Higher intelligence causes people to be left wing and reject religion as they are more highly evolved, science says. They are even less prone to adultery.
Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics, holds that humans more inclined to adopt “non-traditional” behaviours are more intelligent than mere traditionals. These non-traditional behaviours yield a higher chance of survival in a rapidly changing environment.
In social evolutionary terms, non-traditional behaviour includes atheism, “liberal” political leanings and (male) monogamy, he asserts.
He claims the results of the “National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health,” which has been observing a group of subjects since 1994, support his theories.
This study found that teenage subjects who did better in IQ tests tended to have “newer” patterns of behaviour when tested 7 years later – they described themselves as “very liberal” and “not at all religious” more often, as opposed to the religious and conservative, who appeared to have lower IQs.
The difference was apparently statistically significant, but not enormous, at 11 points. It is not clear if they adjusted for the noted tendency of younger adults to be more left-leaning than older adults, but the results are apparently robust enough to survive publication in a peer-reviewed journal, albeit one for psychologists.
With such incendiary conclusions, the crucial scientific admonition that correlation does not equate to causation will doubtless be drowned out amidst glib attempts by leftists and the godless to portray their beliefs as the natural consequence of higher intelligence.
Naturally, that academics and scientists tend overwhelmingly to be left wing and irreligious has nothing to do with these scholarly and impartial scientific conclusions.
Top 10 Most Followed Seiyuu
Wonder Festival 2012 Winter Wondrous As Ever
Ciel nosurge: “Your Date With Ion = $170″
Nisemonogatari – “Where Did All The Ero Go!?”
Police Hunt Ushijima for “Public Indecency”
Cops Bust Cop in Nude BDSM Club Raid
K-ON! “Causes Keionbu Girl Band Boom”
Vippers vs Vankers: 2ch Targets “Korean Propaganda”
Overflow Delays “Final” Game: “We Are Not Going Bankrupt!”
Ritsu Topless Manga Time – “She Has Boobs After All!”
Top 10 Most Boring Anime of Winter 2012
Behold: The ONACOUNTER
Future Diary Unveils Eye-Popping Scenes of Sex & Guro
K-ON! Pilgrims Invade London
Top 10 Essential Anime Elements
Lolicon Teacher Rapes Pupils 37 Times, Faces 30 Years
Strike Witches Movie Trailer Unveiled
China Menaced by Exploding Coins
TMA Makes “BL” Tiger & Bunny Cosplay AV
Hatsune Miku Takes Over New Chitose Airport
“Post The Highest Level Cosplay Ever!”
“Share The Cutest Cosplay Ever”
“Dolls vs Figures – Which is Best?”
“Why Do Girls Always Have Such Cute Rooms!?”
Ranka Lee Wedding Dress Cosplay by Tomia
Shoko-tan’s Madoka & Ika-chan Cosplay “Excessively Cute”
Guilty Crown Yuzuriha Inori Cosplay by Sasa
IdolMaster G4U: “Who Needs 3D Idols Now?”
Anegasaki Nene Cosplay by Rinami
“I Want To See What The Vipper Girls Wear To Bed!”
"Follow Me, and let the dead bury their own dead."
-Now I understand...
*Follow The Master*
"Higher intelligence causes people to be left wing and reject religion as they are more highly evolved, science says"
You do realise that most schools, universities are run by Marxists who hate religion. So this biased, bullshit, outcome doesn't surprise me. Marxists want to rid the world of traditionalism, morals and individualism, so we have no identity and they can control us. I wouldn't be surprised if it was souly based on the big three, Christianity, Islam, Judiasm which to me are the most stupid religions ever thrusted upon man. religion in my eyes is a form of philosophy and religion and science should never be mixed. Its these idiotic creationists, making spiritual people look bad.
Your post obviously shows that you have NO knowledge of Marxism.
The first desire of Marxism is to remove the ownership of the means of production (the mines, factories etc) from the capitalists and give it to the workers. The fact is that the Capitalists (The CEOs who own companies etc) exact a disproportionate amount of the profit made from selling stuff, and most of the labor that goes into producing goods comes from the worker.
As for traditionalism, following tradition blindly means that you have no identity. Morality, from my point of view, is partly innate (Don't do to others what you don't want others to do to you seems to be inborn to me), and also determined by society. It is society that determines what's right and wrong, not religion.
Anonymous @ 11:12
"You do realise that most schools, universities are run by Marxists who hate religion."
Most schools and universities are SECULAR. This means they make no comment on religion at all, neither for nor against. That said, the people who run these institutions also tend to be intelligent and educated themselves, so naturally they're less likely to subscribe to ridiculous religious dogmas. ;)
I know it's fun to call G.W. Bush an idiot and compare him to a chimp, but he actually has much higher than average intelligence, and is thought to be smarter than Kerry.
(his IQ is about 122)
I don't think so! I think he was given a bit of 'uplifting' by a psychologist who didn't want to tell Mr. and Mrs. Bush that their son was dumb as dirt.
Faith does not make a person stupid.
Being a sanctimonious assholes who tries to halt scientific progress and kill children from thousands of miles away with missiles while claiming to fight a righteous war is stupid.
Point in fact, the JPEG file that accopanies the creation of this page is a fine example of such sanctimonious assholes.
Francis Collins, the man who lead the Human Genome Project, a man of progress who believes in the Big Bang (and obviously Evolution), is ALSO a kind-and-compassionate Christian.
Intelligence and Faith DON'T need to exclusive of each other, much like Athiesm and being an asshole.
Nicholas Copernicus
Sir Francis Bacon
Johannes Kepler
Galileo Galilei
Rene Descartes
Isaac Newton
Robert Boyle
Michael Faraday
Gregor Mendel
William Thomson Kelvin
Max Planck
and
Albert Einstein
Now All of you can agree that these men were some of the most brilliant scientists to walk the face of the earth, and you know one major thing they have in common. They all believed in God.
Let's all have fun refuting Cajun's claim.
I'll do Einstein:
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms."
"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature."
"Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the action of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a Supernatural Being."
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment."
"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."
JohnDaCajun only said that Einstein believed in God...not that he believed in a Personal God or one made popular by organized religion. Einstein says he's an Agnostic. Are you aware of what an Agnostic is? Obviously not since you rely on quotes as a crutch...quotes which you read your own way as Einstein saying he didn't believe in God.
JohnDaCajun definitely meant the Abrahamic god Yahweh, not a deist type of god.
And the rest them on the list really didn't have a choice because of the time eras. It was either believe or be scorned and possibly killed.
Not only did they have to fear being outed as heathens, but they also had to be afraid that the church would brand them heretics due to their scientific works. Case in point [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei]
You dummy, Einstein believed in god; he was a deist.
The simple fact (if true) that "academics and scientists tend overwhelmingly to be left wing and irreligious" already seems to say something.
BINGO! The fact is that our smartest people are left-wing and non-religious.
Pretty much the truth.... religious people are not very smart when it comes down to.... why else would they need to believe in non-existent 'gods' to make their lives worthwhile?
What was the point of even posting this?
IQ tests are unreliable. If you want to be consistent, then you would have to say that black people, Hispanics, women and other minorities are less intelligent as well; they generally score lower white males.
And not only that, you would have to admit that gossip columnist Mary Vos savant (IQ 186) is more intelligent than Alber Einstein (160), Stephen Hawking (160), and nobel prize winners James Watson (119) and Francis crick (115).
IQ tests are unreliable. psychology is called a soft science for a reason.
oh and if liberals have the evolutionary edge, why do conservative muslims and hindus have more children than leftists and liberals? wouldn't that make them the true evolutionary winners?
who says they aren't?
people in third-world countries score lower too. in fact, the average IQs in a lot of African countries actually qualify as being retarded... which might explain why they're so poor.
/facepalm
You do realize that
1) IQ tests measure both problem solving as well as knowledge. If you can't get higher education, gets where it reflects.
2) An IQ test must be tweaked and normalized for the population whose intelligence it's supposed to be measuring. Like hell they've done that.
3) Actually being poor makes people score lower on the IQ scale because of missed chances to get better education, not the other way around.
4) Good job being a racist loser.
also 5) Other forms of intelligence (EQ, etc),punk, DO YOU KNOW THEM?
*guess where
inner grammar nazi is content now.
I wrote only the first comment, not the rest.
yes, it's not racist to point that people of other races or of a different sex score lower. I don't think you're racist because of that, not at all.
But you will be seen as racist if you insist these test are reliable, period. I just wanted to point out to artefact that if he feels iq tests are reliable then he must admit black people, hispanics (like me ) and women are dumber as well.
If artefact is fine with being labeled a racist xenophobe, so be it.
"although EXTREMELY high (160 is something like the top 99.99th percentile) isn't what made them special, it was their ability to think about the universe," which is my point, IQ tests aren't the only predictor of success and brilliance.
"I don't think you should disparage someone with a freakishly high IQ like 186 just because they're a columnist instead of a physicist,"
correct, but, if you're familiar with her work you will know that Mary Vos savant work leaves a lot to desire in terms of depth. I stand to my word, even though she has a higher IQ than Einstein, she is not better than Einstein.
like I said, IQ test aren't infallible. psychology is called a soft science for a reason.
The IQ scores in this particular study were adjusted, although I admit the study is controversial. However, the tests they give in a certain country is given in the local language, and adjusted for their cultures.
But you realize that modern IQ tests are almost entirely based on problem-solving, right? It's not like in the old days where they ask things like "which woman is more beautiful" and then show a white lady as the right answer, and they don't ask things like "What is Crisco." They're normalized for age and education level to get an appropriate score, since IQ is basically a comparison of a CHILD'S mental age compared to an 'average' child of a certain age. ie, a 10 year-old child with an IQ of 120 has a mental age (developmentally) of 12. IQ scores generally don't change in adulthood, but the system works in a different way, which is sort of why the concept of the IQ is flawed (to a point).
Also, LOL. It's not racist to simply point out the results of a study in a way that offends people... I never said anything to disparage a certain race, only that people in other poor countries score poorly on IQ tests, and that the causation possibly works both ways.
On another point, Steven Hawking and Albert Einstein are renowned for their work in physics... their actual intelligence, although EXTREMELY high (160 is something like the top 99.99th percentile) isn't what made them special, it was their ability to think about the universe. I don't think you should disparage someone with a freakishly high IQ like 186 just because they're a columnist instead of a physicist.
IQ tests are unreliable. If you want to be consistent, then you would have to say that black people, Hispanics, women and other minorities are less intelligent as well; they generally score lower white males.
And not only that, you would have to admit that gossip columnist Mary Vos savant (IQ 186) is more intelligent than Alber Einstein (160), Stephen Hawking (160), and nobel prize winners James Watson (119) and Francis crick (115).
IQ tests are unreliable.
oh and if liberals have the evolutionary edge, why do conservative muslims and hindus have more children than leftists and liberals? wouldn't that make them the evolutionary winners?
Well, put individually them into separate rooms. Give them a small box, a stick, and a banana tied to the ceiling.
I pity Stephen Hawking in that situation.
Way to give a bunch of 12 year old scene kids reason to believe they are smarter than everyone else
so what does this have to with anime, manga, or japan?
A japanese guy created the study. Hence it falls under japan.
And monogamy.
It should have sparked a debate whether better to be smart and adhere to a waifu than waifus. If you don't claim the other waifus then you're just like that useless harem guy who let the other girl go hear broken (and NTR'd).
Nietzsche said that God is dead. But I believe that god no longer cares about us humans he has left us to our free will and where ever that will take us.
Nietzsche: "God is dead"
God: "Nietzsche is dead"
God 1 - Nietzsche 0
That said, i'm of the opinion that religion is crap. When you believe that the entire human population started from one man and his rib, then its about as sane as the religion which believes Earth is just a big bowl of spag-boll.
As for there being a time where religion was helpfull; For the western world it was called the dark ages, almost a thousand years where the world just stood still, the entire population wandering around like morons, under the sway of the christian church. I don't know enough about Islam to comment on its past, but muslims I know have similar stories, so I sure enough that its not christian exclusive.
Religion promotes altruism, but i'm yet to see that effected by anyone with a religious allignment when a non-believer isn't in there helping already. There is nothing we can learn from religion which we haven't already developed.
How many wars (ignoring Iraq) were started by religion? "They're twisting religion to justify their own means"... Thats exactly my point, religion is so weak at standing up to any sort of manipulation yet its so widely accepted, its the perfect vessel for anyone with a grudge to bring it to the world. IMO peace will come, when religion dies.
Excuse me, but religion does NOT promote altruism, and the fact is that altruism is a BAD THING!
Being altruistic allows people to get over on you way too often..... that said, I am not adverse to helping people when they need help, but I'm going to make DAMNED SURE they actually need that help first.
This article is misleading since it said liberals only tend to be smarter than social conservatives. It's actually been shown that mormons score the highest iq than any other religious people too.
I don't believe this should be translated to political leftwing and rightwing. (northwest europe here). Except for the name christian there is no religion left in our right wing parties. You also can't say that leftist is more intelligent in politics here because a lot of people with brains voted to the more realstic rightwing in response of the unrealistic leftwing politicians believing in utopias.
Fanatics or extremists can either be narrow minded left or right or religious or whatever.
So, if you really want to make two groups, it would probably be better to say broad-minded vs narrow minded people.
Is that george bush? thank god he's not a president anymore a murdering scum who started a war by this father and son also when he's a texas governor he had executed 150+ people don't think clemency is his vocabulary hope their son won't become future US president, Anybody but them(bush clan)!
It's pretty funny looking at all these butthurt religious people who come here.
Child abuse is illegal correct? How many of you were raised in a religious or semi-religious home? I remember when I first found out about christianity I was told if I don't believe in this imaginary person, I would burn in hell for eternity.
Now, for any of you who have had similar experiences like this, were any of you scared? I was terrified myself, I would have been around 7 - 9 at the time.
Now someone please explain to me how this isn't child abuse? Telling a child they will burn forever if they refuse to believe in something that makes no sense.
Religion is disgusting and vile, exploit the innocent, yet they call it "saving ones soul" There has been so many crimes committed in the name of "god" and some of these people get away with it.
Has religion ever produced anything positive without causing more negative? Some say we have many hospitals because of religion, how many of the early hospitals treated mentally ill people and claimed they were "possessed by demons".
Homosexuals weren't hated until christianity showed up, wonder why that was hmm?
Dude you're a dumbass. A few nuts doesn't make a whole religion bad...they sure ruin the reputation that good people build, but that's quite the narrow-minded hate there. Also, homosexuality was hated in Ancient Greece before only some christians(not all) hated it. All you atheist fucks just need to take one semester of a history course that covers history predating Judaism and you will find out how wrong you all are, especially about the contributions of Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. Then again, you might just be unreachable by reason, even more so than the idiots you're REALLY criticizing.
Well said, anon. I used to be like you; reasonable, fair, educated. Yet along the way, all this reasoning and calming down made me feel watered down and passionless. I was dead inside.
So, I threw it all out and am now considering joining or starting some radical, crazy-as-fuck religious group. What religion it is, it doesn't matter. It tends to get the point across when there are bomb threats and dead abortion doctors than in arguing with the opposition on CNN or some fucktarded forum where no one will listen to you anyway.
Well, what's there to lose? Atheists don't think I'm anything but a corpse when I'm dead. My religion would think I'll go to hell. Why not take a lot of you fuckers with me? Do I really care about the people who love you or your ideologies? Let's cut out the bullshit and see who's right after all. Quickly.
A few nuts? Yeah whatever you say.
Telling a child that he'll burn in Hell for doing bad is just like telling a child to eat his broccoli or the boogey man will come and get him. It teaches the child that there are consequences for actions. Telling him that it's the right thing to do when s/he's 6 or 7 won't make him/her do anything.
And name me one Atheist or secular group that is helping people in third world countries right now without government aid. As far as I know, a quarter of aid workers in Africa are Catholic Missionaries. And that's not even scratching the surface.
I know what your problem is. You look at the minority of US citizens or Muslim terrosist who think like idiotic assholes who claim to follow their religion, and think that EVERYONE who follows what they do are just the same. It's the A=B=C argument, which never works. There are idiots who kill and hurt others to protect animals. I guess that means that everyone who fights for animal rights are evil, vile and immoral monsters, right? Under your logic, that would be so.
And people have always hated Homosexuals ever since the first gay couple existed, regardless of religious beliefs. Saying that Christianity started the hate is just a ridiculous statement to make.
"Doctors Without Borders"
Now fuck off.
Docotrs without borders, as long as you have money. lol
Damn atheists.
"Telling a child that he'll burn in Hell for doing bad is just like telling a child to eat his broccoli or the boogey man will come and get him. It teaches the child that there are consequences for actions."
Yes, it is like telling a child that the boogeyman will come and get him. Both Hell and the boogey man are equally fictional. However they are not similar to encouraging the child to eat broccoli, as it has clear nutritional benefits that should be explained to him.
I also question the validity of terrifying children with fictional stories of dangerous home invaders or being sentenced to eternal torture.
I don't approve of lying to children at all. I don't even approve of my 5 year old nephew being suckered into the Santa myth. I was out with him the other day, and he told me he was worried because Santa Claus was watching him. He was freaked out. And because I respect his mother's opinion, I can't even tell him the truth. A child can enjoy the mythology of Santa Claus without being lied to and made to believe it is true.
Ahem. Off-topic.
A quarter of aid workers in AIDS-infested Africa being Catholic isn't necessarily a good thing, given the Catholic church's stance on condoms. I am highly suspect of any charity that elevates its personal belief system above the needs of the people it is supposedly helping. And MANY Christian charities most certainly do. For example, the Salvation Army's Christmas gift donations. Salvo volunteers go through all the donated gifts to remove any 'inappropriate material' - like Harry Potter or Chronicles of Narnia books. Screw the kids who would love to receive them, those books are the Devil's work!
Secular charities are focused solely on the welfare of those they help. And atheists who volunteer do so purely because they want to help, not because the expect some seat in Heaven for doing it.
Even though Atheist aid groups do help, they are just as corruptible as religious groups for one reason: cynicism. People will always look at any bad thing that happens, and then use that to say that it is all bad. Even if the good outweighs the bad, people will still try to look for bad things to say about people or groups. Whether someone is religious or not, in the end, has nothing to do with how a person or group thinks.
This fight won't end until everyone stops acting pessimistically.
You were scared because your parents were idiots, and you were a pussy.
If you learned more about your religion, you should've had better judgment about it rather than listening to Bill Maher.
Wow really? Scared? Says the individual posting anonymously....
Didn't you know? Everyone is a big man on the internet lol :)
Well thats nice.
I have had 12 years of my childhood ruined by, constant non-stop bullying, I have been extremly suicidal for a large portion of my life
I don't drink, smoke or do drugs, I'm a very polite and nice person and I have found praying to God to be extremly helpful to my life, after many years of thinking I came to the conclustion the goal is to be close to God, not the church.
Of course there are very nice people in most churchs if you don't go to the bible bashing othodox ones.
I have extremly good grades considering I was bullied all the way though school, I have learnt to combind my religion with science, and I love science it solves so many problems.
Only to have my believes shoved in my face and to be told I'm an idiot/retard who is less intelligent that everyone else.
Thanks, thanks a lot, you really made me feel better about myself, you really added to the science/religion debate, but allow me to put this foward, irregular numbers don't make sense, but their always true, shaming lanuage isn't an arguement, its to detract from it and change the subject.
And also, when we take god out of the equation, the only thing which is important, is yourself.
But I guess i'm too retarded to make an intelligent answer and should go back to isolation.
Don't let it bother you so much, Anon. ^^
Some of the people posting here need to get back to picking the much more intelligent fleas off each other back at the cave.
This study is obviously flawed, as I can easily spot equally idiotic individuals from both sides in this thread, in abundant numbers, too.
everyone is stupid. Religious people are willing to admit that. Atheists, however, make up the rules of Science to make themselves feel better and to justify their own existences.
Atheists have unwarranted self-importance because they believe in God less than everyone else. Other than that, they have produced nothing else other than individuals with big heads filled with hot air.
Religious people, at least, have built schools, hospitals and orphanages. They didn't need a proof of a God to do those things. They sponsored science and contributed to the control of population in terms of numbers and ideas through Holy Wars. That hasn't changed for the last few thousand years. I don't think it'll change anytime soon.
See, how stupid I'm acting? Now look at a pretentious Atheist and see how he claims how smart he is. On the Internet. With no proof at all.
TL;DR- Atheists should be scrutinized more because they have no excuse to be stupid.
I am and ATHEIST COSERVATIVE/LIBERTARIAN
RELIGION SUCKS EVERY RELIGION IS MADE UP OF MIXED BELIEFS THE WORLD DOESN'T NEED RELIGION ANYMORE
ONLY ANIME AND MANGA .........AND lolis
conclusion the communist is much evolved than capitalism
"Intellectuals" have a long history of believing all manner of stupid shit. Let's not forget that Communism, a system that any auto mechanic or bartender could have told you was utterly unworkable in the real world, was (and still is) a movement hugely appealing to intellectuals. Look at a list of prominent Communists from the 20th century, and you'll see the ranks stuffed with philosophers (Sartre and de Beauvoir), medical doctors (Che Guevara), writers (Bertold Brecht), artists (Paul Robeson) and scientists (the Rosenbergs). Most of the important figures in asian Communism (Deng Xiaopeng, Chou En-Lai, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot) were privileged young people who had been sent to get educations in France.
So, even if this story proves something (a study of political and religious attitudes amongst teenagers and college-age people does not necessarily mean anything to the populace at large), it still doesn't necessarily mean anything.
"but the results are apparently robust enough to survive publication in a peer-reviewed journal, albeit one for psychologists."
As opposed to what? One for statisticians?
As if there was a need for this test... But it's nice to have the liberty of saying "according to science, you're stupid".
If the comment comes from non-religious person, it will be logical, straightforward, and most likely offensive towards those that are religious.
If the comment comes from a religious person, it will be an answer that usual follows the "My belief in -religion- is unexplainable, but true" kind of deal.
I just want to say, fuck you both. You can be as logical as you want. You can be as faithful as you want. Guess what? Both haven't proven the existence or non-existence of god. Just shut the hell up. If you express your opinion on the internet, it will most likely be because you want to, and I use this lightly, convert people into believe what you believe. If you really want to convert people into believing or disbelieving religion, then prove god does or doesn't exist. You can SAY religion caused wars. You can SAY religion gave hope to the unfortunate. But ultimately, it's because humans are the most conforming beings on this planet. Whether conforming is the right thing or not, you have to admit that shit only gets more popular because it already is popular.
Tell me something. If you created free-willed "objects", what would you do with them? Would you be self centered and make them suck your cock every single fucking day? Or would you be carefree and just watch them suck each others cocks? Neither of these is the "right" answer. Just watch the fucking news and look at how many fucked up people there are in this world. God could possibly do something self centered. God could also be a curious person who decided to put us on a giant sphere.
If you take the word "cock" and "shit" literally, then suck your own cock and eat shit you dumb fuck of a human being.
well...suck my cock then.And eat my shit since you're at it.
ATHEISM MUST FALL!
The Sydney Atheist Convention. At least we know they gather at one area.
It would be great to return to an era where people have to shove a weapon at you to reveal your true colors. Either someone for something, or a coward for nothing.
Old new's and as other have stated the right-wing believers will never acknowledge it any way..
Just a bunch of letters on a web page, does anyone really "believe" they will change anything with that? Change the world with what you do not what you type...
Liberals are not leftits, do you heard of "neoliberalism"? And i'm not a fukken leftitst and i i'm not religious nor believe in god. And i don't believe the commies (real commies) in my place are more intelligent than me.
Hate to tell you this, but left and liberal are the same thing, it means people who think that socialism to a degree is not a bad thing and a few other things that I won't go into detail with here.
Correlation does not imply causation.
And given the difficulty of a controlled trial that would try to make people religious, we'll probably never know if being of lower intelligence makes it easier for you to believe.
As for agnostics, you guys have some strange beliefs.
Like your view of the typical atheist being some sort of anti-god botherer.
Even Richard Dawkins says that science can only ever be 99.9% sure. Atheists don't claim to have all the answers, but they do constantly look for the answers.
As opposed to getting them out of some old fashioned book.
They already have done that 'controlled study' and found that, as the article says..... most religious people aren't very bright!
someone need to hack this page seriously
Im a pure atheist and this information still fucking pisses me off. Science proves to fail time and time again. I want cool shit from science and this is the best they can come up with, inconclusive pointless studies. I think I may see who are truly the stupid ones.
Phrenology at its finest again, no?
3D disgusting pig
Another long strain of never ending arguments about religion, you guys don't have any other topic to post on? hahahahahaha
Just another corrupted attempt to explain shit they don't know about. For one, they're assuming that people that are not traditionalists are not religious. Second, that their automatically leftist too. Third, that their automatically liberal. Another thing the IQ tests, which are almost useless now because of the constant change they have to apply with the deviation range, which changes every year and also depends on the area it which it's applied. It all depends on the ideals people have, not if their religious or not. It's values, not intelligence that matters most.
As one person put it, "base a sociological behavior ranging in spectral density from young to old from different social economic distributions, cultural backgrounds, social status, religious differences and base this titanic statement on a statistical inference of a handful of teenagers, brilliant."
Also Nazis were non-religious, aimrite?
Perhaps some of them were. Their leader was very much a catholic though. Your point?
I mean, how many non-religious people would speak like this:
Of course one must wonder where he read about eliminating Jews is the work of the Lord :p I detect psychopathology there... you know... hearing voices in your head and all that isn't that healthy.
The view of the Catholic Church of the time was (or perhaps it still is?) that the Jews were guilty of deicide, was it not? People have gone on killing sprees for far less.
Not sure, I'm not Catholic :p
I'm religious (european calvinist to be exact), so I believe in God, in heaven and that, but ofc. regarding evolution and creation I accept scientific methods, except thinking the whole starter and the one ensuring the path, the Primum movens, was something what we refer to as God.
So yeah, I have much agnostic signs.
I think every religious person in the world follows the same supremity, whether we refer to it as the one Lord, as Mother Nature etc.
I heavily believe there simply HAS TO BE something that made this all and works behind. Well, it may not be sentient as we think about it in the classical beliefes.
Except fanatism, I don't think this has much to do with intelligence, a lot of atheist people are very dumb, and many religious folk are highly intelligent (same is true backwards ofc!), so this is nonsense.
So politics:
When will people realize all this right-winged and left-winged stuff is 90% empty words and losgans, and thanks to human nature it is only about getting into power, harass funds and hedge their lever?
Sure, the ways are quite different, but the result is usually very close.
oh playing with words.
"Naturally, that academics and scientists tend overwhelmingly to be left wing and irreligious has nothing to do with these scholarly and impartial scientific conclusions."
Lol. Using sarcasm on a circular idea. Of course academics and scientists are left wing and irreligious. They are the ones making the conclusion, therefore, they obviously meet the criteria they are talking about, since they must be greater than or equal to the intelligence of those they are studying.
Morons.
I rather live as if there is a God and in the end find out that there isn't one, than to live as if there isn't a God, and later find out I was wrong...
And hopefully when Judgement day comes, I'll be near people like mohammad, hitler or obama, and watch them get pwned by the mighty hand of God.
Just as most scientists know little religion or hell even any philosophy , so do most religious folks know little science . I would say they both have issues of ignorance . Stay off the turf if you know nothing about it . Both of them are increasingly stupid , intelligence is a rarity in the world it's never been a bias to anyone in particular .
Time for a little logic , if someone is religious are they by necessity intelligent ? No . If someone is non-religious are they by necessity intelligent ? No . You can put anyone particular person in the equation the answer will never be Yes .
On a side note throughout most of science and religion's history the both have gone together more than apart , so it's weird to see these lines being drawn .
Atheist = i am cool and intelligent, except when my medic say: you have a terminal disease.... Oh my god
Agnostic = Iam not much cool but i admit who i exist, and neo, and maybe the manpigbear, except god.
Religious freack = God...oh my god...
Otakuism = Haruhi, goku, ichigo, naruto, and miku are the only gods of this world.
Haruhiuism = Haruhi is the only god, stupids otakuisms.
Stopped reading when they brought IQ scores into the picture.
High IQ =/= intelligence, just like a low IQ doesn't always mean someone is stupid.
You are all morons but it was fun to read trough all this bullshit. To some degree when it just was too full of hate to other people. Yes, you're morons and idiots, especially those who try to look like they're the smartest and tell some bullshit about Socrates and other names they heard but don't really know what they were even talking about or having read about 1% of what wast to be read and thinking that they are smarter than 5000 years of humanity. LOL.
You guys still don't get it. You're all morons.
Only "Common sense" said something i agree with.
BTW, My IQ is 135 and I'm probably an atheist but i don't try to prove what I'm not sure of myself to other moron who is also too full of himself.
That's all i have to say.
Bye
"BTW, My IQ is 135 and I'm probably an atheist but i don't try to prove what I'm not sure of myself to other moron who is also too full of himself."
It takes an idiot who is full of themself to announce how smart they are on the internet. xD
well...you agreed with common sense for you are a moron...like him.Go worship money and suck richs dicks like any atheist piece of shit does.
"BTW, My IQ is 999999999 and I'm probably an atheist but i don't try to prove what I'm not sure of myself to other moron who is also too full of himself."
If only you realize how moron you look through what you typed..-_-
May the fail be with you,Fagawan.
Good for you. Here's a cookie.
What idiot you are.
"BTW, My IQ is 135..."
This is the whole reason you posted. Showoff.
125 IQ Republican Atheist here.
This article is stupid.
Tiger Woods is a conservative? Wow
Yeah this isn't bias by any means./sarcasm
That's like having Microsoft do a study on which console gamer is the smartest.
That would be pretty overhasty conclusion to draw.
Oh well. If believing and accepting God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit makes me some sort of "fool", then let it be. I'll be the biggest fool who ever lived and proud of it.
At least you are admitting you worship 3 gods.
Lol, being an atheist would be conservative in my case. And I'm sure it's like that with many people here.
Well, religion is something you have to experience yourself. And I do not talk about that bullshit christian "Dear Jesus please don't send me to hell ;_;"-thing. I would recommend reading the Taoteking to get an impression what I mean.
religion is the greatest shortcut in all of human experience.. you subscribe to a belief system, do a bit of research with their sacred scripts, and presto, you unravel the "raison d'etre" of the universe, reality, life and humanity.
normally though, people spend their whole lives - and almost always dying prior to - making sense of it all, why we perceive time's flow as one way, why scientific progress seems to have no end in sight, stuff like that.
thing is.. most people think they 'understand' how the world goes around, when in fact they are helplessly caught up in the delusions of their belief systems for any myriad of reasons. recalling what marx said - "religion is the opium of the masses" - sometimes reality gets to be too harsh to handle, which is probably why the abrahamic religions (Jew, Christian, Islam) promise of an eternal paradise to the righteous.
and for those who might very well be the forerunners to homo sapiens sapiens' successor, it might just be reason enough to develop a mentality strong enough to stay grounded in reality - to be able to live in and on this world without desire for an afterlife. existence is its own reward, and beliefs are only to be had AFTER forming a stable base upon which science and philosophy can work in concert..
having said that though.. being a rational deist (sometimes "Nietzschean" or "agnostic", whichever is best suited for the situation) here in my native Philippines can be quite the intellectual challenge, especially amidst narrow-minded pastoral pariahs -_-
this will not end well
{ cout << lameReligiouslyThemedJokeAboutOnanism << endl; }