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.
77-Year-Old Busted for Years of Loli Sex
Ladies Versus Butlers! Climaxes Hard
“Rouage” Succubus Ero-Figure
Sexy Model Kayo Satoh Confesses: “I’m Actually a Man”
Strike Witches Beach Loli Service Anime
Sega Finally to Announce Valkyria Chronicles 3?
Top 10 Anime Characters You’d Like Be Your Friend
Yoshika Miyafuji Figma Ready for Groping Action
“Why Do Anime Characters Look White?”
Hayate no Gotoku Drama Announced
Final Fantasy XIV Beta Delayed, Rie Tanaka Weeps
Lolicon Busted for Loli 3P
Square Enix Approved Final Fantasy XIV PC “Only $3750!”
The Future of Atlus? New Persona Title Unveiled
Azunyan Finally Top Anime Bride
Nadeko Sukumizu Figure Very Wet
2.5D Cosplay Gallery
AKB48 Idol Rina Nakanishi’s Porno Debut
Erotic Illustration Failure Gallery
C78 Cosplayer Spotted Nude in Adult Chat
World Bodypainting Festival 2010
Delectable Velvet Odin Sphere Cosplay
Cat in a Box Gallery
Even More Sexy Comiket 78 Cosplayers – Finale
Sexy Comiket 78 Cosplayers – Finale
Even More Sexy Comiket 78 Cosplayers – Day 2
What a fancy way of calling normal people stupid and insipid.
No, it's a rather simple equation.
Religions = pure bullshit.
Religious people = people believing pure bullshit.
People believing pure bullshit = stupid.
placebo treatment is pure bullshit too.
yet it works surprisingly well. even among not so simple-minded people.
that's why being a hobby psychologist is so much fun. if you do it right, you can get almost anyone to do almost anything. :)
I believe in a atheism!
Animeism.
Watching daily episodes are my methods of prayer, with donations to receive blessed figure charms.
If it really was a religion, otakus are the most pious and holy!
Wrong,placebos almost never really work, for starters placebos only help with illnesses that are either very light like the common cold or mostly mental, like headaches, stomachaches, etc.
Placebos don't deal with harsh viruses like measles nor prions like Parkinson's.
Even in the limited cases they do work, the body tends to recognize placebos after a few doses and stops responding to them.
On top of that a lot of people have very weak placebo responses to begin with.
In short, placebos don't work reliably at all.
It's traditional to be an atheist where I live, and people are pretty liberal here as well, what does that mean?
if there's no God so does atheism
so you DO believe in God
yes ?
@taduyducvn
Yo don't "believe" in Atheism, that would be just the same as believing in Religion.
You should just "BE" an Atheist.
you could be an agnostic. dont have to be atheist or religious.
gotta agree on the placebo as i given it many times,but that is also a psychological trick anyway.
Actually, placebos work more subtly than you think. For example, placebos are not known for regrowing limbs or curing cancer.
A large part of the placebo effect is that the subject *feels* better. It is almost impossible to give someone a placebo without influencing dozens of other variables. People given placebos can benefit from all kinds of secondary effects, like being treated in a controlled environment, like being watched over, like finding their pain easier to bear because they ‘know’ they're being treated... and so on. And there are a few diseases that get worse when you believe you are going to die, like certain kinds of heart diseases, and in those cases it certainly helps that you think you're being cured.
What this means is that in almost all cases prescribing a placebo cannot be justified, even if no alternatives were to exist. And it so happens that in the few cases where it could be justified, alternatives exist, which give the same benefit as the placebo effect plus the actual treatment itself. (Combine that with the fundamental problems involved with allowing doctors to lie to patients and you'll understand why most doctors are against prescribing placebos at all.)
Atheism isn't a belief. It's an anti-belief.
A belief is still a belief. You are only truly objective if you hold no wishful expectations about reality.
Atheism is a belief, just a belief in the nonexistence of god. Both religious and non religious people can only believe since there is no solid, irrefutable, proof affirming or disproving the existence of god. The only people who are truly anti belief are the ones who hold no opinion whatsoever on the matter.
So is not collecting stamps a hobby? Of course I do believe baldness is a hair color...
Hey, placebo seriously works. Case and point - muslim terrorists believe there'll be 72 virgins waiting for them in Heaven if they blow up themselves along with the entire shopping mall.
well, who is to say there are if there is no 72 virgins waiting for them...
if there are i hope it's very ugly ones...
being agnostic is the way of the future!!!
I would post something relating to this topic but there is an ad for a figure of Erika Hartmann to the left of the text box, so I will just disregard this article and say that all humans are stupid.
Don't you just love asshats like the anon @ 04:49.
I have no doubt that you're an adherent to some Bronze Age myth, and therefore can't comprehend the fact that some people just don't want to play your silly game.
Or perhaps you're an atheist who doesn't fully understand what atheism actually is.
Atheism is a belief if you claim there to be no gods. Most atheists don't do this, and thus don't hold what you call a belief.
Not believing X doesn't mean that you therefore believe Y. Not believing in Odin, Vili and Ve's existence doesn't mean that you therefore believe that they don't exist.
"Do you believe in the existence of one or more gods?"
If "yes," then you're at least a monotheist.
If "no," then you're an atheist.
If "I don't know," then you're an asshat.
Yes: "Pure agnostics" are asshats.
@MasterYuke
Just what are you implying here?
Oooh. I'm an asshat :D Now I just have to figure out exactly what an asshat is.
anon @ 08:00
Asshat [http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=asshat].
a pedophi...lolicon is calling people an asshat. what a laugh. being athiest makes you cool on the internet i guess. i like the ones that when you ask about how everything came to be, they say the big boom. then i say where did the big boom come from and they will say someone put it there.... no it was just there. then i say so either you believe "a" god put it there or it appeared in a way all knowing science can't explain. it's easy to talk smack without answers, but when someone calls you on it, your athiest beliefs are just as hollow as you think having god is.
No, you have to figure out what an asshat DOES. Jesus, haven't you been reading?
an asshat does? it sits on your head. how is that relavant?
"it's easy to talk smack without answers"
Amusing words, coming from someone whose "answers" are comprised of myths compiled by bronze age goat herders... If you truly believe the truth came to a primitive, frightened, and ultimately uncreative people 2500 years ago, and that everything we've seen in the meantime that directly contradicts their observations is bull... well, being called an "asshat" is the least of your worries.
Ciao!
04:49 fails to make the difference between belief and understanding. Not that I blame him, he is after all religious.
/troll off
well dear atheists i'll be laughing my head when you all burn in hell .
in 2500 more years will anyone believe what he have discovered and written in our history books, or will they say that computers and history books are primitive tomes/datadevices written by warmongers and broken societies that can't even agree on their history at that time, and that they are not even worth looking into. then they will say that science is an old voodoo and that it is comical how we believed it before (insert new cult here.)
science is just theories that haven't been disproved yet. we observe the world around us and guess at it.
if we were to finally unlock all mysteries of the world and universe and were able to replicate it. how long do you think it would take?
we've been here over 38,000 years and just now are at an age where we think we don't need God. whose plan was it before we reverse engineered it, or do you believe the complexities of creating life, the existince of gravity, electromagnetic fields, nuclear fission, atom placement, and functioning ecosystems are all coincidence.
you're not as smart as you like people to believe. if you are, then tell he how you start a universe then fill it with stars, put the stars into galaxies, put planets to every couple of stars, put them into a state to protect them from the stars' harmful rays, keep the planets' waters from flying into the sky, arrange the planets so they never impact, place an ecosystem that self regenerates, and make it last for hundreds of millions of years. i have all day for the answer. remember kiddies, this is an ADULT conversation.
@ TheBeast
The name "a lolicon" is based on an unorthodox definition of ロリコン, and your very first sentence is the reason why I chose to use it. *claps hands*
Being an atheist on - or off - the Internet makes you about as cool as being a Swede in Sweden, a Norwegian in Norway or a Pole in Poland. It's what you are whether you like it or not.
Now, since you opted to use "big boom" instead of "Big Bang," I assume that you're nothing but a lowly troll. Your claim that atheists say "someone put it there" serves as further justification for the assumption.
The fact is that atheists can only go as far back as science allows us to go. We can get close to - if you wish - time zero, but not to the very beginning that you wish for. Our scientific theories break down before we reach T0, so saying anything about what it was, or how it came to be, is nothing but speculation.
You claim to be calling atheists on their supposed "beliefs," yet you've only shown a badly formed straw man argument. Good job! *claps hands again*
@ a lolicon
Not samefag, but if you asked me that question it'd be a 'no idea'.
Not because I'm an arsehat (I may be one, but that's for other people to decide), but because it's something I haven't sat down and thought about. Why?
Because it's not really relevant to how I live my life, or what choices I make. I live well (I think), don't cause trouble, and just get on with enjoying life. If there's (a) God(s) and he/she/they get that, great. If they don't and I'm going to hell, whatever. If there isn't a God, that's fine too.
All the same, No-one's going to tell me that I shouldn't live a certain way or do a certain thing - life is what you make it and when you start holding to 'what if's', then all you're doing is cutting your own opportunities.
I'm living now, so I'll _live_. I'll worry about the rest after - when it's relevant. And if there is nothing after? Then obviously I won't be worrying about it. :)
so basically, what you are saying is, you choose to pretend that things exist without creation. if your precious science can't explain it, then you pretend it isn't there? do you close your eyes going through a red light and think you avoided the law?
you call me a troll for saying big boom instead of big bang? i'll have you know i've had several talks with a few athiests (they are a dime a dozen) and that was pretty much a word for word breakdown of the conversation i had at work a few weeks ago.
also, i can't read kanji so i don't know what you wrote, but wikipedia says it is from some book lolita and it is basically an obsession with underaged girls. that's not something i would be proud of, but hey, at least your not lying to yourself about that.
@a lolicon
So basically, if a person hasn't made up his mind whether he's a polytheist, monotheist or atheist then he's an asshat?
So, what exactly, makes an asshat by your definition? Not being sure of something or not knowing something? If so, then everyone including you is an asshat, because no one can ever be sure of everything. That would suck pretty bad for me, not because I'll be an asshat by definition but because I'll be lumped in with the likes of you.
Also, do you even know what agnosticism is?
Judging from your posts, probably not.
It must really suck having a brain like yours.
You have my deepest sympathy.
@ anon 10:51
Being an apatheist doesn't make you an asshat. If you were to say that you were in a libo type state of simultanious belief and disbelief (= being a "pure agnostic"), then you'd be an asshat.
@ TheBeast 10:57
What I'm saying is this: I refuse to accept extraordinary claims without the sligtest bit of evidence other than "Since you can't explain it...".
Pretending that something doesn't exist or that something isn't true isn't the way of an atheist. When I encounter something that I don't understand, I do my best to understand it. If I can't, then someone else will.
Now, your previous post shines a bright light on just how ignorant you are, and how reluctant you are to look at the world without the safety lens that is your (I assume) bible.
You speak of understanding and yet you assert that "theories are mere guesses". You don't have the slightest understanding of what science is, which I have no doubt is because you've either suffered through homeschooling or because you've been sitting too close to your pastor in church.
"You can't explain this, therefore god did it!" doesn't cut it. Reading through the bible/qur'ahn or whatever doesn't give you knowledge, but it brings you back to the Bronze Age when the sun orbited the flat disc that was the earth, when diseases and disabilities were caused by demons and when you shouldn't suffer a witch to live.
Also, your traffic light analogy is flawed. It's not I that close my eyes, but it's you who assert that the light is green and walk across the street with an unfounded sense of being right.
So please. Spare me your bullshit, TheBeast.
@ anon 11:33
Perhaps I should've said something like "theist" instead of "monotheist." However, If you got confused because of something as simple as that, then I see no bright future in store for you.
An asshat is someone who answers "Orange" to a question like "What day is it today?" Either you believe or you don't. There's no state of simultaneously believing and disbelieving.
Agnosticism deals with knowledge. Atheism/theism deals with belief.
Most "pure agnostics" are asshats only because they have a false understanding of atheism. They've probably heard that atheists believe that no gods exist, and therefore take the non-position of pure agnosticism.
Keep on trolling. \m/
TheBeast
If you want to know what caused the Big Bang then lookup Membrane Theory. Membrane Theory replaced String Theory because String Theory couldn't explain the Big Bang.
According to M-Theory the Big Bang was caused by the collision of universes. This caused the creation of a new universe which caused the Big Bang.
@ anon 10:51
Being an apatheist doesn't make you an asshat. If you were to say that you were in a libo type state of simultanious belief and disbelief (being a "pure agnostic"), then you'd be an asshat.
@ TheBeast 10:57
What I'm saying is this: I refuse to accept extraordinary claims without the sligtest bit of evidence other than "Since you can't explain it...".
Pretending that something doesn't exist or that something isn't true isn't the way of an atheist. When I encounter something that I don't understand, I do my best to understand it. If I can't, then someone else will.
Now, your previous post shines a bright light on just how ignorant you are, and how reluctant you are to look at the world without the safety lens that is your (I assume) bible.
You speak of understanding and yet you assert that "theories are mere guesses". You don't have the slightest understanding of what science is, which I have no doubt is because you've either suffered through homeschooling or because you've been sitting too close to your pastor in church.
"You can't explain this, therefore god did it!" doesn't cut it. Reading through the bible/qur'ahn or whatever doesn't give you knowledge, but it brings you back to the Bronze Age when the sun orbited the flat disc that was the earth, when diseases and disabilities were caused by demons and when you shouldn't suffer a witch to live.
Also, your traffic light analogy is flawed. It's not I that close my eyes, but it's you who assert that the light is green and walk across the street with an unfounded sense of being right.
So please. Spare me your bullshit, TheBeast.
right right, if you can't make a lie work one way. try another. write it down. and poof you have science. it's all theory trying to say "well the truth is too hard to swallow, so lets make up something very technical to confuse people. they will be lost and will inevitably take our word for it." instead of calling it the membrane theory, they should call it religion #55 with no god to back it up. try again.
@a lolicon
Oh come on.
=
"Do you believe in the existence of one or more gods?"
If "yes," then you're at least a monotheist.
If "no," then you're an atheist.
If "I don't know," then you're an asshat
-a lolicon
=
Basically you're saying a person is an asshat if he doesn't know what to believe in. That's some logic you got there, a lolicon.
Also, could you care to define what a "pure agnostic" is? Is there such a thing as a "partial" agnosticism?
Also, how could you have possibly known that "most agnostics have a false belief in atheism"?
Seems to me like you're the one trolling.
IMHO...
No one can judge you by your religious views or postures (or scientific ones), believing or not is a personal choice (or influenced by parents, society, people you admire, etc.). There are people who believe (some friends of mine actually) but have little faith.
So gentlemen, lower your hats and respect each others views (respect =/= share).
@a lolicon
Oh come on.
-
"Do you believe in the existence of one or more gods?"
If "yes," then you're at least a monotheist
If "no," then you're an atheist.
If "I don't know," then you're an asshat.
-a lolicon
So, if a person can't yet make up his mind about what he believes in, then he's, by YOUR definition, an asshat. Nice thinking you got there. Hope it serves you well.
"Atheism is a belief if you claim there to be no gods. Most atheists don't do this, and thus don't hold what you call a belief."
-a lolicon
So you're saying an atheist who doesn't verbally claim there to be no gods is not an atheist. Wow.
I can appreciate videogames and music without verbally telling people that I do.
You don't need to say you believe in something to KNOW inside that you actually believe it.
@ anon 13:30
If you don't know what you yourself believe, then you aren't an asshat, but an idiot. It's a simple yes/no question. You can't have it both ways.
If you don't hold a belief in a god (that would be a "no"), then you're an atheist. If you do, then you're a theist. Simple enough, one could think.
Fail at reading much?
"There are no gods!" = An atheist with a belief.
"I don't believe in gods!" = An atheist without a belief.
Did you understand that, or do I need to draw you a picture as well?
It's not always about the answers, you know. Sometimes it's the question that's important.
"...if you can't make a lie work one way. try another. write it down. and poof you have science..."
-TheBeast
What you are doing here is, essentially, closing your eyes and covering your ears while screaming loudly "You're a liar. You're wrong", immediately discrediting anything you hear that contradicts your preconceptions.
You have no more reason to think all science is a lie than others have to think all religions are lies.
12:38 Beast
If your god don't work try another one. That's been going on since cavemen decided there are higher powers to explain away the earthquakes and lightning and why someone just conquered them.
TheBeast @ 12:38
...
You had best be trolling.
Due to Poe's Law, I find it difficult to tell. If you are not trolling and are in fact serious, then you, sir, are an idiot. Good day to you, sir.
"if you can't make a lie work one way. try another. write it down." omg i just wrote a holy book
took a nap and already a whole buch of posts. too many to reply to, so im just going to pick a few.
@ the lolicon - i will never understand the way you think, that is a given. just as i am sure you will never understand the way i think.
for instance "I refuse to accept extraordinary claims without the sligtest bit of evidence other than "Since you can't explain it..."."
i asked about the creation of the world. that was your reply. the evidence in my eyes is the existence of the world. it didn't appear on it's own.
" When I encounter something that I don't understand, I do my best to understand it. If I can't, then someone else will."
isn't that just waiting on someone else to hand you your daily dossier of beliefs? lets enter the world of make-believe for a second. say in 30 years they come up with irrefutable evidence that the earth was created and that god did exist. the day science catches up to god, basically. would you believe then?
"Now, your previous post shines a bright light on just how ignorant you are, and how reluctant you are to look at the world without the safety lens that is your (I assume) bible."
please, a lolicon, quote me and throw my "ignorance" in my face. you have to realize that i think what i'm writing is all truth. pick out the comment in part or in entirety, and tell me what you think is flawed in my logic.
to anon@14;52
"What you are doing here is, essentially, closing your eyes and covering your ears while screaming loudly "You're a liar. You're wrong", immediately discrediting anything you hear that contradicts your preconceptions."
would you care to elaborate on that? i fail to see how that is what i am doing. that is unless stating facts is the same as covering your ears and screaming liar. you can say that i immediately discredit anything that contradicts my preconceptions, but are you always allowing your beliefs to be swayed by the newest BS that the media feeds you? lay some contradiction on me. it's easy to comment about it when you have no backup.
and lastly @ Gitami
"If your god don't work try another one. That's been going on since cavemen decided there are higher powers to explain away the earthquakes and lightning and why someone just conquered them."
I'm not here promoting false religions that worship made up gods. I am saying there is only 1 god. he proved his existence. the one thing no other god has ever done. it was written in a historical document called.....the bible. that is not the same. as the cavemen.
>> the day science catches up to god, basically. would you believe then?
Well, Beast. That will depend if the scientist in question has his head up his ass, a quack or a nutjob. Or if the "irrefutable evidence" refers to: "this book here says so".
Let's enter the world of make-believe for a second. For just one second, pretend that 9001 years in the future, we traveled back in time.There wasn't anyone there when earth was created.There wasn't anyone there when the universe was created. There was no God. Would you believe then?
Can you even try to understand the atheists here? Can you comprehend what they're thinking? Can you form a single argument based on the _non-existence_ of God?
@ TheBeast 20:47
TL;DR... :P
That wasn't my reply to your question. I never read it. Your "It didn't appear on it's own" is what I mean by my "Since you can't explain it..."
If you really want to know, then Wikipedia has a simple enough explanation of our solar system's and earth's evolution. If you want something more advanced, dive into something like Cambridge's astrophysics library.
However, since you consider theories to be mere guesses, I can already foresee that you'll demand nothing short of a demonstration where someone creates a solar system from scratch.
I have yet to start studying myself, so, unfortunately, I have to rely on others to figure stuff out for the time being. Also, if by "belief" you mean to imply some sort of religious belief, then no.
If science were to find empirical evidence for the existence of a god, and if it were to be granted the status of "merely a theory," then I wouldn't have to believe. It's existence would be plainly obvious.
Let's see... Oh, and just to point out: Being ignorant doesn't mean that you use flawed logic. Definition [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ignorant]. I'll admit to being ignorant when It comes to a great many things. However, I don't flaunt my ignorance.
While it's true that science has a great many theories that haven't been disproven yet, your second sentence shows that you're ignorant when it comes to what a scientific theory is.
These are at best arguments from personal incredulity.
While this was posted after my "you're ignorant" post, it fit in with the rest as it shows your ignorance when it comes to the scientific method.
I'm by no means saying that ignorance is a bad thing. However, if you are to argue your point then you should at least read up a bit on what it is you're attempting to argue against. Not doing so leads to argumenting from ignorance.
@ TheBeast 20:47
Unfortunately, Sancon sent my comment to it's own personal limbo. It'll probably show up sooner or later, but because I can't see it now, I won't be able to edit it in case it's been butchered to hell due to a missing / or whatever.
I'll repost it in a few hours if it hasn't come up by then. "Why wait?" you might ask. To avoid this: 1 and 2
Just to clear things up for the asshat-caller:
While Atheism actually IS "not believing in god". But it still IS a belief - The belief that there's no god. Because you can't proof that there's no good. It's like a person in a Sci-Fi book saying that there's no god... With the irony that there's one, namely the author.
Theism is also a belief - That there's a god/multiple gods.
Agnosticism isn't a belief - An Agnostic doesn't take a stance on the whole Theism vs Atheism thing. Either because it's irrelevant (If there's an almighty god it wouldn't have any impact on my life, as everything would've been scripted already) or because the question doesn't make sense to that person (How should I know if there's a god? Does a character in a book know for sure that he's in a work of fiction? Will I know for sure, if something with magical abilities, which calls itself god, materializes in front of me, if it's actually god?) or other reasons.
So yeah, you're the asshat for telling everyone your believe is the truth.
@ anon 01:57
How ironic. You evidently don't know what atheism is, and yet you are here to clear things up for me.
Correct.
Wrong. At least not when it comes to atheism in general. There are of course those who hold the belief that there are no gods, but that doesn't apply to atheism as a whole.
I sense that you mean to put agnosticism in between atheism and theism as a sort of simultaneous belief and disbelief. That's why I call "pure agnostics" asshats.
@Thebeast: "would you care to elaborate on that? i fail to see how that is what i am doing. that is unless stating facts is the same as covering your ears and screaming liar"
Why, certainly. Although most of my points have already been covered by other posters, I will point them out for you.
You discredit all science on the basis that it's only lies not yet proved wrong, while that is partially true, a scientific theory is far from mere speculation, and none of them have reached major credibility without being proved correct several times by other people, the ones that are just speculation get disregarded as such until they provide verifiable evidence. Unfortunately, your argument for proving them wrong is "this book here says otherwise". But if we take a look at why does the author of that book say that, we can see that he claims to know so because either A) God told him so or B) Someone the author believes to have a direct connection to god told him so, and that is not verifiable evidence that anyone can neither prove right nor wrong.
"you can say that i immediately discredit anything that contradicts my preconceptions, but are you always allowing your beliefs to be swayed by the newest BS that the media feeds you?"
Partially. I don't mean to say I am always looking for the the slightest chance to jump into a new idea just for the sake of proving my old ideas wrong, I have to be convinced about it. If this new idea convinces me through evidence that my old idea was wrong, I gladly accept as the new idea by which I explain my world.
There are few things more exciting than realizing I was wrong, which is in heavy contrast to you, who seems to instantly refute the possibility of being wrong.
The media feeds me verifiable information and I decide whether to accept or disregard that information. Your book feeds you empirical information AND judgement. If the book says "this is wrong" then it becomes wrong in your eyes, if it says "this is what happened" then there's no room for other possible explanations in your mind.
I might have made some assumptions, but I did so for the sake of simplicity. I apologize if I assumed too much.
@ a lolicon
my jets are cooling so this post wont be as agressive as the others may or may not have been.
i get the concept of the scientific method. i once wanted to be a paleontologist. i know that they check out whatever they are investigating gather data, cross reference it with previous data. then they update and over right incorrect data.
the incorrect data is what i'm interested in. how long 'til we get it right? i'm just concerned with the new generation of scientists. seems like morals are lost in the world. you see the stories on sankaku-con. i don't think most are in it for the science anymore. they don't care, and some make up the results. like with the global warming scandal. it was all BS.
on a side note, i understand that science is hugely beneficial to us. i can understand where an athiest comes from. i was on the brink of being one at once point in my life.
I'm a new man and i've experienced miracles. basically there is no turning back for me. I wont argue with you anymore, because i think if we met, we would be friends. go easy lolicon. peace.
anon8:12 you are misquoting me.
You made me remember the great Richard Feynman [http://tinyurl.com/ybm843c].
We might never understand everything to 100%, and to be quite honest, I hope that we never do. If we did, then there'd be nothing left to discover.
For every conspiring scientist you find, there are at least a hundred honest ones. Every field has had it's fair share of overly ambitious scientists, but you know what? Science has prevailed despite of it, and I'm quite sure that it'll continue to do so.
It's unfortunate that you didn't go into paleontology. I'm interested in archeology myself. If we were to meet, perhaps we'd be able to have an argument over something more important. E.g. the best method for digging a hole in the ground :P
Live long and prosper. \/_
Then I apologize for doing so, as it was not my intention, also, you say something interesting here "...I've experienced miracles..."
I feel inclined to think it is your first hand experience that lends weight to your fervor, and since I do not have such experience, I am less prone [or willing] to do so. I would guess the same is true for many others.
@ a lolicon
I don't believe in badgers. Does this make me an asshat?
@TheBeast
So I herd u liek Jezus? I personally liek mudkipz.
@ any anomymous who posted
Get an account, dammit!
@ anyone else who posted
I couldn't read all you comments due to that married couple up there.
>I'm a new man and i've experienced miracles.
Argument from personal experience is the toughest logical fallacy to suck up.
@ Rayne Masters 00:49
Why would it?
Nice. I love this post.
Haruhism! = ...
haruhiism sounds non-traditional to me...
Studies indicate that religious people are more happier, though.
Ignorance is bliss.
the choice is all yours you cam be either a happy ignorant religious man or a not-so-happy intelligent and enlightened (add science here if you want) man...
...as for me i prefer to be the enlightened one^^.
Only in societies where the amount of religion is low enough that it doesn't start to run things. I gently refer you to what Europe was like, not even that long ago.
An individual religious person may be more happy in a secular state, but on the whole we will be happier if the number of religious people is kept as low as possible.
There are probably plenty of people in the middle east who believe that their lives under sharia law are great. From our point of view, though, there lives kinda suck. So it is perfectly possible to be content if you are unaware of or indoctrinated into disliking better things.
You can be perfectly happy in bad conditions if you are unaware of anything better. That does not stop you situation from being bad.
There are certain points that fascinate me about religion, even though I'm not religious at all.
@Anon 03:49, you can also be a "happy" enlightened, or at least I am.
Then you are not yet enlightened enough.
I hear everyone that gets into uncovering the conspiration of the Rothschild family and their supposed banking empire that owns half of the west hemisphere's countries ends up killed or committing suicide.
It's a start if you're really curious, but who knows if it's true. Conspirationists can be quite delusional.
religious people (-) leftists = leftists
although, I have seen really stupid religious people and some quite intelligent religious people.
also, who cares about the religious people. Im sure there are ways to exploit them.?
You said it. "Quite intelligent religious people" are those who exploit stupid religious people.
Whether those "quite intelligent religious people" really are religious remains unclear.
Maybe they believe it is right to exploit stupid religious idiots?
the "intelligent religious people" might be those who are not interested with religion at all and are just exploit their stupid religious idiots?
then,
they're a step ahead of us!
Intelligent religious people have been around since the beginning. They're the ones leading the crowds, after all.
"If you can't make a lie work one way..." why even try with this spastic, he obviously can't grasp extremely simple processes such as the scientific method (If you fuck up, admit your mistake and make a better theory, what's so hard to comprehend here?).
I hate it when people ball things up into 2 categories.
For example, I'm libertarian(so leaning toward conservative) as well as atheist.
This study seems like a way for people to float their own boats.
For example, I'm sure if someone did a study, they might find a correlation between being religious and happiness in life (religion seems to make people happy, even if it maybe under a veil of ignorance).
In that case, would you rather be happy or intelligent? Of course happy, because intelligence is only a means to happiness; you hope to be intelligent so that you make more money, appreciate finer things, etc.
social liberties (libertarian) does not equate to being conservative. Even though conservatives are generally viewed as socially liberal and economically conservative. So leaning toward conservative on social issues like the protection of our liberties actually means you have liberal ideas. That coinciding with your atheism and you fit the bill perfectly.
Which is pretty Ironic, considering the modern right wing has largely lost it's conservatism.
I wonder what they think they're conserving?
Protip: "Conservationism" has has little to do with left or right (as that's an economic issue), and everything to do with authoritarianism or civil libertarianism. Conservatism is actually a strict adherence to Traditionalism, to the point you want to force it on others.
In nations with a right-aligned history, even ones where the historical government was (small l) libertarian, like the United States, conservatives tend to be right aligned, and in nations with a left-aligned history, such as former Soviet Republics, conservatives trend left. Hence why libertarian-right people in some European countries call themselves "liberal", while the "liberals" in America are libertarian-left.
And no, libertarian doesn't mean Libertarian (as in the libertarian-right policies of the Libertarian party of the United States).
The claim that religion makes people happy is BS. Not like I'm saying atheism will make you any happier but neither truly effect whether or not you are happy with your life.
I'm intelligent and unhappy.
I prefer to live my life this way, because I can strive for happiness as an ultimate goal, instead of being an idiot who can't think for himself and submits to an imaginary friend that threatens me with throwing me into a lake of fire if I fuck up in his eyes.
Instead of living in ignorant bliss, I prefer to make myself happy one day at a time, even if for a little while. Knowledge is for me a better gift than a magical heaven where I will be happy after I die and rot... I don't even believe in an afterlife of any sort.
No fucking thanks, I'd rather live my life this way.
http://www2.le.ac.uk/ebulletin/news/press-releases/2000-2009/2006/07/nparticle.2006-07-28.2448323827
Relevant.
Thats right, you did hit the jackpot with this one.
Religions are not necessary, people who don't do well in live need something to hold on and survive and if they don't do well in life there must be a reason, in the other hand real atheists dont need religion because they find support in real things such as human beings, henceforth religion isn't needed, it's evolution
@onitake That's because placebo technically can work, for instance you can placebo morphine, and it can work because physically your body is taking a reaction to getting the drug. It is a real reaction, because your body is producing the chemicals themselves in anticipation. It's to note placebo only works for so long though.
Theres a whole area of study for this so saying someone is stupid for falling for it is dumb.
OMG that pic is EPIC WIN !
Religion = sucks completly full of LIES & SHIT!
Even if I agree, those are semantics... Not an equation.
Religion = Stupidity
(Religion)(People)=Stupidity
(Religion)(Science)=Stupidity
(Religion)(Way of life)=Stupidity
It's like a multiplication by zero...
Everything gets fucked.
Win.
I feel inclined to agree with the scientists, though I do actually believe in God. It's just that really religious people tend to believe, and act on complete nonsense. Just look at the way Muslims behave........while thinking they'll get 40 virgins in the afterlife. Do they ever question where all these "virgins" are coming from?
It's 72 "virgins," and 72 virgins is a mistranslation. They're getting 72 white raisins when they die. That's right, they're throwing their lives away for....raisins.
Then those better be really tasty raisins...
On placebos, you understimate how much power the mind holds over the body. While it can not do anything drastic, anything the human body is normally capable of can be triggered with placebos.
It's not going to be a miracle cure, or really help with serious illness, but it can trick someone into being drunk, or activate natural pain killers in the brain. (Which are said to be just as effective as over-the-counter pain killers, mind you)
amen brother XD
Well, there's several other studies showing the exact opposite of this.
And most of the known highly intelligent people in history are definately not atheists.
They need to test that? I thought it was obvious all along.
I AM GOD. BOW TO ME!!!
If you needed a scientific study to tell you that right wing people are fucking dimwits, then you probably are one.
Hmm... Many "liberals" of the past degenerated into totalitarian socialist states, or are degenerating into totalitarian socialist states. I fail to see how that makes them more intelligent.
Despite being a Libertarian atheist myself, the fact remains that the largest monsters in the last 100 years responsible for the most human misery are atheistic leftist socialist like Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, and Hitler falls into that group fairly well himself being more of a cultist and a socialist then a follower of a main stream religion.
Leftist are not progressive anymore.
I'm rather liberal while being traditionalist.
What does that makes me ?
Double stupid I'd wager.
A poseur.
I think that means you don't understand what the word "liberal" means.
confused?
More like giving an excuse to those that are non-religious a false sense of superiority, just like those (guys) that are convinced that having lost their virginity make them superior to those that haven't.
Since 10 years old I sistematicly tried to argue religion to my mother and anyone else who thougt to be smarter just becouse they beleved in god and were leading a model life style.
My mother cracked about an year ago now I'm almost 19 and the world is starting to realise the same thing.
PS
Atheists were always repressed by the religiuos fags it's only fair to finally turn the tables! ^^
You are right.
And yeah meyby leftist are more inteligent(but when I look when socialized UE and USA coming I have many reasons to not belive in that) but that not making them right.
That's not an excuse, that's a fact. Simply as that.
DEAD ARE ALL THE GODS: NOW DO WE DESIRE THE OVERMAN TO LIVE
Those pics of Bush and the chimp are surprisingly identical. Lost at birth?
No, I say direct relation.
His gorilla mom must have left him in the bush...
Im sure if we took several pictures of your face we could find chimps with similar expressions.
Ahh, A Bush lover I see..
but not THAT identical
you gotta try pretty hard to match a photo of a chimp that well lol
I'd be quite amused if a chimp was found with my expression.
Hail to the chimp
Curious George: they misunderestimated him...
but if you compare pics of obama with a chimp DATS RACIS', isn't it?
oh... forgot that bush is a "white conservative", fair game i guess.
they look the same..no wonder
i pretty much agree on the behavior of higher IQ person is different, they think more, they see different things, they look for different paths.
but that is only when their potential its not clouded with stupidity and hive behavior which happens alot with the right wing and the religious fags.
im right wing yet im agnostic( not a strict one but pretty much its describes how i think)
Do you think child is a gift from god? And parent in a poor country will love this gift and born more than the can support, will kids are still gift from god in this case or they are burden in this case?
AsakuraZero said he's an agnostic - which means that he doesn't believe in the otherworldly (e.g. God) unless there's evidence.
Actually that is the definition of Atheist. Agnosism means it ts unknowable.
without further evidence, that is
In other words: I do not have any supporting evidence towards either the existence, nor non existence of god thus I have no opinion on this matter.
Agnostics are just atheists who just don't want to be bothered with all the "religion vs atheism" crap.
It's impossible not to have an opinion. The human brain is wired to always lean toward something.
You're an idiot.
I'm a liberal non-traditional Atheist
I Graduated High School with a 4.0
I got 99th percentile on my ASVAB test
And I got a specialist job in the Air Force.
So I tend to agree.
I would have liked to know you in high school........so you could have tutored me, and increased my SAT score.
Does this mean communists were geniuses?
If you mean the Communist Russians or Chinese, their leadership system was a religion in itsself. They dd a great job fooling the populace into believing they were free from the intoxicating effect of religion, but the truth is the methodology was the same. Modern North Korea is a example of the same, though a bit less subtle.
Plenty of Atheists worship surrogate gods- Money, Sex, Scientific Progress, etc. Being one myself I find it hard to belong to any sort of community because the range of philosophical beliefs within the greater sphere is too varied. That said, I wouldn't trade my beliefs (which lean toward Taoist) for anything.
The answer was yes long before this article loooool
Some liberals are communists, but most (successful) communists aren't liberals.
Communism is a great idea, it just doesn't work because people always fuck things up.
We will never know. The communism employed by the Soviet Union and China were both imperfect forms since they altered many of the original ideas of communism. As such, the original ideas of communism have never been tested.
I think you Americans confuse these things. Liberalism is not always leftist philosophy.
Liberalism and communism are very far from each other, direct opposites. Liberalism includes the idea of free-thinking, while communists believe blindly in their holy books (by Karl Marx), as does religious conservatives who believe blindly in their Bible. Communists are in fact other type of conservatives. Communists in Europe have always thought this as economical politics issue, they think Liberalism = Capitalism. That`s also wrong.
Both Capitalism and Socialism can be liberal.
That wasn`t the case in Soviet Russia, because of despotic tradition of how to rule people.
The fact the communist leaders can often manipulate the government structures into dicatorship without anybody catching on proves they're pretty darn brilliant.
I think its normal to be curious and actively searching for change then to be "traditional". Perhaps you are considering normal people to be consistent with your point of view, which seems to be not the case. Instead of calling normal people stupid and insipid, consider yourself only in your generalization.
In other words, you're a stupid and insipid fuck.
What if you're a Pagan?
Then you must burn the villages of the godless scientists, and ravish their women.
All in all, it's a pretty good deal.
Then you'd be worshiping something like a deity.
Take Spice and Wolf for an example.
Still a good deal though
ATHEISTS AND PAGANS!
AAAARGH
BURN THE WITCHES!
The bubble has burst, now is the time for all men, religious or not, to embrace the truth.
That has been said for centuries... and people who said it had different endings depending on the era.
In other finishing news:
Like ignored, stabbed, stoned to death, impaled, and so over...
The notion of truth is a feak because it's a human notion and the 'truth' is diffrent for one to another one ect...
Bullshit.
This is the stupid view of postmodernism which has somehow spread like wildfire.
All truths are not equally valid, even if we can't know the One Truth, if such a thing exists.
As understood by many psychologists, IQ tests have a fundamental flaw: You can measure how much someone knows, but you can't measure just really how intelligent (ability to reason) a person is. A person could be intelligent in only certain areas, but given the opportunity, could master others. Lack of knowledge does not equate to stupidity. It does however show that that person has not been opened to such concepts.
Those with closed minds are less likely to venture out and try new things/ideas. Those with open minds tend to see the world as a place where possibilities are yet to be discovered/accomplished. Even atheists should be open to the possibility of a god, just not necessarily the god conceived by established religions.
Very interesting comment. I am an atheist, just like you said, i can be open to have a god if there are proof for god's existence. But there are none. Christianity and Islamic has been closed people too much, it make people become more conservative. Hitler killed Jews, for example. There are problem that cause by religion. I'm currently working in the Philippines and I see a lot of family whose having no food for their children because they have like 9 or 10 child in their family (because they believe in Christianity, which teach, kids are gift from god), But did god really give them any food? without food, without supply to raise those kid, they are northing but burden to their parent. Who's fault?
I am a deist (former Christian), understanding that if such a god existed, you are right in thinking it is a horrible thing to let such things happen. However, it is hard to believe a god would be partial, or even have control over such things that are more caused by human action than a divine source. Many religions have had inner fighting. In such wars, does god really choose sides? There's more at work than divine sorts.
So in this plane, there is virtually no evidence to support such existence; however, existence itself is still something science cannot come to a complete and resolute answer and may have been brought about by a source unobtainable/unreachable from this reality. I can't help shake the feeling that there may be a being on a higher level, but it is elusive. For anyone to think that they have the right idea is more than likely wrong. This delusion often leads to such acts of conflict.
It is mankind's lot in life to suffer, often as a result of mankind unable to obtain knowledge/resources beyond their reach. Giving people such things that are out of reach is like giving a kid a cookie from the cookie jar on the top shelf. It's a slice of heaven on earth and can be viewed as a blessing. Too many cookies and the child loses the gratification of being able to obtain the item. The blessings of many living tend to be overlooked. The value of human life seems to be deteriorating in many ways and it is unfortunate for those who came into this world under lesser circumstance, only to be molded under the influence of those who are continuously saying the religion which they believe is right.
This is one of those glass half full situations.
Bad things fall upon everyone whether good or bad we need to realize that. Its how you deal with the situation that is important. Dealing with things with love and patience rather than hate and spite is what God really wants. For you to act like Him.
its the parents fault, you have to think in what are you doing, if you have 10 child and you cant support them its your fault, you ignored circumstance and those people is paying for that.
life is a bitch, people should never follow anything without thinking about it first, religion is just for reflection.
The useless crocodile politicians here in the Philippines are afraid of giving people free condoms & other forms of contraceptives. They fear that the church will criticize them..
Just proves how illogical religions are..
and they try to stagnate scientific revolutions in general
Actually you can. A lot of IQ tests do include knowledge questions - and I've known that knowledge does not equate to intelligence since I was about 10.
However it is possible to demonstrate reasoning and problem-solving abilities with puzzles and other tests that do not rely on trivia.
The only point in trivia questions would be to test how good a person is at absorbing knowledge.
I despise religions on the basis of what I know of science.
But if you think being leftist makes you smart that's just as crazy as anything any religious person ever told me.
I actually do have a high IQ, and it helps me in saying that anything a psychologist has to say should be held suspect. Psychiatry is called a soft science for a reason.
I have no special respect for a person based on political leanings. I've known as many morons that were left wingers as I have right wingers.
And I've yet to meet a normal healthy male that won't stick his cock in an enticing cunt even if he doesn't own it.
Wizard's First Rule. People are stupid. That was all inclusive by the way. Religious people don't own stupid, they just have a well established flavour of it.
How on earth has science disproved religion? Have you discovered some method to empirically test the non-empirical?
@02:37
"How on earth has science disproved religion? Have you discovered some method to empirically test the non-empirical?"
Science cannot disprove an undetectable entity which chooses not to reveal itself. However, like the Invisible Pink Unicorn it is stupid to presume it exists just because we can't prove it doesn't.
We can, however, objectively determine that religious mythology is obviously fiction invented by primitive tribes people who didn't know any better, and assert with significant confidence that the human-invented gods depicted in the myths do not actually exist. We can also prove specific testable claims made by religions as being false. For example, all three major monotheistic dogmas accept the story of Noah's Flood in their canon. A massive-scale worldwide global flood simply DID NOT OCCUR as depicted in the Bible and other religious texts. (And even if it did, all it would demonstrate is that their God is an asshole). Since we know that, at the very least, this event never occurred than their religious canon is fallible and that any subsequent claims can be treated as highly suspect. Non-literalist believers accept the science, but choose to interpret the Bible as being non-literal but largely true. These people are more rational than fundamentalists, but still intellectually dishonest. If one part of the supposedly divinely inspired holy book is incorrect, how can they possible believe the rest of it without independent supporting evidence?
Testable parts of the Bible (and other religious texts) are wrong, and there is no reason to believe that the untestable bits have any more validity than dose already disproven.
You are the one making wild assumptions. Prove to me Zeus does not exist then that argument might hold some water
That is a bad argument. Zeus has a worldly home, not a spiritual or heavenly one. Anyone can go to Mount Olympus and tell that he doesn't exist.
Now, if you wanted to be a good troll you could of chose many of the Egyptian gods that people clam Jesus came from because of mucked up back-stories by bias "journalist" or you could of stuck with the time-honored "God came from a (insert country here) volcano god!" theory.
Either way, most the teeny and twitysomething Atheist fags on the internet are to bias to admit that there is solid thinking behind a hidden God or that someone religious can be just as smart, if not as smart as they are. They are all too busy conforming to what the Illuminati says is open-minded instead of being truly open-minded and considering all alternatives.
Anonymous @ 06:37
Any particular deity conjured up by religious mythology has the same credibility and likelihood of existence as the Invisible Pink Unicorn. As such, I will give them the respect they deserve; i.e. none.
We can sit around all day imagining the existence of a logically plausible "hidden god" - but we could equally examine the plausibility of Star Trek's technology or the political disposition of Middle Earth, or any other fantasy we can come up with. It's ultimately entirely pointless. There is nothing to "admit". Unless there is some INDEPENDENT and OBJECTIVE evidence indicating the existence of such an entity, ghosts, goblins, bigfoot, gods, wizards, extra-terrestrials, and fire-breathing dragons all get the same level of credibility - none.
Any of the above could conceivably exist, but until we have some solid and reliable evidence to go on, it makes very little sense to put any stock in them.
And of course people who happen to be religious can still be as smart or smarter than any other given person who lacks religious belief. Religion is an insidious delusion that affects even people who are otherwise highly intelligent. It is simply a fact that the more intelligent and educated a person is, the more likely they are to realise that religious myths are complete rubbish.
Religion is like communist, they want you to follow them, listen to them, and do what they said. They don't want you to have any other religion because they want you to believe in only 1 god (from their religion). Religion like Christian was used for ruling beside it's use for teaching in old age.
"I actually do have a high IQ, and it helps me in saying that anything a psychologist has to say should be held suspect. Psychiatry is called a soft science for a reason."
Psychology is far from an exact science, but there is a significant amount of scientific research involved and the body of knowledge from the research has held true enough to be successfully applied in practical applications. While anything a psychologist has to say may be considered suspect, facts gleaned from a properly conducted study are still facts.
You consider psychology a science, albeit a "soft" one, and then go one to state that you take everything derived from the study of psychology with a grain of salt.
Granted, psychology IS a science which, because of its study of human behavior and thus has inherent in it a certain degree of error, is much more difficult to investigate. However, you seem to be unquestioning of other discoveries and theories posited from other, "harder" sciences such as chemistry, physics, astronomy, and so on.
People live under the misconception that scientific endeavors are hard-set rules that will never change; the reality is quite the opposite. Science is the unending pursuit of answers to questions. Even where one experiment may fail in proving or substantiating a theory, it will help to raise new inquiries and thus more scientific discovery.
The death of skepticism will be the death of science. It is the basis upon which all men of science have conducted their experimentation since the Renaissance. I'm not implying that you should automatically disprove or disbelieve everything you hear; indeed, it is a healthy person who asks "Are you sure?" and examines the evidence whenever they are presented with new ideas, whether they be in the realm of psychology, chemistry, physics, or what have you.
Psychology is also the easiest science to manipulate considering all of the other variables that are difficult to control for and that fact that you can never get a true random sample in psychology.
For instance in this study if their sample comes from a highly liberal area then its more likely that successful( more intelligent people)will adopt the views of those they work with who are probably also left wing.
Your text shows how much your IQ really is <= 90
Excellent, more proof that the common man is too stupid to govern himself. Might as well elect some science-proven intellectually-superior elitists to nanny us.
/sarcasm
are you angry ft?
Because electing the best liar with the most money backing him is so much better...
I'd actually like to see a guy with a high degree in a hard science in charge for once.
Politicians, progressive or conservative, are all the same. They will always cheat their way to the top in any form of government. All a degree would do is make their lies more believable.
i say we go back to theocracy
Someone with a higher IQ is naturally going to be more open and less likely to be a religious fundamentalist.
But this does not necessarily preclude religion as in the case of Philo Farnsworth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo_Farnsworth
Farnsworth was far more intelligent then the guy who did this study.
It just means they're less likely to be a sheep who would follow everything without question.
The flipside to that is that people with a high IQ are typically more booksmart than streetsmart - which is basically a polite way of saying that we tend to be more naive about the world, and get manipulated more easily as a result. There are also many that simply become elitist, which in my experience is as bad as fundamentalist.
Being smarter doesn't automatically mean we'd make better leaders - you still have to weigh up the person in question on their individual merits.
Although this scientific assertion is horribly generalising, it has at least a little bit of truth in it. One historical example is nazi germany. Many intellectuals, writers and actors who lived in Germany at that time were left-winged and had to emigrate in order to survive, or they decided to play along and hid their real views.
GODWIN
Religion and IQ test are shit.
Only religion, sir
Actually many of the IQ-tests are as well, especially the ones you'll find on the internet.
This one made it through peer review.
I just spent about 10 minutes taking an online IQ test that popped up onto my screen.
Then, when I was finished, they made me fill out all this registration stuff before giving me my score.
How'd you do?
Judging by the fact that I game them my email address to find out a number representing my intelligence that they semi-randomly calculated, I think I failed.
- Credit, bash QDB
It's obvious. If you are intelligent, you form your own opinions and views. If not, you just follow tradition and organised religion, because you're too dumb to think for yourself.
More likely, if you are stupid, you tend to believe or use what other write down for you.
If you are smart, you tend to be more innovative and think of a way you can do it better without relying on anything
you're not innovating if you parrot every shit richard dawkins spews, just fyi
fucking christ... THANK YOU!
...If i agree with you,does that make me stupid cause i'd rather agree to your opinion rather that express mine?
...other than that,i agree.
All who died for religion are stupid.
if you can think for yourself, you are an individual- a freak who has no real chance of adjusting to society because you either look down on others and expect them to praise you for being better then them.
i'm unique... just like everyone else
I think more intelligent people may be more prone to changes in thought - changing religious or political beliefs - than less intelligent people. But I think those changes can go either way.
We have both Dawkins and C.S. Lewis.
Have you read the things Lewis has written on science? He's clueless.
not to mention that the works Lewis is famous for prove he's batshit insane
stephen hawking is agnostic.
I would like to see his research, because it sounds rather flawed. For one thing I remember being very liberal when I was a student in college studying on scholarship, but I'm a good deal more conservative now that I'm a homeowner with a family. I hope his assertion isn't that people become dumber with age...
Religion I've never felt too important, though I find church and its influence exceedingly useful for emphasizing morality in the kids. Nothing encourages them more than a community of people that they can assume all follow the same code, even if whackjobs are hiding beneath the pretty parables.
But that's ok, they can learn the truth when they're older, so long as they learn the basic morality while their young. ;-)
Since when was religion the sole basis of morality in society?
Since religions got scared of atheism...
That… doesn’t make any sense. Religion and atheism have been part of the world since humans first came into existence. They’ve always been in conflict and always will be. This whole “study” seems more like a way for “intellectuals” to give themselves a pat on the back and an excuse for elitism. “Look at those dumb religious people. Don’t they know there is no God and that all that awaits at the end of life is eternal nothingness? They’re too stupid to know how to take care of themselves and need us to be in charge!”
Hate to be the one to say this, but people do become dumber with age. Here I'm not even talking about Alzheimer or diabetes, which come when we become really old.
You don't have to believe me, though. Search the internet, you'll find plenty of sources on this.
Socrates once stated that misanthropes are those who were optimistic and were continually disappointed to the effect that they would believe everyone is not worthy of any sort of friendship, and thus have to be destroyed.
Perhaps atheists, in having been continually disappointed by tradition and the beliefs held by tradition have made them actively opposed to it.
It is my personal belief that in being so overwhelmingly challenged and ridiculed for believing in God, despite my own flaws, I have come to the conclusion that every atheists have to die.
Atheists have to die because you really can't reason with these people.
Where exactly do Atheists go after they die? It wouldn't seem to matter, since they are just walking meat with holes for eating, fucking, drinking pissing, and shitting. That's their only purpose in life. So there's not much sense in these people being kept alive, and thus they have to die. Does Earth have any reason to let humanity exist? Not really. Does it matter if the Earth exists at all? Probably not. The Universe is just something that happens, according to Atheists. Sure, they'll make these complicated justifications and accusations against people who believe in God, but they're not putting forward any better alternatives- science, being amoral has become humanity's instrument of self-destruction, and I am certain that Atheists will deny this, even when they suffer from radiation poisoning or vomiting their bowels from whatever stupidity they insist is human progress.
That's what Atheism is all about. It's about nothing. Maybe a childish rationalization for rebelling against established authority and any responsibility to said authority. It's all about individuality, and following what is subjectively right.
Therefore, if all opinions are subjectively right, then it becomes a question of might making right to offset any sort of deadlock in conflicting opinions.
Someone has to die.
Communists had it right- You have these "liberators" marching into Tibet. At first they asked if they wanted to join the Communist Revolution. They said "no. We're happy with Buddhism." So the Chinese came with guns and turned the monasteries into brothels and flooded Tibet with Chinese settlers.
This is Atheism. Why should they respect other peoples' beliefs, they were better than everyone! It gives them a right to ridicule and step on the icons of religions. They're the douchebags who go to the beach to topple kids' sandcastles.
I'm certain that they enjoy making religious people hurt. That's what Atheists are all about.
I have resolved to commit a holy crusade against those who attack religion. I commend those who attempt to do the same- it is a work of charity to put down the animals.
You're exactly right. Atheism is a rebellion against the totalitarian authority that is the church.
Oh, and way to sound intelligent in contradicting yourself. Now we know that religious people enjoy making "non-believers" hurt as well (as if we didn't already).
Enjoy your little short-lived crusade. Humanity is evolving and people like you are a dying breed of lesser men.
Atheism is a minority. What's that? 54% of the world's population follow an Abrahamic religion? And how many atheists? 16% That's such a majority! I'm sure people who believe in God are trembling in their sleep because of SUCH A LARGE PERCENTAGE! Wow, maybe if people had better education, you can have 20%! Have faith! You'll make it!
So because more people need no proof of something to believe in something it makes it true? How about the world is overrun by people who like believing whatever they are tols because it is easier.
except those 16% are the people making nukes. and nukes > christfags.
well, only atheist idiots would use a weapon that would harm them more slowly and horribly against christians.
Oh, and for the record, Pakistan, (Allah Akbar!) is a nuclear power.
I hope terrorists get their hands on nukes.
You have no idea what atheism is, do you?
Don't feed the troll.
I know that it is an angry, childish rebellion against authority. That is sufficient. Atheists may have prettier illusions about themselves, but violent anti-atheists such as myself know better than atheists what they are because we are not attached to atheism and so have no reason to protect it. (maybe just to keep it around as a punching bag.)
Long troll is loooooong.
Also if religious people truly believe in a perfect afterlife, they should kill themselves so they get there as soon as possible rather than suffering through an imperfect world.
And leave reality for the sane people who realise that one life is all we get.
the perfect after life is supposed to be reward for living through the suffering of an imperfect world
killing them selve would make them ineligible for it
You're a moron. When you die, it doesn't matter where you go, because you are a corpse, a body in the process of decomposition.
And if you're talking about souls (obviously you are), then neither religious or non-religious people know where they go to because there isn't any evidence of their existence to start with.
This is what happens when you allow the stupid majority of people to write what they think on the interwebz. Let's try it this way;
There are many reasons for mankind to invent gods.
There are many civilisations who invented various kinds of gods/religions.
Believers seem to hate believers from other religions (made by humans).
Believers think their religion must be true. This is based solely on believing.
Believers act like good people, because they fear the wrath of their god, not because they feel it's right, like atheists do.
Believing in god means do defy logical reasoning a.k.a. being stupid.
Personally I don't care if god exists or not. Doesn't really matter to me. There are more important questions out there, like how to make people to not want to kill each other.
brave talk until someone points a gun to them. Or Nukes.
The great irony of this is that in order for this study to have any merit you must accept the traditional views on IQ and, thus, become a traditionalist who by their definition is less intelligent. Anyone who has attended a University and has dealt with academics and so called intellectuals knows how stupid they are. I bullied virtually every single instructor I met into admitting that the entire system is a scam and that their courses were largely useless. These are the same people who run these "studies" and then circulate it within the academic community. Essentially it's just one collective pat on the back that they use to justify their otherwise pointless and useless existence to society at large. On a side note, I'm a politically right wing atheist.
You're completely right, these so-called "academics" and "intellectuals" are completely useless and should be done away with. Let's go back to the dark ages and have no scientific progress for hundreds of years. Those were good times.
Academics and intellectuals are not responsible for human progress. Businesses and corporations are what fuel scientific development. Only a guy who has never been in the real world would fail to understand such a simple and obvious fact. I would suggest getting a real job instead of jacking off to your anime porn, then maybe you won't sound like such a moron.
Uh oh, we've got a Randian on our hands!
I would suggest getting a real political philosophy instead of jacking off to your nonexistent capitalististic and libertarian heroes, then maybe you wouldn't sound like such a misanthrope.
A real political philosophy? Why don't you enlighten me as to what a real political philosophy might be. While you're at it, go ahead and direct me to where I can find a picture of you. It always amuses me to see the train wreck that is your typical liberal pseudo-intellectual when his outlandish political and philosophical views are placed next to his picture. I'm sure it will be a real self esteem builder for even the most hardcore of otaku on here.
Why don't you go ahead and educate me as to what a "real" political philosophy would be. Seeing as how you're a student and you like to throw around simple terms you learned in your ethics class, I'm really not expecting much from you. While you're at it, go ahead and paste a picture of yourself right next to your political philosophy so I can have a good laugh. Based on your typing style and viewpoint, I'm fairly certain even the most hardcore of Otaku on here would find the combination to be a real self esteem booster.
stfu, drixnak. a ""real"" philosophy is one which comprehends cause and effect. business is the traditional engine, and science/facts/intellegence is the fuel.
Furthermore, Atheists are only the way they are because they don’t want to follow any rules at all. And so they are embittered by the fact that they get no afterlife, since their own lives are only the present- they have no past nor do they have any future! It wouldn’t matter to them, science is progress and so progress can’t look back and has no use for speculating about the future, only the present.
These people lack any sort of morals to question if progress at breakneck speed is good for humanity at all- They only exist for the novelties that science has to offer. Sure, medicine produced numerous cures for diseases, but that only serves as a reason to be less appreciative of life. The quality of life is lessened because of a sad attempt to become immortal, forever young, and happy with life on Earth, and to not prepare for any afterlife- the Atheist does not believe in an afterlife.
The Atheist would read books, always to be critical, and to get together with other atheists with the sole purpose of mocking those who AREN’T atheist. They set up charities so they can prove that they are not immoral, but the only reason they set those up is to gain the trust of people and to try and evangelize their own sad anti-religion by presenting it as an easier path.
Sadly, if Atheism is for the intelligent, there is only a handful of them. They are a minority. They HAVE to be oppressed, because these people can be an elite for so long before people are fed up with their whiny anti-religion, anti-theist bullshit that they try cramming down people’s throats in a manner not unlike certain religions.
While I agree with you that most atheists aren't interested in furthering their theological viewpoints so much as they are interested in furthering a liberal progressive agenda that they wish to force on the rest of the country, I still think you're a fucking idiot. Sorry.
tsk... can't recognize a troll. (an elaborate one, at that.)
i've always wondered, but, why do people troll?
it's fun as hell. You think all those muslim demonstrators are all muslim for the sake of islam?
What a stupid study to do.
Reality bites doesn't it.
A lot of people here seem to assume that people believe in religion because they're too dumb to think for themselves, but don't consider that some people may actually believe in religion after reasoning for themselves that religion may be correct. I mean, I've met plenty of atheists who are retards, so it's not like being atheist guarantees intelligence.
of course, some people just loooove to start shit, atheist or no, right? Because ideological douchebaggery is a hallmark of human civilization, after all.
Nothing guarantees intelligence, genes give better odds though. Most(all?) of our behavior-patterns come from the people around us.
Oh, and you can't reason the existance of omnipotency ( as by reason it exists outside of reason ;) ). Ofc you can verify that prayer doesn't work (as has been verified already).
Yes, Atheists are a minority. Minorities tend to view themselves as either Oppressed or Elite. Maybe it has something to do with feeling marginalized that a lot of people have sympathy for minorities. Everyone loves the underdog, they say. But in the case of Atheists- these underdogs think they are better than everyone else, so they turn off a lot of people. I’ve met some “nice” atheists, but the truth is, they’d scoff at any ceremony you give for any deceased loved ones that you have. They would laugh at you because you say that your grandmother is now in a better place, where the pains of this world do not exist. They would laugh at you because they think you think that your dead loved ones play the harp on a cloud and some big man in the sky is watching over everyone.
I’d say that only 1% of atheists are genuinely smart, the other 99% are idiots trying to not look like idiots by becoming rebels against the establishment. That’s a fad. Why don’t you think that ANY atheists at all openly challenged people like the pope, the dalai lama, and the Islamic scholars outside their own comfortable atheist hug box? Do you really think that Atheism is such a majority that they could take on an army of pissed-off Islamic militants, Jesus Freaks, and other zealots who have SHAPED human history? I don’t think so. They go to websites like Sankaku Complex and post about how great they are without having any actual contribution to humanity- the majority of which, find them annoying and irrelevant to their own lives.
This just in - atheists do hold and attend funerals and you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. I assure you, a number far greater than 1% of atheists would not laugh at someone for looking for solace after the death of a loved one. You have a great deal to learn about atheism.
bullshit! You atheists are as cruel and vindictive as Osama Bin Laden!
Atheists are just crafty enough to look like they're being oppressed when they're not winning an argument.
An Atheist would not say something offensive when they're receiving an award for science because they're cowards like that, but boy do they want to! They want to say "suck it!" to theists. Going to church never earned them an award, did it?
Likewise, at a funeral, they're not going to laugh out loud! They're going to be smart about it. It's the Atheist way. They're going to pay lip service about how great that slab of meat was, so they don't get shunned forever by people they keep around for the sake of boosting their egos- you have to live around idiots, right? Deep down, they're not going to cry over a corpse, are they? Noooo.
Preferably, Atheists would prefer to be cremated themselves. It's smarter, more efficient, and less personal. No reason to cry over ashes, right? It's not like the barbaric practice of burying the dead, oh no.
Maybe I hit a nerve when I say how Atheism really is. Or maybe your version of Atheism stops only at the books you read and is not from the bottom of your heart because you want to feel the same things as a person who believe in God feels.
Atheism is nothing but a lack of faith in deities. Individual values /morals are not part of atheism ( they are a part of most religions though ), atheists need to decide on their actions by themselves, and take responsibility by themselves.
Don't hold it against him. It's likely the only things he knows about atheists are observations he's made while trolling on web sites like this one.
In reality, he probably knows a lot of perfectly normal people in real life who are also atheists, but he just assumes they're Christian because "normal" people are Christian.
Roughly 15% of people in the USA report themselves as being nonreligious. Think about it -- that's more than 1 out of 10. How many people do you know who don't have crosses decorating their houses and don't go to church on a regular basis?
Oh, i know alot of AGNOSTICS, but militant atheists? You know what they say about the bark being worse than the bite? It IS possible that I haven't met an atheist stupid enough to harass people about atheism themselves. But I know who the atheists are in my community. They tend to be educated and yeah, they blend with society. (makes them hard to track)
Maybe I'm not psychotic enough (or stupid enough) to assault an atheist. (with a witness nearby.)
If I'm going to assault an atheist, that fucker has to disappear. You really can't throw a body anywhere- the police are pretty good at finding them. So you have to dispose of the body by cutting it up. (human bone is very tough, so what i'd do is to soak it in vinegar. You can't have body fluids down the drain, because it'll smell, so you have to put the gallons of body fluid in jars.
Furthermore, never trust a man who owns pigs.
I am fond of pineapple for corpse disposal.
Maybe we can use this as a springboard to finally start a eugenics program for weeding out conservatives.
prepare for a loooooot of dead people, my friend.
The Holocaust was God's greatest work of art.
Haven't you seen the rest of history to see how more people died than in Holocaust? And it's usually people doing that with each other, much like what we're doing here in Sankaku Complex with this current discussion.
Once enough time has passed, we'll have the majority say the Holocaust never happened.
Atheists tend to be presumptuous of what they think other people believe- They make the classic argument: “If God exists, and he’s compassionate and merciful, and all that- is God able to stop suffering, but is not willing?”, which presumes the possibility that all suffering can be willed into nothingness without removing any sort of freedom from humans or the laws of nature. The Iraenean Theodicy states that there is suffering in the world, and God allows it, because the alternative would be a hedonistic world where there is no such thing as suffering- which in real life cases had been the reason for a retardation of growth and development and maturity among humans. What about paradise? Isn’t that the same hedonistic place that God was trying to keep us from having on Earth? According to Judeo-Christian commentaries, proximity to God washes away any sort of desire and is the source of happiness and contentment. That is heaven. Atheists don’t get this because they’d rather sit down, eat, sleep, fuck, shit, piss, and get drunk and high- and this sort of material contentment is sufficient for them. They are happy living like animals that would only do the same thing if they’d had opposable thumbs but not any larger brains to ask if there IS anything beyond a state of existence where you don’t breathe anymore, or walk, or talk, or do the things that you do when you’re alive.
@03:22
"They make the classic argument: “If God exists, and he’s compassionate and merciful, and all that- is God able to stop suffering, but is not willing?”, which presumes the possibility that all suffering can be willed into nothingness without removing any sort of freedom from humans or the laws of nature."
But this presumes that God is *subject* to the laws of nature. To propose otherwise suggests that he is not all-powerful - and typically monotheists don't accept that. Their God created EVERYTHING, including laws of nature. He cannot be held subservient to them.
And if Judeo-Christian God wants people to live in eternal happiness and contentment, he can almost certainly do it without subjecting his creations to a world of limited resources, natural disasters, violently opposed religious beliefs (which he doesn't correct), rape and killing of children which he *could* prevent but doesn't... If he existed, God COULD do this if he wanted to, but does not. One of three things must be true.
A) God wants eternal happiness and bliss without suffering, but is not omnipotent, and cannot modify the laws of nature to suit himself.
B) God does have both the power and desire for everybody to live in eternal bliss, but is wildly incompetent in accomplishing it.
C) God is both powerful enough to change reality to suit his whims and perfect enough to carry out his plan exactly as he intends - but his plan specifically includes children being raped and murdered, air strikes, nuclear weapons, famine, natural disasters, etc. He has foreknowledge of all these events (omniscience) and the power to prevent them, but specifically chooses not to do so. This highly implies malevolence, since he CAN, but WON'T.
Or the far more logical;
D) God, at least as he is popularly portrayed in Judeo-Christian theology and mythology, does not exist.
To believe that God exist is equally plausible and justifiable as believing Mr Unicorn/aliens/dragons/whatever fantasy being exist and created the Universe and all, because it isn't backed up by any logic nor evidence and therefore no valid reason to believe in it's existence. In the end, its all in your head, but keep it that way and don't force it unto others.
If you so strongly believe otherwise, prove it with irrefutable evidence and logic to back it up, since the burden of proof falls onto you holier-than-thou beings.
Well, if the definition of a Unicorn is of a horse that has a horn, then you can make a unicorn, genetically or otherwise. There it is. A unicorn.
Want to make some aliens? cultivate a bacteria outside the Earth and make them evolve. There's your E.T.
As for God, well! All sorts of things have been attributed to God, but we all know that it is the human mind's way of trying to articulate something that by its nature cannot be articulated. How can a hamster in a shoebox, who lived in a shoebox all its life, describe things about humans that exist outside? At the same time, you wonder- what if there's NOTHING at all outside? Of course, because we're human, we'd sometimes like to think there's no way of knowing- but this lack of imagination is what makes an Atheist the same as a hamster in a shoebox.
Whereas a person who believes in God can entertain the notion that there may very well be a God outside us. Because those people are certain that God is with them and within them. They can say this with such confidence that it frustrates an Atheist who constantly demands proof- and will never be satisfied with any proof, because there will always be something refutable. Show them a bible, they will refute it. Show them a tortilla or grilled cheese with some deity's image in it, they will refute it.
So atheists are asking for an irrefutable evidence when all they want is to rely on their senses because that's how base they are. An observable phenomena, because it takes too much brainpower to produce phenomena that in itself is escapable from normal observation. That's their version of "irrefutable" Furthermore, atheists love to pretend they're freethinkers, when all they are are followers of Dawkins and some older thinkers who've done nothing but think of "what if's" while trying to discredit organized religion by attributing to them the same faults that they have.
Face it, atheists. You're only the way you are because you have the luxury of being able to accuse the establishment of all sorts of things. If you were poor, desperate, and uneducated, you'd need a God. That is the true nature of humanity. Atheists don't want to admit it, so they clothe themselves in trivia. All futile in the end, when they can't even save themselves from a zealot with a bomb.
Sounds like an inverse Schrodinger's Cat Experiment.
unicorn/alien argument: you'd still have to make said unicorn/cultivate said bacteria, so you don't have any plausible evidence for their current existence, much less the varying definitions used for them
hamster in a shoebox argument: so the hamster (human-proxy) is imagining the humans outside the box (god-proxy); implied is that god is all imagination
irrefutable evidence argument: why would you take a bible, which has been known to be modified/re-translated multiple times and which has the publisher engraved on the cover,as evidence? why the hell would you take a tortilla as evidence? how would you even know what said deity looked like?
why is a god more necessary to someone poor, desperate and uneducated?
and tell me, who exactly CAN save themselves from a zealot with a bomb at any given time of day?
fyi, im not an atheist, im an agnostic
it's historically proven- people who believe in God out of fear will always believe in God out of feat, whereas belief in God out of reason at times of desperation usually subsides when a person is full of themselves at peacetime. When there is no threat upon them.
*sigh*
When was it so important to have "facts" and "logic" to support one's beliefs? The idea that you know something is true removes all uncertainty, which makes it knowledge, not belief. How can you believe in something you already know to be true?
The fact that you want "proof" at something science cannot prove or disprove by its very nature, already tells me you're either a few IQ points away from being a vegetable, or just a troll.
Mind you, it's still a belief. Like you said, you have the idea of such belief being correct, not a certainty. Thus, you still don't know if your belief is valid or not, because you still aren't able to give irrefutable proof of that existence and of the circumstances and elements related to it.
This is the deadlock I was talking about
INSHALLAH, WE WILL TWIST YOUR ARM, YOU FILTHY ATHEISTS. ENOUGH TALK WOULD HAVE PASSED.
Facts and logic combined with things like the scientific method makes us actually understand the universe, religion gives us people blowing each other up because their imaginary friend said to them it was ok to kill people who didn't believe in the same imaginary friend.
Religion is a cancer with no place in todays world, and it deserves no mercy.
Socrates once stated that misanthropes are those who were optimistic and were continually disappointed to the effect that they would believe everyone is not worthy of any sort of friendship, and thus have to be destroyed.
Perhaps atheists, in having been continually disappointed by tradition and the beliefs held by tradition have made them actively opposed to it.
It is my personal belief that in being so overwhelmingly challenged and ridiculed for believing in God, despite my own flaws, I have come to the conclusion that every atheists have to die.
Atheists have to die because you really can't reason with these people.
Where exactly do Atheists go after they die? It wouldn't seem to matter, since they are just walking meat with holes for eating, fucking, drinking pissing, and shitting. That's their only purpose in life. So there's not much sense in these people being kept alive, and thus they have to die. Does Earth have any reason to let humanity exist? Not really. Does it matter if the Earth exists at all? Probably not. The Universe is just something that happens, according to Atheists. Sure, they'll make these complicated justifications and accusations against people who believe in God, but they're not putting forward any better alternatives- science, being amoral has become humanity's instrument of self-destruction, and I am certain that Atheists will deny this, even when they suffer from radiation poisoning or vomiting their bowels from whatever stupidity they insist is human progress.
That's what Atheism is all about. It's about nothing. Maybe a childish rationalization for rebelling against established authority and any responsibility to said authority. It's all about individuality, and following what is subjectively right.
Therefore, if all opinions are subjectively right, then it becomes a question of might making right to offset any sort of deadlock in conflicting opinions.
Someone has to die.
Communists had it right- You have these "liberators" marching into Tibet. At first they asked if they wanted to join the Communist Revolution. They said "no. We're happy with Buddhism." So the Chinese came with guns and turned the monasteries into brothels and flooded Tibet with Chinese settlers.
This is Atheism. Why should they respect other peoples' beliefs, they were better than everyone! It gives them a right to ridicule and step on the icons of religions. They're the douchebags who go to the beach to topple kids' sandcastles.
I'm certain that they enjoy making religious people hurt. That's what Atheists are all about.
I have resolved to commit a holy crusade against those who attack religion. I commend those who attempt to do the same- it is a work of charity to put down the animals.
Furthermore, Atheists are only the way they are because they don’t want to follow any rules at all. And so they are embittered by the fact that they get no afterlife, since their own lives are only the present- they have no past nor do they have any future! It wouldn’t matter to them, science is progress and so progress can’t look back and has no use for speculating about the future, only the present.
These people lack any sort of morals to question if progress at breakneck speed is good for humanity at all- They only exist for the novelties that science has to offer. Sure, medicine produced numerous cures for diseases, but that only serves as a reason to be less appreciative of life. The quality of life is lessened because of a sad attempt to become immortal, forever young, and happy with life on Earth, and to not prepare for any afterlife- the Atheist does not believe in an afterlife.
The Atheist would read books, always to be critical, and to get together with other atheists with the sole purpose of mocking those who AREN’T atheist. They set up charities so they can prove that they are not immoral, but the only reason they set those up is to gain the trust of people and to try and evangelize their own sad anti-religion by presenting it as an easier path.
Sadly, if Atheism is for the intelligent, there is only a handful of them. They are a minority. They HAVE to be oppressed, because these people can be an elite for so long before people are fed up with their whiny anti-religion, anti-theist bullshit that they try cramming down people’s throats in a manner not unlike certain religions.
Yes, Atheists are a minority. Minorities tend to view themselves as either Oppressed or Elite. Maybe it has something to do with feeling marginalized that a lot of people have sympathy for minorities. Everyone loves the underdog, they say. But in the case of Atheists- these underdogs think they are better than everyone else, so they turn off a lot of people. I’ve met some “nice” atheists, but the truth is, they’d scoff at any ceremony you give for any deceased loved ones that you have. They would laugh at you because you say that your grandmother is now in a better place, where the pains of this world do not exist. They would laugh at you because they think you think that your dead loved ones play the harp on a cloud and some big man in the sky is watching over everyone.
I’d say that only 1% of atheists are genuinely smart, the other 99% are idiots trying to not look like idiots by becoming rebels against the establishment. That’s a fad. Why don’t you think that ANY atheists at all openly challenged people like the pope, the dalai lama, and the Islamic scholars outside their own comfortable atheist hug box? Do you really think that Atheism is such a majority that they could take on an army of pissed-off Islamic militants, Jesus Freaks, and other zealots who have SHAPED human history? I don’t think so. They go to websites like Sankaku Complex and post about how great they are without having any actual contribution to humanity- the majority of which, find them annoying and irrelevant to their own lives.
Atheists tend to be presumptuous of what they think other people believe- They make the classic argument: “If God exists, and he’s compassionate and merciful, and all that- is God able to stop suffering, but is not willing?”, which presumes the possibility that all suffering can be willed into nothingness without removing any sort of freedom from humans or the laws of nature. The Iraenean Theodicy states that there is suffering in the world, and God allows it, because the alternative would be a hedonistic world where there is no such thing as suffering- which in real life cases had been the reason for a retardation of growth and development and maturity among humans. What about paradise? Isn’t that the same hedonistic place that God was trying to keep us from having on Earth? According to Judeo-Christian commentaries, proximity to God washes away any sort of desire and is the source of happiness and contentment. That is heaven. Atheists don’t get this because they’d rather sit down, eat, sleep, fuck, shit, piss, and get drunk and high- and this sort of material contentment is sufficient for them. They are happy living like animals that would only do the same thing if they’d had opposable thumbs but not any larger brains to ask if there IS anything beyond a state of existence where you don’t breathe anymore, or walk, or talk, or do the things that you do when you’re alive.
Actually, if you're going to argue that route, everyone needs to die, regardless of their beliefs. There are just as many athiests who don't want to destroy religion as there are religious people who are fine if you're not of their religion. It's the extremes, crazies, and fanatical zealots of any religion, atheism included, that causes this. You can call it Jihad, a Crusade, or "waking people up". The point is, no matter what the religion, even Atheism, you'll have your crazies who give the religion a bad name.
What you gave examples to are crazies who are in political power. You may think you're making a point, but you're actually proving yourself no better than they are by saying that.
and then it becomes a battle of brute strength, not cleverness with words.
It seems more fair nowadays.
i can't believe you read all of that
Enemies of the Ori will show no mercy in their attempt to lead us astray from the true path, likewise we must attack with all the Strength which we have been given. And those who are prideful and refuse to bow down, shall be laid low and made into dust.
Hallowed are the Ori.
They should have kept funding the series.
I agree. Sadly, one has been left to hope that they'll do good things with SGU.
As a psychology student I have to say that I find this interesting, even though in my studies I have find again and again research that shows religious people are more happier than non religious ones, the more religious the more happier.
I seriously doubt the existence of a god, but I believe this come to, you want to be right or happy?
It comes to religious people having tighter communities. Tight communities are formed by uniform thought/-s.
I'm quite sure that you'll find that drunks are happier than teetotalers. I'll leave it to you to decide whether that's a good thing or not.
Atheists are only the way they are because they don’t want to follow any rules at all. And so they are embittered by the fact that they get no afterlife, since their own lives are only the present- they have no past nor do they have any future! It wouldn’t matter to them, science is progress and so progress can’t look back and has no use for speculating about the future, only the present.
These people lack any sort of morals to question if progress at breakneck speed is good for humanity at all- They only exist for the novelties that science has to offer. Sure, medicine produced numerous cures for diseases, but that only serves as a reason to be less appreciative of life. The quality of life is lessened because of a sad attempt to become immortal, forever young, and happy with life on Earth, and to not prepare for any afterlife- the Atheist does not believe in an afterlife.
The Atheist would read books, always to be critical, and to get together with other atheists with the sole purpose of mocking those who AREN’T atheist. They set up charities so they can prove that they are not immoral, but the only reason they set those up is to gain the trust of people and to try and evangelize their own sad anti-religion by presenting it as an easier path.
Sadly, if Atheism is for the intelligent, there is only a handful of them. They are a minority. They HAVE to be oppressed, because these people can be an elite for so long before people are fed up with their whiny anti-religion, anti-theist bullshit that they try cramming down people’s throats in a manner not unlike certain religions.
I suspect you haven't met any atheists who don't spend all their time preaching on the internet. There's also no reason to think that atheists are immoral just because so many are jackasses, I know a lock of Christians who are just as irritating.
Here's the bottom line: if you want a good world start by executing the annoying people the move on to the Jews.
u mad?
"Naturally, that academics and scientists tend overwhelmingly to be left wing and irreligious has nothing to do with these scholarly and impartial scientific conclusions."
The fact that academics and scientists tend to be more intelligent and less religious kind of speaks for itself, doesn't it?
Besides, it's been known for years that the more educated one is, the less likely one is to seriously believe in a religion. Facts are facts, unintelligent and uneducated hicks are more likely to be devoutly religious, while intelligent and educated people are more likely to disregard superstition.
The more intelligent and educated also realise that it's a fairly good idea to look after the environment and ecosystems of the planet that sustains us, and that getting along nicely with each other is preferable to killing each other. Hence they tend towards viewpoints typically associated with the political 'left'. i.e. secularism, diplomacy, and social freedom. However I wouldn't associate most intelligent people with far-left ideals which are often almost as bad as the far-right.
Global Peace Index: World map [http://www.visionofhumanity.org/gpi/results/world-map.php] | Rankings [http://www.visionofhumanity.org/gpi/results/rankings.php]
Less religious nations tend to be more peaceful. Surprised? Not really.
That's the other thing I dislike about things that touch on religion of any sort. It opens the flood gates to preachy anonymous amateurs.
There's nothing like being scolded/chastised/or lectured by some preachy local mofo hell bent on building their personal salvation on the back of your allegedly heretic non-religious ass.
yeah, we'd continue to spam your atheistic ass if you give us a chance to abandon the "love your neighbor" bullshit. That sort of religion has its place. We're just making life miserable for the freaks.
Your life seems miserable enough. You have your own personal hell already.
we thrive on people's negative reactions.
shit, I'd gladly get my hands dirty. Call myself the butcher and scourge of God. Just to mess with everyone involved in the conflict.
It's almost always poor form to generalize findings in psychology unless you have an absurdly huge amount of data. There's also a serious problem that in studies like this you have to operationally define things like "traditionalist", "smart", "liberal", "atheist". Claiming the he has made this claim isn't very useful because you haven't told us what he study *actually says*.
oh, it's fukken JIHAD TIEM!!!
Everyone who doesn't use a condom because their religion forbids it, let's go to the advanced secular country and rape the shit out of it!
religion wins.
@03:33
"Everyone who doesn't use a condom because their religion forbids it, let's go to the advanced secular country and rape the shit out of it!"
That's the scary thing. The developed, educated world actually uses birth control.
The teeming masses of ignorant people from less developed regions of the world have little or no concept of it. The ignorant therefore breed at a far more rapid rate than the intelligent and the educated and this will have an extremely detrimental effect the world as a whole.
Even in currently developed nations immigrants are bringing stone-age beliefs into the countries. Legal immigrants can become citizens and vote, potentially outweighing intelligent voters and dragging down the hard-won social progress made by these nations over the past centuries.
Yes, I'm looking at you, you "honour killing" fucking Muslims. I don't know statistics, but these people with stone-age cultural values keep breeding at a significant rate and immigrate to developed countries where they are already gaining significant political power with regards to their backwards religion. Sharia courts in the UK, for example. They have got to be stopped before they drag our countries back down to their level.
Don't stop now, immigrants! Let's bring down this infamous secular society!
This study is bogus. Leftists and liberals are some of the dumbest people on this planet, not to mention that they act just like religious people do. They have no concept of logic or rationality, their thinking (if you can call it that) is entirely dogmatic and based on pre-programmed responses. They also have the same kind of insane zeal as religious fanatics do.
lol @ hollywood liberals.
"Let's save the planet! ...while riding a jet plane/hummer"
"Let's adopt children from Africa! ...and raise them to be like spoiled, self-important rich white kids!"
"Let's help out poor countries! ...And point out how better I am than they are for being able to help them!"
I seem to recall that most Hollywood actors etc are in fact religious.
are you saying they should stop giving millions to charities?
I agree, watching many liberals speak makes me go "wtf? PLEASE START USING THAT BRAIN!". The problem though, is that the republicans manage to be even dumber, more dogmatic, and lacking in the logic department.
Just 10 mins of Fox "fair and balanced" makes me go "oh ffs someone make the human gene pool a favour and shoot these morons!"
This is idiotic. To say just because people choose to believe in life after death they must be stupid in a round about way and claiming it's a scientific study is just complete bullshit. I graduated in the top 25 out of a school of 2000 people and I'm a conservative, christian, male. This entire article is a waste of space... I'm sorry but the guy who runs sankaku needs to shut the fuck up with his opinions and give us pertinent anime, video game, and J-news and not endless different stories that each in a round about way bash right wing people, religious people, (Xbox players as of late), and everything else he doesn't agree with. Seriously stuff like this is insulting to large masses of the community and has no good other than fueling 4chan addicted trolls to bash on other peoples beliefs.
You couldn't understand the article, could you?
From the article I've read...it seems to me that the research points to a correlation in the tendency of people with "lower" intelligence to be religious and people with "higher" intelligence to be non-religious.
Psychology is a so called "weak science" and merely points out some patterns observed through studies.And of course people draw conclusions, etc. from that.
While it is wrong to generalize people by saying:
You believe in Religion?That means you're dumb!!
The way you over-reacted just adds another anecdote for people to argue for that misguided opinion.
Actually, someone seriously believing in a religion like chirstianity is enough to label them pretty dumb in my book.
I'd label someone who actually believed Red Riding Hood was real as stupid or mentally ill.
I'd label someone who actually believed Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs was real as stupid or mentally ill.
I'd label someone who actually thought that Lord of the Rings was real as stupid or mentally ill.
and I believe I would not be alone doing that either.
So, when someone claims he believes in the Bible, naturally I label him as stupid or mentally ill. Why give him special privileges just because he happens to have the same mental illness as a lot of other people? In the end it's just another fairy tale.
How come we can post images of Bush next to a chimp, but if we did the same with Obama it would be racist? It sure feels like a double standard.
That's because it is a double standard.... and hits too close to home for some people...
religious people think fiction is reality and there is no law directly against fiction in bible yet they still use it even when the bible wasn't written for something like that.
it's natural for people with bigger iqs to question the vality of any religious dogma. Really normal...obs: before trools say anything, i'm not making "apologia" to atheism (actually i'm agnostic).
AGNOSTIFAG YOU'RE JUST TOO STUPID TO BE AN ATHEIST, SO YOU'RE SUBSCRIBING TO ATHEISM LITE.
ALL HAIL RELIGIOUS BIGOTRY!
Where would we be without the Militant Atheists? Tending sheep in Palestine? Getting mundane jobs?
I tell you, sending death threats to Swedish cartoonists and being intimidating in general is a HELL lotta more fun than being rational and civil.
Even if a fly is nothing more than an annoyance, he gets so much delight at the fact that the giant man is swatting at him and CAN'T get rid of him.
Huh...
Now this is sheer boredom. What happens to ero-talk?
You know why those Palestinians were cheering during 9/11?
For all its might and all its intellect and pride in a secular enlightenment, the West hasn't been able to deal with a small group of men who made the twin towers fall down hard.
What's that? Economic Ruin? You betcha. You really can't take away from people who have nothing but their beliefs. The West, however...
Even now, you have the best equipped army in the world struggling to fight against people who have to shit in a hole on the ground.
Where's your science now, Atheists? Does it promise you virgins? Or do you have to settle for the onahole?
Reminds me on Vietnam.
and THOSE guys were atheists too.
they had a religion - communism
communism by its very nature accuses religion to be the invention of the bourgeoisie as an attempt to control the proletariat by providing an opiate.
Now, of course, we know how well communism works, with the ever-lasting U.S.S.R. and "communist" china.
Lenin would roll in his grave, if they didn't keep an eye on him 24/7.
Lenin-roll. Someone make a Macro already.
Wrong!!! They have many religions, and communism isn't a religion.
Since they have so many religion from the common one like Christan to the rare one like Hoa Hao so I won't put a list here.
But as far as I know most of them tend to worship ancestors who did great things when they lived and even family member who just die recently. In short they some what like those dwarf in DAO.
...and communism isn't a religion. - if you have to say this, so you are totally stupid or what ?
LOL STATE OWNED RELIGION LOL
OH YES. AS LONG AS THEY ARE LOYAL TO THE PART FIRST, THEY CAN BELIEVE IN ANY GOD THEY LIKE. :D
(Communists are Atheists. That's why I hate Atheism and Atheists. These people have trampled enough religions. They must be wiped off from the face of the Earth.)
And then we shall continue with our Holy Wars. In any case, we will go to our glorious afterlife. Atheists get nothing. Probably an afterlife with Marx, Lenin, Mao, and Stalin. And they'll be riding your ass for all eternity.
Nah man, we're going to have a baller ass "Communist Party" down in Red Square. You can come if you want; just make sure you bring your own beer.
Cue obligatory Communist Party shirt:
http://www.overheardinthesacristy.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/communist-party1.jpg
Are the claims of virgins actually meaning raisins ( or some such) been proven wrong yet?
mistranslations in religious texts won't ever be "proven" right or wrong. this is because 72 raisins awaiting muslims in heaven is not nearly persuasive enough to recruit suicide bombers.
also, jesus (if he did indeed exist) was born on the ground level of an inn, not in a manger.
wait- are you saying we should emulate the Palestinians?
I don't know about this article, I've met some pretty stupid liberals and atheists as well. My theory is that there are stupid people no matter what niche of society you examine.
I believe the most enlightened people are those that understand they do not have all the answers. Science does not and will not give us all the answers. Neither does religion. Many scientists I know believe there is some type of God out there, because only they understand all it is they do not know, and could not know.
Stupid study is stupid. It just proves that Leftists are just arseholes enough to make a pseudo-study to make the non-Left wingers feel unintelligent. Plus, if I remember correctly, this guy misinterpreted his own study (thanx Red Eye). I'm clearly smarter than most of these ppl anyway.
You know, you could have sounded intelligent, but the "It just proves that Leftists are just arseholes" remark quite sais it all....I'm a leftist myself and i think the article is bullshit without having to rely on insult other political opinions.
Always I thought that the religion was more comparable with the mythology than the science
This is nothing smart people didn't already know.
Seems to make sense. I'm an atheist, and IMO adultery is pretty much the worst thing a person can do.
and murder is a-ok! :D
wtf?
Ah, the proof i'm more intelligent than most people. I'm happy now :D
Really? I was under the impression that the people with higher IQs were just more likely to go to college, most of which are anti-religious and try to make their students think the same way.
If you by "anti-religious" mean tries to get people to think for themselves instead of believing in burning bushes speaking or that it is right to kill sunday working Walmart-employees...
Then yeah, those colleges sure are anti-religious.
This article is pure sycophantic bullshit propaganda.
I think the claim is stronger if it ISN'T casual.
Correlation is already interesting in this case.
The point isn't that being smart causes you to be liberal.
The point is simply that smart people are liberal.
And as for adjusting for age, why would you need to?
All the study's participants are the SAME age!
One thing you might counter with is this:
The study shows that YOUNG liberal people are smarter than YOUNG conservatives.
I don't think that's any shock at all.
The study doesn't say anything about people who were liberal when they were young, but grew conservative with age.
Democrats voted for Obama.
That shows their intelligence right there, LOL.
So they're... Incredibly smart?
Come on, don't just throw snide ambigious remarks out there like that. Give us something to work with here!
because Sarah Palin was the smart way to go, right?
@04:30
"Democrats voted for Obama.
That shows their intelligence right there, LOL."
Republicans voted for a ticket that included Sarah Palin as Vice President.
I rest my case.
Republicans voted for Bush... twice.
Hmmm... George Bush... I maybe stupid but didn't he get elected twice, defeating the left wing side, i don't know, twice what does this actually say about AmericaLand?
It tells there is many stupid Americans who voted G.W.Bush.
"Natural Selection leads the survivors STRONGER and BETTER!!!"
"COMPLETE...GLOBAL...SATURATION...*deep breath*"
"This world needs to be JUDGED!!!"
*sigh*
If only Albert Wesker was an otaku...
And the Uroboros virus turned everyone into futanari lolis...
The world would truly be a better place...
It's survival of the fittest, not the survival of the strongest.
If the whole world is religious, and you're an atheist, you'll die.
If the world is atheist, and you're a theist, you'll die.
Currently, more of the world is theist. We need another war to wipe out that 16% of atheism. They are a disease.
You...Never played Resident Evil 5 or fapped to futanari lolis haven't you..?
Lighten up...
Flaming fuel.
Very flawed study because it only consisted of young people instead of a wide range of age groups. Naturally Young people will be less incline to religion than there elders. As they age there parents, friends, lovers, enemy's, start to die off and that is when religion creeps in. As hard as it is to admit, when your older your able to look back on the way we lived. The ways we loved the way we hurt others and the way we hated others and realize this is what shaped us. We begin to realize how much each person influenced our life good or bad and we regret what has been done. later in life they seek to become religious because their stint in the world is coming to a close. after all that has happened to them in life, they would like to see those faces again. This has been a repeating theme through out human history. Its common sense that explains it but usually those with so called higher IQ's lack common sense nowadays.
Of course a leftist would come to this conclusion.
Wow, I thought leftists were also supposed to be more equally excepting of others....
I guess that only applies if it falls in line with their ways of thinking. Kinda of backs up that thing of leftists thinking they know better, and are better.
Elitists.
And scientists claiming all this crap? Scientists who generally reject religion in the first place? Scientists who generally lean left? Gee sounds like a COMPLETELY impartial study.
Maybe Scientists should go back to more productive things, such as pulling their global warming theory out of the toilet.......
Most "leftists" do promote equal acceptance.
However a growing number, including myself, recognise the threat posed by organised religion.
For example, the Christian fundamentalists who argue against the solidly established theory of evolution because it contradicts their precious creation myths. There are teachers and school boards in the US who want to teach creationism and/or 'intelligent design' solely because the facts of reality don't support their religious delusions.
We also have the cult of Scientology demonstrating profoundly how a so-called religion can sucker people into truly believing batshit insane fiction thought up by a sci-fi author.
And of course, the increasing prominence of Islam, with Muslims constantly demonstrating their stone-age moral values and insane religious laws. Their own theocracies implement the death penalty for homosexuality, support stoning of rape victims, and have religious police units who arrest people for drinking alcohol, or women who show their faces in public. Not to mention the honour killings, in which they feel it is perfectly acceptable to kill a child, usually a girl, for dishonouring the family by associating with male friends.
And the Islamists are extending their foul reach into the United Nations and western countries, trying to make criticising their bullshit religion illegal, and trying to have their ridiculous sharia law recognised by courts in the UK.
They're also fond of blowing themselves up.
Religion is a major problem, which must be stopped. Religious belief cannot and should not be banned, but it should most certainly be discouraged and opposed at every turn. It should not receive special protection from governments. It should loudly and publicly be called on its bullshit. And above all, children must be protected from indoctrination.
Religion - especially fundamentalist Islam - must be stopped, now. Otherwise they will drag us back to the dark ages.
The problem with this test is this:
Free thinking will always be smarter on average then those that tow the line.
This could apply to religion to the state to near anything that is more or less all encompassing. It has less to do with what you believe and more to do the fact that the ignorant masses tend to flock towards what they perceive as the safe and easy (religion and state).
If you were to take people of very high IQs from both religious and non religious groups and test them against each other you would likely find little difference.
Blindly following religion/state is bad, at the same time blindly rejecting both because it is the thing to do is bad as well. You have to know why you are doing something and question your rational behind it. That is was make you smart or dumb, not the fact that you have religion or not.
The results really should read, religion is more attractive on average to those with a lower IQ. This is far from a new concept tho and as I say can be used in a lot of places for a lot of things.
um who cares?
"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."
Fuck yeah. Something that makes me at least "look" intelligent.
I don't want any of your belief titles. I believe in what I can see, feel and hear, I don't care what other people believe in, and my attention span to people trying to tell me what they believe in and that only their belief is true and valid is very short.
I do not believe a book that was written by mankind, unless it is based on proof and pure facts, a book is nothing but a fantasy story unless it is based on facts.
I believe in science, this because science is practiced and based on facts and proof.
I say believe in what you want and what makes you happy enough to get through the day, just as long as you don't pester your surroundings with it and the people who has different or non-beliefs.
I really wish I was as uncritical of science as you are.
Inb4 countless butthurt people.
Oh. I see, already happened. :)
There's no such thing as religion you guys.
This article pretty hypocritical.
Just from the title alone, Sankaku ties leftism as the direct opposite of religion. Granted, I know more non-religious liberals then religious ones, but that doesn't somehow negate their existence.
Also, this kind of study should be looked at with scrutiny. Of coarse not all religious people are idiots, as Sankaku is trying to insinuate about the findings of this study. Rather, what this study points out, is that you are more likely to find someone with a higher IQ in an environment with a liberal view of education.
let's face it, Religion isn't designed to change, and when it does, it's only to attract followers or to mislead them that Religion isn't some bronze age bullshit. Science, something that has been benefiting man for thousands of years, changes and grows to accommodate the social needs (medicine, psychology, plumbing, electricity, y'know things that affect your everyday life). You are more likely to find liberals in the scientific fields, and non-religious areas, because they found the environment to be a better source for knowledge. In religious states, schools are constantly told to not teach evolution, or to preach the false teachings of creationism in class. Even worse, in very religious areas, children are home schooled and are not taught anything outside of the bible. People aren't born intelligent, it's our environments and willingness to adapt that make us more intelligent. Seeing past some thousand year old book and actually trying to understand the world around you, that's smart. Staying ignorant, just because it makes you feel all warm and tingly, is dumb, sorry, that's life.
when you compare a religious state to a very non-religious one, you find the populations who are religious tend to have lower IQ levels, higher crime rates, etc. Does it mean that the whole state is like that? No. but it gives you a good idea of what mentalities effect learning.
this isn't because their religion made them 'dumber' it's because the mindset of the religious leaders and followers believe in never changing. It's why some religious folk still think that you can cure a disease by praying (or kill people), or that evolution isn't real.
in an environment where one can be taught freely, (the 'leftist' side, as Sankaku says), people have greater access to knowledge without their local church trying to take the proverbial book out of their to burn.
It's sickening when 'news' outlets mislead their viewers or skew data in order to preach some nonsense about "oh, see? the lefties think they're soooo smart". If you want to be more intelligent, or seem so, actually research facts, and get the information
Atheism is a lack of a belief in a god, the exact opposite of theism, that's how it works. And for all you people out there who don't know any better, agnosticism is not a middle ground. Gnosticism is knowledge. I don't know if there is a god without sufficient evidence, but as such, I don't believe in him either. Therefore, I'm an agnostic atheist.
Once again, science proves itself full of idiots. For as smart as you guys claim to be, you sure are a bunch of dumbasses. And here, the only thing you're trying to do is push an agenda.
First - it's NOT true that non-religious people are more faithful to their wives, they're just as bad. They just don't get busted for the hypocracy bit.
Second - why is it they seem to thing Science and Religion are not compatible with one another? For this, religion is just as bad! Look - science speaks in specifics and data, while religion in relative terms and symbolism. The Good Book says the world was created in seven days. Science says you can't do it in seven days. But given that it's a RELIGIOUS STATEMENT, you have to remember time is relative. The symbolic day is just an abstract period of time stretching from one area to another.
Third - this is most amusing to me. Does science forget its roots? Did they forget that the Big Bang theory was the CHRISTIAN theory, created by a CATHOLIC PRIEST? That science's counter to it was the Steady State Theory? Tell me, what do we talk about nowadays, hmm? The Big Bang, or the Steady State?
There are just as many scientific geniuses in the Religious field as the non-religious field, and religion itself can be used not only as inspiration, but if you look at the common themes in religion, it'll point to more than just beliefs. Things that are commonly held throughout many or most religions may be based on fact - just as any legend or myth.
So science, to you, I issue a challenge. How about pulling your head out of your ass, stop pushing an agenda, and instead of bashing religion, look to it as inspiration. You don't have to believe it to be inspired by it, you just need the creativity to understand that people had to explain what was happening to them back when the religious texts were made, and didn't have the tools you have today. Stop bashing it, and start trying to find out what these symbols of theirs really meant. Who knows? You may find the next big discovery hidden deep inside the bible or something.
There is nothing inspiring about stoning a pregnant woman to death.
Role,
Science and not opposed, however they are fundamentally incompatible. Science is a secular pursuit dedicated to understanding reality, not challenging religion. It just so happens that more often than not, reality contradicts religious mythology and science simply reveals it. Of course religious people don't like the fact that they're wrong and get upset at "science" because the truth doesn't match up with their religious conviction.
Science is fundamentally a secular pursuit. It has nothing to do with religion at all. The Big Bang theory was proposed by a scientist who also, coincidentally, happened to be a Catholic priest. The theory was proposed because he was a scientist; being a priest didn't have anything to do with it. As with all theories, the Big Bang theory stood on its own merits. With subsequent investigation and observations, it was determined that the Big Bang theory is the best match for all available evidence and that is why it has gained such wide support. Because it matches the evidence. THIS IS HOW SCIENCE WORKS. It has nothing to do with who proposed the theory (although they receive due credit for their discovery), it is based on how well the theory fits the facts. At the present time, the Big Bang theory is what fits the facts.
Scientists are constantly investigating and testing alternative theories to see if they fit the facts better than a competing theory. What you refer to as "science's counter" to the Big Bang theory was merely an alternative explanation from a different scientist which, while a valid theory, is currently thought to be less supported than the evidence for the Big Bang.
I repeat that science is secular. Individual scientists may take their personal religious beliefs as an inspiration for a hypothesis they're working on, but the results of the study must be published in a secular manner. Secular means that it is independent of religion or unscientific bias. The facts must stand on their own without bias or appeal to magic. Religion is based on faith, and faith is not a valid precept for a scientific theory. You cannot just say "then god did it, as proven in this passage from the Bible" as part of any scientific hypothesis. You must prove the validity of the facts, demonstrate how the theory fits those facts, and explain exactly how your conclusion is reached - WITHOUT resorting to mythology, faith, or unsubstantiated beliefs.
Science IS incompatible with religion, but that is because it is wholly independent of it. It is not because science directly challenges any religion, and science in general certainly does not bash religions. Many scientists are religious themselves, and while other individual scientists may speak in opposition to religious dogma these are their personal opinions. There has never been a scientific paper published with regard to the validity of religious beliefs. Psychology journals may indeed have addressed the human inclination towards religious beliefs - but even that is not a statement on the validity of those beliefs.
Individual scientists can take inspiration from wherever they wish. They could take inspiration from the Lord of the Rings if they wanted to. There is nothing preventing them from doing so. But a theory must always, ALWAYS, stand on its own merits and demonstrable evidence.
Secular rationalist here... I've always thought religion was a bit odd.
And before anyone points out the throngs of brilliant Jewish scientists and mathematicians humanity has had, just because they were ethnically Jewish doesn't mean they actually held highly theist beliefs... As history shows, most of them did not.
There's a lot of research and studying in a traditional Hebrew education, practice which would serve anyone well for a career in formula-based academia. Even if you wound up disagreeing with your education, you still ended up with a decent one.
Then again, I kinda doubt Einstein owed his genius to a good education. More like the other way around.
Ok, so... most people seem to be throwing rocks at one another, therefor I will try to present a somewhat neutral stance.
The reason why I say SOMEWHAT neutral is simple, I am an Atheist.
I live in Portugal, and I grew up as a christian, went to church every week, sunday school, boy scouts etc... you name it, I was involved in plenty of activities.
At around 11 or 12 years old, I decide to leave these activities, I requested to my parents and although some initial refusal, they eventually let me do it.
I left because things were stopping to make sense to me, I started to be more involved in science and technology. Since then I have develop a great interest in both.
Now to the matter at hand. I do not resent religions, you are all free to believe in whatever it is you want, as am I. Now you can say, "You are an atheist! You don't believe in anything!", and you know what? You are probably right, but that's not atheism, that's nihilism (which is a philosophy I enjoy very much).
This is where you guys need to consult wikipedia, atheism is simple a skeptical way of thinking towards supernatural claims(existence of god), due to the lack of real evidence. It does not mean atheists cannot live a rather spiritual live, such as adopting Buddhism for example. In fact many do that.
From my experience, religious people often like to see the world in black and white, good and evil, heaven and hell, I admit, it is just simpler to look at it this way, and easier. It is also simpler to just assume there is someone watching over you, that we are not alone in this universe... but I don't look for simple answers, and I do not want to start a flame war here, so lets just say that there are many paths to the same end, and we all must choose/find our own path.
I live my life with a deep focus on improving, myself, the world around me and the people around me, that is one of my objectives in life. Although this seems like a desperate cause, I will share the little knowledge I have with whomever wants to listen. I don't care if you are atheist or not, if you do something morally wrong, you have to face the consequences.
Yes, as surprising it may sound I have moral values, and even more surprising I DO agree with some of the values written on the bible, you know why? Because they have common sense! It is as simple as that.
"You shall not murder"
"You shall not steal"
I agree... don't you? It is morally wrong to do these things.
I never imposed my way of thinking into anyone else, because it's also wrong, every human being should self-determine, but religions have done this in the past... hell! They are still doing it, this is a fact, as it is a fact that countless wars have been caused by religion and in the name of god in the past, and even today!
Are atheists a superior life form? Haha... probably not, we are just another life form, among many others, personally the more variety the better, the more ways of thinking, the more ways of doing things different, the better.
Stone the dirty neutral!
I, as an anti-atheist bastard, agree with the atheist bastard above me.
BURN THE WITCH!.
@Fakeless
Off to the gallows with ye, and take your perfectly reasonable comment to Hell!
Pill, hookah, or syringe?
Now , that's what we call "intelligent".
It's just more common now to be "leftist" and "liberal" amongst younger people. I've met idiots on both sides. What would be more intelligent is to doubt the results of any study without knowing how the study was conducted and the sample group.
Well, a lot has to do with upbringing and life experiences. I kinda was leaning left myself before I had real life kick my ass after I moved out on my own. Learned a lot of hard lessons.
It's easy to believe in leftism until you have to face reality. If you've got the money, you don't have to understand the importance of hard work, but if you don't, you soon begin to realize that not all the left's ideas are all that great.
Until they don't have anyone taking care of them, they will probably remain leftist. But when they face the cold hard realities of life? Well, you remember what happened to the hippy generation, right? Most of them grew up and grew out of it. Same thing will likely happen here.
Great, this study gave the world just what it needed: more atheists who think they're smart simply because they're atheist. We didn't have NEARLY enough.
Because God never show itself.
and if only religions would explain dinosaurs.
so to summarize, religous ppl are stupid lol
This is so one-sided, and meant only to be used as some sort of political tool.
So many scientists and researchers, who even research such things as evolution, are religious, namely Francis Collins, and most (if not all) members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences run by the Vatican. Wow, would you look at that, science and religion working together? I thought that could never happen, because, you know, religion can only be synonymous with idiocy and such.
Oh, and there are such things as left-winged Christians, if I'm not mistaken. So how does that work?
I'm agnostic, so I don't take personal offense. But come on, this is such a blatantly pathetic excuse to play high and mighty.
It always is
So in short "higher intelligence = smarter", that's news!
Science = a bunch of open minded monkeys believing that everything is in the brain. XD
this seems pretty simple and common-sense.. but it's probably because my IQ was 133.
IQ is an Intelligence Quotient, not a measure 'how smart you are'. It is simply an ability to learn or willingness to learn. Therefore, higher IQ means willingness to adapt and evolve to better oneself. People with a lower IQ will be less willing to adapt, and more likely to perform familiar tasks. aka - stay in a rut or play it safe, whether this is a job, education, or beliefs.
Hey Anon,
Your IQ is 133? Really? Yet you're convinced that people of lower capacities are unwilling or unable to adapt. That's just stupid Mr. 133. BTW you never specified what qualifies you to be speaking on such an article, besides the fact that every troll and their mother posts on here. Your "high IQ" could be a facade kept up in just this one comment of yours and as you implied, it doesn't automatically make you willing to learn. You said "ability to learn or willingness to learn", but you can have one without the other(same with the adapting statement). I also have an IQ in the 130s(137), and I'm modest enough to admit those with higher IQs aren't always the most perceptive or intelligent of individuals. It just feels like such a crutch to throw your IQ out like that man. Also, I'm familiar with several IQs taken in the course of testing that are averaged into your final number. 133 is rather vague considering you have IQs related to math, science, language, spacial, reasoning and logic, Wechsler's IQ test, Terman's Stanford-Binet IQ test, etc. Considering your argument was quite poor, I'm assuming a low reasoning and logic score is to blame for your 133. You might be quite smart when it comes to spacial and whatnot, but still your IQ just barely qualifies you for Mensa (I think the cutoff is 132). This is of course if you actually are that capable and not just bullshitting us on the 133.
As a person with a mere 140 IQ (No shit. I just tried out mensa.no's trial test [http://www.mensa.no/olavtesten/index_2.html] ololol), I'm here to tell you that your post contains an above average amount of bullshit.
(No: I don't take IQ test seriously)
I'm on my way to be a scientist (currently doing my degree in physics) and I will always think the stupidest re the one who makes such one sided statement. Both side can reach an equilibrium even if they don't need each-other. And also, I see a lot of people narrowing the definition of "religion" the the belief in one of many Gods, which is totally false to think.
Anyway, I don't mind religion as long as they don't go teaching bullshit to its followers which then go and rant on sciences (one thing that is always omitted is that most religious texts are just metaphors, yet people are too stupid to realized that... oh wait that study might be true then...).
I'm a liberal and proud of it also an atheist too. I don't like those conservative christians because they spew garbage they're the ones who oppose same sex marriage although they're the ones that get caught doing sexual stuff like for example Republican Senator Larry Craig to me this is funny he was toe tapping & doing hand signals under the stall the conservatives who are pretty much against everything are really hardcore jesus fucking christians. Sarah Palin is a great example she doesn't like abortions because jesus wants your kids to be born. Also she doesn't like same sex marriage because it's against god. Okay who wanted to vote this retard in? To me all of these conservatives are religiously retarded they believe in a neurological disorder,a talking dead guy & a guy who was nailed on a piece of wood! You know what watch this movie it does prove how fucked up religion really is the movie is called Religulous I really liked this movie it's made by Bill Maher. you know who's pretty dumb in the US? The Tea Party Movement as I like to call them The Teabagging Movement they're just a bunch of religious hicks who probably fucked their sisters or they're daughters and spewing racism & hatred towards liberals they funny thing about it they don't realize that the stuff that Obama is trying to do is help everyone out but they let racism get into the picture because he's black they call him a socialist because they can't say the racial slur for black people. Obama is intelligent he went to Harvard Graduated & Became a Professor in Harvard he doesn't want to deal with a bunch of ignorant,religious,close minded,racist, & conservatives but he has to all these assholes. it bothers me that people call him Hitler & The Joker From Batman The Dark Night's Joker it's just he wants to fix what the republicans fucked up. But the republicans get in the way, anyway the republican party is the biggest joke ever I say call them Hitler you know what Worse than Hitler because most of them are alive and they're a bunch of Nazi's and all of their IQ's are less than an inch between their eyebrows because they let religion get in the way! Republicans started the whole religious bullshit back in the 1950's and now they're stuck with it this is the kind of bad karma that they get what they deserve.
fuck dude...at least give us some breathing room in your hate speech. Enter key man! Can you see it?! Funny how the only thing I'm not strained to see in your post is random bullshit about Bill Maher and Batman at the end. GTFO troll!
He probably loves Michael Moore too.
Intelligence might first push people to the left, but wisdom will always bring them back to center.
I find nothing inspiring about stoning a pregnant woman to death.
I am a douchebag and a selfish prick, also i love my vanities.
It's all fun and games until someone switches Bush's picture with Obama's!
what do pictures comparing Bush and Obama have to do with it?
I see what you did thar!
So nobody cares about how much that chimp resembles Bush?
I have never seen any scientist say "Kill them!" while that's all I hear in religion, They say that "God is the almight and perfect!" wow...what a nice guy god is for having such a sad human emotions which are called "Jealousy" and "Hate"
Come on guys, all what religion support is money and sex, it's true there might be few or lets say MANY good things in religion, like Morality and all, but the bad things in religion aren't light, they are so extreme, why would god order us to kill? and why not "Use the miracle I gave you, use your mind!"
And as an Athiest, who is looking for the truth, I'm ready to be religious if just god showed me that he really exist, I'm honestly trying my best to believe in him, I want ot believe in unknown "someone" up there, and no I won't blame religion for thievery or money/sex addicts, even many non-religious people are like that, why? coz we are humans.
Never heard of eugenics?
exactly
Eugenics doesn't say "kill people", it merely hypothesises artificial selection of traits rather than natural selection by discarding persons with undesirable traits from the gene pool.
From what I understand it is a fairly unsupported hypothesis anyway. I doubt any credible scientists subscribe to its newsletter, and certainly don't run around advocating killing people because of it.
the pic is epic win
lol It only survived to publication because it said exactly what they like to hear, otherwise they might never take the word of a psychologist of any variety.
Also, its easy to say that religious people are stupid when the majority of people are affiliated with some religion and the majority is stupid.
Still, by the Schrobby school of logic, some other stupid shit should be true as well...For instance, opinion = fact, fact = the truth, therefore opinion = the truth. That said, your logic is flawed because the people you say believe in pure bullshit are merely expressing their opinions and personal truths. QED bitch...don't spout baseless, nonsensical bullshit.
Still IMO, none of the "reasonable" atheists are willing to accept reason in actuality. You guys are just as stubborn as the people you hate (and the reason you hate them is probably something common among theists and atheists alike). Opinion really does equate to fact for you guys just as much as it does for them so leave them alone and shut the fuck up.
"Naturally, that academics and scientists tend overwhelmingly to be left wing and irreligious has nothing to do with these scholarly and impartial scientific conclusions."
What an unhappy comment, when even if we exclude the possibility that academics and scientists are actually people with higher IQ than the average, your text also failed to mention that the supposed reasons behind such conclusions would it be that more inteligent people are more likely to question the traditions. Basically, instead "be smart is to be atheist, monogamic, etc", a consequence of a higher intelligence it's to question the traditions before decide to follow them or not. Once you question it, you do are prone to stop follow it, but it is not a necessary conclusion and the fact that the word "prone" was used exemplify this uncertainty.
It is not the first time that I see Sankaku Complex post crippled news from somewhere trying to get a very biased opinion because the responsible to post it in here just didn't like what he saw in the original. That's no way to act to someone who wishes to criticize someone else partiality... even if a the critic is subtle.
Your post holds no meaning when it's done anonymously.
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)!
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.
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.
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.
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 :)
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.
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.
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".
conclusion the communist is much evolved than capitalism
RELIGION SUCKS EVERY RELIGION IS MADE UP OF MIXED BELIEFS THE WORLD DOESN'T NEED RELIGION ANYMORE
ONLY ANIME AND MANGA .........AND lolis
I am and ATHEIST COSERVATIVE/LIBERTARIAN
"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?
"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.
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.
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.
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.
"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. ;)
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).
Way to give a bunch of 12 year old scene kids reason to believe they are smarter than everyone else
What was the point of even posting this?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
{ cout << lameReligiouslyThemedJokeAboutOnanism << endl; }
Religion makes people look away from reality during hardship for miracles and what not through pray and "good faith". Others face the truth and find solution through their own abilities.
Most people are willing to live with a life that has meaning by means of a possibility of having the right things they did in life vindicated in an afterlife than face the reality that all the unjust people that did wrong by them will end up in the same way as everyone, even the most just and good, with only peoples' opinions to leave as an ever-lasting memory.
Would you like to be forever remembered for the bad things you did, discounting all the good things you've ever done? Or would you like the possibility of being vindicated in some way? Where is the justice in you being considered as a wicked person with no chance of having his named cleared at all?
How about your friends and family- when they die, will you say "good riddance!" and forget about them forever? The same as you will be forgotten? Or would you like the possibility of being reunited with them?
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.
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
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.
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.
Concerning the comments, TL;DR. But I find it absolutely hilarious that the atheists are trying to explain scientific and logical concepts to a christian that just doesn't get it. I mean, it really proves the article doesn't it?
I really don't understand the value of this study though, it's basically masturbation. Most "left-leaning" atheists already know they're more intelligent than their right-wing christian/muslim/jew counterparts, and those right-wing counterparts will never acknowledge any study that would make such claims, so what is the point?
Religious and Political arguments give me a fuckin' migraine. >_<
Wake me up when Zombie/Cyborg/Ninja Jesus comes down to Earth and uses the All-Spark to shatter the planet.
Christfags and Muslimfags sitting on a tree, K-I-L-L-I-N-G!!!
Well, I'd rather live with religious people, particularly, Christians, because I know they won't hurt me. Setting the bullshit/s aside Christianity is a good guide to living a moral and peaceful life.
i hate to prove this artical wrong...but i believe in God and i know for a fact im more intelligent than about 90% of people in the UK
Fuck the Illuminati and their stupid New World Order,you are just the type of dumb monkeys that they want.They control you,and you will see it by yourself.
They aim at a world without religion,they are going to achieve their goal through your blindness,by telling you :"Unbelievers are more smart" hell....That's the most stupid thing that i ever heard. -_-
Shut up Illuminatifag
LOL, well, you have to admit, they're doing a pretty good job there, judging by a number of comments.
*COULD WE PLEASE GET A DIRECT ENGLISH SOURCE LINK TO THIS PUBLICATION*
If I'm feeling pissed off and then I believe in a nondescript god that gets its jollies by making my life miserable, does am I religious?
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."
someone need to hack this page seriously
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!
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..
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.
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.
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
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
Good for you. Here's a cookie.
"BTW, My IQ is 135..."
This is the whole reason you posted. Showoff.
What idiot you are.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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 .