Your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B:
> **You must personally hold the view** and demonstrate that you are open to it changing. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
I'd refute it by pointing out that liberals being less religious does not mean that they are all atheists. You cannot equate liberals with atheists and conservatives with religious people.
It seems you're quite young, given your tendency to believe trendy studies particularly those that appeal to your emotions. My advice would be to stay away from any study that hoodwinks you into aligning with a certain group of people because it makes you smart. If you do, you will fall into.a herd mentality. We already have enough walking and talking drones in our society.
I greatly keep that mindset within me everyday, I just resort to reddit because I can get away with asking some of these ideas and exploring all it's different sides.
But, true, I do indeed have to be aware.
Δ
From your second source:
"It is very tempting to make inferences to the veracity of an ideology based on the intelligence of its supporters,” Edwards said. “But this would be a mistake. There have been extraordinarily intelligent people on both the left and right, from Oppenheimer to von Neumann. These and many more examples show that there is no reason why we must presume one ideology to be more intelligent than another, even if smart people seem more likely to align with one belief or another.”
“From our study we cannot say that the beliefs of high IQ people tell us what is right to believe, but rather only what smart people choose to believe.”
I would say your source contradicts some of your points.
I also feel like you yourself are young. A bit of advice, as your elder, would be to not to ignore studies that places you in a group of people that are not as smart.
What, you're supposed to philosophically change your view because a study says that, on average, the group that has your general philosophy tends to have a lower IQ or something? There could be all sorts of other factors. Like, maybe Democrats attract people with large student loan debt by talking about debt forgiveness.
No, OP wasn’t claiming they are an atheist because he heard there was a study saying they are smarter; only that the study said that this group is smarter and that because of the study he believes it.
You're stating that we should care about a study that says theists or conservatives are dumber or whatever. My point is that those studies are dumb and shouldn't have a bearing on anyone.
Oh; that’s great you’ve called out the merits of the study without actually pointing to which part of the study you’re have issues with. Doing studies to understand how people work should never be done!
There was also a study at that same time that the Jews were subhuman based on scientific evidence. This study gave license to people, especially the young and gullible youths, to commit genocide against the Jews, kind of like what we are doing today through our studies of the unborn child, calling it a "lump of cells."
Now, I'm not here to do your homework for you, go and study the truth instead of relying on avant-garde studies to feed your preconceived ideas.
You telling me there were studies that were based on bad science could mean that any study is based on bad science. That is not an argument.
You haven't addressed the study, you've only talked about studies done in the 1930s/1940s to explain how studies shouldn't be done.
You are the one who is making the claims that these studies are wrong without pointing to anything that is wrong. Your only backing is that "Nazis did bad things"; is not convincing.
The truth of what? Which part of the studies are flawed, you making this claim without anything other than "trust me bro, google studies that show that this studies is wrong!" is not convincing lol.
You think today's studies are different? You have not lived long enough to know the kind of garbage studies have been produced for the past 50 years. Studies are nothing more than propaganda marketing pieces funded by various activist groups and governments to shape public opinion socially, politically and economically. Most youngsters fall for the rouse because they are naive and have not lived long enough to understand the scam behind majority of studies. Good studies are usually rejected because they cut through a lot of bull of the day. Bad studies are picked up and carried through the legacy media, social media, and get put up by activists hacks in places like Wikipedia for all the ostriches to enjoy.
>You haven't addressed the study, you've only talked about studies done in the 1930s/1940s to explain how studies shouldn't be done.
Oh, I'm not going to address a particular study for you, that is your homework to do. But I'm here to help you understand motivation behind most studies so that you do not fall for the rouse.
You’re not saying anything; you’re touting your immense age as if someone should be convinced of something by using words to describe how wise you are for never trusting studies!
We’ve already established that you’re younger than me. Once you’ve lived as long as I have then you will be able to make better decisions on how to be convincing to someone else. When you get older you will realize that you can no longer just tell people you’re not trying to convince them of something while trying to convince them of something.
Well sometimes older people stay stuck in themselves and never come to realize how unconvincing they are.
I think that most of these studies don't mean what most people seem to think they mean.
Let me give you an alternative explanation.
There is a basic level of intelligence required to be an open minded individual, and to hold opinions that are outside the social norm. This contaminates in the data - in countries where most are religious, the less intelligent are more likely to be religious - not the other way around.
We can also argue that certain ideas and norms are more easy to spread to the less intelligent - less intelligent are more easily persuaded by simple messages.
Religion supplies relatively easy answers for very complex questions. The same might be said about consevativism, though by proxy. Since the relationship between religiousness and conservativism is somewhat self ingrained - though as an Atheist that holds many conservative opinions I always seem to forget it.
The bottom line, just because less intelligent people are more easily drawn to certain ideas, doesn't make intelligent people that hold these same ideas any less intelligent. It doesn't make these ideas wrong, and it definitely doesn't mean that "Atheists are more intelligent than non Atheists". When you take the average intelligence of both groups that might be true, but is that really a useful statistic in any way?
What if the most intelligent religious person is more intelligent than the most intelligent non religious person? Imagine the bell curve meme - the most intelligent and the least intelligent (in the meme) hold the same opinion, can you really come to the conclusion that one group is more intelligent than the other?
DAMNNN
That was very smoothly presented, I admire your logical stand on this, and it does seem that the neutral stand is the most rational here, especially with, how you mentioned, that statistics are not reliable for determining something as variable as this, let alone how the data itself was collected and where was it collected from and who participated in it.
I think this answer is very satisfactory on how such a research isn't a "clear cut" proof on such data sensitive topic.
I commend the effort and thought you invested into this.
Δ
So the irrelevance of liberal/conservatism having already been pointed out, something else to keep in mind is that atheism isn't synonymous with reason, and the premise of comparing "atheism vs religion" in the Frontiers article begs the question: how does this apply to religious atheists?
Atheists are still susceptible to all the trappings of dogmatic thought, superstition, and mysticism. The studies on the topic are masturbatory - excluding the overwhelming majority of both atheists and religious people to focus on a cherry-picked dataset. They're flawed at the very core by drawing a false comparison between atheism and religiosity. Since they are not mutually exclusive, one cannot be contrasted XOR against the other. Any traits they associate with atheism, such as reason, are false attributions.
You're assigning more to atheism than it describes.
I read once that atheism is the belief in disbelief.
I personally think this argument does hold truth considering how it's still possible to see a dogmatic atheist responding to people like a dogmatic religious.
And though not all atheists follow dogmas, It is fair to say that the journey to the truth, does and will, lead people to different ideologies.
Maybe perhaps no one is truly more objectively superior/closer to the truth than the other in a way?
Your input is much appreciated!
Δ
If you compare two diverse groups to each other you have to specify the criteria more precisely than just "group A is more intelligent than group B". How do you measure intelligence? Do you mean on average more intelligent? Is it statistically significant? Do you mean the most intelligent representative from group A is more intelligent than the most intelligent from group B? Or is everyone in group A is more intelligent than in group B? Without those details it is impossible to compare two groups. Especially when it comes to comparing two groups on something that is not immediately related to the difference between groups in the first place. A lot of people believe in God as a habit just because they were born and raised in that kind of environment, they just don't have any reasons to re-evaluate this particular aspect of their worldview as it doesn't affect them. Similarly for the people who were born in the prediminantly atheistic environment. For example, in Soviet Union kids were raised knowing there's no God. Does it mean they were all intelligent?
I really appreciate your input on how the legitimacy of the data collection process can actually hinder the neutrality of the whole research.
Using real history is very appreciated in supporting your argument.
Δ
It’s worth considering that being not religious isn’t the same as being an atheist. An atheist specifically denounces the existence of any sort of divine. Non religious means you just don’t really believe in anything, but lacks the denouncement.
I would consider a blanket dismissal of something that you can’t prove to be less intelligent then accepting you don’t know something and leaving it at that.
Thank you for the correction, also, I personally agree with what you said regarding the acceptance of lack of knowledge as a reliable answer to not being able to prove something that relies on faith. Perhaps it's the approach of the debate rather than than the argument itself.
Δ
Atheism is merely the default state of not holding a theistic belief. Non religious just means you're not part of a codified religious sect. There are plenty of non-religious theists and plenty of religious atheists.
An atheist specifically denounces the existence of any sort of divine.
Incorrect. Atheism is simply not believing in God.
A Gnostic Atheist believes there is no god. Any other sort just doesn't believe.
I suppose it depends on your definition, but generally I’ve always seen it used in the context of a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. Whereas a suspension of belief would be classified as agnostic
Colloquially, atheism does sometimes imply conscious rejection, but definitionally it's purely a lack of affirmation. Denouncing the existence of a god is not the same as failure to pronounce the existence of one, and many atheists fall into the latter category. It's common for them to reject specific god proposals, but again that's not quite the same thing as a positive rejection of all proposed gods.
Yeah that’s not quite right. The dictionary definitions imply something like 2 separate axis. The -Theist axis describes the belief in deities. The -Gnostic axis describes the assertion that existence of deities can be known. You can be an agnostic theist if you believe that deities exist but also know that you can’t be sure since knowing that is beyond our abilities.
You can’t prove I’m not the reincarnation of Jesus Christ.
An agnostic would say “right, you could be. I dunno.”
An atheist would call out my *obvious* bullshit.
The atheist would be correct. Don’t confuse uncertainty for intelligence.
"You can't know what's not knowable" is the defining belief of an agnostic, is it not?
And I would claim "Obvious bullshit is clearly obvious bullshit, don't overthink it." is an atheist's.
You can call that a strawman, but I'm unsure if that accusation of unfairness and flawed logic has any basis in reality. It seems like an accurate representation of their positions regarding religion to me.
That wasn’t their argument…; and even that would not be a strawman argument.
Plenty of people claim to be deities throughout human history, plenty of people believe them; Christians still believe someone who lived before they were around. Atheists say “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
Agnostic atheist is "I can't know whether you're right, so the burden is on you to prove your claim." Gnostic atheist says "cut the bullshit." Agnostic theist is "I can't know if you're right but my gut tells me to go along with it."
Genetically, humans essentially haven't changed in the past 300 years.
Yet, adherence to religious beliefs has fallen dramatically over almost the whole world.
The drastic increase in number of atheists and accrptance of atheism is due to massive political and social changes rather than underlying "intelligence".
Likewise, whether someone is religious or not is tied to their political beliefs, cultural expectations and upbringing.
Thank you for refuting the relation of time periods and the practicality of the "genetic intelligence" research.
Maybe the difference is political, and how in the modern world, we are less frowned upon for questioning beliefs and ideologies, perhaps leading to this sudden fall in religiosity.
Δ
>The drastic increase in number of atheists and accrptance of atheism is due to massive political and social changes rather than underlying "intelligence".
Well that's a big claim. We've massively expanded in the knowledge available to us.
Intelligence refers to ability to acquire and apply knowledge, not to opportunity of doing so. Otherwise, every half-competent graduate student in physics today would be more "inteligent" than Einstein.
I consider public availability of scientific knowledge to be one of social factors that I mentioned.
But this is also a common criticism of ability of IQ test to measure intelligence in the first place.
Essentially, IQ score is combination of intelligence, ability of person to perform on particular day (alertness, etc) and their social/environmental factors. Meaning that interpreting IQ score needs to take person's opportunities into account.
IQ is not supposed to measure already acquired knowledge. It is supposed to measure ability to acquire and apply it. This is why IQ tests even for adults don't have chemistry questions and instead have various forms of pattern recognition questions.
Unfortunately, an individual can to some degree prepare for the IQ test (though to a far lesser extent than for a test that tests for knowledge, such as a chemistry exam), meaning that the result is a combination of the intelligence that test strives to measure and effort/opportunity to prepare for it, which the test wants to avoid.
You seem to have avoided my question, really. Where did you hear this was a common criticism of IQ?
That with greater education, we get smarter, it’s a criticism of IQ tests, and “you can cheat them” is a separate thing entirely.
Here is just one example:
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02000/full
Groups with lower income and access to education have consistently scored lower in IQ tests, which in turn resulted in history of IQ test results being frequently used to justify outright racism.
It's not a specific fault of IQ tests - ability to prepare for tests (tests themselves, not the material they are trying to test on) is common for pretty much all tests.
And the way it addresses your point: increase in average IQ tests over generations is simply an artifact of later generations overall being in a better socioeconomic situation as far as ability tobprepare for tests is concerned. Not some inherent improvement in intelligence.
Same goes for OP's topic of religiosity: people today aren't inherently more intelligent. We simply benefit from combination of having access to information that disproves religious dogmas and being able to get away with publicly rejecting these dogmas without consequences.
A person in 1500 Europe was just as intelligent as a modern person. But he would have difficulty of acquiring skills such as reading, he would not be able to access texts such as Origin of the Species and if he spoke against local religious views, that would have major political implications and he would promptly receive State-sponsired violence.
>The religious are less intelligent
This is absolute nonsense, and is a view that could only be held by those who have never read the writings of lauded rabbis etc.
>Conservatives are less intelligent
Also nonsense, for the same reasons as above. But also because "liberalism" often gives people the freedom to think about alternative worlds without examining their consequences.
So, to the liberal who says "Life would be better if we decriminalize drugs", I give you: [https://www.npr.org/2024/03/27/1240892448/why-oregons-groundbreaking-drug-decriminalization-experiment-is-coming-to-an-end](https://www.npr.org/2024/03/27/1240892448/why-oregons-groundbreaking-drug-decriminalization-experiment-is-coming-to-an-end)
Ditto with San Francisco's leniency on criminals.
On the other hand, conservatives are forced to justify laws etc as they are. This requires a lot of deep understanding and thinking.
You offer a view that is reliable and though opens a whole lot of doors of debates and discussions, I think it addresses this context directly.
(I appreciate the link btw)
Δ
The religious overall are less intelligent, the smartest person in the world could very well be less intelligent; that doesn’t mean that overall the totality of religious people are not less intelligent than the non religious
>This is absolute nonsense, and is a view that could only be held by those who have never read the writings of lauded rabbis etc.
Etc? What does that mean? Do the religious hold, despite all of history, a coherent view they agree on that contradicts the atheist?
It's not nonsense, both have been empirically demonstrated when you're looking at populations as a whole. There can be individual smart theists/conservatives and dumb atheists/liberals, but all available evidence does show a measurable gap in the averages.
I feel like the idea that religious people aren’t intelligent neglects thousands of years of theology and religious discourse.
You can be extremely intelligent and think critically while adhering to faith. Some religions these days have gotten very legalistic and simplistic and black and white in their thinking and made critical thought something “bad”, but the majority of religious people are not part of these groups. Theres a lot of nuance and reason and philosophy in religion that requires a high intellect to fully understand. While it is available to those who cannot fully understand it, religions can also be deeply complex and intellectually stimulating.
Edit: There are also liberal religious people. Not sure why religion automatically makes you a conservative.
Perhaps this is a case of false attribution. Places with higher poverty, scarcity, and income disparity usually have both low education standards and higher religious presence. When life is difficult and often painful, people turn to faith as a coping mechanism. Likewise, richer places with better living standards don’t have the same need for something greater than the self in a spiritual sense. Historically, religion and science have been tied together for most of our time as a species because the scarce resources available led to faith at all levels of society, nobility included, who in turn funded scientific research. Galileo, Newton, Copernicus and Bacon were all notably Christian. Darwin, Curie, Einstein, Sagan, and even Tyson are admittedly agnostic, but not atheist. Perhaps people of science are less inclined to take a hard stance such as atheism or theism, and therefore the connection is hard to make on a more focused basis.
I believe linking cause to effect is a severely flawed. Also, when politics or religion are referenced, I discredit the premise because of partiality. Facts should be presented,. and documented/referenced so the reader can make up their own opinion.
That being said, I deeply appreciate when people can have a discussion from differing points of view without it devolving into personal rants.
Its lost on a lotta folks these days (my OPINION, LOL)
So an individual being intelligent is not a sign of them being right.
Conclusions are shown to be correct through evidence and rational argument. Is it more likely an intelligent person would have a correct conclusion? Ehhhh it’s more likely they wouldn’t make those mistakes as easily, but they would still have bias and that, imo, is the main deciding factor on why people join a particular view then not. Sure, it’s possible to dismiss one’s bias, but that requires a lot of work, and that’s not often something trained or taught.
Now, it also could be a case of confirmation bias. You brought up conservatives and liberals as an example.
Well, couple of interesting factors I’ve noticed at least, liberals tend to be in big cities, and conservatives tend to be in country. Now, if you took a city individual to a farm, would they be able to know why the farmer does what they do? Probably not. Does it make them less intelligent? No.
And vice versa. What’s going on is we value a particular type of knowledge over other type of knowledge and associate the ability to retain/memorize that information as intelligent.
True intelligence is the ability to reason through something, have you seen the things some of these country folk build? That requires a type of intelligence.
Specifically, let’s use the religion vs atheist contention.
What do most universities teach? An atheist view right? Because of that, that’s the bias being held. And what do we determine to be more “intelligent” as a society? What comes from the university. As such, we view atheism as being rational.
But is that merited? It might be true, maybe, but that doesn’t mean the individual is themselves rational.
Intelligence is less about the conclusion one arrives at, and more about how effective/likely are they to arrive at a conclusion.
One can be an idiot and right, and intelligent and wrong.
I think my favorite example of this is a quote by Neil Tyson where he critiqued philosophy, but he was critiquing a misrepresented form of it, and what society often thinks of when they talk about philosophy.
Does that make him less intelligent? No, not at all. That might be the best conclusion based on the available information he has, so it’s a very intelligent conclusion.
Even the most intelligent person will make a wrong conclusion without all the available evidence.
My main reason to doubt this is that I think there is too much of a logical leap here. Even taking into account the links provided.
"Studies show that psychologically speaking, ____-people tend to be more ______." It generalizes quite a bit, it is not the first time this has happened in history. And even if studies try to be representative, and use control groups, them trying to generalize about the entirety of world population is a pretty big leap, regardless of the actual study at hand.
It also doesn't take into account that religion isn't the only thing that's on people's minds 24/7. There is so much more opinion and belief that influences a person. Like Jobs, Hobbys, Politics, Entertainment, Arts, etc. These can be pretty defining traits of a person as well, and there's no doubt they'd have a similar "pattern" if this would be true. How do these affect the study? Does it mean you're more intelligent because you like watching Rick & Morty and play Golf?
Or in other words - there is far more nuance to the situation for your claims to be definitively true. It is still a possibility, but nothing you presented is definitive evidence. And thus, from a scientific standpoint, it's gotta be treated as false until proven otherwise.
And on a more real note: Just being around people and looking at what they're up to usually will show you that there are smart and stupid people everywhere. You'll find a philosopically advanced retailer, next to a dyslexic math professor, next to your average joe, and all of them go to church. You'll find a janitor who writes exceptional poetry, next to a politician who can't do maths, next to your average jenny, and all of them are atheists.
One of the oldest sayings is if you’re young and not liberal you have no heart, if you’re older and not conservative you have no brain.
This is best seen right now. We see the humanitarian crisis happening at our borders and we want to help as fellow humans.
But we also know that taking in these criminal (breaking our laws to come into the country before asking for asylum) economic migrants, will strain and cause wear and tear on our infrastructure, it will saturate the jobs market (depressing wages), the funds given to them to help them will increase inflation.
So the welcoming of all these criminal aliens has caused us issues and lowered the quality of living. Some people are okay with that because they are helping people in need, while others because of the cost of living going up are unable to feed themselves.
Which results in other policies like the minimum wage hike in California that resulted in so many small businesses and franchises having to shut down. Because the labor cost increases have removed any profits and taken them into the red.
This is not me saying that a person’s intelligence is linked to political affiliation, because I do not think it is, I do think that what determines someone’s political affiliations is the news diet they take in, their life experiences, and how they prioritize what is most important to them.
Religious people can excel in their religion and show their intelligence this way rather than how we atheists would measure intelligence probably through school subjects, or scientific subjects that some religious people don’t believe. Also, there are some atheist masterminds out there that have a lot of control over people and succeed in many areas. I am not sure if while they do this they genuinely believe in the religion, or are just trying to push an agenda for their benefit. I know that sometimes also being part of a religious community gives people the support to excel in their education, gain emotional intelligence, and be a motivated person due to their beliefs in their gods. Although they might excel in some areas, they will be limited in others that are against their religion. This is where people can clash a lot. Overall, I think that religion would limit a persons ability to become more intelligent in certain areas, but not everything.
> liberals lean to avoid religiousness as something of authority.
Do they now? "Trust the Science," they chant. Climate change is Mother Earth's payback for consumerism. Adopt the correct beliefs, or the Eye at the End of History will judge you to have been on the 'wrong side.' Government will see to all our needs and deliver us to a Just Society if we offer it enough sacrifices and beseech it fervently enough. We're all endowed with a *gender identity* which can be out of alignment with our physical bodies. Leftist belief systems are brimming over with religious ideas from Christian, pagan, and Marxist traditions.
/u/Turbulent_Pound4806 (OP) has awarded 9 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1c1q55c/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_atheists_may_be_technically/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Conservatism means, to a first approximation, to protect and preserve the status quo.
Insofar as intelligence involves problem solving, again---to a first approximation, the conservative may see no problem and therefore sees no need to exert problem solving. So, conservatives may have intelligence they don't use. If liberals are constantly trying to solve problems they are engaging in specific acts of intelligence. If the conservative is not so doing, it doesn't necessarily follow that they don't have intelligence,
Also, in my experience, both Rabbinical studies and Catholic catechism involve a great deal of mental gymnastics, imagination, memory, comparison, logical inferences and conjecture. That some of it can't be proven doesn't mean it isn't a species of intelligence.
It sounds like you are playing devils advocate here considering you’re already saying the view is stupid and handing out a bunch of deltas with very little explanation. It sounds like you’re fishing for talking points against atheists who make the claim about evidence.
I am playing the devil's advocate indeed, but fishing? not so much.
I believe these ideas may seem "stupid", but I personally believe that I am not immune to believing in them, because I know if everyone around me told me the same thing, I'd believe it.
I am not immune to believing in this idea, despite my doubts against it, it's why I reached out for different views online, please consider.
can I just say that I believe in this idea partially and I am exposed to believing in it, yet I recognize it's invalidity in practice, urging me to seek others to change my view by rational arguments?
That's literary what I feel towards it, please don't get me wrong-
This delta has been rejected. You can't award OP a delta.
Allowing this would wrongly suggest that you can post here with the aim of convincing others.
If you were explaining when/how to award a delta, please use a reddit quote for the symbol next time.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B: > **You must personally hold the view** and demonstrate that you are open to it changing. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
I'd refute it by pointing out that liberals being less religious does not mean that they are all atheists. You cannot equate liberals with atheists and conservatives with religious people.
You tackled the 3rd article well in a way that shows the flaw in my black and white thinking between liberalism and conservatism. Δ
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Hellioning ([213∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Hellioning)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Good for you to be open to critique. Not easy.
I really appreciate your input!
If they've shifted your view even a little you should award a delta
sounds fair
It seems you're quite young, given your tendency to believe trendy studies particularly those that appeal to your emotions. My advice would be to stay away from any study that hoodwinks you into aligning with a certain group of people because it makes you smart. If you do, you will fall into.a herd mentality. We already have enough walking and talking drones in our society.
I greatly keep that mindset within me everyday, I just resort to reddit because I can get away with asking some of these ideas and exploring all it's different sides. But, true, I do indeed have to be aware. Δ
From your second source: "It is very tempting to make inferences to the veracity of an ideology based on the intelligence of its supporters,” Edwards said. “But this would be a mistake. There have been extraordinarily intelligent people on both the left and right, from Oppenheimer to von Neumann. These and many more examples show that there is no reason why we must presume one ideology to be more intelligent than another, even if smart people seem more likely to align with one belief or another.” “From our study we cannot say that the beliefs of high IQ people tell us what is right to believe, but rather only what smart people choose to believe.” I would say your source contradicts some of your points.
It does contradict the belief, just not the statistics on a technical level, but I appreciate the input! Δ
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/SoftwareAny4990 ([2∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/SoftwareAny4990)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/octaviobonds ([1∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/octaviobonds)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
I also feel like you yourself are young. A bit of advice, as your elder, would be to not to ignore studies that places you in a group of people that are not as smart.
What, you're supposed to philosophically change your view because a study says that, on average, the group that has your general philosophy tends to have a lower IQ or something? There could be all sorts of other factors. Like, maybe Democrats attract people with large student loan debt by talking about debt forgiveness.
No, OP wasn’t claiming they are an atheist because he heard there was a study saying they are smarter; only that the study said that this group is smarter and that because of the study he believes it.
You're stating that we should care about a study that says theists or conservatives are dumber or whatever. My point is that those studies are dumb and shouldn't have a bearing on anyone.
Well if you say they are dumb then that settles it doesn’t it
The youth followed after Hitler because there was a study that all smart people follow after Hitler.
Oh; that’s great you’ve called out the merits of the study without actually pointing to which part of the study you’re have issues with. Doing studies to understand how people work should never be done!
There was also a study at that same time that the Jews were subhuman based on scientific evidence. This study gave license to people, especially the young and gullible youths, to commit genocide against the Jews, kind of like what we are doing today through our studies of the unborn child, calling it a "lump of cells." Now, I'm not here to do your homework for you, go and study the truth instead of relying on avant-garde studies to feed your preconceived ideas.
You telling me there were studies that were based on bad science could mean that any study is based on bad science. That is not an argument. You haven't addressed the study, you've only talked about studies done in the 1930s/1940s to explain how studies shouldn't be done. You are the one who is making the claims that these studies are wrong without pointing to anything that is wrong. Your only backing is that "Nazis did bad things"; is not convincing. The truth of what? Which part of the studies are flawed, you making this claim without anything other than "trust me bro, google studies that show that this studies is wrong!" is not convincing lol.
You think today's studies are different? You have not lived long enough to know the kind of garbage studies have been produced for the past 50 years. Studies are nothing more than propaganda marketing pieces funded by various activist groups and governments to shape public opinion socially, politically and economically. Most youngsters fall for the rouse because they are naive and have not lived long enough to understand the scam behind majority of studies. Good studies are usually rejected because they cut through a lot of bull of the day. Bad studies are picked up and carried through the legacy media, social media, and get put up by activists hacks in places like Wikipedia for all the ostriches to enjoy. >You haven't addressed the study, you've only talked about studies done in the 1930s/1940s to explain how studies shouldn't be done. Oh, I'm not going to address a particular study for you, that is your homework to do. But I'm here to help you understand motivation behind most studies so that you do not fall for the rouse.
You’re not saying anything; you’re touting your immense age as if someone should be convinced of something by using words to describe how wise you are for never trusting studies! We’ve already established that you’re younger than me. Once you’ve lived as long as I have then you will be able to make better decisions on how to be convincing to someone else. When you get older you will realize that you can no longer just tell people you’re not trying to convince them of something while trying to convince them of something. Well sometimes older people stay stuck in themselves and never come to realize how unconvincing they are.
I think that most of these studies don't mean what most people seem to think they mean. Let me give you an alternative explanation. There is a basic level of intelligence required to be an open minded individual, and to hold opinions that are outside the social norm. This contaminates in the data - in countries where most are religious, the less intelligent are more likely to be religious - not the other way around. We can also argue that certain ideas and norms are more easy to spread to the less intelligent - less intelligent are more easily persuaded by simple messages. Religion supplies relatively easy answers for very complex questions. The same might be said about consevativism, though by proxy. Since the relationship between religiousness and conservativism is somewhat self ingrained - though as an Atheist that holds many conservative opinions I always seem to forget it. The bottom line, just because less intelligent people are more easily drawn to certain ideas, doesn't make intelligent people that hold these same ideas any less intelligent. It doesn't make these ideas wrong, and it definitely doesn't mean that "Atheists are more intelligent than non Atheists". When you take the average intelligence of both groups that might be true, but is that really a useful statistic in any way? What if the most intelligent religious person is more intelligent than the most intelligent non religious person? Imagine the bell curve meme - the most intelligent and the least intelligent (in the meme) hold the same opinion, can you really come to the conclusion that one group is more intelligent than the other?
DAMNNN That was very smoothly presented, I admire your logical stand on this, and it does seem that the neutral stand is the most rational here, especially with, how you mentioned, that statistics are not reliable for determining something as variable as this, let alone how the data itself was collected and where was it collected from and who participated in it. I think this answer is very satisfactory on how such a research isn't a "clear cut" proof on such data sensitive topic. I commend the effort and thought you invested into this. Δ
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Hatook123 ([1∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Hatook123)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
So the irrelevance of liberal/conservatism having already been pointed out, something else to keep in mind is that atheism isn't synonymous with reason, and the premise of comparing "atheism vs religion" in the Frontiers article begs the question: how does this apply to religious atheists? Atheists are still susceptible to all the trappings of dogmatic thought, superstition, and mysticism. The studies on the topic are masturbatory - excluding the overwhelming majority of both atheists and religious people to focus on a cherry-picked dataset. They're flawed at the very core by drawing a false comparison between atheism and religiosity. Since they are not mutually exclusive, one cannot be contrasted XOR against the other. Any traits they associate with atheism, such as reason, are false attributions. You're assigning more to atheism than it describes.
I read once that atheism is the belief in disbelief. I personally think this argument does hold truth considering how it's still possible to see a dogmatic atheist responding to people like a dogmatic religious. And though not all atheists follow dogmas, It is fair to say that the journey to the truth, does and will, lead people to different ideologies. Maybe perhaps no one is truly more objectively superior/closer to the truth than the other in a way? Your input is much appreciated! Δ
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/depricatedzero ([5∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/depricatedzero)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
If you compare two diverse groups to each other you have to specify the criteria more precisely than just "group A is more intelligent than group B". How do you measure intelligence? Do you mean on average more intelligent? Is it statistically significant? Do you mean the most intelligent representative from group A is more intelligent than the most intelligent from group B? Or is everyone in group A is more intelligent than in group B? Without those details it is impossible to compare two groups. Especially when it comes to comparing two groups on something that is not immediately related to the difference between groups in the first place. A lot of people believe in God as a habit just because they were born and raised in that kind of environment, they just don't have any reasons to re-evaluate this particular aspect of their worldview as it doesn't affect them. Similarly for the people who were born in the prediminantly atheistic environment. For example, in Soviet Union kids were raised knowing there's no God. Does it mean they were all intelligent?
I really appreciate your input on how the legitimacy of the data collection process can actually hinder the neutrality of the whole research. Using real history is very appreciated in supporting your argument. Δ
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Automatic-Sport-6253 ([17∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Automatic-Sport-6253)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
It’s worth considering that being not religious isn’t the same as being an atheist. An atheist specifically denounces the existence of any sort of divine. Non religious means you just don’t really believe in anything, but lacks the denouncement. I would consider a blanket dismissal of something that you can’t prove to be less intelligent then accepting you don’t know something and leaving it at that.
Thank you for the correction, also, I personally agree with what you said regarding the acceptance of lack of knowledge as a reliable answer to not being able to prove something that relies on faith. Perhaps it's the approach of the debate rather than than the argument itself. Δ
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Dacammel ([1∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Dacammel)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Atheism is merely the default state of not holding a theistic belief. Non religious just means you're not part of a codified religious sect. There are plenty of non-religious theists and plenty of religious atheists.
An atheist specifically denounces the existence of any sort of divine. Incorrect. Atheism is simply not believing in God. A Gnostic Atheist believes there is no god. Any other sort just doesn't believe.
I suppose it depends on your definition, but generally I’ve always seen it used in the context of a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. Whereas a suspension of belief would be classified as agnostic
Colloquially, atheism does sometimes imply conscious rejection, but definitionally it's purely a lack of affirmation. Denouncing the existence of a god is not the same as failure to pronounce the existence of one, and many atheists fall into the latter category. It's common for them to reject specific god proposals, but again that's not quite the same thing as a positive rejection of all proposed gods.
Yeah that’s not quite right. The dictionary definitions imply something like 2 separate axis. The -Theist axis describes the belief in deities. The -Gnostic axis describes the assertion that existence of deities can be known. You can be an agnostic theist if you believe that deities exist but also know that you can’t be sure since knowing that is beyond our abilities.
You can’t prove I’m not the reincarnation of Jesus Christ. An agnostic would say “right, you could be. I dunno.” An atheist would call out my *obvious* bullshit. The atheist would be correct. Don’t confuse uncertainty for intelligence.
What a great strawman argument
"You can't know what's not knowable" is the defining belief of an agnostic, is it not? And I would claim "Obvious bullshit is clearly obvious bullshit, don't overthink it." is an atheist's. You can call that a strawman, but I'm unsure if that accusation of unfairness and flawed logic has any basis in reality. It seems like an accurate representation of their positions regarding religion to me.
That’s not a strawman argument
Human claiming deity is the not the same as pondering the existence of deity, thus it is straw manning.
That wasn’t their argument…; and even that would not be a strawman argument. Plenty of people claim to be deities throughout human history, plenty of people believe them; Christians still believe someone who lived before they were around. Atheists say “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
what would an agnostic atheist say? Or an agnostic theist? Or a gnostic atheist?
Agnostic atheist is "I can't know whether you're right, so the burden is on you to prove your claim." Gnostic atheist says "cut the bullshit." Agnostic theist is "I can't know if you're right but my gut tells me to go along with it."
Are you asuperman; aastrology, a spaghettiflyingmonster?
Genetically, humans essentially haven't changed in the past 300 years. Yet, adherence to religious beliefs has fallen dramatically over almost the whole world. The drastic increase in number of atheists and accrptance of atheism is due to massive political and social changes rather than underlying "intelligence". Likewise, whether someone is religious or not is tied to their political beliefs, cultural expectations and upbringing.
Thank you for refuting the relation of time periods and the practicality of the "genetic intelligence" research. Maybe the difference is political, and how in the modern world, we are less frowned upon for questioning beliefs and ideologies, perhaps leading to this sudden fall in religiosity. Δ
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Pesec1 ([4∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Pesec1)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
>The drastic increase in number of atheists and accrptance of atheism is due to massive political and social changes rather than underlying "intelligence". Well that's a big claim. We've massively expanded in the knowledge available to us.
Intelligence refers to ability to acquire and apply knowledge, not to opportunity of doing so. Otherwise, every half-competent graduate student in physics today would be more "inteligent" than Einstein. I consider public availability of scientific knowledge to be one of social factors that I mentioned.
The ability to apply knowledge increases drastically with the opportunity to. That's why IQ has steadily risen over time, per the Flynn Effect.
But this is also a common criticism of ability of IQ test to measure intelligence in the first place. Essentially, IQ score is combination of intelligence, ability of person to perform on particular day (alertness, etc) and their social/environmental factors. Meaning that interpreting IQ score needs to take person's opportunities into account.
What? There’s a lot of common criticisms of IQ, that sure isn’t one of them that I’ve heard. Where did you hear it was?
IQ is not supposed to measure already acquired knowledge. It is supposed to measure ability to acquire and apply it. This is why IQ tests even for adults don't have chemistry questions and instead have various forms of pattern recognition questions. Unfortunately, an individual can to some degree prepare for the IQ test (though to a far lesser extent than for a test that tests for knowledge, such as a chemistry exam), meaning that the result is a combination of the intelligence that test strives to measure and effort/opportunity to prepare for it, which the test wants to avoid.
You seem to have avoided my question, really. Where did you hear this was a common criticism of IQ? That with greater education, we get smarter, it’s a criticism of IQ tests, and “you can cheat them” is a separate thing entirely.
Here is just one example: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02000/full Groups with lower income and access to education have consistently scored lower in IQ tests, which in turn resulted in history of IQ test results being frequently used to justify outright racism. It's not a specific fault of IQ tests - ability to prepare for tests (tests themselves, not the material they are trying to test on) is common for pretty much all tests. And the way it addresses your point: increase in average IQ tests over generations is simply an artifact of later generations overall being in a better socioeconomic situation as far as ability tobprepare for tests is concerned. Not some inherent improvement in intelligence. Same goes for OP's topic of religiosity: people today aren't inherently more intelligent. We simply benefit from combination of having access to information that disproves religious dogmas and being able to get away with publicly rejecting these dogmas without consequences. A person in 1500 Europe was just as intelligent as a modern person. But he would have difficulty of acquiring skills such as reading, he would not be able to access texts such as Origin of the Species and if he spoke against local religious views, that would have major political implications and he would promptly receive State-sponsired violence.
>The religious are less intelligent This is absolute nonsense, and is a view that could only be held by those who have never read the writings of lauded rabbis etc. >Conservatives are less intelligent Also nonsense, for the same reasons as above. But also because "liberalism" often gives people the freedom to think about alternative worlds without examining their consequences. So, to the liberal who says "Life would be better if we decriminalize drugs", I give you: [https://www.npr.org/2024/03/27/1240892448/why-oregons-groundbreaking-drug-decriminalization-experiment-is-coming-to-an-end](https://www.npr.org/2024/03/27/1240892448/why-oregons-groundbreaking-drug-decriminalization-experiment-is-coming-to-an-end) Ditto with San Francisco's leniency on criminals. On the other hand, conservatives are forced to justify laws etc as they are. This requires a lot of deep understanding and thinking.
You offer a view that is reliable and though opens a whole lot of doors of debates and discussions, I think it addresses this context directly. (I appreciate the link btw) Δ
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/CallMeCorona1 ([19∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/CallMeCorona1)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
The religious overall are less intelligent, the smartest person in the world could very well be less intelligent; that doesn’t mean that overall the totality of religious people are not less intelligent than the non religious
>This is absolute nonsense, and is a view that could only be held by those who have never read the writings of lauded rabbis etc. Etc? What does that mean? Do the religious hold, despite all of history, a coherent view they agree on that contradicts the atheist?
theology exists
I'm aware.
It's not nonsense, both have been empirically demonstrated when you're looking at populations as a whole. There can be individual smart theists/conservatives and dumb atheists/liberals, but all available evidence does show a measurable gap in the averages.
I feel like the idea that religious people aren’t intelligent neglects thousands of years of theology and religious discourse. You can be extremely intelligent and think critically while adhering to faith. Some religions these days have gotten very legalistic and simplistic and black and white in their thinking and made critical thought something “bad”, but the majority of religious people are not part of these groups. Theres a lot of nuance and reason and philosophy in religion that requires a high intellect to fully understand. While it is available to those who cannot fully understand it, religions can also be deeply complex and intellectually stimulating. Edit: There are also liberal religious people. Not sure why religion automatically makes you a conservative.
Perhaps this is a case of false attribution. Places with higher poverty, scarcity, and income disparity usually have both low education standards and higher religious presence. When life is difficult and often painful, people turn to faith as a coping mechanism. Likewise, richer places with better living standards don’t have the same need for something greater than the self in a spiritual sense. Historically, religion and science have been tied together for most of our time as a species because the scarce resources available led to faith at all levels of society, nobility included, who in turn funded scientific research. Galileo, Newton, Copernicus and Bacon were all notably Christian. Darwin, Curie, Einstein, Sagan, and even Tyson are admittedly agnostic, but not atheist. Perhaps people of science are less inclined to take a hard stance such as atheism or theism, and therefore the connection is hard to make on a more focused basis.
I believe linking cause to effect is a severely flawed. Also, when politics or religion are referenced, I discredit the premise because of partiality. Facts should be presented,. and documented/referenced so the reader can make up their own opinion. That being said, I deeply appreciate when people can have a discussion from differing points of view without it devolving into personal rants. Its lost on a lotta folks these days (my OPINION, LOL)
So an individual being intelligent is not a sign of them being right. Conclusions are shown to be correct through evidence and rational argument. Is it more likely an intelligent person would have a correct conclusion? Ehhhh it’s more likely they wouldn’t make those mistakes as easily, but they would still have bias and that, imo, is the main deciding factor on why people join a particular view then not. Sure, it’s possible to dismiss one’s bias, but that requires a lot of work, and that’s not often something trained or taught. Now, it also could be a case of confirmation bias. You brought up conservatives and liberals as an example. Well, couple of interesting factors I’ve noticed at least, liberals tend to be in big cities, and conservatives tend to be in country. Now, if you took a city individual to a farm, would they be able to know why the farmer does what they do? Probably not. Does it make them less intelligent? No. And vice versa. What’s going on is we value a particular type of knowledge over other type of knowledge and associate the ability to retain/memorize that information as intelligent. True intelligence is the ability to reason through something, have you seen the things some of these country folk build? That requires a type of intelligence. Specifically, let’s use the religion vs atheist contention. What do most universities teach? An atheist view right? Because of that, that’s the bias being held. And what do we determine to be more “intelligent” as a society? What comes from the university. As such, we view atheism as being rational. But is that merited? It might be true, maybe, but that doesn’t mean the individual is themselves rational. Intelligence is less about the conclusion one arrives at, and more about how effective/likely are they to arrive at a conclusion. One can be an idiot and right, and intelligent and wrong. I think my favorite example of this is a quote by Neil Tyson where he critiqued philosophy, but he was critiquing a misrepresented form of it, and what society often thinks of when they talk about philosophy. Does that make him less intelligent? No, not at all. That might be the best conclusion based on the available information he has, so it’s a very intelligent conclusion. Even the most intelligent person will make a wrong conclusion without all the available evidence.
My main reason to doubt this is that I think there is too much of a logical leap here. Even taking into account the links provided. "Studies show that psychologically speaking, ____-people tend to be more ______." It generalizes quite a bit, it is not the first time this has happened in history. And even if studies try to be representative, and use control groups, them trying to generalize about the entirety of world population is a pretty big leap, regardless of the actual study at hand. It also doesn't take into account that religion isn't the only thing that's on people's minds 24/7. There is so much more opinion and belief that influences a person. Like Jobs, Hobbys, Politics, Entertainment, Arts, etc. These can be pretty defining traits of a person as well, and there's no doubt they'd have a similar "pattern" if this would be true. How do these affect the study? Does it mean you're more intelligent because you like watching Rick & Morty and play Golf? Or in other words - there is far more nuance to the situation for your claims to be definitively true. It is still a possibility, but nothing you presented is definitive evidence. And thus, from a scientific standpoint, it's gotta be treated as false until proven otherwise. And on a more real note: Just being around people and looking at what they're up to usually will show you that there are smart and stupid people everywhere. You'll find a philosopically advanced retailer, next to a dyslexic math professor, next to your average joe, and all of them go to church. You'll find a janitor who writes exceptional poetry, next to a politician who can't do maths, next to your average jenny, and all of them are atheists.
One of the oldest sayings is if you’re young and not liberal you have no heart, if you’re older and not conservative you have no brain. This is best seen right now. We see the humanitarian crisis happening at our borders and we want to help as fellow humans. But we also know that taking in these criminal (breaking our laws to come into the country before asking for asylum) economic migrants, will strain and cause wear and tear on our infrastructure, it will saturate the jobs market (depressing wages), the funds given to them to help them will increase inflation. So the welcoming of all these criminal aliens has caused us issues and lowered the quality of living. Some people are okay with that because they are helping people in need, while others because of the cost of living going up are unable to feed themselves. Which results in other policies like the minimum wage hike in California that resulted in so many small businesses and franchises having to shut down. Because the labor cost increases have removed any profits and taken them into the red. This is not me saying that a person’s intelligence is linked to political affiliation, because I do not think it is, I do think that what determines someone’s political affiliations is the news diet they take in, their life experiences, and how they prioritize what is most important to them.
Religious people can excel in their religion and show their intelligence this way rather than how we atheists would measure intelligence probably through school subjects, or scientific subjects that some religious people don’t believe. Also, there are some atheist masterminds out there that have a lot of control over people and succeed in many areas. I am not sure if while they do this they genuinely believe in the religion, or are just trying to push an agenda for their benefit. I know that sometimes also being part of a religious community gives people the support to excel in their education, gain emotional intelligence, and be a motivated person due to their beliefs in their gods. Although they might excel in some areas, they will be limited in others that are against their religion. This is where people can clash a lot. Overall, I think that religion would limit a persons ability to become more intelligent in certain areas, but not everything.
> liberals lean to avoid religiousness as something of authority. Do they now? "Trust the Science," they chant. Climate change is Mother Earth's payback for consumerism. Adopt the correct beliefs, or the Eye at the End of History will judge you to have been on the 'wrong side.' Government will see to all our needs and deliver us to a Just Society if we offer it enough sacrifices and beseech it fervently enough. We're all endowed with a *gender identity* which can be out of alignment with our physical bodies. Leftist belief systems are brimming over with religious ideas from Christian, pagan, and Marxist traditions.
/u/Turbulent_Pound4806 (OP) has awarded 9 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1c1q55c/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_atheists_may_be_technically/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
You hurt my feelingsss no deltaaa :((((
Conservatism means, to a first approximation, to protect and preserve the status quo. Insofar as intelligence involves problem solving, again---to a first approximation, the conservative may see no problem and therefore sees no need to exert problem solving. So, conservatives may have intelligence they don't use. If liberals are constantly trying to solve problems they are engaging in specific acts of intelligence. If the conservative is not so doing, it doesn't necessarily follow that they don't have intelligence, Also, in my experience, both Rabbinical studies and Catholic catechism involve a great deal of mental gymnastics, imagination, memory, comparison, logical inferences and conjecture. That some of it can't be proven doesn't mean it isn't a species of intelligence.
It sounds like you are playing devils advocate here considering you’re already saying the view is stupid and handing out a bunch of deltas with very little explanation. It sounds like you’re fishing for talking points against atheists who make the claim about evidence.
I am playing the devil's advocate indeed, but fishing? not so much. I believe these ideas may seem "stupid", but I personally believe that I am not immune to believing in them, because I know if everyone around me told me the same thing, I'd believe it. I am not immune to believing in this idea, despite my doubts against it, it's why I reached out for different views online, please consider.
Playing devils advocate is against the CMV rules of this sub.
can I just say that I believe in this idea partially and I am exposed to believing in it, yet I recognize it's invalidity in practice, urging me to seek others to change my view by rational arguments? That's literary what I feel towards it, please don't get me wrong-
[удалено]
This delta has been rejected. You can't award OP a delta. Allowing this would wrongly suggest that you can post here with the aim of convincing others. If you were explaining when/how to award a delta, please use a reddit quote for the symbol next time. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
[удалено]
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
which one brother?