Atheists And Liberals More Intelligent, Says Atheist, Liberal Psychologist
    By News Staff | February 24th 2010 12:00 AM | 96 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    According to a new study in Social Psychology Quarterly, the higher your IQ the more likely you are to be a liberal and an atheist. The author says this is because more intelligent people exhibit social values and political preferences that are novel to the human species in evolutionary history--mainly, liberalism and atheism.

    The study advances a new theory to explain why people form particular preferences and values. The theory suggests that more intelligent people are more likely than less intelligent people to adopt evolutionarily novel preferences and values, but intelligence does not correlate with preferences and values that are old enough to have been shaped by evolution over millions of years."

    "Evolutionarily novel" preferences and values are those that humans are not biologically designed to have and our ancestors probably did not possess. In contrast, those that our ancestors had for millions of years are "evolutionarily familiar."

    "General intelligence, the ability to think and reason, endowed our ancestors with advantages in solving evolutionarily novel problems for which they did not have innate solutions," says Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics and Political Science. "As a result, more intelligent people are more likely to recognize and understand such novel entities and situations than less intelligent people, and some of these entities and situations are preferences, values, and lifestyles."

    In the current study, Kanazawa argues that humans are evolutionarily designed to be conservative, caring mostly about their family and friends, and being liberal, caring about an indefinite number of genetically unrelated strangers they never meet or interact with, is evolutionarily novel. So more intelligent children may be more likely to grow up to be liberals.

    Data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health support Kanazawa's hypothesis. Young adults who subjectively identify themselves as "very liberal" have an average IQ of 106 during adolescence while those who identify themselves as "very conservative" have an average IQ of 95 during adolescence.

    Similarly, religion is a byproduct of humans' tendency to perceive agency and intention as causes of events, to see "the hands of God" at work behind otherwise natural phenomena. "Humans are evolutionarily designed to be paranoid, and they believe in God because they are paranoid," says Kanazawa. This innate bias toward paranoia served humans well when self-preservation and protection of their families and clans depended on extreme vigilance to all potential dangers. "So, more intelligent children are more likely to grow up to go against their natural evolutionary tendency to believe in God, and they become atheists."

    Young adults who identify themselves as "not at all religious" have an average IQ of 103 during adolescence, while those who identify themselves as "very religious" have an average IQ of 97 during adolescence.

    In addition, humans have always been mildly polygamous in evolutionary history. Men in polygamous marriages were not expected to be sexually exclusive to one mate, whereas men in monogamous marriages were.

    In sharp contrast, whether they are in a monogamous or polygamous marriage, women were always expected to be sexually exclusive to one mate. So being sexually exclusive is evolutionarily novel for men, but not for women. And the theory predicts that more intelligent men are more likely to value sexual exclusivity than less intelligent men, but general intelligence makes no difference for women's value on sexual exclusivity. Kanazawa's analysis of Add Health data supports these sex-specific predictions as well.

    One intriguing but theoretically predicted finding of the study is that more intelligent people are no more or no less likely to value such evolutionarily familiar entities as marriage, family, children, and friends.

    Citation: Satoshi Kanazawa, 'Why Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent', March 2010; doi:10.1177/0190272510361602


    My wife concurs. She's much smarter than I am and there's not a progressive platform that she doesn't strongly support. This scientific finding supports her view as to my relatively modest intelligence.

    Ha Ha Ha, If athiests are more intelligent than theists, than why do they have the most unintelligent and unimaginative reponses to questions concerning spirtuality and the experience of death? While I certainly do think that the majority of the religious population is overall less intelligent than the athiest population, this is only based according to personal observations and the tendency for less-intelligent people to seek societal conformity, and does not by any means imply that all athiests are more intelligent than thiests. Secondly, my personal observations suggest that the most intelligent people do not align exclusively towards any end of the political spectrum, but rather most often seem to have rational opinions concerning individual political issues. I do agree however that the majority of intelligent people do prefer to remain sexually exclusive in most cases for a variety for reasons.

    Agreed. To perform the mental gymnastics necessary to reconcile the contradictions involved in most religions, you have to be pretty smart. Take a look at St. Thomas Aquinas!

    why do they have the most unintelligent and unimaginative responses to questions concerning spirituality and the experience of death?
    Maybe you don't understand their answers. That does not make them unintelligent or unimaginative responses,it just means you don't understand them.

    "Humans are evolutionarily designed to be paranoid, and they believe in God because they are paranoid," says Kanazawa.
    Well, all I can say is: if this is a demonstrable scientific fact, then God help the human race!
    Gerhard Adam
    What rubbish .... it's wrong on so many levels, I wouldn't even know where to begin.
    Mundus vult decipi
    Because I voted Republican in some of the more recent elections, this means I am only 33% as intelligent as the author of the study. That's a real downer. I feel smart but that's how conservatives suck you in, I guess. Wouldn't it be great if the correlation causation could go the other way too? Then I could become atheist or liberal and bump my intellect a bit - or both, for super bonus points!
    Gerhard Adam
    Well, that's the beauty of a scientific theory .... one can make predictions.  Therefore, I predict that you really are an atheist and a liberal, which is precisely why you're so smart.  Of course, if you don't acknowledge that, that's just a psychological denial mechanism.  :)
    Mundus vult decipi
    Caring about an indefinite number of genetically unrelated strangers one never meets or interacts with is a sound prescription for the removal of one's lineage from the pool, however "intelligent" the practitioner may appear to be.

    being unable to relate to the world in groups of any larger than 30 or so clanmates sounds like an evolutionary throwback to me. maybe YOUR lineage should be removed from the pool due to the things you care about (or don't).

    Last I checked Paleolithic man had no religion, and likely had nothing (Other than naked unvarnished personal dislike) for homosexual or transgender type behavior.  So by that measure Liberals are about as smart as cavemen.  At least the ones who would come up with such tripe and try to pass it off as scholarship. 
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    Last I checked Paleolithic man had no religion
    Sounds like you've invented a Time Machine!  (smile)
    Robert H. Olley / Quondam Physics Department / University of Reading / England
    Unfortunately my time machine leaves all of history untouched, except for the winning lotto numbers.  The same people win, but not me. 
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans. know that how? By the way, the people who conducted this study were conservative and libertarian

    According to Kanazawa's own Savanna Principle, human brains haven't evolved in the last 10,000 years so that, assuming also that such evolutionary novel ideas have been produced by every generation since then, can we really say that such supposedly novel ideas have had much success? Atheism has been around since the earliest Greek and Indian philosophers.

    Sells books, I guess.

    He should have looked at the IQ profile of paranoids and non-paranoids.

    There is also a huge overlap between atheists and liberals (as for christians and conservatives) - I've just posted this that was sitting on my laptop for 2 days with data for atheists and christians.
    Dumb dumb dumb Duuuuuuumb!
    This is ridiculous. It is sad to say we are loosing real science to politicians and their agenda$. Politics are seeping into science more than ever and because of this it's being warped so they can say science supports their belief systems / agenda$ and if you think any other way then you must be inferior. Even when there are many other facts (being hidden from the general public) that say otherwise....... This is NOT a good thing.
    So many scientist are rolling in their graves right now.


    This is no cause for hubris.  See what Darwin wrote in Descent of Man:

    Given a land originally peopled by a thousand Saxons and a thousand Celts – and in a dozen generations five-sixths of the population would be Celts, but five-sixths of the property, of the power, of the intellect, would belong to the one-sixth of Saxons that remained. In the eternal “struggle for existence”, it would be the inferior and less favoured race that had prevailed – and prevailed by virtue not of its good qualities but of its faults.
    Nemesis unveiled!
    Robert H. Olley / Quondam Physics Department / University of Reading / England
    Darwin's inspiration undoubtedly came from the great T H Huxley, who, himself, claimed to have inherited from his mother, nee Rachel Withers;
    "Her most distinguishing characteristic, however, was rapidity of thought. If one ventured to suggest she had not taken much time to arrive at any conclusion, she would say, 'I cannot help it. Things flash across me.' That peculiarity has been passed on to me in full strength: it has often stood me in good stead: it has sometimes played me sad tricks, and it has always been a danger. But, after all, if my time were to come over again there is nothing I would less willingly part with than my inheritance of 'mother wit."
    Courtesy: Project Gutenberg

    So, 'keep your wits about you', is the basis of evolutionary intelligence - it seems

    It has been my experience that conservative folks are evolution challenged and that they accept the notion that it's okay to worship the fictitious mythological god of the Jews. This non existent god also speaks to them and tells them how to live, just like we liberal, intelligent folks tell our chickens and cows how to live in order to make them taste better. :-).

    This is about the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Leaving aside the historical record of brilliant religious minds that shaped modern science the final assumption is silly. Perhaps most modern intellectuals adopt novel and liberal values is because that community, the modern western community of higher learning, is at atheistic. They are merely reflections of their social values. This process is janus faced - they contribute to it and it feeds back to them the same values.
    Also Kanazawa says " Similarly, religion is a byproduct of humans' tendency to perceive agency and intention as causes of events, to see "the hands of God" at work behind otherwise natural phenomena. "Humans are evolutionarily designed to be paranoid, and they believe in God because they are paranoid,". Here is another alternative: We see causation in connections because we experience causation directly and infer it to the world around us. We then infer causation to events that are beyond our control. We also make connections between events because our brain functions in that way - literally forming connections with each new experience. it is not paranoia, it is the shape of the universe. And neither of these propositions preclude God. In fact, I would say that these things happen because there is an "Eternal law" expressing itself in creation always creating order in it, thus expressing itself in natural law. Honestly, I think one is stupider without God. Holding the idea of God in our minds affords an openness to outside possibilities, since God is beyond our knowing. The very idea of God leads the mind outside of itself and mere experience or social convention to explore the handiwork of creation.

    Also Kanazawa says " Similarly, religion is a byproduct of humans' tendency to perceive agency and intention as causes of events, to see "the hands of God" at work behind otherwise natural phenomena.
    Science is about understanding the world according to natural laws so it makes sense they have different mentalities. Of course, the rationality behind dark matter/dark energy in physics is 'we have no other explanation', which might as well be religion.

    'we have no other explanation', which might as well be religion.
    Нет, гражданин Хэнк.  That sort of thinking is leaning towards Logomorphism.
    The remoter ancestors of Homer, we are given to understand, observing that it was darker in winter than in summer, immediately decided that there must be some "cause" for this "phenomenon," and had no difficulty in tossing off the "theory" of, Demeter and Persephone, to account for it. . . Imagination, history, bare common sense--these it seems, are as nothing beside the paramount necessity that the great Mumbo Jumbo, the patent double-million magnifying Inductive Method, should be allowed to continue contemplating its own ideal reflection--a golden age in which every man was his own Newton, in a world dripping with apples.

    from Poetic Diction, by Owen Barfield.

    Robert H. Olley / Quondam Physics Department / University of Reading / England
    Of course, the rationality behind dark matter/dark energy in physics is 'we have no other explanation', which might as well be religion.
    The dark side of science? It is very tempting.

    Help me, Obi-Wan-Campbell, you're my only hope!
    I hope I am more Han Solo: "Kid, I've flown from one side of this galaxy to the other. I've seen a lot of strange stuff, but I've never seen anything to make me believe there's one all-powerful Force controlling everything."

    Though this being a science site the jury is out on Dark Matter.  But it sure seems like theorists have watched that movie too much.
    "Honestly, I think one is stupider without God. Holding the idea of God in our minds affords an openness to outside possibilities, since God is beyond our knowing." - Please explain how something beyond our knowing is worth thinking about. This does absolutely nothing but distract us from the natural world.. you know, the one in which we exist. But I understand some homo sapien sapiens are incapable of taking responsibility for their own lives and dealing with their own mortality that they invent a Sky Daddy to make them feel better. Just realize that this doesn't make them smarter, only delusional.

    "The very idea of God leads the mind outside of itself and mere experience or social convention to explore the handiwork of creation." - Blah blah blah blah blah. More of this New Age religious BS. Again, how is contemplating something that is unknowable (according to you) beneficial to understanding the natural world. "God done it" is the most intellectually lazy conclusion one could possibly draw. And we already have something to lead "the mind outside of itself" - it's called SCIENCE.

    God is unknowable in the sense that He is infinite, and we are finite, so we cannot possibly hope to come even close to learning everything about Him. However, because He is infinite, you can never cease to learn new things about Him and His creation from what he shows you and from reading Scripture. Therefore, studying God and the way His creation works is a constant mental exercise in the natural world. Hope that answers your question.

    @ Matt:
    I'm sure you can explain where you'd receive your convictions of God if they hadn't been implanted into your mind from your immediate social environment. The most impressive time span in the development of every individual are the earliest days and years long before attending a social focal point (e.g. school) of learning. First we learn from our parents, grandparents etc. (from the clan). Pioneering in any aspect or discipline is either a hard physical or mental exercise. Creating an own line of thought that is logical and plausible is much more difficult than just digesting what someone is fed from others in his infancy on through maturity and life. I. o. w. it is very likely that an offspring from Moslems will become a Moslem, an offspring from Christians will become a Christian etc. etc.. Why not create your own line of thought and draw your own conclusions instead of behaving like a parrot.

    Please folks, don't take your metaphors and yourselves so seriously. Today's science is tomorrow's metaphor.

    Romans 1:21-22 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became )futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools

    Why is it that IQ is "not a true measure of intelligence" when it comes to college admissions, or passing civil service exams (especially if you are a member of some "protected class" or other), or our childrens' success in school, yet liberals are so proud to tell us that their atheism and desire to tell the rest of us how to live our lives indicates their superior intelligence?

    As for myself, despite my Ivy League education and master's degree, I stubbornly persist in my belief in "conservative" principles like individual freedom, personal responsibility, God, country, all that crap.

    The unfortunate truth is that fifty percent of the population will always be below average. That doesn't mean they can't live fulfilling, productive lives. What they don't need is smug, self-satisfied academics telling them how backwards and unenlightened.

    It's not true. It's not necessary.

    And it doesn't matter.

    Gerhard Adam
    ...yet liberals are so proud to tell us that their atheism and desire to tell the rest of us how to live our lives indicates their superior intelligence.
    Alright, put down the paint roller, you're painting far too broad a stripe here.  Just like I don't think that every conservative is a Rush Limbaugh clone, it's not reasonable to suggest that this is the way "all liberals" think or feel.
    Mundus vult decipi
    You're right, Gerhard. Please consider the word "some" officially inserted in front of the word "liberals" in my little rant.

    Cheers, Joe

    Gerhard Adam
    Thank you.  I'm trying my small part to improve the civility in disagreements (at least when I think of it).  Perhaps if enough of us can meet in the middle, we can drown out the noise of those on the extremes.
    Mundus vult decipi
    Perhaps if enough of us can meet in the middle, we can drown out the noise of those on the extremes.
    I'm all for that Gerhard.  Just as long as it doesn't put us in a rubber raft between two colliding icebergs. :-)
    There is no "some" before liberals in your post

    He meant that he should have put "some" there. Read in context.

    I find this interesting, to say the least. Of course, to be so intelligent, it is ironic that every single rant and rave that Kanozowie has in his treatise, one can easily find on YouTube...just go to an athiest's channel and use the word 'God' in any post.

    Too often I find myself mindlessly arguing with atheists and/or liberals on always starts with a mild statement or personal opinion, such as "the U.S.'s economy is in bad shape"...and of course, I feel compelled to mention that "it is because as God has been removed from the social equation in our nation, our social structure has weakened allowing such failures"...and BOOM! Might as well send a nuke into a come the atheists.

    The battles are often long, and drawn out...fortunately...for I wouldn't want their suffering to be shortened due to my ignorance. Their contrite egos and belief that they are better or smarter than me is comical...and I think I actually seek their insults...for calling me stupid, in my opinion, is like saying that Bill Gates is an over-rated poor guy with insufficient political influence. with war!

    Now, one of the JOYS of battling atheists is that they always demand one thing...that you MUST believe THEM! They don't want you to believe in a god, or deities or anything...but if NASA says it is, then by the CELESTIAL SPHERES, it must be TRUE! At this point, I often voice some abstract point for"you believe what you want, I will believe what I want"...and of course, their rebuttal is 3rd grade..."you are a moron and a Neandertal, since you clearly don't believe MY WAY...the ONLY WAY." Now, over time, I have noticed that atheists are scary in this fashion, for they truly are pushy...imagine such attitude with power, force or society backing them up...why...they LIKE THE CONCEPT OF THE INQUISITION...only, they want payback for abuses to scientists in the 15th century!!! Imagine the carnage, should they come to rule?!

    One of their favorite tricks is to challenge, nay, dare I say, a religious person, to PROVE TO THEM that God if this would be possible...or that they would listen if you tried. Over time, I found that without fault, atheists are the absolute hardest to prove ANYTHING TO...for they are so entrenched in their dogma by the time that they come out of the closet about being atheist, that they would nary change one single iota of information in their head...unless, of course, it reinforced their matter how fragile it is. Now, you can always do as I do...and try to explain to them that they are free (at least for the moment, in the U.S.A.) to believe what they would like...and that no one is going to imprison them for their beliefs...but I find two things come from this: one: that they still want you to fight with them about your beliefs - at least mention your points, so they can tear into you like sharks at feeding time...and point-two: that they wish there WERE PRISONS for the likes of those who believe...for they really wish they could get some guillotine action going on the throats of ANYONE who doesn't agree with them., lets see if we have this picture painted fairly, but broadly enough: Atheists are shock-troop Nazi's who want to force their will on all others, regardless of the tons of Xylon-B gas required...those that give in like passive sheep will simply be indoctrinated...and those who voice opposition will be forced to channel Carl Sagan via NASA-endorsed Ouija boards until his DNA returns to execute the unbelievers. Also, simultaneously, you will believe exactly what you are told, by the scientist-priests of officialdom, per the letter...after you download their revised updates daily. Total disregard will be paid to previous history...yes, those moments that they may have made errors, like flat earth, geocentric solar systems, canals on mars, moon of cheese, the 4-elements...all those are the past, and they would NEVER make another mistake, for as long as they cross their military triplicate.

    Guys...don't write, don't call, don't fight and don't argue...If you can't see that Atheism is the New World Catholicism, complete with their own heavily armed and financed priests (aka scientific academy), then you aren't paying attention. Liberals like atheism, because it kills God...and replaces Him with something they can control...for if you can't tell science jumps like a worm stuck to a 9-volt battery when it comes to rich people financing grants for haven't worked in science lately. Liberals had no control over an ephemeral God...but they can threaten your grants, or make them come through...depending on what you say, how you say, when you say it...and make or destroy you in the media's eyes in 5-minutes. Truth not required. Science? LOL...math is finite and is advanced politics driven by cloistered data locked down under security agreements. sounds just like....THE VATICAN ARCHIVES!!! Amazing...what a reincarnation of a religion it is!

    OK, just mellow out people. Just do as the liberals say and your lives will be improved. It is that easy!

    We should thank Ranting Zealot for providing an example of emotionally charged prejudices masquerading as metaphysical truth. RZ, try to destroy the construct - it is possible - rather than puffing it up, as that's way too easy and the former is harder and more painful but ultimately more enlightening. You can always come back and tell us about your scientific investigations into your states of mind.
    try to destroy the construct - it is possible - rather than puffing it up, as that's way too easy and the former is harder and more painful but ultimately more enlightening.
    That sounds like Jacques Derrida telling us to "strive to enter by the narrow gate!"  Oh, the irony!
    Robert H. Olley / Quondam Physics Department / University of Reading / England
    Don't you guys see the that you're piling on about 15 or 20 fallacies by arguing about this study?

    piling on about 15 or 20 fallacies
    Fallacies are infinite in number - everybody knows that. ;)
    I would be leery of claims made linking intelligence with political affiliation and religious affinities. There is a long history of these types of "correlations" being used to elevate/demote specific groups to the detriment of societies as a whole.
    Amateur Astronomer
    Considering the hostile attack radical religion made on science in the past 10 years, the response from atheists has been rather mild and ineffective.

    I've read the books from leading scientists and found no trend toward absolute atheism there. The brightest minds tend to have mixed feelings on the topic and define their beliefs in a larger frame work that is somewhat vague. There is a trend toward liberalism among the most successful scientists. It tends to increase after the professional success. So it's hard to claim that liberalism made them successful.

    In this century radical religion has sponsored wars of aggression, torture chambers, imprisonment without trial, and a sadistic destruction of the world economy. If the opposition can't challenge them on these grounds, then the scores on an intelligence tests are in doubt.

    High intelligence should reveal itself by effective action in life and success in making public policy. Radical religions tested the liberal atheists and found them to be incompetent.

    Who is writing the test and who is keeping score?
    This is precisely the type of spin that atheists put forth.

    "It's hard to claim that liberalism made them successful". It sure is, because liberalism only makes one successful in being elected to office in liberal districts or in finding jobs at the Huffington Post or CNN.

    Religion has attacked science. Really? In the last 10 years? Did we lock scientists up or force them to quaff a draw of hemlock? Enlighten me, I was wholly unaware of the modern day Spanish Inquisition going on right now. If you're talking about the exchange of competing ideas, then your hyperbolic rant against religion sounds as if you're rather intolerant of competing ideas yourself.

    Radical religion has sponsored wars of aggression, torture chambers, imprisonment without trial, blah blah blah... Please do not get me started on what secular atheistic governments have done. How many did Stalin, Mao, and Polpot kill? 60 million at least? And they're still starving their people to this day?

    I dare say you're judging a philosophy by the philosophy's abuse, when you criticize religion in general. Now, if you wanted to criticize Islam specifically, that might be an honest avenue for discussion. But the picture you're painting requires a delicate touch and a small brush, not the Wagner PowerPro Paint Sprayer you're wielding.

    "High intelligence should reveal itself by effective action in life and success in making public policy." I agree wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, this is NOT what goes on in the United States. Politicians get bribed by corporate conglomerates or special interest groups and that is how public policy is made. That liberals are guilty of this just as often as their opposition speaks volumes about the value of "liberal atheistic intelligence".

    Gerhard Adam
    Enlighten me, I was wholly unaware of the modern day Spanish Inquisition going on right now.
    OK, so you are suggesting that only if religion wields the political power to enforce it's will can it be consider an "attack".  It doesn't matter that science is completely out of the purview of religion and yet religion feels that they can "attack" it in court and the political arena to advance their own agenda.  Yes, this is precisely the spin that religious people put on things.
    ...intolerant of competing ideas yourself.
    Once again, you're spinning the definitions for your own purposes.  Religion has NOTHING to offer science.  It is a philosophy in its own right, but it is not scientific.  Religion isn't about competing ideas since, by definition, it doesn't allow any competition.  Science doesn't have to give credence to every alternative idea as a claim against science.  If religion wants to compete, then let them produce evidence, otherwise they're just another group attempting to advance their own agendas.
    I dare say you're judging a philosophy by the philosophy's abuse, when you criticize religion in general.
    Once again, you're spinning history.  "Religion" does generate abuse, but rather it is the individuals in it that can gain political strength and create the abuse.
    Please do not get me started on what secular atheistic governments have done.
    So you think it's fine that religions preach love and tolerance while they break you on the rack or burn you at the stake, whereas a secular government with no such claims should be held to the same standard?  There is little doubt that humans can perpetrate true evil and that many governments have done precisely that.  However, it is the epitome of hypocrisy for religion to disavow responsibility when the same crimes are committed under the aura of "saving souls".

    This is precisely the problem in the Catholic church at this time regarding the charges of pedophile priests.  It seems that the issue of sin and the law are fine as long as they occur in secular society, but when it touches the church, suddenly it becomes more convenient to look the other way.
    Mundus vult decipi
    I just want to ask, when in the past century has any religion (with the exception of radicalized Islam) been guilty for "burning people at the stake" or anything of that nature? Maybe you haven't noticed that we live in the modern world. And you're going to condemn religion itself because of a few horrible people dressed up as leaders of a faith? Whereas people such as Mao and Stalin have killed millions of their own people? And of course, this was all recent, MODERN history. You're trying to tie together the actions of two time periods separated by centuries when you speak of religion.
    Two (I suppose I will continue), with of course the exception of radicalized Islam, what evidence of abuses can you produce from the Christian, Jewish, Hindu, etc communities? More in connection to your point, what individuals do you see in Congress or, really, most world governments that generate abuse on the basis of religion?

    Gerhard Adam

    Television evangelist and Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson's suggestion that a nuclear device should be used to wipe out the State Department was "despicable," department spokesman Richard Boucher said Thursday.
    The only thing that protects us, is that these nut cases don't have the political power to carry out their idiocy.
    Within Judaism, as well, we have seen religious fundamentalism and extremism which has led, among other things, to the assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin because of his efforts to move toward peace with the Palestinians.
    I also didn't mention the guy that shot the abortion doctor (based on his religious beliefs).  I suppose if I wanted to push the point I could also use cults like David Koresh and Jim Jones ...

    Of course ... that's only after a 30 second search on Google.
    Mundus vult decipi
    If political liberalism is an indicator of superior intelligence in males, what happened to Harry Reid? I suppose that it is smart to expect others (government and liberals) to provide for a man's family rather than expecting him to fill this role. Subscribing to liberal idealism is more a measure of gullibility than intelligence.....

    Gerhard Adam
    I suppose that it is smart to expect others (government and liberals) to provide for a man's family rather than expecting him to fill this role.
    That statement makes little sense at any level.  We are not hunter/gatherers where our individual responsibility is a direct result of how often we go out and perform tasks.  We are intimately engaged with organizations that wield a tremendous amount of control which directly affets our ability to "provide" for our families and consequently it does become more of a social problem.

    I don't have a problem with someone that starves to death simply because they are too lazy to go out and acquire food.  I do have a problem in advocating the same situation when the individual is deprived of food because some other element of society determines they shouldn't get it.

    Like it or not, this is the culture and society we've elected to build and consequently it isn't as simple as saying that people can be fully responsible for themselves. 

    Before, anyone gets too excited and starts up with the "personal responsibility" mantra, let's be clear that the organizations and leaders that are the strongest at backing personal responsibility are also the most dependent on the infrastructure and politics to ensure that they are already protected by the system.  I have seen no leaders that are willing to give up their social benefits and it would be a real stretch to argue that they have achieved them by themselves.
    Mundus vult decipi
    Like I said, it is the smart thing to do. You apparently agree.

    Gerhard Adam
    Your statement also implied gullibility, so I'm not sure what you think I've agreed with...
    Mundus vult decipi
    C.S.Lewis wrote somewhere that the so-called "self-made man" is often the most dependent on services provided by others.

    And when Mrs Thatcher said something about "Christianity being about responsibility" (albeit she was being provoked by left-wing bishops), I felt that she was verging on blasphemy.
    Robert H. Olley / Quondam Physics Department / University of Reading / England
    A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell.
    C. S. Lewis

    So much for C. S. Lewis.. I happen to be secular

    I get what you're saying about lazy people and stuff but saying you have no problem with someone starving to death sounds a cruel

    God I Love science!

    Told at age 12 I had the 7th highest IQ in the US (now in my 50's I'm sure that is no longer the case), yet I have to apologize for my limited communication (human) skills due to also becoming a runaway at that age (concern for my life forced it on me) and spent the vast majority of my time living with wild animals (safely away from humans), and continuing to do so as an adult (wild animals being my preferred company due to more common ground).

    I have to question, if the reality I perceive is due to my IQ, or my IQ is due to the way I perceive.

    Told there was a Santa, then that there was none. Told the sun went up and down, then learned I'm on a spinning round planet... such things had me question all the answers that I was provided with.

    God... how would you explain to someone who's highest form of understanding of technology was a wheel, what a car is?

    The car is not any part, it is not the wheels, not the alternator, not the steering wheel, the car is the total of the combined parts.

    So, what would you then call the total of the universe?
    Or explain to those who may kill you for heresy that the world is not flat, and I am an animal?

    I cannot dispute their is a creator.... I did not create myself, that is a mathematical impossibility because I would first have to exist, in order to do such an act.

    Is the universe self aware?
    I am not separate from the universe, I am part OF IT.
    Because I exist in it, and am part of it, the fact that the universe is self aware is proven, because I am that proof.
    I am the universe, self aware, that I am the universe.
    I am the earth, self aware that I am the earth, I am nature self aware that I am nature.

    Awareness of the truth is not a prerequisite of its existence, yet awareness of the truth prevents the implications of trying to live in a world that does not even exist (such as one where the star/sun goes up and down, and the stars and universe itself, revolves around us).

    Said to reiterate, is my IQ the result of my perceptions or my perceptions the result of my IQ?

    Having lived the life of a caveman, by simply removing many of the perceptions of 'civilization' the truth itself then has a better chance to revel itself to me.
    Consider the wolf, who hunts and sees what the embryo of many different kinds of animals looks like, it has in common color, lack of hair/scales/feathers, large head, fingers and toes.... and resembles one life form on this planet, more than any other... humans.
    So to the wolf, humans, are natures intended destination, and the common factor to all life here.
    Their perceptions of human, differ, from humans perceptions (the common shared belief system)that we are not animals, and may do much to explain why an animal that kills for a living, does not attack a human who kills its lifelong mate, if they know better than we do, who we are and why we are here. (using caveman/wild animal logic).

    I would likely have more than one partner, more than one wife, but, there exists 2 sexes not 3.

    To add some human science to the equation:
    Energy and mass are the same thing, in 2 different forms.
    Cave man logic:
    Energy = Spirit = Father
    Mass = Earth = Mother
    We are the UNION
    Life, is the union of energy and mass (in keeping with the universal truth that the total is more than the sum of the parts).

    No less, I am more than just myself, if I recognize the union of the universe, I am then not separate from it, but part of it, a part of time and space, I can exist in it more readily and accurately than if I claim I am above all life here, separate from it.

    (God I love science!)
    But just because I am not 'religious' does not mean I'm willing to state that there is no total greater than the sum, including, that of self awareness, of the universe.

    But I am still in doubt which came first, my IQ or my perceptions (as differentiated from the human common shared belief system).
    No less than one who perceives of life as 2 dimensional, would call someone who sees life as 3 dimensional, as a liberal. If 3 dimensions is reality, yet out of the scope of awareness of the one who sees themselves as living in an exclusively 2 dimensional world, is up and down then radical and liberal?
    Or just, thinking outside the box (err.. I mean square)?
    No less than for me to communicate in the common shared belief system, I have to use terminology that is common ground to terms only found within it, to describe what is not within those parameters (thus my wordy post here in my attempt to do so, and I do apologize for me limited experience with 'human' communication skills, thus long posts trying to compensate, yet still be comprehensible to the majority ).

    Old Russian saw: Under capitalism man exploits man. Under socalism it's the other way around.

    They should know

    You certainly can read the article. If it's still up. Go download it from his LSE university personal page.

    I love the way liberals somehow claim a mantra of being the "caring ones" for other people:

    "In the current study, Kanazawa argues that humans are evolutionarily designed to be conservative, caring mostly about their family and friends, and being liberal, caring about an indefinite number of genetically unrelated strangers they never meet or interact with, is evolutionarily novel. So more intelligent children may be more likely to grow up to be liberals."

    So, I guess if anyone makes a claim, it must be true. But let's look at the facts:

    There is a persistent stereotype about charitable giving in politically progressive regions of America: while people on the political right may be hardworking and family-oriented, they tend not to be very charitable toward the less fortunate. In contrast, those on the political left care about vulnerable members of society, and are thus the charitable ones. Understanding “charity” in terms of voluntary gifts of money (instead of government income redistribution), this stereotype is wrong.

    The fact is that self-described “conservatives” in America are more likely to give—and give more money—than self-described “liberals.” In the year 2000, households headed by a conservative gave, on average, 30 percent more dollars to charity than households headed by a liberal. And this discrepancy in monetary donations is not simply an artifact of income differences. On the contrary, liberal families in these data earned an average of 6 percent more per year than conservative families.

    These differences go beyond money. Take blood donations, for example. In 2002, conservative Americans were more likely to donate blood each year, and did so more often, than liberals. People who said they were “conservative” or “extremely conservative” made up less than one-fifth of the population, but donated more than a quarter of the blood. To put this in perspective, if political liberals and moderates gave blood like conservatives do, the blood supply in the United States would surge by nearly half.

    Facts are curious things, they don't always fit theories. I'm one who, like most people, believes that actions speak louder than words. If Kanazawa's reasoning is accurate, then the facts of who actually exhibits caring for "genetically unrelated strangers" show that it is actually the conservatives who are more evolved. But maybe that's just my lowly, evolutionarily challenged 149 I.Q. speaking.

    To bad nobody is my ballpark. I am a atheist, but i also believe in the Ressurection of Christ. God the Father is an astronaut king from another world. Eric von Daniken (Chariots of the God), The Raeliens and me is another way of saying God after Evolution, God ascended from the apes but on another planet. He's an interplanetary Wizard of Ozearth, a Planet of Dr. Moreau, Glactic Capt Nemo, Klaatu.

    Creationism The Final Frontier of Insanity

    The Bible says “come now let us reason together as men” Isaiah 1:18, not as babbling, drooling idiots. Every man and woman that preaches creationism is an enemy of God, Jesus and everyone that serves truth an sanity. Every verse in the Bible that teaches creationism can be argued. Man was created in the likeness and image of God, Gen 1:26, so God is an man from another world, a Wizard of Ozearth. It’s time you creationists stop being like the munchkins of Oz, it’s nice you sing and dance praises to God, but you really do have an obligation to speak the truth.

    This part about liberals though is wrong! Of course, we are living in a never ending world of word definitions changing and debating. A conservative to me is someone that is cautious. If someone tells you to jump off a cliff because it's cool, a conservative will prefer looking down first before jumping, a liberal just accepts that the issueer of the dictate was someone cool, popular and therefor they jump without question. Thats not superior intelligence.

    I don'tdoubt the findings. However,thirty years ago (1980) when these kids were tested, college wasn't a given. It seems reasonable to me that smarter kids would be more likely to go to college. Since colleges are "known" (I have no facts or stats on this, and feel free to disagree) to be more liberal and they teach classes like "womens studies" and "cultural studies", but they don't teach classes on "traditional values" or "conservatism", it makes sense to me that these kids (that started out only marginally smarter than the other kids) ended up absorbing all these "new thoughts" they got at college.

    In closing, an actual current IQ test may very well show that these kids squandered their previous intelligence advantage, and are now "dumber" than their peers. I base this on colleges and universities that put emphasis on memorization rather than logic and reasoning. IQ tests rate how well you can draw conclusions from the given data, not in how well you memorize.
    I'd be curious to see the results of a non-biased IQ test given where only afterwards the people were asked their political opinions. And asking people "are you conservative or liberal?" is not an accurate test for that. They must be questions such as "do you believe that redistribution of wealth is moral?" or "Is killing anouther human being always wrong, even in war or when police are aprehending a criminal?"
    Just my two cents. - JD Hengehold (conservative , IQ=144)

    Gerhard Adam
    They must be questions such as "do you believe that redistribution of wealth is moral?" or "Is killing anouther human being always wrong, even in war or when police are aprehending a criminal?"
    Hmmm ... nothing like asking loaded questions to push an agenda.
    Mundus vult decipi
    I think that the effort to change America is not very smart especially when it's the anti-liberal way of thinking that made America the greatst in the world and it's incredibly dumb to not agree this is the greatest in the world, cuase I know that's what your thinking.

    You are using 'liberal' incorrectly.   Obviously the American Revolution was a liberal act, not a conservative one.   The conservative approach was taken by Canada, which took another 80 years.    The great debate in the early days was over central government - in modern terms that correlates to progressives versus conservatives but both claimed to be liberal ideals in that freedom was most important, just like those two camps claim to be about freedom (liberalism) today.
    Whether or not this contributes to what you're saying, a "liberal" in Europe is actually the equivalent to a conservative in America.

    The meaning of the word "liberal" seems to have been spun quite a bit throughout the course of history, to the point where it's actually quite confusing to determine the actual meaning in politics.

    And just my opinion, in the way we see the political spectrum today (liberal,left---conservative,right), Progressivism seems to a manifestation of either of the two. But I suppose I'm just rambling and throwing things out there for discussion.

    No, I basically agree but my point was that in classical terms liberal and conservative meant different things - liberal being freedom and conservative being traditional.  Progressive is the new construct which claims to be both insuring freedom and equality.   That isn't really possible.  Outside the poles of American political discourse, many people are both conservative and liberal - me included.   It's the progressives in science who want to mandate an artificial equality that will kill actual good science that make me crazy.    But as long as they convince actual liberals they are on the same side, true academic freedom cannot exist.   And many academics complain about the lack of freedom and assume it is the right doing it, without recognizing academia has less than 1% conservatives and virtually none in any positions of authority.
    it makes sense - conservatives tend hold to traditions and liberals tend for push for change.

    Conservatives focussed on family and homogenous group identity, conformity and liberals are more big tent inclusionists and tolerant of diversity.

    I found it very liberating to learn that there's less than 1% genetic difference between me and any other person - it totally knocked the late 30's urge to have a baby out of my system because knowing that I comprise only a tiny uniqueness that would be so diluted by the grandchild generation as to be meaningless

    the urge to perpetuate the species personally evaporated, which was a good thing, even that we are becoming an unsustainable population group and only curtailing our activities will contribute to the species continuing

    Conservatives focussed on family and homogenous group identity, conformity and liberals are more big tent inclusionists and tolerant of diversity.
    Not in America - every 4 years a Republican gets up at the national convention and discusses allowing abortion.    That has not happened among Democrats since I was in grade school.  

     Diversity is not the same as 'I will allow your crazy cause if you allow mine", so anti-vaccine people are all together with anti-GMO people who are with anti-circumcision people who are with anti-meat people who are with people who want to ban guns and cars and who knows what else.

    Perhaps in the classic sense, you mean liberal - but there are only 4 of those in America.  The rest that call themselves liberals are instead progressives, and more dangerous than warhawk conservatives because at least warhawk neo-cons only want to screw up someone else's country.
    What is a liberal anyway? I see them as people with either a drug or alcohol or sexual degeration problem, and/or a combination of the three. Liberals become liberals when they are consciously aware of their own body and and minds maturation process, as they grow a bit older and mature they realize their loose unkempt lifestyle needs the mentor and support services that political groups offer, in order to justify their degenerative way of life any further. Atheists use the same old banal argument against religion, just glitter it up as has Richard Dawkins. A bit of intellecutal elitism to give yourself a polished character,and you think you have something over the conservative. In reality conservative lead a more fullfilling life, family and security,community and friends,something the liberal atheists never find, true happiness.
    There is anew book out and darn if I forgot the title, but it's in the psych section, a study of atheists in near death scenarios, and lo and behold how many find God just before dying, and they demonstrate empathy and remorse at not comprehending that there is nothing else but God.
    Got a evolution hang up,, Well so do i, that's why I believe in RCA resurrectionist christian atheist, God after evoluton, Jesus is the living and resurrected son of God the Father a Holy Astronaut King, the final stage of human evolution, pure energy with a mind so far advance than anything you can even imagine.
    God has shown his miracles, but some people are like feral animals, some will see the hand out offering a free meal and accept it , others will always stay paranoid and live as wild animals.

    Your observation of liberals is rather disturbing. When you say "their loose unkempt lifestyle", you are implying that "they" all belong in this grouping - something you should try to avoid when trying to make a point in a debate. Also, if the book you are referring to is the one I think it is, I hate to inform you that it isn't a study at all, it's a novel. To continue, the "something" we think we have over conservatives is the following: (1) we understand the true shortness of life and it's fragile nature; therefore, we are more prone to see things collectively, or through collective experiences (2) we stress less than you because we understand that in the end - none of it really ever mattered - we don't waste time trying to please something that most-likely doesn't exist (3) because we value the collective and the shortness of life we tend to lean towards political parties who run on platforms of uniform - such as high taxes on the rich, generous social welfare programs, etc. We value helping others while we can.

    Where did you get the idea that they "need the mentor and support services that political groups offer in order to justify their degenerative way of life any further" - did you even read that sentence before you typed it? Not only is there zero grounds for such an extraordinary claim, but this sentence is the furthest thing any christian should ever say - ever.

    I will never understand how such things spew from the mouths of the believers. I know your religion and know what it teaches which leads me to wonder what it is you actually know.

    Wait a minute? I'm an atheist first and foremost. I do believe in astronaut gods, but nobody created the infinite universe. Come on!!!! I know alot of liberals, I was one myself for most of my life. Libs use alot of drugs, alcohol, they have liberal views on sex, and they are collective because they fear the long arm of the conservative law. Libs are more likely to contract a serious contagious disease, and they are more likely to turn to crime. You can't "know" MY religion. Again I believe in Astronaut Gods, which means they didn't create any infinite universe, and also means all the really bad stuff we read in the Bible is more likely true. Reincarnation is a form of cannibalism, and may be part of their practice to invent eternal life. "An angel called to all the fowl in heaven, come now let us feast upon the flesh of kings, and kings captains and kings horses" Book of Revelations Remember, what was sci-fi yesterday is reality today. The real life Klaatu ( the day the earth stood still) may be the father of Jesus Christ, and is coming back to destroy billions of human beings. Like Klaatu they are not happy with what we have done to this planet, and our breeding like rats in a chees factory, and especially our degenerate liberal behavior. "Like" the believers, I am, but atheist i be.

    Great stuff. For everyone ragging on this author, do any of you have a study that counters this one? I'd be interested in reading it if so.

    Since you like this 'study', you might also like Kanazawa's other works; like when he contends there is an evolutionary basis for why people think black women are ugly.  If I were to say to you, 'do you have a study that counters' it, you would see it is impossible because you can't disprove a negative.  You just happen to want to believe liberals are smarter, i.e., you are one.
    The problem is the study is "subjective", and that is one primary issue with "soft" sciences, the reseachers can substitute objectivity with animosities. Measuring intelligence in social grouping is a great propaganda tool! Also combining soft science with mans inability to ascertain absolutes from outside the standard realm of universal logic, ie., we in all probability never in eternity, will be able to "validate" if the universe is infinite. We can agree on the most likely, but never prove it with any technology.

    You? know MY religion? How can that be?, billions of creationists, and the majority of the rest hardcore atheists. There is so few in MY religion that we have no churches, and very little support. I am an atheist, and one that believes in life after death,heck it's harldy a religion at all. Honestly though most atheists are losers, they don't want to believe in god, as it would interfere with their sex and drug lifestyle. Your numbered excuses for existence is the "a fortiori" against liberalism, your kind have no morals, and atheist morality is a joke. You are like the dog that bites the hand that feeds it, not realizing that religion is what made America great and civilized.

    Gerhard Adam
    Wow, I guess I spoke too soon on another post when I said that was one of the dumbest things I've heard recently.  This one is dumber.
    Mundus vult decipi
    Gerhard gives "argumentum ad hominem" it's the best he can do! That's understandable!

    Gerhard Adam
    Please, don't over-think my comment.  I really meant that it was just about one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.
    Mundus vult decipi
    Robot Parents & Racism The Instinct

    If one could raise 100 black babies, and 100 white babies, from birth to adulthood, using robots as the sole parent, and companion, (each child would never see or hear real people), and then when they reach adulthood release them into the real world, they would almost always choose their own race as the primary source for learning, companionship, etc.

    That's if instinct is still applicable terminology. So evolutionary is also primitve instinct. Ad nauseum! To the end of this debate! To much that can't be proven!

    That's not right.  That's not even wrong, that's how not right it is.  Basically, it just made up.
    Atheists Against Homosexuality

    I am an atheist first and foremost, my belief in alien UFO gods does not precede my belief that man is an animal, a member of the animal kingdom, and nothing more or less than all the rest of the beasts in the jungle world.

    However, thru millions of years of evolution, trial and error, learning and observing, the human animal advanced to the state of dominant species, and collectively decided and agreed universally, without the need for religion, to adapt, accept, and implement laws of behavior, that would separate and define the human animal away from the behavior of lower animals. We chose to civilize ourselves, to recognize the human mind, and a belief that we are superior to the other beasts in the world jungle, and that our will power is greater than any other species. We can control our destiny with discipline and logic.

    We, without the need for religion refused behavior such as having sex in a public place. The vast majority of humans do not want to indulge in public sex in a restaurant, while they are eating, nor would they enjoy seeing people engaged in any kind of sex on the side of the road, while they were driving. We especially don’t want to see sex happening in public toilets, where we evacuate our bladders. That is with exception to the thousands of homosexuals that are arrested every year, theirs is the highest rate of public sex, and the statistics only recognize the ones caught, so the true numbers are probably much higher.

    The entire kaleidoscope of negative animal behavior is something the human animal has been working to distance ourselves from. Polygamy and bigamy, like homosexuality may seem harmless, but does it serve the ideals that we want to keep forever? When my mom died my father soon followed only hours from their 65th wedding anniversary, a testimony that the heterosexual chaste monogamist relationship fosters a deep and long lasting love. After sharing their story I learned that it was a common phenomena. While conversely a polygamist might scratch off the loss of one wife, justifying the logic, “ one down nine more to go”, proving the frivolous nature of polygamy love.

    We have worked for thousands of years to segregate ourselves from all the negative behavior, homosexuality, sodomy, polygamy, bigamy, racism, incest, (we even have minimum ages of consent), public sex, orgies, sexual assault, and all the way down to the most degenerate behavior, murder, rape, and cannibalism, etc. In the lower animal species the degree and depth of atrocities and bad behavior are endless. Where some animals kill the young that were born from other patriarchs, we adopt them and raise them as our own.

    It is truly sad that the human animal has now reversed millions of years of evolution and civilization, and got away with it in just a couple years of destructive work. We know with science that the homosexuals have the highest rate of infectious disease, and that fact alone is proof that gay rights is wrong. Nurturing and aiding the homosexuals to find their way back to a normal relationship was the right direction, and that is where we need to return to. As a atheist that believes in the civilizing of the human animal I can only pray to whatever alien UFO gods that listen, to intervene and help us stop the reversal of human evolution. Amen

    As it appears that we have fallen into the pit of enabling, one can only turn to the gay community and ask them to recognize the absolute truth in what I’ve posted here, and by your own volition cease and desist your quest for civil rights. I suggest that most homosexuals know that I’m right, and ignore truth, instead taking advantage of the enablers like addicts do with their own loving family supporters.

    Here's another major point ignored in all this debate, The bible doesn't literally verbatim say "God created the infinite universe", and I know there are plenty of believers that would argue that statement, and suggest that it does say that in "other" wording, but not in the verbatim sentence I just cited. Therefore by some convoluted default logic all believers are atheists, they would never admit it, as it is forbidden by their laws. A good example would be the Catholic contention tht all christians are Catholics, if you were baptised by any christian church it is recognized by the catholic church. Baptists,and Protestants are "errent" lost catholics, but the baptists would never agree with that.
    Of course as an atheist we must contend with the sci-fi possible thought that alien gods are with us. If they are here then they are a more evolved species, and they might be having a problem with distinguishing us from a food source. Just like humans that eat dolphins, orcas, and monkey brains, the aliens may have been using earth human animals as a "soul food" a replacement for reincarnation, ie eating our souls. God the Father of Jesus Christ may be an interplanetary animal rights activist. He is trying to save some of us, and our ability to recognize him/them good vs evil, and act in a civilized manner when we encounter them may be the difference between eternal life or into the frying pan. That may be why he/they keep us in the church logic mode, it is the safe zone that keeps the predator aliens from eating your soul.

    I have to work in an office where one guy thinks that farts are funny.
    First of all, you don't "have' to work there at all, or so I suspect. You are probably free to leave at any time. Howard Stern was big on fart jokes, and it is I would guess just an extension of slap-stick humor. It is childish, but there is supposed to be a bit of kid in all of us. The Bible say's "somewhere" "laughter is for fools", and Readers Digest if I remember, claims "laughter is the best medicine", I don't know if they invented that or copied it. The problem I see is if the fart joke is accompanied by the real thing, as offensive body ordors can be a serious problem in the work place. I once worked a second job from my first, which was milking and caring for dairy cows. In between that i worked on a factory assembly line, and once was called in the office because of my body odors. I apologized and explained that after milking I didn't change clothes and drove straight to the factory. Since this was a small farming town I kinda assumed we all knew the smell of hard farm work, but no problem, after that I changed clothes before my next job.

    I did not say anything about "fart jokes" I said "farts".  You may find it funny if someone walks up to you and farts in your face when you are quietly working; I do not. Fortunately I was not the recipient or there could have been some serious consequences. Do you consider that to be an extension of slap-stick humour?

    Actually, since you quite correctly, if pedantically, point out that I am not absolutely obliged to work where I do (hardly relevant to anything but never mind) I would have thought you could have deduced that the farts are real from the context. Otherwise what would be the point in my mentioning them?

    It is, in a crude way kind of funny. As long as you're not the recipient that is.

    I wonder how HR would view the recipient if he used one of those hand held tazers on the jokester?
    Never is a long time.
    It obviously seemed funny to the perpetrator too, but he is just an immature swaggering thug.

    Retaliation with a tazer, though, now that would be funny, especially if the fart ignited :)
    HR might not have a lot to say if a non-contact spark did ignite the methane.........
    Never is a long time.
     Methane? More like hydrogen sulphide :(

    And yes!  Enough to demolish several offices. Sort of bloke who deliberately eats artichokes and beans to load up for the next day - there were kids like that at my school, but they were 13 and thought that loud smelly flatulence would impress the girls.

    Mind you, at my school, it probably did.

    Well how did you know he thought the farts were funny? Perhaps there's a rumor going around your office behind someones back, that points him or her out as a anal degenerate? Hey, what's this got to do with the title story anyway?

    Well how did you know he thought the farts were funny?  
    Don't they have humour on your planet?

    What's it to YOU if we do or don't? Are you some kind of humor police?

    I'll take that as a "No".
    Just by reading this article I lost brain cells.

    I am backtracking on things I've bloged on and this came back. Now I wonder if there is a future on backtracking the comments that never end?

    Media Myth Debunked: Republicans Are More Informed About Politics Than Democrats