More intelligent people are significantly more likely to exhibit social values and religious and political preferences that are novel to the human species in evolutionary history. Specifically, liberalism and atheism, and for men (but not women), preference for sexual exclusivity correlate with higher intelligence, a new study finds.
The study, published in the March 2010 issue of the peer-reviewed scientific journal Social Psychology Quarterly, advances a new theory to explain why people form particular preferences and values. The theory suggests that more intelligent people are more likely than less intelligent people to adopt evolutionarily novel preferences and values, but intelligence does not correlate with preferences and values that are old enough to have been shaped by evolution over millions of years."
"Evolutionarily novel" preferences and values are those that humans are not biologically designed to have and our ancestors probably did not possess. In contrast, those that our ancestors had for millions of years are "evolutionarily familiar."
"General intelligence, the ability to think and reason, endowed our ancestors with advantages in solving evolutionarily novel problems for which they did not have innate solutions," says Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics and Political Science. "As a result, more intelligent people are more likely to recognize and understand such novel entities and situations than less intelligent people, and some of these entities and situations are preferences, values, and lifestyles."
An earlier study by Kanazawa found that more intelligent individuals were more nocturnal, waking up and staying up later than less intelligent individuals. Because our ancestors lacked artificial light, they tended to wake up shortly before dawn and go to sleep shortly after dusk. Being nocturnal is evolutionarily novel.
In the current study, Kanazawa argues that humans are evolutionarily designed to be conservative, caring mostly about their family and friends, and being liberal, caring about an indefinite number of genetically unrelated strangers they never meet or interact with, is evolutionarily novel. So more intelligent children may be more likely to grow up to be liberals.
Data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) support Kanazawa's hypothesis. 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.
Similarly, religion is a byproduct of humans' tendency to perceive agency and intention as causes of events, to see "the hands of God" at work behind otherwise natural phenomena. "Humans are evolutionarily designed to be paranoid, and they believe in God because they are paranoid," says Kanazawa. 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."
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.
In addition, humans have always been mildly polygynous in evolutionary history. Men in polygynous marriages were not expected to be sexually exclusive to one mate, whereas men in monogamous marriages were. In sharp contrast, whether they are in a monogamous or polygynous marriage, women were always expected to be sexually exclusive to one mate. So being sexually exclusive is evolutionarily novel for men, but not for women. And the theory predicts that more intelligent men are more likely to value sexual exclusivity than less intelligent men, but general intelligence makes no difference for women's value on sexual exclusivity. Kanazawa's analysis of Add Health data supports these sex-specific predictions as well.
One intriguing but theoretically predicted finding of the study is that more intelligent people are no more or no less likely to value such evolutionarily familiar entities as marriage, family, children, and friends.
Explore further:
Intelligent children more likely to become vegetarian
More information:
The article "Why Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent" will be published in the March 2010 issue of Social Psychology Quarterly.
LKD
magpies
Feb 24, 2010El_Nose
These statistics may be true -- but it is a result of social behaviour -- inteligence is rewarded in middle adulthood (late 20's forward) and the social norm is that fame follows the media attention.
When Ken Thompson, Dennis Ritchie, Brian Kernighan, Douglas McIlroy, and Joe Ossanna (the programmers who wrote UNIX ) become household names then noone will want to be a football player cause the cheerleaders are at the ACM conference.
Roach
ralph_wiggum
I'm liberal and atheist and all that progressive stuff but this is going over the top for an academic publication. It's just asking for a flame war.
Skepticus
ROFL I expect a army Bible-toting gonna crash this site's comment box!
freethinking
I dont buy into either side conservative or leftist being smarter than the other.
Royale
I do enjoy the fact that according to a nationally published scientific study, I am, in fact, more intelligent. Hah. You already can't get republicans to budge from their beliefs, do you think this will really help ANYTHING? Perhaps the writers are republican and trying on a little reverse psychology.
VOR
stfu. title is dead on. you twisted it. article is appropriate. It sums up the experience and inclinations of those of us who are a little above average intelligence. Get the fk over it you all you who aren't. It's just the way it works. The dichotomy between preference of exclusivity between the sexes with respect to intelligence is interesting. Liberalism has nothing to do with cows or herd behavior. Its the inclination to foster concern for all of society instead of just your clan, and to a small degree, ahead of your clan, especially ahead of the short term benifits of your clan if they contradict long term planning. Progressives are just that and are Utilitarian. If you dont understand how it works, stop posting against it.
Royale
Royale
and VOR, while I agree with you I think you're missing that ralph was quoting the ACTUAL ARTICLE as given after the "More Information:" section. You two are on the same team here.
freethinking
Interesting that most criminals, journalists, humanities professors, people on welfare, bums on the street, are leftist progressives.
Mind you after considering the fact that a lot of progressive leftists cant hold down a real job in the real world, and need to conservative religious people to support them, maybe they are smarter.
freethinking
Royale
Don't just say most doctors, engineers, blah blah blah are conservative and religious. You can't just make up "facts" because you think they're so.
Let's not be silly here. You should be a little more freethinking with your ideas. :)
VOR
Royale
So lemme guess, next you're going to say that slave owners were progressive and leftist.
We're talking about moving away from the norm... thus PROGRESSING... think man.
Javinator
Less critical thinkers brought up in aetheist/liberal households, by this article's logic, are more likely to remain as such than be convinced otherwise.
Article should have left religion and politics out of it.
VOR
free u r without question the dumbest troll that regularly posts on this site. Of course racism is conservative trait. what u said is verifiably factually false. You stated the exact opposite of things. I pretty much think u just post to cause trouble and know how crazy you are posting. If you really believe what you post you need to go back for some more edumacation.
Javinator
freethinking
Come on now, please read history.
deafgirl01
Anyway, it hardly ever easy for intelligent, highly educated, and wealthy people to have faith in God and even the bible mentioned this.
JayK
Royale
RJB26
Gammakozy
Simonsez
JayK
Does East Germany's Democratic Republic discredit the theory of Democracy because of the name? Or maybe you've read and understood Germany's "Charter of Labor" and you still believe that Hitler was a socialist? Are you aware of the Dixiecrat revolution in America?
freethinking
George Wallace Jr. KKK member ran for president 3 times as a Democrat -common knowlege-
Democrats and the KKK all common knowlege for anyone who has studied history. Look it up.
JayK et al, Hitler was a socialist. Stalin was a communist. KKK were the progressives of the 1920s. Look it up.
kasen
On the one hand, its a form of discrimination, so extreme right-wing stuff. On the other hand, it would eliminate any sources of discrimination and generally speaking people won't be given any "scientific" reason to think they're unequal, so pretty hardcore left-wing.
Honestly, what is the utility of this sort of research? All I see is a constant feedback loop. An actual scientific article usually requires prior knowledge and education. "Why Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent" only requires literacy to get the gist of it and form an opinion, which will become the data of a subsequent study. This is not science...
Skeptic_Heretic
The only interesting pieces I could discern from this article are that societal pressures are now shaping evolution as greatly as natural pressures.
Social Darwinists around the word unite with me in saying "Duh."
And just an FYI: The KKK has at least one officer in the senate currently. Senator Byrd (Democrat) is a former high officer of the KKK, or as he refers to them a Knight of the Golden Circle.
Simonsez
Seems like someone is butthurt that liberalism is unpopular in this forum.
My opinion of this article is that there may be some research of scientific merit regarding the correlation of higher IQ score to "progressive" thinking, but that the author of the article is very obviously biased against those who do not fall in line with their -isms of choice. Poor journalism, that's all.
Loodt
RJB26
cattiva
Royale
JayK
Since you think that Nazi = "National Socialist" means that socialism was the leading economical model for Germany, maybe you can then explain the German Democratic Republic and how "democratic" Germany was at the time of the German Democratic Republic. You can't say that the name defines the practice for one and not the other.
And for those that think this study is worthless, can you please point to the methodologies that were flawed or perhaps a parallel study that shows a completely different conclusion?
JayK
-- Alan Bullock, Hitler: A Study in Tyranny
JayK
Caliban
Free- look again, my man- it was the Republican-Democrats. The Democrat Party wasn't formed until circa 1830- very near the end of the Slavery Era in America:
http://en.wikiped..._States)
Another Inaccuracy(this in the article itself).Female monogamy has not always been the norm, even in historical times.
I agree that this is some total Flame Bait as written. But I disagree with the central premise of the research that we can pinpoint traits as abstract as these and with any authority say that they have been evolutionarily selected either "for" OR "against" this is some crackpot hogwash.
freethinking
Feb 24, 2010JayK
The article above does not say that women were monogamous. It says it is novel for men to be exclusive, but for women it was kinda indeterminate. The section that says "women were always expected to be sexually exclusive to one mate." is actually poorly worded and may be what you have an issue with. I read it as the "social" expectation that women would be sexually exclusive.
frenchie
What...the....F***
Wake up from whatever dream you've been living in and stop saying absolutely retarded comments like these. You're only proving either that:
A) you're an extremist on the right
or
B) your IQ is in single digit numbers.
Your statements are insulting and without any statistical references, proof or foundation. Please try again.
Caliban
I did misread that. Vive La Difference! As our French brothers(and sisters) would say.
JayK
I had to read it 3 or 4 times to make sure I understood it, it was incredibly poorly written. I wish I had access to that journal in order to actually try to clarify, for myself at the least, if they are talking about social pressures or evolutionary ones.
freethinking
http://chronicle....--.shtml
real easy to find if you look
I'll try and find the engineer study....
BTW I had my IQ taken several times...
at 15 my IQ was 131
at 17 my IQ was 125
at 25 my IQ was 129
But I dont hold much stock in IQ, If you ever see a mensa get together, they dont seem all that smart :)
Frenchie It does seem to go without saying, people who use foul language us it because theyre not smart enough to live without it.
I worked with a kid who was in grade one whose foul language was embarasing the teacher. I said to the kid I know your smart and I want others to know your smart so use smart words...He promised to use smart words.... been over a year now and hes proving to be a smart kid...
RJB26
JayK
Yeah, I know you don't.
RJB26
bottomlesssoul
They are one and the same. Social constructs should be free to evolve and the more active the brain the faster they evolve. I think it's a bit more complicated than the author suggested. For example it's hard to be openly gay in an environment where one face "fag dragging" by predators. There are more environmental pressures to evolving social constructs than simply how efficient an individual's brain is.
We are primed for paranoia, there is an enormous body of evidence to support this. So imagined social violence to behavior change is enough stop many people from acting out. As Stalin said It's cheaper to put a policeman in everyones head than to put one on every corner".
What's not mentioned is sample size so all claims for or against are meaningless. It's just noise.
PinkElephant
PinkElephant
Every modern Progressive would've stood beside MLK, would've marched for women's suffrage, would've protested the Vietnam war, would've fought for desegregation of the South, would've cheered Teddy Roosevelt's trust-busting, would've supported FDR's New Deal, and would've been thoroughly disgusted by the destructive hypocrisies of Reaganites and Reaganomics.
maxcypher
PinkElephant
JayK
Frink
You clearly have no clue what you're talking about.
1) First off, Hitler was a fascist, not a socialist. Hardly anything about his regime is "socialist." This is something you could learn in a 100-level political science class.
Yes, I realize the Nazi's were "Nationalist Socialists," but that doesn't make them socialist any more than North Korea calling itself the "Democratic People's Republic of North Korea" makes it a democracy. Sorry bub.
2) Communism and Socialism are kindred ideologies (with a caveat being that one does not necessarily entail the other). Read Marx if you want to see why. Hitler's Germany was fascist. Communism (Stalin) and Fascism (Hitler) are mutually-exclusive ideologies. In fact, Mr. History, they even fought each other in World War 2. Fascism is a right-wing ideology. Communism is a left-wing ideology. Wishing it otherwise does not make it so.
Frink
In short, the Democratic Party was not always associated with liberalism (again, read history). What racism has always been associated with, however, is conservatism. Even today there is a consistency between what I've just said and the common presence of conservative, blue-dog democrats in the South. Y'know, the red state south; the one dominated by conservatives.
---
Please, get an education, THEN have an opinion. Pretending to know what you're talking about does not impress those of us who actually do.
Frink
Says the guy who quotes someone who also has no clue what he's talking about.
1) Fascism is not "the highest and last and most depraved stage of capitalism." Fascism rejects capitalism as does communism. Having a "laissez faire" style of economy does not provide the kind of control totalitarian forms of government require.
2) Fascists had a more feudalism-styled economic system. Whoever you're quoting managed to misrepresent both totalitarian ideologies in a single sentence. Wow.
---
What was that about propaganda?
Mc3lnosher
All in all left still means left. Right still means right. Progressive and conservative still describe stances. Socialism, facism, communism, democracy, anarchy, monarchy, totalitarianism, and republics all describe systems of government. I believe that all of these systems can work and can be the best for a society. It just depends on the circumstances in that country at that time. Democracy wasn't some golden egg laid by god that should replace every other social contract ever made. It is a specific solution for governing. It works great for some groups. Others, no.
Ronan
PinkElephant
Ronan
...Alright, I know, compared to the other implications of this study and the arguments over its validity that's probably of little general interest. Just thought I'd throw it out there.
Frink
JayK
PinkElephant
Frink
Mises was speaking from a McCarthyist point of view at the time and had no quantitative data to back up his claims. The rise of fascism did not culminate in the highest and most depraved stage of capitalism, but in a state of reactionary desperation. I think the forementioned sequence of events is plausible, but still theoretical.
Ronan
Frink
I'm reminded of conditions such as Stockholm syndrome which, for those unaware, is a condition through which an unwilling prisoner (of war or a hostage/kidnapping scenario) becomes sympathetic to his or her captors, and may decide to aid them.
The interesting thing about Stockholm syndrome is that it is VERY conducive to survival in these types of dangerous situations. Despite the hostage's otherwise independent nature prior to the abduction, psychologically, their brains overcompensate to increase chances of survival. Consider, for instance, the Patty Hearst incident in the 1970's.
What I'm suggesting is that the culture shock experienced by our hypothetical subject would be similar in many ways to the shock experienced by one who immediately goes from having freedom to not having freedom. The parallels between being held hostage and not being restricted in our behavior and the restrictions associated with being plucked up and put in an alien culture are worth considering
Ronan
All good points, but nonetheless, I think a few of my original suppositions might still stand. Monogamy can produce a lot of offspring given the right cultural environment, true, but polygamy in general ought still to be able to beat it without too much trouble. Modern civilization, also, is...well, modern. It's probably had a very slight influence on our genes, but not much, and the forces that shaped us (favoring kin-selection, family-centered goals, etc.) could still be expected to be very much in effect. I may be misunderstanding your point there, though, so if so I apologize. I don't know enough about the history of atheism over time, and how common/uncommon it was in different cultures in the past, to really be able to defend my position there, I guess. And as for the last...Our instincts are there to fulfill evolution's goals, not our own, and they can act as both carrots and sticks. Resisting some of the sticks might lead to a maladaptive but happier life.
Frink
Ronan
And that wasn't quite what I had in mind, Frink (I was angling more for the effect of raising a very bright person in modern culture versus raising a very bright person in, say, a hunter-gatherer culture, with no culture shock involved), but that's an interesting thing to consider too. You're pondering the effect of a sort of cultural equivalent of Stockholm syndrome on the intelligent/"intelligent" maladaptive traits, correct? The Connecticut Yankee ends up becoming just another serf, rather than taking on the role of Merlin's rival...Hm.
Caliban
PinkElephant
Regarding atheism over time, I would imagine it's an emergent phenomenon. Prior to the advent of modern science, and even prior to Enlightenment, there were too many mysterious and unexplainable things in the world, and it would have been very hard for anyone to get by without believing in some sort of spirits or magic. Superstition is the natural state of mind among the ignorant, and from superstition to full-blown religion it's a rather small and easy leap.
Concerning polygamy (and infidelity), consider also STDs. With growing population density, these become a real scourge; in such an environment monogamy gains extra advantages.
With respect to the last point, what I mean is that going against one's natural urges (such as socialization and procreation) is not an intelligent thing to do -- it leads to unhappiness and even depression. An intelligent person would aim to avoid such unfavorable outcomes...
Frink
Bingo. It's better to be a serf than to be burned at the stake. No amount of progressive morality or scientific understanding is going to stop a sword from chopping your limbs. Add a few years and the brain begins a process of synaptic pruning, then poof! It's as if our modern knowledge and sensibilities never existed.
Caliban
PinkElephant
By the way, nice article.
Frink
Current trends in int'l relations suggest a consolidation of power of non-governmental organizations (NGO's), among them in particular are multi-national corporations (MNC's). There has been a continual trend since the Industrial Revolution in which MNC's and IGO's (Intergovernmental Organizations) have been ever-increasing in influence.
Being that the very idea of the State is one which is relatively new (400-ish years old) in human history, it is not expected that the State will exist in any form comparable to what we now have. What is expected are more conglomerations such as the European Union (EU). Smart money is on the Arab League eventually consolidating, despite their historic differences. With this, too, comes the increased prominence of MNC's. What I find most interesting are the projections of when this will happen--some estimates as early as 50 years!
Unfortunately, it's hard to talk about this without New World Order nuts polluting it with conspiracy theories
Ronan
And oddly enough, your last point is my point, as well; that recognizing how one's instincts (or emotions, etc.; they don't have to be thought of as instincts by the person in question for the idea to hold) might be an intelligent course of action, in that one could recognize that indulging certain instincts just led to unhappiness (evolution's stick when you miss the carrot), and might therefore resolve to just avoid both carrot and stick, and find happiness in milder, less sternly-mandated behaviors. The strongest emotions, whether they be positive or negative, are tough to deal with, and can bring a lot of grief along with any joy. It might be intelligent to just steer clear of them and aim for less violent emotional waters.
Ronan
Frink
Fortunately, we do have some facts on our side. Since the I.R., corporate entities have rarely willingly self-regulated. If they did, there would be no need for government regulation.
Second, it's a fact that businesses, during the post-civil war reconstruction period, were more powerful than the government. In cases such as the infamous Railroad Strikes, or the Pullman Strike, or the tumultuous 1890's, the national guard was actually used at the whim of private enterprise, at times with deadly results. What will their behavior resemble when the power balance between governments and MNC's shifts in favor of MNC's? Will precedent apply?
These are the types of things that come to my mind when broaching the topic.
Caliban
The linked article takes a considerably different, and much more portentious view of developing Fascism. Have a read at some point. It's fairly lengthy, but well worth it.
Aeiluindae
Frink
I'll try to give it a fair shake and analyze it from the position of a political scientist.
Caliban
You can just as easily say these "anti evolutionary traits" are the push, or purpose of evolution. They are an expression of variability, and could thus be selected for both now and in the future, as conditions change.
I would further suggest that this is what is actually happening, as these traits would tend to facilitate the process of acting collectively/cooperatively as a species to overcome the lethal variability of the natural world, which we are unlikely to do as individuals or even small groups(remember those human evolutionary bottlenecks).
Forward together!
And I mean that in an apolitical sense, and say it without a trace of sarcasm or irony.
Caliban
Interested to hear your opinion- I'm sure that you are familiar with at least some elements of the case presented.
poopiehead
actually the faked and twisted science they used to advance their theories are eerily similar to the recent global warming scandal involving "Fake Science"
TheBigYin
bottomlesssoul
Species occupy more than one individual but they evolve. Social constructs evolve.
BTW, I don't care if people are openly heterosexual or otherwise.
MotleyBlue
I am disappointed! Only 6 points? It should have been at least 25! Well, I assume that if the wording was a little bit different the IQ difference would have been huge. For example if the first one was 'I don't believe in any supernatural beings' instead of 'not at all religious' which might include deists as well as atheists, then it would filter only the atheists. If the second option was 'I believe the world is ~6000 years old' then it would get only the "elite" of the very religious people.
Then yeah, that would have been amusing! :)
Objectivist
To tell you the truth I'm as surprised as anybody here, not about the conclusion and not about the data which it was based upon, but the way you people react to it. I'm going to go ahead and consider this paper factual, now you can choose to do whatever you want -- as long as you're not pushing to censor it, in which case you're actually fighting against liberalism and freedom.
Birger
In a more affluent society, we can afford to plan much longer ahead and maybe be more altruistic (I do not deny that "conservative" individuals have showed both consideration and generosity even in the impoverished old days). In regard to religion, if your situation is difficult, it will seem like a good investment to sacrifice to the spirits as a form of celestial insurance. When people feel secure and are affluent religious interest goes down -as can be seen in the Scandinavian countries.
Since we no longer live in a zero-sum society, "Evolutionarily novel" preferences and values have become possible on a large scale which I personally welcome (although we of the older generation will get irritated sometimes
kawasakibiker
Skeptic_Heretic
Seeing as you started with statements about Nazism I figured you'd be able to taste and see the idiocy of the article.
Liberal Monogamous White Atheists are no more superior than Blonde Blue Eyed Germans.
Every one cannot be judged by a statistical average of intellect, especially when the only marker was IQ, which has little to do with actual intellect.
The reason why the hypothesis is false is two fold:
1) limited sample size from an overly diverse population.
2) The concept that what humans are doing is evolutionarily new is wrong.
Atheism- fairly sure all animals practice atheism
Nocturnalism- Seriously? Every teenager alive is partially nocturnal and has been for a LOOOOONG time.
This is an ad hominem projection of what the researchers find to be ideal in man. Junk science at its worst.
Thiebs
Frink
Royale
Objectivist
Since when did liberalism become socialism? Last I heard liberalism was the exact opposite of socialism.
I'm not referring to what political parties like to call themselves. I'm referring to the actual meaning of the words "liberalism" and "socialism", since this article was referring to "liberals" and not "republicans" or "democrats".
Gojira_the_Great
Skeptic_Heretic
The statement above is in regards to fiscal or social liberalism? I'm a fiscal conservative and a social liberalist. What does that say about my intellect? Am I dumber than most because I like saving money or am I smarter than most because I recognize all humans as humans? Again, a very silly vague article speaking to a junk science point of evolutionary preference for a minority group.
Effectively non-populist propaganda.
Gojira_the_Great
Stuck in the clouds of your ego.
What minority group are you referring?
Skeptic_Heretic
Clouds of my ego, ha.
The minority group would be liberalists. In the 3 major thought processes of social responsibility there is Liberalism, Conservatism, and Isolationism.
Liberalism- spend the resources of society liberally
Conservatism- spend the resources of society conservatively
Isolationism- withdraw from society and maintain locally controlled resources
The majority in the world is conservatism followed by liberalism followed by isolationism. Prior to the internet apparently isolationism was the majority,Evidenced by several UN social polls taken between 2001 and 2008 by the Integrated Social Policies group
Skeptic_Heretic
Your idea of what liberal and progressive means in the context of the US is completely incorrect.
The "progressive" movement never had a bad name, nor was it ever considered liberal until after the 30's when the civil rights movements started.
Contrary to popular belief, MLK Jr. was a republican, and at the time the Republican party was considered the Progressive party partly due to the policies of TR but more due to the statements of "Societal Progress" and the expansion of rights.
kasen
Failures of method: Questionnaires and interviews with loaded questions which appeal to common stereotypes. Presumably small sample size, also culturally biased. Reference to IQ tests as infallible and complete measuring tools. Gross statistical data being used in rudimentary models relying on unquantifiable variables.
Failure of purpose: Think quantum observer effect. The act of measuring behaviour, especially by direct interaction, modifies it. This makes things hard with inanimate particles with limited degrees of freedom, how about something as volatile as human thought?
Real science offers virtual certainty and useful information. Social science is epistemologically futile and offers little to no practical benefit. Seriously, someone try to refute this last bit. Something good for society that came from sociology.
JayK
JayK
JayK
Advanced business practices, such as evolving program and project management. Understanding of class in societies and the psychological effects of class on economies. User interface design in regards to advanced technology and improvements on existing technology. Etc etc etc etc.
How many examples would you like, how granular and would you define "good for society" if you don't think my examples are enough.
Frink
Only in theory. In practice, as you would be aware if you had any concept of American history, not so much. We essentially had a free market economy up until Teddy Roosevelt. Regulation was necessary because of the actions of private enterprise. Again, education.
I'll refute this in a single word: Sweden. I'll send flowers to your argument's funeral.
@Objectivist
They share certain things in common, but are by no means identical. They are two distinct ideologies, but not opposites at all.
Skeptic_Heretic
Frink,
As you hastily dispatched Marjon's argument I can do the same for your argument against Capitalism: Hong Kong.
Ok, it wasn't one word, but still, give my regards at your argument's funeral.
Frink
1) Right, one does not entail the other. 2) You can only be a liberal or conservative socialist within the context of socialism, the same way you can be a Marxist socialist or a democratic socialist. Marxism, liberalism, conservatism and socialism are, otherwise, distinct ideologies.
"The minority group would be liberalists. In the 3 major thought processes of social responsibility there is Liberalism, Conservatism, and Isolationism.
Liberalism- spend the resources of society liberally
Conservatism- spend the resources of society conservatively
Isolationism- withdraw from society and maintain locally controlled resources"
Wrong context. We were talking about political philosophies, not economic dispositions. As political philosophies, their preferred economic systems do not reflect what you said.
Frink
Only if you ignore the government intervention to A) get the ball rolling, B) keep it rolling and C) give it a push when it stops rolling. Nice try, though.
JayK
alinator
JayK
If you are going to try to attack someone else's intelligence and then get the basic English incredibly wrong, you really make yourself look bad.
Yes, we all know you're a free-market whackjob with no education except for your ability to use google and copyNpaste. Did you actually have a point with all that nonsense, or were you just going for the new spam angle?
Skeptic_Heretic
And Sweden arose as a socialist republic with no government right? Wrong.
Capitalism doesn't concern itself with the government or the State.
peteone1
DarkestMidnight
Al_Wang
Feb 25, 2010peteone1
http://www.mindsz...b98.html
http://www.americ...ain.html
http://www.herita...l967.cfm
http://www.hawaii....ART.HTM
peteone1
You are an Leftwing elitist swine. I believe in God and am a conservative/liberatarian with a bacheolor of science in mechanical engineering & a measured IQ of 160. So what's your IQ?!
Skeptic_Heretic
As I said above IQ is not an indicator of intellect.
peteone1
coffeedude
"Better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." proverbs 17:28
The Bible is a wise book indeed, paraphrasing of course.
So i wasn't going to post on this thread. Just reading, enjoying riding the flame train, but darn it if Frink's illiteracy didn't kindle my Grammar Nazi(Socialist) rage. Frink if you can't understand words and the inherit connotations therein, don't spout off like a liberal puppet. Look up "stigmatize", or what a stigma is for that matter, and then realize how asinine your comment was toward marjon. Honestly I could care less about what your point is, politics is a game for the obsequious and weak. Killing babies is wrong (yes I mean fetuses, I was born one), having better more strong and more equally distributed economic policies that favor the middle class and poor rather than the grotesquely opulent rich is right. Call me a Neo-conservative. Half liberal, half conservative. The best parts of both worlds.
NotAsleep
Feb 25, 2010coffeedude
---
Education first, then opinion.
That's what a modern 'liberal arts' education gets you today, propaganda.
"It is important to realize that Fascism and Nazism were socialist dictatorships. The communists, both the registered members of the communist parties and the fellow-travellers, stigmatize Fascism and Nazism as the highest and last and most depraved stage of capitalism. "
http://www.econli...Epilogue
Are you a fellow traveler?
Says the guy who quotes someone who also has no clue what he's talking about.
1) Fascism is not "the highest and last and most depraved stage of capitalism." Fascism rejects capitalism as does communism. Having a "laissez faire" style of economy does not provide the kind of control totalitarian forms of government require.
2) Fascists had a more feudalism-styled economic system. Whoever you're quoting managed to misrepresent both totalitarian ideologies in a single sentence. Wow.
---
kasen
Not to sound too hippie, but how does that help the 80% of people who don't own stock portfolios? That is, assuming there is an actual increase in efficiency from these "advanced" techniques. Sturdier trade empires have been built w/o fancy buzzwords and corporate subculture.
I've already argued why that understanding would be shoddy. And, again, even if it were scientifically sound, how would it help anyone other than those with the resources to act on such knowledge?
How does that pertain to sociology, or even psychology for that matter? Like all things aesthetic, it's entirely subjective and prone to trend. Are saying that fashion is a science, too, now?
Statistics alone a science doesn't make. Look up the word pareidolia.
Frink
Take your medication before hitting the "Submit" button.
Love,
The Internet.
Frink
Hello, non sequitur. This doesn't make sense in any context. What were you getting at?
--
@Marjon
The Heritage Foundation is not a credible source. This is the equivalent of asking Sean Hannity whether Sarah Palin has better policies than Barack Obama. His answer is a forgone conclusion.
Now it's conspiracy theories? Honestly?
I've lost interest. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about and cannot attempt to continue this discussion without the crutch of Google. Come back when you've gotten a basic grasp of reconstruction to pre-cold war history, thanks.
JayK
Feb 25, 2010Al3
freethinking
Anyone here who thinks this article and research was well done, is a hard wing leftist nut job with a very low IQ which no amount of facts can convince them otherwise.
Leftists are like spoiled children, they think they are the center of the world and need to be told they are the center of the world, they have an innate desire to bully, they have to show how smart they are by using foul language.
The major problem with the left is that they believe everyone one is like them, they think everyone is corrupt, lazy, and ignorant. (smart people can be all of these)
The major problem with conservatives is that they generally believe people are like them, honest, hardworking, etc. Conservatives want to be liked and they have a tendency to back down to bullies as they want to be liked.
Generalization I know, but seeing the reaction on this board and in my life, very true.
Frink
Acknowledged.
freethinking
Mc3lnosher
Everyone is interested in something and that is where most people's knowledge lies. Some people are interested on what celebrity's ex is doing what. They aren't really "stupid". They just spent their time reading about gossip. I think space is awesome. I read about it a lot. We both did the same thing but because the topic I was interested in is considered "smart" so am I.
And people I said it earlier but i'll say it again. NO STYLE OF GOVERNMENT IS THE BEST. They are all what you make of them. You may have a preference but it is just that.
Somechic
Benjamin Franklin, Marquis de Sade, Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein, Abraham Lincoln, Edgar Poe, Susan Anthony, Plato, Samuel Clemens, Thomas Edison, Sigmund Freud, Frank Wright, Albert Einstein, Ernest Hemingway all atheists or agnostics! So not all docs, engineers, scientist are over intelligent, nor are they conservative/religious. Most studied very hard for what they know and will never be exceptional as those listed. But there are those that stand out very notably from the crowd and all of them had one thing in common besides their brains. They all went against normal beliefs and gained notoriety in what they did. (and some were killed by religious leaders that most would now call outdated or primitive beliefs)
TheBigYin
Objectivist
Socialism and liberalism are almost exact opposites (anarchy would be the exact opposite). This is not up for discussion, this is the very definition of the two ideologies. While the socialist wants a totalitarian government that governs all organs of society the liberal wants the government to be almost nonexistent and to only cover law enforcement, judicial system and national defenses and according to the liberal everything else should be controlled by market demands in a completely capitalistic system.
You're probably confusing liberalism with libertarianism or social liberalism. These are compromised forms of liberalism and are absolutely not to be counted as liberalism, because they fatally try to mix planned economy with market economy -- causing private entities to undermine governmental entities and vice versa -- back and forth, until the model breaks and one of the markets is finally dominant.
freethinking
JayK
http://www.youtub...HJa5Vj5Y
corticalchaos
jews did 911
stopsign68
stopsign68
trekgeek1
MatthiasF
Wow, a whole six points difference. What's the margin of error on IQ tests again? More than six points? Well, I'll be damned.
Mc3lnosher
Last time I checked Hitler's government, Stalin's government, Mao's government, North Korea, and South Korea are not types of government. They are specific examples of governments that are indeed a specific type of government. Coming up with an example of a government of a certain type which did bad things does not make the type as a whole bad. Its not like the U.S. hasn't done anything immoral EVER. Immoral people can get into positions of power and do immoral things. Even a pure democracy could vote to slaughter some children for fun.
So here it is again "They are all what you make of them." I guess there is also the possibility that you just can't Imagine a "good" government that isnt a republic or democratic.
@otto1923
A failed state can be dangerous. But it doesn't really matter what government was in place before it failed. I don't imagine I will want to be in the US when it collapses under its evergrowing debt and trade deficit.
Skeptic_Heretic
Dunning-Kruger.
Thanks JayK, that vid was great.
fuzz54
Embriette
Interesting that most criminals, journalists, humanities professors, people on welfare, bums on the street, are leftist progressives.
What...the....F***
Wake up from whatever dream you've been living in and stop saying absolutely retarded comments like these. You're only proving either that:
A) you're an extremist on the right
or
B) your IQ is in single digit numbers.
Your statements are insulting and without any statistical references, proof or foundation. Please try again.
Interesting how you say this individual has no statistical references, proof, or foundation, yet you show no statistical references, proof, or foundation to show he is wrong and to make your case stronger.
Embriette
It must be the fact that I'm a conservative Christian that kept me from that 36 on my ACT, the 100th percentile on my GRE, and from attending Harvard or UCSD.
Damn. If only I'd known.
Embriette
Uh yeah, thats exactly what I planned on doing. You called it.
Where did such a stupid comment come from?
Embriette
Just because I believe in God means I need to grow up? I don't insult you for your beliefs (or lack thereof). Whether or not God exists is not a question for me to answer-each individual must answer that. To me he does, do you he doesn't. The point of my comment was not to "spread my faith," but rather to show that even "Christian conservatives" can have high IQs and be just as intelligent as liberal atheists. Religion and political beliefs have nothing to do with it. Lets get back to the science-could genetics play an important role? Gee...I don't know. Crazy thought, huh?
Embriette
My apologies for the ignorance.
All I can say is, good thing I'm not a socialist, whew!
BetterByDesign
--
This article fails to mention that there were many people who didn't believe in GOD throughout history as well.
I think the matter involves more of thinking of what Economists call "externalities," the HIDDEN cost of something ("lurking variables" by a Statistician's verbiage).
Also, IQ cannot measure all types of intelligences (it is based on culture, religion, sex, creed, etc). IQ tries to quantify the unquantifiable; there will be lurking variables. IQ is a western standard used for western purposes; to claim that it does measure intelligence is a truth dependent on the CONTEXT of the environment.
Perhaps science and technology hasn't caught up to God's knowledge:
http://www.scient...ave.html
http://www.dailym...ist.html
shadfurman
shadfurman
On an infinite timeline I can only see two probably outcomes for humanity.
1. We become extinct (by a large astroid, our sun going super nova, or the collapse of the universe, it doesn't matter) at which point (if there is no god) all our beliefs and decisions and morals will have had little if any influence on the universe and will eventually be completely forgotten. Meaning... there are no wrong decisions and the propagation of our species and our evolutionary chemical drive to continue will have been pointless.
2. We somehow manage to escape all catastrophes and continue to evolve over billions of billions of years to into beings that have near absolute knowledge and control of ourselves and our surroundings and thereby becoming god-like. Were this to happen it would indicate a fairly high probability of another being doing the same thing.
Summery: Morals are pointless or the existence of a "god" is probable. Regardless I hope for the latter.
Paradox
Does that mean that unnatural people have intelligent preferences and values?
(Grins!)
PinkElephant
The study under discussion talked about average scores. Nowhere in the article did they claim that all samples within either population (religious or atheist) had identical values.
According to that study, in statistical parlance, you're an outlier. Whooptie doo.
PinkElephant
(1) Regardless of your two scenarios, your individual life is finite and will soon be over. To you as an individual, and even to your offspring, it doesn't matter what happens on an infinite timeline. To your actual life in the here and now, morals are very much important, because they help keep you alive and well amid a society of other humans.
(2) The ostensibly highly-developed beings you project don't meet the typical definition of "God" -- that being an entity which pre-existed the universe, created the universe, possibly planned everything out in advance, and gives the universe as a whole and all of its inhabitants an a priori anthropomorphic purpose.
(3) What do we know about what existed before the Big Bang, and what do we know about the ultimate destiny of the universe? Any infinite-timeline projections from such ignorance would be premature and pointless.
Ronan
PinkElephant
IQ measures pattern recognition, logical thinking, cognitive inertia, and creativity.
IQ does not measure:
- interpersonal/communication skills
- rote memory
- coordination/agility/gracefulness/reflexes
- practical knowledge (how to fix a car, how to raise a chicken)
- artistic proclivity (the degree to which you are inspired, uninhibited, and expressive in any form of art)
- orientation/navigation
- leadership/organizational/mentoring abilities
- etc?
It can be argued that the things IQ does measure, play important roles in virtually any facet of human activity. But IQ is not by any means a complete assessment of a person's cognitive repertoire.
Husky
Instead I fight my uncontrollable liberal urge to apply our open-source Very Loose Interpretation wich, by looking at melting icecubes in a glass of whisky and depending on rate of ingestion, not only finds evidence for global warming and global cooling but also allows to grossly extrapolate any study findings well beyond the scope of: Evolution --> New Thoughts in New Brains, DUH! Who would have thought that?? These new thoughts might include but certainly not be limeted to the seemingly cherry picked examples of liberalism/atheism as if the author invites liberals to inflate their ego powered by the belief of being smarter (and therefor more knowledgeable about the truth/right/wrong) aiming to stir furious debate and hype among the sensitive political divide.
Embriette
As a matter of fact, my program is "forcing" me to take a statistics course, and I have taken a statistic course in my undergrad. First of all, I never said I was anything other than an outlier. I never said I wasn't-but I also never said that Christians, in general, were more intelligent than non-Christians. I was just using myself as an example of the "other side"-simply because many people reading this article seem to take it out of context and use it as an absolute to justify their religious or political beliefs.
Second of all, if you want to talk statistics and the statistical basis of this article, can you tell me if the sample size was large enough and varied enough to be applied to the general population in any dependable way? How many people were sampled? Of what race were they? What parts of the world were they from? What types of societies were they from? Unless you sample peoples of every kind, nation, and background, the statistics mean nothing.
Skeptic_Heretic
Sounds more like the title of a blog than a scientific study.
Al3
I guess I'm speaking more of people who do research. Why would they continue to do research if they know it all? At the same time, I'm reminded of Dr. Phil Jones and computer models you can feed junk data into and get hockey sticks... so maybe you're right.
Al3
Works for me.
maunas
maunas
PinkElephant
http://www.cpc.un...#samples
xponen
I wish to add to the article; -the tendency to recognize the extra-phenomenal concept of God depends on cultural influence. If someone lives in cultural environment where religious dogma is used to ->rationalize irrational behaviour
antialias
This is a study. It computes averages and variances (i.e. it uses _statistics_ ). You cannot use statistics to firmly predict what should happen in a singular case. One case that does not conform to the averages does not invalidate a study
(I guess this is what the anti-global warming guys don't understand when they say "but outside my door it was cold this morning - so global warming must be a hoax" )
Mc3lnosher
"How do you make a socialist government system moral? It is systemically immoral."
The idea behind socialism is that all members of a society receive equal treatment. If the government is responsible for healthcare, everyone gets it. So remind me again how it is immoral for everyone to have access to the same service, protection, and status? I just don't see it. And If you bring up another communist dictator that did his job poorly that is not proof that socialism is immoral. Sweden is a democracy but it has socialized health care. Everyone in that country has it. Sounds fair to me. Go ahead complpain about how the healthcare would suck. Still everyone is treated equally therefore morally. Get this, I have private health insurance here in the states. I made an appointment with my doctor for Monday. I made this appointment Wednesday. In Sweden you are required to be seen by a primary care physician in 3 days. My appointment would be Saturday.
Mc3lnosher
"Socialist governments have the philosophy that the government grants rights to its victims. The only opportunity they have to 'make of them' is to try and survive."
What does this mean? I don't get what you are saying.
xponen
Sometimes one case-studies can invalidate the whole statistical studies. Certain hypothesis; such as: cultural environment effect perception of god, is stronger if you focus on small group of people. For example; Galileo's free-fall experiment is not statistical, it use one special case to invalidate all Aristorelian statistical perceptions. (try to wiki "case-studies")
I believe in global-warming, you're commiting a logical fallacy by associating me with other fallacious logics.
xponen
antialias
Statistics are not ironhard predictions for every case. Outliers are possible and not all distributions are normal ones.
You cannot invalidate a statistical analysis with a 'counterexample' (only if the analysis is of the type "100% of all X are Y") - but this is not the case here.
All you could do is perform a census and show that your results deviate from the one presented AND that your census has a greater statistical power (or show some bias was present in the original study that isn't in yours).
ReeseJ2
On the other hand, @antialias: your claim that IQ does not equate with intelligence undermines this case study, which does indeed equate IQ and intelligence. Though I do agree that the IQ of a person has surprising little to do with their intelligence.
My concern with this study is the margin of error. Most of these differences are on the order of 3%, which is not a lot. Depending on their sample size, that could be well within the error. Also, what backgrounds are people coming from? Religous/nonreligous families? Democratic/republican states? Etc.
antialias
E.g.: There are plenty of intelligent people who just don't know what statistics are, what they can tell you (and what they cannot tell you).
It all comes down how you do the tests (and sometimes even to what cultural background you administer the test. E.g. chinese people think more in terms of pictures than sound and will therefore score lower on phoneme related question while scoring consistently higher on picture related ones)
Overall intelligence is such a broad property that tests only ever evaluate a part of it.
Embriette
You said my tone implied that I was using myself as an example. Isn't that exactly what I went on to say I was doing? Thanks for pointing that out for me again. You seem to keep missing the fact that I wasn't using myself as proof that the article is wrong, just as an example of the 'other side." Once again, I am not saying that all conservative Christians are smarter than all liberal non-Christians (I feel like a broken record).
As for your link to the statistics, remind me again why I was looking at that? All I found was info on adolescent whites and blacks in America. Certainly not a representation of the whole world.
And it would be hard to sample beings from other galaxies, when we don't even know if they exist, and even if they did, we haven't figured out how to communicate with them yet. Wasn't this a study of humans anyway?
Maybe we should have God take an IQ test, and see how He comes out?
Dan_K
I say this as an athiest with liberal values on equality and human rights but who hates the "liberal party" because it's full of loud mouthed individuals that try to shove thier ideals down your throat... like... like the author of this article.
Dan_K
Heh, I read this and expected to see god but got global warming.
The bloggers are entirely correct. AGW has become a religion.
Mc3lnosher
"The US Constitution is designed to provide equal treatment under the law and equal opportunity."
So then why can't gays get married? It is unconstitutional that they are treated differently, yet the vast majority of states do so. This flaw does not make democracy inherently bad.
"What if there are not enough doctors? Will the state force people to become doctors?"
You are still missing the point. Sweden is a democracy with socialized medicine. If there were not enough doctors they would HIRE more. Lets just imagine though that Sweden was communist. There are many ways that a communist state could get the amount of doctors that they need some more desirable for people than others. Many of these systems could be designed fairly though, meaning that everyone goes through the same process. It could possibly be done similar to the US military where aptitude tests are taken and one must qualify for a job. It can be done morally even if you can't imagine it.
Mc3lnosher
This is exactly where I was waiting for you to go.
"There is no incentive for anyone to work hard to 'get ahead' because the government punishes such efforts."
First of all the government would not necessarily punish someone for working hard. In fact the best system would still encourage it somehow.
This is the part that all of the greedy Americans miss. It is entirely possible that everyone gets paid the same yet the majority still tries to do their job well. You may be right that in a population the size of a major country it would be tough. However there are income sharing communities inside the US and elsewhere that cooperatively grow their own food, build their own houses, and live together. It works there. You say there is no incentive to work hard. What about making your country or community great and functional. That is a noble goal. Dollar signs are the most important thing in the US. That doesn't mean they have to be. That is just our culture.
Mc3lnosher
It doesn't really matter how the government decides who can get married. If some people can and others can't thats immoral. Saying that homosexuals have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex is like saying that all men in the untied states have the right to get a pap smear. Heterosexual marriage is useless to homosexuals. Pointing to this is more of a slap in the face than an expression of equality. We are getting away from the argument that socialism can be moral. I was just pointing out that there are immoral expressions in democracies too. Again this specific case of immorality doesnt mean that democracy is immoral just like it wouldnt mean socialism was.
"Where would they hire such doctors to work under such restrictions if they could choose to work in a less restrictive environment?"
I don't really know where they were hired. They apparently hired them somewhere, because Sweden does have doctors, and ranks highly in many health categories.
Mc3lnosher
You are absolutley right
"The military recruits doctors just like any hospital or clinic. The military doesn't give aptitude tests and force a new recruit to medical school for 8 years."
A well set up socialist country also would not force anyone to go to 8 years of medical school. Believe it or not some people choose to be doctors for reasons other than money. Some people genuinely like to help others. Being a doctor is a great way to do this. Many doctors in ERs could make more money in a private practice yet stay in hospitals. Why? Because money isn't why they became a doctor. People can be motivated by other things than money. Doctors in a socialist country would be people who wanted to help and also academically qualify. In a well set up system they would get recognition and honor for their effort, while recieving the same pay as everyone else. Recognition and honor are useless in the US culture where money drives most things.
Mc3lnosher
"I prefer rewards based upon merit."
I know you prefer more money with jobs of "merit."
Thats why you are arguing with me. So socialism isn't your preference.
I do remember saying this,
"And people I said it earlier but i'll say it again. NO STYLE OF GOVERNMENT IS THE BEST. They are all what you make of them. You may have a preference but it is just that."
Liking democracy more or prefering it still doesn't make socialism immoral. I'll even grant that it is easier to have a moral democracy than a moral socialist country. Still doesn't mean either is impossible.
brainiac125
"All thinking men are atheists."
-Ernest Hemingway
Mc3lnosher
"What kind of recognition and honor? Government medals? Special titles? Three letters after their name like PhD?"
See you immediately dismissed the fact that being a hero to the state is worthless. In your mind if it isn't beneficial to only yourself it is worthless. But again thats your preference. I get it, you don't want to live in a socialist country. Some people do.
RJB26
Mc3lnosher
"socialism is the preferred form of gov't for leaches who cant or wont fend for themselves and power hungry leftist douchebags who want to control the leaches who cant or wont fend for themselves."
Thanks for your constructive comment. You have added a lot of class legitimacy to our discussion.
DocM
Hate to burst your bubble, but a large percentage of physicians in socialized medicine nations leave for places like the US where they can make a buck instead of working for mechanics wages.
Also, socialized medicine can't be all that good given how many come to the US from Europe and especially Canada for treatment. Hospitals in Detroit, including Henry Ford Hospital, have so many of them they've opened entire clinics just to treat them. Seems if you're over 50 or have a disease that's expensive to treat (esp. colon cancer) you get put on a waiting list that all too often waits until you're dead before your turn comes up.
Don't say it doesn't happen ... I spent 30 years in health care and saw it all too often once Canada instituted their system.
jabailo
Which is it?
Even a dummy like me can see polemic disguised as science!!
xponen
1- http://www.scienc...2117.htm
2- http://www.scienc...2500.htm
3- one paper says; adolescent do shed neurons, but hi-IQ do more, but thicker white matter (if my memory is right).
x- average people often try to convince dis-believer using obviously shallow reasoning, this make them sound idiot... (maybe they just lack communication skills?)
xponen
My point was; the dis-agreeable nature of intelligent people is caused by creative mind [1]. Because (imo) rare association were often made to explain one's experience rather than using the obvious "god did it" reasoning. -For example, one believer may find the evidence of god to be self-evident, whilst, intelligent people find it too ignorant.
1- http://en.wikiped...hibition
Otto1882
ArtflDgr
Skeptic_Heretic
Remove the politics.
If they said smarter people tend to innovate within society and personal activities I think we'd all agree.
Yellowdart
Mc3lnosher
"Hate to burst your bubble, but a large percentage of physicians in socialized medicine nations leave for places like the US where they can make a buck instead of working for mechanics wage"
You didn't burst my bubble at all. I don't care where anyone wants to practice medicine or what kind of government they want to have. All I'm saying is that Socialism can be moral. You said that a high percentage of doctors leave countries with socialized medicine, well that's not 100% is it? Obviously Sweden would not be the ideal money making place for a doctor, you are right. I kinda like money myself, all I'm talking about is that not everyone is as obsessed with it as US citizens. You guys can keep saying how terrible you think it would be allllllllll day but you are not affecting my argument or my bubble.
Skeptic_Heretic
How about we repeat the study on someone of voting age and see where the stats stand?
Embriette
Haha, nice comment. That is my real name. I guess my parents are pretentious people.
Embriette
I'm sorry that your experiences with Christians have left you so bitter-which is why I don't like Christians. They are too pushy and they shove their beliefs down other peoples' throats. That is not what true Christianity is all about, and that is not what I am all about. I guess before I say I am a "Christian" I should define what "Christian" is to me. To me its not someone who sees themselves as a member of "an exclusivist group." To me a Christian is someone who believes in the existence of God and the gift of His son for salvation from sin. It is not my place, or any other Christian's place to judge those who don't believe. It says it right in the Bible. Christians are only to judge other Christians. So a Christian who judges a non-believer isn't following their own God (its in the book of James).
The problem with Christianity today is that it follows rules and traditions founded by men, not by God.
I guess that once again, I'm an outlier.
Skeptic_Heretic
No, the people when attacked by their government have physical recourse.
If only that would make them stop.
If you consider our directions into discovering what actually represents a hypothesis, theory, and construct bothers you, feel free to ignore it.
JayK
Skeptic_Heretic
Young adult is from age 14-21 by most standards. IQ tests in adolescence do not equate to the results from contemporary IQ tests.
So what you're saying is either there's NO correlation or there's absurdly weak correlation.
freethinking
Why?
Only the smartest liberal progressives who have mental disorders go into Psyscology, the rest either become congressmen, ACORN activists, inmates, or just go on welfare.
Only the dumbest christian or religious people, go into psychology as it is well known that Psychology professors are crazy leftwing progressives who hate christians, the USA, freedom and equality and will flunk anyone who disagree with their beliefs.
So in this study they took the brightest progressives who are just marginally smarter than average and compared them to the dumbest christians who are just marginally dumber than average.
If they would have studied the real sciences and engineering depts. where the intelligent christians hang out conculsion would have been different.
Yellowdart
JayK
freethinking
If I as a conservative would do the same for JayK, I would consider him a nice honest, loving guy, who cared for his fellow man (person).
JayK
http://www.physor...975.html
http://www.physor...458.html
and the best one ever!
http://www.physor...459.html
go troll somewhere else, freethinking.
Mc3lnosher
"The only moral socialism is one with 100% volunteers."
Now you are thinking. No government can be moral UNLESS its citizens choose to participate. If they are forced to live there, that would be immoral.
"Demonstrate it."
How exactly do you propose I do that. I don't really have time to create my own sovereign nation to validate my argument. Although I do seem to have copious amounts of time, as I have been trying to champion the mere possibility of something for days now.
"Socialism practiced on the nation-state level must use coercion, taking from those that work and 'giving' to those that do not."
Willing participants of a governmental system would not feel very "coerced" when they followed the rules. By doing a job like being an engineer (one that you consider "real work") they are performing a necessary niche in that society. The man that collects the trash (apparently not working) also gets that stuff away from your house that rots.
freethinking
James was written most likely around A.D. 45. If history serves me, Rome was still purcecuting Christians at that time.
I agree with you that teaching the origins of Christianity is lacking in the schools. Either it is ignored or taught by professors who hate christianity. My kids have been taught more about the Muslim religion (none of the negative stuff), Buhdism, than Christianity. What little they have been taught about Christianity is laughably wrong.
Mc3lnosher
Just because you associate some jobs with small dollar amounts does not mean that they don't need to be done for society to function correctly and if you wanted to live in a socialist state you would understand this. You say this is a society that is for leaches but it is for a society much more ambitious than ours because if everyone does not work to perform their job the society can collapse. The people must have a sense of community and working towards a common goal. Much too hard for Americans. If they have to share with someone else, well there is absolutely no reason to try.
freethinking
again you inner hate and homophobia is coming out. Just because I dont approve of smoking doesnt mean I hate smokers. Just because I dont hate smokers doesnt mean I will tell people smoking is good for them so not to hurt the feelings of smokers. Smoking like Homosexual behaviour is bad for you, and I disagree with. I have friends who smoke, and who are practicing homosexuals. They know I dont approve of either behaviour, but we still get along because unlike you, they understand disagreement doesnt equate to hate, unless your a radical progressive such as yourself.
Again, you and a lot of progressives take disagreement of opinions as hate. I believe you take disagreement as hate because you have such a low self esteem and confidence in your ideas.
Mc3lnosher
etiennem
If you are a conservative traditionalist, you would have to admit that originality of thought is not one of your strongest traits. You would most probaly spurn new thinking. You would cling to known ideas. Would the cream of scientists and thinkers be found in your grouping? Most likely not.
It does not make you redundant, just average. As the article stated.
freethinking
Dark ages was caused by the collapse of the Roman empire, desease, and war. Not by the lack of new thinking.
Etiennem, if you actually looked into it you would realize that christians have been the leaders in Medicine, education, engineering, music, art, archetecture, exploration etc for the last 2000 years.
But if all you learned about christianity was in public schools, you can be forgiven for your ignorance.
etiennem
I said nothing of religion. But, since you mentioned it, do you think of Leonardo da Vinci as a Christian? Just because the predominant religion of a certain society was Christianity, does not mean that the leading innovaters were followers of the Christian dogma, at all. You can use Galileo Galilei as an example, as well.
JayK
The Inquisition? That was just a frat prank that got a little out of hand. The constant religious persecution of scientists? Well that wasn't really because of religion, it was just the fault of liberals. Ugandan homosexual purge? It only looks bad if you think about it, so those nice xtians would prefer you just not think about it.
etiennem
etiennem
Just a thought.
freethinking
John Philoponus, Bede, the Venerable, Pope Sylverst II, Hermann of Reichenau, Robert Grosseteste, Pope John XXI, Albertus Magnus, Roger Bacon, Theodoric of Freiberg, Thomas Bradwardine, Jean Buridan, Nicole Oresme, Micholas of Cusa, Otto Brunfels, Nicolas Copernicus, Bartholomaeus Pitisus, John Napier, Johannes Kepler, Laurentius Gothus, Galileo Galilei, Marin Mesenne, Anton Maria Schyrleus, Blaise Pascal, Issac Barrow, Robert Boyle, John Wallis, John Ray, Issac Newton, Colin Maclaurin, Stephen Hales, Thomas Bayes, Firmin Abauzit, Carolus Linnaeus, Leonhard Euler, Augustin Louis Cauchy, Lars Levi Laestadius, Edward Hitchock, William Whewell, Temple Chevallier, John Bachman, Arnold Henry Guyot, Gregor Mendel, Asa Gray, James Dwight Dana, Louis Pasteur, Freeman Dyson, Allan Sandage...
Many.... Many... Many more...
Mc3lnosher
"Etiennem, if you actually looked into it you would realize that christians have been the leaders in Medicine, education, engineering, music, art, archetecture, exploration etc for the last 2000 years."
You don't think that is just a little exagerated?
Mc3lnosher
"All state religions do, by Design."
You mean by INTELLIGENT design! Ahahahahahaha
hohohohohohohohohoho!
Sorry guys just had to. Not really knocking on that if its your belief.
PinkElephant
... as literacy and knowledge in general were deemed too dangerous in the hands of the rabble at large, and so were both actively repressed and strenuously persecuted.
It's funny to see the selfsame people rail against totalitarianism, then extol the virtues of Christian theocracy in medieval Europe.
Ah, there truly is nothing quite like accusing someone of Herecy. The poor substitute of Communist Sympathizer in the McCarthy days just didn't have the same lethal elegance...
Though Stalin certainly got the fear factor right with in his purges; but when Stalin does it, it's evil. When the Church does it, it's God's Work.
Ethelred
Ethelred
Skeptic_Heretic
jjurbanus
Mc3lnosher
"You mean by INTELLIGENT design! Ahahahahahaha
hohohohohohohohohoho!"
You guys really didn't think that was funny at all?
Meh.
yunck05
(In God We Hope)Browns University,Dei sub numine viget
(Under God's power she flourishes)Princeton University,In lumine Tuo videbimus lumen
(In Thy light shall we see the light)Columbia Univerisy,Lux et veritas
(Light and truth)Yale. Don't forget about the University of Pennsylvania Quakers. How were the Best University founded by such unintelligent people
freethinking
Allan Sandage, Antonino Zichichi, John Polkinghorn, Owen Gingerich, r.j. berry, Michal Heller, Ghillean Prance, Donald Knuth, Eric Priest, Henry Schaefer, Robert Baker, Kenneth Miller, Francis collins, Simon Morris, John Barrow, Denis Alexander, Christopher Isham, John Lennox.
Is that a big enough lis for anonyfornt?
Are there ignorant Christians? Of course. Are there ignorant Athiests? Of course. As I said many times, IQ is independant of faith. You have smart christians you have dumb christians. This study is a dumb study and only dumb athiests or progressives think it is relevant.
Christians and Jews are exhorted to prove all things and hold fast to that which is true. Sadly too many Christians, Athiests and Progressives dont follow that advise.
freethinking
From these posts what have we learned children?
We have learned from JayK that progressives hate, like to call names, and like to slur people by calling them homosexuals.
We have learned form Otto1923 that leftist either like to distort scripture and are completely ignorant of history.
We have learned from Etiennem and Mc3inosher that because of liberal activist progressive teachers and professors the true contribution to science and engineering from christians is being ignored.
We learned from the activist progressive scientists who wrote the study, the more prgressive and liberal the scientist, the less reliable their science.
JayK
freethinking
Conservatism = logic and facts and truth
Progressivism = feelings and hate and lies
The end justifies the means is a progressive belief
Prove all things, hold fast to that which is true is a conservative belief
freethinking
But when talking to progressives and leftists, if I discussed and debated with them on their beliefs, they started to call names, insult intelligence, etc.
So the difference between a true conservative and a leftist progressive is that a conservative will allow the other to be wrong and not be upset. A Leftist progressive must make the other think right.
jjurbanus
Otto, in my opinion there is something strange and genuine that can happen in a sincere venture into christianity. But to keep the venture pure, the true spirit of Jesus should be sought. Jesus embodied a religion of action, not a religion of satisfying yet ineffectual words. Paul was a force to recon with who relayed Jesus to the world, but must the writings of any scholar necessarily either be taken in uncritical totality or total disregard? No matter how inspired, in my opinion Paul at times ventured into a religion of words (such as focus on faith) rather than actions and establishing enriching environments (which can interact well with faith, yet faith may not be necessary). The book of James makes this clear...
jjurbanus
freethinking
Also for your venture into christianity you didnt go very far if all you hauled out was booty. Also you seem much to smart to believe what you are saying. No credable person doubts that Jesus, Paul, or James existed or that the things that happened in the new testament happened. The only resonable questions is how, not if, certain things occured.
PinkElephant
Let's see if freehating has the wherewithal to follow his own political theogony, and just let otto "be wrong". Or perhaps he'll insist on making otto "think right"?
Thanks to you both; I am genuinely amused.
PinkElephant
Shall we respect the person-hood of addicts and pushers, and legalize all drugs regardless of how addictive and destructive they might be?
Personally, as a hated "atheist progressive", I happen to think that all drugs ought to be legalized and regulated, just like tobacco and alcohol. I happen to believe that the "war on drugs" is just as much of an abysmal failure as the "war on terrorism".
Will you join me in my progressive stance, or will you retreat into hypocrisy?
(By the way, WRT smoking, I'm fine if you do it -- just as long as you do it away from where I and my family dwell, sleep, eat, and play. I just don't want to have YOUR smoke in MY lungs. As a "conservative", can you understand that??)
PinkElephant
PinkElephant
Those drugs SHOULD be taxed though, because they do produce a cost that society at large must bear. They make people ill, and they make people accident-prone. Both of which impacts emergency rooms, mortality rates, and general costs of care -- which ultimately you and I must pay out of pocket in the form of insurance premiums and taxes. So, either you charge yourself and everyone indirectly for someone else's transgressions, or you make the transgressor pay up on the spot in the form of tax. IMHO, tax is a much simpler, fairer, and neater solution.
PinkElephant
PinkElephant
After all, the world's what we make of it, innit?
JayK
PinkElephant
Well, you don't really need to answer. I already know what you think, and I already know you've managed to reconcile Randian ideology with your religion. Hypocrisy is a wonderfully universal glue that can hold just about anything together. Remember though, don't think too hard...
Mc3lnosher
jjurbanus
Point well taken Otto. And to add to that, a person that is able in social dynamics to put other’s interest above their own may help other people learn and grow. The influence Jesus had in advancing this idea in the ancient world is large. And of course besides the efficacy of one’s “god” in their life, the unrelenting, ever self examining, never accepting givens, quest of truth for truth itself is also nice.
jjurbanus
PinkElephant
jjurbanus
jjurbanus
jjurbanus
peteone1
Let's see, feeding the poor, freeing the captives, healing the sick...the followers of Christ certainly have a reputation to follow...the one laid on Matthew 25:34-40. ;-)
peteone1
The indisputable fact of history among all reputable scholars (those that aren't Christophobic Leftwing Secular Fundamentalists with a theological ax to grind)is that Jesus of Nazareth was a real rabbi who lived & taught in 1st Century AD Judea. His miracles and all resurrection are a matter of faith for those of us who are Christians and are out of the realm of empirical science.
((Word of mouth, edict of Rome, despotism of kings, torch of the Inquisition, and sword of colonial conquest. Yes, Jesus has quite a reputation))
Let's see, feeding the poor, freeing the captives, healing the sick...the followers of Christ certainly have a reputation to follow...the one laid on Matthew 25:34-40. ;-)
Skeptic_Heretic
Hi,
Skeptic Heretic here. I have serious doubts about Jesus actually existing, and I have a strong doubt that Paul actually was Paul and not a group of people including Paul, that all the writings were ascribed to.
And there are many credible writing style experts who agree with me on the latter, and credible historians who agree with me on the former.
JayK
freethinking
Sorry Otto, Jayk, and others. You lost badly on this point.
The truth is, Athiests and Religious people average out to have the same intelligence (IQ if you want to use that).
Also the truth is that religious people by in large(christians if you want to be specific) are more curious and generally are into hard sciences more so than leftist progressives for many reasons.
The truth is I can find ignorant hateful conservative christians, just as I can find ignorant hateful progressive Athiests. (JayK and Otto come to mind)
The truth is that those that are conservatives genernally are more compasionate and need less prompting by government to do the right thing and care for their neighbor.
The truth is that leftist progressives are by in large more hateful and need to be forced by their government to do the right thing.
JayK
As for religious vs. atheists on an intelligence scale? I'll bet there is a graph for that:
http://lifelovean...gion.png
JayK
JayK
But please, do continue, I love watching you flail wildly. By the way, you might want to watch the hypocrisy about name-calling and flinging insults. You've done a lot more than anyone else, other than unfreethinking.
freethinking
Im not sure, but I have the make a living between these posts so I dont have a lot of time. JayK unless you own your own business you must be stealing your employers times, or you are unemployed.
BTW, the great thinkers and orininators of the modern Porgressive movement are:
Margaret Sanger - a proponent of eugentics
Vladimir Lenin
Benito Mussolini
Karl Marx
Joseph Stalin
Hitler
Mao Zedong
Great bunch of guys you have for your movement. Between them your great thinkers have killed over 100 million people. I wouldnt dare consider these people dumb. They were smart enough to rise to power, fool a lot of people, and destroy a lot of nations.
Skeptic_Heretic
Eugenics has little to nothing to do with progressivism. I'm a proponent of eugenics and far from progressive in thought or political inclination. That being said, I am against forced eugenics and breeding programs, however, at some point in time genetic manipulation will make eugenics the social norm and make natural births the stigmatized "barbaric" practice.
JayK
do you type with your face or the stump of a hand that you lost to a moon-shining accident?
Skeptic_Heretic
And it was once thought that the world sat atop a great turtle.
It's amazing what happens when you add perspective to a discussion. Perhaps you need to open yours up a little bit.
PinkElephant
Take the chronicles of Harry Potter, for example. There is indeed such a place as England, and even such a city as London. Moreover, the city of London has a King's Cross station in it.
So who dares dispute the existence of Hogwarts, and the reality of Magic? If you do, marjon, you're nothing but an ignorant little Muggle...
etiennem
Noah's Ark (the Durupınar site, located 18.25 miles south of Mount Ararat)
Anchor stones (or drogue stones) used by Noah on the Ark
The post-flood house, grave markers and tombs of Noah and his wife
The location of Sodom and Gomorrah
Sulfur/brimstone balls from the ashen remains of Sodom and Gomorrah.
The Tower of Babel site (in southern Turkey)
The site of the Israelites' crossing of the Red Sea
Chariot wheels and other relics of the army of Pharaoh at the bottom of the Red Sea
The site of the biblical Mt. Sinai
The rock at Mt. Horeb from which water flowed when struck by Moses
A chamber at the end of a maze of tunnels under Jerusalem containing artifacts from Solomon's Temple
And many more...
And was the pinup-boy for fundamentalist Biblical archaeology.
And was proved to be a total fraud.
PinkElephant
The amazing and magical creature, to which we refer as a Phoenix, and heretofore assumed nothing but a myth, had in fact been repeatedly and reliably documented by many ancient historians, including some of the founders of the Christian religion:
http://en.wikiped...#History
Indeed, there are many more historical references to the Phoenix, than there are to Jesus.
Phoenixes are real, folks!
freethinking
As for a person who stated he found x or y, if he is wrong and he is proven wrong good. Prove all things...hold fast to that which is true.
PinkElephant
breadhead
So intelligence comes by natural processes in nature? Is it survival of the fittest, or survival of the most intelligent?
Does an article qualify for the Evolution section of this website by just using the word "Evolution", and "millions of years" over and over again?
Do people actually get paid to write this nonsense? There is no proof for anything in this article, it is all conjecture. You are welcome to believe it. But it is not science. Can you perform and observe case studies of our ancestors behaviors? Can you prove they even lived millions of years ago? So let's study people from today, and say they "probably" did such and such
millions of years ago. Nothing like rock solid science like this, to convince me.
Skeptic_Heretic
A great many more are based upon superstition and control. The story of Troy didn't result in multiple genocides throughout history.
Negative. I've never had a conservative tell me I have to pay for someone else because they're mentally retarded or sick. Only the progressives think we're all unique snowflakes. Second, eugenics is the belief that particular traits are preferential and as such should be more widely introduced into the human gene pool. Eugenics is a fancy term for objectively defined evolution. The reason why it's such a dirty word is because the "eugenecists" of the past were subjective, not objective. They went for appearance, not environmental merit.
Mc3lnosher
Neither it is survival of the best reproducing. Ultimately anything that goes extinct did not reproduce well enough.
Skeptic_Heretic
And then a single disease wipes out the entire genetically similar population...
It's survival of the most well adapted to their current environment.
freethinking
When certain groups are deemed less valuable, eugentics leads to the final solution. The final solution in germany, started as the eugentics.
Skeptic_Heretic
The final solution in Germany was subjective or appearance based genetics based on racial profiling. Eugenics can be ethical.
freethinking
If a couple decide not to have children because of the threat of disease passed on to their children. Thats their choice, and is not eugenics. Government telling them they cant have children, or killing those deemed inferior is eugenics and is never ethical and always leads to final solution.
Skeptic_Heretic
Freethinking, your application of the term eugenics is based only upon WW2. You need to greatly re-examine what eugenics means and the multiple ways in which eugenics can be applied without killing or preventing the breeding of anyone.
GMO crops are an example of eugenics. Would you say that is an evil?
JayK
http://en.wikiped...Eugenics
Eugenics is selective breeding of humans with various goals, mainly to improve the future gene pool. Nothing anywhere about eugenics for corn, or anything else.
Skeptic_Heretic
"the study of all agencies under human control which can improve or impair the racial quality of future generations"
JayK
I think your definition is more of an out-of-context quote.
Skeptic_Heretic
The view of Eugenics as a breeding program or racial science is inaccurate. I was stating that your definition is in line with Galton.
We've since proven Galton's statement of the races as being incorrect and based on scientific racism. This has stained the idea and promoted eugenics as an evil.
Eugenics includes pre-natal gene therapy, food crop manipulation in order to address digestive disorders, manipulation of the human genome in all forms is a subset of eugenics. Most of which we can all agree on being beneficial and not morally or immorally motivated.
freethinking
For animal and crops, if you want to apply the term eugenics be my guest, but I dont think it is the best term to use as eugenics is typically applied to humans. BTW I would have no problems with it if applied to crops and animals other than general safety issues.
Otto, again you show yourself a progressive. Skeptic a conservative stated his definition and it appears we agree for the most part once the definition was cleared up.
freethinking
The most ruinous pathological anachronism we have had in 100 years has been progresivism. Wipe that out you will be free to enjoy your athiesm, and I my religion in peace.
Skeptic_Heretic
The term Eugenics arose when we didn't know what DNA was. We thought by killing unwanted children and breeding "perfect" people we'd have a more perfect race. We now know a lot more about human reproduction and the things that make a person's trait beneficial or detrimental.
Of course the popular definition of eugenics is garbage, similar to the popular definition of socialism.
The meaning is in the interpretation. If the interpreter is ethical, the interpretation will most likely be a reflection of those morals.
@marjon:
The ones that aren't in the bible.
JayK
jjurbanus
i like to think of myself more as a do gooder.
I used to take a similar hard line on religion and christianity (but not on God), but have since lightened my stance on positive/constructive christianity, and i hope you do the same.
since we're all so gung ho, we should have a real "discussion" somewhere, preferably multimedia based.
Hang loose brodos
PinkElephant
The correct spelling is "atheist", not "athiest". The word originates from Greek "a-theos", meaning "without gods".
Progressivism has nothing to do with Communism. "Progressive" is the evolution of "Liberal", with a regulated market platform and fiscal conservatism thrown in.
jjurbanus
jjurbanus
jjurbanus
so what time will showdown, uh, I mean hoedown be?
jjurbanus
jjurbanus
PinkElephant
Intelligent people fight with words and ideas, not fists and weapons. Unnatural? Yeah, probably....
;)
jjurbanus
Not really. I much prefer fleshly bodies fighting. with words and ideas.
jjurbanus
jjurbanus
"Oh my spaghetti, we've been sitting petrified like wood wasting our lives"
"Let's go start a circus. For the quadriplegic. Hamsters!"
PinkElephant
jjurbanus, what are you on?
Whatever it is, you should STEP AWAY FROM THE COMPUTER. Seriously.
Making dumb posts on physorg is one thing, but you might end up sending some email or posting something elsewhere, that you might REALLY regret in the morning...
jjurbanus
Mar 04, 2010jjurbanus
--gentlemen i bid farewell
JayK
JayK
Skeptic_Heretic
I'm certainly not a liberal and I think your link was garbage as well.
In science we call this independent peer review. Jayk has submitted a hypothesis based on his observations "Your link is anti-intellectual".
I've reviewed his statement and the link and I think that JayK has proven his hypothesis. Would you care for further evidence to the uselessness of your statement and link or would you prefer to offer a counter hypothesis?
JayK
freethinking
I can assure everyone, that when I apply for patents, write grant proposals, or write reports; I check spelling and have people proof my work.
Skeptic_Heretic
You'd have to prove intellectual liberty is being crushed. Which this link does not, hence the call of anti-intellectualism.
I don't see where I did that in my review.
Well you do seem to be stuck on opinion rather than fact, which is not how science works, unless we're talking psychology.
JayK
Mar 05, 2010jjurbanus
Short.
Caliban
Otto- not familiar with Qin's Tomb- gotta link?
Caliban
Thanks Otto,
I remember, now. Gotta say that I would be very surprised, indeed if the joint hasn't already been tapped, and all very hush-hush like, too.
Why would the Chinese offer up a goldmine like this to prying, imperialistic western subhumans, without first availing themselves of the very best of the booty first? Or to perform the ritual to release the Demon Of The East and secure total World Domination...
I can understand it, even if I don't agree with it.
You are absolutely right though- there is bound to be much of importance-paramount importance- to be learned. These ancient empires were aware of each other's existence, and there was trade and cultural exchange between them. This will be the only known and untouched intact example. Too bad it hadda be in China...
If you hear of any opportunities to brave the mechanical defenses and rivers of mercury to get at it, please let me know- I'll be on it!!!
Caliban
Happy Hunting!
Skeptic_Heretic
We can't play the definition everytime you're out of evidence for your stance.
Anti-intellectual: Anti-intellectualism is the hostility towards and mistrust of intellect, intellectuals, and intellectual pursuits, usually expressed as the derision of education, philosophy, literature, art, and science, as impractical and contemptible.
The article supports Please. This is nothing more than a flowery and uneducated blog post, dummied up to look like a factual piece.
"Published in FrontPage Magazine" is synonymous with "Militiamen Weekly Centerfold". I'm very conservative and that publication makes me ill. If you believe anything in that rag you're just a right wing version of a HuffPo reading leftist.
Caliban
Caliban
PinkElephant
http://www.swarmusa.com/vb4/
I hope something like this can really take off and gain momentum. Though I'm not betting the farm: this country is stuffed to the gills with apathetic, anesthetized, brainwashed human vegetables with a raging case of the Stockholm syndrome.
PinkElephant
Merit-based compensation is not mutually exclusive with fair compensation, nor with social dues, which you ought to consider analogous to "association fees": want to live in a nice community? Pay up
PinkElephant
Never mind that most stocks don't pay dividends, have over-inflated and highly manipulated prices, and are majority-owned by a few large companies that render everyone else's vote meaningless. Retail investing has worked out real well over the last couple of decades. Just ask the average investor... I mean, sucker... out there. That's why all workers are in such strong support of free trade. How do you know when marjon's lying? His mouth moves.
Most lobbying is geared toward scuttling or weakening regulation, not expanding or creating new regulation. But that was just an innocent mistake of marjon's.
Caliban
Thanks for that, PE!
I've been trying, with limited success, to put together a very similar concept for my own illumination, at least initially. Full of gaping holes, though.
This goes a long way towards a sustainable, stable, citizen-owned system we can all live with and in. I'll be spending some time getting involved, for certain. Stay with it, man!
I recommend that other visitors to Physorg have a look at PE's link, quoted above. Could save us all.
PinkElephant
PinkElephant
A far greater horror in marjon's mind, is the distasteful concept of being FORCED to help others. Real, actual poverty, exploitation, disease, and death pale in comparison...
marjon's utopia is constructed on a foundation of greed and antisocial egotism. But at the same time, it heavily relies on private altruism and charity. There are no intractable contradictions there. Not at all.
PinkElephant
Hey marjon, what happens to charitable contributions during times of economic distress?
PinkElephant
The last two of your posts above are particularly telling. Cherry-picking exemplified in the first, rank prejudice in the second. "The brutal truth", marjon, is that you're a clueless twit whose head is, sadly, filled with a great tangle of delusions.
Skeptic_Heretic
When will you realize that religion is simply another method of governance?
Skeptic_Heretic
Only if the babies are going to be Christian. Infanticide was widely practiced in the inquisition and the crusades. Both Christian initiatives. Within Christian societies. Not according to the Bible you can't. Again, more self-contradiction. Your point is equally invalid here.
JayK
You know what would be hilarious? Marjoke going to another country, such as Australia, where the people are happy socialists, concerned with the well being of their communities and general populace more than material goods and personal monetary wealth. The troll's head would assplode.
freethinking
Sounds like the peaceful religion is at it again. Im very suprised this is actually making it in the news. Things like this happen all to time to Christians in Africa and around the world. If you look to the Koran this is what Muslims should be doing to all non-muslims.
Now when Christian (actually they are an ethnic group not actual religious group for the most part in Africa) do the same thing, even though it goes agaist the bible and the teaching of the founder of Christianity, it makes headlines.
When a christian murders children (even none christians), they are going against the teachings and beliefs of the founder. Muslims if they kill non muslim children do not go against their founder.
freethinking
People who are evil do evil and they make all the excuses in the world, whether they are Christian (in which case they cant say God wants them to kill, all that love they enemy stuff), to Athiests (there are good athiests who know killing is wrong), to Muslims (who know murder is wrong even if it is called for by the Koran).
freethinking
Otto, I think you want a religion full of perfect people, I'm sorry that Christianity is full of losers. But when you realize you are not perfect, Christianity will take you in.
The main reason Christianity is hated is because to become a Christian you need to realize and accept how imperfect you are.
Qdove
Your totally discriminating religious people here don't be bias..You must always deal issues in an objective and honest manner.
Skeptic_Heretic
Skeptic_Heretic
Skeptic_Heretic
At what point in time did otto say anything derogatory about capitalism?
Skeptic_Heretic
The only way Christianity contributed to the ideology of Liberty was by being an adversary to the people and creating an environment where Liberty would be considered a value rather than the status quo.
Free markets are a natural order that arises whenever supply and demand are unchalleneged by regulation.
If you want to argue that the Devil is what makes God great, you've done a good job. Otherwise you've simply made yourself the fool, again.
freethinking
Skeptic Im suprised you are following Otto. Christian theology is about liberty and freedom. Liberty without self control leads to distruction. Christians teach self control. Freedom from bondage is key to christian theology. Exceeding the requirements placed on by government. The building of schools, the abolision movement being started mainly by christian.
It seems to me Skeptic and Otto ignorance of Christian influence, if unintentional, of Liberty and freedom could be because they have been educated in a outcome based educational system.
You may not agree with Christian theology, but at least be honest and give credit where credit is due.
freethinking
Skeptic_Heretic
And OJ liberated his ex-wife from her life. Saddam liberated the wealth of the Iraqis from the Iraqis, etc...
If you would like to think I'm an anti-religious you're wrong. I most certainly am anti-western religion.
Would you like to compare historical notes?
Crusades, inquisition, romanic purge, helenic conquest, manifest destiny, rape of south america, corpus connubi and the HIV AIDS epidemic, the muslim slaughters in Somalia, apartheid, I can go on and on about Christianity's liberating and freedom filled past...
Skeptic_Heretic
I'm anti-western religious organizations, with one exception. Fundamental Baptists have it right. If you've never had a conversation with one, I'd certainly recommend it. If there was a Jesus, he'd be a Fundamental Baptist.
PinkElephant
@marjon, Sorry, but some of the most prominent advocates of such work were either atheists or Deists, and many despised Christianity in particular and organized religion in general. Consider also, who advocated AGAINST liberaty and capitalism: what religion were THEY?
Like freehating, you only give selective credit to the progressives, while ignoring the conservatives, even though at any given time prior to reforms, conservatives are in the majority and solidly behind the status quo.
PinkElephant
Then one can AT BEST conclude that progress was made not because of Christianity, but DESPITE Christianity.
Of course, if one were perfectly objective, one wouldn't give the Christian religion EITHER credit, OR blame. The religion was not rewritten at any point during the last 2000 years; yet all sorts of changes occurred, both anterograde and retrograde.
Objective historians credit such changes not to any religion, but to factors ranging from technological developments, to climate, to economic factors, to population growth, to interaction between cultures.
So, objectively speaking, all those who credit or blame religion for the progress or regress of history, are delusional. Religion has been very useful both to despots and to liberators, in equal measure.
Skeptic_Heretic
A bigot would be against Christians. I'm against christianity. I care not what religion you hold dear as long as you tell me not of it.
"Christian Tolerance" if you will.
danman5000
Mar 09, 2010Skeptic_Heretic
Standard fare for one who doesn't have a strong argument.
freethinking
Freedom is hard, it carries responsiblities, duties, etc. Thats why unless freedom is worked at and tended too, it fails and we become slaves.
Again you missed my point, evil is evil no matter if its done by athiests, or people who say they are religious. So comparing historical notes is useless, unless you tell me athiests are more moral then I can prove you wrong.
I judge people by their actions. If you treat me nice and you think I am going to hell, I dont care. If you think I am going to heaven yet treat me horribly, I care.
freethinking
I find it interesting that we the people are told we need to trust government, yet government employees are mainly unionized. If the employees of the government cant trust that the government will treat them fairly, why should we the people?
JayK
Mar 09, 2010PinkElephant
"Big government" vs. "small government" is a useless red herring fed to partisan lemmings. Show me a single "conservative" administration that ever reduced the size of government...
PinkElephant
And lest you get carried away with the glorification of Puritanism, please remind us all who was responsible for the Salem witch trials.
Arguably, today the closest surviving adherents to the Puritan philosophy, are the Amish. How far have they progressed along the scales of technology, freedom, and capitalism?
danman5000
Better delete this whole thread then. It went off topic about 500 comments ago. Would you prefer I emulate the others here?
{Progressive,Liberal} {atheists,Christians} are {good,evil} because {they killed people in the past,advocate big government,convert people}. Pick your favorite combination.
freethinking
It sounds to me you are advocating an evil system of dictatorship, where only the elite speak and rule, something like the democratic party here in the USA.
Your ignorace of history is beyond belief if it is unintensional. Anytime someone hates someone or something, there is danger. I dont hate athiests, muslims, catholics, jews. I dont even hate my enemies. I may not agree with them, I may think they believe wrong, or do wrong things, but I want the best for them.
PinkElephant
PinkElephant
Sure, religion is a very convenient and powerful contrast agent, which can catalyze the formation of tribal mentality (US against THEM.) However, even in the absence of religion, tribalism will prevail. For example, Communist dictatorships routinely pit "us" (the revolutionary freedom fighters) against "them" (the imperialist capitalist oppressors.) Republicans sic their lemmings on the Liberals. Democrats wage wars against right-wing radio talk show hosts. If we really must have an enemy, one can always be found.
Skeptic_Heretic
As for your statement on atheism vs christianity on the morality front, I'll never say one belief system is more or less moral than another. Only the tendency of the individuals within that belief system and then only on a case by case basis. There is no ethical mold, nor are ethics a tangible or measurable item.
I simply find it intriguing that as a man dedicated to freedom and the values of liberty you choose to draw lots with a proto-governmental institution that is rife with abuse of the masses for personal and institutional gain.
@marjon: I'm as far from progressive as one can get.
Skeptic_Heretic
Let's look at some of your "expression":
Shall I go on to your other threads?
PinkElephant
I'll grant you all of the above.
Yet look here: That is the point you glossed over previously: I don't think the latter is right.
It would be wonderful if tribalism could be bred out of humans, but as long as there exist nations, ethnicity, cultures, languages, cliques, classes (social-economic), parties (political), clubs, associations, competitive team sports, family clans, and so on and so forth -- I see no evidence of tribalism either losing its appeal, or its selective advantages (in the sense of natural and kin selection.)
Erudition and cosmopolitanism do tilt the scales against religion in the long run. But there will always be myopic xenophobes. There will always be intellectually lazy ninnies. Odds even are, such people might forever remain in the majority despite anyone's best efforts.
And tribalism yet has a long future ahead...
Cherri
See guys...It IS possible to comment on an article or even have a discussion without being nasty to people who's opinions differ to your own.
PinkElephant
PinkElephant
PinkElephant
It may be that Homo Sapiens itself is approaching the apex of its evolutionary career, soon to begin spawning a population of cyborgs, then eventually flat-out droids: "Intelligent Design", at last =)
It would be interesting to speculate on the tension between that progression, and the grip of old religions and traditionalist humanism. Many a gifted sci-fi writer have pondered the possibilities... But to paraphrase Haldane, the future is probably far stranger than we can imagine.
Skeptic_Heretic
I don't see a problem with it.
Then again, it's a southwestern dialectic he's using, along with a bit of google translate.
What are your disagreements with it? Too harsh? Word order incorrect?
It's still quite understandable.
Skeptic_Heretic
you often state that Jesus was love and that he wanted all mankind to be free.
Care to explain Luke 19:27 to me?
Skeptic_Heretic
You don't spend much time in the Saarland.
freethinking
The Parable of the Ten Minas
While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once. He said: "A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return. So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas Put this money to work, he said, until I come back.
But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, We don't want this man to be our king. He was made king, however, and returned home. Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it. The first one came and said, Sir, your mina has earned ten more. Well done, my good servant! his master replied. Because you have been trusttrustworthy in a very small matter, take charge
freethinking
freethinking
This is a Parable. There really wasnt a king who gave ten Minas, he didnt give 10 cities away, etc.
2000 years ago what would happen to you if you were enemies of any king?
If you want an explanation of this parable let me know and I can give it to you, but even for an athiest to say this proves Jesus was violent is stretching the truth to the breaking point.
A funny statement for Otto: If you claim God is dead, then youve admitted that God existed, God by definition cant die, so you are admitting that since God existed, He must be alive.
JayK
Jonah too, he was unclean.
PinkElephant
freethinking
BTW Pink, I knew what otto was getting at with God is Dead, I was just being picky for the fun of it...
Otto, if killing a fig tree is violent, then Im guilty of mass murder for all the trees Ive cut down.
PinkElephant
freethinking
The fig tree didnt insult Jesus, look up what really happened and why Jesus did as he did.
Again, Athiests speaking in ignorance and taking things out of context. Doing this is beneith those who argue against chritiantiy in an intellectually honest way. Pink and Skeptic you are way to smart to resort to those tactics. Otto, well your Otto, your facts are plain garbage in either english or german.
PinkElephant
It's AthEIsts. Not "AthIEsts". Do you also write "nukular" instead of "nuclear"? What tactics? We're just having fun. Well, at least I am...
Seriously speaking though, I also find it rather upsetting when I'm hungry, yet the local plant life refuses to cooperate. Curses upon it all...
PinkElephant
You know how, in many Christian sects -- Catholics in particular -- as well as in many other non-Judaic religions the world over, people value "holy relics": anything that was once part of a body, or was purportedly touched or owned by a "holy person"?
Well, this Jesus character -- having been a real man and all that, and having eaten at least on occasion -- would've squatted in quite a number of places along his trajectory, wouldn't he?
Which only begs the implication: much of Judea must be therefore covered with, literally and I don't exaggerate -- Holy Shit!
(maybe some of it even still survives to this day, particularly considering the miraculous self-preserving powers typically ascribed to relics...)
Which then leads me to wonder: what are the odds that any of the Disciples had gone souvenir-hunting behind Jesus' back? Inquiring minds want to know! *snicker*
PinkElephant
http://www.popula...186.html
Skeptic_Heretic
You of all people should know the difference between spoken and written language.
Especially since you've allowed Otto to state other silly dialectics without debate from you. ie: Gummischwantzen.
Skeptic_Heretic
What tactics are you referring to?
The Bible is rife with violence. That parable is a statement made by Jesus according to one of his apostles. That is a secondary quote of a will to murder. Effectively a tale of Jesus sinning.
So the next verse I'll ask you to explain is Matthew 10:34-39
Jesus would command his people to carry two swords, akin to the common place Jewish "dagger men" of historical note. It appears Jesus was not afraid of utilizing assassination against the "gentiles."
Skeptic_Heretic
You're missing the "en" from your statment. It isn't "rubbers dick" when plural as you stated when you initially brought it to the plate so to speak.
Royale
And for the record, I won't classify myself as anything. Feel free to rant how I'm (fill in the blank). But this is what I believe: No ONE RELIGION is in any way more likely to be right than any other, and who am I to say which one is right. I choose not to guess. When presented with proof, I'd be willing to change my mind. Sorta like science! Hey, how weird, science really sounds neat! No magic or anything!
Royale
You're right. That fact has been established. But, once again, it's a disproportionately low number currently; and it's pretty safe to say the number will get lower.
@frajo
That's a point there, but before 1900 there was much more pressure to be religious. As that slowly evaporates, the need to follow mommy and daddy's belief system is becoming less important; and with that scientists are worrying less about religion in general. I think that's the main point here and anonyfront put it well.
Royale
Skeptic_Heretic
No one said otherwise. Most likely when you say scientist he will have undoubted be some religous background to their fellow.
But are they truly Christian in your eyes if they question the tenets of their faith through their research?
JayK
Nice link.
Caliban
there's a difference between trying to deduce causes and principles, and _imposing_ them to fit a preconcieved notion.
JayK
According to William Dembski, the Templeton Foundation gave him $100 million after his first Intelligent Design book as a grant. They have since backed away from anything Intelligent Design or creationism oriented.
But maybe their worst offense, recently? They gave a grant to Chris Mooney.
JayK
And since when did civil rights come down to a majority vote in this country?
Don't bother answering. You made your position perfectly clear in this thread:
http://www.physor...812.html
Maybe you should take some time to learn the difference between respiratory diseases and HIV, to start with.
PinkElephant
1) Souls
2) Afterlife
3) Heaven and Hell
4) Miracles and Holy Relics
5) Divine origin of the Bible, and preferential truth of Christianity over all other religions
6) Exorcism
7) Original Sin
8) Sexuality is a "choice" and a "lifestyle"
9) Individual conception is the union of sperm and egg
10) Doctrine of Transubstantiation
So much for "modern" Catholicism. Yet, of course, Catholicism claims to be the original, unchanging and unchanged, true version of the faith. So what excuses "modern" Catholicism from all the "God-inspired" superstitions and falsehoods it used to claim and ENFORCE in the past? Burning of "witches"? Evolution? Age of the Earth? Origins of man? Alchemy? Geocentrism?
JayK
12) Condoms increase the spread of HIV
13) That priest was only ministering to that boy
14) etc etc
PinkElephant
The difference with homosexual marriage, is that sexual orientation is physiologically fixed. It is not a matter of choice, ideology, preference, or lifestyle.
So with the homosexuals, we have a population that is fundamentally incapable of heterosexual bonding, and thus prohibited by their own physiology and by statute from having any sort of formally recognized marriage whatsoever: even a monogamous one.
Now, as long as the state chooses to bestow selective rights and benefits upon the married couples, it is therefore institutionalized discrimination when the homosexual sub-population is barred by law from gaining such rights and benefits.
Either grant them the right to monogamous marriage, or take away the special rights and privileges granted by the state to heterosexual married couples. Either of the two alternatives would be just and fair. What we have now, is neither just nor fair.
JayK
Royale
11) Not a falsifiable statement? It's already been proven it could happen, we just need to see a case of proof and bam that statement is falsified. (Hell, even the TV show House covered the topic).
12) He's mocking what people are being taught. Obviously this is a false statement.
13) No, crimes are not contradicting science. Religion is contradicting itself. And JayK pointed that out very well.
So sorry it hurt your feelings, but he's right.
JayK
http://news.bbc.c...7460.stm
And get a sense of humor, that is why I added the part about Jonah Goldberg. No one would claim to have birthed that thing.
PinkElephant
Sorry bud, but the message of abstinence is a proven and abject failure. Even the priests evangelizing it can't help molesting choir boys when out of the public's sight.
People will continue to have sex, just as surely as people continue to eat, sleep, and breathe. It is, after all, one of the main physiological drives of the human body, and for good reason.
Given that perennial and IMMUTABLE reality, the only sane approach is to impede the spread of HIV (and other STDs) as much as possible.
And for that, condoms are the best bet bar none, failure rates and all.
PinkElephant
JayK
PinkElephant
Here's a straightforward analogy: seat belts in cars. Will they guarantee 100% that you'll survive a crash? No, and nobody's stupid enough to think that (except perhaps for you...) But as long as you fail to abstain from driving, wearing a seat belt still makes you a lot safer just in case a crash does occur, than not wearing one.
Similarly, wearing a condom will save you from infection 95% of the time that you'd have gotten infected (and passed it on to your other partners, if any) otherwise.
Even for married couples, using condoms is a great idea, because the "no cheating" advocacy is about just as practical as the "abstinence" one.
People do what people do. But as long as they continue to play Russian Roulette, I'd rather they used a 9999-round chamber, instead of a 6-round one...
JayK
That didn't even make sense. Are you high?
Skeptic_Heretic
Advocating abstinence without correlary education is instilling temptation, not personal responsibility.
Education of abstinence WITH education in contraception is personal accountability.
@Frajo,
There is one thing I can say is starkly against the views of the RCC and one that you got wrong.
1) the RCC holds that belief in evolution is an affront to god as it contradicts the theory of creation.
2) The RCC holds that the Bible is the Divine word of God. Hence being the only Universal Truth, which you alluded to and stated incorrectly that the church does not hold the Bible to be divine. They certainly do.
Royale
JayK
'it is religion and religion is outside of science, so there.'
There is nothing new in his excuses, just repetition of all the points in this and other threads, excusing the church and his own spirituality from ever being criticized. On top of it all, it is incredibly anti-science/anti-intellectual. His section on miracles says that the human mind "can't" know certain things, which he may as well just say "so stop asking questions".
Religion is the mind-killer.
Royale
STD free, and no babies.
Either I'm an outstanding example to the rule, OR that type of education works well.
PinkElephant
See my reply on that site where you posted your long answer.
Skeptic_Heretic
There were two public votes on gay marriage in massachusetts. How do you think they were able to alter the constitution of the state to allow for gay marriage?
PinkElephant
Now, as it is, MA is coming to an end. Its social fabric is unraveling. Dogs are copulating with cats, the sun spews darkness, and the Devil is ruling the land. All because of homosexual marriage. Such horror...
PinkElephant
PinkElephant
PinkElephant
Kudos to marjon's umpteenth demented propaganda outlet: I haven't seen mental diarrhea with such a finely nauseating texture in quite a long time.
Skeptic_Heretic
I'm sorry, who is the one against universal marriage rights?
PinkElephant
PinkElephant
1) ADULTS
2) CONSENTING adults
Sure, you can bring up arranged marriages and child brides, but that falls under the general category of child abuse. Not remotely the same ballpark, or even the same planet. BS. Marriage has many definitions. Polygamy is definitely among them.
As a broad generalization, you can define marriage as long-term sexual bonding. That doesn't preclude it from being a bonding between more than two people. Nor does it preclude it from being a bonding between homosexuals. Reproduction might, or might not be, a side-effect of marriage (depending on fertility of the people in question), though it so happens that many people want the experience of raising children.
Skeptic_Heretic
Maybe where you're from. In my neck of the woods we could care less who people are sleeping with as long as they are of age and consenting.
I find it interesting how someone so religious could be so heretical and still endorse christian dogma.
PinkElephant
Who's talking about discarding anything? Nobody's being prohibited from marrying, if they so choose. On the contrary, more people desiring marriage, are being allowed to be officially recognized. That's an expansion of marriage, not a "discarding".
PinkElephant
But why keep asking stupid questions you already know the answer to?
Haven't we already arrived at a mutual agreement that the state shouldn't be in the business of subsidizing marriage in the first place?
Royale
Skeptic_Heretic
Taxes, health insurance, hospital visitation, estate benefit, support agreements, loans, credit default, car insurance, home owners insurance, next of kin notification, state distribution law, and on and on and on.
Why is it so important to you that they be barred from having these rights?
Royale
JayK
Skeptic_Heretic
Agreed, unfortunately this site is sorely lacking as of late, the 4 unique screen-named posters above me excluded, and a few others, excluded.
JayK
It's personal, probably, and has to do more with my preference for the anonymity that larger groups enables.
Skeptic_Heretic
Ever heard of "seperate but equal"?
Though so. It was bullshit then, and it's bullshit now. I agree with your stance that the State should be out of the marriage business.
I also think Churches should be subject to tax just as all other for profit organizations are.
Skeptic_Heretic
Skeptic_Heretic
Mar 26, 2010Royale
Although, you're right JayK. You've already won several times over. It's still fun to watch though. =)
JayK
I might also point out, once again, that marjon believes that those with HIV deserve to be locked away from society:
http://www.physor...812.html
Skeptic_Heretic
PLEASE READ THE DOCUMENTS YOU'RE TRYING TO USE AS A PROOF FOR YOUR STANCE. Last time I'm going to give you the benefit of saying it.
JayK
Civil rights are not to be left to the whim of the majority, or else you do not have a representative form of government. We are not a Democracy, we are a Representative form of government. Marjon obviously doesn't know the difference, or does and willfully ignores the reality.
Skeptic_Heretic