Study: Liberals, atheists, have higher IQs

[RD2191]

http://listverse.com/2010/06/05/10-p...sm-a-bad-name/

But but Christians are so evil and so is all religion.

[spurraider21]

http://listverse.com/2010/06/05/10-p...sm-a-bad-name/

But but Christians are so evil and so is all religion.

you're seriously a fly in this thread

[RD2191]

Uriel, as someone who as gotten his ass handed to him on multiple debates on ST sometimes you just have to waive the white flag.

[RD2191]

you're seriously a fly in this thread

Atheists are evil murderers.

[spurraider21]

Atheists are evil murderers.

they're communist too

[Clipper Nation]

My use of big words is evidence of my superior verbal IQ, tbh.

No, it's just more evidence of your desperation to appear more enlightened and smarter than everyone else....

[Uriel]

Again, ad homenim.

First, your OP is entry-level stuff. Second, looking for inconsistencies in the bible is entry-level. The constant strawmen you've used are entry-level. Your insistence on thinking I'm religious (for I'd have to be to disagree with you amirite?) is entry-level. You tossing out "fallacies" is entry-level.

Seriously, dude, it's grade-A vanilla stuff here. I'm not accusing you of being dumb or anything. But I do think you're incredibly inexperienced in this debate. You clearly haven't thought through both sides of the argument and taken them to beyond opening contentions. What's the point of being intellectual if you aren't going to actually analyze the issue before speaking on them?

Then what do you want me to do? Toss out philosophical arguments against the existence of God? The problem of evil? The argument from inconsistent revelations? Russell's teapot? Next, I suppose you want me to refute the arguments for the existence of God? Ontological argument, argument from design, prime mover, etc. Yes, I'm familiar with them all. Yes, I can assure you I've done the necessary reading to be well-versed on both sides of the debate.

But that was never my intention when I started this thread; it just happened to develop that way. Just read the thread le and OP again. It says: "Study: Liberals, atheists, have higher IQs." It's a social science thread, which was the angle with which I've approached this issue from the start. Not a philosophical one.

If you think that using social science instead of philosophy cons utes a less sophisticated form of argumentation, then that's your judgment. But I'm merely trying to provide a new angle to give a refreshing take on a topic that's already been discussed by countless people all over the world ad infinitum.

[Clipper Nation]

The Bible does not contradict itself. You are simply reading out of context or know nothing of the scriptures.

It contradicts itself all the time, even every other sentence at times, as it's a patchwork book cobbled together from four sources who all had different opinions of how the stories played out....

For example, just look at the part of the Bible where the slaves are freed from Egypt: one source claims that the Red Sea was parted to let the Israelites through, another source claims that the ground became muddy and the wheels of the Egyptians' chariots got stuck, and a third source claims that God whipped up a storm "from his nostrils" to drown the Egyptians....

[RD2191]

It contradicts itself all the time, even every other sentence at times, as it's a patchwork book cobbled together from four sources who all had different opinions of how the stories played out....

[spurraider21]

But that was never my intention when I started this thread; it just happened to develop that way. Just read the thread le and OP again. It says: "Study: Liberals, atheists, have higher IQs." It's a social science thread, which was the angle with which I've approached this issue from the start. Not a philosophical one.

you say that but in the more recent pages you've been on a crusade against the bible, which has nothing to do with the social science perspective you claim to be more interested in

[Chinook]

Then what do you want me to do? Toss out philosophical arguments against the existence of God? The problem of evil? The argument from inconsistent revelations? Russell's teapot? Next, I suppose you want me to refute the arguments for the existence of God? Ontological argument, argument from design, prime mover, etc. Yes, I'm familiar with them all. Yes, I can assure you I've done the necessary reading to be well-versed on both sides of the debate.

Use whatever you want. But just make sure you really understand the arguments. Simple arguments can be just fine as long as a person really gets them. Again, the problem wasn't that your arguments were vanilla; it was that they were vanilla while you were trying to demonstrate your superiority.

But that was never my intention when I started this thread; it just happened to develop that way. Just read the thread le and OP again. It says: "Study: Liberals, atheists, have higher IQs." It's a social science thread, which was the angle with which I've approached this issue from the start. Not a philosophical one.

If you think that using social science instead of philosophy cons utes a less sophisticated form of argumentation, then that's your judgment. But I'm merely trying to provide a new angle to give a refreshing take on a topic that's already been discussed by countless people all over the world ad infinitum.

You didn't even make a contention in your OP. You just posted an article and an emoticon. How did you direct the flow of the debate at all?

At best, you were saying, "lol atheists are smarter" while trying to hide behind a study. How that wasn't going to turn into a philosophical debate, I don't know.

[Uriel]

you say that but in the more recent pages you've been on a crusade against the bible, which has nothing to do with the social science perspective you claim to be more interested in

As I said before, that wasn't my intention. It just worked out that way. But if you're interested in the social science angle, I can show you a lot more studies that show interesting correlations between atheism, political liberalism, and a whole range of psycho-social-emotional traits.

[Uriel]

Use whatever you want. But just make sure you really understand the arguments. Simple arguments can be just fine as long as a person really gets them. Again, the problem wasn't that your arguments were vanilla; it was that they were vanilla while you were trying to demonstrate your superiority.



You didn't even make a contention in your OP. You just posted an article and an emoticon. How did you direct the flow of the debate at all?

At best, you were saying, "lol atheists are smarter" while trying to hide behind a study. How that wasn't going to turn into a philosophical debate, I don't know.

Well, I'm sorry for not realizing that it was my job to moderate the debate as the OP.

And I know that this is going to upset you, but I was hardly trying to "hide" behind the study. I've been fronting it from the very start. It is true that multiple studies have shown that, on average, atheists are more intelligent. This isn't an arbitrary contention; there is overwhelming evidence from scholarly literature to support the fact. To give another example: According to a recent survey, 93% of the National Academy of Sciences self-identify as atheists. Another survey reveals 72.8% of philosophers leaning towards atheism, with only 14.6% identifying as theist.

In other words, the nation's intelligentsia leans towards atheism, while the "riff-raff" lead towards theism. This isn't a statement of opinion, it's a statement of fact, regardless of how arrogant you may think it is.

[Chinook]

Well, I'm sorry for not realizing that it was my job to moderate the debate as the OP.

Nah. But if you don't want a thread to go a certain way, you should make some effort to steer it away from that. Instead, you jumped right into philosophy when responding to me on the first page. No, "I'm interested in the socio-political ramifications mostly," then.

And I know that this is going to upset you, but I was hardly trying to "hide" behind the study. I've been fronting it from the very start. It is true that multiple studies have shown that, on average, atheists are more intelligent. This isn't an arbitrary contention; there is overwhelming evidence from scholarly literature to support the fact. To give another example: According to a recent survey, 93% of the National Academy of Sciences self-identify as atheists. Another survey reveals 72.8% of philosophers leaning towards atheism, with only 14.6% identifying as theist.

Yeah, "fronting" a study is the same thing as "hiding behind" it. It's a, "Hey guys, it's not my opinion. It's what these scientists have come up with," stance. You appealing to their work to validate your view. Yes, if you're still keeping score, that's a fallacy.

In other words, the nation's intelligentsia leans towards atheism, while the "riff-raff" lead towards theism. This isn't a statement of opinion, it's a statement of fact, regardless of how arrogant you may think it is.

Lol, at calling below-average-IQ people "riff-raff". Yeah, personality of gold, right there.

By the by, did you actually read the study, or did you just read the article about the study?

[Chinook]

By the by, xellos88330 , how do you pronounce your screen name? Is it "zeal-ohs", "ecksell-oss", some combination or even some fancy foreign way like "Shay-os" (how it would be pronounced in Mexico)? I usually think my posts in my head as I'm typing, which is why I'm wondering.

[xellos88330]

I pronounce it zell-ose

[rogues]

I remember one time when I wanted to pull a Urinel back in those academic days when it was understandable to be a liberal..then I remember how much of a pretentious piece of I'd be if I followed that route..thank god I chose to be a badass..

[rogues]

What's up with your username and sig Chinook?..Always wondered, tbh..

[Uriel]

Nah. But if you don't want a thread to go a certain way, you should make some effort to steer it away from that. Instead, you jumped right into philosophy when responding to me on the first page. No, "I'm interested in the socio-political ramifications mostly," then.

Okay fine, then let me make it clear: although I'm in interested in the philosophical angle of this debate, my primary interest lies in its socio-political ramifications. This is a fairly novel area which has not yet been discussed, and so this is the direction in which I now want to steer this debate.

Yeah, "fronting" a study is the same thing as "hiding behind" it. It's a, "Hey guys, it's not my opinion. It's what these scientists have come up with," stance. You appealing to their work to validate your view. Yes, if you're still keeping score, that's a fallacy.

Well, there isn't exactly a plethora of evidence that goes against that view. You yourself conceded this point in the first few pages of this thread when you admitted that "atheism appeals to intellectuals."

Lol, at calling below-average-IQ people "riff-raff". Yeah, personality of gold, right there.

By the by, did you actually read the study, or did you just read the article about the study?

Okay, so I'm elitist. I'm not going to apologize for it. There are too many ignorant people in this world (just look at the gigantic "Evolution...?" thread here in the club, what a joke) and I have no problem for calling them out on their ignorance.

And no, I did not read the study. I read the meta-analysis, of which the study was a cons uent part.

[Chinook]

What's up with your username and sig Chinook?..Always wondered, tbh..

Actually wondering? Just picked it out of a hat basically. The pic is of a chinook salmon. Was into ichthyology when I was younger, probably would have gotten into fisheries had I gone to TAMU.

[rogues]

Actually wondering? Just picked it out of a hat basically. The pic is of a chinook salmon. Was into ichthyology when I was younger, probably would have gotten into fisheries had I gone to TAMU.

I thought you went to A&M, tbh..

[Chinook]

Okay fine, then let me make it clear: although I'm in interested in the philosophical angle of this debate, my primary interest lies in its socio-political ramifications. This is a fairly novel area which has not yet been discussed, and so this is the direction in which I now want to steer this debate.

Sure. Throw out some contentions then.

Well, there isn't exactly a plethora of evidence that goes against that view. You yourself conceded this point in the first few pages of this thread when you admitted that "atheism appeals to intellectuals."

Yeah, I explained why I thought the study would find those results. I haven't read the study (I don't even know what it's called), but I am taking it at face value and offering a socio-political argument. At that point, I was following your desired course.

Okay, so I'm elitist. I'm not going to apologize for it. There are too many ignorant people in this world (just look at the gigantic "Evolution...?" thread here in the club, what a joke) and I have no problem for calling them out on their ignorance.

We both agree about how many ignorant people there are. , everyone in the thread probably agrees with that. But then you have to come correct in your arguments. You've done nothing to refute my original critique to your OP.

[Chinook]

I thought you went to A&M, tbh..

Nah. Went to school up in Philly. But they don't have my college on ST. A&M is who I rooted for as a kid, so I put them as my college. Plus, my school sucks at major sports.

[Uriel]

Nah. Went to school up in Philly. But they don't have my college on ST. A&M is who I rooted for as a kid, so I put them as my college. Plus, my school sucks at major sports.

UPenn?

[Chinook]

Also, Uriel is there a particular reason why you edited the article in the OP to remove the "sexual-exclusivity" angle? It was actually a prominent part of the study.

And that article was terrible. It was just a lot of evolutionary psychobabble. Even so, the researchers asserted that intellectuals were inclined toward atheism in order to fit in with there group.