Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: The True Adonis on February 26, 2010, 05:35:26 PM
-
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/26/liberals.atheists.sex.intelligence/index.html?hpt=C2
Liberalism, atheism, male sexual exclusivity linked to IQ
By Elizabeth Landau, CNN
February 26, 2010 5:03 p.m. EST
The IQ differences are statistically significant, but experts say the data shouldn't be used to stereotype or make assumptions.
Behaviors may stem from desire to show superiority or elitism, which also has to do with IQ
For men, sexual exclusivity goes against the grain evolutionarily
None of this means that humans are evolving toward a future where such traits are the default
(CNN) -- Political, religious and sexual behaviors may be reflections of intelligence, a new study finds.
Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa at the the London School of Economics and Political Science correlated data on these behaviors with IQ from a large national U.S. sample and found that, on average, people who identified as liberal and atheist had higher IQs. This applied also to sexual exclusivity in men, but not in women. The findings will be published in the March 2010 issue of Social Psychology Quarterly.
The IQ differences, while statistically significant, are not stunning -- on the order of 6 to 11 points -- and the data should not be used to stereotype or make assumptions about people, experts say. But they show how certain patterns of identifying with particular ideologies develop, and how some people's behaviors come to be.
The reasoning is that sexual exclusivity in men, liberalism and atheism all go against what would be expected given humans' evolutionary past. In other words, none of these traits would have benefited our early human ancestors, but higher intelligence may be associated with them.
"The adoption of some evolutionarily novel ideas makes some sense in terms of moving the species forward," said George Washington University leadership professor James Bailey, who was not involved in the study. "It also makes perfect sense that more intelligent people -- people with, sort of, more intellectual firepower -- are likely to be the ones to do that."
Bailey also said that these preferences may stem from a desire to show superiority or elitism, which also has to do with IQ. In fact, aligning oneself with "unconventional" philosophies such as liberalism or atheism may be "ways to communicate to everyone that you're pretty smart," he said.
The study looked at a large sample from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), which began with adolescents in grades 7-12 in the United States during the 1994-95 school year. The participants were interviewed as 18- to 28-year-olds from 2001 to 2002. The study also looked at the General Social Survey, another cross-national data collection source.
Kanazawa did not find that higher or lower intelligence predicted sexual exclusivity in women. This makes sense, because having one partner has always been advantageous to women, even thousands of years ago, meaning exclusivity is not a "new" preference.
For men, on the other hand, sexual exclusivity goes against the grain evolutionarily. With a goal of spreading genes, early men had multiple mates. Since women had to spend nine months being pregnant, and additional years caring for very young children, it made sense for them to want a steady mate to provide them resources.
Religion, the current theory goes, did not help people survive or reproduce necessarily, but goes along the lines of helping people to be paranoid, Kanazawa said. Assuming that, for example, a noise in the distance is a signal of a threat helped early humans to prepare in case of danger.
"It helps life to be paranoid, and because humans are paranoid, they become more religious, and they see the hands of God everywhere," Kanazawa said.
Participants who said they were atheists had an average IQ of 103 in adolescence, while adults who said they were religious averaged 97, the study found. Atheism "allows someone to move forward and speculate on life without any concern for the dogmatic structure of a religion," Bailey said.
"Historically, anything that's new and different can be seen as a threat in terms of the religious beliefs; almost all religious systems are about permanence," he noted.
The study takes the American view of liberal vs. conservative. It defines "liberal" in terms of concern for genetically nonrelated people and support for private resources that help those people. It does not look at other factors that play into American political beliefs, such as abortion, gun control and gay rights.
"Liberals are more likely to be concerned about total strangers; conservatives are likely to be concerned with people they associate with," he said.
Given that human ancestors had a keen interest in the survival of their offspring and nearest kin, the conservative approach -- looking out for the people around you first -- fits with the evolutionary picture more than liberalism, Kanazawa said. "It's unnatural for humans to be concerned about total strangers." he said.
The study found that young adults who said they were "very conservative" had an average adolescent IQ of 95, whereas those who said they were "very liberal" averaged 106.
It also makes sense that "conservatism" as a worldview of keeping things stable would be a safer approach than venturing toward the unfamiliar, Bailey said.
Neither Bailey nor Kanazawa identify themselves as liberal; Bailey is conservative and Kanazawa is "a strong libertarian."
Vegetarianism, while not strongly associated with IQ in this study, has been shown to be related to intelligence in previous research, Kanazawa said. This also fits into Bailey's idea that unconventional preferences appeal to people with higher intelligence, and can also be a means of showing superiority.
None of this means that the human species is evolving toward a future where these traits are the default, Kanazawa said.
"More intelligent people don't have more children, so moving away from the trajectory is not going to happen," he said.
-
Feeling a little self conscious today?
-
Feeling a little self conscious today?
Not at all.
-
The morally superior TA, who can't make a rational argument without a cut and paste job. ::)
-
The morally superior TA, who can't make a rational argument without a cut and paste job. ::)
hahahah
-
please go respond to that thread about homosexuality being beneficial etc that I showed you to be an idiot in ;)
by these results you should be a redneck right wing religious nutjob ;D
-
please go respond to that thread about homosexuality being beneficial etc that I showed you to be an idiot in ;)
by these results you should be a redneck right wing religious nutjob ;D
Homosexuality does not have to be or is not required to be beneficial.
-
I am not surprised. Most atheists think outside the box.
-
Homosexuality does not have to be or is not required to be beneficial.
you said it was ;) now go back to that thread and respond
-
I am not surprised. Most atheists think outside the box.
Most aetheists i have met are as screwed up mentally as those they like to mock but are too arrogant to realize it.
-
The terms "educated Christian" are an oxymoron and should never be uttered in the same sentence.
-
Hey dip shit, Obama is supposedly the most educated president in the history of america, and he attended a christian church for 20 years. but you are quick to defend bammer and his liberal policies. Why if he is so stupid according to ur oxymoron statement??
-
Hey dip shit, Obama is supposedly the most educated president in the history of america, and he attended a christian church for 20 years. but you are quick to defend bammer and his liberal policies. Why if he is so stupid according to ur oxymoron statement??
You'll have to excuse Lurker. He's addicted to buffoonery.
Once he gets his foot out of his mouth, he'll explain how we have such educated men like Dr. Ben Carson (one of the best neurosurgeons on this planet and the first to succesfully separate twins, conjoined at the head), or the late Dr. D. James Kennedy, founder of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church, in Ft Lauderdale, Florida (a man with NINE advanced degreed and deemed by Cambridge as one of the top intellectuals of the 20th century).
Then there are all of those Founding Fathers of this country, who were Christians.
Throw in Louis Pasteur, John Kellogg, and.....well, you get the point.
-
Oddly...we didn't get a cut and paste job from MCWAY to explain his argument. If that was TA we'd get a 3 page thread without any analysis passed off as if he knew what he was talking about.
-
Oddly...we didn't get a cut and paste job from MCWAY to explain his argument. If that was TA we'd get a 3 page thread without any analysis passed off as if he knew what he was talking about.
I forgot another guy (I indirecty referenced him in one of Blacken's silly threads): S Truett Cathy, owner of the Chick-Fil-A franchise, also a Sunday School teacher for over five decades (in fact, he put in the policy that all Chick-Fil-A restaurants be CLOSED on Sundays).
"Our decision to close on Sunday was our way of honoring God and directing our attention to things more important than our business. If it took seven days to make a living with a restaurant, then we needed to be in some other line of work. Through the years, I have never wavered from that position.
He started what is now the second-largest chicken fast-food franchise in the country. That's a real knucklehead there.
-
I haven't followed this thread, but I have to say Chic-Fil-A is a great restaurant started by a brilliant Christian like MCWAY said... Same with Wendy's, Dave Thomas 33° is my idol.
-
I haven't followed this thread, but I have to say Chic-Fil-A is a great restaurant started by a brilliant Christian like MCWAY said... Same with Wendy's, Dave Thomas 33° is my idol.
Now that you mentioned it, the founder of the BIGGEST chicken fast-food restaurant was a man of faith, too. I remember doing a report on him when I was in grade school.
If I recall, he would joke about how the Lord would still have to deal with him, about his 'cussin'.
-
I didn't understand what the article was saying..
Damn, I'm late for Church!
-
Now that you mentioned it, the founder of the BIGGEST chicken fast-food restaurant was a man of faith, too. I remember doing a report on him when I was in grade school.
If I recall, he would joke about how the Lord would still have to deal with him, about his 'cussin'.
Mr. Sanders was a good man from what I hear, my great grandmother knew him... ;D
-
Ah the great True Apenis. The very same man (I use the term loosely here) who stated he and his whore would only get married when homosexuals were allowed to. May I point out the glaring flaw in this thinking? It is quite simple really- a MARRIAGE is a RELIGIOUS CEREMONY. Why would queers really be so desperate to take part in a ceremony which draws it's origins from a religion which HATES homosexuals? It is so fucking stupid and illogical that I cringe everytime I hear of yet another court case involving gay marriage which MY tax dollars are funding.
In short, you are delusional and stupid Apenis. Nice that you think being liberal and pro homosexual somehow validates your delusional self belief that you are vastly more intelligent than the common man but this is simply not true. Sorry to burst your bubble amigo.
-
Hey dip shit, Obama is supposedly the most educated president in the history of america, and he attended a christian church for 20 years. but you are quick to defend bammer and his liberal policies. Why if he is so stupid according to ur oxymoron statement??
Non-religious people are more distrusted and discriminated against even than Muslims in America. NO politician hoping to become elected would ever openly sabotage his chances of doing so by claiming to be non-religious, much less an Atheist. As long as political leaders base their decisions on factual data and not due to religious convictions, their faith, or lack thereof, should not matter in the least.
The US was based on secularism, not religion convictions and there is much debate as to the religious convictions of the founding fathers. A common consensus seems to be that they were deists, apart from Benjamin Franklin, but not necessarily Christians. Regardless, they chose to base their society on secularism and not religious ideals.
It's common knowledge that most scientists, or rational thinkers are non-religious. By this I mean, people of a higher intelligence.
I don't say these people are Atheist and are most likey merely non-religious, as most are probably leaning towards Agnosticism instead of Atheism. Atheism doesn't yet appear to be the most logical choice as a deity has yet to truly be disproved, but it does appear to be the most likely choice given the total lack of evidence regarding the contrary.
nb: Cutting and pasting data is the easiest most effective way to substantiate one's views on the Internet and in no way, shape, or form lessens the value of the information being provided. Only a moron would dismiss the data being presented if it were indeed factual.
-
Non-religious people are more distrusted and discriminated against even than Muslims in America. NO politician hoping to become elected would ever openly sabotage his chances of doing so by claiming to be non-religious, much less an Atheist. As long as political leaders base their decisions on factual data and not due to religious convictions, their faith, or lack thereof, should not matter in the least.
The US was based on secularism, not religion convictions and there is much debate as to the religious convictions of the founding fathers. A common consensus seems to be that they were deists, apart from Benjamin Franklin, but not necessarily Christians. Regardless, they chose to base their society on secularism and not religious ideals.
It's common knowledge that most scientists, or rational thinkers are non-religious. By this I mean, people of a higher intelligence.
I don't say these people are Atheist and are most likey merely non-religious, as most are probably leaning towards Agnosticism instead of Atheism. Atheism doesn't yet appear to be the most logical choice as a deity has yet to truly be disproved, but it does appear to be the most likely choice given the total lack of evidence regarding the contrary.
nb: Cutting and pasting data is the easiest most effective way to substantiate one's views on the Internet and in no way, shape, or form lessens the value of the information being provided. Only a moron would dismiss the data being presented if it were indeed factual.
The reason non-religious guys have no chance of getting elected is because, more often than not, they act like arrogant, pompous JERKS and insult people of faith and/or nominal Christians (who just happen to make up the BULK of the populace).
How smart can you be to belittle the voters-at-large, then act shocked that you don't get elected?
-
I bet if you put liberals and conservatives in a cage and told them to fight their way out,the libs would be left laying.So,they may be smart,but usually they are a bunch of girls who we conservatives can beat the shit out of and just take what we want from them.
-
You'll have to excuse Lurker. He's addicted to buffoonery.
Once he gets his foot out of his mouth, he'll explain how we have such educated men like Dr. Ben Carson (one of the best neurosurgeons on this planet and the first to succesfully separate twins, conjoined at the head), or the late Dr. D. James Kennedy, founder of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church, in Ft Lauderdale, Florida (a man with NINE advanced degreed and deemed by Cambridge as one of the top intellectuals of the 20th century).
Then there are all of those Founding Fathers of this country, who were Christians.
Throw in Louis Pasteur, John Kellogg, and.....well, you get the point.
See? Perfect example of Christian stupidity.
Using James Kennedy as an example only highlights how stupid you truly are. This is the same man that tried over and over to link evoluation to Hitler. ::) Great example of why the bullshit far right wing base is dying out.
-
Hey dip shit, Obama is supposedly the most educated president in the history of america, and he attended a christian church for 20 years. but you are quick to defend bammer and his liberal policies. Why if he is so stupid according to ur oxymoron statement??
Hey "dipshit".
Make up your mind. First you act like Obama is stupid and now you say he might be the most educated president in history. Which is it? Besides typical Christian contradictions and hypocrisy. If he is as stupid as all you whiners say, you only prove my point. If he isn't, then you simply expose your own baseless insecurities and hyporcrisy.
Which is it "dipshit"?
-
The reason non-religious guys have no chance of getting elected is because, more often than not, they act like arrogant, pompous JERKS and insult people of faith and/or nominal Christians (who just happen to make up the BULK of the populace).
How smart can you be to belittle the voters-at-large, then act shocked that you don't get elected?
Assuming people with no religious convictions are of poor character is pure rubbish. Most non-religious people don't behave as if they are Bill Mahr, who makes his living aggravating the populace. It's virtually instant death to any US politician who admits to being an Atheist or Agnostic, due to irrational hatred, distrust and discrimination. To my knowledge, no US politician has ever been elected to office while admitting Atheism/Agnosticism prior to becoming elected. There are some who will admit to being non-religious behind closed doors, but will not state this publicly, for fear of losing their position or not being re-elected merely due to their 'lack of faith'.
-
The US was based on secularism, not religion convictions and there is much debate as to the religious convictions of the founding fathers. A common consensus seems to be that they were deists, apart from Benjamin Franklin, but not necessarily Christians. Regardless, they chose to base their society on secularism and not religious ideals.
+1
It's common knowledge that most scientists, or rational thinkers are non-religious. By this I mean, people of a higher intelligence.
+100
-
Assuming people with no religious convictions are of poor character is pure rubbish. Most non-religious people don't behave as if they are Bill Mahr, who makes his living aggravating the populace. It's virtually instant death to any US politician who admits to being an Atheist or Agnostic, due to irrational hatred, distrust and discrimination. To my knowledge, no US politician has ever been elected to office while admitting Atheism/Agnosticism prior to becoming elected. There are some who will admit to being non-religious behind closed doors, but will not state this publicly, for fear of losing their position or not being re-elected merely due to their 'lack of faith'.
Unfortunately, the poster boys for atheism act exactly like Bill Maher. And those are the ones who are at the forefront. Case in point, this very thread was started by a guy with that exact same mentality.
These people don’t get chosen for elected office, simply due to a “lack of faith”, but because they BELITTLE those who are of faith.
Again, when you insult those who decide your electoral fate, don’t act surprised when they don’t want to vote for your “enlightened” behind.
-
Unfortunately, the poster boys for atheism act exactly like Bill Maher. And those are the ones who are at the forefront. Case in point, this very thread was started by a guy with that exact same mentality.
These people don’t get chosen for elected office, simply due to a “lack of faith”, but because they BELITTLE those who are of faith.
Again, when you insult those who decide your electoral fate, don’t act surprised when they don’t want to vote for your “enlightened” behind.
You haven't provided a single example of a non-religious politician belittling the public for their faith, yet you arrogantly profess this to be the case. That is due to the fact that there aren't any. It's your own prejudices being projected on a fictitious scenario. I have seen, during the McCain/Palin campaign (or perhaps Bush's/not that it matters which), belittling of those who are non-religious. ie: 'those people that don't believe in God (referring to the Christian God, of course) are not true Americans'.
-
You haven't provided a single example of a non-religious politician belittling the public for their faith, yet you arrogantly profess this to be the case.
That is because she can't. None exists, except in her own mind. A classic example of attempting to deny reality through self projection.
-
lurker I was pointing out your contradiction! I do think bammer is an idiot. You were the one that got on here and said christians and educated was an oxymoron. But obama attended a christian church for 20 years, and for some strange reason you defend him and his ideas and policies. SO dipshit which one is it?? make up your mind. Or do you just like supporting people that you proclaim dumb?
-
You haven't provided a single example of a non-religious politician belittling the public for their faith, yet you arrogantly profess this to be the case. That is due to the fact that there aren't any. It's your own prejudices being projected on a fictitious scenario. I have seen, during the McCain/Palin (or perhaps Bush's/not that it matters which) campaign, belittling of those who are non-religious. ie: 'those people that don't believe in God (referring to the Christian God, of course) are not true Americans'.
And who exactly got killed in the polls, running for office because he was a professed atheist in recent years?
The fictitious scenario falls on you. What I've said is that, if atheists don't get elected, the reason is their condescending attitude towards people of faith.
That is because she can't. None exists, except in her own mind. A classic example of attempting to deny reality through self projection.
As for you, Clucky, put your efforts into removing your foot from your mouth, as your claim about educated Christians just got shredded.
-
lurker I was pointing out your contradiction! I do think bammer is an idiot. You were the one that got on here and said christians and educated was an oxymoron. But obama attended a christian church for 20 years, and for some strange reason you defend him and his ideas and policies. SO dipshit which one is it?? make up your mind. Or do you just like supporting people that you proclaim dumb?
Give Clucky some Grey Poupon to go with them toes of his. He's going to be gnawing for quite a while.
-
lurker I was pointing out your contradiction! I do think bammer is an idiot. You were the one that got on here and said christians and educated was an oxymoron. But obama attended a christian church for 20 years, and for some strange reason you defend him and his ideas and policies. SO dipshit which one is it?? make up your mind. Or do you just like supporting people that you proclaim dumb?
Indeed I did say that.
Defend his policies? Perhaps a link to where I did this would be helpful. Defend him and his church affiliation? Where? Then again, you have been here.. what? 3-4 months? That can be an excuse to why you may not know what my opinions on some of his policies are.
But if making blanket assumptions against someone is the only option you have for a reply, it would at least be a bit helpful (for you) if the assumptions were correct "dipshit".
Might want to try again.
-
As for you, Clucky, put your efforts into removing your foot from your mouth, as your claim about educated Christians just got shredded.
Only thing shredded was any doubts of more than two brain cells lurking in that cranium of yours when you used the example of Kennedy.
You are the perfect of why the religious right is dying out and religion in general is declining. Keep up the good work.
-
And who exactly got killed in the polls, running for office because he was a professed atheist in recent years?
The fictitious scenario falls on you. What I've said is that, if atheists don't get elected, the reason is their condescending attitude towards people of faith.
As for you, Clucky, put your efforts into removing your foot from your mouth, as your claim about educated Christians just got shredded.
I ask again, please show even ONE example of a non-religious politician who belittled the voters due to their beliefs, yet there are hundreds, if not thousands of examples that show the exact opposite.
The conservative religious Americans themselves openly admit, again and again, that they simply won't vote for a person if they don't have a belief in their Christian God and for no reason other than that. It's illogical and most definitely not in their best interest yet they still do thusly. You continually show your prejudiced attitude and narrow minded views with every new post you make.
-
OK lurker, do you support obama or any of his policies, ideas or stances??
-
OK lurker, do you support obama or any of his policies, ideas or stances??
90% of his policies - no.
-
Not at all.
You are living proof that the study is a fallacy.
-
I ask again, please show even ONE example of a non-religious politician who belittled the voters due to their beliefs, yet there are hundreds, if not thousands of examples that show the exact opposite.
The conservative religious Americans themselves openly admit, again and again, that they simply won't vote for a person if they don't have a belief in their Christian God and for no reason other than that. It's illogical and most definitely not in their best interest yet they still do thusly. You continually show your prejudiced attitude and narrow minded views with every new post you make.
I know of no atheist politicians.
Now, if YOU know of any who have been clobbered in the polls or in elections themselves, SIMPLY BECAUSE they don't believe in God, please make your case.
The point I made was that, if an atheist doesn't get elected, it's more likely due to his attitude towards people of faith, NOT his mere lack of such.
-
Only thing shredded was any doubts of more than two brain cells lurking in that cranium of yours when you used the example of Kennedy.
You are the perfect of why the religious right is dying out and religion in general is declining. Keep up the good work.
Wrong again, Clucky. You made the claim about "educated" and "Christian", not being used in the same sentence and it got torn apart, as most of your lame-brained croakings do.
As for the late D. James Kennedy, cluck all you like. The simple fact is he did indeed have NINE advanced degrees and was named by Cambridge as one of the most Outstanding Intellectuals of the 20th Century.
So, yet again, you run your mouth, spewing nothing but foolishness and look all the buffoon for doing so.
Carry on!!
-
I know of no atheist politicians.
Now, if YOU know of any who have been clobbered in the polls or in elections themselves, SIMPLY BECAUSE they don't believe in God, please make your case.
The point I made was that, if an atheist doesn't get elected, it's more likely due to his attitude towards people of faith, NOT his mere lack of such.
You made the statement that the reason non-religious people don't get elected is due to their arrogance, not I. Yet, you provided no concrete evidence to back that statement up. There IS evidence that Americans won't vote for non-religious people merely due to the fact they don't have any religious (Christian) faith and no reason other than that. I'm not going to spoon feed you this as I don't have the time, and you haven't brought a single valid argument to this thread other than your own preconceived notions and factual inaccuracies. Not much point in me continuing this nonsense.
-
You made the statement that the reason non-religious people don't get elected is due to their arrogance, not I. Yet, you provided no concrete evidence to back that statement up. There IS evidence that Americans won't vote for non-religious people merely due to the fact they don't have any religious (Christian) faith and no reason other than that. I'm not going to spoon feed you this as I don't have the time, and you haven't brought a single valid argument to this thread other than your own preconceived notions and factual inaccuracies. Not much point in me continuing this nonsense.
In other words, like another coward, you won't face the issue presented to you. You have presented NOTHING that suggested that Americans, by and large, won't vote for an ATHEIST (who's an otherwise friendly, competent, congenial fellow), simply because he is an ATHEIST (he merely doesn't believe in God).
And, what I've said is that any resistance to electing such a fellow has much to do with the condescending attitude that many atheists have toward people of faith, not simple disbelief in God.
OF COURSE, religious conservatives won’t vote for an atheist. Many of them didn’t vote for Obama, a professed Christian, either. So, you've hardly nform us of what we didn't already know.
-
oh so that leaves ten % well if christians are sooooo stupid why would you support anything from such dummies? after all you said educated christians is an oxymoron I would think someone as far superior as yourself wouldnt have anything to do with those big dummies.
-
oh so that leaves ten % well if christians are sooooo stupid why would you support anything from such dummies? after all you said educated christians is an oxymoron I would think someone as far superior as yourself wouldnt have anything to do with those big dummies.
Get Clucky some more Grey Poupon; he's running low.
Interestingly enough, of all the educated Christians I mentioned, the only one against whom El Clucky spouted his mouth is the one he knows was a minister (Dr. D. James Kennedy).
I guess then I shouldn't throw in ANOTHER educated man of the cloth, RADM (Ret) Barry Black, 62nd Chaplain of the U.S. Senate, author of From the Hood to the Hill.
-
It doesnt matter what you present to people like lurker he will dodge and twist eveything to the point that he forgot the origional subject, He probably has a couple of complete moron friends that look up to him and all his wisdom and blow his head up beyond reason, so in his mind he is far superior to any of us
-
LOL @ the blind leading the blind.
If this is the only way to justify your baseless and empty arguement, no wonder you are lost.
-
In other words, like another coward, you won't face the issue presented to you. You have presented NOTHING that suggested that Americans, by and large, won't vote for an ATHEIST, simply because he is an ATHEIST (that is, he merely doesn't believe in God).
Unlike you I have school to attend, a business to run and a family to attend to.
Here is your spoon feeding.
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistbigotryprejudice/a/AtheistSurveys.htm
http://atheism.about.com/od/godlessatheistpolitics/Godless_Atheists_Godless_Politics_What_Can_Godless_Atheists_Offer.htm
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/148719/an_atheist_as_president_of_the_united.html
There are many, many more sources and examples which I'm sure you won't take the time to read or to watch and I'm not going to search them out for you.
Here's one last link ---> http://www.google.com/
And, what I've said is that any resistance to electing such a fellow has much to do with the condescending attitude that many atheists have toward people of faith, not simple disbelief in God.
No, I said people wouldn't vote for a candidate based on the their lack of religious beliefs, which is pure lunacy. The only condescending attitude I see here is coming from yourself.
OF COURSE, religious conservatives won’t vote for an atheist. Many of them didn’t vote for Obama, a professed Christian, either. So, you've hardly nform us of what we didn't already know.
This statement justifies the fact that these people make poor choices, basing these choices on criteria which has no bearing whatsoever on the job they are electing their candidate for. What do you think this says about this demographic? The title of this thread may give you a clue.
-
I am not the one that contradicts myself, so you (the real blind) calling me blind doesn't really hold much water. I just feel privileged to be able to talk to such a superior and wise individual like yourself, maybe one day i can be as smart as you, maybe thats why you contradict yourself , cause you just have soooo much going on in your head that you cant sort it all out in the 24 hour days that us dummies operate in.
-
Interestingly enough, of all the educated Christians I mentioned,
Prior to this, you only mentioned two. Carson and Kennedy. Not like you supplied a vast number. ::)
Out of those two you listed, 1 is a certified crackpot who thought evolution was caused by Hitler. Something you failed to acknowledge in your little delusional whinings.
Ben Carson is a smart man, but that is because of his mother's strict upbringing and focus on education, not because he is a Christian. Perhaps your mother should have taken a note from Ben's and raised you the same way.
Now you named a third. Barry Black. Bravo! Keep working!
-
Prior to this, you only mentioned two. Carson and Kennedy. Not like you supplied a vast number. ::)
Out of those two you listed, 1 is a certified crackpot who thought evolution was caused by Hitler. Something you failed to acknowledge in your little delusional whinings.
Ben Carson is a smart man, but that is because of his mother's strict upbringing and focus on education, not because he is a Christian. Perhaps your mother should have taken a note from Ben's and raised you the same way.
Now you named a third. Barry Black. Bravo! Keep working!
Even educated Christians can come up with no concrete reason or evidence for why they believe in a deity. It's laughable to use this as any form of justification for religious belief.
-
I am not the one that contradicts myself,
Lack of basic reading Fun-DUH-Mentuhls must be the culprit in your case then.
I just feel privileged to be able to talk to such a superior and wise individual like yourself,
Consider it my good deed for the day then.
maybe one day i can be as smart as you,
Doubtful. But then again, anything is possible.
maybe thats why you contradict yourself ,
Yep, lack of reading fundamentals it is.
cause you just have soooo much going on in your head that you cant sort it all out in the 24 hour days that us dummies operate in.
Or apparently not enough time to lower my intellect to a level you can understand as apparently simple English doesn't compute with you.
Educated Christian = oxymoron. You might not agree, but you sure prove it. Thanks!
-
I've put this argument out time and time again(I won't say how I personally feel). The world around us is complicated, the universe is vast beyond imagination, its difficult for people to believe it just "happened". Its much easier for some people to believe that it was "created".
-
ALL HALE LURKER OF LIL BOYS IS SPEAKING LOL i have never claimed to be Christian first off you as smart as you are should have picked up on that, i just think its ridiculous to say that religion dictates a persons level of intellect. I know just as many flat out stupid religious people as do I non religious people. Only a mongoloid would try to say one or the other is cause of religion and U are the person making that claim. If you call what you are smart then I dont want to be like you one day, I was already there when I was 3.
-
Even educated Christians can come up with no concrete reason or evidence for why they believe in a deity. It's laughable to use this as any form of justification for religious belief.
They can't come up with a single reason to justify blindly following a notion of an invisible man sitting on a cloud, but yet they can come up with 1,000,000 reasons (read : delusions) on why everyone else should blindly follow it with the same rabid mentality as they do.
Umm.... yeah, that makes a lot of sense. (To no one else but them)
-
ALL HALE LURKER OF LIL BOYS IS SPEAKING LOL i have never claimed to be Christian first off you as smart as you are should have picked up on that, i just think its ridiculous to say that religion dictates a persons level of intellect. I know just as many flat out stupid religious people as do I non religious people. Only a mongoloid would try to say one or the other is cause of religion and U are the person making that claim. If you call what you are smart then I dont want to be like you one day, I was already there when I was 3.
Oh so you are an atheist? Is that it?
"Not claiming to be Christian" ::) Typical defense in a religious discussion from someone with nothing to fall back on. Ashamed? Or just an atheist?
-
I am neither, I don't go to any church, never have, I don't really believe that religion is true or false. Never really cared too much. And I have a masters in science for that matter. Why do you assume that a person has to be one or another? And as for your statements about a man on a cloud, there are many more types of people that put faith in imaginary gods. So are you just speaking of Christians or are you now opening up this judgment to Indians, and Muslims, or anyone else who puts belief into a figure or a story that cannot physically be seen or touched?
-
I am neither, I don't go to any church, never have, I don't really believe that religion is true or false. Never really cared too much. And I have a masters in science for that matter. Why do you assume that a person has to be one or another? And as for your statements about a man on a cloud, there are many more types of people that put faith in imaginary gods. So are you just speaking of Christians or are you now opening up this judgment to Indians, and Muslims, or anyone else who puts belief into a figure or a story that cannot physically be seen or touched?
Neither?
You either believe in God or you don't. The answer to that is an answer to the other question in itself. But ok... whatever you need to hide behind.
-
I am not hiding behind anything, like i said, why do you have to label a person religous or not? both sides have very compelling arguments and both sides have some very rediculous claims too. there are many things that science cannot explain about the earth, yet there are many things that science has explained, it is possible to not pick one or the other side to be on. I would expect someone as smart as you to understand this. It seems to me that you are the one hiding behind these labels that you have to place on things lol
-
I see you are struggling here. I will try to make this a bit more simple.
[ ] I do not believe in God. I am an atheist.
[ ] I believe in a God in some form. I am not an atheist.
Pick one. It's simple.
-
wow you really dont get it do you, get your websters out and look up the words I DONT HAVE A STANCE means then put that together, people like you is whats wrong with everything, everything must have a label on it. Why is that? Are you too stupid to understand that I have never made that choice nor do I care to because I dont find it very important. Did you miss the part where I said both sides have compelling points and rediculous claims. Do I pray to god? NO Do I absolutly reject the idea that its possible that it could be true? NO dude I dont know how to make it any more clear to you. I guess I could take a lil and try to dumb myself down for you. Would you like me to do that?
-
Prior to this, you only mentioned two. Carson and Kennedy. Not like you supplied a vast number. ::)
And, thus your utter lack of sense CONTINUES to be manifested, by your implying that my listing two means that there are just two.
Out of those two you listed, 1 is a certified crackpot who thought evolution was caused by Hitler. Something you failed to acknowledge in your little delusional whinings.
And, this has WHAT to do with the fact that he was an educated Christian man (named among the Outstanding Intellectuals of the 20th century)?
Ben Carson is a smart man, but that is because of his mother's strict upbringing and focus on education, not because he is a Christian. Perhaps your mother should have taken a note from Ben's and raised you the same way.
More prime foot-munching on your part. Guess what was included in his mother’s strict upbringing……..HIS MOTHER’S CHRISTIAN FAITH.
Furthermore, my mother DID raise me in a similar way. And, as a result, I have my education (courtesy of the scholarship I earned years ago). She sacrificed to put me in Christian school for virtually all of my grade school and high-school years.
Now you named a third. Barry Black. Bravo! Keep working!
Making you look like the buffoon that you are hardly takes work. The simple fact is your claim about "educated" and "Christian" can't be used in the same sentence or being an oxymoron got ripped to pieces, in part, by the SMALL SAMPLE of men that I listed.
So, continue to cluck and duck, like the blabbering bonehead that you are.
-
Oh so you are an atheist? Is that it?
"Not claiming to be Christian" ::) Typical defense in a religious discussion from someone with nothing to fall back on. Ashamed? Or just an atheist?
BodyPro may be agnostic. So what?
None of that masks the fact that you cut yourself at the knees, railing about how “educated” and “Christian” are oxymorons, all the while, since Amber Lee Ettinger has lost her crush, you’re chomping at the bit to take her place as “Obama Girl”. Heck, if you ask nicely, she may let you have those red booty shorts and her life-size cutout of the President (a Harvard grad and professed CHRISTIAN), that you can dry-hump to your heart’s content.
-
lurker is sooo busy trying to label me that he is missing the whole point. It is stupid to assume that a person is educated or not educated based on if they believe in Christianity. Thats like me asking what your favorite color is. Then telling you that you must be a dummy because you like a diff color that what i label the best one. Lurker in all his glory is sooo hung up on labels that the boat is quickly sailing right past his swollen head.
-
Even educated Christians can come up with no concrete reason or evidence for why they believe in a deity. It's laughable to use this as any form of justification for religious belief.
Wrong again!!! Dr. Kennedy has written such books, along with others like Dr. Gary Habermas, Dr. Edwin Yamauchi, Dr. Paul Meier, the aforementioned RADM (Ret) Barry Black, William Murray (son of infamous atheist, Madalyn Murray O’Hair)…. and that’s just the short list.
-
BodyPro may be agnostic. So what?
None of that masks the fact that you cut yourself at the knees, railing about how “educated” and “Christian” are oxymorons. All the while, since Amber Lee Ettinger has lost her crush, you’re chomping at the bit to take her place as “Obama Girl”. Heck, if you ask nicely, she may let you have those red booty shorts and her life-size cutout of the President (a Harvard grad and professed CHRISTIAN), that you can dry-hump to your heart’s content.
Posting this 3x only shows your frustrations and lack of substance.
Not to mention lack of foreseeable intellect necessary to cope with reality.
-
lurker is sooo busy trying to label me that he is missing the whole point. It is stupid to assume that a person is educated or not educated based on if they believe in Christianity. Thats like me asking what your favorite color is. Then telling you that you must be a dummy because you like a diff color that what i label the best one. Lurker in all his glory is sooo hung up on labels that the boat is quickly sailing right past his swollen head.
After seeing you make (false) claims of someone hiding and ducking... who would have thought you couldn't answer a simple question.
Your lack of answer is an answer in itself. I guess a simple yes or no question is beyond the realm of your grasp. No surprise.
-
Or lurker could it be that get big was screwing up and saying hang on tight, you are all mighty smart one, how come you didnt think of that possibility too?
-
Site tried to post my reply two seperate times, but I caught it. Come on lurker you are smarter than that..... you smart guy you.
-
Posting this 3x only shows your frustrations and lack of substance.
Not to mention lack of foreseeable intellect necessary to cope with reality.
Nope!!! All it means is that my server is acting up!!
Bottom line!! You made the claim that “educated” and “Christian” are oxymorons. But, you slap yourself in the face by falling prostate before Barack Hussein Obama, a Harvard grad AND a professed Christian.
-
Wrong again!!!
Again? I haven't been wrong yet.
Dr. Kennedy has written such books, along with others like Dr. Gary Habermas, Dr. Edwin Yamauchi, Dr. Paul Meier, the aforementioned RADM (Ret) Barry Black, William Murray (son of infamous atheist, Madalyn Murray O’Hair)…. and that’s just the short list.
Please point out some links, even one link, to scientific journals where they have published peer reviewed studies of ANY of these fellows work.
Otherwise it's nothing but opinion and quackery and using these fellows work to support your case is indeed laughable.
-
Unlike you I have school to attend, a business to run and a family to attend to.
Two out of three ain’t bad. I’m already out of school (have been for over 12 years). And, I don’t run a business. But, I do have a family, the newest member of which will be here within a month.
Here is your spoon feeding.
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistbigotryprejudice/a/AtheistSurveys.htm
http://atheism.about.com/od/godlessatheistpolitics/Godless_Atheists_Godless_Politics_What_Can_Godless_Atheists_Offer.htm
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/148719/an_atheist_as_president_of_the_united.html
There are many, many more sources and examples which I'm sure you won't take the time to read or to watch and I'm not going to search them out for you.
Here's one last link ---> http://www.google.com/
No, I said people wouldn't vote for a candidate based on the their lack of religious beliefs, which is pure lunacy. The only condescending attitude I see here is coming from yourself.
This statement justifies the fact that these people make poor choices, basing these choices on criteria which has no bearing whatsoever on the job they are electing their candidate for. What do you think this says about this demographic? The title of this thread may give you a clue.
And, where OH WHERE, do any of these site state that the reason for such unfavorable views is due to these folks MERELY BEING ATHEISTS (instead of ALSO FACTORING INTO THE EQUATION, the attitudes of atheists towards people of faith)?
-
Again? I haven't been wrong yet.
Oh, you've been wrong repeatedly, profoundly, and laughingly.
Please point out some links, even one link, to scientific journals where they have published peer reviewed studies of ANY of these fellows work.
Otherwise it's nothing but opinion and quackery and using these fellows work to support your case is indeed laughable.
Quackery? Tell that to the University of Miami (Ohio) or Western Michigan University, where Drs. Yamauchi and Maier, respectively work.
Or to Cambridge, who named Dr. D. James Kennedy among the Most Outstanding Intellectuals of the 20th century.
And, although I didn't list him earlier in the last post, Dr. Ben Carson (Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital, first to succesfully separate twins conjoined at the head)…….Enough said!!!
-
Two out of three ain’t bad. I’m already out of school (have been for over 12 years). And, I don’t run a business. But, I do have a family, the newest member of which will be here within a month.
And, where OH WHERE, do any of these site state that the reason for such unfavorable views is due to these folks MERELY BEING ATHEISTS (instead of ALSO FACTORING INTO THE EQUATION, the attitudes of atheists towards people of faith)?
Congratulations on the new addition to your family, sincerely. I graduated University 20 years ago and am currently taking schooling which furthers my education with regards to my business. It's a never ending process unfortunately.
Perhaps I should have explained the phrase 'merely being Atheist further' for your understanding. I assumed you understood what Atheism meant. Sorry about that.
This is the broad definition of Atheism as defined by Wikipedia.
Atheism is commonly defined as the position that there are no deities.[1] Other definitions include the absence of belief that any deities exist, or the rejection of belief in the existence of any deities, with or without an assertion that no deities exist
Now view the video once again and, why again does the fellow advise against voting for an Atheist candidate? Every argument presented for not agreeing with Atheism stems from this one point and branches out. 'If you don't believe in god then.... ad infinitum'.
In other words, Atheists are vilified for no reason other than the fact they are Atheists. The average voter, apparently, doesn't care about the intelligence of their political representative, only that they have something in common with the average joe. Or 'Joe the Plumber' for that fact. Personally, I'd rather have someone more intelligent than I, making the decisions that could affect my Country.
-
Oh, you've been wrong repeatedly, profoundly, and laughingly.
Quackery? Tell that to the University of Miami (Ohio) or Western Michigan University, where Drs. Yamauchi and Maier, respectively work.
Or to Cambridge, who named Dr. D. James Kennedy among the Most Outstanding Intellectuals of the 20th century.
And, although I didn't list him earlier in the last post, Dr. Ben Carson (Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital, first to succesfully separate twins conjoined at the head)…….Enough said!!!
Unfortunately, regardless of how well respected a person is in their chosen field of work outside religion, when it comes to any literature regarding religion their work is unsubstantiated. That is fact and whether or not you choose to ignore it is up to you.
-
Site tried to post my reply two seperate times, but I caught it. Come on lurker you are smarter than that..... you smart guy you.
Oh, which one of those two replies had the answer to my question in it?
Let's try again.
Are you an atheist? Yes or no?
Despite your claims of someone else (haha) hiding, dodging, twisting words, etc... *yawn*... it seems my observation of self projection is correct.
-
Dr. Kennedy has written such books,
How is the Hitler created evolution coming along?
-
Oh, which one of those two replies had the answer to my question in it?
Let's try again.
Are you an atheist? Yes or no?
Despite your claims of someone else (haha) hiding, dodging, twisting words, etc... *yawn*... it seems my observation of self projection is correct.
It's a common theist ploy to twist others' words to suit their purposes, all the while providing no actual proof of anything.
-
Congratulations on the new addition to your family, sincerely. I graduated University 20 years ago and am currently taking schooling which furthers my education with regards to my business. It's a never ending process unfortunately.
Perhaps I should have explained the phrase 'merely being Atheist further' for your understanding. I assumed you understood what Atheism meant. Sorry about that.
This is the broad definition of Atheism as defined by Wikipedia.
Atheism is commonly defined as the position that there are no deities.[1] Other definitions include the absence of belief that any deities exist, or the rejection of belief in the existence of any deities, with or without an assertion that no deities exist
Now view the video once again and, why again does the fellow advise against voting for an Atheist candidate? Every argument presented for not agreeing with Atheism stems from this one point and branches out. 'If you don't believe in god then.... ad infinitum'.
In other words, Atheists are vilified for no reason other than the fact they are Atheists. The average voter, apparently, doesn't care about the intelligence of their political representative, only that they have something in common with the average joe. Or 'Joe the Plumber' for that fact. Personally, I'd rather have someone more intelligent than I, making the decisions that could affect my Country.
I get what you're saying. However, MY point was that we've seen "atheists" (anti-theists would be a better term), who go WAAAAAAAAAAAY beyond that definition you just posted.
They don't simply believe that there is no God; they have an expressed disdain for those who do believe in God. That's not smart, if those same folks are going to potentially put you in office.
And, if you check out some of these atheist sites, again, it ain't about simply not believing in God. It's about an expressed attempt to rid their country (and eventually the world) of religion, Christianity in particular.
Edit - Thanks for your kind words.
-
How is the Hitler created evolution coming along?
Don't know. Perhaps, a better question would be how well those Obama booty shorts fit you.
-
Don't know. Perhaps, a better question would be how well those Obama booty shorts fit you.
No explanation or defense for the little belief and book of the crackpot you keep returning to mention?
[quote = YngiweRhoads ]
It's a common theist ploy to twist others' words to suit their purposes, all the while providing no actual proof of anything.[/quote]
True. True. Which is why there is complete deflection and avoidance of questions put to them. Even simple questions. You know.... like yes or no type.
-
I get what you're saying. However, MY point was that we've seen "atheists" (anti-theists would be a better term), who go WAAAAAAAAAAAY beyond that definition you just posted.
They don't simply believe that there is no God; they have an expressed disdain for those who do believe in God. That's not smart, if those same folks are going to potentially put you in office.
And, if you check out some of these atheist sites, again, it ain't about simply not believing in God. It's about an expressed attempt to rid their country (and eventually the world) of religion, Christianity in particular.
Again you're stating that there are politicians out there who are Atheists who are belittling the public for their beliefs, when there are none, nor would there be. They would be non-religious and wouldn't make a point of it as being an Atheist isn't something most people promote. A blanket statement regarding the personality of all Atheists is absurd. Especially when you consider there are reportedly 800 million - 1 billion non-religious people in the world. There is no 'Atheist agenda' amongst the majority on non religious people. They are simply people who have decided that it makes no sense to believe in a deity without proof. Any group of people has it's more outspoken individuals, and some do have an agenda, but you'll hardly find an Atheist flying an airplane into a building 'in the name of Atheism'.
If Obama had come out as an Atheist, do you truly believe the American people would have still put him in Office? He may very well be non-religious behind closed doors. But do you truly believe that he would come out mocking the public due to his non-religous views? That's absurd.
-
No explanation or defense for the little belief and book of the crackpot you keep returning to mention?
True. True. Which is why there is complete deflection and avoidance of questions put to them. Even simple questions. You know.... like yes or no type.
Kirk Cameron has a video where he attempts to educate theists on how to 'work around the facts', when debating the existence of god with non-religious people.
Crazy stuff.
-
lurker i answered your question, its not my fault you are to stupid to get the answer. sorry
-
I answered your question 3 times, just cause its not the answer you approve of doesnt mean its not an answer, you asked my views on religion , i explained them, i also explained my views and my back ground in science. If you cant see the answer then maybe you shouldnt be calling anyone dumb!!!
-
Most aetheists i have met are as screwed up mentally as those they like to mock but are too arrogant to realize it.
::)
-
lurker i answered your question, its not my fault you are to stupid to get the answer. sorry
No, you didn't.
What I am asking can be answered in a simple yes or no. Which you are obviously incapable of giving.
Are you an antheist. Yes or No.
-
I answered your question 3 times, just cause its not the answer you approve of doesnt mean its not an answer, you asked my views on religion , i explained them, i also explained my views and my back ground in science. If you cant see the answer then maybe you shouldnt be calling anyone dumb!!!
No, you didn't.
Obviously you think I asked your views and entire back history or whatever on religion. The question I am asking is nothing of the short. Giving an answer that isn't even relevant to any part of the question isn't called "answering". It is called "babbling".
Here is the question. Are you an atheist? Yes or no.
-
bump
-
Its clear liberals are brilliant.Look at the incredible government programs they come up with and see how they manage to bankrupt them in a matter of years.Liberals are never judged on results,just on intentions.So,when the war on poverty is an utter failure,social security is bankrupt,medicare is bankrupt and medicaide is bankrupt,its not the results of these brilliant thinkers that are judged,its their grand intentions.They have failed EVERYTIME over and over again but as long as they have noble intentions they are brilliant.
-
(CNN) -- Political, religious and sexual behaviors may be reflections of intelligence, a new study finds.
Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa at the the London School of Economics and Political Science correlated data on these behaviors with IQ from a large national U.S. sample and found that, on average, people who identified as liberal and atheist had higher IQs. This applied also to sexual exclusivity in men, but not in women. The findings will be published in the March 2010 issue of Social Psychology Quarterly.
The IQ differences, while statistically significant, are not stunning -- on the order of 6 to 11 points -- and the data should not be used to stereotype or make assumptions about people, experts say. But they show how certain patterns of identifying with particular ideologies develop, and how some people's behaviors come to be.
The reasoning is that sexual exclusivity in men, liberalism and atheism all go against what would be expected given humans' evolutionary past. In other words, none of these traits would have benefited our early human ancestors, but higher intelligence may be associated with them.
"The adoption of some evolutionarily novel ideas makes some sense in terms of moving the species forward," said George Washington University leadership professor James Bailey, who was not involved in the study. "It also makes perfect sense that more intelligent people -- people with, sort of, more intellectual firepower -- are likely to be the ones to do that."
Bailey also said that these preferences may stem from a desire to show superiority or elitism, which also has to do with IQ. In fact, aligning oneself with "unconventional" philosophies such as liberalism or atheism may be "ways to communicate to everyone that you're pretty smart," he said.
The study looked at a large sample from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), which began with adolescents in grades 7-12 in the United States during the 1994-95 school year. The participants were interviewed as 18- to 28-year-olds from 2001 to 2002. The study also looked at the General Social Survey, another cross-national data collection source.
Kanazawa did not find that higher or lower intelligence predicted sexual exclusivity in women. This makes sense, because having one partner has always been advantageous to women, even thousands of years ago, meaning exclusivity is not a "new" preference.
For men, on the other hand, sexual exclusivity goes against the grain evolutionarily. With a goal of spreading genes, early men had multiple mates. Since women had to spend nine months being pregnant, and additional years caring for very young children, it made sense for them to want a steady mate to provide them resources.
Religion, the current theory goes, did not help people survive or reproduce necessarily, but goes along the lines of helping people to be paranoid, Kanazawa said. Assuming that, for example, a noise in the distance is a signal of a threat helped early humans to prepare in case of danger.
"It helps life to be paranoid, and because humans are paranoid, they become more religious, and they see the hands of God everywhere," Kanazawa said.
Participants who said they were atheists had an average IQ of 103 in adolescence, while adults who said they were religious averaged 97, the study found. Atheism "allows someone to move forward and speculate on life without any concern for the dogmatic structure of a religion," Bailey said.
"Historically, anything that's new and different can be seen as a threat in terms of the religious beliefs; almost all religious systems are about permanence," he noted.
The study takes the American view of liberal vs. conservative. It defines "liberal" in terms of concern for genetically nonrelated people and support for private resources that help those people. It does not look at other factors that play into American political beliefs, such as abortion, gun control and gay rights.
"Liberals are more likely to be concerned about total strangers; conservatives are likely to be concerned with people they associate with," he said.
Given that human ancestors had a keen interest in the survival of their offspring and nearest kin, the conservative approach -- looking out for the people around you first -- fits with the evolutionary picture more than liberalism, Kanazawa said. "It's unnatural for humans to be concerned about total strangers." he said.
The study found that young adults who said they were "very conservative" had an average adolescent IQ of 95, whereas those who said they were "very liberal" averaged 106.
It also makes sense that "conservatism" as a worldview of keeping things stable would be a safer approach than venturing toward the unfamiliar, Bailey said.
Neither Bailey nor Kanazawa identify themselves as liberal; Bailey is conservative and Kanazawa is "a strong libertarian."
Vegetarianism, while not strongly associated with IQ in this study, has been shown to be related to intelligence in previous research, Kanazawa said. This also fits into Bailey's idea that unconventional preferences appeal to people with higher intelligence, and can also be a means of showing superiority.
None of this means that the human species is evolving toward a future where these traits are the default, Kanazawa said.
"More intelligent people don't have more children, so moving away from the trajectory is not going to happen," he said.
-
Bro - you can't even spell correctly or put forth a coherent argument on anything without resorting to plagiarism.
Do you really want to go down this road?
-
don't be angry, i didn't do the study ;D
-
Wasnt this already posted like a year ago and brought back from the dead by bigmal a few days ago only to have it reposted again today?
-
LOL by that logic straights would be more intelligent than gays b/c its more advantageous to be straight in terms of evolution...
"The adoption of some evolutionarily novel ideas makes some sense in terms of moving the species forward,"
"It also makes perfect sense that more intelligent people -- people with, sort of, more intellectual firepower -- are likely to be the ones to do that."
hmmm whos moving the species along? gays or straights hmmm its a toughy ::)
this study is opinion based not fact based...they are taking arbitrary traits and saying that well b/c of evolution if you posses these traits you are going to be smarter...
"It defines "liberal" in terms of concern for genetically nonrelated people and support for private resources that help those people."
LMAO liberals arent for private support they are for PUBLIC support... but hey define it anyway you want to help skew the results...
what was conservative defined as? doesnt say...hmmm wonder why? ::)
LOL an op ed piece and a poor one at that
-
Wasnt this already posted like a year ago and brought back from the dead by bigmal a few days ago only to have it reposted again today?
It's six months old. http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/26/liberals.atheists.sex.intelligence/index.html
If I get around to it I'll merge with the thread TA created about this.
-
Bro - you can't even spell correctly or put forth a coherent argument on anything without resorting to plagiarism.
Do you really want to go down this road?
You beat me to it. Just read Blacken's posts and one can see that this study doesn't prove dick.
Blacken is a retard with the cognitive ability of an elementary school student. But good thing he's a far-left liberal! ::)
-
berzerkFury= nerd
-
berzerkFury= nerd
Wait, so you make a thread about intelligence and then call people who are smarter than you (99% of the people posting on the politics board) nerds? You sound like a winner.
-
no just you nerdy boy ;D
-
no just you nerdy boy ;D
Why did you post that thread when you're an idiot and can't even type coherently? You're walking proof that the study you linked doesn't mean anything. Seriously, just look at how stupid you are. :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
-
no just you nerdy boy ;D
Blacken - I don't know what is worse, you bumping this thread, or you thinking you are in some type of group more intelligent than your average gold fish.
-
something i noticed every time nerdy boy an i are insulting each other you always pop up and throw your two cents in , what are you a fucking geek :D :D
-
something i noticed every time nerdy boy an i are insulting each other you allways pop up and throw your two cents in , what are you a fucking geek :D :D
No, just someone pissed off knowing that while I am informed on most issues, dolts and idiots like yourself cancel out my vote.