Being a firm nonbeliever, at least in the established world religions, i have meet a lot of religious people from again all the world religions, and i don’t think they are in general more stupid than the ateist, they simply made a choice in their lives, or a choice was made for them, which gives them the ability to explain,get to terms with lots of facets in life which they don’t understand.

It is a risky thing putting labels on people which are in this way putting them in the same box.

Intelligence is an extremely difficult thing to measure. Some very brainy scientists who studied the very fabric of communication claim that the intelligence of a species is measured in how complicated their language is, which in their research then means that the most intelligent species on this planet are dolphins, so be careful defining what intelligence is.

Religion is used by powerpeople with high educations to suppress people which hasn’t got as much insight and knowledge. That doesn’t make the underdogs stupid, just ignorant.

The majority of really religious people are poor people who have been dealt a bad hand in life, and their religion is a cornerstone in their life which can give them comfort and guidance.

We are all religious in the sence that we all have beliefs in some way or another. Some people belive in armageddon, some believe in the rebirth of Christ, some belive in Thor and Odin, some believe in the rise of stocks or houseprices, some believe in their own superiority and some believe in the good in people. It is all just belief which constantly is being tested by reality. So in some form we are all religious, it’s just different religions we commit ourselves to.

But leaving that argument-without-an-ending aside, the question of Left politicians and Christianity really amuses me.

Left-politicians in the US nearly all claim to be Christians (even Hilary Clinton!!), and yet their supporters all clearly recognise, and often state openly, that this is a lie!

And yet, these guys still consider themselves to be the ‘principled’ faction in the country!

Ha ha! Gives me a wry smile…

Sure, religious people are not stupid *per definition* (although believing in religion based on “faith” rather than “facts” does indicate towards it, I would argue), but I am curious about who you would mention from “history that proves the opporsite” in this context? Because I can’t, on the top of my head, mention any from the post-Darwin period.

I think it would be difficult to conclude that religious people are dumb, but easier to hypothesize that, dumber people are *more easily* drawn to religion. Perhaps due to the easier answer that religion provides vs. science and all it’s quantum mechanics theory, string theory and all the other things most of us (myself included) don’t understand. The “I have faith, therefore I believe” argument is much “easier” on the mind since no thought is needed (it actually seems counter-productive). As long as you have faith, facts become irrelevant, until they shake your faith, which only happens if you consider them, which you won’t do as long as you have faith… (and so on and so on, the argument is cyclical). As Helmuth Nyborg said it, and I agree with him, “My hypothesis is that people with a low intelligence are more easily drawn toward religions, which give answers that are certain, while people with a high intelligence are more skeptical”.
Concerning religiosity and intelligence, studies have actually been made on the subject and almost consistently shown an *inverse* correlation between IQ and religiosity. You could check out a (simple) example here: http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/001523.html and many other places (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence#Studies_comparing_religious_belief_and_I.Q. would be a good start) or search google for a wealth of information on the subject.

I suspect the above quote from Helmuth Nyborg is what you meant in what I quoted you for initially in this comment? I assume so because I am fairly certain you would if you change “a religious person” in your sentence with say “a person who believes the Chuch of the Flying Spaghetti Monster”, your answer would *not* be “there’s a lot of people in history that proves the opposite.” – and the reason it wouldn’t be that answer isn’t simply because there isn’t a lot of people who believe in the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The reason your answer would change is, and correct me if I am mistaken, that there’s a mountain of better theories that make it “dumb” to believe is such non-sense.

So why treat older religions (or newer sects?) as though they are warranted, when there is the same almost non-existent amount of evidence it is true and there’s a better theory – the theory of evolution. Especially since a theory, I would argue, can reasonably be considered warranted when, of what is tries to explain, it explains MORE than it does NOT explain and explains more than any competing theory explain. An example would be that (Abrahamic-based at least) religion explains everything with God (God created everything), but then does not explain God, which in essence leaves the theory having explained nothing, only moved everything into one unexplained pot called God.