Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

First topic message reminder :

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/

More evidence courtesy of Pew research, atheists and agnostics are not just generally more intelligent and better educated, they even know more about religion than the religious.

Dr, Shedldon,
There is just as many objections to the conclusions as I have pointed out and also why, there is no point in going over old ground, you believe what you want to believe I believe that what you believe has been shown to be lacking in credibility.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Shedldon,
                  There is just as many objections to the conclusions as I have pointed out and also why,

No there aren't, and no you haven't, you made a broad assumption of what Muslims think, though offered no clue as to how you claim to know this. Then you posted a list of religious apologists and suggested I read them? None of that addresses the research that's been posted, perhaps if you tried to address that and what it indicates rather than reducing every criticism of religion to a personal affront you might better grasp why your responses are not attempting to discuss the thread topic.

there is no point in going over old ground, you believe what you want to believe I believe that what you believe has been shown to be lacking in credibility.

You are of course free to believe whatever you wish, but I have offered no beliefs here, only posted research and what the researchers concluded from it. The research is comprehensive and long-standing and support some obvious conclusions, and again this is not my belief, this is what the research claimed.

Like this...


A piece of University of Rochester analysis, led by Professor Miron Zuckerman, found “a reliable negative relation between intelligence and religiosity” in 53 out of 63 studies. Religious people are less intelligent than atheists, according to analysis of scores of scientific studies stretching back over decades.  

One of the studies used in Zuckerman's paper was a life-long analysis of the beliefs of 1,500 gifted children with with IQs over 135. The study began in 1921 and continues today. Even in extreme old age the subjects had much lower levels of religious belief than the average population.

Or

80 years of PEW research that surveyed people from all walks of life and recorded the salient facts, and that throughout that time the results continually showed that as education and intelligence increased belief in God decreased. That in the American academy of Science, the most elite scientific body in America that elects only the most successful, intelligent, and educated scientists in the entire USA atheism was at 93%, the exact opposite of the general less educated, and demonstrably less intelligent population.

Now one last time as you seem to be misunderstanding what the research is actually concluding, no one is claiming that there are not very intelligent people who believe in God or are religious, merely that several rigorously conducted pieces of research spanning decades of study show that number of people who believe in God decreases as intelligence and education increases.

Dr, Sheldon,
Yet America is one of the most religious countries in the world, are you saying that all those religious people are not intelligent

































Dr, Sheldon,
As America is one of the most religious countries in the
world are you saying they are all lacking intelligence.

polyglide wrote:  are you saying that all those religious people are not intelligent  

As I said you simply can't understand the research or it's conclusions which is why I spelled it out in my last post and yet you go and ask the very question I had just answered. For crying out loud read the posts you're pretending to respond to before answering. I'll try enlarging it as you seem reluctant to read anything beyond a one sentence response.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Yesterday at 4:58 pm
Now one last time as you seem to be misunderstanding what the research is actually concluding, no one is claiming that there are not very intelligent people who believe in God or are religious, merely that several rigorously conducted pieces of research spanning decades of study show that number of people who believe in God decreases as intelligence and education increases.  

Dr, Sheldon,
All this shows is that they are getting the wrong kind of
education.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                All this shows is that they are getting the wrong kind of
education.

Jesus wept, I simply can't dumb this down any more for you. You really can't understand what it is saying can you, beyond a vague idea that it's a slight towards religiosity. I am genuinely sorry you can't understand this but the PEW research you're referring spanned 80 years of multiple demographics, no one type of education was focused on, that's axiomatic. Just as it is axiomatic from the results that belief in god decreased in any groups as education and intelligence increased. The research in the UK university study was no less comprehensive and no less consistent, showing that belief in god was vastly lower that the average in a group of people with very high IQ's, as one example. There were multiple studies and nearly all showed that as intelligence increased religious belief decreased.

Dr, Shedlon,
It just shows that as intelligence increases common sense deminishes.

polyglide wrote: It just shows that as intelligence increases common sense deminishes.

It's diminishes, and no it doesn't show any such thing, that's just you sulking because the evidence doesn't say what you'd like to believe it should, and again such puerile histrionics is hardly worthy of intelligent discussion. It's a shame you can't honestly examine what this data might mean, and what implications this might have for religious beliefs of the majority. It might provide an interesting discussion.

Just why anyone would post such nonsense as a rebuttal to vast amounts of research data spanning decades of research, and not be embarrassed to do so I really don't know. It's clear you can't or won't address this topic honestly so why not ignore it, if it is causing so much angst? You won't change the facts in the research by simply making absurd sweeping and false claims.

Dr, Shedlon,
The only way in which your opinion could be verified, in the same way as you keep refering to lottery odds, is if every person was consulted, I have given you the reference which clearly identifies the defects in the above research.

It's not my opinion. It never was my opinion. It's data gathered from decades of research. The conclusions are based on the data. I have offered no opinion either way. You clearly don't or won't understand the data or its conclusion. Your repetedly suggesting I'm offering any opinion is simply a shameful lie. Finally you've offered nothing more than absurd and bare contradiction ranging from claims to know what an entire religious demographic thinks, to a puerile and insulting sentence denial.

As I said if you have no interest in discussing this with any honesty or integrity then let alone.

We'll take a look at the research again as it is being lost in the ludicrous attempts at obfuscation of someone who has no real interest in the discussion.

The difference in religiosity between the American public and American scientists is profound,  persistent, and well documented.  The more accomplished the scientist, the greater the likelihood that he or she is a nonbeliever.

Pew research shows:

33%  of scientists overall admitted belief in a personal deity, with 41% claiming to be atheists. The rest either didn't answer, didn't know, or believed in some form of higher power.

Contrast that against the 83% of the general population who claim to believe in God. With atheism at just 4%. In other words scientists are ten times more likely to be atheistic than non-scientists in one of the most religious countries in the developed world, but the research doesn't stop there.

This disparity which has persisted for over 80 years of polling increases drastically when it examines scientists working at elite research universities.

With 62% being atheistic and one only 23% believing in God. A degree of non-belief 15 times higher than the general public.

Sitting at the top tier of American science are the members of the National Academy of Sciences, where only the most accomplished scientists are elected as members.  Here non-belief is 93% who claim to be atheists. This then is almost the exact opposite of the data for the general population.

I don't really think we need speculate too long on the level of intelligence required to be elected to the National Academy of Sciences compared to the average across the population.

Then there was the UK based university research:

Religious people are less intelligent than atheists, according to analysis of scores of scientific studies stretching back over decades. A new review of 63 scientific studies stretching back over decades has concluded that religious people are less intelligent than non-believers.

A piece of University of Rochester analysis, led by Professor Miron Zuckerman, found “a reliable negative relation between intelligence and religiosity” in 53 out of 63 studies.

According to the study entitled, 'The Relation Between Intelligence and Religiosity: A Meta-Analysis and Some Proposed Explanations', published in the 'Personality and Social Psychology Review', even during early years the more intelligent a child is the more likely it would be to turn away from religion.

In old age above average intelligence people are less likely to believe, the researchers also found.

One of the studies used in Zuckerman's paper was a life-long analysis of the beliefs of 1,500 gifted children with with IQs over 135.

The study began in 1921 and continues today. Even in extreme old age the subjects had much lower levels of religious belief than the average population.

The review, which is the first systematic meta-analysis of the 63 studies conducted in between 1928 and 2012, showed that of the 63 studies, 53 showed a negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity, while 10 showed a positive one.

Only two studies showed significant positive correlations and significant negative correlations were seen in a total of 35 studies.

The authors of the review looked at each study independently, taking into account the quality of data collection, the size of the sample and the analysis methods used.

The three psychologists carrying out the review defined intelligence as  the “ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly, and learn from experience”.

Religiosity is defined by the psychologists as involvement in some (or all) facets of religion.

According to the review, other factors - such as gender or education - did not make any difference to the correlation between intelligence and religious belief.

The level of belief, or otherwise, did however vary dependent upon age with the correlation found to be weakest among the pre-college population.

The paper concludes that: "Most extant explanations (of a negative relation) share one central theme —the premise that religious beliefs are irrational, not anchored in science, not testable and, therefore, unappealing to intelligent people who 'know better'."

Dr, Shedlon,
It is no good offering the opinions of those intent on proving something of interest to themselves.

Another group intent on proving the opposite could go about it in a different manner and come up with what they want the result to be.

You mean the intelligent people who have lead the world into it's present state?

You've ignored the research again. This thread has a topic if you want to discuss that then do so. Your subjective sweeping claims are stupid and irrelevant.

Do you have anything remotely salient to say that addresses the research, beyond childish denial of the facts? 

The conclusions are supported by the data. They're not based on anyone's opinion. You could Start there. Or maybe address the fact that faith retards knowledge and the desire to seek it objectively, and why this is clearly reflected in the research.

One more look at the research then just to hammer home the point that it is not in the least subjective. Unlike Polyglide's rather foolish comments, which as well as being entirely subjective neither grasp what the research means, or tries to address the research and it's conclusions in any honest way.

The difference in religiosity between the American public and American scientists is profound, persistent, and well documented. The more accomplished the scientist, the greater the likelihood that he or she is a nonbeliever.

Pew research shows:

33% of scientists overall admitted belief in a personal deity, with 41% claiming to be atheists. The rest either didn't answer, didn't know, or believed in some form of higher power.

Contrast that against the 83% of the general population who claim to believe in God. With atheism at just 4%. In other words scientists are ten times more likely to be atheistic than non-scientists in one of the most religious countries in the developed world, but the research doesn't stop there.

This disparity which has persisted for over 80 years of polling increases drastically when it examines scientists working at elite research universities.

With 62% being atheistic and one only 23% believing in God. A degree of non-belief 15 times higher than the general public.

Sitting at the top tier of American science are the members of the National Academy of Sciences, where only the most accomplished scientists are elected as members. Here non-belief is 93% who claim to be atheists. This then is almost the exact opposite of the data for the general population.

Dr, Shedlon,
Then am I to take it that it is idiots that created the nuclear bomb, the chemical weapons anmd all the other anti humna creations?.

The man who actually went to the moon was convinced that God created the earth, was he an unintelligent person? where did you learn your idea of God, in the back garden?.

It just proves that those involved are all wrong.

You cannot expect a collection of people who are all attempting to explain the universe and all that it involves through science to believe in God.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Shedlon,
                Then am I to take it that it is idiots that created the nuclear bomb, the chemical weapons anmd all the other anti humna creations?. 

I've no idea what on earth you're talking about sorry, but this is nothing to do with the thread topic or the research supporting the premise that it is predicated on, which it is again clear, based on this sentence, you simply don't understand.

Polyglide wrote:The man who actually went to the moon was convinced that God created the earth, was he an unintelligent person? where did you learn your idea of God, in the back garden?.

You've lost me, just how many times it has to be explained to you that this research is not claiming there are no intelligent theists I don't know, or is this latest string of asinine straw men examples simple duplicity to avoid addressing what the research is actually saying? The last sentence is as stupid as it is irrelevant, do grow up. Nothing I've posted in this thread or the research I've linked is based on my notion of mythical deities.

Polyglide wrote:It just proves that those involved are all wrong.

 

What proves who is wrong about what? Jesus wept.    

Polyglide wrote:  You cannot expect a collection of people who are all attempting to explain the universe and all that it involves through science to believe in God.

Christ on a bike, what are you talking about? Read this, carefully and slowly, and do try and understand what it is saying, and just as importantly what it is not saying, as your responses so far are as irrelevant as they are absurd.

THE RESEARCH IS NOT CLAIMING THAT THERE ARE NO INTELLIGENT THEISTS, NOR IS IT CLAIMING THAT ALL ATHEISTS ARE INTELLIGENT.

"The difference in religiosity between the American public and American scientists is profound, persistent, and well documented. The more accomplished the scientist, the greater the likelihood that he or she is a nonbeliever.

Pew research shows:

33% of scientists overall admitted belief in a personal deity, with 41% claiming to be atheists. The rest either didn't answer, didn't know, or believed in some form of higher power.

Contrast that against the 83% of the general population who claim to believe in God. With atheism at just 4%. In other words scientists are ten times more likely to be atheistic than non-scientists in one of the most religious countries in the developed world, but the research doesn't stop there.

This disparity which has persisted for over 80 years of polling increases drastically when it examines scientists working at elite research universities.

With 62% being atheistic and one only 23% believing in God. A degree of non-belief 15 times higher than the general public.

Sitting at the top tier of American science are the members of the National Academy of Sciences, where only the most accomplished scientists are elected as members. Here non-belief is 93% who claim to be atheists. This then is almost the exact opposite of the data for the general population. "

Dr, Sheldon,
Shame on you, someone built the brick wall.

In our parliment where one would expect the highest degree of honour etc; we have thieves, perverts, liars and child abusers etc; This is relative because you are suggesting intelligence makes ones opinion sounder than that of others, and better source etc;

The fact that scientists [ the majority] do not believe in God etc; should not be a suprise to anyone, their whole aim is to prove otherwise, would you expect butchers to be against killing animals?.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,  In our parliment where one would expect the highest degree of honour etc; we have thieves, perverts, liars and child abusers etc; This is relative because you are suggesting intelligence makes ones opinion sounder than that of others, and better source etc;

I've suggested no such thing. Your grasp of the written word is truly atrocious, or are you simply making up lies to obfuscate again? In fact I've suggested nothing, merely posted the research, and you keep repeating this lie as well, why is that?

Polyglide wrote:The fact that scientists [ the majority] do not believe in God etc; should not be a suprise to anyone, their whole aim is to prove otherwise, would you expect butchers to be against killing animals?.

More obfuscation, and a rather tedious repetition of another of your favourite lies. Scientists don't try and prove that God doesn't exist, any more than they'd spend valuable research time and limited resources trying to prove unicorns don't exist. You are determined to ignore, distort and lie about the research and what it says, and of course you seem unable to understand it yourself, which doesn't help of course. So one more time then:

"The difference in religiosity between the American public and American scientists is profound, persistent, and well documented. The more accomplished the scientist, the greater the likelihood that he or she is a nonbeliever.

Pew research shows:

33% of scientists overall admitted belief in a personal deity, with 41% claiming to be atheists. The rest either didn't answer, didn't know, or believed in some form of higher power.

Contrast that against the 83% of the general population who claim to believe in God. With atheism at just 4%. In other words scientists are ten times more likely to be atheistic than non-scientists in one of the most religious countries in the developed world, but the research doesn't stop there.

This disparity which has persisted for over 80 years of polling increases drastically when it examines scientists working at elite research universities.

With 62% being atheistic and one only 23% believing in God. A degree of non-belief 15 times higher than the general public.

Sitting at the top tier of American science are the members of the National Academy of Sciences, where only the most accomplished scientists are elected as members. Here non-belief is 93% who claim to be atheists. This then is almost the exact opposite of the data for the general population."

This doesn't of course claim all atheists are intelligent, or that all theists are unintelligent. Sigh......

Dr, Sheldon
I am fully aware of the above and do not dispute the facts,
however, I do dispute the relevance.

Of course if I was asked to predict the outcome of such a
poll I would possibly have said 99.9% would vote in the manner the
93% did.

If you asked the same question to the most intelligent
people, as qualified as the scientists in their field, who studied religion
you would get 99.9% who believed in God if their aaim was to prove
his existance.

Polls are for fools as many results would indicate.

You are making random subjective predictions based on your own extremely biased opinion.  All of which are utterly refuted by the research data already shown .The conclusions shown are based on multiple scientific studies, spanning decades of research on two continents. In almost every study the results showed unequivocally that as intelligence and education increased so did atheism. 

Your post is asinine rubbish, and it has been abundantly clear for some time from your responses that you don't understand the research, it's methods, or even it's results.  Seriously if you've no interst in discussing the topic with anything beyond petulance then leave it alone man, as you're simply embarrassing yourself.

Dr, Sheldon,
Because you do not realise the significance of something
does not give reason to become personal, your ignorance is only
superceded by your lack of understanding the most simple explanation.

Give me all the relevant facts regarding any investigation
or poll etc; that involves only those attempting to prove the existance
of God who are qualified to the same extent as the scientists you quote.

As I have said and others who I have given you the
references for agree the above investigations you refer to are not
reliable.

Your arrogance regarding others understanding is only
superceded by your inability to undertsand the obvious because you
are too tied up in the disputable based on science.
,

It's you who doesn't understand the research, what it's conclusions are, or what it's significance is, that much is axiomatic and I'm happy for anyone to read through your absurd responses to make up their own minds. None of my remarks are personal they all address the thread topic and your responses, so again I'm afraid it's clear you don't know the difference between salient response and ad hominem.

I've no idea what your second paragraph means, but since it is completely irrelevant to the thread topic it doesn't really matter.

Your third paragraph is a blatant lie again, you've offered no reference to any research whatsoever, and certainly none directly linked to the studies I posted. What you've offered are a collection of subjective and heavily biased personal observations, and sweeping generalisations, that don't require any response as they don't come close to addressing the thread topic or the research offered by me and others to support answer the thread question.

The only part of your last sentence that is even decipherable is the ad hominem. As for me being arrogant, I have made no assertions or claims, merely posted substantive research conducted by others. It is you who has laughably claimed amongst other things to know what the world's Muslims think about this research, a claim as hilarious as it is stupid, but most of all demonstrably false, unless you're claiming to have conducted research into this? Not that it would matter of course, as subjective opinion is neither required nor relevant here when we have hard facts at our disposal which are objective and salient, facts you seem unable to grasp.

The research spans many decades on two continents, involves multiple studies of tens of thousands of subjects, and nearly every study showed the same unequivocal results, that as education and intelligence increased so did atheism. At no point have you attempted to address this or what it might mean, nothing beyond puerile bare denial of the facts.

Your inability to honestly or objectively address these facts is making your contributions pointless and irrelevant, as I said if you can't muster enough integrity to even address the research honestly then leave it alone for Gods sake. As all you're doing is endlessly posting your own subjective and biased opinion, which has no bearing, and is hardly a compelling response to such a substantial and well conducted amount of research.

Dr, Sheldon,
That is the whole point, no one has asked those who believe in God who are equaly qualified in their field what they believe.

Got to go God Bless.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon, That is the whole point, no one has asked those who believe in God

As I said you simply don't understand the research at all. The research involved didn't target either believers or non-believers, and since it was conducted in a country where the majority are believers your claim is quite obviously wrong. You really need to read it again as this is quite clear I'd have thought.

"The difference in religiosity between the American public and American scientists is profound, persistent, and well documented. The more accomplished the scientist, the greater the likelihood that he or she is a nonbeliever.

Pew research shows:

33% of scientists overall admitted belief in a personal deity, with 41% claiming to be atheists. The rest either didn't answer, didn't know, or believed in some form of higher power.

Contrast that against the 83% of the general population who claim to believe in God. With atheism at just 4%. In other words scientists are ten times more likely to be atheistic than non-scientists in one of the most religious countries in the developed world, but the research doesn't stop there.

This disparity which has persisted for over 80 years of polling increases drastically when it examines scientists working at elite research universities.

With 62% being atheistic and one only 23% believing in God. A degree of non-belief 15 times higher than the general public.

Sitting at the top tier of American science are the members of the National Academy of Sciences, where only the most accomplished scientists are elected as members. Here non-belief is 93% who claim to be atheists. This then is almost the exact opposite of the data for the general population."

Dr, Shedlon,
I realise that you consider that scientists are a cut above mere mortals but there are more itelligent people involved in none scientific matters.

You cannot expect people attempting to prove one matter to vote for something that is the exact opposite.

I gave you the reference which explained the reason why the findings were flawed.

You offered no references, the research doesn't only involve scientists you clown, no one has voted for anything, wtf are you talking about? I have never said that scientists are a cut above anyone.

Why must you lie so shamelessly and make up BS? Either join the discussion or leave it alone.

This is the research currently under discussion:

As I said you simply don't understand the research at all. The research involved didn't target either believers or non-believers, and since it was conducted in a country where the majority are believers your claim is quite obviously wrong. You really need to read it again as this is quite clear I'd have thought.

"The difference in religiosity between the American public and American scientists is profound, persistent, and well documented. The more accomplished the scientist, the greater the likelihood that he or she is a nonbeliever.

Pew research shows:

33% of scientists overall admitted belief in a personal deity, with 41% claiming to be atheists. The rest either didn't answer, didn't know, or believed in some form of higher power.

Contrast that against the 83% of the general population who claim to believe in God. With atheism at just 4%. In other words scientists are ten times more likely to be atheistic than non-scientists in one of the most religious countries in the developed world, but the research doesn't stop there.

This disparity which has persisted for over 80 years of polling increases drastically when it examines scientists working at elite research universities.

With 62% being atheistic and one only 23% believing in God. A degree of non-belief 15 times higher than the general public.

Sitting at the top tier of American science are the members of the National Academy of Sciences, where only the most accomplished scientists are elected as members. Here non-belief is 93% who claim to be atheists. This then is almost the exact opposite of the data for the general population."

Dr, Sheldon,
The figures you quote are realy meaningless, ask the most wealthy people if their wealth should be taken away and shared out amongst the poor and then ask the poor the same question.

The figures speak for themselves.  The data is thoroughly researched among a massive test group over many decades.  

Your analogy makes no sense at all. It's not even salient to the thread at all. If you don't want to discuss the topic leave it alone.

Dr, Sheldon,
It is clearly relevant.

It shows that any research can be doctored using polls etc.

No it doesn't.  The research hasn't been doctored. That's a pathetic claim. Either discuss the topic or leave it alone.

Dr, Shedlon,
I never said the research had been doctored, I said it was easy to get the result you wanted by several means, just as the one I quoted.

Yes you did say doctored.  You're implying that he PEW research is false again,  without any evidence at all to support your slur. 

You quoted no research at all. You posed an irrelevant and nonsensical question.

The PEW research is based on decades of evidence gathering.  Their reputation is unimpeachable.  All you've offered is asinine bare denials of the facts and unsubstantiated slurs.

Dr, Shedlon,
As usual you do not read what is written, there is a big diffrenec between any poll can be doctored and that A poll has been doctored and I have never said the one you keep repeating has been doctored just that there is evidence it is flawed.

What a pathetic wriggle.  There is no evidence it is flawed.  That's a bare faced lie.

Dr, Sheldon,
Way back I gave the information regarding the flaws in the research, it is not realy reliable as the same applies to many polls etc;

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                Way back I gave the information regarding the flaws in the research, it is not realy reliable as the same applies to many polls etc;    
     

No you didn't, there are no flaws in the research. Way back and right through you have dishonestly made unevidenced and subjective slurs, because rather than honestly addressing what the research shows you prefer to lie and obfuscate. The research is based on a massive test group, spanning decades of research by a company whose credentials are beyond repute. What's more multiple similar studies by UK based universities have shown similar results, and the best you can come up with is that someone is lying or falsifying the results. You have used nothing but bare denials and innuendo. You really don't grasp what the research is showing either as you showed repeatedly, just as you have shown repeatedly that you really can't spell really.

"The difference in religiosity between the American public and American scientists is profound,  persistent, and well documented.  The more accomplished the scientist, the greater the likelihood that he or she is a nonbeliever.

Pew research shows:

33%  of scientists overall admitted belief in a personal deity, with 41% claiming to be atheists.  The rest either didn't answer, didn't know, or believed in some form of higher power.

Contrast that against the 83% of the general population who claim to believe in God. With atheism at just 4%. In other words scientists are ten times more likely to be atheistic than non-scientists in one of the most religious countries in the developed world, but the research doesn't stop there.

This disparity which has persisted for over 80 years of polling increases drastically when it examines scientists working at elite research universities.  

With 62% being atheistic and one only 23% believing in God. A degree of non-belief 15 times higher than the general public.

Sitting at the top tier of American science are the members of the National Academy of Sciences, where only the most accomplished scientists are elected as members.  Here non-belief is 93% who claim to be atheists. This then is almost the exact opposite of the data for the general population.

I don't really think we need speculate too long on the level of intelligence required to be elected to the National Academy of Sciences compared to the average across the population."

One wonders which group Polyglide is claiming has lied? Are you claiming that ordinary god fearing Americans lied and pretended to be religious in order to somehow discredit their religion? Over decades at that. 

Or perhaps you think the members of The National Academy of Sciences lied? Again and again over decades of research?

Or perhaps the PEW researchers falsified the data for either group,  again and again for decades? Polyglide will have to explain what possible motives the National Academy of Sciences would have for lying? Or why conversely they haven't protested at being misrepresented by the Pew researchers, again over decades of research?

Then perhaps Polyglide can explain why multiple similar studies by UK universities showed similar results?

I'm guessing another satanic conspiracy is about to be exposed.   As this kind of puerile fantasy seems to be wheeled out when those pesky facts and damn evidence won't play ball.

I mean....If old Nick can falsify the fossil record any kind of wildly impropable denial of facts and reality becomes acceptable. Though bending facts to the point where fantasy entirely takes presidence over reality might end in some mental health establishment weaving baskets of course. Then again this is the devil testing your faith, so it's a  'no brainer'.....quite literally in this instance I suspect.

Dr, Sheldon,
I have explained that if you ask all the rich people [in your case the most intelligent] if they would share their wealth out amongst the poor and then ask the poor [ the less intelligent in your case] the same question regarding wether the rich should do so I feel the answer would be predictable.

There is no "my case".

The research doesn't differentiate between rich and poor, that's your absurdly stupid claim.

The research is conducted by a reputable researcher over decades and the test group is vast. Your asinine tantrums and histrionics are laughable obfuscation. 

Address the point or leave....

Again ......

One wonders which group Polyglide is claiming has lied? Are you claiming that ordinary god fearing Americans lied and pretended to be religious in order to somehow discredit their religion? Over decades at that.

Or perhaps you think the members of The National Academy of Sciences lied? Again and again over decades of research?

Or perhaps the PEW researchers falsified the data for either group, again and again for decades? Polyglide will have to explain what possible motives the National Academy of Sciences would have for lying? Or why conversely they haven't protested at being misrepresented by the Pew researchers, again over decades of research?

Then perhaps Polyglide can explain why multiple similar studies by UK universities showed similar results?