Why Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent

[_emilysmith]

Intelligence is difficult to measure, since it is applied in so many different ways... most of which are impossible to capture in a written test.

Motivation is the key to being successful, not intelligence. A properly motivated person of average intelligence will do far better in life than someone with above average intelligence who has no motivation.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Right-wing violence on the rise in Sweden:

Rightwing violence in Sweden (dated but still relevant).

Farewell to the "peaceful socialist society" which believes in - nothing.

How many more "God is dead" societies will we have to go through?

That article actually suggests that the reason right-wing violence is rising in Sweden is that Sweden has been forced to cut back its social welfare programs. In the author's opinion, social democracy is not socialist enough. That's quite the opposite of the conclusion you are drawing.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Youth Violence Has Japan Struggling for Answers.

Where have we gone wrong? And is atheism and the "do what you like lifestyle" the answer?

Being an atheist doesn't mean one has no beliefs or ethics. Quite the contrary, I'd suggest that atheists are one of the few segments of society that are self-consciously ethical, in the sense of being genuinely reflective about their ethics rather than merely following traditions and authorities that may be fallacious.

In Japan, it appears that youth violence is on the rise because of a combination of uncensored media and misguided cultural traditions (i.e. lack of parental affection and intense pressure on children to perform in school). It's not at all clear to me that "religion" could have prevented this. In fact, unquestioned traditional values appear to be part of the cause.

[_CaliforniaKid]

By the way, here's another interesting article:

The Chronic Dependence of Popular Religiosity upon Dysfunctional Psychosociological Conditions

Abstract: Better understanding the nature, origin and popularity of varying levels of popular religion versus secularism, and their impact upon socioeconomic conditions and vice versa, requires a cross national comparison of the competing factors in populations where opinions are freely chosen. Utilizing 25 indicators, the uniquely extensive Successful Societies Scale reveals that population diversity and immigration correlate weakly with 1st world socioeconomic conditions, and high levels of income disparity, popular religiosity as measured by differing levels of belief and activity, and rejection of evolutionary science correlate strongly negatively with improving conditions. The historically unprecedented socioeconomic security that results from low levels of progressive government policies appear to suppress popular religiosity and creationist opinion, conservative religious ideology apparently contributes to societal dysfunction, and religious prosociality and charity are less effective at improving societal conditions than are secular government programs. The antagonistic relationship between a better socioeconomic conditions and intense popular faith may prevent the existence of nations that combine the two factors. The nonuniversality of strong religious devotion, and the ease with large populations abandon serious theism when conditions are sufficiently benign, refute hypotheses that religious belief and practice are the normal, deeply set human mental state, whether they are superficial or natural in nature. Instead popular religion is usually a superficial and flexible psychological mechanism for coping with the high levels of stress and anxiety produced by sufficiently dysfunctional social and especially economic environments. Popular nontheism is a similarly casual response to superior conditions.

[_Milesius]

By the way, here's another interesting article:

The Chronic Dependence of Popular Religiosity upon Dysfunctional Psychosociological Conditions

Abstract: Better understanding the nature, origin and popularity of varying levels of popular religion versus secularism, and their impact upon socioeconomic conditions and vice versa, requires a cross national comparison of the competing factors in populations where opinions are freely chosen. Utilizing 25 indicators, the uniquely extensive Successful Societies Scale reveals that population diversity and immigration correlate weakly with 1st world socioeconomic conditions, and high levels of income disparity, popular religiosity as measured by differing levels of belief and activity, and rejection of evolutionary science correlate strongly negatively with improving conditions. The historically unprecedented socioeconomic security that results from low levels of progressive government policies appear to suppress popular religiosity and creationist opinion, conservative religious ideology apparently contributes to societal dysfunction, and religious prosociality and charity are less effective at improving societal conditions than are secular government programs. The antagonistic relationship between a better socioeconomic conditions and intense popular faith may prevent the existence of nations that combine the two factors. The nonuniversality of strong religious devotion, and the ease with large populations abandon serious theism when conditions are sufficiently benign, refute hypotheses that religious belief and practice are the normal, deeply set human mental state, whether they are superficial or natural in nature. Instead popular religion is usually a superficial and flexible psychological mechanism for coping with the high levels of stress and anxiety produced by sufficiently dysfunctional social and especially economic environments. Popular nontheism is a similarly casual response to superior conditions.

Gregory Paul is a dinosaur doodler who does not know the first thing about legitimate statistical inference.

[_Milesius]

Being an atheist doesn't mean one has no beliefs or ethics. Quite the contrary, I'd suggest that atheists are one of the few segments of society that are self-consciously ethical, in the sense of being genuinely reflective about their ethics rather than merely following traditions and authorities that may be fallacious.

Your pretensions are quaint.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Your pretensions are quaint.

Case in point. Here we have a religious person who is so unreflective about his tradition's anti-secular polemic that he assumes any secular claim to ethical standards must be a mere pretense.

[_aussieguy55]

I have watched Dr. Michael Shermer head of the skeptics society, who comes accross as a well spoken and mannered human being. I don't like Hitchen's approach.

[Guest]

Your pretensions are quaint.

Case in point. Here we have a religious person who is so unreflective about his tradition's anti-secular polemic that he assumes any secular claim to ethical standards must be a mere pretense.

Let's take another look at the relevant excerpt of your previous post:

Being an atheist doesn't mean one has no beliefs or ethics. Quite the contrary, I'd suggest that atheists are one of the few segments of society that are self-consciously ethical, in the sense of being genuinely reflective about their ethics rather than merely following traditions and authorities that may be fallacious.

If you had posted the first sentence only, then I would not have responded because I agree with it. My comment was addressed to the ridiculous puffery that follows it.

You strike me as someone who is intoxicated with his own ideas, which is odd, since they are not at all intoxicating. (Were you and Mike Reed separated at birth?)

[_Milesius]

Intelligence is difficult to measure...

In the case of Jesus mythicists, it is so negligible as to be undetectable.