BackPage 1 of 2Next
FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Who is more intelligent, liberal atheist or religious conservative?

Who is more intelligent, liberal atheist or religious conservative?

A study in 2010 by Professor Satoshi Kanazawa at the London School of Economics, published a paper in peer-reviewed scientific journal 'Social Psychology Quarterly', claiming that liberal atheists were more intelligent than religious conservatives. Of course, it's not quite that simple. The next video is a comment by The Young Turks on the same paper. More info: http://tinyurl.com/y9racoq

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2303 days ago)
So, Liberals believe IQ tests measure intelligence now? Wow! I bet I could pick self-identified liberal and Conservative groups that reversed this completely. In fact I could make it come out to say your grandma killed Abe Lincoln.... That much should be obvious to anybody but what really is amusing about this is the people presenting it who I suspect would self identify as Liberals seem to think this is valid evidence of some kind endorsing their political philosophy, that is the clear implication, which of course makes them ,well ...rather unintelligent.
ReplyVote up (137)down (142)
Original comment
So, Liberals believe IQ tests measure intelligence now? Wow! I bet I could pick self-identified liberal and Conservative groups that reversed this completely. In fact I could make it come out to say your grandma killed Abe Lincoln.... That much should be obvious to anybody but what really is amusing about this is the people presenting it who I suspect would self identify as Liberals seem to think this is valid evidence of some kind endorsing their political philosophy, that is the clear implication, which of course makes them ,well ...rather unintelligent.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2302 days ago)
When did they say Liberals believe that IQ tests measure intelligence or that self-identifed Liberals viewed this of as evidence of political theory? What they did say is that the study results showed the average IQ of self-indentified Liberals and of athiests was higher. This is evidence not belief. Are you Conservative and/or religious by any chance?
ReplyVote up (145)down (153)
Original comment
When did they say Liberals believe that IQ tests measure intelligence or that self-identifed Liberals viewed this of as evidence of political theory? What they did say is that the study results showed the average IQ of self-indentified Liberals and of athiests was higher. This is evidence not belief. Are you Conservative and/or religious by any chance?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2302 days ago)
But what is the point and how is this evidence unless IQ tests measure intelligence? If IQ tests don't measure intelligence, and measure it quite accurately since the difference is only a fraction of a standard deviation then this is meaningless. I'd have though that would be obvious to anybody. The fact whoever was in charge of deciding what goes on the news decided this was a story worthy of presentation implies (but does not require, true) that they either believe it is significant or that a portion of the audience will believe it is significant. Since people are more likely to believe a compliment than a criticism it is likely the target is self-identified Liberals. I merely stately the most likely, logical surmise... My own political views do not conform to either pole politically on LINK I'm almost exactly in the middle. I do not subscribe to any organized religion, the closest religious view to my own would be a Spinozan Deist.
ReplyVote up (124)down (144)
Original comment
But what is the point and how is this evidence unless IQ tests measure intelligence? If IQ tests don't measure intelligence, and measure it quite accurately since the difference is only a fraction of a standard deviation then this is meaningless. I'd have though that would be obvious to anybody. The fact whoever was in charge of deciding what goes on the news decided this was a story worthy of presentation implies (but does not require, true) that they either believe it is significant or that a portion of the audience will believe it is significant. Since people are more likely to believe a compliment than a criticism it is likely the target is self-identified Liberals. I merely stately the most likely, logical surmise... My own political views do not conform to either pole politically on LINK I'm almost exactly in the middle. I do not subscribe to any organized religion, the closest religious view to my own would be a Spinozan Deist.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Antisamit (2302 days ago)
Well, IQ tests are currently the best way to measure intelligence. How would you measure it?
ReplyVote up (118)down (138)
Original comment
Well, IQ tests are currently the best way to measure intelligence. How would you measure it?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2302 days ago)
For the purpose of a childish argument like this I wouldn't even try. I haven't heard anything so pathetically infantile since 'my dad can beat up your dad' on the kindergarten playground. I have no argument against intelligence tests as long as their limitations are kept in mind. Mostly they predict how well you will do in at standard academic education. There are other aptitude tests of course which try to measure other things. Intelligence is how well you are able to control and direct your environment and adapt to new circumstances and so it depends on environment and circumstances. Einstein may have been very good at conceptualizing physics but I doubt he'd have fared so well shipwrecked on a desert island... I do find it amusing how the difference between self-identified races IQ score is more than double the difference quoted here yet that is regarded as not valid or significant but when it's a matter of different political views suddenly IQ scores are evidence of inferiority. You don't have to be too smart to see the hypocrisy there.
ReplyVote up (128)down (127)
Original comment
For the purpose of a childish argument like this I wouldn't even try. I haven't heard anything so pathetically infantile since 'my dad can beat up your dad' on the kindergarten playground. I have no argument against intelligence tests as long as their limitations are kept in mind. Mostly they predict how well you will do in at standard academic education. There are other aptitude tests of course which try to measure other things. Intelligence is how well you are able to control and direct your environment and adapt to new circumstances and so it depends on environment and circumstances. Einstein may have been very good at conceptualizing physics but I doubt he'd have fared so well shipwrecked on a desert island... I do find it amusing how the difference between self-identified races IQ score is more than double the difference quoted here yet that is regarded as not valid or significant but when it's a matter of different political views suddenly IQ scores are evidence of inferiority. You don't have to be too smart to see the hypocrisy there.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Antisamit (2302 days ago)
You think you are intelligent, but you scored low in a IQ-test. Thus IQ-tests doesn't measure intelligence. Very logical from your part, but keep that story to yourself, bro.
ReplyVote up (132)down (123)
Original comment
You think you are intelligent, but you scored low in a IQ-test. Thus IQ-tests doesn't measure intelligence. Very logical from your part, but keep that story to yourself, bro.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2302 days ago)
Actually the last time I took a test similar to an IQ test was in high school, I scored above the 99th percentile and got a National Merit Scholarship. Since then Ive had a deal of experience with people who perhaps not have done so well on that sort of a test but who nonetheless have a lot of what I'd call intelligence, bro.
ReplyVote up (135)down (124)
Original comment
Actually the last time I took a test similar to an IQ test was in high school, I scored above the 99th percentile and got a National Merit Scholarship. Since then Ive had a deal of experience with people who perhaps not have done so well on that sort of a test but who nonetheless have a lot of what I'd call intelligence, bro.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Antisamit (2301 days ago)
Well, I had the exact oposite experience. People who I thougth were intelligent scored high and vice versa. Intelligence is a very complex and discussed matter, but the IQ is a good indicator. How do we kown? Through the scientific method.
ReplyVote up (180)down (129)
Original comment
Well, I had the exact oposite experience. People who I thougth were intelligent scored high and vice versa. Intelligence is a very complex and discussed matter, but the IQ is a good indicator. How do we kown? Through the scientific method.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2301 days ago)
I'm not saying people who get high scores on IQ tests aren't intelligent or that IQ tests don't measure a kind of intelligence. I'm saying people who score high on IQ tests aren't the only people who are intelligent nor do IQ tests measure all kinds of intelligence. Nor do IQ tests measure good judgement, I know a lot of people with high IQ's and they are no more likely to have their life together than anyone else, if anything they may be less likely. What IQ tests have been scientifically demonstrated to do is predict roughly how well you will do in school and that's useful. The problem is when people take an IQ test score to mean something definite and scale-able such as how tall you are or how fast you can run and IQ is not that kind of definite quality....Also when you are talking about something like choosing a political philosophy and associating it with just one other quality you are either disingenuous or just not very savvy. Life experiences have far more to do with decisions (to the extent most people can even be said to decide such things) like this than anything else. If I had to guess why there is an association between liberalism and IQ score, weak as it is, I'd say it's most likely because people who have higher IQs are more likely to go to college (because they are good at school) and the culture of the overwhelming majority of colleges is strongly liberal in most areas. Honestly, I'm not trying to rubbish this story because I have dog in the fight, I'm rubbishing it because it is so obviously rubbish.
ReplyVote up (137)down (125)
Original comment
I'm not saying people who get high scores on IQ tests aren't intelligent or that IQ tests don't measure a kind of intelligence. I'm saying people who score high on IQ tests aren't the only people who are intelligent nor do IQ tests measure all kinds of intelligence. Nor do IQ tests measure good judgement, I know a lot of people with high IQ's and they are no more likely to have their life together than anyone else, if anything they may be less likely. What IQ tests have been scientifically demonstrated to do is predict roughly how well you will do in school and that's useful. The problem is when people take an IQ test score to mean something definite and scale-able such as how tall you are or how fast you can run and IQ is not that kind of definite quality....Also when you are talking about something like choosing a political philosophy and associating it with just one other quality you are either disingenuous or just not very savvy. Life experiences have far more to do with decisions (to the extent most people can even be said to decide such things) like this than anything else. If I had to guess why there is an association between liberalism and IQ score, weak as it is, I'd say it's most likely because people who have higher IQs are more likely to go to college (because they are good at school) and the culture of the overwhelming majority of colleges is strongly liberal in most areas. Honestly, I'm not trying to rubbish this story because I have dog in the fight, I'm rubbishing it because it is so obviously rubbish.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Antisamit (2300 days ago)
Ok, then why is the culture of the overwhelming majority of colleges so liberal? I would say its because people at colleges are intelligent. But what's your answer?
ReplyVote up (144)down (129)
Original comment
Ok, then why is the culture of the overwhelming majority of colleges so liberal? I would say its because people at colleges are intelligent. But what's your answer?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2300 days ago)
That is one possible explanation of course but as I pointed out I have yet to see any objective evidence success at school is correlated to good judgement and my own experience leads me to discount the hypothesis… Based on what I’ve seen of people I’d say for the students it’s a simple case of follow the money. Nearly all college students are dependent, one of the central tenets of modern Liberalism is greater social interdependence. Another facet of Liberalism which appeals to young people is hedonism. By this I don’t mean just wanting to party all the time but a moral framework based on pain and pleasure. By way of contrast Conservatives lean more towards individualism and a moral system based on duty…. The faculty is another story, they could just as easily be Conservative as Liberal, the culture of the modern university is largely a self-perpetuating legacy of the 1960’s…Can you tell me exactly what you are using the word ‘intelligent’ to mean? When I say ‘intelligent’ I mean ‘mentally effective’, that involves good judgement and emotional maturity as well as mental acuity, otherwise you are just putting power tools in the hands of an infant.
ReplyVote up (143)down (134)
Original comment
That is one possible explanation of course but as I pointed out I have yet to see any objective evidence success at school is correlated to good judgement and my own experience leads me to discount the hypothesis… Based on what I’ve seen of people I’d say for the students it’s a simple case of follow the money. Nearly all college students are dependent, one of the central tenets of modern Liberalism is greater social interdependence. Another facet of Liberalism which appeals to young people is hedonism. By this I don’t mean just wanting to party all the time but a moral framework based on pain and pleasure. By way of contrast Conservatives lean more towards individualism and a moral system based on duty…. The faculty is another story, they could just as easily be Conservative as Liberal, the culture of the modern university is largely a self-perpetuating legacy of the 1960’s…Can you tell me exactly what you are using the word ‘intelligent’ to mean? When I say ‘intelligent’ I mean ‘mentally effective’, that involves good judgement and emotional maturity as well as mental acuity, otherwise you are just putting power tools in the hands of an infant.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Antisamit (2300 days ago)
I use the word in the same way. Good judgement, emotional maturity, mental acuity, etc are different ways an effective mind can express itself. Although a person can be better at some tasks than others, they all seem entanged. Meaning that if you increase your skill in one you slightly enhance the others. Therefore knowing the efficiency of some mental capabilities gives you a good hint of the hole mental effectivness. This is all generally speaking, please don't come up with isolated cases.
ReplyVote up (127)down (129)
Original comment
I use the word in the same way. Good judgement, emotional maturity, mental acuity, etc are different ways an effective mind can express itself. Although a person can be better at some tasks than others, they all seem entanged. Meaning that if you increase your skill in one you slightly enhance the others. Therefore knowing the efficiency of some mental capabilities gives you a good hint of the hole mental effectivness. This is all generally speaking, please don't come up with isolated cases.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2300 days ago)
I understand; the grounds of our disagreement would seem to be in the character and degree of entanglement. The impression I have gleaned is the relation between mental acuity (memory, the ability to assimilate and manipulate abstract ideas and the like, the stuff an IQ test measures) and good judgement/emotional maturity falls off exponentially after you reach average intelligence. In other words a person of below average acuity will lack good judgement in proportion to how far below he is but persons of above average acuity do not show good judgement in anything like direct proportion to their IQ's. This is noted in the second video here where the presenter mentions that after about a standard deviation above average there is no correlation between IQ and achievement.
ReplyVote up (129)down (124)
Original comment
I understand; the grounds of our disagreement would seem to be in the character and degree of entanglement. The impression I have gleaned is the relation between mental acuity (memory, the ability to assimilate and manipulate abstract ideas and the like, the stuff an IQ test measures) and good judgement/emotional maturity falls off exponentially after you reach average intelligence. In other words a person of below average acuity will lack good judgement in proportion to how far below he is but persons of above average acuity do not show good judgement in anything like direct proportion to their IQ's. This is noted in the second video here where the presenter mentions that after about a standard deviation above average there is no correlation between IQ and achievement.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2300 days ago)
I have also noted the people I have known with very high IQ's 150+, I've been around at least a dozen people in that category well enough to form a good impression of their character, seem to show a disproportionate emotional imbalance. I have always but this down to their greater sensitivity and wonder if this is not an evolutionary brake on human mental acuity. Acuity helps survival to a point and then works against it on average.
ReplyVote up (120)down (135)
Original comment
I have also noted the people I have known with very high IQ's 150+, I've been around at least a dozen people in that category well enough to form a good impression of their character, seem to show a disproportionate emotional imbalance. I have always but this down to their greater sensitivity and wonder if this is not an evolutionary brake on human mental acuity. Acuity helps survival to a point and then works against it on average.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Mmm (2300 days ago)
Indeed it's interesting to postulate as to how evolution is, and will continue to, affect humankind's ongoing development
ReplyVote up (129)down (124)
Original comment
Indeed it's interesting to postulate as to how evolution is, and will continue to, affect humankind's ongoing development
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Antisamit (2299 days ago)
I agree with you on the disentanglement at high IQs and the resulting evolutionary brake. But I disagree on the point were this starts. The IQ/achievement-disentangl ement-point is at IQ115! However the IQ scores we are discussing lie below that point, at 106 (liberals) and 95 (conservatives), making the difference relevant when deciding which one will be more successful if elected. The funny thing is that you can easily see the IQ difference when comparing Obama/McCain, Biden/Palin, CNN/Fox News, etc.
ReplyVote up (146)down (141)
Original comment
I agree with you on the disentanglement at high IQs and the resulting evolutionary brake. But I disagree on the point were this starts. The IQ/achievement-disentangl ement-point is at IQ115! However the IQ scores we are discussing lie below that point, at 106 (liberals) and 95 (conservatives), making the difference relevant when deciding which one will be more successful if elected. The funny thing is that you can easily see the IQ difference when comparing Obama/McCain, Biden/Palin, CNN/Fox News, etc.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2299 days ago)
I haven’t been able to find anything on the methodology of this poll but given some of the other things the fellow who did this research has asserted (http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Satoshi_Kanazawa) I’m inclined to discredit it until I can get a good look. The article also says "6 to 11 points" not 11. The average of six and eleven is 8.5. I did not say the disentanglement point is 115, I said entanglement seems to me to drop off exponentially after that point… Without knowing more about the methodology of this test it’s impossible to criticize it’s findings except as I have done, to point out IQ does not directly scale with good judgement and people generally get their politics from their life circumstances and experiences, not from careful consideration of the merits of the different political philosophies… I find it kind of odd I’m getting so much flack when all I’m contending is this is not evidence conservatives are inferior. As if even suggesting such a thing was some sort of affront. My impression is McCain and Obama are both quite intelligent, though McCain is very old and not as sharp as he was, I don’t know what Biden is, he seems to have a screw loose somewhere, Palin is maybe a little above average. American political leadership is generally intellectually inferior to British because of they way they are elected and the character of the electorate.
ReplyVote up (119)down (141)
Original comment
I haven’t been able to find anything on the methodology of this poll but given some of the other things the fellow who did this research has asserted (http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Satoshi_Kanazawa) I’m inclined to discredit it until I can get a good look. The article also says "6 to 11 points" not 11. The average of six and eleven is 8.5. I did not say the disentanglement point is 115, I said entanglement seems to me to drop off exponentially after that point… Without knowing more about the methodology of this test it’s impossible to criticize it’s findings except as I have done, to point out IQ does not directly scale with good judgement and people generally get their politics from their life circumstances and experiences, not from careful consideration of the merits of the different political philosophies… I find it kind of odd I’m getting so much flack when all I’m contending is this is not evidence conservatives are inferior. As if even suggesting such a thing was some sort of affront. My impression is McCain and Obama are both quite intelligent, though McCain is very old and not as sharp as he was, I don’t know what Biden is, he seems to have a screw loose somewhere, Palin is maybe a little above average. American political leadership is generally intellectually inferior to British because of they way they are elected and the character of the electorate.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Antisamit (2299 days ago)
"prostitutes ... are no different from other women, whom men also have to pay – not in cash payments but in dinners and movies, gifts, flowers, chocolates, and motor oil ..." - Satoshi Kanazawa ROFL Ok, we reached a point were we have to do science in order to progress. You made your position clear. I can summarize mine with the words of Cenk Uygur (the guy from the second video): "... IQ numbers are fishy too, but it is something." On a sidenote: Are you the one I disscused the meaning of the word "religion"? :)
ReplyVote up (105)down (124)
Original comment
"prostitutes ... are no different from other women, whom men also have to pay – not in cash payments but in dinners and movies, gifts, flowers, chocolates, and motor oil ..." - Satoshi Kanazawa ROFL Ok, we reached a point were we have to do science in order to progress. You made your position clear. I can summarize mine with the words of Cenk Uygur (the guy from the second video): "... IQ numbers are fishy too, but it is something." On a sidenote: Are you the one I disscused the meaning of the word "religion"? :)
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2299 days ago)
Sounds like an unhappy man. There's a big difference between an inducement and a purchase, only a rather misogynistic prejudice would fail to see that... I agree it's something, I just don't know what it is and 'conservatives have inferior intelligence' seems one of the least likely possibilities. I could be convinced but I'd need a lot more and better quality evidence. And in any case the whole thing is distasteful, it's a schoolyard taunt not an argument about political philosophy.
ReplyVote up (124)down (123)
Original comment
Sounds like an unhappy man. There's a big difference between an inducement and a purchase, only a rather misogynistic prejudice would fail to see that... I agree it's something, I just don't know what it is and 'conservatives have inferior intelligence' seems one of the least likely possibilities. I could be convinced but I'd need a lot more and better quality evidence. And in any case the whole thing is distasteful, it's a schoolyard taunt not an argument about political philosophy.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Filmaddict Filmaddict (2296 days ago)
Reading your 'discussions' I think I've just lost the will to live.
ReplyVote up (108)down (122)
Original comment
Reading your 'discussions' I think I've just lost the will to live.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2295 days ago)
Why? I thought it a pretty good example of what a discussion should be. We worked our difference from general points to specifics and finally to a point which could not be resolved without unavailable data. Along the way we gained a better appreciation of how someone in disagreement with us thinks, at least I did.
ReplyVote up (139)down (134)
Original comment
Why? I thought it a pretty good example of what a discussion should be. We worked our difference from general points to specifics and finally to a point which could not be resolved without unavailable data. Along the way we gained a better appreciation of how someone in disagreement with us thinks, at least I did.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Filmaddict Filmaddict (2291 days ago)
Latest comment: I think what I'm saying is that the discussion was rather long winded, although very useful to the people within the discussion. Reading it was not that useful though. Just MHO.
ReplyVote up (111)down (136)
Original comment
Latest comment: I think what I'm saying is that the discussion was rather long winded, although very useful to the people within the discussion. Reading it was not that useful though. Just MHO.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2302 days ago)
iq test are designed to measure intelligence, that's their sole purpose
ReplyVote up (136)down (141)
Original comment
iq test are designed to measure intelligence, that's their sole purpose
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Gazbarga (2303 days ago)
You MUST be dumb to believe in god. period
ReplyVote up (208)down (119)
Original comment
You MUST be dumb to believe in god. period
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Argle (2303 days ago)
Sure, morons like Newton, Galileo, Copornicus, Einstein, Knuth and others. Oooh... and once candidate for Anglican priesthood, Charles Darwin. Let me know when you've matched their contributions to the world and science. Until then, try to hide in the corner to avoid seeming stupid. When you've achieved the deep contributions of those theists, we'll take you seriously. (signed deist who tested at IQ 150)
ReplyVote up (133)down (112)
Original comment
Sure, morons like Newton, Galileo, Copornicus, Einstein, Knuth and others. Oooh... and once candidate for Anglican priesthood, Charles Darwin. Let me know when you've matched their contributions to the world and science. Until then, try to hide in the corner to avoid seeming stupid. When you've achieved the deep contributions of those theists, we'll take you seriously. (signed deist who tested at IQ 150)
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: TheSpoonMoves (2303 days ago)
Actually I'd like to extent the 'Dumb' scope. You must be DUMB to believe in any deities, demigods (Perseus, Jesus Christ etc), theological system, or supernatural creatures without sustainable ironclad proof (sorry elfs) in your particular fragment of belief, and we have to watch who tells us what, and why. Sorry but 1/5 world believing in the Jewish revolutionary propaganda against the Roman Empire 2000 years past it's sell by date is frankly a profound statement on the human desire to believe in fairy tales. Or worse, the organised belief pushers interpretation of how to thumb your nose up at a roman centurion in a way that inspires belief
ReplyVote up (117)down (107)
Original comment
Actually I'd like to extent the 'Dumb' scope. You must be DUMB to believe in any deities, demigods (Perseus, Jesus Christ etc), theological system, or supernatural creatures without sustainable ironclad proof (sorry elfs) in your particular fragment of belief, and we have to watch who tells us what, and why. Sorry but 1/5 world believing in the Jewish revolutionary propaganda against the Roman Empire 2000 years past it's sell by date is frankly a profound statement on the human desire to believe in fairy tales. Or worse, the organised belief pushers interpretation of how to thumb your nose up at a roman centurion in a way that inspires belief
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: TheSpoonMoves (2303 days ago)
Actually i just thought of a number of reasons to 'believe'. For the less strong willed, (1) family pressure (2) peer pressure (3) very good retoric. ANd for the strong willed (1) to get with a person you fancy (2) to get to control others (3) money convincing other to pay you and (4) security in being part of a crowd and lastly (5) the funny quirks the brain provides us when we do believe (like a hallucinogenic). I think I'd have more faith in these events rather than anything else So before you push your belief, intelligent or otherwise, what do you really believe your beliefs give you?
ReplyVote up (141)down (127)
Original comment
Actually i just thought of a number of reasons to 'believe'. For the less strong willed, (1) family pressure (2) peer pressure (3) very good retoric. ANd for the strong willed (1) to get with a person you fancy (2) to get to control others (3) money convincing other to pay you and (4) security in being part of a crowd and lastly (5) the funny quirks the brain provides us when we do believe (like a hallucinogenic). I think I'd have more faith in these events rather than anything else So before you push your belief, intelligent or otherwise, what do you really believe your beliefs give you?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Just Passing (2302 days ago)
Maybe, but more likely poorly educated, subject to theocratic law and taught from birth the existence of
ReplyVote up (118)down (118)
Original comment
Maybe, but more likely poorly educated, subject to theocratic law and taught from birth the existence of
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Lynch (2302 days ago)
I've just had this totally amazing idea. Here it is:- You place your faith in whatever you want and I'll leave you alone. Meanwhile, I'll choose to put my belief in whatever takes my fancy and you leave me alone. Having different religions does not cause problems; it's the people who become 'holier than thou' thinking theirs is the only path to whatever bliss is waiting after they die. Personally, I'll take my chances....
ReplyVote up (156)down (114)
Original comment
I've just had this totally amazing idea. Here it is:- You place your faith in whatever you want and I'll leave you alone. Meanwhile, I'll choose to put my belief in whatever takes my fancy and you leave me alone. Having different religions does not cause problems; it's the people who become 'holier than thou' thinking theirs is the only path to whatever bliss is waiting after they die. Personally, I'll take my chances....
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2302 days ago)
There are three sets of criteria which are commonly used to determine whether a proposition can be described as true. A proposition can be true by definition, 2+3=5 or ‘if Cretans always lie and I’m a Cretans telling you this, so I’m lying’. Things true by definition reflect the way our brain is wired, not reality as is demonstrated by the proposition about Cretans, our brain can’t make sense of it but there’s nothing wrong with the way it’s formed. A proposition can also be said to be true because it conforms to the constraints of logic within certian axioms, scientific truth for example is based on the axioms that our senses to at least some degree give us information about an external reality and that all effects have a material cause. Of course the logic part of this is again just a reflection of the way our brain works and the axiom of causality leads to contradiction but science like logic is a good rough fit for everyday life experience. It doesn’t explain everything or do everything we’d like but it’s a very useful tool for getting through the day. The third kind of truths are propositions which must be true to make life viable, to provide a value structure we can use to discriminate between the good and the bad, the desirable and the undesirable and to give purpose to existence. Like the first two kinds of truth these ‘necessary truths’ are a product of brain structure but unlike the first two they are not the same for all ‘normal’ people. When someone disagrees with the majority about 2+3=5 or whether water is combustible we say they are not sane but when someone disagrees about what gives meaning and value to life most of us accept or at least tolerate the other person’s convictions if we can. Some people don’t of course because they are convinced their truth is better even though it’s source is the same.
ReplyVote up (120)down (156)
Original comment
There are three sets of criteria which are commonly used to determine whether a proposition can be described as true. A proposition can be true by definition, 2+3=5 or ‘if Cretans always lie and I’m a Cretans telling you this, so I’m lying’. Things true by definition reflect the way our brain is wired, not reality as is demonstrated by the proposition about Cretans, our brain can’t make sense of it but there’s nothing wrong with the way it’s formed. A proposition can also be said to be true because it conforms to the constraints of logic within certian axioms, scientific truth for example is based on the axioms that our senses to at least some degree give us information about an external reality and that all effects have a material cause. Of course the logic part of this is again just a reflection of the way our brain works and the axiom of causality leads to contradiction but science like logic is a good rough fit for everyday life experience. It doesn’t explain everything or do everything we’d like but it’s a very useful tool for getting through the day. The third kind of truths are propositions which must be true to make life viable, to provide a value structure we can use to discriminate between the good and the bad, the desirable and the undesirable and to give purpose to existence. Like the first two kinds of truth these ‘necessary truths’ are a product of brain structure but unlike the first two they are not the same for all ‘normal’ people. When someone disagrees with the majority about 2+3=5 or whether water is combustible we say they are not sane but when someone disagrees about what gives meaning and value to life most of us accept or at least tolerate the other person’s convictions if we can. Some people don’t of course because they are convinced their truth is better even though it’s source is the same.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Lynch (2295 days ago)
Very eloquent and well explained although I don't see how it affects my original 'believe what you want, let others do the same and leave each other alone' proposition.
ReplyVote up (141)down (119)
Original comment
Very eloquent and well explained although I don't see how it affects my original 'believe what you want, let others do the same and leave each other alone' proposition.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2295 days ago)
It wasn't, I was trying to elucidate. Your post seemed to me close to a platitude, the sort of thing blinkered minds dismiss out of hand. A reasoned exposition, by calling for a response might not convince such a person to change their way of thinking but it's more likely to get them thinking at all and that's a start.
ReplyVote up (118)down (116)
Original comment
It wasn't, I was trying to elucidate. Your post seemed to me close to a platitude, the sort of thing blinkered minds dismiss out of hand. A reasoned exposition, by calling for a response might not convince such a person to change their way of thinking but it's more likely to get them thinking at all and that's a start.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: shyn (2302 days ago)
it's not that atheists are more intelligent, it's intelligent people are more likely atheists, because they often graduated at a higher school or university they have a deeper understanding of how the world works and thus do not need a god to explain every day phenomena
ReplyVote up (117)down (99)
Original comment
it's not that atheists are more intelligent, it's intelligent people are more likely atheists, because they often graduated at a higher school or university they have a deeper understanding of how the world works and thus do not need a god to explain every day phenomena
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2302 days ago)
Or maybe they were just indoctrinated in the latest intellectual fashion. After all seventy five years ago higher education was if anything more rigorous than now yet there were very few atheists. My experience is a person's ability to perform well in school has little to do with the ability to think for themselves. Also according to: LINK you are more likely to be less religious if you major in the humanities or social sciences than in hard science, which would argue against a better scientific understanding of the natural world leading to less religious conviction.
ReplyVote up (114)down (114)
Original comment
Or maybe they were just indoctrinated in the latest intellectual fashion. After all seventy five years ago higher education was if anything more rigorous than now yet there were very few atheists. My experience is a person's ability to perform well in school has little to do with the ability to think for themselves. Also according to: LINK you are more likely to be less religious if you major in the humanities or social sciences than in hard science, which would argue against a better scientific understanding of the natural world leading to less religious conviction.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Mmm (2302 days ago)
'Guest', you are unusually articulate for a troll.
ReplyVote up (90)down (101)
Original comment
'Guest', you are unusually articulate for a troll.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2302 days ago)
More ad hominem, I guess you can't find anything wrong with my arguments, in an odd way I feel complimented......"n Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off -topic messages". ... Let's see, my posts are on topic, I'm polite, I make complete rational arguments, nope, you'll have to try some other disparaging label with which to dismiss that uncomfortable feeling I'm obviously giving you.
ReplyVote up (104)down (98)
Original comment
More ad hominem, I guess you can't find anything wrong with my arguments, in an odd way I feel complimented......"n Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off -topic messages". ... Let's see, my posts are on topic, I'm polite, I make complete rational arguments, nope, you'll have to try some other disparaging label with which to dismiss that uncomfortable feeling I'm obviously giving you.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Mmm (2300 days ago)
Troll: 'One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument'. You see, it is very easy to find support for whatever point-of-view one wants to pedal.
ReplyVote up (95)down (101)
Original comment
Troll: 'One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument'. You see, it is very easy to find support for whatever point-of-view one wants to pedal.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Mmm (2300 days ago)
When a poster has consistently proven themself to be unwilling or unable to engage in a constructive discussion, to properly consider various points-of-view, the best course of action is often to humour them. IMO there is much wrong with your arguments; guesswork, random personal experiences, misrepresentation of the contents of whatever video/post is in question, blind over-simplification of hugely complex arguments/trends/facts etc., wild extrapolation based on shaky or false initial premises.... I could go on and on. I can give examples if you like, though I have better things to do with my time.
ReplyVote up (113)down (130)
Original comment
When a poster has consistently proven themself to be unwilling or unable to engage in a constructive discussion, to properly consider various points-of-view, the best course of action is often to humour them. IMO there is much wrong with your arguments; guesswork, random personal experiences, misrepresentation of the contents of whatever video/post is in question, blind over-simplification of hugely complex arguments/trends/facts etc., wild extrapolation based on shaky or false initial premises.... I could go on and on. I can give examples if you like, though I have better things to do with my time.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2300 days ago)
And so do I, which is why I don't write the book length annotated posts your criteria would require. I have to say I just don't see myself in your definition of 'troll'. I'm quite willing to engage in discussion I'm constructive and considerate of other points of view unless you mean by considerate I won't tell them that I think they are wrong and why. Do you perhaps have me confused with someone else? ... Oh, and I could not help noticing several of the things you accuse me of are present in your post, perhaps you were trying to give me an example?
ReplyVote up (104)down (101)
Original comment
And so do I, which is why I don't write the book length annotated posts your criteria would require. I have to say I just don't see myself in your definition of 'troll'. I'm quite willing to engage in discussion I'm constructive and considerate of other points of view unless you mean by considerate I won't tell them that I think they are wrong and why. Do you perhaps have me confused with someone else? ... Oh, and I could not help noticing several of the things you accuse me of are present in your post, perhaps you were trying to give me an example?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Mmm (2299 days ago)
Sorry, I think I have you confused with that f~cktarded t~at who carefully constructs long paragraphs of thinly-disguised rhetorical questions in order to ratchet up the self-righteous anger he feels towards evolutionary science.
ReplyVote up (111)down (115)
Original comment
Sorry, I think I have you confused with that f~cktarded t~at who carefully constructs long paragraphs of thinly-disguised rhetorical questions in order to ratchet up the self-righteous anger he feels towards evolutionary science.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2299 days ago)
Then you are confused, because I accept evolution as the best explanation of how life got to be as it is. Something about me obviously does get you upset though, if I had that much anger about someone disagreeing with me I'd begin to wonder if my convictions were entirely rational, but that's just me.
ReplyVote up (117)down (94)
Original comment
Then you are confused, because I accept evolution as the best explanation of how life got to be as it is. Something about me obviously does get you upset though, if I had that much anger about someone disagreeing with me I'd begin to wonder if my convictions were entirely rational, but that's just me.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Mmm (2298 days ago)
And so, are you wondering?
ReplyVote up (86)down (118)
Original comment
And so, are you wondering?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2298 days ago)
I test my convictions all the time, unlike most people I've read both John Rawls and Friedrich Hayek with appreciation. I'm a Jamesian pragmatist in a modernized sort of way not an ideologue. Disagreement doesn't upset me in the least, I don't feel the smallest inclination to insult people personally no matter how deluded I think they are.
ReplyVote up (89)down (104)
Original comment
I test my convictions all the time, unlike most people I've read both John Rawls and Friedrich Hayek with appreciation. I'm a Jamesian pragmatist in a modernized sort of way not an ideologue. Disagreement doesn't upset me in the least, I don't feel the smallest inclination to insult people personally no matter how deluded I think they are.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Mmm (2297 days ago)
But you seem quite determined to have the last word.
ReplyVote up (104)down (107)
Original comment
But you seem quite determined to have the last word.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2297 days ago)
You asked me a question. Amongst the sane and polite it would be considered usual to expect to get an answer. If you don't want an answer, make a reply which does not call for a response and you won't get one.
ReplyVote up (101)down (99)
Original comment
You asked me a question. Amongst the sane and polite it would be considered usual to expect to get an answer. If you don't want an answer, make a reply which does not call for a response and you won't get one.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Mmm (2297 days ago)
Really?
ReplyVote up (101)down (99)
Original comment
Really?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2302 days ago)
That link should be LINK
ReplyVote up (99)down (138)
Original comment
That link should be LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Filmaddict Filmaddict (2296 days ago)
Firstly, I'd like to know how many people they tested and how many regions they tested i.e. did they test only those in London, or every region within the UK. Secondly, if intelligence was the only quantitative measure we are to seek and acquire, then I truly feel sorry for you 'intelligent' atheists. There are so many more qualities and attributes to attain; if we only prize and hold aloft one, we are truly undercutting ourselves. Intelligence is fantastic and quite honestly is purely self indulgent sometimes. What are we if we stick our noses in books and never look up and appreciate those who are not as intelligent, but whose qualities this world could not do without?
ReplyVote up (116)down (114)
Original comment
Firstly, I'd like to know how many people they tested and how many regions they tested i.e. did they test only those in London, or every region within the UK. Secondly, if intelligence was the only quantitative measure we are to seek and acquire, then I truly feel sorry for you 'intelligent' atheists. There are so many more qualities and attributes to attain; if we only prize and hold aloft one, we are truly undercutting ourselves. Intelligence is fantastic and quite honestly is purely self indulgent sometimes. What are we if we stick our noses in books and never look up and appreciate those who are not as intelligent, but whose qualities this world could not do without?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2302 days ago)
Hahahaha made me laugh obviosuly this has been hacked by the atheist scum as a way of increasing there IK as anyone with the Lord in there mind has the universe and its glorys in a brain.
ReplyVote up (100)down (101)
Original comment
Hahahaha made me laugh obviosuly this has been hacked by the atheist scum as a way of increasing there IK as anyone with the Lord in there mind has the universe and its glorys in a brain.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2302 days ago)
troll
ReplyVote up (104)down (102)
Original comment
troll
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2302 days ago)
Funny, if the study had shown that liberal atheists were more likely to be bald, I don't think there would have been so many religious conservatives trying to rubbish it.
ReplyVote up (90)down (125)
Original comment
Funny, if the study had shown that liberal atheists were more likely to be bald, I don't think there would have been so many religious conservatives trying to rubbish it.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2302 days ago)
Ah, that's call an ad hominem fallacy, you see you are saying because the people who are making the argument are somehow disreputable the argument is suspect, it's not a valid argument but of course that doesn't stop some people from using it.
ReplyVote up (87)down (111)
Original comment
Ah, that's call an ad hominem fallacy, you see you are saying because the people who are making the argument are somehow disreputable the argument is suspect, it's not a valid argument but of course that doesn't stop some people from using it.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Filmaddict Filmaddict (2296 days ago)
Professor Satoshi Kanazawa's research came into the limelight, again recently this year in the UK for his 'research' (and I say this sparingly) stating that “Black women are objectively less attractive than non-Black women.” What I'm really saying is, consider the source of this research as to the intelligence of liberal atheists compared to religious conservatives, before you draw your conclusions. Read LINK and you'll understand what I'm saying. Just because you're a professor, does not mean you are credible.
ReplyVote up (96)down (138)
Original comment
Professor Satoshi Kanazawa's research came into the limelight, again recently this year in the UK for his 'research' (and I say this sparingly) stating that “Black women are objectively less attractive than non-Black women.” What I'm really saying is, consider the source of this research as to the intelligence of liberal atheists compared to religious conservatives, before you draw your conclusions. Read LINK and you'll understand what I'm saying. Just because you're a professor, does not mean you are credible.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Proof Chesterfield Cigarettes have no adverse effects
Proof Chesterfield Cigarettes have no adverse effects
David Pakman - Trump doesn't understand how money works
David Pakman - Trump doesn't understand how money works
Burger King anti-bullying ad
Burger King anti-bullying ad
Virgin gets involved with Hyperloop
Virgin gets involved with Hyperloop
Questions about SpaceX's BFR concept
Questions about SpaceX's BFR concept