Meta-study shows religious people are less intelligent

[NotAllThere]

What caused god? What was there before?

See above. The question has no meaning. Rather like determining whether this statement:

"This statement is not true".

is true or not. It's just a flaw of language that we can construct such statements. At first glance it seems reasonable, but it turns out to be without meaning.

[sasguru]

Never forget that no matter how fundamentalist the atheist, atheism is nothing more than faith. Just like faith in God.

No it's not. You have created "God" for which you have no evidence, hence you need faith. The default position is nothing and requires no faith.
Would you say non-belief in elves requires faith?

[cailin maith]

No it's not. You have created "God" for which you have no evidence, hence you need faith. The default position is nothing and requires no faith.
Would you say non-belief in elves requires faith?

Someone I knew used to say "Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence"

[TimberWolf]

Does this result imply women are more religious than men?

[Mich the Tester]

Never forget that no matter how fundamentalist the atheist, atheism is nothing more than faith. Just like faith in God.

Oh no, atheism is actually a conscious lack of faith in anything. It’s more to do with methodically thinking things through and not taking anything as a ‘given’. Ergo, a smart atheist can’t completely discount the possibility that a god exists.

[cailin maith]

Oh no, atheism is actually a conscious lack of faith in anything. It’s more to do with methodically thinking things through and not taking anything as a ‘given’. Ergo, a smart atheist can’t completely discount the possibility that a god exists.

Likes to hedge his bets

[deano]

From the Atheists United...

The default position is nothing and requires no faith.

and...

Ergo, a smart atheist can’t completely discount the possibility that a god exists.

Hmm. Which of you is more wrong than the other?

Does one of you have more faith than the other?

[Mich the Tester]

Likes to hedge his bets

No, that’s very different. I’m pointing out that absolute belief and absolute denial are intellectually and philosophically untenable positions. Anyone looking to explain any phenomenon, whether it’s the emergence of the universe or the flatulence causing nature of baked beans must allow for the possibility of a full range of explanations. So I’d say it’s possible that a god exists. It’s possible that lots of them exist. It’s even possible that I’m god and I just don’t know it yet. I just think that those possibilities are very, very remote compared to the possibility that there is no god.

[NotAllThere]

No it's not. You have created "God" for which you have no evidence, hence you need faith. The default position is nothing and requires no faith.
Would you say non-belief in elves requires faith?

Religious people (who've thought through their faith) would say they have plenty of evidence. It's a matter of how you interpret the evidence.

[Mich the Tester]

From the Atheists United...



and...



Hmm. Which of you is more wrong than the other?

Does one of you have more faith than the other?

I’d say that on a scale of 1 for an absolute believer and 100 for an absolute atheist, I’m about 99.9.

I don’t believe, and you’ll have one hell of a job persuading me, but I’d be a fool if I thought that I could ever be 100% certain about the nature of the universe.