digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.
See the original image at telegraph.co.uk —

Intelligent people are 'less likely to believe in God'

telegraph.co.uk — Professor Richard Lynn, emeritus professor of psychology at Ulster University, said many more members of the "intellectual elite" considered themselves atheists than the national average. A decline in religious observance over the last century was directly linked to a rise in average intelligence, he claimed. But it may not be that simple...

show profanity settings
expand all
  • chrissku, on 06/12/2008, -97/+1272No *****?
    • bunnyblues, on 06/13/2008, -6/+20First words in my head.
    • provost, on 06/13/2008, -11/+223before an all out flame war erupts, I just want to post a small piece of serenity that anyone can retreat to if need be:

      ̴̡ı̴̴̡ ̡̡͡|̲̲̲͡͡͡ ̲▫̲͡ ̲̲̲͡͡π̲̲͡͡ ̲̲͡▫̲̲͡͡ ̲̲|̡̡̡ ̡ ̴̡ı̴̡̡*̡͌l̡*̴̡ı̴̴̡
    • callinthelaw69, on 06/13/2008, -25/+93First words in my head too.

      The smarter people get the less likely they are to believe in fairy tales. Imagine that!
      • plaing, on 06/13/2008, -11/+5the smartest people i know don't reduce the worldview of billions to fairy tales. but we probably roll with different crowds.
        • dillona, on 06/13/2008, -0/+13Sure they do.
          Ask them if they believe Islam or Hinduism is any more than a fairy tale.
        • acero47, on 06/13/2008, -4/+8@dillona: I don't reduce other people's faiths to fairy tales, I just don't agree with them. It's possible to respect someone else's beliefs without ridiculing the believer as ignorant or stupid. I don't find Hindus, Muslims, Jews, etc to be ridiculous or mentally deficient, but I also don't think they are correct. I am willing to debate the merits of each of our religions, but I won't force them to listen if they don't want to. It's my opinion that we should be able to believe whatever we want without being insuotherlted.

          For the record, I'm a Christian and there are things I don't understand about God, the Bible, and the world we live in, but I choose to have faith. I could assume He doesn't exist because there is no formal evidence for Him. However, based upon my experiences in life, I have enough informal evidence in Him (experiences I have been through, people I've talked to, etc) that it is more than enough proof for me.
        • acero47, on 06/13/2008, -1/+4Wow, I guess I shouldn't be surprised I was buried, but I thought it was a well reasoned response. Was it because I stated something against the grain (at least here on Digg), or was it because of some flaw in my logic? Please explain if you can, I like a good debate.
        • rpgmaker, on 06/13/2008, -1/+5Good debate on digg? Yeah, right. You must be new here.
        • plaing, on 06/13/2008, -1/+2the smartest people i know tell me that the more they know, the more they don't know. but i'm sure it feels better to know you've got it all figured out. which is what makes 'religious folk' so insufferable, right...?
        • essjay, on 06/13/2008, -0/+5Clearly you need to "roll" with a smarter "crowd". Something isn't correct just because millions of people wrongly believe it to be correct, Mr "my friends think the sun revolves around the earth".

          And likewise, a group of idiots who believe in fairy tales is still a group of idiots who believe in fairy tales, no matter how much they belive in fairy tales, or how big the group is.
        • plaing, on 06/14/2008, -1/+1hey man, don't cram your worldview down my throat. you're so intolerant and reduce complex discussions of philosophy and reality to shallow name-calling and blanket judgments. i can think for myself, i'm a free thinker. wait...something feels backwards here...

          you don't know ***** about the crowd i 'roll' with, and i really shouldn't have to point out the reciprocals of your statements - just because you don't believe it doesn't mean it's 'wrong,' and calling people 'idiots' and throwing up stupid ***** like 'they think the sun revolves around the earth' demonstrates something quite different from 'intelligence,' no matter how many 'diggs' you get.
    • suckanucka, on 06/13/2008, -31/+15Intelligent people are more likely to read digg!
      • Chubbly, on 06/13/2008, -3/+5Why are people digging you down?

        This is indeed a complex conundrum. Are the voting few making a statement about Digg users? But that's not how Digg usually works, as that implies a subtlety lacking in most Digg users. But here we have an example of exactly that. Perhaps we are observing a anomaly, where subtlety and grace have won over brash and crass.

        Truly interesting...
      • MacSuxWindozSux, on 06/13/2008, -5/+3Kevin Rose Rulez!!! WHOOOOOOOO!!!
      • busket, on 06/13/2008, -1/+1Have you ever read the comments section?

        I'd say the spread is normal with a little bias towards Ron Paul.
      • takamalak, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1Chubbly, we diggers are a self-deprecating people....
    • FTWmovin2canada, on 06/13/2008, -2/+126I think this is more accurate (from the article): higher levels of intelligence are associated with a greater ability - or perhaps willingness - to question and overturn strongly felt institutions.
      • stealthc, on 06/13/2008, -16/+13And that, everyone would find agreeable. There's no reason for the poster to turn it into his own personal editorial against "religion."
        • stealthc, on 06/13/2008, -0/+5Why did I get dugg down for pointing out common ground?

          You people are insane.
      • voodoosteve84, on 06/13/2008, -1/+50Non-intellectuals tell me all the time that they don't want to bother thinking about this or that. It is a burden to them while intellectuals enjoy a good brain work-out.
        • ch33sehead, on 06/13/2008, -1/+21Brains. Sometimes, they overheat.
        • ajde, on 06/13/2008, -2/+16Which is why we have a country full of people who are more concerned about being able to "have a beer" or "eat at an Applebee's salad bar" (thanks, MSNBC) with a [potential/current] president, rather than thinking about the issues that will actually shape their lives.

          http://mediamatters.org/items/200806030004

          Go to around the 55 second mark.
        • coyote1284, on 06/13/2008, -2/+6"Brains. Sometimes, they overheat."

          None likes overheated brains. I prefer mine medium-rare.
          (This message is sponsored by PETU, People for the Ethical Treatment of the Undead.)
        • AgentPeay, on 06/13/2008, -2/+3ajde said: 'Which is why we have a country full of people who are more concerned about being able to "have a beer" or "eat at an Applebee's salad bar" (thanks, MSNBC) with a [potential/current] president, rather than thinking about the issues that will actually shape their lives.'

          Have you watched "Zeitgeist"? http://zeitgeist.com - the third part talks about one goal of those in power is to keep the little people thinking about mundane things.. like beer.. rather than important things.. like their lives.
        • Chassit, on 06/13/2008, -0/+14"It was not desirable that the proles should have strong political feelings. All that was required of them was a primitive patriotism which could be appealed to whenever it was necessary to make them accept longer working-hours or shorter rations. And even when they became discontented, as they sometimes did, their discontent led nowhere, because, without general ideas, they could only focus it on petty specific grievances. The larger evils invariably escaped their notice."

          -George Orwell
      • MiddleOfNowhere, on 06/13/2008, -1/+21Intelligence and belief systems ... What an interesting subject.
        Isn't it amazing that no-one expects you to understand gravity or quantum mechanics until you have reached the age and intelligence required to understand and reason about them; yet religious zealots will shove down beliefs down their childrens' throats as soon as technically possible, declaring them as absolute truths? Talk about indoctrination.
    • plnegative1, on 06/13/2008, -6/+29Everyone on digg thinks they're smart! Their beliefs have been validated!
      • BBoombastic, on 06/13/2008, -11/+5I == Atheist
        Atheist == smart

        therefore:
        I == smart!

        S-M-R-T, S-M-R-T, I mean S-M-A-R-T!
        • coyote1284, on 06/13/2008, -0/+7I see what you did there, Homer Simpson.
    • paradexes, on 06/13/2008, -43/+6I have to disagree here. I know plenty of smart people (some of them members of Mensa). Personally, I tend to believe that what was created what was done perfectly within the commonly accepted laws of Science. I mean these are physical rules to our universe. A universe with a harmony in it's working not a chaotic mess. There are two sides (Scientific Zealots and Religious Zealots) who are playing two extremes. One of the two cannot be true is what the other says. But they can. Most of the biblical miracles can be explained by science. The thing is not the miracle itself, but the timing of it that makes it a miracle.

      There are phenomena that can "split" the Redsea. In fact Napolean himself made a crossing through a shallow portion of it to get to Egypt. http://www.napoleon-series.org/ins/scholarship98/c ...
      He ran through a dry shod of the Red Sea and nearly drowned in the same area the next day.

      Quite honestly from the perspective of people who see the world very differently than we do now, it would seem much more fantastical than it is. The star of Bethlehem? It was a bright star that pointed to baby Jesus. Very easily a star that went supernova. Considering that the light of the supernova would have taken hundreds, thousands or millions of years to reach Earth, the coincidence is pretty interesting, seeing what happened in the 33 years after. That all said, this universe likely was created by a big bang. The scientific process involved is valid and likely did happen (assuming it did after all it is the Big Bang THEORY). Which ever the case, I think there was a supreme force/being behind this. And I do not see it conflicting with Science at all. After all that would mean that same being created the rules that we know to govern the universe, and therefore would likely be bound by those rules in everything done. Alot of things may not be explained away so easily now, but that is because we do not know about it yet.

      Kind of like in 1491 people assumed the world was flat. Then Columbus sailed and discovered it was not. We are always discovering new things. Progression is part of our lives. It has to be. But to limit ourselves with dogmatic statements from both a close minded Scientific AND religious community, is to limit ourselves as human beings.

      Just sayin, people have a polarized view of things, when often the truth of things can often be in the middle. Sometimes not in the way we expect. Digg me down if you think this is retarded thinking. All it tells me is how arrogant as a society. To think we know so much that we can't accept anything new as an idea. Arrogance or fear.
      • irvin666, on 06/13/2008, -6/+1Oooooooooooooo, mensa!

        Look at me, I am smart and I go to Mensa to prove it!

        nah-nah-nah-nah-neener-neener *sticks his tongue out and blows*
        • ixid, on 06/13/2008, -0/+5Your faux-preschool is childish, is that success or failure?
      • stealthc, on 06/13/2008, -3/+3I always figured the miracle of the parting of the Red Sea was in the timing. Handy that natural occurrence should happen just in time to get thousands of escaping slaves to safety, and end just in time to drown their pursuers.
      • nan0bug00, on 06/13/2008, -0/+18I accept the premise of your comment, but if you're going to talk about science, go here:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
        and read about what constitutes theory in the scientific sense.

        I'll give you a hint. A theory is not some guess that some drunk college student came up with one night while working on a term paper. It is a hypothesis that has stood up to peer review and is supported by all the evidence we have available. Theories can change, given new evidence. That's why they're not fact. They are so well supported by other evidence that we take them as near fact, but there is no way to experiment on the scale needed to proof them properly. Since correlation does not equal causation, we do not call them facts. But they're not 'theories' in the sense that you claim.

        Gravity is a theory in the scientific sense. The type of theory you're talking about should be reserved for things like 9/11 truthers.
      • aceslick911, on 06/13/2008, -0/+3reminds me of how awesome "Compatibalism" works out for theories on determination
      • coyote1284, on 06/13/2008, -5/+12 mny werdz, dugg dwon
        /kidding, I dugg you up
      • JPong01, on 06/13/2008, -0/+4Columbus did not discover that the world was round. People had long stopped believing that by the time he came around. In fact, they used the stars and the curvature of the earth for navigation.

        Sorry, I get tired of seeing falsehoods taught in school never getting corrected until they become "fact".
      • Testiculese, on 06/13/2008, -0/+4"Kind of like in 1491 people assumed the world was flat. Then Columbus sailed and discovered it was not."

        Columbus did not discover the world was round. It was known in early BC. I forget the exact date..something like 200BC. What everyone believed was that the distance from Spain to India was too great a distance in open ocean to make it, and in that they were exactly right. If the American continents were not there, Columbus would have disappeared. They were there, so he lived, and he called the inhabitants "Indians" because he thought he reached India.
    • Ezxen, on 06/13/2008, -36/+1Stephen Hawking believes in god but belives even god is governed by the laws
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUaiPw6xuPE
      Its better to believe in God and there not be a God then not to believe in God and there be a God
      • Zounas, on 06/13/2008, -1/+11It's "than".
      • Fartag, on 06/13/2008, -1/+27"Its better to believe in God and there not be a God then not to believe in God and there be a God"

        But, which god, or gods (or spirits, chain letters, magic spells, curses, psychics, etc.) is it better to believe in? If your basis of belief is only "just in case" then that's a can of worms that will never be closed again. Mankind is creative, irrational mankind misinterprets, many lie, many embellish, anyone can make up a story (e.g. Harry Potter) and claim it's true (e.g. the Bible) but over our history, it's always prudent and sufficient to first ask, hey where's the evidence for that fantastic claim? And do you have any witnesses to that _incredible_ event that weren't high too? Or, that doesn't jibe with my perception of reality, couldn't that be explained better by X, Y, or Z? Otherwise, look out because you'll be swinging dead cats under the full moon to ward of the pox in no time!
      • boristubak, on 06/13/2008, -0/+5pascal's wager is such a poor reason to believe in god.
    • dmallymally, on 06/13/2008, -52/+4Please, I outrank 90% of people on digg intellectually and I believe in God. This is just an atheist circle jerk.
      • breadfred, on 06/13/2008, -0/+15I was going to digg you down and then noticed your name. Any daily mail reader is by default sooooo intelligent!
      • Spuy767, on 06/13/2008, -0/+6Really? Well, you said it in an anonymous forum, it must be true.
      • Chassit, on 06/13/2008, -1/+4LOL, No really, LOL.
      • Immij, on 06/13/2008, -0/+3"I outrank 90% of people on digg intellectually ... I believe in God"
        Which of these beliefs requires the most faith?
    • bluepass, on 06/13/2008, -1/+44No *****! Intelligent people question things.
      • Letzlo, on 06/13/2008, -5/+5The fact that intelligent people question things does not mean they will all reach the same conclusion.
        • fluoro, on 06/13/2008, -0/+8That's true. But if intelligent people bother to question whether God exists, the differences in conclusions ultimately come down to which people were conditioned really strongly at a young age. Some people are really smart, but it would take a lot to get through the conditioning. Also depends on what kind of environment they're in when they start to question it.
        • phike, on 06/13/2008, -0/+8Agreed. I'd hate to use the term "brainwashing", but that is exactly what happens in most churches.

          Logic and science can co-exist with religion, as long as what you believe doesn't break the laws of science. Most religions do just that, and the people that gravitate to religion over science were probably brainwashed.
      • uallsuck, on 06/13/2008, -0/+10Dumb people questions things too; they just question dumb things in a stupid manner. Perhaps you've heard a sentence begin with "Why come"?
        • zerobackup, on 06/13/2008, -0/+3Why come Christianity is so smart and everyone else is going to hell?
    • themastersb, on 06/13/2008, -9/+1In during flame war.
    • 335io07, on 06/13/2008, -29/+2Romans 1:21-23 (especially 1:22) explains this.

      Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 ***Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools***, 23 And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four footed beasts, and creeping things.
      • coyote1284, on 06/13/2008, -0/+5Woohoo, four foot breasts! Oh, BEASTS!
      • takamalak, on 06/13/2008, -1/+8Oh, the Bible said it, it must be true. You may as well quote things written on public bathroom walls. Apparently for a good time we should all call 555-9876 and ask for a young lady named "Jenn".
    • xptoast, on 06/13/2008, -19/+3I think that people who only believe textbooks and mathematical formulas that are not too complex and are also cynics about everything are less likely to believe in God.

      Oh well I guess that leaves them believing they came from an ape and have no purpose and that the universe somehow came from a point of energy that also had to come from somewhere. Sounds like a great emotional happiness to me....NOT.
      • Croaton, on 06/13/2008, -0/+17I truly hope you realise that emotional happiness can come from much more then just a belief in a personal relation with a God-entity.

        I truly hope you are not so narrow minded and that you understand that people can feel, understand and follow a purpose in thier life without a belief in that same God-entity.

        Your carelessly phrased post just makes you come across as a closeminded person that is ignorant of nearly all modern scientific breakthroughs and how people can relate and interact with eachother even without a God-entity as a chaperon...

        If your life is truly modeled in accordance with the opinions expressed in that post... you fail at living...

        May God have mercy on your soul...
      • TheCatsPants, on 06/13/2008, -2/+141. Humans and apes are thought to be related through a *common ancestor*
        2. I give my own life purpose, thank you very much.
        3. I am much happier not believing that God is watching my every action and thought and judging me.
        4. I am much happier not believing that I will be punished horribly for eternity just for being an imperfect human.

        • coyote1284, on 06/13/2008, -0/+6*puts on Christian hat* In response to #4, you don't have to be perfect to get into heaven. We have all sinned, but by the grace of God, if you pray and repent, you will be forgiven. As long as you believe Jesus is your savior and try to live by his teachings, you will not go to Hell.*removes hat*
          /Just stating the argument, not really my personal belief
        • TheCatsPants, on 06/13/2008, -0/+3@coyote1284
          You are right about the chirstian viewpoint. But having been brought up as a Catholic we were made to feel guilty about every trangression as we were told that such actions "hurt God". Hence the paranoia about being watched or thinking "wrong" thoughts. That plagued me as a small child.
          Also, as an atheist, the most prevalent argument I hear from fundamentalists is the threat of punishment (pascal's wager type of deal). I think God knows when someone is just hedging their bets. :-)
      • thesonofdarwin, on 06/13/2008, -0/+3Not believing in a god does not leave one without a sense of purpose. I would invite you to learn about evolution and natural selection. The purpose may not be to die and to go to a fairy tale wonderland, but the purpose is our naturally engrained jobs on this earth in regards to the furthering of one's genes, and indirectly, our species.
        • positron, on 06/13/2008, -0/+4You're saying that God expects man to beg forgiveness for his imperfections right? So if God created man, and man is imperfect, then how can God hold us responsible for his flawed design?
    • aaaleman, on 06/13/2008, -2/+8Amen to that
      =D
    • muzy, on 06/13/2008, -12/+31So over 4 billions people are stupid ?
      • matude, on 06/13/2008, -0/+54Yep. Probably even more than that.
        Haven't you noticed dumb people on the streets around you?
      • Rakunus, on 06/13/2008, -1/+4They c certainly aren't intelligent .
      • Threlly1, on 06/13/2008, -4/+14Do you mean,
        "So over 4 billion people are stupid ?"
        If they spell like you...yes.
      • MiddleOfNowhere, on 06/13/2008, -1/+38Most followers of a religion have been conditioned by their parents and the society around them to accept a belief system, and many do not have the intellectual means to doubt this indoctrination.This is technically not "stupidity", but a combination of conditioning and lack of inherent or external mechanisms to get rid of this condition/brainwashing.
        If you are born in India, there is an 80% chance you will grow up a hindu. If you are born in the US, you'll probably become a Christian of one flavor or another. And if you had been born in Scandinavia 1000 years ago, you would have strongly believed that the creation of the world began with the giant Ymir and the icy cow Audhumla, forefathers of Odin and company.
        Are/were all these people stupid? No. But it takes intelligence and courage to question what everyone else around you seems to accept as an absolute truth.
        • oldgal, on 06/13/2008, -0/+7Good explanations of how bigots are made, as well.
        • thedarkwolf, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2Doug for the excellent Norse Mythology references
        • Trublmakr, on 06/13/2008, -0/+5All religions are entirely dependent on the indoctrination of children.
      • cfuse, on 06/13/2008, -0/+9I think the world would be a far better place if only 4 billion were stupid. To me, it sounds like a rather conservative estimate when you consider the ways in which people can be stupid. Religion is but one of many idiocies.
      • bobbarkerbilly, on 06/13/2008, -0/+4No. Think of the bell curve. The majority are average.

        Stupid.

        I couldn't resist.
      • musicbear, on 06/13/2008, -1/+8Oh yeah... look at the numbers watching absolutely mind numbing trash like American Idol... Yeah millions of people the world over are incredibly stupid. How many people in two elections voted for Bush. Yes, people are unbelievably brain crushingly stupid.
      • nickallen74, on 06/13/2008, -0/+3I would say brainwashed and not necessarily stupid. Brainwashing is very powerful and can affect even the most intelligent of people. I consider my grandparents very intelligent but they are also religious. For someone who isn't brainwashed it's easy to think that such a belief is stupidity but I don't think this is the case. I find it hard to comprehend an intelligent person believing in such rubbish but I to put it down to early indoctrination and brainwashing.
      • edwinjose, on 06/14/2008, -0/+1The predicate, Intelligent people are less likely to believe in a god doesn't imply Believers are more likely to be stupid.
    • TheGambit, on 06/13/2008, -13/+3The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline. Proverbs 1:7
      • Frost9999, on 06/13/2008, -2/+6Fear of the lord? I thought your deity was all about love. ie: God is love. Why would you fear that? Oh wait, I know why... because the christian god is a mean, jealous, evil, torturing, terrorist. That's why.

        That's right, god is a terrorist. Proverbs 1:7
        • KaiSe7eN, on 06/13/2008, -8/+1You obviously don't know what "fear" means when used in this context, jewbag.
        • cwmather, on 06/13/2008, -5/+2Fear = Respect . I'd respect the creator of the universe. It's pretty simple really.
        • dxinfinitum, on 06/13/2008, -2/+1"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." Psalms 14:1
        • Chassit, on 06/13/2008, -0/+3Fear!=Respect

        • Frost9999, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1Cool, nobody ever called me a jewbag before. What does it mean? I'm some kind of sack stuffed with jube-sweets? MMMMmm jubes and jelly babies... wine gums... OK I'm off to the supermarket.
    • MercFH, on 06/13/2008, -4/+1No ***** x9000 etc.
    • mikesbaker, on 06/13/2008, -4/+10http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lynn

      "Lynn's psychometric studies were cited in the 1994 book The Bell Curve and were criticized as part of the controversy surrounding that book. His article, "Skin color and intelligence in African Americans," 2002 Population and Environment, concludes that lightness of skin color in African-Americans is positively correlated with IQ, which he claims derives from the higher proportion of Caucasian admixture."

      Thats right he is an old school bigot who thinks that blacks are less intelligent than white people - just because they are black.
      • RonBurgundy76, on 06/13/2008, -0/+3I don't agree with him, but there exists a percentage of blacks that fail to prove him wrong. Though I suppose the same could be said for any race in sufficient numbers.
        • toowired77, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2What arrogance. It was illegal for blacks to read in this country. If you ancestors were forced to downplay the value of literacy, that would have an effect on your culture. These studies are twisted. I think its a terrible mistake to underestimate people.
      • userperson, on 06/13/2008, -0/+5Indeed people should not run studies that have 'racist' outcomes. /s
        • FecalHurler, on 06/13/2008, -1/+1Oh please. Is there an inherent difference in the intelligence of white rabbits and brown rabbits? How about white owls and black owls?

          Members of the same species have the same general characteristics, and IQ falls into that territory.
      • thedarkwolf, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1Good work. Correlation does not imply causation. I think the past history he seams to have with this type of experimentation should be a warning to take the results of this study with a grain of salt.
      • Myztry, on 06/14/2008, -0/+3It's not merely skin color. It's genetic makeup. Racial attributes. I'm Caucasian so let's flip the coin.
        Negro people tend to be better endowed that Japanese people.
        Negro people tend to be taller than Italian people.
        Negro people tend to have better endurance than English people.
        Negro people tend to have better hair than .... ummmm....

        There are racial differences. What's to say it doesn't apply to intelligence. What makes it racism to recognize this?
        As politically correct as it is to deem all races equal. We are not.
        American Basketball (for example) isn't dominated by Negro players because of racism. It's despite of it. Some races simply have stronger traits.
        • rowjimmy, on 06/14/2008, -1/+0"American Basketball (for example) isn't dominated by Negro players because of racism. It's despite of it. Some races simply have stronger traits."

          bad example. slaves were bred to be strong and obedient (read: stupid). doesn't say anything about africans as a race, just a lot about selective breeding of african-americans over the past couple of hundred years
    • m00n1, on 06/13/2008, -5/+12More intelligent people also have a higher rate of suicide. Just because smart people do it doesn't mean it's right :)

      (presuming I'll get dugg down for this)
      • cwmather, on 06/13/2008, -3/+3Best comment I've read all day.
      • underdog138, on 06/13/2008, -1/+5The smarter one is the more likely that the acknowledgment of all the stupid people in the world around you will send you into a downward spiral of depression.
      • danbillings, on 06/13/2008, -1/+11Yes, ignorance is truly bliss
      • daimposter, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1makes perfect sense that intelligent people commit more suicide. they question more things and thus probably question more about their lives than an ignorant person. How many mentally retarded people purposely commit suicide? How many geniuses commit suicide?
    • FecalHurler, on 06/13/2008, -5/+6Just to make sure I understand this correctly... The collective intellect of the human race, in under 200 years, has seen enough of an increase to justify atheism? *****.

      It can be attributed to two things: 1) A more open climate to dissenting ideas and opinions, and most importantly 2) The ability for science to better describe what was once never understood.

      Relax Diggers... You're not that much smarter than the average Joe. Sorry.
      • musicbear, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2Also I think it might be something to consider that people wont "give up" religion one day as a bright idea dawns over them, it will fade away and not be observed any more and thought of as a precious antiquated system of belief over time. In fact, in a local church here in town, when addressing the falling numbers of church goers in general, said that Christians should have lots and lots of babies so there will continue to be new Christians coming up. Yep, that's Christianity at work for you.
      • Chassit, on 06/13/2008, -1/+3Meh, this is coming from someone "smart" enough to name himself "Fecalhurler".
        • FecalHurler, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1Ahh so you judge a person's intellect by their username on Digg?

          Hey man... Whatever works for you.
      • daimposter, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1that was not the point of the article. the article compared 'intelligent' people to 'non-intelligent' people and their views on relgion. It does not compare today's intelligent people to that of yesteryears intelligent people.

        though what you say does factor to the overall increase of athiest over time.
      • Andrwmorph, on 06/16/2008, -0/+1The overall intelligence of the human race is much higher than it was 200 years ago and as a result of this there is 1) A more open climate to dissenting ideas and opinions, and most importantly 2) The ability for science to better describe what was once never understood.
    • whiteboyfunk, on 06/13/2008, -8/+0'No *****?'

      Proof that if you're the first to reply, you'll be dugg up. Ridiculous.
    • fonebone, on 06/13/2008, -1/+4*sigh*

      It's usually the arrogant intelectuals that tend to be atheists.

      The truly intelligent people tend to be agnostic :)
      • ben0, on 06/13/2008, -0/+3This isn't a case of agnostic vs atheism though is it.

        Following on from your point though, at least atheism isn't as blind as religion:

        "A magical kettle orbiting around the sun"

        Athiest "No way"

        Agnostic "I guess we know ***** all, so there might be, ill wait and see!"

        Religious "Hell yeah"

        • fonebone, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1Agnostic "I guess we'll look through a telescope and see if there's one"
    • ben0, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2This is exactly what I thought the first digg post would say, and exactly what I was going to say if it wasn't =)
    • Froejam, on 06/13/2008, -1/+0I think a part of a person's mind is devoted to a sort of parental faith in a higher power-- some people need it and some don't. That is why alcohol/ drug addicts and people dealing with post-trauma find that religion helps them.
    • glych002, on 06/13/2008, -2/+1Usually these people have no children, so the problem will work its self out.
    • pitlord, on 06/13/2008, -2/+1Are these "intellectual elites" in the same class as Albert Einstein? Einstein might not have been religious, but he definitely DID believe in G-d.
      -_-
      I guess these guys must be even smarter than Einstein.
      >.>
      Not.
      • Froejam, on 06/14/2008, -0/+1It's a likelihood thing. They aren't saying that smarter people automatically don't believe in God, they are simply stating a trend.
    • PabloMac, on 06/22/2008, -0/+11 Corinthians 1:25: "God's nonsense is wiser than human wisdom..."
      I expect to be buried, but I'm only offering words to consider.
  • Whatiffafarr, on 06/12/2008, -119/+66Yet many "intelligent people" still feel the need for self-applauding news stories. Religion is a crutch that some people need to help get through life, sad but true.
    • JimmySpaza, on 06/13/2008, -64/+9Well, maybe for you it is...or rather the denial of God's existence is your crutch. See, it works both ways, smart guy.
      • Drogoganor, on 06/13/2008, -3/+25If you actually read it, he was criticizing self-validating "intelligent people".

        But you understood that, right?
        • Kyrgizion, on 06/13/2008, -4/+21It's just JimmySpaza, a known Digg troll. Ignore him.
        • SQLDigger, on 06/14/2008, -1/+2To be a troll, I thought one had to be insincere. Don't think I've ever seen him post anything to the contrary.
      • kayala, on 06/13/2008, -3/+11It's not denial, you shining example of a Christian, you. "Denying" something implies the affirmative is true, and in this case, the affirmative (that there is an invisible man in the sky who is desperately concerned with what you do in the privacy of your own bedroom and wants your money even more desperately) is simply not true.
      • Trublmakr, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2There's nothing particularly comforting about an Athiests lack of belief in a diety. It certainly does not help us understand the mysteries of the universe - in fact for many it inspires an insatiable and exhausting quest for more knowledge, insight and understanding. Atheism a crutch? No... more like a burden,. or if you prefer,.. our "cross to bear".
    • Maver1c, on 06/13/2008, -8/+18dont know why you are being dugg down. it's not sad that so many people get brainwashed?
    • digitronix, on 06/13/2008, -21/+7This is reminiscent of the story "The Emperor's New Clothes"; if you can't see them you are not intelligent enough. I do not accept atheists' belief in the non-existence of God, so I (and millions of others) are dismissed as being of inferior intelligence.

      Science does not have all the answers, and never can (In the beginning there was nothing, then it exploded...). I do not claim to have all the answers, but as I pass through this relatively brief life trying to understand creation (God's work, as I choose to believe) I consider that the words of Jesus, "Love one another as I have loved you" offer more to civilization than all these self-important academics, scientists, politicians, and other "persons of superior intelligence" put together.
      • alpha88, on 06/13/2008, -4/+19Similar to your dilemma of being dismissed as not as intelligent, as an Atheist, I do not accept Christians' (or other religions') belief in the existence of any type of God or omnipresent being, so I am dismissed as being less moral, and even "evil" by some Christians. However I can have morals without believing a religion. Morals are not the invention of religions, but individual beliefs by certain individuals. So it's unfair to generalize.

        However, unlike the Atheist being evil or immoral belief, where there are no statistics, and no kind of proof to back up this statement that many religions believe, the idea that those who believe in God are less intelligent IS backed up by proof. This is because Scientists, Mathematicians, Doctors, and others in professions which require a higher intelligence often believe in proof that can be given to them (proof for evolution and the big bang for example), whereas others tend to believe in what gives them comfort, and something to fall back on and believe in. So there's a direct correlation between the ways of thinking between those more intelligent than others – which directly affects the beliefs of the individual.

        Also, Science may not have all the answers, but it has a considerable amount of them. Using observations and calculations to observe the world reveals facts, not opinions. And for the record, nobody says "nothing exploded", we just don't know what was there yet. It may have been a previous universe which imploded, then exploded into the universe we now know – but as of now, besides the fact that there was a big bang, we're not sure what happened.
        • MisterEX, on 06/13/2008, -2/+2Careful there, there's no "fact" that there was ever a big bang. Only speculation. And the big bang is just the most widespread theory of how the universe was created. There are many others out there. Check 'em out!
        • alpha88, on 06/13/2008, -1/+1MisterEX, it may be a theory, but so is gravity. There is so much proof for it however, that most people consider it a fact, just like the big bang. That's why it's so widespread.
        • MisterEX, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2Gravity and the "Big Bang" are completely different. That's not a good comparison.

          The Big Bang has very little evidence to support it.

          "Big-Bang cosmology refers to an epoch that cannot be reached by any form of astronomy, and, in more than two decades, it has not produced a single successful prediction." - Sir Fred Hoyle, Astronomer
      • notanidiot, on 06/13/2008, -7/+5Pride is a sin. Jesus: "The only way to heaven is through MY name."

        Vanity is a sin. "Get dressed up real nice, we'z goin to church!"

        Jesus took the punishment for our sins. Yet somehow he resides in heaven rather than hell. Where's his punishment?
        • Esstee, on 06/13/2008, -4/+2lol

          Dressing up is not vanity.
          Jesus did not sin.
          There is no such place a hell.

          There, all straightened up.
        • MisterEX, on 06/13/2008, -1/+3"The only way to heaven is through MY name."

          You think that's vanity? If you understood Christian doctrine you'd realize Jesus came to Earth to extinguish the sins of man. Because sin & God do not go together, God offered his son to Earth out of love for US. So stating, "The only way to heaven is through MY name," is not vanity, but love and a way for us to be forgiven of sin, and therefore be able to be allowed in the presence of God.

          You don't have to believe it, but if you're going to quote it, at least understand it.
        • coyote1284, on 06/13/2008, -1/+3"Jesus took the punishment for our sins. Yet somehow he resides in heaven rather than hell. Where's his punishment?"

          Well, assuming the Jesus story is true, that's exactly what He was doing for the 3 days He was dead.
        • notanidiot, on 06/13/2008, -3/+3I didn't say it was vanity, I said it was pride, misterex. If you don't see how its prideful boasting to say that your name, not good deeds or kindness, is how to get into heaven, u b crazy!

          And coyote, if Jesus really took our punishment, the punishment for all the sins of man, He should be doing multiple eternal life sentences in hell, not coming back up after 3 days. Who does He think He is, Paris Hilton?
        • SQLDigger, on 06/14/2008, -0/+2What's pride for a human, is not pride for God. Jesus is simply making a statement of fact, an offer of redemption. Jesus claimed to be God - so either he was nuts, he was a demon, or He is in truth God. Only one of those makes sense, in light of the evidence.

          As far as punishment - the Bible actually says He was a sacrifice for our sins. He wasn't necessarily punished to the full extent each of our sins (Bible doesn't and can't say what He went through on the cross); though He did experience unjust punishment at the extreme level of human punishment, as well as spend some time in hell (but mainly that was just doing some preachin'). But God was pleased by the sacrifice of His Son, which in His Holiness He deemed sufficient to expiate our sins. There's no principle of sacrifice elucidated anywhere in the Bible that says the Lamb has to suffer every punishment for the sins of the people. He's just the Lamb. He just has to lay down His life willingly, and die.
      • coyote1284, on 06/13/2008, -1/+5Wow, way to COMPLETELY twist the point of that story to your argument. The people that could "see" the Emperor's clothes were following the crowd or fearing the Emperor's wrath if they mentioned it. Even the most "intelligent" of the town "saw" the Emperor's clothes and paid him lip service. It took a child, unindoctrined in the social mores, to point out that the Emperor was naked.
    • dave11980, on 06/13/2008, -10/+7After a couple years of reading comments of this such on digg I have come to realize something. It is not so much the doctors, scientists, etc. who are disbelieving in god, it is the semi-intelligent people sitting on their computers at home spouting off the stuff they read as through they themselves wrote it who disbelieve. I hate to break the bubble for you guys but the vast majority of the academic and medical world that isn't state ran is ran and owned by churches.
      • mamboboy, on 06/13/2008, -1/+4i knew there was no god the day i got goatse'd
      • xrod, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1But isn't the vast majority of the academic and the medical world state ran?
    • Phyraxus, on 06/13/2008, -2/+4Regardless of whether it is self-applauding or not, it still is true. Intelligent people tend not to believe in god.
  • elvenrunelord, on 06/12/2008, -65/+652I don't disbelieve in god. I just want nothing to do with organized religion or its drama queen crap
    • romistrub, on 06/13/2008, -11/+6Same. I just consider the whole idea of religion one that is not really worth addressing from a first-person point of view.
    • cowsgonemadd3, on 06/13/2008, -54/+8"The fool hath said in his heart, 'There is no God'" (Psalm 14:1; 53:1)
      • borninda818, on 06/13/2008, -7/+1"They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good."
        lol...doeth
        • hmunkey, on 06/13/2008, -1/+13That sounds like something someone would say if they wanted to make people believe what they wrote. Only fools disagree.

          Doesn't make it true.
      • wellyuk, on 06/13/2008, -1/+23"The fool hath said in his heart, 'The fool hath said in his heart, "There is no God" (Psalm 14:1, 53:1)'" - Me.
        • whahaa, on 06/13/2008, -0/+15"I never broke the law;
          I am the law!" (Judge Dread, about a third of the way in) - Sly Stallone
      • alpha88, on 06/13/2008, -0/+20"The fool uses a quote from the bible to prove that, 'There is a God' when we're already saying those who believe in god are less intelligent" (alpha88, Around 3:21am)
        • betheturtle, on 06/13/2008, -3/+2"The Adept Insulter uses his victims comments against him in juxtaposition of content" (betheturtle, too early)
      • userperson, on 06/13/2008, -1/+1Just watch the first few minutes of this ...
        http://is.gd/wC1

        • NotOptium, on 06/13/2008, -0/+3I watched it for 5 minutes but it never changed..............
    • natey14, on 06/13/2008, -13/+61You don't have to have organized religion to believe in God.
      • mustang460, on 06/13/2008, -10/+52hes right, you can make up your own
      • SuperWinner, on 06/13/2008, -9/+50same goes for bigfoot
      • Torx, on 06/13/2008, -0/+13Yea, so says my lunatic religious neighbors.. "You dont have to be in an organized religion to believe in God, but come to our church, and pay your ties and Jesus will love you again." ppfffttt!
        • housewarmer, on 06/13/2008, -0/+11It's tithes, not ties...just FYI. I wouldn't pay if I were you - it's a racket. :)
        • acero47, on 06/13/2008, -2/+1@Torx: Not all denominations believe that tithing is a requirement to be saved. Many believe that faith in Christ and asking his forgiveness is all that is necessary.

          @housewarmer: Maybe some of them are, but most need the money to keep the church from going bankrupt. It's just like anything you go to (sports games, the opera, whatever) in that it needs money to stay afloat. It doesn't get money from the government, so the only other place is its patrons.

          For both: don't generalize religion based on a few stereotypes.
      • 1town, on 06/13/2008, -4/+4You don't have to believe in God, period. What is "God" without religion? That warm fuzzy feeling you get inside sometimes? The creator of the universe?

        If you don't get your faith from religion, then join us who are trying to keep religious intolerance at bay.
        • CressCrowbits, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1The clue is in the use of his term 'organised'.
      • fr3ddie, on 06/13/2008, -11/+4believing in god.... believing in religion.... youre still ***** dumb either way.
        • Warbick, on 06/13/2008, -3/+2Intolerance much?
        • userperson, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1@Warbick
          Admittedly it isn't the nicest thing ever written. Though I dislike how 'tolerance' is coming to mean 'love and respect'. Tolerance is tolerating them, i.e. not beating them to death. He merely called them '***** dumb'.

          In contrast, most religious texts DO advocate the death of nonbelievers:
          Intolerance much?
      • screwfanboys1, on 06/13/2008, -0/+4I'm pretty sure he just stated that
      • Gforce20, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1The reason many "intellectual elites" don't believe in God is because they believe everything in the universe is logical. It's true that a God of any sort would be illogical- but when you think about it, existence itself is illogical. The Big Bang theory states that the universe "just happened"... but what created it? And if God created everything, who or what created God?
        Hence it's illogical for ANYTHING to exist, because everything (according to logic) must have a creator. This proves that there must be some illogical explanation for our existence- cue God. Yes, God's existence is illogical as well, but the absence of a God would be impossible because, well, the universe as we see it is based upon LOGIC.
        God, however, isn't bound by logic. God created this universe and bound it to logic to keep everything under control. Logic isn't an absolute property of existence- if it was, existence would be... illogical. O_o
        That's my reasoning... would anyone like to follow up on this comment?
        EDIT: Logic logic logic logic logic. I just read through this comment and noticed I overused the word a bit... sorry. :/
    • spookyttws, on 06/13/2008, -2/+23I'm sure there are a lot more people who share the same beliefs as you as there are would classify themselves as atheists. And as much as I think the study is true, I also have to agree that it's just not that simple. People are complicated and simply being smarter (although being a factor) isn't the only factor.
    • ryanonfire, on 06/13/2008, -9/+14"Won't someone PLEASE think of the children!"
      • RandomGorilla, on 06/13/2008, -1/+8That's probably part of the reason; The Catholic priests ARE thinking of the children."
      • feignNU, on 06/13/2008, -1/+1The children, the children, what about the children?! ***** the children. What, the get to a certain age and they're off you're ***** love list? You either love all people of all ages or you shut the ***** up.
    • randomstupid, on 06/13/2008, -10/+18i agree - people spouting on how they know god exists are as lame as people spouting on that they know god doesn't exist .

      personally i don't think there is a deity, but really ... we don't know anything ! we're only meat sticks after all...

      Agnosticism all the way !
      • c0mputar, on 06/13/2008, -8/+4Know isn't used in context with absolute knowledge. You could very well say that you know god doesn't exist aslong as there exists a level of certainty. It's much the same way as knowing we orbit the sun. I'd like to introduce to you many arguments which raise the level of certainty on the no god spectrum, but I feel that is going to far with you in such short time.
        You've also failed to acknowledge that there exists a group of people who just lack faith in god and that doesn't mean they know/believe there is no god. Technically, those who lack faith are atheists whether they like it or not, because that's what atheism entails, the lack of faith in god.
        Belief is just to know/hope with a level of certainty, whilst faith is to know/hope without or despite any evidence. Keep those 2 definitions in mind.
        Theism - Faith in god
        Atheism - Lacking faith in god
        Gnostic - To know (it's up to you if you want to make know associated with absolute knowledge)
        Agnostic - Cannot be proven either way (technically, we're agnostics about absolutely everything except math and logic, but even our perception of math and logic is subject to error)
        Conclusion? You can have agnostic atheists.
        • Spymodhf, on 06/13/2008, -1/+8a·the·ist:
          a person who denies the existence of a supreme being or beings.
        • c0mputar, on 06/13/2008, -5/+2Cherry pick your definitions, go ahead, but the reality is that the majority of atheists define it as lacking faith in god. You can get more specific titles, as I mentioned, but anyone who lacks faith in god, which is the opposite to the word theism, is an atheist.
        • rageguy, on 06/13/2008, -0/+5Its very dificult to disproove something, you can come up with enough pseudo logic to support the claim that when you're not looking at the sun it turns into a giant glowing duck.

          Many atheists take the stand point that until proven, god does not exist. Just like until proven the sun is not a duck.

          Agnostics to extend the analogy would beleive its just not knowable if the sun is a duck or not.

          In short I (an atheist) will accept to the existance of god(s). However I just simply do not see suffecient proove that one exists nor any processes in nature that demand the existance of one. The world and universe appears to be explainable without the devine. The second that changes, so will my view on theism.
        • equinoxChild, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1deviating from the actual argument,
          shouldn't the breakdown of the word be:
          a-theis-t

          in terms of the components and the shared root with theism? maybe I'm wrong on that.
      • rodrigo74, on 06/13/2008, -2/+14Are you agnostic regarding unicorns and fairies as well, or only the abrahamic god? What about other gods?
        • diggimator, on 06/13/2008, -0/+8Obviously, people who state Flying Spaghetti Monsters don't exist are clearly delusional.
    • Dragular, on 06/13/2008, -7/+20I don't see how the belief in a God necessarily has to contradict science. Even if concrete evidence exists tracing everything back to the Big Bang, there's no way to explain why things were in place to facilitate it, other than a belief that something came from nothing, which is even crazier IMO.

      Christian, Hindu, Muslim, whatever, it's all an attempt to explain why the laws of science even exist. A voice on high shouting, "Disagree with this group of people!," "Don't allow this sort of thing to go on!," "Do these things on these days or else you're not going to like what happens later!" None of this is any sillier than trying to imagine that the elements suddenly appeared out of a void, then proceeded to begin expanding.
      • c0mputar, on 06/13/2008, -1/+7Religious propaganda, not science, pushed forward the idea we came from nothing. Science is completely neutral on the matter, but it's a logical fallacy to assume we came from nothing, and then another logical fallacy to derive a conclusion from that.
        • darkstar949, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2Actually, Hawkings believes that one day we will be able to prove that our universe came from nothing. Here's a link to the Slashdot article which has more links - http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/1 ...
        • c0mputar, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1Keyword: Believes. While I do hold Hawkings words as more credible then 99.99% of the human population... science as a whole is still neutral on the matter. It doesn't stop scientists from coming up with a hypothesis though. If no one put forward an idea and showed some logical reasoning to support it and so forth, then we would still be in the pre-bronze age.
      • alpha88, on 06/13/2008, -4/+10"I don't see how the belief in a God necessarily has to contradict science."

        Well the laws of Physics, Biology, and Chemistry seem to make it impossible for something God-like to exist... So there's a start.

        And the big bang didn't necessarily come from "nothing". There may have been a previous universe which imploded before exploding, nobody knows yet. Scientists don't say "there was nothing, then it exploded" though.
        • rageguy, on 06/13/2008, -1/+12Indeed, back before we knew and understood the clouds, stars, diseases and volcanoes humanity often assumed a deity was just around the corner creating them all.

          Today we do not understand the bigbang and the creation of the stellar universe, and today people are assuming a diety is just around the corner.

          Its short sighted to think just because we dont understand something so fantastic as the clouds or the big bang, that god is right behind there.
        • Sanalisnail, on 06/13/2008, -0/+3Maybe theres just 3 people over in the 4th dimension messing around with us, and they are named Bob Ernie and Franklin... Ooh wow I think I just made up a new religion.
        • sonicbliss, on 06/13/2008, -5/+1"Well the laws of Physics, Biology, and Chemistry seem to make it impossible for something God-like to exist... So there's a start."

          WHAT!!!! An Interview with STEPHEN HAWKING is on Digg, and he COULD NOT RULE IT OUT. But I Guess your grasp of science and physics is greater than him right? BolLOckS

          Wow... Seems more like IDIOTS DONT believe. Lynn is a joke
        • bcerz811, on 06/13/2008, -2/+0why does the laws of physics contradict that there's a god? they don't prove that there is, but they certainly don't disprove it either.
        • coyote1284, on 06/13/2008, -1/+2Why is it impossible to consider God like a computer programmer who built an artificial life program, with how everything interacts (the laws of Physics, Biology, and Chemistry) and a few scripted evens (like a well timed Supernova to mark the arrival of His avatar), and let it run (Big Bang)?
        • Dragular, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1"And the big bang didn't necessarily come from "nothing". There may have been a previous universe which imploded before exploding, nobody knows yet. Scientists don't say "there was nothing, then it exploded" though."

          Right. But what I'm saying is, go back to that. How did THAT get there? Ok, go back to the beginning of that. How did THAT get there? The elements had to come from something. If it's from a previous Universe, that previous universe had to come from something. There's no way to explain why suddenly there were things, when before there weren't things.
        • alpha88, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2Dragular, you're right, there is no way to explain what happened or how. That doesn't mean everyone should suddenly say "Well if we don't know... SOME MYSTICAL BEING DID IT!"

          God is pure fiction without proof. And the burden of proof is on those who believe.
      • MiddleOfNowhere, on 06/13/2008, -2/+4"Christian, Hindu, Muslim, whatever, it's all an attempt to explain why the laws of science even exist."
        No, they are not.
        They are pre-Science belief systems using non-rational explanations for natural phenomena (creation, natural disasters etc.) and make people compliant ("Do as the priest/king says, or WhiteBeardedMan will strike you down"). Science is a candle in the dark, while religions tell you stories about the dragons in the dark room (you should have no trouble finding the source for that one on digg :)
        • sonicbliss, on 06/13/2008, -1/+2While I admit that some religious explanations for phenomenon dont hold up to modern scrutiny the bible is more about telling you how to live your life, than explain why things are. Its full of case studies and lessons on betrayal, dishonesty, love which are all still relevant today.

          You cant have read the Bible. And quoting silly little simplistic cartoons off digg does not give you much credence.

          Muslims were some of the first scientists who discussed chemistry, biology mechanics... you dont know what youre talking about. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_science
        • MiddleOfNowhere, on 06/13/2008, -0/+4"the bible is more about telling you how to live your life"
          You mean, stoning people who work on sunday, and homosexuals and - while we're at it - adulterers and infidels, too? Great advice, indeed. :)
          " Its full of case studies and lessons on betrayal, dishonesty, love which are all still relevant today."
          You mean the "Eye for an Eye" school of thought? Thanks, I believe we had enough of that.
          And if you prefer the softened 2.0 version (love, peace etc.) - I don't need the promises of an imaginary son of god or the sword of eternal damnation hanging over my head to be kind and peaceful. Enlightenment and respect for my fellow humans will do just fine, thanks.
          "Muslims were some of the first scientists who discussed chemistry, biology mechanics..."
          Oh boy, here we go again ... Correlation does not mean causation. These were scientists born into a Muslim society. This was at a time when Europe was literally frozen in religious dogma and before the same happened to Arabian societies.
          I do not doubt that a religious person can be curious and brillant. Religious doctrines that keep people from questioning the nature of reality, however, are a danger to all of mankind. Every "because it's in the bible/tora/quran" said to a child asking questions is an insult to intelligence and progress, and it's happening a million times a day.
      • justice7, on 06/13/2008, -0/+3one of the best posts i've seen on digg, yet the atheist zealots are jumping all over you.
        The truth is; we don't know what the truth is. We can sit here and say "There is a God, the bible says so!" , or say "There is no proof of God, ask Darwin" ... it really isn't knowable at this present time. To say you know the answer is simply ignorance.

        How was life created? Even Darwin has no answer to that; he only explains how it evolved.
        • zerobackup, on 06/13/2008, -1/+1I think the whole Darwin Fish with legs that people put on the back of their car has religious folks confused. No one deifies Darwin, and if they do they are morons. Simply saying that "Darwin couldn't prove it" doesn't mean squat, he was just a scientist not a martyr.

          It's an endless cycle.
          -Something can't be explained by the science of the day, religion points to that as proof that God exists, because "How else would X have happened?"

          -Science advances and proves why X happened.

          -Religion then points to the next unexplainable phenomenon and says, "But wait, what about that? This proves God exists! How else could X happen?"
        • justice7, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1@zerobackup, not at all like that..

          the fact Science does not know something certainly doesn't prove anything, other than science hasn't figured it out. This also means that there is no reason to say God does NOT exist, because science hasn't been able to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt; the very fundamental issues about a creator of life.

          Darwin is not the answer to life and the universe; yet a lot of people think it is. It is a major misconception on digg, and elsewhere.
    • xptoast, on 06/13/2008, -0/+4I don't care if you are in an organized group of people that believe something...for if you are not in that group you still reside in the mass of people that are organized by thought and set themselves in a group for there is always a group no matter what. That is like anarchists saying they don't want to be like anyone else...too bad they are set in a group called anarchists. You cannot escape it. Christians are just human like any other person you see. Some are nuts just like any non Christian can be. Crazies know no bounds.
      • snapcase, on 06/13/2008, -0/+3Yeah but the problem is that the organized groups gain power. Here in the grand ol' U.S. of A., they even get tax exemption. It's the power that the organized groups gain and the way they choose to use it that's the big problem. If Scientologists were just a loosely associated group of people that believed a certain story about creation and the related lore but not an organized church, then there wouldn't be much of a controversy about them. But they use the power they have as an organized group and use it in truly vile ways... like having a collection of the most expensive lawyers in the country to ruin people's lives and also to pay off government officials and dictate the lives of the other followers.

        I have to ask though... did you get that Anarchist line from SLC Punk?
        • xptoast, on 06/13/2008, -1/+2No I did not. That was such a freaking long movie dude. The thing is that not all Christians are nuts. Also you should consider there are many variations of people that call themselves Christians. I mean you can go from Pentecostal to Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses. There are huge differences. Try Catholic on for size too. Ever been to one of those churches? All different. It is also interesting to note that you can take a said organization and go to two different establishments of that organization and receive quite a different service and message.

          The tax help for those organizations are also available to other non profit organizations. Most GOOD churches will actually help people. You have to remember that churches are inhabited by the same creature that you yourself are...human. We all fail at times, we all are different. This whole scientific approach to things goes a bit too far sometimes. Try to use science to prove why my favorite color is better than yours. How about my favorite ice cream. We all believe something different and for different reasons.
          Some are blind to something just by mention. If a bum came up to you with his little sign but for some reason decided to tell you something different than "got a dollar?" you may be surprised if his statement was "I have a million dollars and I am tired of acting like a bum. You want to help me get the money out of my account and be my partner in a new company I wish to start." You may disbelieve this crazy man that may in fact be telling you something truthful. It is all a matter of opinion and not of fact.

          I believe in God for many reasons. For a scientific reasons I wish to point out that if you search for the beginning you will end with an infinite approach in your question. Your process will always have one more step associated with it. It is like asking where the end of the number line is. That is why we have infinity. The answer always lies one step out of reach at least. Same with our universe and existence. Logic only gets you so far.

          If work and such is a positive or negative value of a system then how do you explain ever having work ever done? All energy equals 0. Entropy is just a concept to escape a non understanding of why things happen...just the same as the concept of infinity is to save you from not knowing the answers.

          Well we could talk for hours so I will concede to agree to not agree with those who will not agree.
        • snapcase, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1I didn't even mention Christians... The point is that Churches have power and from the very beginning there has been corruption in the Churches. That leads to he problems. I never said all churches were the same.

          "This whole scientific approach to things goes a bit too far sometimes. Try to use science to prove why my favorite color is better than yours. How about my favorite ice cream. We all believe something different and for different reasons."

          Um sorry but there's no possibility of using a "scientific" approach to say why someone's opinion is "better" than somebody else's. I'm not even aware of anyone trying to do such a thing. Should anyone try to say that "science says their favorite color is better than yours" I suggest you promptly ignore the dunce. It seems like you're trying to mix philosophy with your science...

          If you search for the "beginning" as you say, and I assume you mean theories like the Big Bang, you find reasonable theories based on scientific and mathematical evidence with an inherent understanding that we don't yet, and quite possibly never will, have all the facts. The number system is a human construct used to help understand the world. Infinity exists because we chose so. Logic only getting you so far, and finding demonstrable, repeatable, explanations for the natural world is a bit different. One is just your understanding of something, the other is simply the way it is.

          I'm really not sure what you're getting at ultimately. Best I can figure you think there's some inherent opposition between science and religion... There simply isn't.
    • poxonyou, on 06/13/2008, -0/+6I want to revive some old Norse/Germanic myths and make it into an organized religion. The stories and spiritual world structure are more interesting. Of course, I'm agnostic, but my followers would believe it and maybe over time, I'd become a prophet for starting/reviving it.
    • snapcase, on 06/13/2008, -0/+17I don't personally have any religious beliefs. I do consider myself an Atheist. I do oppose organized religion. I especially oppose the eagerness of these religious organizations to force their beliefs on others no matter the consequences.

      That said, I don't oppose faith. If you choose to believe in some supernatural being that had a hand in your being, then go ahead. Just don't try to force others the believe the same, and don't try to claim that neutral parties, like virtually any of the sciences, are trying to quash your beliefs. Science doesn't take away from faith. It just shows the world as it is. If science proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that Adam & Eve didn't exist as cited in the bible and we didn't walk among the dinosaurs, it doesn't mean that you can't believe in the concept of it. If you don't try to take it so literally you can still believe in your religion and still accept scientific fact for what it is. That's the thing about faith. People who try to replace real science with religion claiming the two can't coexist are clearly lacking in their faith if they see it as such a threat to their beliefs.

      So in other words, yeah anyone can believe what they want just drop the drama ***** and let everyone else get on with their lives how they choose.
      • magicalhobo, on 06/13/2008, -0/+6That is EXACTLY what I think. Are you 21, blond hair, blue eyes? I think you may be my twin.
        • snapcase, on 06/13/2008, -0/+5Oddly enough.... yeah I am 21 with blond hair and blue eyes....
      • CressCrowbits, on 06/13/2008, -0/+5Thank you. As a religious person who's fought against religious intolerance even from within my own, it pisses me off when you get Atheists behaving in exactly the same fashion - "if you don't believe what I believe then you are inferior to me" type sentiment has been the cause of or used at an excuse for most of the worlds conflicts , regardless of whether they are in reference to religion or not.

        The argument that many Atheists make that what they believe is based on provable science rather than blind faith can be used in exactly the same way as those who base their religion on faith - many will quote what they understand as scientific 'fact', without it being something they understand personally, which means they essentially have 'faith' in what they are being told as being true, despite not having seen it for themselves. Just because it is inherent;y 'right' is exactly the same argument as those who say what they believe in the Bible or whatever is inherently 'right'.

        In summing up, no one is inherently 'better' than anyone else because of their belief system, and we are no increasingly finding intolerant people using their Atheist belief system as a tool for bashing others much as we blame religious people the same for using theirs. Stop it.
        • snapcase, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2While some people do accept scientific fact on a sort of faith due to lack of knowledge and comprehension, that's not always the case.

          Knowing something to be true due to provable facts is quite different from faith. Believing something on faith requires no explanation or proof, whereas science demands concrete proof. A true Atheist isn't a person with a different belief system but rather lacking a belief system. Also not the case with all Atheists, but for those who understand what it means, it is. Additionally Atheism shouldn't always be so strongly associated with Science. They do tend to go together but neither is a requirement for the other. There are many religious scientists out there today and in the fields that are most often claimed as "trying to disprove religion", and there are plenty of Atheists who are scientifically ignorant.

          Basically, don't lump all Atheists in the group of people with merely different beliefs who use it as their bases for assault on others. For many there's no faith involved. Just like there are people who quote scripture without actually understanding the full meaning of the passages, the origins, the cultural backgrounds and the original translations, there are people equally ignorant in Science that use it the same way. Just not all of them.
        • theirishcreme, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1I'm shocked! This is the most intelligent discussion on the topic I've ever seen!
    • grungegbunny, on 06/13/2008, -1/+3I don't disbelieve in The Flying Spaghetti Monster (May His Noodle Appendage Touch Thee) I just want nothing to do with organized religion or its drama queen crap.
    • clarionhaze, on 06/13/2008, -2/+4That's exactly what I said before I considered myself an Atheist.
    • tdmand, on 06/13/2008, -1/+3That's a start. The next step is to drop your imaginary friend.
    • lamiaconfitor, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2I'm an atheist, and I have to say, that certainly works for me. (aside from the fact that I refuse to spread my 'belief' like an intellectual virus... the business model for religion. ) I sincerely hope everyone makes up their own minds on the subject.
    • Prathik89, on 06/13/2008, -7/+3Gandhi believed in God, so.. that makes him less intelligent then me? Common, this is what atheists are trying to fight, bigotry.
      • ElAssoWipo, on 06/13/2008, -4/+4Atheists don't fight anything. They just don't believe in God.

        "Atheists do X" (x being anything other than not believing in God) = inherently flawed. It's not a group.

        And believing in God doesn't make you stupid, you're just a lot more likely to believe in God if you are. And people of higher intelligence are a lot less likely to believe in god.

        And Ghandi, although being a cultural icon, didn't make any damn sense. The man just followed a set of dogmas to the letter. It worked out in the end, but his dogmas just happened to be positive ones. If he had been brought up with a different set of dogmas, history would've been entirely different.

        That's the difference between religious people and free thinkers. Religious people don't think, they follow a code. It's like painting by numbers.
        • rficwizard, on 06/13/2008, -2/+2Do you have any data that support the assertions that "people of higher intelligence are a lot less likely to believe in god"? It seems that it would be hard to correct for education in such a study, since there is a high correlation between intelligence and education. It has been my experience that education makes one less likely to believe in god (but I don't have data to back that up).
        • rficwizard, on 06/13/2008, -0/+4Oops, ignore me and bury me; I got confused about which thread I was in, and hadn't read the article. Mea culpa, I'm an idiot.
    • cfuse, on 06/13/2008, -2/+2Congratulations! You've made it to the halfway point.
    • Prathik89, on 06/13/2008, -3/+3Gandhi believed in God.. so that makes him less intelligent then me?
      Come on, we aetheists are trying to fight this thing... its called bigotry.
      • exomni, on 06/13/2008, -1/+4Ghandi's religious was this (and I quote): "Truth is God".

        Not "Some magical, three-person in one mumbo jumbo, Jesus-Christ sending, anthropormorphic male with an affinity for prepuce collecting is God" not "Some personal creator who is concerned over human affairs is God", but "Truth is God".

        I'd hardly call Ghandi a theist in any traditional sense, and he most certainly was not a theist in the Christian sense of believing in a personal God.


        It should be noted that similar phrases are used in Christianity "the truth and the light", etc. But the point is: Ghandi never professed belief in a personal christian-like God.
    • ophello, on 06/13/2008, -0/+10I have nothing against God, it's his fan club I can't stand.
  • somnambulator, on 06/12/2008, -52/+269"Dr Alistair McFadyen, senior lecturer in Christian theology at Leeds University, said the conclusion had "a slight tinge of Western cultural imperialism as well as an anti-religious sentiment"."

    Of course he's going to say this, because it makes his career and life look like the bloody enormous waste of time that it was.
    Oh... and it makes him look like a complete 'tard too.
    • rohan1234, on 06/13/2008, -2/+76Ironic that a "lecturer in Christian theology" is the one accusing someone else of "Western cultural imperialism".
      • aristotle0dude, on 06/14/2008, -0/+1"Ironic that a "lecturer in Christian theology" is the one accusing someone else of "Western cultural imperialism"."
        I don't think you know what that word means. Christian theology has its origin in a middle eastern culture.

        What is ironic is that you are a counter indication to the proposition that atheists tend to be part of the intellectual elite.

        Perhaps these researchers should google "delusions of grandeur". I've found that so-called intellectuals tend to have no clue about what really matters in life. They believe themselves to be intelligent even if they have difficulty grasping some of the most basic concepts everyone else takes for granted.
        • xrod, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1Ironic is someone trying to make an intellectual argument against intellectuals.
    • feoren, on 06/13/2008, -1/+38It's funny that things like "facts" and "reality" have an anti-religious sentiment.
      • shig, on 06/13/2008, -1/+6What's even more funny is that things like facts and reality have no meaning separate from the mind that considers them, or imagines them, as the case may be. How can a thing have a sentiment? It's utter nonsense. It's exactly those kinds of thoughts that are fashionable nowadays. It will pass, like the fad that it is. Future generations will laugh at it like they laugh at mullets in the present.
        • bicyclethief, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2Mullets are no laughing matter.
      • freeth1nker, on 06/13/2008, -0/+3Yeah, every time. They immediately dismiss it as "anti-religious bias" and cover their ears and "LALALALA I'm not listening!" Then they say non-religious people are the closed-minded ones.
    • trollhunter, on 06/13/2008, -8/+1Anyone called Alistair McFadyen is BOUND to be a tard...
    • Metasquares, on 06/13/2008, -0/+5Actually, I imagine he thinks it counter-factual, since he's an intellectual involved in theology. His firsthand experience is probably "I've seen many smart religious people", although this says more about his background than anything else.
    • LifeIsARhythm, on 06/13/2008, -1/+3The majority of religion professors at my college are atheists. They just find ALL religions to be highly interesting and its more the social aspect of it that they enjoy lecturing on,
      • JigoroKano, on 06/13/2008, -1/+3I remember when some Catholic dioceses in England were polled and on the order of 5% of the clergy were atheist. I found that baffling at the time.
        • xrod, on 06/19/2008, -0/+15% polled were will to say they were atheist, but I have to believe the real number was much higher.
  • gordonj, on 06/12/2008, -12/+104A proof in point is reading the comments at the end of the article.
    • mikesbaker, on 06/13/2008, -10/+3no this is just proof that a huge portion of digg consists of small minded bigots. Richard Lynn also thinks that black people are less intelligent than white people just because they are black.
      • gordonj, on 06/13/2008, -1/+8can you demonstrate that correlation equals causation and show me where Lynn advocates this view?
        • mikesbaker, on 06/14/2008, -1/+2here you go
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lynn
        • gordonj, on 06/16/2008, -0/+2That is not a demonstration that correlation equals causation. In fact that doesn't answer me at all, and just appears intellectually lazy. Where on the wikipedia page you put up does it say that Lynn states that being black *causes* a lower IQ? Being black may indeed *correlate* with a lower IQ for many different socio-political reasons (which actually reflects the levels of inequality in a mixed society), in which case what Lynn is saying may actually be true even if it is not politically correct and you don't agree with it. This has no bearing on whether being a certain race will genetically dispose somebody to have a low or high IQ.

      • Maynym, on 06/14/2008, -0/+2Blacks have, on average, lower IQs than whites. This is a proven fact. Now, how you explain that, is another thing (whether it's natural or cultural, etc.) ~~~ And no, I'm not saying this "because I'm white". It's a fact. East Asians have, again, on average, higher IQs than whites. I'm white and I admit to that.

        I'm not saying "blacks are stupid". Some might be geniuses. But on average, they have lower IQs.

        Facts are facts. If you want all races to be completely equal - your wish doesn't make it true. The same as for God, if you want him to be real, it doesn't mean he is.

        (Too bad the Politically-Correct fascist mob lynches everyone who states facts, like dr. Watson.)
      • gordonj, on 06/16/2008, -0/+1@Maynym
        You may be right that black people have on average lower IQs than whites or asians, but that may not be a genetic predisposition, but rather a socio-political influence which reflects an inequality in our societies.
    • Relikh, on 06/13/2008, -6/+0Correlation does not equal causation. I'm religious and I'm pretty sure I have at least above average intelligence. Many of the hardcore Christians I know I am sure are smarter than a majority of people. Sure some Christians are dumb people, but one doesn't necessarily cause or lead to the other. Now let's look at the sex life of the average digger. Does never getting laid make you become a digger? Hell no. So does being a digger mean you are destined to never get laid? Probably not. Probably.
    • skyscape, on 06/13/2008, -4/+3This article is written to piss of some people.
      There is nothing intelligent about pissing off people.

      It is a common tendency that when people are not oppressed they feel no need for God.
      Only when the disaster strikes, either in their personal life, or on a national scale, all of a sudden their intelligence vaporizes and they cry out "God if you exist, help me please"


    • homercles337, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2God damn it i HATE those upside down comment systems!
  • drachemorder, on 06/12/2008, -81/+50"many more members of the "intellectual elite" considered themselves atheists than the national average."

    Intellectual elite? That says to me "people who think they're smarter than everyone else", not necessarily people who really are.
    • Ramble, on 06/12/2008, -16/+42They don't nessesarily consider themselves elite, but they are in terms of achievement/IQ.
      • JimmySpaza, on 06/13/2008, -18/+6Your post itself smacks of intellectual arrogance.
        • Drogoganor, on 06/13/2008, -5/+13"Do not speak in the ears of a fool, for he will despise the wisdom of your words."
        • Fordi, on 06/13/2008, -4/+10Or, you know, selection criteria.

          The people chosen for the study were given the classification 'intellectual elite' based on their academic achievements, not based on whether they consider themselves smarter than everyone else.

          Hell, you alone would skew the study if the latter were true.

          Anyway, the people selected by the study's criteria may or may not think they're smarter than everyone else; that wasn't a question asked.

          I really should learn better than to click 'show' on your comments. It's like I want my brain to ache or something.
        • Fordi, on 06/13/2008, -3/+9@Drogoganor:
          That was the best summing up of what an argument with Jimmy is like that I have ever heard.
        • SQLDigger, on 06/13/2008, -1/+1Tell me, oh wise one. Who defines what an "academic achievement is"? Are not professors, the self-described "intellectual elite", who say who is an academic achiever and who isn't? Sounds like a great big circle jerk to me . . .
        • Ramble, on 06/13/2008, -1/+3I imagine the conductors of the study decide that based on some criteria (published work, etc.).
          You're free to do your own study and post the results here.
    • eir574, on 06/12/2008, -8/+54It sounds like 'intellectually elite' was a label assigned to people by the study. It wasn't self identification. If someone says that you're a member of the intellectual elite, it doesn't mean that you think you're smarter than other people. It means that someone else does.
      • glych002, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1Well I think eir574 is 'intellectually stupid'. Now you are labeled along with all the black and minorities, lets throw in women too.
    • SQLDigger, on 06/13/2008, -22/+9No kidding. University professors consistently ranking themselves as the smartest class of people, big surprise. Gallup also polls confirm, of course, that people who call themselves intelligent are also likely to call themselves atheists. Some brilliant scientific research is obviously at work, here, my friend. We mustn't wrassle with these self-professed, Dawkins-esque "brights."
      • romistrub, on 06/13/2008, -10/+7Honestly, I think Prof. Gordon Lynch is right:

        "Linking religious belief and intelligence in this way could reflect a dangerous trend, developing a simplistic characterisation of religion as primitive, which - while we are trying to deal with very complex issues of religious and cultural pluralism - is perhaps not the most helpful response."

        While I *do* agree that religion requires a measure of simplemindedness to thrive, I certainly don't think that it's the only cause, nor do I think it is useful to address it as such.
        • SQLDigger, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1Don't look down on simple-mindedness, my friend. We would never learn anything or indeed, grow very old, if we didn't early on grasp certain truths with childlike faith in those who teach us.

          "There is no stairway to heaven . . . only a bridge divine."
      • Drogoganor, on 06/13/2008, -4/+8You did read the article, right?

        Bunch of sore-assed people complaining about the "intellectual elite" - when they don't even read the article!

        Way to prove them right, guys!
      • Rikkochet, on 06/13/2008, -3/+12"University professors consistently ranking themselves as the smartest class of people, big surprise."
        Well, they are university professors. Like it or not, they ARE ***** smarter than most people.
        • SQLDigger, on 06/13/2008, -3/+1Ahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!
        • SQLDigger, on 06/13/2008, -1/+1Ahem. Ha! Irrefutable scientific proof right there, guys. I'm lovin' all this faith, I tell you. If it wasn't in the antichrist, I might actually be able to relate to ya.

    • Yage2006, on 06/13/2008, -3/+15Too dumb to realize what the Intellectual elite are.
    • suckanucka, on 06/13/2008, -5/+8Yes, the opposite of your calling... the dumbass elite.
    • BlacklabelSAR, on 06/13/2008, -3/+5You just made the point of the article.
    • skyscape, on 06/13/2008, -4/+3For some reason these "intellectual elites" cant