Not a method to convince theists that atheists are agreeable people
Also, I appreciate the Alabama comment, you elitist
Did you think we didn't have internet here?
Lol illfigja has very a very conservative perception of grammar.
By the way he did fine, just as long as he supported his thesis with legitimate data, I am content. Oh and when he said significantly more likely, he did not mean "More more", he meant that they are highly more likely, than what is normal.
Oh and novel as an adjective means new, or something unknown as well. Novel is an adjective used to describe a noun, like an idea that is novel. Novelty is the state or quality of being novel, like "I admire the novelty of your idea" They are very different indeed.
I'm guessing this article pissed you off because you probably posses few to none of the qualities the author described.
Oh and uh... try not to be such a hypocrite for your next bash.
Oh and for Christ sake people, the author is describing statistics! He explains that their is a correlation between liberal atheists and conservative theists. Saying that he is wrong because you know an idiotic atheist, and intelligent theist, is wrong itself. It is like saying that Global Warming is a myth because there was a blizzard in your town the other week. Just because your town was cold, does not mean that the whole world had to be cold as well. So a correlation does exist, but not everyone has to follow it.
Much as I would love to think my politics/non-religion makes me brighter than the average gal, I don't think it's likely. I'm bright enough, and skeptical enough to find a lot of EvoPsych lacks rigour, to say the least.
I'm not gonna dispute whether this is true or not, because I don't have the expertise or knowledge to say for sure, but I think these kinds of studies are dangerous because, even if they are true, they're gonna give people the idea that everyone who isn't liberal or atheist is an idiot. It's not the case. I wouldn't be surprised if it is true, but still. This is a dangerous way of thinking.
Most atheists have a onefold view on religion because they never bothered to understand the problem via anthropology or history of religions studies. "Religious" people nowadays aren't actually religious in the real meaning of the term, they are just joining and/or defending a cause for the same reason teenagers identify themselves with various subcultures and trends (Now that we're at it, a lot of these new atheists are doing the same, they are repeating mechanically arguments they pick up from books and blogs). Atheism is not a cause, a battle, a game of calling names and proving one's superiority; it is simply a philosophical stance that can be defended with arguments if needed. Organized religion may be wrong and pointless, but not for the reasons described here. The mechanisms of belief work on a different level than logical thinking or 'everyday' intellect, that's why there are still so many people to believe in irrational things, and that's why you can't prove a believer wrong using logical arguments, no matter how well articulated they are. This article is only showing the IQ inferiority of people who were insecure enough to find reassurance in a nice, warm and widely recognized group as the church, but is not telling anything about the psychic of religious people. Even the validity of the IQ test is questionable, but that's another story. I must admit though that i could be wrong; when it comes to America and religion, things get pretty strange...
Makes sense to me.
I love reading the thumbs down reviews for this article. One person claims that the guy who ran the study is a "crank" and then goes on to admit that he wouldn't accept the study even if he wasn't, another guy apparently just doesn't want to rub it in, and a third guy is trying to convince everyone that an average IQ of 103 for the non-religious means that almost everyone in that group has an IQ well below 103 (I'm not sure he knows how averages work...).
And yes the article is self-congratulatory. Hell, the way it's touted on some sites it's almost masturbatory. Apparently, though, it passed peer review, so if you've got a problem take it up with Social Psychology Quarterly.
I'd like to see more about how the conclusions were reached. My own (completely unscientific) experience adheres to the model, but I'm probably working with a (relatively) small sample population.
Looking at the scientist in question, however, raises uncomfortable questions:
foulwretchedscum is not exactly correct. Stupidity makes you religious, not the other way around. It's primarily a result of brainwashing, to which individuals with lower intelligence are more vulnerable to. However, if the brainwashing starts at childhood, they can snare a normally intelligent person before they are old enough to know better. After that, the individual comes to rationalize his/her beliefs to fit the rest of their education. Still, at the higher levels of college and graduate education, it's pretty much impossible to keep rationalizing everything in the face of damning evidence.
Religion makes you stupid. Form your own opinions instead of swallowing whatever bullshit they've been shoveling down your throat since birth.