>Young adults who subjectively identify themselves as "very liberal" have an average IQ of 106 during adolescence while those who identify themselves as "very conservative" have an average IQ of 95 during adolescence.

owwww

lol @ liberal & Athiest = Automatically smarter

fake and gay

I can agree with atheism. But liberalism, seriously?

study paid for by liberal athiests

funny how the randroid mouthbreathers always are the first to champion eugenics.

when in reality they would be the first one to be sterilized if such a program took place

I'm an Anarchist and while non-religious practice other spiritual beliefs that aren't religious based, and I'm a MENSA member. What now?

>>221623
>>221608
>>221619
>>221613
Unintelligent responses.

>I'm an Anarchist

The asspain in this thread pleases me.

>>221638
Unintelligent response

I'm an agnostic libertarian

>>221663
Sounds like you can't make up your mind there bud

Was that guy in the OP's picture too afraid to write "Nigger" so he used an 'A' instead?

Or, y'know, can't spell.

>>221675

I doubt anyone would think that changing a single letter would somehow lessen the offense.

He just can't spell.

Whoever wrote that article has a serious misunderstanding of evolution. Being naturally more intelligent and not believing in God in no way assures that you will have a better chance of passing your genes on. It may mean that you may do better socially, but that's about it.

Fucking liberal circlejerk article

>>221714
Idiocracy lol

>It may mean that you may do better socially
>no way assures that you will have a better chance of passing your genes on
>It may mean that you may do better socially

>>221714
No, they actually understand that perfectly well - in fact, such things seem likely to get in the way of passing on genetic material, historically speaking. You are misunderstanding the argument as being that more intelligent people like atheists and liberals will reproduce more effectively. The argument proposed in the article is actually that the people who have beliefs that seem to go against historical and evolutionary norms have a higher IQ.

>>221732
>>221732
My point is how do we know what's best evolutionary wise? My contention is that survival of the fittest does not equate to higher intelligence because of our present social structure.

pic related

>>221790
You are claiming that intelligence does not necessarily lead to producing more offspring. Nowhere in this article is there a viewpoint that contradicts your statement. In fact, it would seem to support your statement that intelligence does not necessarily lead to producing more offspring, because the views of intelligent people, and intelligent people themselves, seem to have been rooted out throughout history.

The claim being made, the claim that you seem to not be recognizing, is this: smart people seem to hold views that are not practical from an evolutionary point of view.

>The author of this study is totally hot and you should have sex with him. Also, his last girlfriend cheated on him, so he is sad.

Is this study trust worthy? Made up of good research? I mean, I'm a liberal atheist who goes to bed and wakes up late, and I'm flattered. But I don't want to get too excited about this yet.

It certainly follows that atheists are smarter. What kid of idiot believes that an invisible man is watching them poop?

>>221979
This. Theism is so unambiguously idiotic that even implying that it -might- have some validity automatically makes you a troll

>>221979

>What kid of idiot believes that an invisible man is watching them poop?

LOL. I'm going to make that my new e-mail signature...minus the typo, of course.

>kid

>>222000
Have fun sending that to your grandmother and potential employers.

>>221581
those are the one who do not use atheist as a merchandise and wear it everyday to show off

HURP IQ determines Intelligence DURP

I am glad the progressives and atheist made America as successful as it is.

oh wait.

>>222000

Email sig get.

>>222011
I work in IT, my boss doesn't believe in god, the tooth fairy, OR honest politicians.

also

>implying a grandmother can use computers

Free-thinking, objective reasoning, and skepticism are all facets of higher intelligence.

This basically describes atheistic thought[in adolescence] and liberalism. Though I do not agree with liberal thought.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vrpPPV_yPY&feature=related

I used to be a liberal atheist when I was younger but then I grew up and out of it.

Atheist and refuse to claim any political party > Atheist and liberal

Liberals are more likely to be able to shield themselves (not live in nigger neighborhoods, send their kids to private schools). The only black people they're ever in contact with are the rich elite tiny proportion of blacks, most often the parents of the token blacks at their kids' private school or something.

White trash live at the same social level as niggers. They are likely to find themselves trapped in the ghetto when the niggers move in. They see their kids being attacked physically in shitty public schools, and they can't afford to get away from the nightmare of it all because they don't have the money or social mobility to do so. Hence, fear/hatred of blacks, racism.

Atheist socialist here

Conservatives are silly

So how does being dooped into collectivism and a lack in spirituality make one more intelligent?

>>222151
This, it's why the old government was supported so strongly by the white working classes in south africa, the rich could buy their own apartheid without the government's help.

>>222160
>lack of spirituality

that uninformed bullshit right there is why atheists are smarter.

>>222167
> implying you don't even know what spirituality is
typical teenage cynicism


also, butthurt

>>222192
>implying a "lack of spirituality" has ANYTHING to do with atheism

You are a fucking idiot. Do your homework.

>>222192

Typical troll.

Replace spirituality with bind faith, which indeed is a prerogative of lower intelligence.

>>222160
>implying most forms of spirituality don't support collectivism on some level or another.

>Aethists = more intelligent
>Liberals = Lol no.

>>222223
Wrong again.

This goes to show that there are stupid atheists, too.

"Spirituality" does NOT equate some form or derivative of mysticism.

>>222223
faith is a part of everyday life just as much as logic or morality. you teens growing up in the butthurt slipknot generation were taught to live empty lives devoid of inner peace and true fulfillment. look around you as society decays into this "progressive" cesspool. can you honesty say that your little agenda is doing anything other than collapsing society?

>>222218
this is exactly how you rubes were conditioned to react.

atheist conservative here

get off ivory tower

its exactly this kind of elitist attitude that drives people away from you

>>222228
does this board know how to do anything besides talk out of their ass? real spirituality is an inner journey. even the early versions of the bible state that the kingdom of god lies within man. it was later changed to heaven to imply that only priests could communicate with god.

OP Status:

[ ] Not told
[x] Told

>>222274
lemme put it this way

i find atheists and liberals generally more intelligent. they're generally more educated.

i also find religious people more happy and fulfilled with their life. what's that saying? ignorance is bliss?

also i really don't give a shit if liberals are more educated, because the one thing they absolutely have no fucking clue about is the economy, and if you don't care about having a job and being financially secure more than anything, you need to get your priorities straight, if you want to do things for fun and eat and raise a family.

>>222112
To sum it up:

Scientists throughout history have always used God as an explanation for problems they don't understand.

Ptolemy - I don't know how the motion of planets work so the gods must control it.

Sir Isaac Newton - We all know why the planets move the way they do, but I can't figure out how the solar system is stable. So God must do it.

Christiaan Huygens - We know how the solar system works, but God must control biology because we don't understand it yet.

Pierre-Simon Laplace - Okay, I know how the solar system works and I won't use God as an excuse for my ignorance.

Charles Darwin - Hey Huygens, I figured out how biology works.

90% of the general population of the U.S. believes in God, whereas only 15% of members of the National Academy of Sciences believes in God.

>>222332
i would consider most liberals to be pseudo intellectuals at best. they are by far more concerned with their wannabe elitist image and reassuring hivemind than pursuing real knowledge and perspective.

>>222332
lrn2reading comprehension

it didn't say liberals were more educated. it said liberals are more intelligent.

delicious butthurt tears

>>222361
well i'm bein truthful. statistically, they are more educated. and tbh i think education is more important than inherent intelligence. and i'm also re-affirming that they're also more intelligent.

>>222354
lots of scientists n shit are liberals

i'm not saying that they're less intelligent. what i'm saying is that it doesn't fucking matter.

> preference for sexual exclusivity correlate with higher intelligence

Lonely liberal scientists detected.

>>222381
so liberals are more educated and more intelligent, but that shit doesn't matter

ok brah

>>222394
they're generally in more intellectually challenging fields. but they make poor decisions. namely on a political level, in personal freedom, and economic freedom. both suck.

>>222421
nice opinion brah.

the most arrogant people on the planet are athiest and liberal.

bunch of hipster faggots, they may think they are clever and have their fancy degrees etc. but are they good, well rounded nice human beings that you would want to spend time with?

i think not.

what are you idiots doing? you're supposed to let them feel like they're "smarter." they obviously have very little else to pro themselves up, let them "win" once in a while. let the real adults run the world while they pat themselves on the back like the children they are.

>>222453
Angry college dropout detected.

Well obviously if you don't believe in a god, that doesn't make you super intelligent.
It just means you're MORE intelligent than the shit for brains that do.

It's an indicator of solid critical thinking skills and scientific literacy.


Take a look at the Scandinavian countries. They're where we should aspire to be in almost every sense. A happy medium with a slight lean to the left. Good gun laws, religious freedom, equal rights for everyone, lowering their dependence on oil.

>>222453
it's really up to the person, not the point of views of politic or religion

liberals are the kind of people that form multicultural crime ridden societies, i dont see what is intelligent about that

>>222453
>Dang ol' book readin' liberaltards! I wouldn't wanna spend time 'round dem! What with their fancy degrees and fag talk!


lol.

>>222484
Hardly, I've never met people who are as grossly arrogant, self-centered, or narcissistic as liberals or (especially) atheists. Atheists are more bigoted than the vast majority of people in America. Their blind, contemptuous hatred for anyone who disagrees with them is so offputting it makes me nauseous just listening to their inane bullshit.

The worst part is that most of their shit is made up. "Hurr durr, religion caused most wars, durr" It's demonstrably false that it stuns me into stupified silence every time some fucking idiot spouts that historically inaccurate garbage.

>>222453
Newsflash: Everyone is an asshole

>>222510

Yet you're so angry and make just as bad of generalizations as they do.
You think they'd want to spend a minute with a dipshit like you?

>>222510
>Crusades

>>222537
What a fucking pathetic retort. You're one of those dipshits who thinks most wars were caused by religion, aren't you? Admit it, you know jack-all about history and you honestly think that the Catholic Church hindered intellectual progress in the Middle Ages, don't you?

>>222537
different guy.

no they only want to listen to people that think the same as them i.e. other manbag wearing elitist libsits with undeserved self pride.

>>222448
compare regulations and restrictions and economies of straight red and straight blue states :\

>>222562
>Proving me right

The moment someone is smarter, he has a tendency to become an Atheist.

The moment he becomes an atheist, he has a tendency to become a liberal.

The moment a liberal studied economics, he comes a libertarian.

Tru dat.

>Their blind, contemptuous hatred for anyone who disagrees with them is so offputting it makes me nauseous just listening to their inane bullshit.

Ironic

>The worst part is that most of their shit is made up. "Hurr durr, religion caused most wars, durr" It's demonstrably false that it stuns me into stupified silence every time some fucking idiot spouts that historically inaccurate garbage.

I've heard a only a few people say that, but religious wars have caused millions of deaths. And it's also funny because I get told all the time that atheists were responsible for WWII.

hmmm

>>222586
>implying economics isn't the most opinionated "science".

>>222562
How about how the Vatican's ban on contraceptives exposes millions of people to HIV?

>>222577
>>222577
>>222577
>>222577
>>222577
>>222577
>>222577

>>222559
Lmfao, dude, do you know anything about history? Okay, so I'll allow you to extrapolate the Crusades into 4 wars.

Wow. There's four. Let me list the ones that had nothing to do with religion:

First and Second Punic Wars
War of 1812
Spanish American War
Peloppenesian War
Greco-Persian Wars
World War 1
World War 2
Vietnam War
American Revolution
French Revolution
Napoleon's Conquests
All the wars propogated by the Dellian League (those numbering in the dozens)
Russian-Japanese war
French And Indian Wars
Hundred Years' Wars
Romans fighting the: Celts, Picts, Saxons, Huns, Goths, Visigoths
Mongol wars
Wars of Succession in Japan

My God I could go on forever.

Oh, but you had ONE example, how neato.

And the best part is that religion was a pretext for the Crusades, which were really about land acquisition.

Welcome to dumbfuckland, home of people like you.

>>222510
>>222562
only person in this thread that i like.

i wish this site wasn't filled with angsty athiest teens. and to the guy i linked to, yes you are absolutly right about athiests saying "HURR ALL WARZ ARE COS OF RELIGIONS, THE WORLD WOULD BE SO AWESOME IS IT WASNT FOR RELIGIOUS FAGGOTS. DEY R INBRED RETARDS THAT DONT UNDERSTAND OUR SUPERIOR INTERLECT" cavemen were killing and raping before they could even talk to one another let alone discuss the existance of god.

>>222604
yeah that totally stopped people from progressing and inventing stuff.

>>222604
Yes, because Aids and contraceptives have EVERYTHING to do with the fucking Middle Ages, you dolt.

>>222612
Most wars are indeed political based or resources. Also you get those random people in them that try to convert the other side to their religion as they kill them.

>>222559
>implying the crusades were about religion

>>222646
> implying political leaders believe in religion
> claims to know the history of religion


lolno

>>222646
Actually, not in most wars. Forced conversion was relatively rare through most of history and people only think of it because the instances that did occur were much closer to our time period than most of history (For instance, Conquistadors, etc.).

But the Romans didn't believe in it, the Greeks didn't give a shit about conversion, the Persians couldn't have cared less, the Carthaginians were ambivilant on the matter, and on and on. Most "barbarians' didn't give a rip-roaring fuck what your religion was either. Only in isolated instances, typically Muslim and Christian, was this prevelant. Modern radical Islam makes it seem as though it's this incessant thing that's been pervasive for all of human history, but it's not.

>>222562
>you honestly think that the Catholic Church hindered intellectual progress in the Middle Ages

Because the catholic church never burned books and never refused Muslim scientists from lecturing in Europe. They also patted Galileo and Copernicus on the back.

>>222658
>try to convert
I said 'try' for a reason

>>222657
go back to bed with your implied ideas that i didn't even imply.

>>222659
stop crying, they didn't hinder it. you got your cell phone and internet so stfu.

>>222659
Once again, idiot who doesn't know anything about history OR astronomy for that matter.

The reason Copernicus didn't publish is because he felt there was a fundamental flaw in his system. He didn't actually believe the planets revolved around the sun, but rather he believed his equations were useful in charting and understanding the stars, not explaining how they actually function. It severely vexed him and he was brow-beaten by a friend to finally publish, still against his wishes, because he simply believed he was wrong.

Furthermore, the Vatican didn't "burn" Copernicus's books, they were widely read among academics, who were mostly .... wait for it... Catholic.

And Gallileo's beef with the Church had NOTHING to do with his ides. It was a personal feud between him and the Pope. In fact, Galileo invited Cardinals and Bishops to view the heavens with his telescope and they declared it marvelous and wonderful and on and on.

The problem arose when Galileo had a discussion with the pope on the heavens. The pope, of course, held a geocentric view, Galileo the opposite. It was a friendly discourse (as they WERE friends) and that was that. But when Galileo published his book, it was the same discussion, except he portrayed the character playing the Pope as a bumbling, half-retarded, moron. It was a PERSONAL sleight that caused the Pope to be furious with him, it had jack-all to do with his dieas.

Oh what's that? You don't know a single fucking thing about history? I know. It's okay. You just vomit up what you read in some 16 year old's angsty blog.

>>222669
>they didn't hinder it

>LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU

>>222669
8/10

Would rage again, troll.

>>222665
I know you said "try". I'm saying that the VAST majority of the time people didn't really try at all. Many religion adopted from one another, or people just converted of their own volition, but even attempts at forced conversion were relatively rare throughout human history.

>>222659
The Church was the only major power to survive the Dark Ages, because the Dark Ages was basically the Church destroying everything else.

Yes, the Catholic Church was the intellectual engine of the middle ages. Because they created an environment where noone except them could read.

>>222665
d'awww butthurt?

>>222705
>because the Dark Ages was basically the Church destroying everything else.

Another complete fucking idiot who doesn't know fuck-all about history. The fact that you even use the term "Dark Ages' reveals your profound ignorance.

The Church didn't "destroy everything else" you fucking fool, as there was nothing else to destroy. After the fall of Rome, we'll say...oh....600's AD, though some debate the 400's, we'll go with a later date to give you the slight benefit of the doubt.

So with the fall of Rome there were no unifying institutions in Europe. None. Not even the Church. The Church had next-to-no-influence on Europe until AFTER the Early Middle Ages (what you call the "dark ages"). It was Charlamegne's conquests that brought a slight unification and rise to Christianity, but it wasn't until the 1100's that the Church began to have real influence in Europe, hundreds of years later.

You're so stupid it's staggering.

tl;dr: The Church COULDN'T have "destroyed everything else" during the "dark ages" because it had no fucking power you halfwit.

>>222716
Actually I'm feeling just fine, but you seem to be taking it a bit hard that I ignored your implying attempts.

>>221581

>More intelligent people are statistically significantly more likely to exhibit social values and religious and political preferences that are novel to the human species in evolutionary history. Specifically, liberalism and atheism, and for men (but not women), preference for sexual exclusivity correlate with higher intelligence, a new study finds.

>congratulations, you are smarter than everyone else.
>you are smarter than everyone else
>everyone

OP says: Group A has a statistically higher intelligence than B. If you belong in group A, you are more intelligent than anyone in group B.

Congratulations, OP. You are instantly wrong. Your failure in logic astounds me.

>>222705
Furthermore they didn't "create" the environment you simpering idiot, they're the reason any literacy survived at all.

Let's say the Catholic Church hadn't existed after the fall of Rome. Who would have been the learned men, preserving books, ancient texts, and literacy? Answer: None. There were no schools. There were no colleges. There was no institution of learning, anywhere. Why? Because Rome was destroyed and with it went any semblance of Academia.

The Church, thankfully, preserved a lot of knowledge which went on to allow technological advents during the Early Middle Ages an on into the Renaissance.

If there had been no Church than humankind would have taken another 400-500 years to reach the ponti we're at now, you dolt. (At least in Europe)

>>222752
Lol, good catch on the logical fallacy. OP doesn't even know what a fallacy is (he thinks it has to do with penises)

>>222738
you mean the laughable notion that political leaders took their religion seriously? the same people who rewrote the bible over 9000 times to their favor?

>>222752
can't argue with facts

ITT: a bunch of liberals and atheists being with a logical fallacy and go on to prove they don't know fuck-all about history or astronomy. They are rebutted by the rest of the thread. The end.

does any real news ever get posted on this board?

>>222797
>liberals and atheists being with a logical fallacy

>>222790
You really don't know what a logical fallacy is, do you? Jesus Christ that's pathetic. I honestly pity your ignorance.

>>222773
>over 9000 times
You're trolling skills are not that great are they?

>>222808
science, facts, you cannot dispute.

nice try

>>222807
typo, grammar-nazi fag, it was supposed to be "Begin"

>>222818
dumbass, it was supposed to be "begin" without capitalization, as you were using it in a middle of a sentence.

fucking retards man

>>222817
So that's a no? You don't know what a logical fallacy is, do you? HAHAHAHAH, jesus that's sad. That's so fucking sad. Please tell me you're in high school because otherwise you've received one of the worst educations in the history of mankind.

Hint:
Group A is statistically more likely to be better at X than Group B.

If you are from group A you are better at X than B.

This is a LOGICAL FALLACY as it is demonstrably false, you moron.

Let's put it in other terms. Let's say...brown haired people are more likely to have brown eyes than blonde haired people. Therefore, if you have blonde hair, you don't have brown eyes.

That's your pont. One that is demonstrably false by the fact that there are blonde haired people with brown eyes.

I've got $100 that says this, most basic, of logical fallacies (as set down by Socrates) still doesn't make sense to you. Damn you're dumb.

>>222847
facts. do you know what facts are?

>>222856
lmfao, you still don't get it, this is priceless.

>>222847
dude you are falling for the most obvious troll.

just stop, it's embarrassing

Is my logic at fault?

>>222856
/facepalm

either you're trolling or you're too stupid to allow to continue living

Wow.
For a rag called "Science Daily", that's some very poor English grammar in that quote...
Let's try this, instead:
"A significant number of people with higher intelligence are statistically more likely to exhibit social values (comma for breath) and religious and political perferences that are novel to the human species in evolitionary history."
Damn...

Actually I don't believe there are such things as trolls. What happens is some idiot gets caught being a fucking idiot and then they realize they were found out and begin to act like it was a joke by "trolling" when in fact they actually did believe what they originall posted.

It's like someone walks down the street, falls on their face and looks around, and if someone sees them they say "I meant to do that!"

ITT bitches cant refute my facts

What's funny is that if we were using some bullshit test to say Niggers are less intelligent, it would be labeled "stormfront".

Apparently only attempts at negative portrayal of Christians and Conservatives is allowed on /new/ without bitching.

>>221581

>neglects overlap between two groups for intelligence
>never even mentions the word likely or anything to do with probability in his own statement

You've slain yourself, OP. Gain 17 XP and 32gp, and then die.

>>222887
awesome

/thread

>>222886
Someone is mighty butthurt

>>222886
Nah, we've already demonstrated that no one in here knows anything about history or astronomy and is merely making shit up. It's pretty sad, really, because their whole point was that they're more intelligent, and yet they have yet to be right about anything in the thread.

>>222658
>>222682
>>222731
>>222765

Those posts are of outstanding quality. To the person who made them: Thank you for the effort, they teched me something very useful and intersting for a change.

This thread is amazing.
>>222612

>>221581
Happen to be liberal and Christian?
Congratulations, you are more useful to society and altogether a better person

>>222906
That'd be me, and you're welcome. I study Astronomy, History, and German. Two of those proved useful in refuting stupidity in this thread.

>>222904
right about what exactly?

the article is what we're discussing here, not personal pissing contests between you and whoever.

no one in this thread has been able to refute anything in the actual article.

>>222886
how's it no bitching if you're bitching

>>222906
So... How's it feel to self-compliment yourself?

>>222906
jesus christ, at least be subtle with your samefagging

>>222731
The reason centers of learning were destroyed during the fall of the Roman empire was the purging by Christian Emperors. Bishops had significant influence in the late Roman Empire, and it's not a coincidence that "The Church" is the church of Rome.

I can't say that Christianity was responsible for the fall of the Roman empire, but it is very directly responsible for the Dark Ages, and the formation of the Church is closely tied to it.

>>222659

>he thinks Galileo wasn't friends with the Church

Galileo got in trouble with the church for portraying the Pope in his science book, literally as "The Simple One" or "The Fool."

These days even "science" is in the back pocket of whoever can pay for it.

There are currently pro-bestiality groups funding studies that support the idea that animals can consent to and enjoy sex with humans.

If you've got the money, you can fund "science" into pointing in any direction you want it too.

In this sad day and age, even "science" is no longer objective or irrefutable facts. It can be as biased as anybody is willing to fund it to be.

Oh, wait, did I say this was a recent development?
It's not.
Back in the day Science said Niggers were less human and less evolved.
More recently they backpedaled on Homosexuality being classified as a fetish/psycho-sexual disturbance, coincidentally at the same time it became politically incorrect to view it as such.

Liberalism - All the other kids are doing it!

>>222944
Holy shit... Pat Robertson was right!

>>222927
Everything in this post is 100% wrong. The sole reason for the "Dark Ages" as you insist on still calling the time period, was the fall of Rome. Period. Saying that the "Chu8rch" had anything to do with the fall of Rome is pretty hilarious as the actual beginnings of its downfall occurred before the birth Octavian who would become Augustus Caesar. Hell, you could trace the beginning of the fall of Rome to a period prior to the birth of Cicero, which puts it in the 70B.C. area.

The church didn't begin to have any influence on Roman society until Constantine. The Fall of Rome began in the late BC's and reached it's tipping pont in the early 200's.

Constantine was emperor in the LATE 200's, centuries after the fall of Rome actually began.

The Church had NOTHING to do with it.

(And note: They didn't destroy any institutions of learning in the entire course of the Roman history. You're so stupid it shocks the conscience that you even keep typing out your inane crap)

>>222944
>Back in the day Science said Niggers were less human and less evolved.

so you're saying all the charts and statistics about the african brain being the equivalent of a chimps that /stormfront/ has been posting over and over again is all bullshit?
i've been deceived ;_;

>>222971
ok ok we get it, you have a hard on for the Pope. seriously, this thread isn't about the history of the Catholic church, no matter how much you try to push whatever battle you think you have to fight.

>>222944
>Back in the day Science said Niggers were less human and less evolved.
>More recently they backpedaled on Homosexuality being classified as a fetish/psycho-sexual disturbance

>implying those aren't true

>>222988
No, actually I'm an agnostic and I couldn't care less about the Pope. I do, however, care about history and I hate when people misuse it, lie about it, and then make shit up that they think sounds mildly accurate in an attempt to falsely prove a point.

You don't know fuck-all about history. I don't give a fuck what you think of the Catholic Church, my opinion isn't all that high, but buddy, you better not just make shit up and spit on facts and reality to make your butthurt point.

>>222971

Different fag here. Non-history major, but even I know the church helped vastly later on with the renaissance. As far as helping knowledge, Martin Luther created the printing press. You're welcome.

>>222988
>lambasts religion of prior centuries with factually incorrect accusations
>calls somebody pointlessly defensive when they refute your incorrect statements about the Catholic church

>>222988
lol u mad

>>222927
>He still seriously thinks the Dark Ages were because of religion.

>>223003
>You don't know fuck-all about history.

do you know me? I wasn't the person you were arguing with.

but seriously, do you know what I have studied. you have no idea.

because you studied the history of the Catholic History, you think you are the authority on history?

get over yourself kid

>>222971
Somebody using actual facts to refute an angry teenager that incorrectly and immaturely blames all the woes of the world on religion?

There may be hope for /new/. And the Human Race.

>>223031

>the history of the Catholic History

Go back to 11th grade, after-school isn't even done for kids like you.

>>223031
>but seriously, do you know what I have studied. you have no idea.
>because you studied the history of the Catholic History

Well your posts don't exactly corroborate that fact, buckaroo.

Soooooooooooo many butthurt christfags itt

uh, this thread certainly turned to shit.

the article said religion, not catholicism. meaning islam, judaism, christianity, and all the other religions

>mybrainisfulloffuck.jpg

>>221812
unfortunately it's teh dumb welfare people who are shitting out 30 kids at a time while educated people who are mostly waiting to have kids or only having one

this has to be the dumbest thread in the history of /new/.

so many tangents, so many ad hominems, and overall nothing has been accomplished.

the actual article was barely discussed

you should all feel bad.

>>222944
MY DOG NOT ONLY CONSENTS, HE INITIATES THE FOREPLAY

>>223098
I found it enlightening.
The ad hominems made the knowledgable angry, whitch resulted in informative posts.

>>223098
You must shoot for the stars.

This thread was actually informative. I think I learned something today.

>>223133
please enlighten me, as I think I have missed it

>>222453
Richard Dawkins perfect example.

>>223107
Does an animal have to give consent to be slaughtered?
So why the exceptions for sexual exploitation?

>>223147
He seems pretty nice, actually.

>>223148
Presumably because it counts as animal cruelty, which isn't legal either.

>>223098

Here's my take on the article itself:

>Young adults who subjectively identify themselves as "very liberal" have an average IQ of 106 during adolescence while those who identify themselves as "very conservative" have an average IQ of 95 during adolescence.

How the fuck do you expect adolescents to give an accurate, "subjective" analysis of their views? Why didn't Kanazawa make them answer a battery of questions to determine their views?

Also, the extrapolation of "evolutionary novel ideas" seems arbitrary and self-serving. I could just as well argue that "the spear and invention of fire" are evolutionary supported because they help humans survive better.

This article needs:
Peer review.
Better controlled testing.
Unbiased data interpretation.

As it is right now, it sounds like a lot of bullshit.

>>223209
>invention of fire

>>223230

You know what I mean. But I guess you have nothing better to say, so it can't be helped.

>>223234
I do, actually, but I'm saving it for a better thread.

>>222927
That was because dumbfucks who were Popes should not have been Popes during that time. They wanted to be Popes because of the power rather than the conviction of being Popes.

>>223246

Agreed. This thread sucks. I can't believe I actually read that troll article.

>>223230
humans invented fire dipshit

>>222971
Rome fell because of barbarians assimilating from the inside out.

>>223209
This study is just supporting what is already well established. It's consistent will all other research in the area. Your skepticism is unwarranted, republicunt.

>>223339
>This subjective pseudo-data reinforces my personal prejudices which I share with other people like myself. It's consistent with other stilted bullshit that has had an index-card with the word "SCIENTIFIC STUDY" written in Sharpie taped to it. Disagreement with me on its validity means you're affiliated with the political party Mtv told me to hate.

>>223735
that was fucking hilarious and perfectly presented.

/thread

Correlate does not mean that one actually affects the other, they're just related like you and your cousins are related (minus the gay incest). Stupid Liberal faggots.

Male ✓
Liberal ✓
Atheist ✓
Lenient towards monogamy ✓

feels good man

Well it's obvious historical revisionism the Dark Ages had nothing to do with the Church. Most of the oppression came from the mongols, just ask the arabs.

however, I'm glad the church help kill of the jews during WWII

>>225049
...wat?

>>224932

Go study economics and become a Libertarian. Feels even better man.

>>225075
enjoy your 5% electoral percentage

>>225075
>Go learn how to take giant cocks up the ass and become a Libertarian. Feels even gayer man.

fix'd