Atheists Libertarians are smarter than everyone else

Page 1 of 6 [ 87 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

LibertarianAS
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jul 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 115
Location: Norfolk, US

21 Mar 2011, 5:26 pm

Atheists may be smarter but liberals who actually believe, rather than ostensibly believe, in the efficacy of liberalism are idiotic : since liberalism is illogical and self-contradictory. So I would say the majority of liberals are idiots. Atheism and liberalism are not synonymous.Note I use liberal in the American context (to contrast it with religious conservatives), but, there can also be atheist libertarians. So atheist libertarians(and perhaps a certain subsect of pantheist libertarians), are actually the smartest group and atheist liberals are, for the most part, complete dumbasses. Actually liberalism is a modern secular religion. A liberal cannot be an atheist since ,strictly speaking, liberalism is a religion.



Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,573

21 Mar 2011, 5:30 pm

Libertarianism != economic right.

Nobody cares you think you are smarter, it is your actions that proof otherwise. You may not buy into a religion, but you bought into social darwinism which is as dumb if not dumber than just about most religions.


_________________
.


LibertarianAS
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jul 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 115
Location: Norfolk, US

21 Mar 2011, 5:33 pm

Vexcalibur wrote:
Libertarianism != economic right.


libertarian= social liberal,economic conservative

I'll speak on what I've observed about Liberal intelligence, my experience. The Liberal demographic has changed slightly since the birth of Cultural Marxism. Of course it began in the upper intellectual strata, as do most philosophies and quickly spread to the intellectual demographic found in Universities, people with an IQ around 120 (avg college IQ). It remained there for a few decades and just recently began spreading to average and below average intelligence. It is no coincidence that Liberalism has expanded beneath College Level demographics in concert with its infiltration of grade school cirricula.

However, it missed one group almost entirely, the ultra intelligent. Granted, it did begin in the upper intellectual strata, but was confined to a very small group of malignant ideologues. Todays Liberalism has its roots in the Frankfurt School of Post WWII. Who openly professed their ideological goal was the destruction of Western Culture. I wonder how many naive Liberals believe they are righteous and don't even know that their ideas come from a source with such perverted, diabolical designs.

The above average intelligentsia are a demographic with an above average, of what I call, mundane cognition. The ability to manage pre-existent information efficiently. They can navigate and use information, that already exists, very well, but they cannot reconfigure information in new ways and they certainly cannot create information that never existed. They are the perfect demographic for indoctrination. They do not, and cannot, think for themself. When ever they are engaging in something that has the appearance of thinking for themself, they are merely chosing from a set of multiple choice beliefs they have learned somewhere. This even makes them think they are thinking for themself, but they are not. College level (and now even grade school) cirricula delivers an ideological package to the young, impressionable, navie students; Cultural Marxism.

I have never met a Liberal that impressed me with his/her intelligence. I have never met one that I believed was truly an independent and creative thinker, never. Their intelligence is always very limited even though it can be above average. They always lack a heightened sensitivity to subtle human patterns, to higher social patterns and the ability to detect the general rules of life.

Something I thought when I was in my teens, was that there is more in common between the ignorant and genius (note that these are not opposites) than either share with the educated common and above average. The ignorant is more likely to be right concerning the basics of life do to never being taught out of natures designs and the genius rediscovers them through meditations. The educated common and [slightly] above average are taught out of naturally understood truths.



jamieboy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Sep 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,619

21 Mar 2011, 5:45 pm

Left Libertarians are more intellectual consistent because they are suspicious of power, coercion and authority in all it's guises rather than just "big government"



ryan93
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Apr 2009
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,315
Location: Galway, Ireland

21 Mar 2011, 5:50 pm

Pretty arrogant thread title. And I'm an Atheist Libertarian/Minarchist.


_________________
The scientist only imposes two things, namely truth and sincerity, imposes them upon himself and upon other scientists - Erwin Schrodinger

Member of the WP Strident Atheists


LibertarianAS
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jul 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 115
Location: Norfolk, US

21 Mar 2011, 5:51 pm

jamieboy wrote:
Left Libertarians are more intellectual consistent because they are suspicious of power, coercion and authority in all it's guises rather than just "big government"


left-libertarians??

libertarianism is no-right no-left but is a unique axis: social liberal,economic conservative

Yeah some dumbstock like Chomsky claims to be left-libertarians but they are anarcho-communist,an oxymoron



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,316
Location: Omnipresent

21 Mar 2011, 5:52 pm

I don't think your OP is actually coherent. Even further, there is nothing actually justifying your broad claims. All you give at most is anecdote. Finally, even if you are correct that atheist libertarians are the smartest group, that does not imply that every member is smarter than members of every other group. At best what you'll find is a median or mean member of one group being higher than the others, meaning that significant overlap is likely.

That being said, LibertarianAS, you cause me to be embarrassed to consider myself an atheist or libertarian given the overall weakness in ability to think.

Quote:
Left Libertarians are more intellectual consistent because they are suspicious of power, coercion and authority in all it's guises rather than just "big government"

Consistency is only a matter of the ideas of a school of thought or a person, not of an ideology. Ideologies are broad categories where even the stupidest and most incoherent perversions of an idea are lumped together with the intellectually viable ones. I am not sure that left-libertarians are necessarily more intellectually consistent, as even if they are more likely to be universally suspicious, this does not mean that other ideologies are less coherent, nor does it mean that left-libertarians actually have a position that is meaningfully put together. For instance, I would tend to suspect that right-libertarians are generally more coherent on economics than left-libertarians, even if on some elements of ideology, left-libertarians are more coherent than right-libertarians. (Right-libertarians are more likely to have a blind-spot to the power of private organizations)



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,316
Location: Omnipresent

21 Mar 2011, 5:58 pm

LibertarianAS wrote:
jamieboy wrote:
Left Libertarians are more intellectual consistent because they are suspicious of power, coercion and authority in all it's guises rather than just "big government"


left-libertarians??

libertarianism is no-right no-left but is a unique axis: social liberal,economic conservative

Yeah some dumbstock like Chomsky claims to be left-libertarians but they are anarcho-communist,an oxymoron

You do realize that "left-libertarianism" claimed to exist BEFORE what you call libertarianism, don't you? American Libertarians just stole the name. Not even joking. It's because FDR stole the name that the American libertarians liked: liberals.



jamieboy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Sep 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,619

21 Mar 2011, 6:05 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
I don't think your OP is actually coherent. Even further, there is nothing actually justifying your broad claims. All you give at most is anecdote. Finally, even if you are correct that atheist libertarians are the smartest group, that does not imply that every member is smarter than members of every other group. At best what you'll find is a median or mean member of one group being higher than the others, meaning that significant overlap is likely.

That being said, LibertarianAS, you cause me to be embarrassed to consider myself an atheist or libertarian given the overall weakness in ability to think.

Quote:
Left Libertarians are more intellectual consistent because they are suspicious of power, coercion and authority in all it's guises rather than just "big government"

Consistency is only a matter of the ideas of a school of thought or a person, not of an ideology. Ideologies are broad categories where even the stupidest and most incoherent perversions of an idea are lumped together with the intellectually viable ones. I am not sure that left-libertarians are necessarily more intellectually consistent, as even if they are more likely to be universally suspicious, this does not mean that other ideologies are less coherent, nor does it mean that left-libertarians actually have a position that is meaningfully put together. For instance, I would tend to suspect that right-libertarians are generally more coherent on economics than left-libertarians, even if on some elements of ideology, left-libertarians are more coherent than right-libertarians. (Right-libertarians are more likely to have a blind-spot to the power of private organizations)


Market fundamentalists are a pretty incoherant bunch. Just look at the Housing Bubble prior to the credit crunch. The relation of the value of wages to the value of mortgages was allowed to get completely off the scale compared to all historical record because "the market would right itself on it's own". Cue government bailout and the apportion of blame elsewhere. If it were up to Right Libertarians the entire banking system would've been allowed to collapse, everyone would of lost their savings and we'd be running a third world barter economy now.



jamieboy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Sep 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,619

21 Mar 2011, 6:09 pm

LibertarianAS wrote:
jamieboy wrote:
Left Libertarians are more intellectual consistent because they are suspicious of power, coercion and authority in all it's guises rather than just "big government"


left-libertarians??

libertarianism is no-right no-left but is a unique axis: social liberal,economic conservative

Yeah some dumbstock like Chomsky claims to be left-libertarians but they are anarcho-communist,an oxymoron


The left indicates position on Economics whereas the Libertarian indicates one is suspicious of authority and societal power structures. Yeah i'm sure Professor of linguistics at MIT Noam Chomsky is dumbstock compared to you, oh wise one. :roll: :lol:



ryan93
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Apr 2009
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,315
Location: Galway, Ireland

21 Mar 2011, 6:24 pm

Yeah, anyone who first declares ~50% of the world to be intellectually inferior to him, and then asserts that the stone cold genius who anihallated Skinner's behavioural take on Language Development is an idiot, is what he claims others to be. An idiot.


_________________
The scientist only imposes two things, namely truth and sincerity, imposes them upon himself and upon other scientists - Erwin Schrodinger

Member of the WP Strident Atheists


LibertarianAS
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jul 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 115
Location: Norfolk, US

21 Mar 2011, 6:39 pm

ryan93 wrote:
Yeah, anyone who first declares ~50% of the world to be intellectually inferior to him, and then asserts that the stone cold genius who anihallated Skinner's behavioural take on Language Development is an idiot, is what he claims others to be. An idiot.


Milton friedman revolutionized Economics proving Keynes was a fraud and Ayn Rand revolutionized philosophy (she utterly owned Kant and demonstrated morality is objective and that one can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive and deductive logic,)



you_are_what_you_is
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2010
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 755
Location: Cornwall, UK

21 Mar 2011, 6:42 pm

LibertarianAS wrote:
Ayn Rand revolutionized philosophy (she utterly owned Kant and demonstrated morality is objective and that one can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive and deductive logic,)

Ayn Rand sucks as a philosopher in my opinion, and as far as I'm aware she's not taken very seriously in profressional philosophy.

.


_________________
"There is no idea, however ancient and absurd, that is not capable of improving our knowledge."


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,316
Location: Omnipresent

21 Mar 2011, 7:00 pm

jamieboy wrote:
Market fundamentalists are a pretty incoherant bunch. Just look at the Housing Bubble prior to the credit crunch. The relation of the value of wages to the value of mortgages was allowed to get completely off the scale compared to all historical record because "the market would right itself on it's own". Cue government bailout and the apportion of blame elsewhere. If it were up to Right Libertarians the entire banking system would've been allowed to collapse, everyone would of lost their savings and we'd be running a third world barter economy now.

I don't think this is a proof of incoherence. This *might* prove that some of them have bad theories, but it isn't as if all people strongly pro-market saw this the same way. A lot of monetarists became skeptical, although some remained. Austrians actually gained a bit more influence because their monetary theory predicts a boom bust cycle. Some libertarians also claimed that the mortgage issue was in some sense caused by the government, and I think Stan Liebowitz, an economist at UTD, argued awhile back that government policies to extend lending to lower-income people actually was part of the reason why the relation failed.

Even further, the idea that we'd have a third world barter economy is itself somewhat questionable, even if libertarian economic policies during the height of the crash are to be considered bad. The economy would likely recover regardless. Even further, the situation would likely never get bad as the Great Depression due to its much lower severity in the first place, also because monetary policy would still be better, finally simply because both FDR and Hoover engaged in a lot of activities that would have increased economic instability and thus caused problem with recovery.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,316
Location: Omnipresent

21 Mar 2011, 7:01 pm

you_are_what_you_is wrote:
LibertarianAS wrote:
Ayn Rand revolutionized philosophy (she utterly owned Kant and demonstrated morality is objective and that one can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive and deductive logic,)

Ayn Rand sucks as a philosopher in my opinion, and as far as I'm aware she's not taken very seriously in profressional philosophy.

.

No, she isn't taken very seriously in professional philosophy. There is a Rand journal somewhere, I think, but that's a minority issue.