zeezrom wrote:Atheists have to work harder for everything because they are on their own. Are atheists harder workers?
I think going from the emotional cocoon of religious belief into the 'brave new world' of emotional self-reliance, as you have recently Zeez, is both disconcerting emotionally and brave. Many of those that have never left the believing camp into which they found themselves probably have remained where they are to cling to the comfort of the well known.
I do appreciate the 'harder' aspect, but be assured that as you become more emotionally self-reliant, not only will you regain that emotional homeostasis you once found comfortable, but you will continue to grow beyond that into a much bolder, self-assured individual. It comes from self-reliance.
I've never seen Mormon slanged into Mowerman in writing, maybe phonetically dragged out like that but not in print.
I was inspired by a bus I once saw in Gouda which had the word Moorman on the side. I thought I'd play on it further for the sake of silliness.
By the way, my argument is valid, NOT sound and not circular. The problem is the disputed premise, P1. I never attempted to prove P1 nor did your initial question ask me to. Even though we both know that's what you had in mind, I thought it would be funnier the way I did it. At least Buffalo laughed.
Explaining jokes ruins them. Bleh.
ETA: valid and NOT in front of sound.
Oh, I got it all the first time, except for the C. Sorry to ruin the joke by asking for an explanation.
As to the disputed premise, you're right. That is what I wanted, or at least to know how you got to it. I find that the route others have taken, whether they arrive at my conclusion or another to be much more interesting than the scorecard of how many arrived at the various conclusions. And you were too slippery to indulge me with an explanation of yours today. Maybe tomorrow. Hope springs eternal. It is a sickness with us humans, you know.
But seriously, you are holding those cards awefully close to the vest. I suspect there is at least one face card in your hand. Now, you're the cat lover so don't string out my curiosity too long.
maklelan wrote:A few different studies have shown atheists on average have slightly higher IQs than members of religious groups, and that's not surprising. Most atheists thought their way out of religion, while many religious folks didn't think their way into it, but inherited it or were persuaded by experiences. This is also why atheists scored higher than most religious groups in that Pew survey about religious knowledge. Most atheists have thought long and hard about things that the average believer has not.
I wonder if having a higher IQ makes one less likely to convert from atheism into a religion. Hopefully without coming across as too immodest, I've always been an atheist and am fairly bright. I have no problem seeing how my intelligence may have played a role in not converting to a religion. I only offer myself as an anecdote to suggest the possibility of another directional effect.
More abstractly, I know there is solid research that indicates people who have extensive exposure to natural explanations for phenomenon before the age of 10-11 are notably less likely to engage in divine teleological reasoning for a range of phenomena in older years. (Before that age, all children regardless of education are highly prone to teleological explanation.) And one of the single most popular self-described reasons for belief in God are design arguments. It's possible that higher IQ relates to exposure science education, which in turn could affect belief rates as adults. Of course, one would expect nonreligious children to get more exposure to scientific explanations for natural phenomena, and it would be no surprise that nonreligious children are more likely to grow up nonreligious. You'd have to control for some confounds to make anything of that idea.
