Study: Liberals, atheists, have higher IQs

[Clipper Nation]

You live in ing Australia

Tell you what: when your country becomes relevant for anything other than Crocodile Hunter and "shrimp on the barbee," then you can lecture Americans on our views

[Uriel]

I don't recall ever stating a certain religion is greater than another. I also never said it was the God of the Bible. I used the Bible because it is simply the most common where I am from. Who am I to say they are wrong or right to begin with?

Then what are you saying? Let me guess: that the Holy Books of different people from different religions are all expressions of the same God revealing Himself in diverse ways to various cultures? If so, then I have to admit, I too once subscribed to that idea; it was an appealing way to reconcile people from various creeds with conflicting beliefs. But alas:

“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6)

You are completely missing my point and are too busy trying to debunk the Bible without even trying to understand what I am explaining. Let me try another way. Imagine this. You were to go back in time at the time of Genesis with a machine gun that never ran out of ammunition. You would easily be the most powerful person on the planet and could possibly be declared a "god". Simply because the weapon you are wielding is unknown. That is the difference between the times. Since those times, society and culture have become more refined and actions based upon the LITERAL meaning of the Bible are considered archaic and barbaric. If you are taking what the Bible states in a LITERAL sense, you are already ing up and have no basis to quote anything it says. You are using outdated customs, rituals and knowledge of an outdated culture to base your entire argument on. By bringing up the story of Sodom and Gomorrah I was attempting to show you the difference in the knowledge between our times and how history has indeed been recorded within the Bible. It doesn't mean that the Bible itself is without LITERAL fallacy. How would a person of that time explain your machine gun? They would probably call it a sword that spits out fire and flame and harnesses the power of thunder.

Thank you for your explanation.

I'm glad that you're concede that the Bible consists of "outdated customs, rituals and knowledge of an outdated culture" and that its content is "archaic and barbaric." I hope you relay that message to the people in your country (including many in this thread) who advocate for the teaching of Creationism instead of Evolution in schools, who think gay marriage is an abomination, who think the Earth is 6,000 years old, and who believe dinosaurs walked among humans. They certainly seem to have missed your point.

Also, please allow me to point out that you've actually contradicted yourself just now. Because in an earlier post, you wrote:

The books are meant to teach for the betterment of mankind. They tell stories and within those stories are messages of awe and wonder.

By saying that "the books are meant to teach for the betterment of mankind," you seem to be implying that people derive their morality from the Bible. But you suddenly seem to have changed your mind, and are now saying that people no longer get their morals from the Bible, because they no longer, among other things, stone others for blasphemy. In other words, you are conceding that there is a third-party source from which people derive their morals.

You should be grateful that people do not take the Bible LITERALLY anymore

According to a recent Gallup poll, 28% of Americans still take the Bible as the literal word of God. That's 88,760,000 people. I would hardly say that people do not take the Bible literally anymore.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/170834/th...-word-god.aspx

[rogues]

You live in ing Australia

Tell you what: when your country becomes relevant for anything other than Crocodile Hunter and "shrimp on the barbee," then you can lecture Americans on our views

He's a phillipino going to a third world country university..he's also a political science major..

[Uriel]

i like how uriel committed the ad hominem fallacy in the same post where he called the very same thing out

If you're talking about the Obama-Biden "idiot pair" thing, then no, that wasn't my intention. It was just a happy coincidence that it worked out that way.

[Uriel]

Damn it, that's not what an ad hominem fallacy is. It's when a person attacks an opponent personally IN ORDER TO attack their points. Like if you made a statement, "You're a christian, so I'm not going to take your argument against evolution seriously," then that's an ad homenim fallacy. Simply insulting someone is not a fallacy at all.

Technically, they were discrediting my views by virtue of the fact that I was a liberal. So that is ad hominem.

[Chinook]

Technically, they were discrediting my views by virtue of the fact that I was a liberal. So that is ad hominem.

No. They were just insulting you. They didn't even try to debate your point. For all you know, they may agree with your OP's premise, but just not your wording or apparent personality. They never said they were taking the other side (and in fact, CN is often critical of theists, especially christians).

Again, an ad homenim is a very clear fallacy, just like a strawman is.

[DMC]

I don't know where you're going with that. You resist the view that atheism is a belief system (and I agree with you on that). So in that way, there's really only one theism, and one atheism. Now, atheists don't have all the same world-views, and some even have their own religions. But they take one stance on the issue, while the theists take the other stance.

Not true. Some theists like you believe there was a god. Others believe there is a god. Still others believe there are multiple gods. Those god beliefs are not all the same thing, and they cannot be whittled down into one god belief. However, not believing there is a god can be whittled down into one lack of a god belief. It's not a lack of belief in multiple gods, or an apathetic god, or a "was" god. It's a lack of belief in god, all and any of them.

I don't know where you're going with the religion thing. What religion do atheists have?

I didn't say that. I said that people who are smart tend to want to be atheists, because that path is more rewarding to smart people. Not to mention there is a lot of peer pressure toward atheism if one has atheistic friends. Groupthink is not reserved for theists. Also, smart people tend to believe in empiricism, so they are sympathetic toward the main atheist argument. Comparatively few look at the science behind philosophy, which is where I think most atheists go astray.

You're wrong again. People who are smart realize there's no evidence to support a god, and they've often learned reasoning skills that enable critical thinking. Lack of evidence and critical thinking often can result in lack of belief for something. Still, you said high IQ people are atheist because it feels better. That's simply not true. Doing what we feel is right always feels better, but it doesn't necessarily result from chasing the feeling at the cost of truth.

" If you ask a mathematician, a mineralogist, a historian, or any other man of learning, what definite body of truths has been ascertained by his science, his answer will last as long as you are willing to listen. But if you put the same question to a philosopher, he will, if he is candid, have to confess that his study has not achieved positive results such as have been achieved by other sciences." - Bertrand Russell

I understand the need to suppose, but I don't see the benefit. When supposing leads to believing, that's a negative outcome, in my opinion, where evidence is absent.

I do think feeling is a motivation for directing thought, which in turn leads to what type of beliefs one forms. You brought the same thing up when talking to xellos, I believe. Just as you may think theists don't leave their mental caves because they are afraid of the consequences laid out in their religions, I think atheists don't get all the way out, because they like the "freedom" atheism grants them and don't wish to return to theism, especially the non-religious kind that has no benefits for believing in it.

This is the wishy washy bull I was referring to. It's like saying no one does anything against their will, because they have to command themselves to do it, ergo if I put a gun to your head and make you kill your pet, you wanted to kill your pet because it made you feel better (better than the alternative). It's basically saying "there is no spoon".

The only way an atheist could become theist is to find evidence in the existence of a god. To want to be theist is as problematic as to want to be atheist. Speaking for only myself, I am atheist because I've never been able to convince myself that a god exists, and as I've grown older I've found that time away from theists enables critical thought processes to grow, and eventually the guilty feeling of not believing in a god subsides. I imagine it's like a person realizing they are gay, even if they've always been that way. They have to get away from their gay hating family to ever think it's ok to pursue the feeling and eventually they find it's who they are. It's not that they wanted to be gay. If they suddenly had sexual attraction to women, that would change, but it's not based on what makes them most socially comfortable.

First, I treat the bible as a book. You know that.

Then you must understand that there's no reason to bring it up when referring to god/s. If the Bible is brought into play in discussions about atheism vs theism, it is almost always because theists have tied it to their god, and they struggle to sever the tie when criticism comes around.

Second, some religious folks treat it as a moral metaphor, which means most of the text doesn't matter. I doubt the actual dimensions of the sea were important to the moral of the story.

Many stories have morals, that doesn't make them any more or less important than the Bible, but somehow it's the Bible that always comes into the discussion, never "The Chronicles of Narnia".

[DMC]

Technically, they were discrediting my views by virtue of the fact that I was a liberal. So that is ad hominem.

If anything, they were poisoning the well, not using ad homs, but even then I don't believe they were doing that either.

[Uriel]

You live in ing Australia

Tell you what: when your country becomes relevant for anything other than Crocodile Hunter and "shrimp on the barbee," then you can lecture Americans on our views

Also, you don't know what a ing ad homenim is..I addressed your shill views, they can give somebody cancer when being fronted..

All you people have done is hurl insults without providing even a single coherent argument against my assertions. The very purpose of this thread was to debate the study that liberals and atheists have higher IQs. Considering that the people in thread who are actually engaging in intellectually honest and sophisticated debate are either liberal (Chinook, xellos88330) or atheist (spurraider21, DMC, FuzzyLumpkins), while all you two have done is engage in personal attacks, seems to prove the very premise of this thread.

[Clipper Nation]

All you people have done is hurl insults without providing even a single coherent argument against my assertions. The very purpose of this thread was to debate the study that liberals and atheists have higher IQs. Considering that the people in thread who are actually engaging in intellectually honest and sophisticated debate are either liberal (Chinook, xellos88330) or atheist (spurraider21, DMC), while all you two have done is engage in personal attacks, seems to prove the very premise of this thread.

Faux-intellectual shills such as yourself don't deserve to be taken seriously, tbh....

I'm an atheist, by the way....

[Uriel]

Faux-intellectual shills such as yourself don't deserve to be taken seriously, tbh....

I'm an atheist, by the way....

Faux-intellectual? Oh, please. I'm a member of Mensa Australia (and Mensa Philippines). My IQ falls within the top 2% of the world population.

[Chinook]

Not true. Some theists like you believe there was a god. Others believe there is a god. Still others believe there are multiple gods. Those god beliefs are not all the same thing, and they cannot be whittled down into one god belief. However, not believing there is a god can be whittled down into one lack of a god belief. It's not a lack of belief in multiple gods, or an apathetic god, or a "was" god. It's a lack of belief in god, all and any of them.

I don't know where you're going with the religion thing. What religion do atheists have?

Yes, they can. They all share the same common thread, which is what atheism is rejecting.

Most atheists are non-religious (though they still maintain their own belief systems), but some are. Just look up atheist religion on Google. You'll get some examples.

You're wrong again. People are are smart realize there's no evidence to support a god, and they've often learned reasoning skills that enable critical thinking.

Again, you believe that's there's an actual connection. "There's no evidence" isn't the only type of critical thinking. The fact that you seem to boil it down to that is why say atheists don't go far enough in their thoughts.

This is the wishy washy bull I was referring to. It's like saying no one does anything against their will, because they have to command themselves to do it, ergo if I put a gun to your head and make you kill your pet, you wanted to kill your pet because it made you feel better (better than the alternative). It's basically saying "there is no spoon".

It's not like that at all. You argued that religious folks don't think critically because they're scared of facing god's wrath. I argued the same is true for atheists (that they don't want to lose their freedom that atheism grants them). You can disagree with the conclusion I reach, but not the form. It's possible to form beliefs prematurely due to a stunted thought process. I don't think atheists think enough, since they seem stuck on empiricism.

The only way an atheist could become theist is to find evidence in the existence of a god. To want to be theist is as problematic as to want to be atheist. Speaking for only myself, I am atheist because I've never been able to convince myself that a god exists, and as I've grown older I've found that time away from theists enables critical thought processes to grow, and eventually the guilty feeling of not believing in a god subsides. I imagine it's like a person realizing they are gay, even if they've always been that way. They have to get away from their gay hating family to ever think it's ok to pursue the feeling and eventually they find it's who they are. It's not that they wanted to be gay. If they suddenly had sexual attraction to women, that would change, but it's not based on what makes them most socially comfortable.

That just confirms what I said. You think the idea of atheism comes from the liberation of the mind. Therefore, you think theism is a constraint. So you'll never go back to it even if free thought leads there.

Then you must understand that there's no reason to bring it up when referring to god/s. If the Bible is brought into play in discussions about atheism vs theism, it is almost always because theists have tied it to their god, and they struggle to sever the tie when criticism comes around.

You trolling again? I didn't bring the bible up. I merely said that of all the criticisms levied at the bible, that the pi=3 critique is a poor one.

Many stories have morals, that doesn't make them any more or less important than the Bible, but somehow it's the Bible that always comes into the discussion, never "The Chronicles of Narnia".

Yeah, trolling again. Didn't even suggest that the bible was more important.

[Clipper Nation]

Faux-intellectual? Oh, please. I'm a member of Mensa Australia (and Mensa Philippines). My IQ falls within the top 2% of the world population.

Mensa is a scam, all that proves is that you have $30 to waste on taking a test....

You are a pretentious, faux-intellectual liberal shill, that's it and that's all.

[Chinook]

Plus, being smart and being intellectual are not the same thing. That's especially true if you're measuring "smarts" by an IQ test.

[spurraider21]

people with IQ's over 140 are often boring and self absorbed, or so I'm told

Faux-intellectual? Oh, please. I'm a member of Mensa Australia (and Mensa Philippines). My IQ falls within the top 2% of the world population.

[spurraider21]

i bet uriel had that bottled up and was waiting for a good time to brag about his IQ test result

[Uriel]

Mensa is a scam, all that proves is that you have $30 to waste on taking a test....

You are a pretentious, faux-intellectual liberal shill, that's it and that's all.

You do not possess the requisite mental ap ude to engage in intellectually honest debate, and so resort to hurling personal attacks on people to compensate for your deficiencies.

That's it and that's all.

[DMC]

Yes, they can. They all share the same common thread, which is what atheism is rejecting.

Argument by repe ion doesn't solve anything.

Most atheists are non-religious (though they still maintain their own belief systems), but some are. Just look up atheist religion on Google. You'll get some examples.

I don't want to look it up. You made the claim.

Again, you believe that's there's an actual connection. "There's no evidence" isn't the only type of critical thinking. The fact that you seem to boil it down to that is why say atheists don't go far enough in their thoughts.

According to you, they won't be far enough until they arrive at theism. Claims made casually can be dismissed casually. God claims are casual claims, made without evidence. At most a person should consider what is, and in doing so should not need to invent deities to explain them. Thousands of years later and people still invent deities. Thousands of years later, people much more intelligent than I will ever be never found evidence for the existence of a god. It drove some of them mad. Much of the searching has turned inward, and that's unhealthy.

It's not like that at all. You argued that religious folks don't think critically because they're scared of facing god's wrath. I argued the same is true for atheists (that they don't want to lose their freedom that atheism grants them). You can disagree with the conclusion I reach, but not the form. It's possible to form beliefs prematurely due to a stunted thought process. I don't think atheists think enough, since they seem stuck on empiricism.

No, I argued that they haven't pursued the nagging voice that says "this is bull " because of Gambler's fallacy. It's not all inclusive of course, so if you want to take the fringe and run with it, knock yourself out.

That just confirms what I said. You think the idea of atheism comes from the liberation of the mind. Therefore, you think theism is a constraint. So you'll never go back to it even if free thought leads there.

Atheism grants no freedom. It exists before the guilt ties are severed, so it's a shackle more than a freedom. It's not a finish line where people say "finally I am atheist". It's an awakening and conscious effort where people say "I am tired of pretending to believe just to appease others".

Do you have a freedom when you disbelieve in the deity of Jesus Christ?

You trolling again? I didn't bring the bible up. I merely said that of all the criticisms levied at the bible, that the pi=3 critique is a poor one.

No, but it's not a poor one. Pi isn't 3. God should know that. If the Bible isn't the word of god, it's useless in discussion about the existence of god.

Yeah, trolling again. Didn't even suggest that the bible was more important.

No, it's a side note that the Bible is mentioned in discussions regarding theism. We never discuss the Qu'ran or Bhagavad Gita.

[DMC]

Plus, being smart and being intellectual are not the same thing. That's especially true if you're measuring "smarts" by an IQ test.

Truer words were never spoken. I know plenty high IQ folks at major universities who are dumb as a box of rocks where application is concerned. They can correct your terminology, but they cannot understand why things don't work as designed.

[spurraider21]

You do not possess the requisite mental ap ude to engage in intellectually honest debate, and so resort to hurling personal attacks on people to compensate for your deficiencies.

That's it and that's all.

it doesn't require a high standard of mental ap ude to be intellectually honest

[Chinook]

Argument by repe ion doesn't solve anything.

And neither does saying "argument by repe ion".

I don't want to look it up. You made the claim.

And I told you where to find them. If you don't want to look it up, that's fine by me.

According to you, they won't be far enough until they arrive at theism. Claims made casually can be dismissed casually. God claims are casual claims, made without evidence. At most a person should consider what is, and in doing so should not need to invent deities to explain them. Thousands of years later and people still invent deities. Thousands of years later, people much more intelligent than I will ever be never found evidence for the existence of a god. It drove some of them mad. Much of the searching has turned inward, and that's unhealthy.

Just a convention. The god claim is not empirical, so it's not supposed to be tested empirically.

No, I argued that they haven't pursued the nagging voice that says "this is bull " because of Gambler's fallacy. It's not all inclusive of course, so if you want to take the fringe and run with it, knock yourself out.

That's not the gambler's fallacy. You were saying people don't want to risk burning in for blasphemy. That has nothing to do with using recent results to predict new results of something that has a fix probability.

Atheism grants no freedom. It exists before the guilt ties are severed, so it's a shackle more than a freedom. It's not a finish line where people say "finally I am atheist". It's an awakening and conscious effort where people say "I am tired of pretending to believe just to appease others".

Same thing.

No, but it's not a poor one. Pi isn't 3. God should know that. If the Bible isn't the word of god, it's useless in discussion about the existence of god.

No, it's a side note that the Bible is mentioned in discussions regarding theism. We never discuss the Qu'ran or Bhagavad Gita.

Again, didn't bring it up. Just agreed with Spurraider's opinion on Uriel's critique.

[Chinook]

Truer words were never spoken. I know plenty high IQ folks at major universities who are dumb as a box of rocks where application is concerned. They can correct your terminology, but they cannot understand why things don't work as designed.

Indeed. Also, being intellectual is a personality type more than it is an innate attribute. You can read all the time and be totally into science and philosophy and still suck at intelligence tests. And you can have an IQ of 170 and hate academia.

[Clipper Nation]

You do not possess the requisite mental ap ude to engage in intellectually honest debate, and so resort to hurling personal attacks on people to compensate for your deficiencies.

That's it and that's all.

Your posting style alone is extremely pretentious.... lots of big words and nothing to say

As soon as you get beyond the superficial partisan talking points, then you'll be worthy of an honest debate.

[Uriel]

Indeed. Also, being intellectual is a personality type more than it is an innate attribute. You can read all the time and be totally into science and philosophy and still suck at intelligence tests. And you can have an IQ of 170 and hate academia.

I don't mean to sound narcissistic; that never really was my intention. And to the extent that I've been provoked into reacting negatively as a result of the personal attacks being hurled against me, I do sincerely apologize for it.

But in my case, I do "read all the time" and "am totally into science and philosophy." At the same time, I also do well in intelligence tests.

i bet uriel had that bottled up and was waiting for a good time to brag about his IQ test result

Not really. It made me cringe to even have to type that. The only reason I did so was because I was provoked. I detest having to resort to such measures.

Your posting style alone is extremely pretentious.... lots of big words and nothing to say

It isn't pretentious because those really are the words that flow directly from my thoughts. I'm not looking through the thesaurus to make a conscious effort to effect an aura of intelligence; I merely type what I think. If anything, it's "dumbing down" my writing that would be forcing me to deliberately alter my writing style.

[Bill_Brasky]

anybody who identifies themselves as "liberal", "conservative", "atheist", etc is a ing idiot who still hasnt realized that the world isnt black and white. Its all gray areas and life is too damn short to be arguing over this useless .