilisations. But there is no documented atheist civilisation, as far as I'm concerned, so that speaks atheist intelligence.

 

[Osmon]

Yes, but the content are not the same.
An average religious individual's brain are not the same as an average atheistic individual's brain.
For example, let's use evolution. A brain controlled by a religion would not accept it regardless the amount of evidence provided - their mind would constantly create an excuse after another to push that idea away. As for atheistic mind, anything that opposes religions can be considered.
You need to either be a former atheist or knowledgeable in science to understand an atheistic mind.

So, brain is still a brain but the content aren't the same.



Intelligence is intelligence.

Alright so I'm a muslim and you're an atheist and that makes you smarter than me by default ? Lmao gtfoh

 

[Punk Hazard]

As I said, emotion drives action. You can get knowledge, I'm sure there was alot of trial and error on Bill Gates part. What drove him through everything was emotion.

Answer the question.

 

[Hawker]

A study is there to examine. It doesn't translate to a fact, that's number one.

Now that I have looked more into this study, I found interesting I want to quote about atheists. This is what it says about atheists:

''Atheists, the researchers found, are most closely aligned with psychopaths--not killers, but the vast majority of psychopaths classified as such due to their lack of empathy for others.''

Either way, this study is irrelevant. All one has to look at is the historical civilisations who invented the human moral thoughts, governing system and technology we have; guess who these civilisations were? Religious civilisations. But there is no documented atheist civilisation, as far as I'm concerned, so that speaks atheist intelligence.

Please provide an example if you think religion has ever answered anything of significanse.

Ofcourse atheists are more near a psychopath than a goofy hippie.

Bolded:

1. Human moral thoughts you say? Like killing for apostasy, stoning women for adultery or murdering homosexuals?

Also religion is connected to racism and intolerance:

"There is a positive correlation between the degree of involvement with religion and intolerant and prejudiced opinion. Because religiosity has been found to correlate with increased racial prejudice, intolerance of non-conformists, and a punitive rather than forgiving attitude. 34 of 44 findings, from 36 studies conducted between 1940 and 1975, suggest a positive relationship between intolerance and involvement in religion, with only 2 of these 44 findings bucking this trend (See Batson, C. Daniel in Religion, Intolerance and Conflict: A Scientific and Conceptual Investigation, edited by Steve Clarke, 2013) The best predictor of religiosity is income inequality, EUA is an example. Religious commitment in the United States is highly correlated with racism too. This should abolish the ever present claim that religion is the most important warrant of morality.(See Why don't we practice what we preach? A meta-analytic review of religious racism. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14 (1), 126–139)"

2. Please provide an example of a technology that religion invented? And also please explain why religious societies back then didn't invent stuff the now 90% non religious science community in U.S is now inventing?

European countries were almost all 100% religious from the Middle-Ages till the times of reformations. Why? Because they didn't know of better. 500 years ago they couldn't explain how world came into being, why some have blue eyes and some brown, why are there diseases etc. But we do know of them now? Why ? Because of science. NOT because of religion. Saying that religious societies invented things is not a valid argument because religion didn't have any part of it, and at the time it was a norm to be religious. Otherwise you would've been a freak and in worst cases you would have been persecuted. So being religious back then didn't mean the same thing as it does now. Now we have more ways of understanding the world.

So this study most definitely isn't irrelevant, it is religion that was irrelevant in the past and in the progress of humanity.

 

[Yubel]

Answer the question.

I already did, I don't feel like repeating myself.

 

[Punk Hazard]

I already did, I don't feel like repeating myself.

Except you didn't. Remove all intelligence from Gates' disposal and give him only emotion, would Microsoft have still been made by him. The answer is either yes or no.

 

[Hawker]

Alright so I'm a muslim and you're an atheist and that makes you smarter than me by default ? Lmao gtfoh

Yes it does. That should be self evident.

 

[Yubel]

Except you didn't. Remove all intelligence from Gates' disposal and give him only emotion, would Microsoft have still been made by him. The answer is either yes or no.

Except that has nothing to do with what I'm arguing about.
Stop the red herring.

 

[Punk Hazard]

Except that has nothing to do with what I'm arguing about.
Stop the red herring.

Yes it does. You said emotion is the only thing that fueled the creation of Microsoft. Which implies that intelligence played no role.

 

[Pumpkin Ninja]

It is in a way, but I don't see it as bad as if you surpress your analytical thinking. It's also a studied fact that narcissists who lack empathy are the best leaders.

Lel, correlation doesn't equal causation. I agree with OP but not this.

Yes it does. That should be self evident.

Tell that to the Father of Optics or Newton. This is why nobody takes you seriously. You just said that they have to suppress their analytical abilty, not that the analytical ability isn't there. So if someone was 'indoctrinated or too empathetic', you're automatically more intelligent?

 

[Yubel]

Yes it does. You said emotion is the only thing that fueled the creation of Microsoft. Which implies that intelligence played no role.

Intelligence only plays a role because of emotion.

 

[UchiGod Itachi]

Read Yubel's post very carefully and do the same for mine, please.

I meant it as a business point of view not software making only, you need to take into account the over all concept of his success. Yes your right the correlation of him having empathy/feelings doesn't exactly mean it's directly linked to his success but neither is analytical thinking. It's just strange that you didn't reference that also to hawker comment "Basically this article tells us that if you take emotions and indoctrination out of the picture, there wouldn't be any religions in the world" Pantheism(The belief in which one or many find the universe as divine) when he came to his own conclusion pantheism that isn't in indoctrination. Some scientist believe that emotional ties has a direct link to ones Consciousness that's the main factor of a person intelligence ,A person can not live without his/her emotional connection to this world that's some voodoo science.

 

[Troyg39]

Yeah I read that too, but the reason I didn't put it into op is, because in the article there wasn't any mention of them being actually religious or just part of a religion. The start of the article clearly asserts: "belief in supernatural".

I'd like to also point out that 90% of the members of American National Academy of Sciences are non-religious.

?? I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say here.

I know why you didn't put it in the OP..it had nothing to do with your take on the study. What I posted was their interpretation you just had a different one. Nothing wrong with that. As far as the next part, again I'm not really sure what exactly you're trying to say or how it fits into the point you were trying to make.

Also you do know the the organization you mentioned represents a very small portion of scientists in the US correct? The American Association for the Advancement of Science is a much larger scientific organization (I think the largest) and cited about half of their members as believing either in a God or some higher form of power.

Indoctrination works both ways. That's why so many people tend to think "atheism" and "science" fit hand and glove when in truth they don't anymore than "science" and "religion". A good atheist believes there is no God or higher being without question, similar to a person of religion believing in the opposite. A good scientist, however, will not enter into one extreme over the other, because their belief system is to question, until proven. Not to question until they feel they have enough evidence to make their point. But to test theories over and over until they get a definitive answer. To accept any idea as fact without definitive proof is contradictory to scientific process.

 

[CrimsonReaper]

Just because people have faith in god and want to believe their life has a meaning doesn't give you the right to deem them as any less intelligent than you, grow up.

 

[ComplexCity]

Yes it does. That should be self evident.

Why are you such a hypocritical bigot?

Lel, correlation doesn't equal causation. I agree with OP but not this.



Tell that to the Father of Optics or Newton. This is why nobody takes you seriously. You just said that they have to suppress their analytical abilty, not that the analytical ability isn't there. So if someone was 'indoctrinated or too empathetic', you're automatically more intelligent?

Not only are you arrogant but you're dumb af.

Was finna get into a debate. But he already answered

 

[ComplexCity]

Also taking this from the article

The authors concluded by saying that understanding the interaction between these two ways of thinking could enrich both.



The fact that you claim that atheist and more intelligent and competent then religious folk is a flaw in itself