People with higher IQ 'Less Likely to Believe in God' (2 Viewers)

[Enteebee]

I agree - by logic it is likely that God(s) are non existent. However, there are benefits in having religion, and belief in God is in fact helpful to many (despite being a form of blindness): as Voltaire points out:"if God didn't esist it would be necessary to invent him".

Sure, there are benefits... Would you want to live a lie if it made you happier?

 

[melanieeeee.]

there are a few things wrong with the research imo.
1. they have only taken a sample from one subgroup of intelligent people. i.e. the sample of the royal society fellows doesn't take into consideration other intelligent people and it bases its survey on similarity, location and personal selection. all of which should be avoided if taking proper research.
2. royal society is an institute for the academy of sciences. this creates biased in the data selected.
3.there may have been sampling error (random differences from sample to sample) and measurement errors (bad or leading questions)
4. there is signs through the wording of the article that it is biased.

therefore imo the conclusion of the study i.e. People with higher IQ 'Less Likely to Believe in God' is inaccurate. however i think it would be fair to say that people who are a member of science societies are less likely to believe in god.

 

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

Niggers more likely to eat watermelon and kfc

Asians are bad drivers
WE KNOW THESE THINGS ALREADY

 

[melanieeeee.]

Description of Hasty Generalization

This fallacy is committed when a person draws a conclusion about a population based on a sample that is not large enough. It has the following form:

1. Sample S, which is too small, is taken from population P.
2. Conclusion C is drawn about Population P based on S.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/hasty-generalization.html

 

[theism]

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]i think this is worthwhile reading.

Many people think that if they place their faith in Christ, they will have to commit intellectual suicide. They don't realize that Christ died to take away their sins, not their brains. Christians don't deposit their brains at the coat-check window and pick them back up on their way to heaven.

You can go to two extremes when it comes to the subjects of faith and reason.The first is to say that faith needs no reason: we just trust God without reservation then leap off the high board into the dark. But the fact is that Christianity does have a basis in history and in logic. There is evidence that Jesus was an actual historical person. The New Testament writings,the writings of Josephus and other first-century historians document this.

The second extreme is to say that if an idea is not logical, if it has no basis in rational thinking, then it has no place in my belief system. If you follow that thinking to its conclusion, then you have to throw out a lot of the miracles and healings in Scripture since logically people do not rise from the dead, logically the crust of leprosy does not fall off the body of its victim at the touch of a hand, and legs crippled for nearly forty years do not unhinge and become new because someone tells them to get up.

This is the balance people need to keep in mind when they say they are too rational to have faith, when they say they won't believe in something unless they can see it. Some have even said, "Cliffe, I wish I had your faith."Sometimes people mean this sincerely, but often they really mean, "Cliffe, I cannot be so stupid, so intellectually naive to believe all the superstition and garbage about God that you've apparently swallowed." In a way that issue is moot. All of us believe in things we can't see. All of us place our trust in things that are not plainly evident. We believe in team spirit, patriotism, love, and goodness. Although we can't reach out and grasp any of these values, and though we so often see them misused and flaunted for selfish gain, we still believe they exist and often believe they have value.

Every one of us has faith. Every one of us believes in someone or something that gives us direction in life, that gives us security. Peter Schaeffer wrote a play titled Equus. In the play a young boy begins to worship a picture of Jesus hanging over his bed. The boy's father, who is a devout atheist, rips the picture off the wall and replaces it with a photograph of a horse. The young boy, needing meaning and purpose, begins to worship the picture of the horse. The father gets more upset and sends the boy to a psychiatrist to have this fixation removed.

As the psychiatrist begins talking to the boy, he gains some understanding that was not apparent to the father. The boy does not have a fixation on Christ or a fixation on horses; the psychiatrist realizes that the picture gives the boy meaning, purpose and direction.

Schaeffer's point is clear. Whatever motivates us defines who we are. Live for pleasure-you are a hedonist. Live to amass wealth-you are a materialist. Live for personal happiness and fulfillment-you are a narcissist. Live to pursue knowledge-you are a rationalist.

The British writer G. K Chesterton said that when a person stops believing in God, he does not believe in nothing. He will believe in anything.

The question I put to those who tell me they won't believe unless it's rational is, "What is the object of your faith? Whom do you trust?" If the object of your faith is not trustworthy, it is not reliable. Real faith in something or someone that is trustworthy is not blind. Real faith will include the evidence to buttress it, and personal commitment. The faith of a Christian is based on the trustworthiness of Jesus Christ. Jesus stated, "The Son of man did not come to be served, but to serve,and to give his life as a ransom for many" (Mt 20:28). Jesus gave us the evidence to back up his words; he consistently assumed the posture of a servant. Even at the very end of his public ministry, on the very night he was betrayed, he assumed the posture of the lowliest servant and washed his disciples' feet.

One day Peter asked Jesus, " 'Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?' Jesus answered,'I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times' " (Mt 18:21-22).He spoke of complete and utter forgiveness.

Jesus gave us the evidence to back up his words. As he was bleeding and dying on the cross, his enemies taunted him. His response? He prayed, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." He proved his trustworthiness; he proved his evidence was sound, and he asks us to trust him on the basis of that evidence.

A few people carry their inquiry even further. They say, "I must know absolutely that Christ alone is the truth before I can believe in him."This can be intellectual arrogance carried to an extreme. It requires that God give enough evidence of his existence to satisfy an insatiable intellect.This kind of arrogance demands that God meet every one of my requirements before I believe in him.

Suppose I demanded that my wife, Sharon, risk her life for me repeatedly to prove her love for me. Once would never be enough. The insatiability of my desire to know absolutely would be cruel manipulation, not intellectual integrity.

Yet many of us do exactly the same thing with God. We continually deny his past trustworthiness and say, "Now, what have you done for me lately?"This kind of wheeling and dealing is not intellectual prowess. It is cowardly manipulation. It also separates the proud from the humble. The proud say,"God, you meet these requirements, then I'll decide whether or not I want to believe in you." The humble person will look for evidence, discover it, and trust that if God was true to his word yesterday, he will be true to it today.
Confronting what I feel is intellectual dishonesty is never easy. It means having the discernment to know whether or not the intellectual arguments people offer are sincere. All of us need help in this area. If I confess my own intellectual and moral insincerity before God, I will be one step closer to being the kind of authentic witness God wants me to be.

[/FONT]

 

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

Hahahahahaah that article is the biggest load of shit I've ever read

"We all believe in patriotism": Patriotism is a stain on humanity

"We can't understand love, goodness, etc?" Yeah we're going to ascribe non-tangible status to chemical and social processes.

 

[theism]

Hahahahahaah that article is the biggest load of shit I've ever read

"We all believe in patriotism": Patriotism is a stain on humanity


"We can't understand love, goodness, etc?" Yeah we're going to ascribe non-tangible status to chemical and social processes.

what?
so your not proud to be an australian?
its a stain on humanity to be proud of being an austalian?

we can't understand those values.
we just see them fit.

 

[melanieeeee.]

P.S. Einstein strongly questioned the existence of God and did not believe in organised religion.

although einstein never came to belief in a personal god, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe.

 

[Enteebee]

meh once u start speaking of non-personal gods it seems like you could just be speaking of unknown realms of physics.

 

[u-borat]

that is a valid point.

 

[melanieeeee.]

meh once u start speaking of non-personal gods it seems like you could just be speaking of unknown realms of physics.

other scientists that had faith:
Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627)
Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)
Max Planck (1858-1947)

 

[Enteebee]

other scientists that had faith:
Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627)
Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)
Max Planck (1858-1947)

A lot of them were also probably racists... the point is we look at their arguments. Also, please note that most of these guys came before "On the origin of species", which certainly made it far easier to be an atheist.

 

[melanieeeee.]

Isaac Newton (1642-1727) "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being."

Cosmologist: "In all of these worlds statistically miraculous (but not impossible) events would be necessary to assemble and preserve the fragile nuclei that would ordinarily be destroyed by the higher temperatures. However, although each of the corresponding histories is extremely unlikely, there are so many more of them than those that evolve without "miracles," that they would vastly dominate the livable universes that would be created by Poincare recurrences. We are forced to conclude that in a recurrent world like de Sitter space our universe would be extraordinarily unlikely."

 

[Enteebee]

Isaac Newton (1642-1727) "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being."

Cosmologist: "In all of these worlds statistically miraculous (but not impossible) events would be necessary to assemble and preserve the fragile nuclei that would ordinarily be destroyed by the higher temperatures. However, although each of the corresponding histories is extremely unlikely, there are so many more of them than those that evolve without "miracles," that they would vastly dominate the livable universes that would be created by Poincare recurrences. We are forced to conclude that in a recurrent world like de Sitter space our universe would be extraordinarily unlikely."

Yeah... they're poor arguments, imo.

 

[Enteebee]

Are you that retarded? How can you even properly double blind for this, unless the thesis is that more prayer works better than less? There are people all around the world praying for "the sick" to get better.

 

[melanieeeee.]

Experiment on Prayers

A Report on the Papers:

1. "Positive Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer in a Coronary Care Unit Population"2
2. "A Randomized, Controlled Trial of the Effects of Remote, Intercessory Prayer on Outcomes in Patients Admitted to the Coronary Care Unit"3
3. Effects of remote, retroactive intercessory prayer on outcomes in patients with bloodstream infection: randomised controlled trial.4

1. "Positive Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer in a Coronary Care Unit Population"

Methods

Cardiac patients from the San Francisco General Medical Center were randomly divided (using a computer-generated list) into two groups. The names of the patients in the "test" group were given to a group of Christians, who prayed for them while they were in the hospital. The intercessory prayer team members were chosen on the following basis:

1. Born again Christians on the basis of John 3:35
2. Led an active Christian life on the basis of
1. daily devotional prayer
2. fellowship in a local Christian church

The "placebo" group received no prayer. Neither the "test" nor the "placebo" group of patients knew if they were receiving prayer. Likewise, the hospital staff, doctors, or nurses were "blinded" since they did not know which patient belonged to which group.

Results

Statistics were acquired from the prayer and placebo groups both before and after prayer, until the patients were discharged from the hospital. There were no statistical differences between the placebo and the prayer groups before prayer was initiated. The results demonstrated that patients who were prayed for suffered "less congestive heart failure, required less diuretic and antibiotic therapy, had fewer episodes of pneumonia, had fewer cardiac arrests, and were less frequently intubated and ventilated." Statistics demonstrated the the prayer group had a statistically significantly lower severity score based upon the hospital course after entry (p < 0.01). Multivariate analysis of all the parameters measured demonstrated that the outcomes of the two groups were even more statistically significant (p < 0.0001). In science, the standard level of significance is when a "p value" is less than 0.05. A value of 0.01 means that the likelihood the result is because of chance is one in 100. A p value of 0.0001 indicates that in only one study out of 10,000 is the result likely to be due to chance. Table 2 from the study is reproduced below. The remarkable thing which one notices is that nearly every parameter measured is affected by prayer, although individually many categories do not reach the level of statistical significance due to sample size. However, multivariate analysis, which compares all parameters together produces a level of significance seldom reached in any scientific study (p < 0.0001). The author points out that the method used in this study does not produce the maximum effect of prayer, since the study could not control for the effect of outside prayer (i.e., it is likely many of the placebo group were prayed for by persons outside of the study). It is likely that a study which used only atheists (who had no Christian family or friends) would produce an even more dramatic result. However, since atheists make up only 1-2% of the population, it would be difficult to obtain a large enough sample size.

2. "A Randomized, Controlled Trial of the Effects of Remote, Intercessory Prayer on Outcomes in Patients Admitted to the Coronary Care Unit"
Methods

Cardiac patients from the CCU at the Mid America Heart Institute (MAHI), Kansas City, Mo, were randomly chosen and assigned to control or prayer groups. In this study, patients were not told about the prayer study and doctors did not know which patients were assigned to which groups. According to the paper, "The intercessors represented a variety of Christian traditions, with 35% listing their affiliations as nondenominational, 27% as Episcopalian, and the remainder as other Protestant groups or Roman Catholic. Unlike the Byrd study, the intercessors of the MAHI study were given no details about the medical conditions of the patients, but were only given their first name.

Results

The main table of results, reproduced from the study appears as Table 3 below. Because of the small sample size of each individual component, only one of the individual components reached statistical significance. However, the overall effect was statistically significant, with a P value of 0.04, meaning that the result was likely to occur by chance in only 1 out of 25 times the experiment was repeated.

* PTCA indicates percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty.
3. Effects of remote, retroactive intercessory prayer on outcomes in patients with bloodstream infection: randomised controlled trial.

This study involved 3393 patient subjects whose bloodstream infection was detected at the hospital from the years 1990�*1996. Remote, retroactive intercessory prayer was said for the well being and full recovery of the intervention group. Results were measured through mortality in hospital, length of stay in hospital, and duration of fever. Mortality was reduced in the intervention group (28.1%) compared to the control group (30.2%) although the difference did not reach statistical significance. However, length of stay in the hospital and duration of fever were significantly shorter in the intervention group than in the control group (P = 0.01 and P = 0.04, respectively). According to the author of the study:

"Remote, retroactive intercessory prayer said for a group is associated with a shorter stay in hospital and shorter duration of fever in patients with a bloodstream infection and should be considered for use in clinical practice."

Implications of the studies

Obviously, science has demonstrated in three separate studies the efficacy of Christian prayer in medical studies. There is no "scientific" (non-spiritual) explanation for the cause of the medical effects demonstrated in these studies. The only logical, but not testable, explanation is that God exists and answers the prayers of Christians. No other religion has succeeded in scientifically demonstrating that prayer to their God has any efficacy in healing. In fact, studies that have used intercessors from multiple religious backgrounds have failed to prove the efficacy of prayer.6 The Bible declares that Jesus Christ has power over life and death and sickness and is able to heal us, both physically7 and spiritually.8 He gave this power to His disciples and those who follow Him.9
2006 American Heart Journal study

A widely publicized study from 2006 failed to show the efficacy of intercessory prayer. However, the design of the latest study was somewhat unusual.10 The researchers used three patient groups. Two groups were advised of the study, but were not told whether they were in the prayer group or placebo group. The third group knew that they were being prayed for. The study was performed at six hospitals. Out of 3295 eligible patients, 1493 (45%) refused to participate, which is very high, although they did not explain the reasons for non-participation. The intercessors were composed of three groups. Two were Roman Catholic and one was a Protestant group (Silent Unity, Lee’s Summit, MO). Unlike in previous studies, the intercessors were not allowed to pray their own prayers. The prayers were given to them by the study coordinators to "standardize" the prayers. The discussion section of the paper suggested that at least some of the intercessors were dissatisfied with the canned nature of the prayers. In attempting to standardize prayer, I believe the study introduced a serious flaw, since most intercessors tend to pray as they are led by the Spirit, instead of praying prepared scripts. Jesus told His followers not to pray repetitiously, since God would not hear those kinds of prayers.11

Ultimately, the results showed that groups 1 (prayer) and 2 (no prayer) were identical, whereas group 3 (those who knew they were being prayed for) did worse than the other two groups. The lack of efficacy of intercessory prayer in this study could be due to theological problems with the study design.

 

[melanieeeee.]

Are you that retarded? How can you even properly double blind for this, unless the thesis is that more prayer works better than less? There are people all around the world praying for "the sick" to get better.

i dont get the point that you are making.

 

[nikolas]

So instead of thinking outside the box and realising that God is very possible, you have decided to believe that the universe was created from nothing.

Creationists Believe the universe was created from nothing.

 

[nikolas]

Experiment on Prayers

A Report on the Papers:

1. "Positive Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer in a Coronary Care Unit Population"2
2. "A Randomized, Controlled Trial of the Effects of Remote, Intercessory Prayer on Outcomes in Patients Admitted to the Coronary Care Unit"3
3. Effects of remote, retroactive intercessory prayer on outcomes in patients with bloodstream infection: randomised controlled trial.4

1. "Positive Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer in a Coronary Care Unit Population"

Methods

Cardiac patients from the San Francisco General Medical Center were randomly divided (using a computer-generated list) into two groups. The names of the patients in the "test" group were given to a group of Christians, who prayed for them while they were in the hospital. The intercessory prayer team members were chosen on the following basis:

1. Born again Christians on the basis of John 3:35
2. Led an active Christian life on the basis of
1. daily devotional prayer
2. fellowship in a local Christian church

The "placebo" group received no prayer. Neither the "test" nor the "placebo" group of patients knew if they were receiving prayer. Likewise, the hospital staff, doctors, or nurses were "blinded" since they did not know which patient belonged to which group.

Results

Statistics were acquired from the prayer and placebo groups both before and after prayer, until the patients were discharged from the hospital. There were no statistical differences between the placebo and the prayer groups before prayer was initiated. The results demonstrated that patients who were prayed for suffered "less congestive heart failure, required less diuretic and antibiotic therapy, had fewer episodes of pneumonia, had fewer cardiac arrests, and were less frequently intubated and ventilated." Statistics demonstrated the the prayer group had a statistically significantly lower severity score based upon the hospital course after entry (p < 0.01). Multivariate analysis of all the parameters measured demonstrated that the outcomes of the two groups were even more statistically significant (p < 0.0001). In science, the standard level of significance is when a "p value" is less than 0.05. A value of 0.01 means that the likelihood the result is because of chance is one in 100. A p value of 0.0001 indicates that in only one study out of 10,000 is the result likely to be due to chance. Table 2 from the study is reproduced below. The remarkable thing which one notices is that nearly every parameter measured is affected by prayer, although individually many categories do not reach the level of statistical significance due to sample size. However, multivariate analysis, which compares all parameters together produces a level of significance seldom reached in any scientific study (p < 0.0001). The author points out that the method used in this study does not produce the maximum effect of prayer, since the study could not control for the effect of outside prayer (i.e., it is likely many of the placebo group were prayed for by persons outside of the study). It is likely that a study which used only atheists (who had no Christian family or friends) would produce an even more dramatic result. However, since atheists make up only 1-2% of the population, it would be difficult to obtain a large enough sample size.

2. "A Randomized, Controlled Trial of the Effects of Remote, Intercessory Prayer on Outcomes in Patients Admitted to the Coronary Care Unit"
Methods

Cardiac patients from the CCU at the Mid America Heart Institute (MAHI), Kansas City, Mo, were randomly chosen and assigned to control or prayer groups. In this study, patients were not told about the prayer study and doctors did not know which patients were assigned to which groups. According to the paper, "The intercessors represented a variety of Christian traditions, with 35% listing their affiliations as nondenominational, 27% as Episcopalian, and the remainder as other Protestant groups or Roman Catholic. Unlike the Byrd study, the intercessors of the MAHI study were given no details about the medical conditions of the patients, but were only given their first name.

Results

The main table of results, reproduced from the study appears as Table 3 below. Because of the small sample size of each individual component, only one of the individual components reached statistical significance. However, the overall effect was statistically significant, with a P value of 0.04, meaning that the result was likely to occur by chance in only 1 out of 25 times the experiment was repeated.

* PTCA indicates percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty.
3. Effects of remote, retroactive intercessory prayer on outcomes in patients with bloodstream infection: randomised controlled trial.

This study involved 3393 patient subjects whose bloodstream infection was detected at the hospital from the years 1990�*1996. Remote, retroactive intercessory prayer was said for the well being and full recovery of the intervention group. Results were measured through mortality in hospital, length of stay in hospital, and duration of fever. Mortality was reduced in the intervention group (28.1%) compared to the control group (30.2%) although the difference did not reach statistical significance. However, length of stay in the hospital and duration of fever were significantly shorter in the intervention group than in the control group (P = 0.01 and P = 0.04, respectively). According to the author of the study:

"Remote, retroactive intercessory prayer said for a group is associated with a shorter stay in hospital and shorter duration of fever in patients with a bloodstream infection and should be considered for use in clinical practice."

Implications of the studies

Obviously, science has demonstrated in three separate studies the efficacy of Christian prayer in medical studies. There is no "scientific" (non-spiritual) explanation for the cause of the medical effects demonstrated in these studies. The only logical, but not testable, explanation is that God exists and answers the prayers of Christians. No other religion has succeeded in scientifically demonstrating that prayer to their God has any efficacy in healing. In fact, studies that have used intercessors from multiple religious backgrounds have failed to prove the efficacy of prayer.6 The Bible declares that Jesus Christ has power over life and death and sickness and is able to heal us, both physically7 and spiritually.8 He gave this power to His disciples and those who follow Him.9
2006 American Heart Journal study

A widely publicized study from 2006 failed to show the efficacy of intercessory prayer. However, the design of the latest study was somewhat unusual.10 The researchers used three patient groups. Two groups were advised of the study, but were not told whether they were in the prayer group or placebo group. The third group knew that they were being prayed for. The study was performed at six hospitals. Out of 3295 eligible patients, 1493 (45%) refused to participate, which is very high, although they did not explain the reasons for non-participation. The intercessors were composed of three groups. Two were Roman Catholic and one was a Protestant group (Silent Unity, Lee’s Summit, MO). Unlike in previous studies, the intercessors were not allowed to pray their own prayers. The prayers were given to them by the study coordinators to "standardize" the prayers. The discussion section of the paper suggested that at least some of the intercessors were dissatisfied with the canned nature of the prayers. In attempting to standardize prayer, I believe the study introduced a serious flaw, since most intercessors tend to pray as they are led by the Spirit, instead of praying prepared scripts. Jesus told His followers not to pray repetitiously, since God would not hear those kinds of prayers.11

Ultimately, the results showed that groups 1 (prayer) and 2 (no prayer) were identical, whereas group 3 (those who knew they were being prayed for) did worse than the other two groups. The lack of efficacy of intercessory prayer in this study could be due to theological problems with the study design.

Peer-reviewed? oh what? no?

 

[lyounamu]

That's why I believe in God, lol.