The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
The GQ by Race
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Commenter joe2.5 requests:

How about providing a bare minimum of data to allow interpreting your numbers, even if it’s just this time? Like the relative proportion of atheists within each of the groups you defined, the different categories offered as a choice (and their respective totals) and the exact questions asked? If you don’t mind.

And, I hope, receives:

The white, black, Hispanic, and Asian categories are mutually exclusive. Jews may be of any race but are predominately white.

Atheist = “I don’t believe in God”
Agnostic = “I don’t know whether there is a God and I don’t believe there is any way to find out”
Uncertain believer = “I don’t believe in a personal God, but I do believe in a Higher Power of some kind” or “I find myself believing in God some of the time, but not at others” or “While I have doubts, I feel that I do believe in God”
Firm theist = “I know God really exists and I have no doubts about it”

GSS variables used: GOD(1)(2)(3-5)(6), RACECEN1(1)(2)(4-10), HISPANIC(1)(2-50), YEAR(2012-2018), RELIG(3)

 
• Category: Ideology, Race/Ethnicity • Tags: God, GSS, Race 
Hide 39 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. The Asian number for Chinese/Koreans/Japanese will be below even Jewish leveled, because the rest of them coming from the subcontinent from any religion and Filipinos are probably closer to AA levels.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @indocon

    The level of variation in Europe is similar. British, Swedish, etc, have low levels of theism. Greeks, Poles, etc are on par with African-American levels.

    I don't understand why people talk as if whites are a monolithic group, but Asians are not when the level of cultural variation within those two groups is similar.

    , @JohnPlywood
    @indocon

    Koreans in SK and especially USA are highly religious, and outnumber Japs by a large margin. Chinese in the USA are somewhat religious.

    , @Twinkie
    @indocon

    You are partially correct. South Asians have fewer religiously unaffiliated than East Asians per the 2012 Pew data. However, East Asians are still much more theistic than Jews. See:

    https://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2012/07/overview3.png

    Replies: @Kratoklastes

    , @Mr. XYZ
    @indocon

    What about South Asians and Vietnamese?

    , @gate666
    @indocon

    you have no evidence for this claim.

  2. Very interesting graph – much appreciated. Will share.

    I know it would probably make it too unwieldy, but it would be great to see a male/female breakdown among the categories.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @songbird
    @Talha

    I'd really like to see the Hindu numbers. I mean, I don't know if a question like this with "God" would bias the result, but I am curious about how many in the West have an orthodox Hindu perspective vs. India, and how this might compare to Muslims from the same area.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

  3. Such ‘theistic’ distribution by race or not is very misleading:
    (Let me repeat what I posted here and there:)
    A religion can manifest in a number of ways:
    i)Aspiration (moral, tribal, ethnical..) of the founder(s)[real or mythical]
    ii)Cultural or traditions
    iii)Being and identity (points ii&iii come in the form of symbolism like wearing a cross or burqa and rituals like attending church/mosque/temple service/prayers. It’s mainly pyschology,pure and simple.)
    iv)As geo/internal political vehicle of tribal/racial/nationalistic interests
    …………
    Some facts:
    –Practising a religion is not the same as ‘believing’ in God/gods/goddesses
    –The average atheist is not a radical atheist.
    –The average theist is just a person who wants a ‘cultural’ tag.
    –Atheism/atheism/agnosticism has more substance than a person’s declaration on his/her being and identity
    Finally: I’m NOT an atheist for simple reason: Humans are tiny entities in the universe, so there must be entities/god(s) out there with power we can’t fathom; but as a baptised protestant, I stopped attending church services a long time ago. I revere Jesus as a moral giant; ‘Son of God’ is fine as a metaphor if God is benevolent to us humans but often God is not–Remember how he brought down the Tower of Babel because ancient astronomers wanted to explore the heaven?

    • Replies: @Realist
    @Lin


    Humans are tiny entities in the universe, so there must be entities/god(s) out there with power we can’t fathom;...
     
    Quite probably true, but that doesn't make them gods.

    We know there is life in the universe, but is there intelligent life in the universe…that is the question.

    Replies: @Lin

    , @Anon
    @Lin

    Written by a libtard arts major. Intellectual idiots all. Get a grip; obviously data is the bane of a denizen of Starbucks.

    Replies: @Lin

  4. @Lin
    Such 'theistic' distribution by race or not is very misleading:
    (Let me repeat what I posted here and there:)
    A religion can manifest in a number of ways:
    i)Aspiration (moral, tribal, ethnical..) of the founder(s)[real or mythical]
    ii)Cultural or traditions
    iii)Being and identity (points ii&iii come in the form of symbolism like wearing a cross or burqa and rituals like attending church/mosque/temple service/prayers. It’s mainly pyschology,pure and simple.)
    iv)As geo/internal political vehicle of tribal/racial/nationalistic interests
    …………
    Some facts:
    --Practising a religion is not the same as 'believing' in God/gods/goddesses
    --The average atheist is not a radical atheist.
    --The average theist is just a person who wants a 'cultural' tag.
    --Atheism/atheism/agnosticism has more substance than a person's declaration on his/her being and identity
    Finally: I’m NOT an atheist for simple reason: Humans are tiny entities in the universe, so there must be entities/god(s) out there with power we can’t fathom; but as a baptised protestant, I stopped attending church services a long time ago. I revere Jesus as a moral giant; 'Son of God' is fine as a metaphor if God is benevolent to us humans but often God is not--Remember how he brought down the Tower of Babel because ancient astronomers wanted to explore the heaven?

    Replies: @Realist, @Anon

    Humans are tiny entities in the universe, so there must be entities/god(s) out there with power we can’t fathom;…

    Quite probably true, but that doesn’t make them gods.

    We know there is life in the universe, but is there intelligent life in the universe…that is the question.

    • Replies: @Lin
    @Realist


    Quite probably true, but that doesn’t make them gods.
     
    'God' is just human lexical for something powerful and beyond us.
    In more down to earth(literally) human fashion or language, 'God' is often described as 'Father in Heaven' or 'King of heaven'.
    BTW, it's quite amazing that many(if not most)Christians don't know what's the old testament jewish name of Jesus and the meaning of the word 'Messiah' during Jesus's time.
    (I once mentioned that -- the followers/multitude of Jesus were partly responsible for crucification of Jesus. They wanted to promote Jesus, a largely apolitical moral teacher, to be a rebel leader they could rally behind; and in the process got Jesus crucified -- Christianity is a religion formed by the the 'disciples' who were partly responsible for Jesus's crucification -- Jesus had no intention to form a new religion)

    Replies: @Athletic and Whitesplosive

  5. @Realist
    @Lin


    Humans are tiny entities in the universe, so there must be entities/god(s) out there with power we can’t fathom;...
     
    Quite probably true, but that doesn't make them gods.

    We know there is life in the universe, but is there intelligent life in the universe…that is the question.

    Replies: @Lin

    Quite probably true, but that doesn’t make them gods.

    ‘God’ is just human lexical for something powerful and beyond us.
    In more down to earth(literally) human fashion or language, ‘God’ is often described as ‘Father in Heaven’ or ‘King of heaven’.
    BTW, it’s quite amazing that many(if not most)Christians don’t know what’s the old testament jewish name of Jesus and the meaning of the word ‘Messiah’ during Jesus’s time.
    (I once mentioned that — the followers/multitude of Jesus were partly responsible for crucification of Jesus. They wanted to promote Jesus, a largely apolitical moral teacher, to be a rebel leader they could rally behind; and in the process got Jesus crucified — Christianity is a religion formed by the the ‘disciples’ who were partly responsible for Jesus’s crucification — Jesus had no intention to form a new religion)

    • Replies: @Athletic and Whitesplosive
    @Lin

    Well it's clear that you're not a practicing Christian given your extremely tendentious and stupid interpretation of scripture, which directly contradicts it.


    I once mentioned that — the followers/multitude of Jesus were partly responsible for crucification of Jesus. They wanted to promote Jesus, a largely apolitical moral teacher, to be a rebel leader they could rally behind;
     
    Yeah, an apolitical moral teacher whose message basically amounted to "I am God and your nation has betrayed its covenants with me," You're way too immersed in nonsense liberal sociology when you think Church and state can be separate, the Pharisees were not so foolish. And even if they were, the coming of the Messiah was a direct threat to the explicit foundation of their authority; that the Messiah would be a political and military leader was a widespread erroneous interpretation that the Pharisees shared, it was no more the contrivance of Christ's followers than is the expectation of the old President that he will have to move out when a new one is elected.

    and in the process got Jesus crucified — Christianity is a religion formed by the the ‘disciples’ who were partly responsible for Jesus’s crucification — Jesus had no intention to form a new religion
     
    Of course he didn't attempt to form a new religion, he himself said he was the fulfillment of the Law, who could think that? Christianity is the Religion given to Abraham, the covenants of which Christ is the fulfillment.

    I can see being a spineless new-age woo practitioner that you would naturally apply the "textual criticism" routine to the new testament (basically calling the Church Fathers as well as Christ himself a liar with ulterior motives), but the tower of babel as 'God maliciously destroying ancient astronomers who just wanted to learn' is a bridge too far. There's no amount of 'textual criticism' to hide behind there, there's no contemporary sources or rival political motivations to weigh, it's just a willful idiot projecting his hatred of God onto the story such that he can come up with this tendentious interpretation which directly contradicts it.

    In any case, accusing the definition of goodness itself of not acting benevolently is the typically unself-aware argument of the epistemologically retarded "spiritualist". Newsflash: your entire conception of morality is a product of the Christian religion, that you've found some way for them to not be in synch is a problem with you, not it.

    "I would be Christian, but God is not moral enough for me," this is the exact same brand of prideful profligacy that your average marxist megalomaniac flaunts. "Jesus was a moral teacher, but he wasn't right about everything," well he said he was the word made flesh, so don't call Christ a moral giant, you say he is a liar and a madman! People who feign modesty while putting themselves above God make me puke.

    Replies: @Lin

  6. Anonymous[308] • Disclaimer says:
    @indocon
    The Asian number for Chinese/Koreans/Japanese will be below even Jewish leveled, because the rest of them coming from the subcontinent from any religion and Filipinos are probably closer to AA levels.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @JohnPlywood, @Twinkie, @Mr. XYZ, @gate666

    The level of variation in Europe is similar. British, Swedish, etc, have low levels of theism. Greeks, Poles, etc are on par with African-American levels.

    I don’t understand why people talk as if whites are a monolithic group, but Asians are not when the level of cultural variation within those two groups is similar.

  7. It appears that the most intelligent group has the highest proportion of atheists, and the least intelligent group the lowest.

    • Replies: @Athletic and Whitesplosive
    @Nodwink

    Religious with STD +2 IQ massively outnumber the irreligious, sorry to burst your bubble midwit.

    Replies: @Kratoklastes, @Nodwink

  8. @indocon
    The Asian number for Chinese/Koreans/Japanese will be below even Jewish leveled, because the rest of them coming from the subcontinent from any religion and Filipinos are probably closer to AA levels.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @JohnPlywood, @Twinkie, @Mr. XYZ, @gate666

    Koreans in SK and especially USA are highly religious, and outnumber Japs by a large margin. Chinese in the USA are somewhat religious.

  9. @indocon
    The Asian number for Chinese/Koreans/Japanese will be below even Jewish leveled, because the rest of them coming from the subcontinent from any religion and Filipinos are probably closer to AA levels.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @JohnPlywood, @Twinkie, @Mr. XYZ, @gate666

    You are partially correct. South Asians have fewer religiously unaffiliated than East Asians per the 2012 Pew data. However, East Asians are still much more theistic than Jews. See:

    • Replies: @Kratoklastes
    @Twinkie

    You're conflating religiosity with theism.

    Buddhists are not 'theists' in the sense in which the term is used in AE's post[1] - and the post itself conflates theism with Godism.

    There are theists who reject the capital-letter god of the Old Nonsense (YHWH, Hashem, the Lord) and its 7th century variant (Allah). If you're discussing American data, they're a small enough passel of folks to be ignored, but still.

    So anyhow... add all the Buddhists to the 'atheist' count and Asian Americans are a lot more like their home-country fellows.

    .

    And if you want to really get creative: every follower of a religion is an atheist with respect to all gods except their own.

    Atheists just take that process one god further.


    [1] The dude who started the whole Buddhism thing, rejected the idea of a creator deity. That's kind of a big hint, given that folks who invent a new grift tend to deliberately talk in riddles and otherwise obfuscate.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

  10. @Talha
    Very interesting graph - much appreciated. Will share.

    I know it would probably make it too unwieldy, but it would be great to see a male/female breakdown among the categories.

    Peace.

    Replies: @songbird

    I’d really like to see the Hindu numbers. I mean, I don’t know if a question like this with “God” would bias the result, but I am curious about how many in the West have an orthodox Hindu perspective vs. India, and how this might compare to Muslims from the same area.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @songbird

    The sample is only 73, but it shakes out this way:

    Atheist - 1%
    Agnostic - 7%
    Uncertain believer - 49%
    Firm theist - 44%

    Pretty close to the all-in Asian figures.

    Replies: @songbird, @Mr. XYZ

  11. “It appears that the most intelligent group has the highest proportion of atheists, and the least intelligent group the lowest.”

    Nice try. Laugh.

    More than likely the group that has the highest degree of life struggle and that group that has fewer escapes from reality —-

    The strongest set of ideals to faith accompany those least affected by intelligentsia intellectual gaming. Not at all by definition related to intelligence, education or knowledge.

  12. The election remains executive Trump’s to lose.

    Not by way of the nation’s circumstances and the perception of voters, but by the complete weakness, again of the democratic field – fortunately.

  13. @Lin
    @Realist


    Quite probably true, but that doesn’t make them gods.
     
    'God' is just human lexical for something powerful and beyond us.
    In more down to earth(literally) human fashion or language, 'God' is often described as 'Father in Heaven' or 'King of heaven'.
    BTW, it's quite amazing that many(if not most)Christians don't know what's the old testament jewish name of Jesus and the meaning of the word 'Messiah' during Jesus's time.
    (I once mentioned that -- the followers/multitude of Jesus were partly responsible for crucification of Jesus. They wanted to promote Jesus, a largely apolitical moral teacher, to be a rebel leader they could rally behind; and in the process got Jesus crucified -- Christianity is a religion formed by the the 'disciples' who were partly responsible for Jesus's crucification -- Jesus had no intention to form a new religion)

    Replies: @Athletic and Whitesplosive

    Well it’s clear that you’re not a practicing Christian given your extremely tendentious and stupid interpretation of scripture, which directly contradicts it.

    I once mentioned that — the followers/multitude of Jesus were partly responsible for crucification of Jesus. They wanted to promote Jesus, a largely apolitical moral teacher, to be a rebel leader they could rally behind;

    Yeah, an apolitical moral teacher whose message basically amounted to “I am God and your nation has betrayed its covenants with me,” You’re way too immersed in nonsense liberal sociology when you think Church and state can be separate, the Pharisees were not so foolish. And even if they were, the coming of the Messiah was a direct threat to the explicit foundation of their authority; that the Messiah would be a political and military leader was a widespread erroneous interpretation that the Pharisees shared, it was no more the contrivance of Christ’s followers than is the expectation of the old President that he will have to move out when a new one is elected.

    and in the process got Jesus crucified — Christianity is a religion formed by the the ‘disciples’ who were partly responsible for Jesus’s crucification — Jesus had no intention to form a new religion

    Of course he didn’t attempt to form a new religion, he himself said he was the fulfillment of the Law, who could think that? Christianity is the Religion given to Abraham, the covenants of which Christ is the fulfillment.

    I can see being a spineless new-age woo practitioner that you would naturally apply the “textual criticism” routine to the new testament (basically calling the Church Fathers as well as Christ himself a liar with ulterior motives), but the tower of babel as ‘God maliciously destroying ancient astronomers who just wanted to learn’ is a bridge too far. There’s no amount of ‘textual criticism’ to hide behind there, there’s no contemporary sources or rival political motivations to weigh, it’s just a willful idiot projecting his hatred of God onto the story such that he can come up with this tendentious interpretation which directly contradicts it.

    In any case, accusing the definition of goodness itself of not acting benevolently is the typically unself-aware argument of the epistemologically retarded “spiritualist”. Newsflash: your entire conception of morality is a product of the Christian religion, that you’ve found some way for them to not be in synch is a problem with you, not it.

    “I would be Christian, but God is not moral enough for me,” this is the exact same brand of prideful profligacy that your average marxist megalomaniac flaunts. “Jesus was a moral teacher, but he wasn’t right about everything,” well he said he was the word made flesh, so don’t call Christ a moral giant, you say he is a liar and a madman! People who feign modesty while putting themselves above God make me puke.

    • Replies: @Lin
    @Athletic and Whitesplosive

    Your arguments are just too weary. I must remind you out of good will that the aims of apologetics are to bring people back to their faith but not to be combative


    you’re not a practicing Christian
     
    What does it mean by 'practicing Christian'? I can definitely spare time, say, to go to sunday service once a month, drop a bank note on the tithes plate, and call myself a 'practicing Christian'. What difference does it make?

    Yeah, an apolitical moral teacher whose message basically amounted to “I am God and your nation has betrayed its covenants with me.
     
    'Politics' could mean a lot of things; here you told me moral teaching is 'Politics' . Fine with me since you've a different notion regarding morality, just like the saudi salafis have theirs.

    when you think Church and state can be separate, the Pharisees were not so foolish. And even if they were, the coming of the Messiah was a direct threat to the explicit foundation of their authority.
     
    You basically tell me the Pharisees has their theocracy and the disciples of Jesus want to replace it by their own.

    it was no more the contrivance of Christ’s followers than is the expectation of the old President that he will have to move out when a new one is elected.
     
    Wow, it's so simple? Look, even the exploits of a much less ancient christian figure like Oliver Cromwell took much more efforts

    Christianity is the Religion given to Abraham, the covenants of which Christ is the fulfillment.
     
    Oop.. Why don't you put forth the question to the average lubavitcher rabbi ? Or do you mean Mormonism is the Religion given to Abraham and Joseph Smith is the last prophet?

    but the tower of babel as ‘God maliciously destroying ancient astronomers who just wanted to learn’ is a bridge too far.
     
    You just admit that the bible, particularly if taken literally, contains embarrassing passages; like I haven't met a pastor who can explain why Eva wasn't included in the original plan of creation of man that Adam had to resort to bestial temptation.
  14. @Nodwink
    It appears that the most intelligent group has the highest proportion of atheists, and the least intelligent group the lowest.

    Replies: @Athletic and Whitesplosive

    Religious with STD +2 IQ massively outnumber the irreligious, sorry to burst your bubble midwit.

    • Replies: @Kratoklastes
    @Athletic and Whitesplosive


    Religious with STD +2 IQ massively outnumber the irreligious
     
    Religious whackballs never tire of making claims that can be easily disproven in 35 seconds by anyone with an internet connection.

    It's almost as if they live in a world where it's normal to expect claims to be accepted without evidence.

    In the real world, Atheists are about 0.5σ smarter than people who find the Jeebus torture-porn cult convincing. They (atheists) test roughly in line with the actual result of secularised US Jews (i.e., a mean of ~107 - nobody worth spit still believes the nonsense claim of μ = 115 for Ashkenazi IQ).

    When you consider how large the samples are (thousands), a gap that large between subgroup means is statistically gigantic.

    That should be no surprise, since to find the cult convincing requires adherents to remain unaware of glaring inconsistencies in the core claims of the cult, including its entire cosmogony.

    And this is not news: you have no excuse for being unaware of it, except the usual lack of introspection and sentience that is the hallmark of people who think that 1st century Palestine is a good place to look for a well-developed moral framework. And since you're gullible, you probably just regurgitated something that some other, mo0re senior whackball told you... without checking it.

    .

    So references, for those playing at home:

    Daws, R.E., and A Hampshire (2017) "The Negative Relationship between Reasoning and Religiosity Is Underpinned by a Bias for Intuitive Responses Specifically When Intuition and Logic Are in Conflict", Frontiers in Psychology, Dec 2017 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02191


    Zuckerman, M; Chen Li; Shengxin Lin, and Hall, J A. (2019). "The Negative Intelligence–Religiosity Relation: New and Confirming Evidence". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin: 014616721987912. doi:10.1177/0146167219879122. PMID 31610740.


    This also holds cross-sectionally across countries: countries with lots of whackballs are dumber.


    Lynn, Harvey and Nyborg (2009), "Average intelligence predicts atheism rates across 137 nations", Intelligence Vol 37, Issue 1, Jan–Feb 2009, pp 11-15

    From the abstract:


    Evidence is reviewed pointing to a negative relationship between intelligence and religious belief in the United States and Europe. It is shown that intelligence measured as psychometric g is negatively related to religious belief. We also examine whether this negative relationship between intelligence and religious belief is present between nations. We find that in a sample of 137 countries the correlation between national IQ and disbelief in God is 0.60.
     

    Replies: @Kratoklastes, @Intelligent Dasein

    , @Nodwink
    @Athletic and Whitesplosive

    Fer your infermation, guvna, Atheists are six IQ points ahead ov the religess. This woz on Wickipeedia.

    Yours sinseerly, Baz.

  15. @Athletic and Whitesplosive
    @Nodwink

    Religious with STD +2 IQ massively outnumber the irreligious, sorry to burst your bubble midwit.

    Replies: @Kratoklastes, @Nodwink

    Religious with STD +2 IQ massively outnumber the irreligious

    Religious whackballs never tire of making claims that can be easily disproven in 35 seconds by anyone with an internet connection.

    It’s almost as if they live in a world where it’s normal to expect claims to be accepted without evidence.

    In the real world, Atheists are about 0.5σ smarter than people who find the Jeebus torture-porn cult convincing. They (atheists) test roughly in line with the actual result of secularised US Jews (i.e., a mean of ~107 – nobody worth spit still believes the nonsense claim of μ = 115 for Ashkenazi IQ).

    When you consider how large the samples are (thousands), a gap that large between subgroup means is statistically gigantic.

    That should be no surprise, since to find the cult convincing requires adherents to remain unaware of glaring inconsistencies in the core claims of the cult, including its entire cosmogony.

    And this is not news: you have no excuse for being unaware of it, except the usual lack of introspection and sentience that is the hallmark of people who think that 1st century Palestine is a good place to look for a well-developed moral framework. And since you’re gullible, you probably just regurgitated something that some other, mo0re senior whackball told you… without checking it.

    .

    So references, for those playing at home:

    Daws, R.E., and A Hampshire (2017) “The Negative Relationship between Reasoning and Religiosity Is Underpinned by a Bias for Intuitive Responses Specifically When Intuition and Logic Are in Conflict“, Frontiers in Psychology, Dec 2017 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02191

    Zuckerman, M; Chen Li; Shengxin Lin, and Hall, J A. (2019). “The Negative Intelligence–Religiosity Relation: New and Confirming Evidence“. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin: 014616721987912. doi:10.1177/0146167219879122. PMID 31610740.

    This also holds cross-sectionally across countries: countries with lots of whackballs are dumber.

    Lynn, Harvey and Nyborg (2009), “Average intelligence predicts atheism rates across 137 nations“, Intelligence Vol 37, Issue 1, Jan–Feb 2009, pp 11-15

    From the abstract:

    Evidence is reviewed pointing to a negative relationship between intelligence and religious belief in the United States and Europe. It is shown that intelligence measured as psychometric g is negatively related to religious belief. We also examine whether this negative relationship between intelligence and religious belief is present between nations. We find that in a sample of 137 countries the correlation between national IQ and disbelief in God is 0.60.

    • Replies: @Kratoklastes
    @Kratoklastes

    Oh, and this... if you're a scientist, you're 10x more likely to be an atheist than a member of GenPop.

    From Pew: Scientists and Belief.

    Money shot:

    https://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2009/11/Scientists-and-Belief-1.gif


    That 40-ish percent has been stable for 80 years.

    , @Intelligent Dasein
    @Kratoklastes

    Simple people believe in God but do not understand Him.

    Mid-wit people (you) do not understand Him either and disbelieve, thinking themselves superior to the simple.

    Wise people believe, understand, and know that God exists.

    The mid-wits are those whom nature really intended to be smiths and tillers of the soil, but who were educated in some more abstract discipline. When they shine the light of their minds at higher subjects, the sensate immediacy and plodding literalism applicable to the village life grasps them according to its own nature and makes out of them an absurd material. Then they claim that God does not exist because they did not find Him under the shopkeeper's awning. You are sitting in Plato's Cave gleefully, insistently pointing at shadows and exclaiming "All who mention light are idiots!" even though the shadows cannot exist without the light.

    And this is not news: you have no excuse for being unaware of it, except the usual pig-ignorance and lack of perspective which is the hallmark of people who think that 4th century Athens is a bad place to look for a well-developed metaphysical framework.

  16. @Twinkie
    @indocon

    You are partially correct. South Asians have fewer religiously unaffiliated than East Asians per the 2012 Pew data. However, East Asians are still much more theistic than Jews. See:

    https://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2012/07/overview3.png

    Replies: @Kratoklastes

    You’re conflating religiosity with theism.

    Buddhists are not ‘theists’ in the sense in which the term is used in AE’s post[1] – and the post itself conflates theism with Godism.

    There are theists who reject the capital-letter god of the Old Nonsense (YHWH, Hashem, the Lord) and its 7th century variant (Allah). If you’re discussing American data, they’re a small enough passel of folks to be ignored, but still.

    So anyhow… add all the Buddhists to the ‘atheist’ count and Asian Americans are a lot more like their home-country fellows.

    .

    And if you want to really get creative: every follower of a religion is an atheist with respect to all gods except their own.

    Atheists just take that process one god further.

    [1] The dude who started the whole Buddhism thing, rejected the idea of a creator deity. That’s kind of a big hint, given that folks who invent a new grift tend to deliberately talk in riddles and otherwise obfuscate.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @Kratoklastes

    Persecution of Christianity in the Roman Empire was primarily justified on account of Christians being 'atheist' on the same line of reasoning. Christians believed in one god, which was fine, but they disbelieved in all the others, which was not.

    Important point re: Buddhism. 50% of Buddhists answer "some higher power" compared to just 10% of the general population that does. This metric is bad for Eastern religions but as you note, they're a small fraction of the total. More than two-thirds of the GSS Asian sample is Protestant, Catholic, or unaffiliated.

  17. @Kratoklastes
    @Athletic and Whitesplosive


    Religious with STD +2 IQ massively outnumber the irreligious
     
    Religious whackballs never tire of making claims that can be easily disproven in 35 seconds by anyone with an internet connection.

    It's almost as if they live in a world where it's normal to expect claims to be accepted without evidence.

    In the real world, Atheists are about 0.5σ smarter than people who find the Jeebus torture-porn cult convincing. They (atheists) test roughly in line with the actual result of secularised US Jews (i.e., a mean of ~107 - nobody worth spit still believes the nonsense claim of μ = 115 for Ashkenazi IQ).

    When you consider how large the samples are (thousands), a gap that large between subgroup means is statistically gigantic.

    That should be no surprise, since to find the cult convincing requires adherents to remain unaware of glaring inconsistencies in the core claims of the cult, including its entire cosmogony.

    And this is not news: you have no excuse for being unaware of it, except the usual lack of introspection and sentience that is the hallmark of people who think that 1st century Palestine is a good place to look for a well-developed moral framework. And since you're gullible, you probably just regurgitated something that some other, mo0re senior whackball told you... without checking it.

    .

    So references, for those playing at home:

    Daws, R.E., and A Hampshire (2017) "The Negative Relationship between Reasoning and Religiosity Is Underpinned by a Bias for Intuitive Responses Specifically When Intuition and Logic Are in Conflict", Frontiers in Psychology, Dec 2017 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02191


    Zuckerman, M; Chen Li; Shengxin Lin, and Hall, J A. (2019). "The Negative Intelligence–Religiosity Relation: New and Confirming Evidence". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin: 014616721987912. doi:10.1177/0146167219879122. PMID 31610740.


    This also holds cross-sectionally across countries: countries with lots of whackballs are dumber.


    Lynn, Harvey and Nyborg (2009), "Average intelligence predicts atheism rates across 137 nations", Intelligence Vol 37, Issue 1, Jan–Feb 2009, pp 11-15

    From the abstract:


    Evidence is reviewed pointing to a negative relationship between intelligence and religious belief in the United States and Europe. It is shown that intelligence measured as psychometric g is negatively related to religious belief. We also examine whether this negative relationship between intelligence and religious belief is present between nations. We find that in a sample of 137 countries the correlation between national IQ and disbelief in God is 0.60.
     

    Replies: @Kratoklastes, @Intelligent Dasein

    Oh, and this… if you’re a scientist, you’re 10x more likely to be an atheist than a member of GenPop.

    From Pew: Scientists and Belief.

    Money shot:

    That 40-ish percent has been stable for 80 years.

  18. @Kratoklastes
    @Athletic and Whitesplosive


    Religious with STD +2 IQ massively outnumber the irreligious
     
    Religious whackballs never tire of making claims that can be easily disproven in 35 seconds by anyone with an internet connection.

    It's almost as if they live in a world where it's normal to expect claims to be accepted without evidence.

    In the real world, Atheists are about 0.5σ smarter than people who find the Jeebus torture-porn cult convincing. They (atheists) test roughly in line with the actual result of secularised US Jews (i.e., a mean of ~107 - nobody worth spit still believes the nonsense claim of μ = 115 for Ashkenazi IQ).

    When you consider how large the samples are (thousands), a gap that large between subgroup means is statistically gigantic.

    That should be no surprise, since to find the cult convincing requires adherents to remain unaware of glaring inconsistencies in the core claims of the cult, including its entire cosmogony.

    And this is not news: you have no excuse for being unaware of it, except the usual lack of introspection and sentience that is the hallmark of people who think that 1st century Palestine is a good place to look for a well-developed moral framework. And since you're gullible, you probably just regurgitated something that some other, mo0re senior whackball told you... without checking it.

    .

    So references, for those playing at home:

    Daws, R.E., and A Hampshire (2017) "The Negative Relationship between Reasoning and Religiosity Is Underpinned by a Bias for Intuitive Responses Specifically When Intuition and Logic Are in Conflict", Frontiers in Psychology, Dec 2017 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02191


    Zuckerman, M; Chen Li; Shengxin Lin, and Hall, J A. (2019). "The Negative Intelligence–Religiosity Relation: New and Confirming Evidence". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin: 014616721987912. doi:10.1177/0146167219879122. PMID 31610740.


    This also holds cross-sectionally across countries: countries with lots of whackballs are dumber.


    Lynn, Harvey and Nyborg (2009), "Average intelligence predicts atheism rates across 137 nations", Intelligence Vol 37, Issue 1, Jan–Feb 2009, pp 11-15

    From the abstract:


    Evidence is reviewed pointing to a negative relationship between intelligence and religious belief in the United States and Europe. It is shown that intelligence measured as psychometric g is negatively related to religious belief. We also examine whether this negative relationship between intelligence and religious belief is present between nations. We find that in a sample of 137 countries the correlation between national IQ and disbelief in God is 0.60.
     

    Replies: @Kratoklastes, @Intelligent Dasein

    Simple people believe in God but do not understand Him.

    Mid-wit people (you) do not understand Him either and disbelieve, thinking themselves superior to the simple.

    Wise people believe, understand, and know that God exists.

    The mid-wits are those whom nature really intended to be smiths and tillers of the soil, but who were educated in some more abstract discipline. When they shine the light of their minds at higher subjects, the sensate immediacy and plodding literalism applicable to the village life grasps them according to its own nature and makes out of them an absurd material. Then they claim that God does not exist because they did not find Him under the shopkeeper’s awning. You are sitting in Plato’s Cave gleefully, insistently pointing at shadows and exclaiming “All who mention light are idiots!” even though the shadows cannot exist without the light.

    And this is not news: you have no excuse for being unaware of it, except the usual pig-ignorance and lack of perspective which is the hallmark of people who think that 4th century Athens is a bad place to look for a well-developed metaphysical framework.

  19. @Lin
    Such 'theistic' distribution by race or not is very misleading:
    (Let me repeat what I posted here and there:)
    A religion can manifest in a number of ways:
    i)Aspiration (moral, tribal, ethnical..) of the founder(s)[real or mythical]
    ii)Cultural or traditions
    iii)Being and identity (points ii&iii come in the form of symbolism like wearing a cross or burqa and rituals like attending church/mosque/temple service/prayers. It’s mainly pyschology,pure and simple.)
    iv)As geo/internal political vehicle of tribal/racial/nationalistic interests
    …………
    Some facts:
    --Practising a religion is not the same as 'believing' in God/gods/goddesses
    --The average atheist is not a radical atheist.
    --The average theist is just a person who wants a 'cultural' tag.
    --Atheism/atheism/agnosticism has more substance than a person's declaration on his/her being and identity
    Finally: I’m NOT an atheist for simple reason: Humans are tiny entities in the universe, so there must be entities/god(s) out there with power we can’t fathom; but as a baptised protestant, I stopped attending church services a long time ago. I revere Jesus as a moral giant; 'Son of God' is fine as a metaphor if God is benevolent to us humans but often God is not--Remember how he brought down the Tower of Babel because ancient astronomers wanted to explore the heaven?

    Replies: @Realist, @Anon

    Written by a libtard arts major. Intellectual idiots all. Get a grip; obviously data is the bane of a denizen of Starbucks.

    • Replies: @Lin
    @Anon

    I'm not an arts major, libtard or not. I just have a wide scope of interests.

  20. @songbird
    @Talha

    I'd really like to see the Hindu numbers. I mean, I don't know if a question like this with "God" would bias the result, but I am curious about how many in the West have an orthodox Hindu perspective vs. India, and how this might compare to Muslims from the same area.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    The sample is only 73, but it shakes out this way:

    Atheist – 1%
    Agnostic – 7%
    Uncertain believer – 49%
    Firm theist – 44%

    Pretty close to the all-in Asian figures.

    • Replies: @songbird
    @Audacious Epigone

    Thanks! That is very interesting.

    I had expected that there would be some notable difference. That polytheism would either be better-suited or less-suited to the modern, materialistic environment - many gods vs. many false gods.

    , @Mr. XYZ
    @Audacious Epigone

    What about Muslims?

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

  21. @Kratoklastes
    @Twinkie

    You're conflating religiosity with theism.

    Buddhists are not 'theists' in the sense in which the term is used in AE's post[1] - and the post itself conflates theism with Godism.

    There are theists who reject the capital-letter god of the Old Nonsense (YHWH, Hashem, the Lord) and its 7th century variant (Allah). If you're discussing American data, they're a small enough passel of folks to be ignored, but still.

    So anyhow... add all the Buddhists to the 'atheist' count and Asian Americans are a lot more like their home-country fellows.

    .

    And if you want to really get creative: every follower of a religion is an atheist with respect to all gods except their own.

    Atheists just take that process one god further.


    [1] The dude who started the whole Buddhism thing, rejected the idea of a creator deity. That's kind of a big hint, given that folks who invent a new grift tend to deliberately talk in riddles and otherwise obfuscate.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    Persecution of Christianity in the Roman Empire was primarily justified on account of Christians being ‘atheist’ on the same line of reasoning. Christians believed in one god, which was fine, but they disbelieved in all the others, which was not.

    Important point re: Buddhism. 50% of Buddhists answer “some higher power” compared to just 10% of the general population that does. This metric is bad for Eastern religions but as you note, they’re a small fraction of the total. More than two-thirds of the GSS Asian sample is Protestant, Catholic, or unaffiliated.

  22. @Athletic and Whitesplosive
    @Lin

    Well it's clear that you're not a practicing Christian given your extremely tendentious and stupid interpretation of scripture, which directly contradicts it.


    I once mentioned that — the followers/multitude of Jesus were partly responsible for crucification of Jesus. They wanted to promote Jesus, a largely apolitical moral teacher, to be a rebel leader they could rally behind;
     
    Yeah, an apolitical moral teacher whose message basically amounted to "I am God and your nation has betrayed its covenants with me," You're way too immersed in nonsense liberal sociology when you think Church and state can be separate, the Pharisees were not so foolish. And even if they were, the coming of the Messiah was a direct threat to the explicit foundation of their authority; that the Messiah would be a political and military leader was a widespread erroneous interpretation that the Pharisees shared, it was no more the contrivance of Christ's followers than is the expectation of the old President that he will have to move out when a new one is elected.

    and in the process got Jesus crucified — Christianity is a religion formed by the the ‘disciples’ who were partly responsible for Jesus’s crucification — Jesus had no intention to form a new religion
     
    Of course he didn't attempt to form a new religion, he himself said he was the fulfillment of the Law, who could think that? Christianity is the Religion given to Abraham, the covenants of which Christ is the fulfillment.

    I can see being a spineless new-age woo practitioner that you would naturally apply the "textual criticism" routine to the new testament (basically calling the Church Fathers as well as Christ himself a liar with ulterior motives), but the tower of babel as 'God maliciously destroying ancient astronomers who just wanted to learn' is a bridge too far. There's no amount of 'textual criticism' to hide behind there, there's no contemporary sources or rival political motivations to weigh, it's just a willful idiot projecting his hatred of God onto the story such that he can come up with this tendentious interpretation which directly contradicts it.

    In any case, accusing the definition of goodness itself of not acting benevolently is the typically unself-aware argument of the epistemologically retarded "spiritualist". Newsflash: your entire conception of morality is a product of the Christian religion, that you've found some way for them to not be in synch is a problem with you, not it.

    "I would be Christian, but God is not moral enough for me," this is the exact same brand of prideful profligacy that your average marxist megalomaniac flaunts. "Jesus was a moral teacher, but he wasn't right about everything," well he said he was the word made flesh, so don't call Christ a moral giant, you say he is a liar and a madman! People who feign modesty while putting themselves above God make me puke.

    Replies: @Lin

    Your arguments are just too weary. I must remind you out of good will that the aims of apologetics are to bring people back to their faith but not to be combative

    you’re not a practicing Christian

    What does it mean by ‘practicing Christian’? I can definitely spare time, say, to go to sunday service once a month, drop a bank note on the tithes plate, and call myself a ‘practicing Christian’. What difference does it make?

    Yeah, an apolitical moral teacher whose message basically amounted to “I am God and your nation has betrayed its covenants with me.

    ‘Politics’ could mean a lot of things; here you told me moral teaching is ‘Politics’ . Fine with me since you’ve a different notion regarding morality, just like the saudi salafis have theirs.

    when you think Church and state can be separate, the Pharisees were not so foolish. And even if they were, the coming of the Messiah was a direct threat to the explicit foundation of their authority.

    You basically tell me the Pharisees has their theocracy and the disciples of Jesus want to replace it by their own.

    it was no more the contrivance of Christ’s followers than is the expectation of the old President that he will have to move out when a new one is elected.

    Wow, it’s so simple? Look, even the exploits of a much less ancient christian figure like Oliver Cromwell took much more efforts

    Christianity is the Religion given to Abraham, the covenants of which Christ is the fulfillment.

    Oop.. Why don’t you put forth the question to the average lubavitcher rabbi ? Or do you mean Mormonism is the Religion given to Abraham and Joseph Smith is the last prophet?

    but the tower of babel as ‘God maliciously destroying ancient astronomers who just wanted to learn’ is a bridge too far.

    You just admit that the bible, particularly if taken literally, contains embarrassing passages; like I haven’t met a pastor who can explain why Eva wasn’t included in the original plan of creation of man that Adam had to resort to bestial temptation.

  23. @Anon
    @Lin

    Written by a libtard arts major. Intellectual idiots all. Get a grip; obviously data is the bane of a denizen of Starbucks.

    Replies: @Lin

    I’m not an arts major, libtard or not. I just have a wide scope of interests.

  24. @Athletic and Whitesplosive
    @Nodwink

    Religious with STD +2 IQ massively outnumber the irreligious, sorry to burst your bubble midwit.

    Replies: @Kratoklastes, @Nodwink

    Fer your infermation, guvna, Atheists are six IQ points ahead ov the religess. This woz on Wickipeedia.

    Yours sinseerly, Baz.

  25. @Audacious Epigone
    @songbird

    The sample is only 73, but it shakes out this way:

    Atheist - 1%
    Agnostic - 7%
    Uncertain believer - 49%
    Firm theist - 44%

    Pretty close to the all-in Asian figures.

    Replies: @songbird, @Mr. XYZ

    Thanks! That is very interesting.

    I had expected that there would be some notable difference. That polytheism would either be better-suited or less-suited to the modern, materialistic environment – many gods vs. many false gods.

  26. This contention that believers are less intelligent than atheists is another old hat trick. The model is incorrect.

    When calculating for a single variable one has to limit out or what some “cancel out” other impacting variables. The comparisons made between religious and atheists is not really comparing belief to nonbelief, but is actually comparing

    incomes
    social standing
    national gdp
    educational environments
    education system

    All of the above data have correlates to the above. For an accurate and valid model one would compare people of faith and those without or anti-faith holders of similar backgrounds so as to mitigate or cancel out other variable impacts. And in my view one would need to be more specific and measure the variables as they pertain to which set of believers.

    https://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/religion_vs_iq.html

    and it just so happens:

    http://www.thechristianmyth.com/religion-vs-iq/

    But in taking a look at history it’s pretty clear that people of faith are prominant contributors to science and no small number were responsible for major breakthroughs. Not a huge fan of Wikipedia, however:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology

    • Replies: @Lin
    @EliteCommInc.

    Isaac Newton was very religious and also quite superstitious that he was a practitioner of astrology, alchemy, ..and other occults.
    Another interesting figure is Emanuel Swedenborg. He definitely was a better candidate to create Mormonism than Joseph Smith

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @EliteCommInc.

    There is a difference between professed believers and the religiously active/observant. The latter are not distinguishable from the irreligious wrt intelligence.

  27. @indocon
    The Asian number for Chinese/Koreans/Japanese will be below even Jewish leveled, because the rest of them coming from the subcontinent from any religion and Filipinos are probably closer to AA levels.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @JohnPlywood, @Twinkie, @Mr. XYZ, @gate666

    What about South Asians and Vietnamese?

  28. @Audacious Epigone
    @songbird

    The sample is only 73, but it shakes out this way:

    Atheist - 1%
    Agnostic - 7%
    Uncertain believer - 49%
    Firm theist - 44%

    Pretty close to the all-in Asian figures.

    Replies: @songbird, @Mr. XYZ

    What about Muslims?

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @Mr. XYZ

    Sample of 100:

    Atheist - 4%
    Agnostic - 2%
    Uncertain believer - 17%
    Firm theist - 77%

  29. Being an atheist is senseless. I understand people who believe that there is “something out there” and that after we die will find out what there is. But, the idea that there is nothing after death is nutty.

    The three most important questions a person can ask are: Whence did I come? Why am I here? Where do I go when I die? We will never have answers for these questions while we are on earth.

    Another viewpoint is that of IQ and its relation to race. The Bible states that God created man in His image. Mongoloids and Negroids are bad reflections of God’s image. What would “possess” God to create such human beings? I’m a Caucasoid (Caucasoids have the highest IQs) and am grateful to be in this grouping.

    I’m also glad to be a Christian. We will find out the true religion after we die, but while we are alive on earth, Christianity is the best.

    Western Caucasian males who are atheists are cucks. Jews can be Caucasian but they are not Western so they are not in my grouping. If a Western Caucasian male is an atheist, he does not want to deal with the questions and statements above. He is too frightened.

    • Replies: @Nodwink
    @attilathehen

    This is the dumbest comment I've ever seen at Unz Review, which is quite a considerable achievement.

    Replies: @attilathehen

  30. @EliteCommInc.
    This contention that believers are less intelligent than atheists is another old hat trick. The model is incorrect.

    When calculating for a single variable one has to limit out or what some "cancel out" other impacting variables. The comparisons made between religious and atheists is not really comparing belief to nonbelief, but is actually comparing

    incomes
    social standing
    national gdp
    educational environments
    education system

    All of the above data have correlates to the above. For an accurate and valid model one would compare people of faith and those without or anti-faith holders of similar backgrounds so as to mitigate or cancel out other variable impacts. And in my view one would need to be more specific and measure the variables as they pertain to which set of believers.


    https://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/religion_vs_iq.html

    and it just so happens:

    http://www.thechristianmyth.com/religion-vs-iq/


    But in taking a look at history it's pretty clear that people of faith are prominant contributors to science and no small number were responsible for major breakthroughs. Not a huge fan of Wikipedia, however:


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology

    Replies: @Lin, @Audacious Epigone

    Isaac Newton was very religious and also quite superstitious that he was a practitioner of astrology, alchemy, ..and other occults.
    Another interesting figure is Emanuel Swedenborg. He definitely was a better candidate to create Mormonism than Joseph Smith

  31. @indocon
    The Asian number for Chinese/Koreans/Japanese will be below even Jewish leveled, because the rest of them coming from the subcontinent from any religion and Filipinos are probably closer to AA levels.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @JohnPlywood, @Twinkie, @Mr. XYZ, @gate666

    you have no evidence for this claim.

  32. @EliteCommInc.
    This contention that believers are less intelligent than atheists is another old hat trick. The model is incorrect.

    When calculating for a single variable one has to limit out or what some "cancel out" other impacting variables. The comparisons made between religious and atheists is not really comparing belief to nonbelief, but is actually comparing

    incomes
    social standing
    national gdp
    educational environments
    education system

    All of the above data have correlates to the above. For an accurate and valid model one would compare people of faith and those without or anti-faith holders of similar backgrounds so as to mitigate or cancel out other variable impacts. And in my view one would need to be more specific and measure the variables as they pertain to which set of believers.


    https://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/religion_vs_iq.html

    and it just so happens:

    http://www.thechristianmyth.com/religion-vs-iq/


    But in taking a look at history it's pretty clear that people of faith are prominant contributors to science and no small number were responsible for major breakthroughs. Not a huge fan of Wikipedia, however:


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology

    Replies: @Lin, @Audacious Epigone

    There is a difference between professed believers and the religiously active/observant. The latter are not distinguishable from the irreligious wrt intelligence.

  33. @Mr. XYZ
    @Audacious Epigone

    What about Muslims?

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    Sample of 100:

    Atheist – 4%
    Agnostic – 2%
    Uncertain believer – 17%
    Firm theist – 77%

  34. “Isaac Newton . . . Emanuel Swedenborg”

    And yet believers inspite their intelligence — christians nonetheless.

    “Another interesting figure is Emanuel Swedenborg. He definitely was a better candidate to create Mormonism than Joseph Smith”

    No comment but I am

    Laughing

    ——————————————–

    “The latter are not distinguishable from the irreligious wrt intelligence.”

    I think I am in full agreement here. faith and practice in the existence of God is not by definition an indicator of lower intelligence.

    • Replies: @Nodwink
    @EliteCommInc.

    I would say that a willingness to believe something on the basis of zero evidence is an indicator of lower intelligence, in itself.

    There are also the special cases, such as low-IQ 'Rain Man' types. Nassim Nicholas Taleb -- who confesses to having a measured IQ in the low 80s -- is one example of this, in my opinion. I have thought more than once when reading one of his blog posts, 'this guy is a moron', and it turns out that is true!

  35. The smarter the race, the more likely not to believe in stupid religious nonsense. Common sense.

  36. @attilathehen
    Being an atheist is senseless. I understand people who believe that there is "something out there" and that after we die will find out what there is. But, the idea that there is nothing after death is nutty.

    The three most important questions a person can ask are: Whence did I come? Why am I here? Where do I go when I die? We will never have answers for these questions while we are on earth.

    Another viewpoint is that of IQ and its relation to race. The Bible states that God created man in His image. Mongoloids and Negroids are bad reflections of God's image. What would "possess" God to create such human beings? I'm a Caucasoid (Caucasoids have the highest IQs) and am grateful to be in this grouping.

    I'm also glad to be a Christian. We will find out the true religion after we die, but while we are alive on earth, Christianity is the best.

    Western Caucasian males who are atheists are cucks. Jews can be Caucasian but they are not Western so they are not in my grouping. If a Western Caucasian male is an atheist, he does not want to deal with the questions and statements above. He is too frightened.

    Replies: @Nodwink

    This is the dumbest comment I’ve ever seen at Unz Review, which is quite a considerable achievement.

    • Replies: @attilathehen
    @Nodwink

    What is your racial group? Are you a Christian? Do you believe all people are equal? If you are Caucasian, are you involved with non-Caucasians? Are you male or female?

    There is something blocking your ability to think freely.

  37. @EliteCommInc.
    "Isaac Newton . . . Emanuel Swedenborg"


    And yet believers inspite their intelligence -- christians nonetheless.


    "Another interesting figure is Emanuel Swedenborg. He definitely was a better candidate to create Mormonism than Joseph Smith"

    No comment but I am

    Laughing


    --------------------------------------------

    "The latter are not distinguishable from the irreligious wrt intelligence."


    I think I am in full agreement here. faith and practice in the existence of God is not by definition an indicator of lower intelligence.

    Replies: @Nodwink

    I would say that a willingness to believe something on the basis of zero evidence is an indicator of lower intelligence, in itself.

    There are also the special cases, such as low-IQ ‘Rain Man’ types. Nassim Nicholas Taleb — who confesses to having a measured IQ in the low 80s — is one example of this, in my opinion. I have thought more than once when reading one of his blog posts, ‘this guy is a moron’, and it turns out that is true!

  38. @Nodwink
    @attilathehen

    This is the dumbest comment I've ever seen at Unz Review, which is quite a considerable achievement.

    Replies: @attilathehen

    What is your racial group? Are you a Christian? Do you believe all people are equal? If you are Caucasian, are you involved with non-Caucasians? Are you male or female?

    There is something blocking your ability to think freely.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS