We have pretty much known that Atheists and Liberals are more intelligent, but with people like Clay dragging down the curve line, that should be no surprise to anyone.

Well, I have known for YEARS that atheists like myself are by and large smarter than religious people.... after all, religious people believe in an 'almighty 'god'' that cannot seem to get off his DUFF and doing anything about the ills on this planet.

As to sexual exclusivity? No... most atheists I know are NOT sexually exclusive to one person and don't believe in 'marriage' (which is just something that makes it appear that people are only 'good enough' to have sex with one person their entire lives).

"the data should not be used to stereotype or make assumptions about people"

Little - Maybe you should try reading all the article and not just the subject line.

Intelligence doesnt get anyone to heaven. God looks at what is in the heart.

Clay - If you could offer one tiny shred of evidence to back up all the absurd things you are absolutely sure are the face of reality, you might be taken seriously, instead of being held to derision over what clearly is superstitional made-up clap trap rubbish.

The article didn't mention how large this " large national U.S. sample" really was. What one claims the be and what they are are not always the same so that is another flaw. Also the article itself mentions "these preferences may stem from a desire to show superiority or elitism". This could simply mean that those caliming to be atheist and liberals have a bigger ego or feel more insecure therefore having a greater need to fell superior. In the end I don't see it was worth much except to extremists like Littel who already believe they are superior.

rino - I would go so far as to embrace the idea that an evolutionary demarcation point may be achieved when Humankind moves beyond the need for superstitionally derived god concepts, to give meaning to our lives. In the future, it may be thought that from this point on, there was a sharp break which will relegate those who cling to archaic myth driven absurdities as being less Human, or Proto-human, in comparison to those who have made the intellectual leap of logic and reason. Many of us already think of superstitionists as being Neanderthal like in their mindset.

Littel - Thanks for proving my point about the need of liberals to feel intellectually superior. I've found in practice there tends to be an inverse relationship between how much one talks about intellect and the level they possess. I’ll probably regret asking this but what do you have to support your ego driven ideas that “an evolutionary demarcation point may be achieved when Humankind moves beyond the need for superstitionally derived god concepts, to give meaning to our lives”?

Abresh you are full of crap and unintelligent to boot, because of your continuous espousal of promiscuity as a virtue and a sign of higher intelligence. There are among the religious several intelligent ones but when it comes to creativity, that is where many religious ones are stumped, looking for approval from their heavenly father in order to travel further afield in imagination--they dare not venture into areas of the mind, the good lord has forbidden as sinful to explore or ponder--they are not experimental in art, poetry or theater to the extent the liberals and the atheists are--again this is not true for all the religious--the monotheistic religions strangle the creativity out of orthodox believers and tend to make them dullards--on the other hand mystical religions like Druidism, Hinduism, Sufism, Buddhism and so on bring out mental explorations of the esoteric, profound philosophies and discussions--also the more tolerant a religion the better the creativity and the greater the fund of exciting mythology--after all the ancient Greeks and Romans were very religious and superstitious but they produced some of the finest literature in the world--what better poetry than the "Medea" by Euripides or "Oedipus" and "Antigone" by Sophocles, where the gods played powerful roles in changing the fates of mighty men. The rapping Buddhist monk from the Far East, is having a load of fun rapping for the Buddha. On these blogs there are many extreme anomalies and Clay is one--pigeonholing the religious based on this guy would be a pity--he is stuck in a prehistoric mode. It is the religious who make atheism shine in contrast--no light without darkness--let the religious thrive--we, the atheists need them to energize us.
Ravensfan Anon

LSE study: Liberalism, atheism linked to meaningless study

Me like that I dumb. Me praise God every day that I not smart enough to think I know it all. I know enough to know this truth;

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

Shaming the wise with the foolish since creation.

I have no problem accepting the fact that people who do not subscribe to infantile god concepts to give artificial meaning to their lives, are in fact intellectually superior to the lazy and weak minded among us who do.

Sexual exclusivity as well as open polyamory are both higher among liberals and atheists. Know what that cuts down on? Liars.

Cheaters- those who claim to be monogamous, but cheat on their parnters- are higher among the religious. This is not good for society.

Religion means little or nothing to God. The word is only used 7 times in the bible and 5 of those times in a bad sense. People who say they are religious often arent at all. It is having Christ in your heart that is important, and I have seen marriages pulled back together when Christ is involved.

STD's are higher among liberals and atheists too. Kind of hard to cheat when you don't actually comit.

"Bailey also said that these preferences may stem from a desire to show superiority or elitism, which also has to do with IQ. In fact, aligning oneself with "unconventional" philosophies such as liberalism or atheism may be "ways to communicate to everyone that you're pretty smart," he said."

I think that says it all. Robert was nice enough to give a practical example of it.

Everyone should use what works for them whether is it christianity, paganism/ witchcraft, atheism, etc. People should also respect the choice made by another, even if they do not agree.
I have listed some interesting studies regarding athiesm that contradicts some of the other comments.

STD infection lower among atheists:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article571206.ece

Less than 0.25% of prisoners are atheist
http://holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm

Poverty rate lower among atheists:
Society Without God (Zuckerman, 2008)

Illiteracy rate lower among atheists:
United nations Human Development Report (2004)

Average Income higher among atheists: United nations Human Development Report (2004)

Divorce rate lower among atheists:
www.religioustolerance.org

Teen pregnancy rate lower among atheists:
www.americablog.com

Abortions lower among atheists:
Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look (Paul, 2005)

Crime rate lower among athiests: Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look (Paul, 2005)

Homicide rate lower among atheists: Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look (Paul, 2005)

Willow - I agree need to respect the choices made by others regardless of what the think of them. I looked at your two links and wanted to point out some things. It appeared in the first one we were comparing America to European countries considered more secular. Leaving aside the obvious issue of how one proves how secular a nation is to another the differences could as easily be due to other differences in culture including the fact that far more different nationalities and cultures are in the US than any single European nation. Since their are far more Christians than athiests it stands to reason a much larger portion of prisoners would be Christian. Finally those two articles have the same problem as the LSE study assuming because one claims to be something they are what they claim. Studies like this while interesting and providing fodder for forums like this provide little to actually help us respect one another.

ravensfan - always, you look for respect you do not deserve. Negating information that does not gel with your misperceptions, earns you no respect from those who stand on reason and logic to form the basis of their ethical outlook on life. You would, no doubt, be surprised to learn that the majority of people who call themselves Atheists identify themselves as being on the political Right (source - American Atheist Association), which does puzzle me a bit, because doctrinaire Right-wing political positions almost require a fundamentalist religion like outlook to justify their intransigent positions.

Robert - I am not the least bit interested in your bigoted opinion on what does or doesn't deserve respect. I made a logical and reasonable comment on two links in Willow’s post. Your response to me was neither logical nor reasonable, nor did it rebut anything I said. You seem preoccupied with trying to convince the world that yours is the superior way of life. Why is that Robert? Who you are really trying to convince? I can't comment on what atheists consider themselves politically as I'm not familiar with the study you mention. For that matter I really don't care either. I’m not concerned with trying to stereotype anyone based on their belief or lack of belief.

ravensfan - Now, as a last resort, feigned indignation and a curt dismissal that will not cover for the fact that you represent an archaic mindset whose foundation is a pile of accumulated dogmatiized, institutionalized, superstition and myth, that you have the gall to demand we respect. I feel very sorry for you, having to live in a lie that you have to sell to yourself. You do care, or else you wouldn't keep trying to win the unwinnable argument.

Robert - As usual you have it wrong. After many exchanges you still can not, or will not separate the concept of respecting a person from respecting an idea or belief. You have also proven time after time to be incapable of stating your views without excessive ad hominem attacks against individuals who do not share your distorted views. You seem obsessed petty name calling and insults as opposed to engaging in reasonable intelligent discussions and debates. I simply see no benefit from as the bible says "throwing pearls to swine". You are welcome to try and prove me wrong by actually posting a response without any personal attacks, insults or appeals to ridicule and let your views stand on their own merits. You hate religion you want to see it gone and the only way to really do it is to prove God doesn’t exist. Since you can’t all you can do is insult, malign and use appeals to ridicule and repeat the same tired rhetoric over and over about no proof for God as if that proves your view correct. My dismissal as you call it is to simply avoid lowering myself to an insult exchange with you.

ravensfan - As long as religionists insist on trying to use the coercive power of the state to impose their imperatives on the totality of society (Mr. Stupak for example), you are going to have to put up with our NOT respecting anyone who stands in support of this clear and flagrant violation of the Separation Principle of the Establishment Clause of The Constitution. Your continuing efforts to make those who stand in opposition to religious fascism appear to be pariahs, or personally deranged, is just a measure of how weak your position is (in constitutional law) and how fixated you are on the maintenance of the dominance of archaic institutions in the face of opposition to to our being ruled by absurdities.

Robert – We’ve been down this road before and I’ve already shown your views as unsubstantiated and having no grounds under the law. The fact that a religion takes a view on an issue does not violate the establishment clause. You can keep making the same inaccurate claims ad nauseum all you like it won’t make you right. You’re rationalizing why your contempt of people who don’t share your views is justified. It is without any merit. The only one fixated appears to be you as you seem to want to keep following me around making the same tired fallacy filled arguments over and over again. One’s political, religious or social views do not determine if they should be accorded respect. If that’s what you believe then you are a poor example for atheists. Save the speech for someone else who actually cares what you think.

ravensfan - Your tactic of belittling the arguments arrayed against you in a dismissive manner, based on going our " down this road before ", does not address the fact that religion is trying to use the coercive power of the state to force their imperatives on the rest of us in violation of The Constitution. If you cannot address this issue head on, then your pathetic effort to deflect the discussion is going to be identified for what it is, BS.

Robert - I already addressed it you just don't get it. Nothing the church is doing violates the constitution. Since you're the one making the accusation the burden of proof falls on you not me. Let me restate yet again. The fact that the church advocates a political position you don't agree with is not a violation of the constitution. How many times would you like me to address it for you?

ravensfan - Your stinking church is trying to use the coercive power of the state to force women to breed against their will. Did you forget about abortion, or are you going to try to spin an absurdity about it not being a religious position they are trying to impose on us all?

Robert – I don’t care what your flawed opinion is on the subject of abortion. We’ve had this discussion as well and you bring nothing new just the usual Abusive Ad Hominem attacks and appeals to ridicule. Regardless of what you think there is no violation of the constitution and you saying the same old tired lines over and over doesn't change

ravensfan - Would that we could all take the dive you keep taking in your denial of the truth. You don't care about the very things that make religion the danger to society that it is. You are every bit as warped and twisted as Clay.

Robert - Here's a novel idea for you why don't you actually prove your assertion rather than use abusive ad hominem statements and appeals to ridicule. It's this very reason why your opinions are meaningless.

ravensfan - As long as you are measuring the validity of my statements against the yardstick of delusional and unsupportable god concepts, I have nothing that has to be proved to you. Produce your stinking god, and I will argue at your childish and ridiculous level, because until you can cough it up, there is no god /gods/ Human/god hybrid sons of god, or anything even remotely resembling them. If what have is all that is all you've got, it ain't enough.

Robert - I'm measuring the validity of your statements under your ideas of burden of proof not my religion. You are the one making the accusations about violation of the establishment clause. I'm simply challenging you to prove it. You can’t so you want to veer off when cornered and try and change the topic to hide the fact that your allegations are baseless and without validity. Sorry I see through that and you. I'm sure you'll respond with one of your typical fallacy filled tirades against me and what I believe. Rant on but unless you actually have say something logical and intelligent don’t expect me to waste anymore time on this particular discussion.

Abresh: God already did something; He sent His Son, Jesus, to die for our sins. Because Jesus made that sacrifice, we have the opportunity to accept this gift of forgiveness and eternal salvation through Him. Another pt. I will make is that people are ignoring the part about "the data should not be used to stereotype or make assumptions about people, experts say." You can see our sin nature all over this discussion board; we'd rather tear each other down than get off our duffs and do anything to make the world better.

Well I have always felt that believer's and nonbeliever's brains are wired different, Look at the mess caused by one person saying that they were going to burn a religious book and I always ask If he did burn that book would that take the religion away ? why can't the believer use some reason and logic in simply matters like this instead of threating with death and destruction , along with flag burning and book burning so I will say again believer's and nonbeliever's brains are wired different.

kwolf in the case you speak of I would question the believer's commitment to his own religion since he appears to selectively apply the teachings of his own religion. As for wiring while I would agree all people are not wired the same, I don't think that wiring has any effect on one believing or not believing in God. If that were true then it would be extremly difficult for one to move from one to the other.