``Miron Zuckerman, Jordan Silberman and Judith A. Hall from the
University of Rochester and the Northeastern University conducted a
meta-analysis (that's a statistical analysis that combines the results
of multiple scientific studies) of 63 studies that showed a
significant negative association between intelligence and religiosity.''
"Ignoramus21164" wrote in
message news: email@example.com...
"Because reality shows them that they are wrong, they must have others
validate their ideas!"
As sufferers of the helpless-victim mentality, libs attempt to raise
their own relative self-esteem by degrading that of others, Gunner for
example, in contrast to conservatives who have matured enough to
understand that they can only improve themselves through their own
efforts and accomplishments.
The media has devolved from presenting heroes worth emulating to
giving the couch potatoes flawed characters they can feel superior to.
You busted yourself by doing what you're complaining about,
demonstrating that you feel superior to liberals, and haplessly over
generalizing. You're a LOT less clever than you think.
As for the topic at hand, this guy can explain it to you.
Feel free to claim he's
in hell the same way Wieber claims he had Huprich murdered. LOL
BTW, did you see this story?
Extra funny that super intelligent believers through the ages have
always tasked mortals to do skydaddy's dirty work. WTF? Is he
conserving his lightning bolts, or what?
Notice to enterprising hit men - You have at least two customers
willing to share the cost of killing me. One has all the world's
treasure at his disposal, and the other has an endless supply of
puppies and prospective customers. What are you waiting for?
If I had an IQ of 63, I'd be religious, too. Th'aint nuttin else.
Briggs has an interesting take on the study of studies:
His last 2 sentences are doozies, and
not entirely untrue.
I can see how the sheltering effect from excessive religious beliefs
(It's against my religion so I can't read that or think that.) can
heavily shade the study, but I think it's a small shading, not the
vast extent Miron shows/thinks. After all, he's a professor at a
liberal college environment and has his own personal biases which may
(hah!) not have been filtered out. And I'll bet a whole lot different
picture would have developed had they asked all the participants in
all the studies the question "Are you religious (belief w/ church),
spiritual (belief/no church), or athiest (no belief/no church)?" But
religion is one of those things people lie through their teeth about,
so I doubt any poll would gather truthful data. In the Western world,
it's not kosher to be Jewish, Catholic, atheist, non-religious, or
Islamic, so most pollers ask "Are you a Christian?" and most people
say "I'm a Christian", no matter what they actually believe or
practice. It's just easier, and you take much less flack.
BTW, I believe in God (Crom, any name you like) but totally eschew any
and all organized religion and their churches, period.
Religious person: someone who believes in God, by whatever name.
Agnostic: someone who doesn't know if God exists.
Atheist: someone who believes there is no god.
So, the only one without a belief system is the agnostic.
What I love is when some person of some faith believes that their God
is the only God, and their heaven is the only heaven. If you don't
believe _their_way_, you will not go to heaven, you will rot in Hell.
I am absolutely certain that the world would be a better place without
More accurately, someone who believes that the existence or nonexistence of
god(s) is *unknowable*. It's about epistemology, not about shrugging your
shoulders and saying "I dunno." What you're describing is someone who doesn
't know how to think, not an agnostic.
No, not necessarily. This has been explained to you several times in this t
hread. You don't understand the difference between *belief* and *lack of be
A real agnostic has a very strong system of belief. It just has nothing to
do with gods.