| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, easy, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member, please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Atheism Associated with Higher IQs | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Mar 1 2010, 09:35 PM (359 Views) | |
| Post #1 Mar 1 2010, 09:35 PM | Joe E. Holman |
|
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/26/liberals.atheists.sex.intelligence/index.html Fascinating news article, and it makes complete sense. |
 
|
 
|
 |
| Post #2 Mar 2 2010, 07:58 PM | magicshoemonkey |
| I don't know, I'm skeptical that even a 10 or 11 point difference would be significant in actuality, that is, if you met a guy with an IQ of 106 and a guy with an IQ of 117, that you would be able to tell. Maybe, but I don't know, I think personality and other factors would play a major role. I mean, it's interesting, but it doesn't seem all that meaningful in real life. I've know Christians who I know are way smarter than me, and some atheists who I know are really dumb. That, of course, has nothing to do with averages, but I'm just saying that the only real point of this article is bragging, and I'm just not sure it's even that useful for those purposes. |
 
|
|
|
|
| Post #3 Mar 2 2010, 10:07 PM | Joe E. Holman |
| No, it's pointing out a statistical truth. But a ten point IQ difference may or may not be noticeable. Heck, 3 times that means one party can't understand half of what the other is saying, so that says something about the significance. |
|
|
|
|
| Post #4 Mar 3 2010, 12:24 AM | Bonzolee |
Word. (What? I couldn't think of anything else to say in response!) |
|
|
"Brain disorders, like madness, are themselves contagious. The frequency of madness among doctors who are specialists for the mad is notorious." – Gustave Le Bon "The fact that audiences would rather go to Wonderland than face Iraq speaks volumes." – Random Youtube Poster | |
|
|
|
| Post #5 Mar 6 2010, 10:00 AM | Huxley |
| I think itt shud be pritty obvyus reely. Uz athiests iz much sharpa than them God botherers. |
|
  | |
|
|
|
| Post #6 Mar 18 2010, 07:52 AM | Huxley |
| I would expect a sceptical person to be more intelligent than a none sceptic. But being an atheist is no guarantee of not being an asshole. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| Post #7 Mar 19 2010, 05:23 PM | Gemmy63 |
| I'd buy this argument... To a certain degree... Doesn't Dawkins (or someone in his ilk) say that there's a 'superstitious' gene? That in itself would override the argument to some degree.. Personally I'm about a bees dick over the national average, just enough to be really infuriating in lots of ways! |
|
| Ignorance or Apathy? I don't know and I don't care ... | |
|
|
|
| Post #8 May 20 2010, 04:51 PM | Noel Cookman |
| When you're #2, you try harder. This could explain why people of faith succeed wildly in business while college professors retire with soft and large asses. |
 
|
|
|
|
| Post #9 May 20 2010, 06:02 PM | Noel Cookman |
| "sexual exclusivity in men" . . . speaking from the underside of the intellectual graph, what does that mean? I'm trying to work it out in my head and I don't like the images I'm getting. |
|
|
|
|
| Post #10 May 20 2010, 06:32 PM | Noel Cookman |
|
I also had another thought which I shall try to limit to the social/scientific rather than the theological arena. Christians (probably more than Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Krishnas, et al) tend to go out and evangelize and bring home the "lost sheep" as it were. I remember lots of these efforts as a child and young man. The folk that were most likely to respond to the "call" were people who were needy, or at least felt like they were needy. Their lives tended to be more occupied with addictions, where their next meal was coming from, problem relationships, ad infinitum. I think you get the picture. The problem is that, in our attempt to reach out and bring in the "lost," we mistakenly also brought in the less-than-Einstein class if you know what I mean. It wasn't as if the PhD's were hanging out under the bridges . . . until about 2007 or so. Is it possible that religious people, Christians more than others maybe, have watered down their intelligence pool by allowing these dumber folk to enter the fold? I bet that you could even measure intelligence within Christian groups for sure. For example, I'm betting that Episcopaleans are generally smarter than Pentecostals or Independent Baptists at least as far as education and IQ are concerned. Episcopaleans have always had the good sense to screen their membership, only allowing certain folks on their registers. One had to, more or less, measure up to the standards. The raucous Pentecostals were too busy, especially in the last half of the 20th century, building church buildings to accomodate the growing crowds . . . they didn't take notice that their ranks included some pretty unsophisticated folks. And, God help us, the moronic Baptists have to be considered gluttons for disdain. Especially the Falwell types - they had no standards at all. They went out and shipped in all sorts of people . . . on busses (how embarassing and low class) - the poor, black, Hispanic, the uneducated, whores, pimps (although I can tell you from personal experience that whores and pimps tended to gravitate more to Pentecostals), just all sorts of . . . [please forgive me for this] undesirables. There, I said it. I was wondering, do atheists have a similar "outreach" program? I hadn't noticed one. My first thought is that they have better sense than to go out and engage in such a disgusting, raw, unabashed exercise of bringing in the needy and undesirables to help them with their mundane concerns while leading them to . . . to . . . to the liberating world of atheism. I'm going to tell some of my religious friends that I have happened upon a very useful strategy that will keep the Christian world less laden with low IQ Neanderthals . . . a mere 20 points away from not even being able to communicate in normal human language though I'm sure they could always just speak in tongues. |
|
|
|
|
| Post #11 May 21 2010, 01:35 PM | Huxley |
|
Frank Schaeffer, the ex blazing evangelist christian 9now a sensible and intelligent person) puts it like this. America is like a village. A village has a village idiot. That village idiot is Christianity. You cannot run a village just to satisfy the village idiot. ----------------- I know some very bright ex christians and know of many who are Christian and very bright. All I have a problem with is that a bright Christian could be all the brighter without delusion. One simply has to question their faculties of critical thinking. ALL religion makes people dumber than they really need to be. Of course there is no hope for certain religionists. They are Christians because they are too dumb to be anything else. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| Post #12 May 22 2010, 09:24 AM | Noel Cookman |
|
Huxley, you make things so clear. Now, please turn your powers of intellect upon my real question - "sexual exclusivity in men." |
|
|
|
|
| Post #13 May 22 2010, 02:29 PM | Bonzolee |
You know what, allow me to answer this most simple of questions. Here's another example of that term being used:
Now, if you still need further translation, "sexual exclusivity" means having sex with exclusively one partner. You married? You don't cheat on your wife? Bingo. But your mind, for whatever reason, jumped to something else entirely, it seems. |
|
|
"Brain disorders, like madness, are themselves contagious. The frequency of madness among doctors who are specialists for the mad is notorious." – Gustave Le Bon "The fact that audiences would rather go to Wonderland than face Iraq speaks volumes." – Random Youtube Poster | |
|
|
|
| Post #14 May 22 2010, 03:17 PM | Noel Cookman |
|
That's close to what I thought it might mean. But, standing alone it could have meant 1. exclusively having sex with one sex or the other - entirely homosexual or entirely heterosexual; not bi-sexual. 2. exclusively having sex with one person, at a time. 3. exclusively having sex with one person for an entire life - Bill Gothard's view of the 'one-woman' man. 4. being the picky sort at a high class bar albeit still "on the prowl." 5. Tom Cruise, when he was "Sexiest Man Alive" and didn't take interviews. If I cheated on my wife, could I revert to "sexually exclusive" if I promise not to do it again? Or can I be sexually exclusive in a general sense in that we are not "swingers?" By the way, we found out a few years ago that Flower Mound, TX (where we live) is a hot bed for swingers. It came as a shock to us and, upon further reflection, made both my wife and I feel sort of rejected as we have yet to be invited or propositioned. So, I think that by comparison with my neighbors, I am certainly a "sexually exclusive man." There, I feel better, kind of special. Thanks Bonz. |
|
|
|
|
| Post #15 May 23 2010, 03:49 AM | Bonzolee |
If you cheated on your wife twice over the span of 6 months and promised to never do it again, then no: not exclusive. However, if you cheated on your wife twice over the span of 6 months and promised to never do it again and then went 20 years without cheating on her, then I would argue the long-term behavior speaks for itself. Exclusive! Making a promise to be exclusive and being exclusive are two entirely different things, you see. The latter appears to be much harder for people, while the former seems easier than making a peanut butter and jelly sandwich!
If I was in a gay bar, for whatever random reason, and I wasn't hit on once over the course of the night I would totally feel rejected. That's actually a good scene for a television show, now that I think about it. I can just imagine Michael Scott, a character from NBC's "The Office" breaking down and sobbing because no guy propositioned him, even though he wasn't interested in the first place. So then, after sobbing for the cameras in the parking lot, he vows to get a guy to hit on him. So he goes back into the bar, acts over the top "gay", and still nobody hits on him. So he goes up to the DJ booth, grabs the microphone and loses his shit. And Jim Halpert, whilst this is all going down, gives that "look" of his to the camera (the show's version of a laugh track). Why were the cast there in the first place? Michael wanted to open the mind of his salespeople, get them so that they could better relate to a wide variety of customers. So he, in true dolt form, comes to the conclusion that the best method to do so would be to take them all to a gay bar. Which is accidentally offensive as hell, of course, like he always does. Because nothing can be more different from you than a gay person, right? I mean, he once awkwardly kissed a gay man on the show to prove. . . I have no idea. Something stupid, probably some point about diversity that he got totally backwards. The gay guy in the office, Oscar, was visibly repulsed by the whole thing. Michael, Michael, Michael. . . I've also got an idea for a show where a man divorces his wife (they have two kids) over the fact that he's gay. But because of the bad economy they continue living together out of necessity. . . and the guy's new boyfriend comes over and lives in the basement (he just lost his job). Shit practically writes itself from that point. That's about all the gay-driven punchline material I've got at the moment. Edited by Bonzolee, May 23 2010, 04:14 AM.
|
|
|
"Brain disorders, like madness, are themselves contagious. The frequency of madness among doctors who are specialists for the mad is notorious." – Gustave Le Bon "The fact that audiences would rather go to Wonderland than face Iraq speaks volumes." – Random Youtube Poster | |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The Science Forum · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
4:55 PM Jul 31
