Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Bertrand Russell once said that “the immense majority of intellectually eminent men disbelieve in Christian religion”, and research appears to support that remark. Michael Shermer, in ‘How We Believe: The Search For God In An Age Of Science’, describes a large survey of randomly chosen Americans that he and his colleague Frank Sulloway carried out. Among their many results was the discovery that religiosity is negatively correlated with education (more highly educated people are less likely to be religious). Paul Bell, writing in ‘Mensa Magazine’ in 2002 told us: “Of 43 studies carried out since 1927 on the relationship between religious belief and one’s intelligence and/or educational level, all but four found an inverse connection. That is, the higher one’s intelligence or education level, the less one is likely to be religious or hold ‘beliefs’ of any kind.”

Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics and Political Science, suggests that more intelligent people are more likely to adopt evolutionarily novel preferences and values. He said: "Humans are evolutionarily designed to be paranoid, and they believe in God because they are paranoid. This innate bias toward paranoia served humans well when self-preservation and protection of their families and clans depended on extreme vigilance to all potential dangers. So, more intelligent children are more likely to grow up to go against their natural evolutionary tendency to believe in God, and they become atheists.”

Data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (NLSAH) supports Kanazawa's hypothesis. Young adults who identify themselves as 'not at all religious' have an average IQ of 103 during adolescence, while those who identify themselves as 'very religious' have an average IQ of 97 during adolescence.

Shermer says that religiosity is also negatively correlated with interest in science and strongly with political liberalism. And the NLSAH data suggests that young adults who subjectively identify themselves as 'very liberal' have an average IQ of 106 during adolescence, while those who identify themselves as 'very conservative' have an average IQ of 95 during adolescence.

Does this mean that people with left-wing views are more intelligent than those on the right? I’ve long thought that those with the independence of mind to be unaffected by the constant brainwashing attempts of the right-wing media must have a critical faculty which those who succumb to Tory and Republican propaganda clearly lack. It also appears to be the conclusion of experts at Brock University in Ontario, Canada, who studied research comparing childhood intelligence with political views in adulthood in 15,000 people. They found that intelligence, rather than education, wealth or social status, decides whether people are narrow-minded or bigoted in later life. Their report has been published in a journal called ‘Psychological Science’ and states: “Those with lower cognitive abilities may gravitate towards socially conservative right-wing ideologies that maintain the status quo. That is because it provides a sense of order". The authors found a strong link between low intelligence both as a child and an adult, and right-wing politics.

Sources used, and for further details:-

Richard Dawkins, ‘The God Delusion’, Bantam Press, 2006, p.102-3

http://www.tgdaily.com/general-sciences-features/48586-intelligent-people-more-likely-to-be-left-wing-atheists

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2095549/Right-wingers-intelligent-left-wingers-says-controversial-study--conservative-politics-lead-people-racist.html

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/2012/02/04/labour-supporters-are-cleverer-than-tories-canadian-study-claims-115875-23734718/

Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

One needs only to examine the pages of this message-board for the definitive answer.

60% of contributors are much brighter than the other half.

Does this mean that people with left-wing views are more intelligent than those on the right?

I hesitate to agree that the non-religious and left-leaning people are actually more intelligent, but I do feel that religiosity and conservatism appeals to a specific type of person. To put it bluntly, both appeal to those who really don't like to think. Those who do not think will score less well on IQ tests than those who do. Naturally, there are exceptions - there always are - but by and large, I have found that many conservatives and most Christians aren't able to keep up with "weightier" conversations. They have their opinions, of course, but they are often incapable of explaining why they have that opinion. All too often, their answer equates to, "I believe it because I do."

Both religion and conservatism are authoritarian. They are about following rules, doing as your told, and absorbing propaganda verbatim without a lot of questioning or examination. It certainly seems to me that those who are always looking for explanations, those who keep asking "why," are so often the ones who become irreligious or left-leaning. This isn't not just based on a clinical study but also based on my own personal observations. Someone can have a very sharp mind and still be devoutly religious and/or conservative, but if you don't use it, well ...

Again, there are always exceptions, but they are preciously few.

To take only this "Cutting Edge" message-board as an example (and there are many, many similar message-boards), there is a certain type of poster who absolutely cannot resist an argument to which there can never be a conclusion.
Mercifully, the pseudo-intellectuals have found another place to impress each other with their pseudo-erudition, but there remains an irreducible minimum of people who love to debate endlessly about whether there is a God, and if so why He allows terrible things to happen. You'll never know until you're DEAD, but feel free to continue the dialogue if you can find an avenue.

Anyway, there's no tax to pay on intelligence.

Although there can be a heavy cost for ignorance.

I've read the report by Kanazawa that you refer to Ivan and it does have some interesting findings, an extract from the following link is below:

http://reason.com/blog/2010/02/24/why-liberals-and-atheists-are

More intelligent people are statistically significantly more likely to exhibit social values and religious and political preferences that are novel to the human species in evolutionary history. Specifically, liberalism and atheism, and for men (but not women), preference for sexual exclusivity correlate with higher intelligence, a new study finds.

In the current study, Kanazawa argues that humans are evolutionarily designed to be conservative, caring mostly about their family and friends, and being liberal, caring about an indefinite number of genetically unrelated strangers they never meet or interact with, is evolutionarily novel. So more intelligent children may be more likely to grow up to be liberals.

It states that there is a correlate between intelligence and voting pattern linked with religious belief. The link between IQ and whether someone is left or right wing has more weight than religion. People who are left leaning tend to have more empathy towards others than the right wing. However the link is less clear for those who are religious.

I don't think overall we should attach too much credance to such studies. The variation between intelligence for these groups, although discernable is not that great in my opinion. Although if it were a verifiable psychological study, the hypothesis would have found the differences to be statistically significant for quite a significant number of participants. It is also of interest that the study seems to have been carried out using adolescents rather than adults. It would also have been of interest if the study stated what version of the IQ test was used.

Mercifully, the pseudo-intellectuals have found another place to impress each other with their pseudo-erudition, but there remains an irreducible minimum of people who love to debate endlessly about whether there is a God, and if so why He allows terrible things to happen.

So, then, who are the real intellectuals? People who only get into brief debates over whether water is wet?

Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

 

Which intelligence?
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Theory of multiple intelligences, Howard Gardner, 1983

The theory of multiple intelligences was proposed by Howard Gardner in 1983 as a model of intelligence that differentiates intelligence into various specific (primarily sensory) modalities[disambiguation needed ], rather than seeing it as dominated by a single general ability.

Gardner argues that there is a wide range of cognitive abilities, and that there are only very weak correlations among them. For example, the theory predicts that a child who learns to multiply easily is not necessarily generally more intelligent than a child who has more difficulty on this task.

The multiple intelligences:

1. Spatial
   
   
2. Linguistic
   
   
3. Logical-mathematical
   
   
4. Bodily-kinesthetic
   
   
5. Musical
   
   
6. Interpersonal
   
   
7. Intrapersonal
   
   
8. Naturalistic
   
   

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences#The_multiple_intelligences
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Multiple Intelligences Self-Assessment
__________________________________________________________________________________________



http://www.careernotes.ca/uploaded-content/2010/01/Multiple-Intelligences.jpg

Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?
-------------------------
Yes.

Glad we got that settled.

So, then, who are the real intellectuals?

A couple received mention in this thread's opener, but there is an obvious difficulty for the rest of us in dealing the pronouncements of truly original thinkers, who may be intelligible only to perhaps half-a-dozen others.

Keeping Anusol next the toothpaste = BAD

There you go V, a true intellectual.

You have to watch that astra - he's probably hoping one of the Board's intellectuals will ask why.

Which intelligence?

I thought the opening posting made that fairly clear - intelligence as measured by IQ.

Washington Post's Funny Mensa Invitational Challenge


The challenge is to take a word from the dictionary, alter it by adding, deleting, or changing one letter, then supply a new definition. The result is a funny Mensa test.

Euchoria - Pleased when all the chores are done.
Paymeant: the cheque is in the post.
Obfuscage: to catch by confusing.
Intaxication: Euphoria at getting a tax refund, which lasts until you realize it was your money to start with.
Reintarnation: Coming back to life as a hillbilly.
Bozone (n.): The substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright ideas from penetrating. The bozone layer, unfortunately, shows little sign of breaking down in the near future.
Beelzebug (n.): Satan in the form of a mosquito, that gets into your bedroom at three in the morning and cannot be cast out.
Cashtration (n.): The act of buying a house, which renders the subject financially impotent for an indefinite period.
Giraffiti: Vandalism spray-painted very, very high.
Sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.
Inoculatte: To take coffee intravenously when you are running late.
Hipatitis: Terminal coolness.
Karmageddon: It's like, when everybody is sending off these bad vibes, right? And then, like, the Earth explodes and it's like, a serious bummer.
Glibido: All talk and no action.
Dopeler effect: The tendency of stupid ideas to seem smarter when they come at you rapidly.
Inclouded: added in order to obfuscate.
Arachnoleptic fit (n.): The frantic dance performed just after You've accidentally walked through a spider web.
Caterpallor (n.): The color you turn after finding half a worm in the fruit you're eating.


http://www.guy-sports.com/months/jokes_mensa.htm

Ivan wrote:

Which intelligence?

I thought the opening posting made that fairly clear - intelligence as measured by IQ.

 

That's the point. IQ measures what it measures, nothing more.

It's a leap of faith to equate IQ scores with intelligence. Gardner identified eight intelligences (of which IQ purports to measure two), and it's doubtful that these eight are all the intelligences that exist.

How would one measure Papa Mau’s intelligence? Between a person who max’s out an IQ test and Papa Mau, whose intelligence would you trust to deliver you safely to an inhabited island from several thousand miles out in the Pacific Ocean?
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Papa Mau: The Wayfinder
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Pius "Mau" Piailug

Pius "Mau" Piailug (pronounced /ˈpaɪəs ˈmaʊ piːˈaɪləɡ/; 1932 – July 12, 2010) was a Micronesian navigator from the Carolinian island of Satawal, best known as a teacher of traditional, non-instrument wayfinding methods for deep-sea voyaging. Mau's Carolinian navigation system—which relies on navigational clues using the sun and stars, winds and clouds, seas and swells, and birds and fish—was acquired through rote learning passed down through teachings in the oral tradition. He earned the title of master navigator (palu) by the age of eighteen, around the time the first American missionaries arrived in Satawal. As he neared middle age, Mau grew concerned that the practice of navigation in Satawal would disappear as his people became acculturated to Western values. In the hope that the navigational tradition would be preserved for future generations, Mau shared his knowledge with the Polynesian Voyaging Society (PVS). With Mau's help, PVS used experimental archaeology to recreate and test lost Hawaiian navigational techniques on the Hōkūle‘a, a modern reconstruction of a double-hulled Hawaiian voyaging canoe.

The successful, non-instrument sailing of Hōkūle‘a to Tahiti in 1976, proved the efficacy of Mau's navigational system to the world. To academia, Mau's achievement provided evidence for intentional two-way voyaging throughout Oceania, supporting a hypothesis that explained the Asiatic origin of Polynesians. The success of the Micronesian-Polynesian cultural exchange, symbolized by Hōkūle‘a, had an impact throughout the Pacific. It contributed to the emergence of the second Hawaiian cultural renaissance and to a revival of Polynesian navigation and canoe building in Hawaii, New Zealand, Rarotonga and Tahiti.

Wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mau_Piailug
__________________________________________________________________________________________

(Wikipedia) Creative Commons Deed

You are free:

• to Share—to copy, distribute and transmit the work, and
  
  
• to Remix—to adapt the work
  
  

Under the following conditions:

• Attribution—You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work.)
  
  
• Share Alike—If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same, similar or a compatible license.
  
  

Retrieved 2 August 2011 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License

Quote : "but many people who strive to sound intellectual that have nothing to back it up are caught out regularly by the real intellectuals...."


Damn, damn, damn... !

"pseudo-intellectuals"

I've heard this term quite often but no one has been able to clearly define what it means. What exactly is the difference between a "pseudo-intellectual" and a "real" intellectual? Hopefully it is something a bit more substantial than "real" intellectuals being those who actually make money being one. The reason why I ask is because I know in this country, and perhaps it is true of Britain as well, that intellectualism and simply being smart are traits that are often unwelcome in most social settings. We tend to strive for mediocrity - that safe, average level of knowledge and intelligence that encompasses the largest percentage of people. I think the most reviled people are those who have an opinion (like everyone else) but can actually back it up with real facts that you can't get from the news. I've noticed in my own dealings that people will spend hours going back and forth with "uh huh, nuh uh" arguments trying be correct through sheer force of will, but if you say "nuh uh" or "uh huh" and then follow it with facts, statistics, quotations, studies, etc. then you can easily find yourself edged out of the conversation entirely. That's of course, after there's 20 seconds of uncomfortable silence and reproving looks tossed in your direction. Then you become the now the dreaded "pseudo-intellectual." What does that even mean?

Whatever the limitations of describing people by an IQ number, it still has a use until something better comes along. Microsoft's Bill Gates admitted that MSN would have failed without it's high-powered, high-IQ number-crunchers. The same people are of great interest to Investment Banks and similar global corporations, for their ability to grasp several important aspects of a situation simultaneously.

Co-incidentally, it's one of the reasons why the Rich have been getting richer since 1970. They can do the commercial sums that keep you out of trouble.

Who was the more intelligent person in the VIP line, the one who could get a fairly decent score on an IQ test, or the one that was on his way to going from twenty dollars per hour to a multi-millionaire in seven years and who could step into a VIP line with a hammer hanging off his tool belt, get seated on a couch, and relax as the bank officer brought his twenty-five million dollar check to him as he sat?

I really don't think intelligence and income/net worth are tied together, either. Perhaps if all the wealthy people in charge were smarter, things would run a lot more smoothly than they do. In the Navy, there was an often-used expression: "There's the right way, the wrong way, and the Navy way." The implication is that most of what we did was so stupid that it was neither right or wrong - it was just dumb. We lowly non-coms could figure it out, why couldn't the top dog with gold on his shoulders do the same?

I've found this phenomenon to be identical in the civilian world. All you have to do is read a corporate handbook on policy and procedure, and you'll find 10 stupid things in there before you blink your eyes. Those who wrote the policy handbook, ostensibly, are more intelligent than the lowly workers, yet the workers had the right of things. The corporate suits did not. It's pretty silly to base policies off numbers, statistics and reports without ever walking the factory floor. Yet they do. Dumb. I wouldn't call that intelligent despite what they make.

After all, who is really more intelligent - the nuclear physicist with 3 doctorates from MIT making $80k per year as head researcher of FermiLab? Or Paris Hilton with all of her millions? Think about it.

What exactly is the difference between a "pseudo-intellectual" and a "real" intellectual?

Shirina. I know what I consider to be the difference between an intellectual and a pseudo-intellectual, and it has nothing to do with money.

In my book, an intellectual is an original thinker, someone who comes up with new ideas and breaks new ground, possibly an expert in one particular field. I would hope that everyone with a PhD would also fall into that category. Richard Dawkins is the first person who comes to mind when I think of intellectuals.

I’ve no wish to embarrass you, but I consider you to be an intellectual because you can argue around and present different interpretations of an issue, you have the ability to 'think outside the box'. I've often read your posts and said to myself "why didn't I think of that?"

It’s not that hard to spot a pseudo-intellectual, the 'wannabe' with an inferiority complex who tries to convince himself that he's better than those around him. I’m thinking of characters such as the mutual masturbation society on another forum, writing sonnets and then praising each other with erudite vocabulary. They’re not intellectuals, they’re just sad poseurs.

This a similar debate to the one about wealthy parents giving their children a private education. Intelligence is rarely a disadvantage, but the British Public School can take unpromising material and show it how to radiate self-confidence, employ presentational skills in a manner that suggests effortless leadership qualities and to keep quiet until someone else suggests the correct answer.

Yes, while it is obviously an advantage to have a high IQ it is usually much more help in normal life to have a fairly good education, personal drive and the ability to recognise people who are good at doing the jobs you want to get done, and employing them to do these jobs. Along with that is the ability to recognise situations and make decisions that are too risky to some but that pay off grandly if the risk is taken and the outcome is successful.

My old Irish grannie, ( you might hear a lot from her as I speak on this forum ), used to say: "Faint heart never won fair lady" and I guess that that maxim fits in many walks of life.

Regards....

Papaumau.

Another source referring to the same research on this subject:-
http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/9664-focus-low-iq-a-conservative-beliefs-linked-to-prejudice

can take unpromising material and show it how to radiate self-confidence, employ presentational skills in a manner that suggests effortless leadership qualities

Sounds like a certain ex-TV company Public Relations Executive.......

Another source referring to the same research on this subject:-

Well that explains why so many American conservatives - at least on the forums I have been involved with - offer up such stupid arguments, and these arguments filter right up to our politicians who begin bleating them out with seemingly no thought.

A good example of this are the arguments against gay marriage (more prejudice, surprise, surprise). Not only are most of them logical fallacies, a goodly number of them don't even make sense. One example of a nonsensical argument is the one concerning how gay marriage will somehow lessen the value of straight marriage, as if marriage is a stock that loses value based on external factors. I once told a proponent of this argument, "So if gays are allowed to marry, are you going to march in to your wife and tell her that you love her a little less?" I never received a response. Go figure.

I do believe that the more intelligent you are, the less susceptible you are to propaganda. That is the quintessential difference, in my mind, at least. This is borne out by the fact that left-wing talk shows have far less viewers and listeners than right-wing shows, and these shows on both sides are heavy into propaganda.

RockOnBrother wrote:
Who was the more intelligent person in the VIP line, the one who could get a fairly decent score on an IQ test, or the one that was on his way to going from twenty dollars per hour to a multi-millionaire in seven years and who could step into a VIP line with a hammer hanging off his tool belt, get seated on a couch, and relax as the bank officer brought his twenty-five million dollar check to him as he sat?

 

Shirina wrote:
I really don't think intelligence and income/net worth are tied together, either.

 

The relationship, or lack thereof, depends upon the income and net worth were achieved or not achieved.

If the man with the hammer in his tool belt had rolled out of his crib into a seven or eight figure net worth just because, as certain celebrities who are celebrities because they are celebrities seem to have done, then no, money doesn’t mean anything except that one has money.

The man with the hammer hanging off his tool belt “thunk” his way from twenty dollars an our to drinking coffee in the VIP office on the VIP couch while a bank officer toted his twenty five million dollar check in for the man with the hammer to put in his coveralls. That’s smarts. I doubt that you can accurately measure that type of intelligence by incarcerating him for two or three hours in a testing room with a bunch of #2 pencils and instructions to bubble in some marks on a piece of meaningless paper.

Shirina wrote:
In the Navy, there was an often-used expression: "There's the right way, the wrong way, and the Navy way."

 

I’m familiar with that phrase.

Jake Gaither, the Florida A&M football coach, had a similar saying: “On this team, it’s my way or Trailway.”

Shirina wrote:
After all, who is really more intelligent - the nuclear physicist with 3 doctorates from MIT making $80k per year as head researcher of FermiLab? Or Paris Hilton with all of her millions? Think about it.  

 

Paris rolled out of the crib with cash overflow courtesy of her rich somebodies smarts, her grandparents, I think.

A “mo’ bettah” comparison is comparing your physicist to Bill Gates, who “thunk” his way to fifty billion buckaroos, give or take. He’s another one that has a type of intelligence that you can detect but that you can’t accurately measure.

And trying to get a handle on it with an I.Q. test? Negro, please!

So ypu want me to be a Christian ? and agree that some bloke 2000 years ago fed 5000 people on a couple of bread loaves and a handful of fish, and that this same geezer walked on water, cured blind people and was concieved from a woman who never had sex.

But then again there is the 1.6 billion people who think that Islam is the only true religion, and they are at odds with the 1 billion Hindus who believe in Gods that are half human and half elephant, monkey, snake and a whole host of other creatures.

AND YOU ASK ME IF ATHIESTS ARE INTELLIGENT ?

dont make me laugh

A “mo’ bettah” comparison is comparing your physicist to Bill Gates, who “thunk” his way to fifty billion buckaroos, give or take. He’s another one that has a type of intelligence that you can detect but that you can’t accurately measure.

The man who "invented" the Pet Rock made millions, too. Was he intelligent? Maybe. Clever, no doubt, but making millions by selling a common driveway stone doesn't indicate intelligence - it wasn't like he invented rocks.

I suppose my point, though, is that not all intelligent people choose to become millionaires; often becoming that rich requires a lot of compromises and sacrifices to both time and morals. Some, like the MIT physicist with a double doctorate, would much rather be working on pure scientific pursuits for $80k per year than to invent some useless widget to sell for millions. There are also people with average intelligence who just happen to hit upon a good idea - or they simply got lucky - and made a fortune. There are some pretty stupid and ignorant people sitting in those plump leather seats upstairs.

RockOnBrother wrote:
A “mo’ bettah” comparison is comparing your physicist to Bill Gates, who “thunk” his way to fifty billion buckaroos, give or take. He’s another one that has a type of intelligence that you can detect but that you can’t accurately measure.

 

Shirina wrote:
The man who "invented" the Pet Rock made millions, too. Was he intelligent? Maybe. Clever, no doubt, but making millions by selling a common driveway stone doesn't indicate intelligence - it wasn't like he invented rocks.

 

There is the “one-hit-wonder’ who cannot duplicate her/his feats, and there is the genius, whose body of work testifies to her/his genius.

There exist a myriad of adjectives which one can legitimately attach to the noun “genius.” When one’s lack of genius is compellingly evidenced by one’ inability to do much of anything beyond the one success, as is the case with the Pet Rock dude. A few people tried to jump on that train, one with “Send Your Boss a Brick” and another with “The Invisible Dog”, but it seems that train was a short line, and the tracks were ripped out after the Pet Rocks swift but highly profitable journey.

Comparing the Pet Rock one-hit-wonder to Bill Gates, or even to the man with the hammer on his tool belt, is like comparing Vanilla Ice to Prince Rogers Nelson. In both comparisons, the first person got lucky, and the second person has exhibited genius for more than three decades.

And back to my main point, illustrated inadvertently by my addressing your point: How in God’s name would one even begin to attempt to measure Prince Rogers Nelson’s musical intelligence?

Shirina wrote:
I suppose my point, though, is that not all intelligent people choose to become millionaires

 

And this is a valid point. Also true is that all who choose to “pursue millionaire” do not employ incredible intelligence to do so. Many employ incredible ruthlessness rather than incredible intelligence.

Shirina wrote:
There are some pretty stupid and ignorant people sitting in those plump leather seats upstairs.

 

There are also some pretty ignorant people whose ignorance stems from their chosen stupidity and pomposity sitting in endowed chairs within the ivy-covered walls of prestigious universities.

Ignorance borne of stupidity and pomposity is an equal opportunity disease.

There is another side to unusually high intelligence. A minority of those who possess it would rather not, and strenuously avoid having to take responsibility for anything. I have met an egg-head who worked as a filing clerk, a Graduate who drove a long-distance lorry, and a Teacher who abandoned that career to work on the counter at B & Q.

The Military have long been conscious that their "Boffins" don't fit well with the traditional Sergeant-Major-led bull of the Regular Service, and have created a separate "Technician" path which has a minimal exposure to Parade-ground duties.

The fact is that the manner in which all people initially approach religion depends on where they are born and the feeling of the perents towards religion.

Intelligence has nothing whatsoever to do with it, even at a later stage when perhaps those involved reach an age when they begin to think for themselves and quesion the teaching they have received it is usually the experiences they have had that will detemine their final feelings towards religion and neither intelligence nor social standing will play any part.

Intelligence without common sense can be a handicap rather than an asset, you only have to look at the actions of some considered intelligent, as proof of this, just look at some politicians.

As for religion, anyone who thinks evolution is the answer should consider the fact that for just the eye to develope without the aid of INTELIGENCE of some kind has odds far beyond those accepted as immpossible and that is just one example of thousands that could be quoted.

witchfinder wrote:So ypu want me to be a Christian ? and agree that some bloke 2000 years ago fed 5000 people on a couple of bread loaves and a handful of fish, and that this same geezer walked on water, cured blind people and was concieved from a woman who never had sex.

But then again there is the 1.6 billion people who think that Islam is the only true religion, and they are at odds with the 1 billion Hindus who believe in Gods that are half human and half elephant, monkey, snake and a whole host of other creatures.

AND YOU ASK ME IF ATHIESTS ARE INTELLIGENT ?

dont make me laugh

I often share this type of exasperation. How can so many people be so utterly stupid as to believe in nonsense of these types?
Can they really be so unintelligent, or is it blatant dishonesty or hypocrisy? Knaves or fools?

Alas, though, whether or not everyone chooses to believe, or pretend to believe, in nonsensical notions about God, has no bearing really on whether or not a God, stripped of nonsensical concepts, really exists in any verifiable way.

Does the traditional Aesop Fable about "killing the golden goose" have its origin in religious allegory? Is the story intended to explain that attempts to dissect Religious Belief inevitably destroy all credibility?

polyglide wrote:
The fact is that the manner in which all people initially approach religion depends on where they are born and the feeling of the perents towards religion.

Intelligence has nothing whatsoever to do with it, even at a later stage when perhaps those involved reach an age when they begin to think for themselves and quesion the teaching they have received it is usually the experiences they have had that will detemine their final feelings towards religion and neither intelligence nor social standing will play any part.

Intelligence without common sense can be a handicap rather than an asset, you only have to look at the actions of some considered intelligent, as proof of this, just look at some politicians.

As for religion, anyone who thinks evolution is the answer should consider the fact that for just the eye to develope without the aid of INTELIGENCE of some kind has odds far beyond those accepted as immpossible and that is just one example of thousands that could be quoted.

Hi polyglide...nice to meet you !

I think that while intelligence certainly has something to do with the decisions one makes when one becomes aware of the weaknesses in religious teachings - as I did in my formative years - I agree that the programming that goes on when children and their innocent and wide-open minds are indoctrinated into the family religion or even the accident of the place that any such religion has developed, I think that such indoctrination is very difficult to unlearn once it has been learned. I was lucky enough to possess enough intelligence to actually break away from that trap when I was taken away back to Scotland, ( at nine years of age ), by my widowed mother from the hate-filled part of Northern Ireland which was poisoning my mind to the clear thinking that comes with agnosticism or atheism.

YES....I am now an atheist !

I regularly thank my lucky stars that I DID manage to break those bonds before my mind had been truly destroyed by the bigoted teachings and attitudes in Northern Ireland.

As far as evolution versus creationism is concerned of course I take the opposite view than you do as I can easily see how nature and evolution could - over millennia - develop the human eye and even the many different types of eyes that insects, reptiles and other animals have that suits their environment.

The intelligence that all animals have to any greater or smaller degree was also easily seen to develop via evolution and natural selection as the higher up the evolutionary scale we are the greater is our intelligence. I agree though that just because we are maybe the most intelligent creature on the earth this does not mean that we are guaranteed to be endowed with common-sense.

If we just stop and look around us we see all of the wondrous things that humanity has discovered and invented and manufactured and yet within that same humanity we see cruelty and barbarity that can only come from the inside of the minds of some Homo-Sapiens.

We are not perfect in any way, but we are still wonderful machines that have evolved from the primordial soup, where life - it has been said - first began.

I am sorry, but I see no supernatural hand in any of this and as I am lucky enough to have had the burden of religion lifted from my shoulders and I am no longer a slave to such other-worldly ideas, my mind is now clear and able to marvel at mother nature while I find the religions - ALL of them - just an interesting dead-end and a path that some humans have chosen to take as they go about their business.

Regards.....

Papaumau.

They are.

If you are Religious and Left Wing then you will obviously agree with this view...I am an Atheist and Centre/Right so I obviously disagree.

I have met many intelligent religious people in my time, but being brain washed into blind faith shows a distinct lack of common sense. Most people follow a God or religion passed onto them by their parents, so is the same as supporting the same footy team as your Dad.

If Osama Bin Laden had been born in the US to Christian parents he would have been a fundamentalist Christian...I would bet on it. So it has nothing to do with the truth, but all about belonging to a clan.

As for Leftie being more intelligent....Hmmm well I believe there are intelligent and stupid people on both sides...how can one generalise?

blueturando wrote:If you are Religious and Left Wing then you will obviously agree with this view...I am an Atheist and Centre/Right so I obviously disagree.

The puzzle is to explain why any sane person earning less than about £25K p.a. should imagine that the Tory Party has even the faintest interest in them beyond their Vote and willingness to work for peanuts?

I think the problem is OW that many working class people have come to the conclusion that the last Labour government lost sight of who their core voters were and were more interested in mass immigration and keeping people happy on benefits....Rightly or wrongly that is the perception

Immigration on the scale allowed under the last government effects ordinary people who use local services and who are being pushed out of jobs and down council waiting lists....and the wider perception is that 'Minorities' rights come before theirs.......all too PC

Many working class are unhappy that they work crazy hours every week to feed and clothes their families for less money that someone can get sitting on benefits. It's not their fault, they are claiming what they can get...but the politicians were seriously at fault here and once again the working class got ignored......That's why so many turned away from Labour and voted Tory

Labour lost an estimated 4.9 million voters between 1997 and 2010

Sorry to be so off topic....