Study: Liberals, atheists, have higher IQs

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Not surprising. Atheism appeals to intellectuals, not because it's more rational or whatever, but because it makes them feel better about themselves. I think it was Freud who said that a strong disbelief in god was the best way to balance out the warring impulses in the mind (by taking out the super ego or whatever). Marx said religion made lower-class folk complacent and that throwing off the yolk of faith would help end subjugation. Neither or those arguments are based on the inherent rightness of atheism. They're both just humanistic arguments, which appeal more to intellectuals than faith-based arguments (the "healing the soul" kind, not the epistemological kind).

As far as the liberal/conservative split, I don't think that needs a ton of explanation.

This is why i am hostile to theists.

I have read your ty pima causus arguments and your end around on trying to prove a negative. Freud was a hack and his categorizations have been repudiated quite thoroughly for all of his intentions. Who gives a about Marx?

You can try to drag us back to the 19th century with excuses for zero empirical or logical basis for your diety but there is no reason whatsoever to believe in any diety much less your preferred magic, angry sky man turned forgiven for all yet eternal and infinite except when ty arguments are needed to be made.

[spurraider21]

Fuzzy with the bads. You claim to have read chinooks views and yet you horribly misrepresented them. I don't agree with his view but at least I know what it is

[silverblk mystix]

Pretty much anyone that "labels" themselves has already taken the "stupid" path and their IQ score becomes irrelevant.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fuzzy with the bads. You claim to have read chinooks views and yet you horribly misrepresented them. I don't agree with his view but at least I know what it is

Then by all means regale us with them in your own words. If you are going to front this then you need to demonstrate it. People that are going to be swayed by such arguments are fools. I argued the semantics of the word universe and then he gave up and left. Nietzsche was ridiculing his approach back in the 19th century in Beyond Good and Evil

He needs the universe to be finite so he can deduce the existence of God because he knows very well that there is no empirical basis to induce his assertion. He cannot prove the universe is actually a singular for all of his handwaving at the etymology of the word.

But please try and do more than front next time.

[spurraider21]

Then by all means regale us with them in your own words. If you are going to front this then you need to demonstrate it. People that are going to be swayed by such arguments are fools. I argued the semantics of the word universe and then he gave up and left. Nietzsche was ridiculing his approach back in the 19th century in Beyond Good and Evil

He needs the universe to be finite so he can deduce the existence of God because he knows very well that there is no empirical basis to induce his assertion. He cannot prove the universe is actually a singular for all of his handwaving at the etymology of the word.

But please try and do more than front next time.

Once you started talking about the angry sky man and foregiveness you dropped the ball. Chinook isn't religious. Your long winded rants don't impress anybody

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Once you started talking about the angry sky man and foregiveness you dropped the ball. Chinook isn't religious. Your long winded rants don't impress anybody

So he is not a christian? He uses the exact same arguments that Christian scholars used in the 19th century. prima causa and natural law are old hat.

I grant that I may have been unfair in my assumption as to a particular monotheistic order.

[TeyshaBlue]

Pretty much anyone that "labels" themselves has already taken the "stupid" path and their IQ score becomes irrelevant.

My Vitamin I allowance was exceeded by this post.

[xmas1997]

Pretty much anyone that "labels" themselves has already taken the "stupid" path and their IQ score becomes irrelevant.

So true!

[spurraider21]

Pretty much anyone that "labels" themselves has already taken the "stupid" path and their IQ score becomes irrelevant.

So just to be clear, you don't believe in the bible, in Jesus, etc?

[Chinook]

There are plenty of strong philosophical arguments from the atheist camp. The Problem of Evil, the Argument from Inconsistent Revelations, and the Argument from Nonbelief are but a few examples of this.

Dunno the last argument. The other two seem like anti-relgious arguments, though.

More importantly, a recent survey of the most well-renowned philosophers in their field showed that an overwhelming majority, 72.8%, identify as atheist, and only 14.6% identify as theist (12.6% identify as Other, which presumably means agnostic).

http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl

That's also not surprising to me. Theists have their philosophy already.

I'm not sure you understand what I'm saying. Atheism appeals to intellectuals, that we can agree on. But it appeals to them because it lines up with their views, not because it is inherently more reasonable.

[Chinook]

This is why i am hostile to theists.

I have read your ty pima causus arguments and your end around on trying to prove a negative. Freud was a hack and his categorizations have been repudiated quite thoroughly for all of his intentions. Who gives a about Marx?

You can try to drag us back to the 19th century with excuses for zero empirical or logical basis for your diety but there is no reason whatsoever to believe in any diety much less your preferred magic, angry sky man turned forgiven for all yet eternal and infinite except when ty arguments are needed to be made.

So you're one of them there "non-intellectual atheists" I hear about from time to time.

[Chinook]

So he is not a christian? He uses the exact same arguments that Christian scholars used in the 19th century. prima causa and natural law are old hat.

Those arguments are much older than that, just like the arguments from empiricism. We've been in a standstill on the theism/atheism question for forever man, and no one's brought anything new to the table.

[xmas1997]

So you're one of them there "non-intellectual atheists" I hear about from time to time.

Actually it is a well known fact around here that he is what is known as a "pseudo-intellectual".

[spurraider21]

Those arguments are much older than that, just like the arguments from empiricism. We've been in a standstill on the theism/atheism question for forever man, and no one's brought anything new to the table.

well, the only way for atheism to bring anything new to the table would essentially be to prove a negative. its unfair to put the onus on both sides in that regard

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So you're one of them there "non-intellectual atheists" I hear about from time to time.

Skeptic. I don't bluster certainty.

[Chinook]

well, the only way for atheism to bring anything new to the table would essentially be to prove a negative. its unfair to put the onus on both sides in that regard

I'm not talking about from an empiricist angle. I mean from an rationalist angle. There aren't any new lines of reasoning. Atheists have empricism/humanism, and theists have dogma/spirituality. Sure, some of us have more-nuanced things to say, but they aren't unique. My view isn't typical for theist, but I didn't invent it, and most folks have already seen it. I accept that; I just don't think it makes sense to call my view dated.

[Chinook]

Skeptic. I don't bluster certainty.

Skeptics tend to learn about things before they form opinions about them. You mischaracterizing my viewpoint so badly is absolutely not how a true skeptic goes about making evaluations.

[The Reckoning]

I think I had a dog named Bluster

[Cry Havoc]

Actually, Einstein's IQ is estimated to be at around 160, which would put him in the genius category--which isn't really all that surprising, considering he's one of the most accomplished physicists who's ever lived. And you can ridicule him for his inability to tie his shoes all you want, but the fact of the matter is, IQ tests measure higher order thinking skills like "the ability to reason, plan, think abstractly, solve problems, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly, and learn from experience." Not motor skills like tying one's shoes.

Also, Einstein was, unsurprisingly, an atheist. He said, "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."

IQ tests are largely disregarded by Psychologists anymore. They have been shown to have severe cultural bias, and furthermore have been shown to be too focused on a few small variables in higher order thinking rather than providing a comprehensive concept of the intellect of an individual.


Sources (more if need be):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...s-8425911.html

[silverblk mystix]

So just to be clear, you don't believe in the bible, in Jesus, etc?

I believe in everything...the universe...this moment...god...non-god....reality....unreality...

No exclusions to anything...inside and outside of you...no conclusions...no hardening of the senses and acceptance to every single thing in and around you and being sensitive to every single thing.

That is pretty clear.

[spurraider21]

excellent way to avoid the question

except i was kidding about the excellent part

[pgardn]

IQ measures what?

This again... Jesus Fn ...

I will go with Lumpkins view on Marx.
Simplistic crap. And they made us read it to find out for ourselves.
Absolutley the easiest stuff to write a paper on. This should be disturbing.

[Avante]

What really is intelligence? I was blessed with a fantastic memory, I see anything once and if the interest is there it's locked away forever, I can't change my own oil.

One of my grandpa's couldn't read, what he could do was fix any and everything, grow the best garden in the county and cook better than any woman I've ever known.

I wonder what Ray Charles IQ was?

I know people with that college degree who have the great $$$$ job who don't have a lick of common sense.

What really is intelligence?

[Chinook]

I will go with Lumpkins view on Marx.
Simplistic crap. And they made us read it to find out for ourselves.
Absolutley the easiest stuff to write a paper on. This should be disturbing.

Not a huge fan of Marx, and I believe his work didn't age well at all, but I don't think it's an appropriate criticism to call him simplistic. Much of his writing was for the laity, and so it is supposed to not be complicated. He actually does go into deeper German Modern Philosophy in other works when he's actually trying to justify his view.

[Uriel]

IQ tests are largely disregarded by Psychologists anymore. They have been shown to have severe cultural bias, and furthermore have been shown to be too focused on a few small variables in higher order thinking rather than providing a comprehensive concept of the intellect of an individual.


Sources (more if need be):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...s-8425911.html

I find it ironic that you would link to a Wikipedia article (not exactly the most scholarly source) on the Flynn Effect, when James Flynn, the researcher this phenomenon was named after, has spent virtually his entire life researching intelligence and IQ tests. If these tests have been so throughly disregarded, why is this well-renowned academic still dedicating his life to it?

Moreover, I read the article on the 2nd link, and it said that IQ tests per se are not sufficient to properly measure intelligence, because there are multiple kinds of intelligence. No one has ever denied this. For instance, Jason Kidd, an NBA superstar, would have very high Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence. But despite this, he has a very low Verbal / Mathematical intelligence (around 70), as measured by IQ tests. This is the kind of intelligence that most people generally refer to when they talk about IQ in the first place.