Men are less religious because they are less intelligent....

...according to 'livescience'

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I've moved this to a more appropriate subforum. There's absolutely no reason for you to be posting in the garbage dump.

Quote :

There may be another reason. Rodney Stark, a professor of sociology and comparative religion at the University of Washington, flips the question around: Why are men less religious?

"Studies of biochemistry imply that both male irreligiousness and male lawlessness are rooted in the fact that far more males than females have an underdeveloped ability to inhibit their impulses, especially those involving immediate gratification and thrills," Stark argued in a 2002 paper in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion.

The upshot is that some men are shortsighted and don't think ahead, Stark said, and so "going to prison or going to hell just doesn't matter to these men."

Notice how masculine nature is redefined as a flaw and an idealized alternative presented as the "correction"?

This is typical liberal nonsense.

yes, it's quite stupid. since when are men less religious?

i don't think it has to do with gender.

There is a difference between being "religious" and being spiritual.

Religious implies an adherence to an established, popular, spirituality with a hierarchical structure and an authority figure in place.
Women are more prone to follow this, as they are by nature, and by necessity, followers.

Quote :

Men are less religious because they are less intelligent....

This is the dumbest fucking thesis I have ever read.

You sir, are a dumb fuck.

Even if you don't actually believe it and you're just entertaining it, you still are a dumb fuck.

Consider it a dangling worm by one who thinks he understands his prey.

A simpleton will always base his defensive games, his tricks and games upon a limited comprehension of his enemy or the one that is like a thorn in his side.

There's nothing intelligent about playing follow the leader. An intelligent person, capable of critical, independent and innovative thought, in other words, a male, will see right through the lies and hypocrisy of religion. Is a woman in her thirties smart because she still believes in Santa Claus, and the Easter bunny? Was Galileo stupid because he built a telescope capable of observing imperfections in the form of craters on the moon, and because he believed in a heliocentric universe? Were the people who still subscribed to church dogma in spite of the evidence, smarter, than Galileo?

Do not confuse intelligence, the ability to discern fact from fiction with herd beehavior. Herd beehavior is herd beehavior, intelligence is intelligence. If women are more religious, this only proves that they are more gullible and servile on average, as religion is nothing more than a form of mind control.

Women are more likely to obey the law, but does this make them more intelligent? If men are more likely to disobey the law, then they are more likely to disobey bad laws as well as good laws (good as in good for the whole and, for the individual). The law isn't always good, as it is often written by incompetent and self serving men, so it isn't always good or wise to follow it.

Also, men can probably see that man made laws are somewhat arbitrary and relative, they can also see right through the fantasy of altruism and collectivism, which are rare, if not non existent in nature. Do not confuse selfishness with stupidity.

You see, you are a retard because you equate altruism, collectivism, law and religion with intelligence, when they don't necessarily have anything to do with each other. A man can see that, where as a woman, like yourself, cannot, for you are a stupid fuck, and I think you should hang yourself. Seriously, please hang yourself, retard, go jump off a bridge, I hear everyone's doing it. Papa Hitler says that it's time to go the gas chamber. Now be a good little Christian (Romans 13) woman and do what Papa Hitler says.

I don't care if she's toying with us or not, I'm game.

This just in, Emperor Obama says the sky is red, up is down the internet needs to be regulated, now believe in what Emperor Obama says, or are you an enemy of the state and a racist?

The irony is, authority figures and religions have been saying for centuries that women are dumber and less spiritual than men. Now, you should believe them, since you equate intelligence with obedience. No need to look at the evidence (IQ tests) which suggest men and women are more/less equal in intelligence. Trust the bible and the Koran. I hear female genital mutilation is popular in parts of the middle east, and backed by mosque and state.

cranapple wrote:

yes, it's quite stupid. since when are men less religious?

i don't think it has to do with gender.

Do you ever wonder whether an individuals gender might have an influence on their beliefs?

It's even been basically outlined in that linked article: women take to a conformist institution (religion) more readily than men, who apparently "have an underdeveloped ability to inhibit their impulses', ie they challenge convention more readily and get into trouble as a consequence.

Now take this and carry it into the realm of evolutionary theory and ask yourself why our species selected for these differing traits in males and females.... and why the adoption of the feminine traits by modern males might not be as wonderful as advertised..

eyesinthedark wrote:

Quote :

Men are less religious because they are less intelligent....

This is the dumbest fucking thesis I have ever read.

You sir, are a dumb fuck.

Even if you don't actually believe it and you're just entertaining it, you still are a dumb fuck.

The only mistake I made here was forgetting that you and others are not well acquainted enough with my views to catch the irony I was trying draw.

The title of this thread summarized the articles conclusion, which was amusing given the name and purpose of that website.

Ah...

Oh, I see...

A quote from the article-

Lastly, Gallup argued, "More so than men, women lean toward an empirical [depending on experience or observation] rather than a rational basis for faith."

W, t, f is that supposed to mean? Is he saying that women who believe in God have seen God? There is no empirical or rational basis for faith, faith, by definition, is having a belief without having a scientific or philosophical basis for doing so, or in spite of evidence to the contrary i.e. evil, or suffering (in this case). I think the person who wrote this article and "George Gallup" are mentally deranged.

Excellent find.

apaosha wrote:

cranapple wrote:

yes, it's quite stupid. since when are men less religious?

i don't think it has to do with gender.

Do you ever wonder whether an individuals gender might have an influence on their beliefs?

It's even been basically outlined in that linked article: women take to a conformist institution (religion) more readily than men, who apparently "have an underdeveloped ability to inhibit their impulses', ie they challenge convention more readily and get into trouble as a consequence.

Now take this and carry it into the realm of evolutionary theory and ask yourself why our species selected for these differing traits in males and females.... and why the adoption of the feminine traits by modern males might not be as wonderful as advertised..

huh? men don't believe in god because they are males? that's funny because i think it is because they are as the more competitive the more top/down thinking one is inclined to or believe that is the name of the game. men are also inclined to be insecure or believe in bullshit as much as females as well as be erroneous, jump to conclusions ad nauseum. being more prone to challenge, aggressive or be competitive does not necessarily equate to being more "in touch" with reality.

now take your biased bullshit and ask yourself how an inability to inhibit impulses might not be so good AS WELL. duh??

do you think it has to be one or the other? only left? only right? jesusfukingchrist!

anyways, religious instititions is about power and/or control as well as spiritual bullshit intertwined with some philosophy/ethics and headed/perpetuated by males. most men don't challenge convention when they hold the reigns or if it works in their favor, even if that convention is bullshit. challenging convention is useless just for it's own sake unless it's for a good or legitimate reason which some do but many won't.

cranapple wrote:

huh? men don't believe in god because they are males? that's funny because i think it is because they are as the more competitive the more top/down thinking one is inclined to or believe that is the name of the game. men are also inclined to be insecure or believe in bullshit as much as females as well as be erroneous, jump to conclusions ad nauseum. being more prone to challenge, aggressive or be competitive does not necessarily equate to being more "in touch" with reality.

It helps when everyone around you is telling you lies ...or that the evidence of your own eyes is designed to deceive you and tempt you away from the true righteous path.

Quote :

now take your biased bullshit and ask yourself how an inability to inhibit impulses might not be so good AS WELL. duh??

This was the chosen terminology of the guy who was being quoted; who had an agenda and had already decided that this "inability" was a defect that needed to be "corrected". My point was in illustrating the error here. One of bias.
I'd personally term it as competitive, challenging, domineering nature. Or at least the inherent inclination towards this in human males.

Quote :

do you think it has to be one or the other? only left? only right? jesusfukingchrist!

Only in so far as the dichotomy of the dominant/submissive mindset correlates to each gender. Not, I want to emphasise, in terms of individuals, but in terms of a generality.

Quote :

anyways, religious instititions is about power and/or control and headed/perpetuated by males. most men don't challenge convention when they hold the reigns or if it works in their favor, even if that convention is bullshit. challenging convention is useless just for it's own sake unless it's for a good or legitimate reason which some do but many won't.

And yet the urge to challenge is apparently more highly present in males, according to some liberal academic fag at least, and so must be the product of a history of natural selection where males usurped the status quo and were then able to produce viable offspring who shared this inclination.

Perhaps this why the effeminate, homosexual man is so contemptible, as he represents the total subversion of the type: male. Both a lack of dominance and an inability to reproduce his genes. A dead-end.

eyesinthedark wrote:

There's nothing intelligent about playing follow the leader. An intelligent person, capable of critical, independent and innovative thought, in other words, a male, will see right through the lies and hypocrisy of religion. Is a woman in her thirties smart because she still believes in Santa Claus, and the Easter bunny? Was Galileo stupid because he built a telescope capable of observing imperfections in the form of craters on the moon, and because he believed in a heliocentric universe? Were the people who still subscribed to church dogma in spite of the evidence, smarter, than Galileo?

oh really? following a leader is 'always' unintelligent? even if they are right about whatever? does one need to constantly reinvent the wheel? how about not having a society and everyone just go rogue? lol. yeah, that's ridiculous as eventually people form groups.

a male is the only one who can see through lies? is that why the ones who subscribe to church dogma are also men? i don't follow your 'logic'.

as i recall, i was the only one who questioned the aspects of religion in sunday school among both males/females. evidently, it's not just males who can see through lies and hypocrisy. also, people perpetuate lies and hypocrisy for their agenda. it's not always due to ignorance or lack of ability as people are also motivated by their character, bias, prejudice etc.

Quote :

Cranny wrote: oh really? following a leader is 'always' unintelligent? even if they are right about whatever? does one need to constantly reinvent the wheel? how about not having a society and everyone just go rogue? lol. yeah, that's ridiculous as eventually people form groups.

a male is the only one who can see through lies? is that why the ones who subscribe to church dogma are also men? i don't follow your 'logic'.

as i recall, i was the only one who questioned the aspects of religion in sunday school among both males/females. evidently, it's not just males who can see through lies and hypocrisy. also, people perpetuate lies and hypocrisy for their agenda. it's not always due to ignorance or lack of ability as people are also motivated by their character, bias, prejudice etc.

As much as I love playing this little game with you, where we each exaggerate and extrapolate the claim of the other, in order to paint the other and their philosophy as ridiculous, ludicrous and absurd... I think I'm growing weary of it. No, nowhere did I say that we should never, ever, go along with what the majority or what the leader suggests, just that if we do follow, we should at least have reason to place our trust in them, we should know them to be confident, competent and capable individuals, and most importantly, we should know they have our best interests at heart. To be honest with you cran, you and me are actually more/less on the same page on most things, I think. Let's stop playing this antagonistic, reactionary game we play, as enticing as it is, and see if we can agree on anything.

No, only a retard would believe a female can never see through lies. I believe females, on average, are slightly more gullible than males, in this particular case I exaggerated my point in order to offend and insult Reluctant P, whom I thought was retarded.

In this last segment, do you mean to tell me that you are a female, or did that first sentence of the last paragraph not come off right?

I agree, incompetency is one thing, bias and undisclosed agendas are something else entirely, and it is important to keep both in mind, as both are capable of distorting the truth.