Skip to content
February 18, 2013 / itsnobody

Debunking the atheist claim: The Less Religious and Atheistic are more intelligent

The fools (atheists) have come up with more propaganda, that the less religious and atheistic are more intelligent.

As I’ve said in my previous articles there is nothing more disgusting to an atheist than allowing criticism and scrutiny of beliefs that they personally agree with. This is because atheists are staunch anti-science fanatics and strongly strongly oppose allowing all things to be subject to criticism and scrutiny (criticism and scrutiny is one of the main principles in science).

Since atheists are extremely gullible people who do not question claims that they personal agree with (since they are anti-science) I’ll do it for them.

This argument atheists use is a clear example of how correlation is not causation.

Since correlation is not causation this makes it extremely easy to distort statistics and come up with all types of propaganda. You can find all types of coincidences that occur and falsely link them as the cause since correlation is not causation.

Now it’s time for me to debunk this claim.

Richard Lynn (a great fool/atheist) claims that more religious countries are less intelligent than less religious countries.

The trick he uses here is comparing the average IQ of the religious vs. non-religious in different ethnic groups.

If we use the ethnic group as a control variable and look at the average IQs of religious vs. non-religious countries within the same ethnic group we see that the IQ difference is very small, that the least religious countries in Europe have lower average IQs and that many religious European countries have high average IQs.

Religious countries in Europe with high average IQs (according to Lynn’s data):
– Switzerland (average IQ 101)
– Austria (average IQ 102)

Czech Republic and Estonia are the least religious countries in Europe:
– Estonia (average IQ 97)
– Czech Republic (average IQ 97)

Estonia has 0 Nobel Prizes (not even one), Switzerland (one of the most religious countries in Europe) has the most scientific Nobel Prizes per capita (among nations with population size above 1 million).

If there was an actual causal link between religiosity and IQ we would expect the least religious countries within the same ethnic group to have higher average IQs, not lower average IQs.

Richard Lynn and other liberal atheists use this exact same trick when claiming that conservative states are less intelligent than liberal states. The keyword here is states.

Most conservative states have more non-whites than liberal states and most liberal states have low non-white population sizes. So let’s use the ethnic group again as a control variable.

Average IQs of conservative states with low non-white populations:
– Montana (average IQ 103.4)
– North Dakota (average IQ 103.8)

Average IQs of liberal states with high non-white populations:
– California (average IQ 95.5)
– Hawaii (average IQ 95.6)

Source: http://www.people.vcu.edu/~mamcdani/Publications/McDaniel%20(2006)%20Estimating%20state%20IQ.pdf

Once again we see that there is no causal link between political affiliation and average IQ within the same ethnic group. So conservative states like Montana and North Dakota have higher average IQs than all European countries (from Lynn’s data)!

Then we have another fool Helmuth Nyborg who claims that White atheists have higher average IQs than White religious people. He claims that White atheists score around 6 points higher than White Dogmatics.

But I read Nyborg’s paper (http://www.econ.ku.dk/mehr/calendar/seminars/mehr04102012/Nyborg.pdf/) and found that it’s just propaganda filled with errors.

Now to destroy Nyborg’s claim.

The White Dogmatics scored an average IQ of 105 (which would already be higher than almost every country in the entire world) and White atheists scored an average IQ of 111. With an SD of 13 and average IQ of 105 vs. 111 would be insignificant, and with the sampling error factored (which would probably be around 4-6 IQ points) it’s really insignificant.

Another problem is that Anglicans and Jews scored higher than atheists in Nyborg’s study (which Nyborg conveniently doesn’t mention), see table 6 (Anglicans average IQ 113, Jews average IQ 112).

Another other problem is that Nyborg obtains an average IQ of 111 from a sample of just 39 White atheists. With a sample of just 39 people it would only take a few high IQ people in the group for the average to be at 111. Since it’s a small sample size we know that the average IQ is probably inaccurate. For the Dogmatics he uses a large sample size of over a thousand people. Gaining an average IQ of 111 with a sample size of over a thousand people would require a much higher count of high IQ people than in a sample of just 39 people. We could use the same trick and choose 39 people from the Disciples of Christ group and gain an average IQ of 120 if we wanted!

Another problem is household income not correlating with an average IQ of 111 (from the sample of just 39 atheists). From table 8 (in Nyborg’s paper) atheists rank 12th in household income which would correlate better with an average IQ of 104-106. Anglicans and Jews rank 1st and 2nd in household income which correlates well with their high average IQ and other groups also correlate well with the household income, but White atheists don’t fit in at all with the household income data. Lots of Dogmatic groups have higher household incomes than atheists. The household income was gained from a sample of over 87,000 atheists (not 39 people). Since the household income doesn’t correlate with the supposedly high atheist average IQ (gained from just 39 people) this clearly tells us that the average IQ of 111 gained from a sample of just 39 people must be completely wrong. Since atheists rank very low (12th) when it comes to household income this means that either atheists have much lower average IQs than the sample of 39 people indicates or that household income and average IQ are not causally linked.

If you understand basic arithmetic then you should know why a sample size as low as 39 would be highly unreliable.  We could find 39 smart people from basically any group, it doesn’t really mean anything.

In Conclusion:
– The household income data (from a sample of nearly 88,000 White atheists) doesn’t match into the supposedly high White atheist average IQ (from an extremely low unreliable sample of just 39 White atheists) suggesting that within the same ethnic group the more religious are more intelligent
– This argument that atheists use is a clear example of how it’s easy to distort statistics since correlation is not causation
– Based on the data from atheists, IQ differences are very small between different groups within the same ethnic group regardless of religious beliefs or political affiliation
– The main causal link between high IQ and low IQ is the ethnic group (based on the data from liberal atheists)
– In the end all atheists have are tricks
– Nothing really fits in as perfectly together as does liberal atheism, White Nationalism, and Nazism

Advertisements

28 Comments

Leave a Comment
  1. De Ha / Nov 15 2015 5:34 am

    WOW. In trying to debunk the claim that high IQs lead to atheism, you actuallu exaserbated the idea that religion leads to racism.

    • itsnobody / Nov 16 2015 10:58 am

      But how? Richard Lynn, JP Rushton, and James D. Watson are liberal atheists.

      I used their own data to prove them wrong.

      A classic example of how correlation isn’t causation.

      There is no correlation between IQ and religiosity in the same ethnic group or any correlation between IQ and political affiliation within the same ethnic group.

      But Sweden (an atheist country) is so racist that they think that Eastern Europeans are African.

      They think that Eastern Europeans are tall, athletic, loud, get into fights, violent, commit crime, and are African.

      A Swede said to me “I’m not a racist, I have a friend from Croatia”.

      A female Asian posted a YouTube video about the racism in Sweden – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qioAXiA3Wko

      In New Zealand, an atheist country they also hate non-whites, including Asians.

      In NZ White New Zealanders always make fun of Asians, especially male Asians.

      A female atheist said to me “I just…………………don’t like Asians”.

      The only thing the atheist community comes out to speak out on is gay rights.

      Atheists think that it’s immoral to hate someone because they’re gay, but ok to hate someone because they’re non-white.

      Just because you know someone is born as a non-white non-gay it doesn’t mean you should hate them like atheists do.

      All of the racist atheists I know support gay rights but hate non-whites.

  2. Helge / Jul 15 2015 7:03 pm

    Allow me to explain why most of your claims are false.

    “This is because atheists are staunch anti-science fanatics and strongly strongly oppose allowing all things to be subject to criticism and scrutiny (criticism and scrutiny is one of the main principles in science).”
    “Since atheists are extremely gullible people who do not question claims that they personal agree with (since they are anti-science)”

    This makes absolutely no sense. The fact is that most scientists are atheist. A survey from 1998 shows that only 7% of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has a personal belief in God.
    https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm

    A scientist starts with a hypothesis, tests the hypothesis and then uses the test results to verify or reject the hypothesis (sometimes the conclusion could be that there is no conclusion). Many atheists use this scientific method of determining if they choose to believe in God. The “there is no God” hypothesis is easily rejected since there are no evidence whatsoever that God exist (especially any branch of religion’s specific version of God).

    While some Christians like you starts with the wanted answer: “God exist” or “Atheists are fools/racist/etc” and then look for every little thing that can back up the answer that you have decided is correct. When no actual evidence does exist, desperate measures like “cherry-picking” can be used (itsnobody does this all the time).

    Cherry picking = “Choosing to make selective choices among competing evidence, so as to emphasize those results that support a given position, while ignoring or dismissing any findings that do not support it, is a practice known as “cherry picking” and is a hallmark of poor science or pseudo-science”. I will come back to this point…

    First you should read this article:
    http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/08/new-meta-analysis-checks-the-correlation-between-intelligence-and-faith/
    “Out of 63 studies, 53 showed a negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity, while 10 showed a positive one. Significant negative correlations were seen in 35 studies, whereas only two studies showed significant positive correlations.”
    So even if you would find actual mistakes in one survey, you have a looooong way to go….

    to be continued…

    • Helge / Jul 15 2015 7:04 pm

      Continued from above…

      “The trick he uses here is comparing the average IQ of the religious vs. non-religious in different ethnic groups.”
      What is your point? We do not need to “use the ethnic group as a control variable”. The hypothesis is if there is correlation between religiousness/atheism and intelligence, so the adjusting for different ethnic groups are not that relevant. Anyway, this is just something you say and you have no data to show for. If you claim something, you need to have data to back it up. I could agree that we should be careful when comparing Europe and Africa, but however you setup the data the conclusions are the same: negative correlation between religiousness and intelligence and positive for atheism.

      “Estonia has 0 Nobel Prizes (not even one), Switzerland (one of the most religious countries in Europe) has the most scientific Nobel Prizes per capita (among nations with population size above 1 million).
      If there was an actual causal link between religiosity and IQ we would expect the least religious countries within the same ethnic group to have higher average IQs, not lower average IQs.”

      Here you are cherry-picking 2 good religious countries and comparing them with 2 bad non-religious countries.

      The countries you picked as religious are not even particularly religious.
      “Switzerland = one of the most religious countries in Europe”. False! Among 31 European countries they are the 9th least atheistic (11% don’t believe there is any sort of spirit, God or life force), but they are only the 15th most religious (44% believe there is a God) according to a 2012 survey.
      Austria: 13th least atheistic (12%) and the 15th most religious (44%). They are both in the middle regarding religiosity, so hardly “most religious countries in Europe”.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism

      Also, I’m not shocked that Estonia does not have any Nobel prize winners. Remember that they have 1,3 million inhabitants. If they would have just 1 winner they would be among the top 20 nations in a per capita ranking, just below USA (16 in the per capita ranking). Again you are cherry picking facts for your easily seduced audience.

      Independent test of IQ in Europe
      To test the hypothesis that “more intelligent countries are less religious” I did a little test using the most recent data for religious/atheist% and IQ for Europe that I could find on the internet:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism
      http://www.photius.com/rankings/national_iq_scores_country_ranks.html
      The results give the same conclusion as most of these tests:
      IQ average No > avr No > avr%
      Top 10 most atheist 98,8 9 90 %
      Bottom 10 most atheist 95,6 4 40 %
      Bottom 10 most religious 98,8 9 90 %
      Top 10 most religious 94,8 3 30 %

      The less religious and more atheist countries has both higher IQ average and share of countries above the IQ average for Europe.

      When I included Nobel prize winners per capita in the analysis I found that the top 10 atheist countries (only Estonia has 0) had almost double the rate (12,8 per 10m) as the bottom 10 atheist countries (7,0). The bottom 10 religious countries had 4 times as many Nobel prize winners per capita as the top 10 most religious. I only included this as YOU used it as an argument.

      “Most conservative states have more non-whites than liberal states and most liberal states have low non-white population sizes. So let’s use the ethnic group again as a control variable.”
      Again you are cherry-picking 4 states that are not really representative. Also it makes no sense as a majority of non-whites vote Democratic.

      Using the 2012 votes and IQ per state I found that the average IQ of the Democratic states were higher (100,9) than Republican states (99,7). Number of states with higher than average IQ scores were 69% (18/26) for Democratic states and 42% (10/24) for Republican states. Did also test for demographics and the share of “White non-Hispanics” was higher in Republican states (73,8%) than Democratic states (69,2%). So what was your point?

      Source: IQ per state: http://www.people.vcu.edu/~mamcdani/Publications/McDaniel%20%282006%29%20Estimating%20state%20IQ.pdf
      US demographics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States

      Independent test of IQ in America
      To test the hypothesis that “more intelligent countries are less religious”. I did a little test using the most recent data for religious/atheist% and IQ for America that I could find on the internet:
      http://www.people.vcu.edu/~mamcdani/Publications/McDaniel%20%282006%29%20Estimating%20state%20IQ.pdf
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion_in_the_United_States
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States

      The results give the same conclusion as most of these tests:
      state IQ IQ>Avr IQ>Avr%
      Top 10 least religious 101,4 8 80 %
      Bottom 10 least religious 98,0 1 10 %
      Bottom 10 most religious 101,8 8 80 %
      Top 10 most religious 97,8 2 20 %

      The less religious and more atheist states has both higher IQ average and share of states above the IQ average for America.

      “Another problem is that Anglicans and Jews scored higher than atheists in Nyborg’s study (which Nyborg conveniently doesn’t mention), see table 6 (Anglicans average IQ 113, Jews average IQ 112).”
      From the study this is easy to see in table and under the headlines “Results” and “Discussion” on page 88-90. Out of 19 groups atheist and agnostics are ranked 3 and 4. The hypothesis is that more intelligent people tend to be religious or not, so no need to make a big point that 2 groups scored better. Anyway, Jews are a lot less religious than the rest of America. In a 2013 survey 22% of American Jews now describe themselves as having no religion. The IQ data is from school tests and among the younger Jews (born after 1980) only 32% describe themselves as having no religion. So again a greater share of the more intelligent choose to reject God.
      http://www.pewforum.org/2013/10/01/jewish-american-beliefs-attitudes-culture-survey/

      There was more of your claims that could easily be disproved, but due to time limitations I decide to stop here. The points above are more than enough to prove that you throw out empty claims with no reason or evidence to back it up.

      PS: See also statistical corrections from Lolcat below.

      • itsnobody / May 9 2016 12:42 am

        Man you are stupid there is no correlation between IQ and religiosity within the same ethnic group.

        Religious people from high IQ ethnic groups have high IQs.
        Non-religious/atheists from low IQ ethnic groups have low IQs.

        Why don’t they do a study of non-religious/atheists from low IQ ethnic groups and see if their IQ is higher than really religious people from high IQ ethnic groups?

        Christopher Langan is more religious and he has one of the highest recorded IQs.

        Every source indicates that Switzerland and Austria are the most religious countries in Western Europe and they have among the highest average IQs in Europe.

        Among the 20% who believed in a recent creation — mostly fundamentalist Christians who are biblical literalists — the highest percentage was in Switzerland (21.8%), followed by Austria (20.4%) and Germany (18.1%).” – http://ncse.com/book/export/html/2623

        Haha so what about that?

        The famous mathematician and logician Kurt Gödel is from Austria and was very religious.

        The famous mathematician Leonhard Euler (known as one of the best mathematicians) from Switzerland was also very religious.

        Switzerland and Austria have the 1st and 2nd most Nobel prizes in science per capita among nations with a population size above 1 million.

        You keep pointing out mere correlation in your arguments ignoring the actual causation (the ethnic group).

        Can any atheist cite a study that showing a significant IQ difference between the religious and non-religious within the same ethnic group? I don’t think so.

        In order to determine causation you use a control variable.

        Once the ethnic group is used a control variable the IQ differences between every different group (by political affiliation, religion, etc…) becomes very small.

        Thus we can conclude that by coincidence (mere correlation) a lot of people who are less religious/atheistic are from high IQ ethnic groups, but what causes the high IQ is the ethnic group.

        That’s why I said in my other article “I saw this ‘Atheist Group’ at the University I use to attend, everybody there was White, the place was like a White Supremacy Organization”. By coincidence almost everyone who identifies as atheist is White, so why don’t they do a study of the average IQ of atheists from low IQ ethnic groups?

        I guess all the low IQ people will magically get a new brain if they decide to become less religious or atheistic…ROFL!

        If someone becomes atheistic or less religious it wouldn’t cause them to have a higher IQ.

        The causal link is the ethnic group.
        The ethnic group determines brain size and brain structure, changing your beliefs or political affiliation doesn’t change your brain size or your brain structure.

        The only other factor that has a big impact on IQ besides the ethnic group (genetics) is nutrition. Just slightly less protein growing up can cause low IQ.

        The causation of high and low IQ is genetics and nutrition.
        That’s the actual causation, everything else pointed out (mere correlation) are nothing more than coincidences!

        Since correlation isn’t causation Lynn and other liberal atheists just take coincidences and mistakenly link them as a cause distorting things!

        Hence the saying “Lies, damned lies, and statistics”.

        But recent research has now indicated that working memory is more important than IQ (a big blow to IQ fans)!

  3. Lolcat / Jun 27 2015 7:30 pm

    “With an SD of 13 and average IQ of 105 vs. 111 would be insignificant” – I don’t think you understand statistical significance. That’s not how it works at all. A difference of 1 iq point or less could be statistically significant with a large enough sample size. The author shows that this difference is significant: “Analysis of variance on the actual number of respondents indicates that this difference is statistically significant (p = .02).” -pg. 88.

    “If you understand basic arithmetic then you should know why a sample size as low as 39 would be highly unreliable. We could find 39 smart people from basically any group, it doesn’t really mean anything.” Again, you show that you don’t even have a basic understanding of statistical significance.

    Sampling error would “probably” be “around” 4-6 points? Did you just make that up out of thin air? I think you did. If not, where did you get it from?

    “Since atheists rank very low (12th) when it comes to household income this means that either atheists have much lower average IQs than the sample of 39 people indicates or that household income and average IQ are not causally linked.”

    No one said they were causally linked. It is you who are mixing causation and correlation. The author said “IQ is the most important single predictor of income”. That does not imply causation. Also, it still could be a complex causal relationship moderated by another variable, such as cultural importance of income.

    You are welcome for the free lessons in statistics and reading. Well, I guess it probably cost you some time and dignity.

    • itsnobody / May 9 2016 12:52 am

      You are wrong an average IQ difference of 105 vs. 111 is very small (6 points) and would be insignificant with the SD and sampling error taken into consideration.

      A p-value being low doesn’t mean that the results wouldn’t be insignificant with the SD and sampling error taken into consideration it just means that it’s unlikely that the results occurred purely by chance (which still doesn’t mean anything really).

      An average IQ difference of 105 vs 111 would be insignificant with the SD and sampling error taken into consideration.

      If you’ve ever looked at “average” data you know that the average statistic isn’t necessarily accurate and can be misleading.

      Even if the difference was statistically significant it would not indicate causation.

      Like I said correlation isn’t causation.

      The reason why White dogmatics had a slightly lower average IQ is likely because there were more non-whites in the White dogmatic group. Conservative states have more non-whites so most likely there are more White dogmatics admixed with non-whites (but still identify themselves as White).

      The causal link is the ethnic group.

      Once the ethnic group is used as a control variable all the supposed “magical differences caused by religiosity, political affiliation, etc…” just disappear!

      There is no correlation between IQ and religiosity within the same ethnic group.

  4. susanbotchie / Sep 8 2014 10:19 am

    While many worship at the IQ altar, this secular religion (where self is God) only muddles the issue. Any “religion” apart from Christ, is merely a God created by (smart) men – and worship of this idol, is natural and commonplace among unregenerate man. Since the redeemed in Christ are few, measuring their intelligence and fitting to a graph is complicated. There’s other variables involved.

    • itsnobody / Sep 8 2014 4:03 pm

      Well the main causal link is the ethnic group.

      Changing your religious beliefs, political affiliation, etc…doesn’t change your brain size does it?

      But the ethnic group changing changes the brain size….

      The evidence does however seem to indicate that within the same ethnic group the more religious are more intelligent.

      Maybe being religious makes people think more

  5. HAWHAWHAW / Jun 13 2014 5:52 pm

    Atheists are stupid fools no matter what their IQ is.

  6. Bob Smith / May 25 2014 3:36 pm

    Huh? How can you possibly say that atheists are gullible and don’t question anything? That is one of the most contradictive thing I’ve ever heard. I’m guessing you were born into your religion, as I was born into Christianity. I only converted to atheism when I decided to stop being so gullible and believing everything I was told. But I don’t know why I’m wasting my time arguing with a monkey.

    • Augustine Thomas / Jul 26 2014 1:00 am

      I was born into atheism and I was taught never to question that satisfying myself was the proper way to live life. Atheists are intellectually bankrupt, even if they’re more obsessed with intellectual pursuits.

    • itsnobody / Sep 8 2014 5:34 pm

      It’s simple.

      I say that atheists are gullible because they don’t question atheistic claims (like the one I debunked in this article).

      I also say that because atheists try to stop people from questioning, criticizing, and scrutinizing claims that they personally agree with which is an anti-science stance since criticism and scrutiny are important principles in science.

      Also my parents and sister are atheists.

  7. Sam Fisher / Apr 13 2014 9:58 pm

    Funny how you claim Atheists to be “anti-science” when the “atheists have higher I.Q’s than Christians” results came from over 60 SCIENTIFIC studies. Atheists and Agnostics study religion and science and choose science because it makes more sense. Your religion has you brain washed beyond rational thought so maybe you should stop writing bs articles with false information about a group of people you obviously know NOTHING about.

    • zarove / May 19 2014 12:59 pm

      Except Atheists don’t have Higher IQ’s than Christians, and when you break it down further and stop looking at “Christians” as a Universal Whole and realise that not all Christian Churches ( it is plural, they don’t all belong to the same orginisation called “The Christian Church”) you being to see even greater disparity. As the original poster already said, Anglicans and Jews score the Highest on IQ Tests, and iI have seen Catholics score Highly as well. Anglicans and Catholics are both Christians, are they not?

      The real problem with the modern NEo-Atheist movement is that it is itself a kidn fo Religion. No, I did nto call Lack of beleif in a god a Religion, so please spare me the usual drek about not collectign stamps beign a hobby, but lets face soem facts, shall we? Atheism is the beelif that there are no gods, not a mere lack fo beelif in gods, and it is untenable to say its a mere lack of beleif if you go abotu calling God a fictional Character or openly proclaim he does not exist. This si what Neo-Atheists tend to do, they argue that it is a fact that God does not exist, then only hide behind the Lack of beleif tommyrot. But worse still, evn though the formal definition of Atheism is beleif there is no god, this does not really serve as the functional definition of Atheism when it is used in these converstions, in which Atheism is linked to a Mythology where Science and Relgiion are polar opposites, and Rationality is rooted in Atheistic Ideals, whislt Relgiion shuns both Science and Reason an seeks to hodl us in the Dark Ages.

      No, I’m afraid the bulk of todays modern Atheism is just a militant version of Secular Humanism, and not mere Atheism at all, and I do not define Religion they way Google does, as beelfi in and reverence of gods and supernatural powers,. here ae other, much better definitions out there.

      Religiion is just another word for Philosophy. I know you will likely say there is a distinction ebteen the two btu I do not beleive this to be the case,a nd simply sayign Im wrong won’t convince me.

      Religion is a set of beleifs that determiens how we udnerstand the woprld we lvie in, its origins, it spurpose, if it has one, the menaign of life, if there is a meanign fo life, how we shoudl live, and what we shoudl value. Ghe Non-Religiosu Philosophies liek Humanism that sere as alternatives to Relgiion are, to me, just godless Religiosn we insist are not Religions, but int he end serveign the sme function makes them the same thing.

      The real problem if though that the Neo-Atheism is so caght up in its own self image of Ratiioanlst and science beign better than Relgiion,a nd hwo the two are rivels and they are the protectors of Scientific truth and of Ratioanlity and Sanity to see that they themelves are just dealign in ideas and beleifs, and hy never question this. If yoru whole ideology is based on hwo intellectually superior tyou are, then of coruse you will beleive any “Statisric’ that validates this view, but wont be so open to question it.

      By the ay I am dyslexic.

    • itsnobody / Sep 8 2014 4:08 pm

      Don’t be foolish (atheistic).

      I claimed that atheists were anti-science because they discourage criticism and scrutiny of claims that they personally agree with. Stopping criticism and scrutiny of claims because of your emotions and biases is an anti-science stance.

      In general atheists are gullible and anti-science.

      The claim that atheists have higher IQs has been thoroughly debunked by me in this article and you didn’t refute anything in the article.

      This claim doesn’t apply to religious people from high IQ ethnic groups or non-religious people from low IQ ethnic groups, LOL.

      The household income data suggests that within the same ethnic group the more religious are more intelligent .

      There is no correlation between IQ and religiosity within the same ethnic group.

      It sure is easy to distort statistics since correlation isn’t causation.

      The anti-science/atheist studies you and other atheists cite merely distort things by not using the ethnic group as a control variable gaining distorted inaccurate data as I have proven in this article.

      If you disagree then cite some studies showing a significant IQ difference between the religious and non-religious within the same ethnic group.

      Not using the ethnic group as a control variable sure is an easy way to distort data.

      Once you use the ethnic group as a control variable the IQ differences become very small.

      The evidence clearly suggests that within the same ethnic group the more religious are more intelligent!

      This has always been true throughout history that within the same ethnic group the more religious are more intelligent

      Newton was more religious than most people during his time and wrote more on the Bible than on natural philosophy.

      Did you know that Newton’s geometric proofs are so complex that even the very very very smartest humans in modern times have difficulties understanding them?

      Certainly Newton was like a million times smarter than Einstein and other modern day geniuses.

      In modern times it’s Christopher Langan, in the past it was Newton, Euler, Faraday, and the others who were more religious than most people during their era.

      In general atheists hate science that’s why Estonia the most atheistic country has 0 Nobel prizes and the most religious Western countries Switzerland and Austria have the 1st and 2nd most Nobel prizes in science per capita.

  8. Anonymous / Oct 31 2013 12:22 pm

    First of all, your claim “there is no such thing as a logical atheistic argument” is itself a logical fallacy. It’s called an improper assertion–a proposition stated as fact rather than arrived at through the process of reasoning. That being said, I see what you’re trying to say. True, an atheist can never and will never be able to disprove the existence of god beyond a reasonable doubt. Anyone who says he knows with 100% certainty that god does not exist is a liar. (The same goes for anyone certain that god exists.) It is logically impossible to prove a negative. However, the theists are the ones who have the burden of proof. It is not impossible to prove a positive. Most atheists don’t believe in god simply because there isn’t enough evidence to support that he exists. I believe that god probably doesn’t exist because no one can convince me with a preponderance of the evidence that god probably does exist. In other words, it doesn’t matter if you can refute atheistic arguments all day because this is an exercise in futility without concrete evidence that god does, in fact, exist.

    • itsnobody / Sep 8 2014 4:14 pm

      Wrong again.

      I arrived at the conclusion that there were no logical atheistic arguments by reasoning. I’ve evaluated every imaginable atheistic argument and found errors in them.

      Any atheist could falsify my claim by pointing out any logical atheistic argument.

      Also you can prove a negative, there are lots of negative proofs in mathematics and logic, just use a proof by contradiction or other techniques. It’s pretty easy to do, I don’t know how that saying “you can’t prove a negative” got popular even though it’s blatantly false. There are so many examples in mathematics and logic falsifying that claim like a proof that “there is no smallest rational number greater than 0”.

      It’s easy to prove a negative.

      The burden of proof applies to whomever makes a claim, since you can prove a negative the burden of proof applies both to those who claim that God does not exist and to those who claim that God does exist.

      Using the backwards false burden of proof reasoning atheists use if someone claims that “abiogenesis did not occur” it would be the job of those who disagree to prove them wrong rather than the burden of proof applying to whomever makes the claim (the correct reasoning).

      Your arguments about evidence are merely forms of circular reasoning.

      Scientific evidence can only exist if and only if a hypothesis is empirically testable. Saying there’s no evidence for an empirically untestable hypothesis is thus circular reasoning since there cannot be evidence for any untestable hypothesis regardless of if the hypothesis is true or false.

      In other words a lack of evidence for an empirically untestable hypothesis doesn’t indicate that the hypothesis is false or unlikely to be true.

      Also about evidence I’ve proven that many atheists don’t care about evidence because there is more scientific evidence contradicting the existence of free-will than there is contradicting the existence of God!

      So any atheist who believes in free-will would be proving that they don’t care about science or evidence or proof.

      I believe that proving the existence of God and an afterlife would be pretty easy if I had the resources I need to empirically test those hypotheses. The only reason why it’s unproven is because of empirical testability.

      I’ve already worked out a lot of the details but I’m not sure if I’ll ever get the 1 MW – 1 GW of power I need to perform my experiments.

      The experiments I have done make me very confident and certain of myself.

      It’s just like they say, fiction is strange, but reality is stranger than fiction….

  9. Iceberg / Oct 28 2013 8:28 pm

    Don’t agree so much with your genius list, but your atheist blog is very good stuff. Find a person full of themselves at a party whom, the type that reckons they’re above everybody else and cleverer than everyone else and you can almost always guarantee they’re an atheist moron. Keep up the good work, this is what the net’s for.

  10. itwillsetyoufree / Sep 20 2013 12:50 am

    itsnobody, I think I understand where you are coming from. I can only disagree with calling people “subhuman”.I believe in order and respect . I would rather say that atheistic thinking is DANGEROUS and unproductive (for those that read i will explain my statement another time , although i can now say that it’s more or less because of their bad science but i will attempt to explain it through another angle or with other words). I believe that you want to educate ?or convince? or warn someone? .. I don’t really know. i encourage you to continue firmly but with LOVE. Also i perceive that you have great depth of thoughts……..respond me and i will discuss more iF yu don’t mind.

    • Yves / Sep 20 2013 4:07 am

      Hi itwillsetyoufree,

      I can only disagree with calling people “subhuman”

      I think itsnobody is considering the “subhuman” term the way it was used long before the atheist scientific race classifications. The sociological notion of subhuman means people who have no moral , are lazy, vile etc… Nowadays , atheists perfectly fit (in Europe where I live) with the descriptions of people who spend much of their time drinking and smoking in pubs while believers go to church or meditate at home or giving free time for other people. In Europe, atheists incite the teens to do drugs, blaspheme, mock the minorities , etc… So, in this way, itsnobody is right.
      Truth will set you free… In Thessalonians , it is said that atheists (apostate) are the sons of perdition.
      I know it is true, I met a lot.

    • itsnobody / Sep 9 2014 8:24 am

      Why shouldn’t I consider atheists as subhuman beings?

      They have already ruined science by eliminating criticism and scrutiny as an important principle and are turning science into a pseudo-scientific popularity contest about authority and incredulity instead of about empirical observations and valid reasoning.

      Atheists are disgusting people, subhuman beings.

  11. Yves / Feb 22 2013 11:26 pm

    A famous scientist once said this :

    In the El Mundo interview, Higgs argued that although he was not a believer, he thought science and religion were not incompatible.
    […]
    He said a lot of scientists in his field were religious believers. “I don’t happen to be one myself, but maybe that’s just more a matter of my family background than that there’s any fundamental difficulty about reconciling the two.”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/dec/26/peter-higgs-richard-dawkins-fundamentalism

  12. Yves / Feb 18 2013 11:50 pm

    So the Norh Korean regim should shelter a huge amount of genius.
    Unfortunately , they live in a kind of concentration camp.
    Evil genius , probably !

Trackbacks

  1. Why are atheists so racist? | itsnobody
  2. Nyateisme – rasisme i ny innpakning | Kilden Nyheter
  3. Nyateisme – rasisme i ny innpakning | Kilden Nyheter

Post a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: