[Brandon]

I find this article to be pretty bias. At the end of the day, the article says that it's a little bit more complex, and it may be because of this or it may be because of that. Essentially, it leaves much information to be desired and I really can't trust something like that. I'm not going to exclude it from possibility, but until then...like Dave said, I'm gonna take it with a pinch of salt.

I've encountered many religious teachers who are religious and very intelligent, there's also religious theologists that are religious, religious scholars, etc. I believe that an intelligent non-religious individual is an individual who doesn't argue about religion. For intelligent religious individuals, I believe that they are intelligent when they don't argue about religion. If there's an Atheist who argues to a Christian about why their religion is not true, I believe the Atheist is an idiot, and vice versa. I know there are people over the internet who are well educated about religions and know many religious terms, argumentative terms, etc (like slippery-slope argument, etc), but just because someone may have a large vocabulary doesn't mean they're automatically good writers. Just because you have extensive knowledge about a subject doesn't automatically mean you're a good teacher. Shit like that.

I'm sure there's a lot of ignorant Atheists out there with hard-ons right now because of that article, but I'm not gonna jump to conclusions based on that article which provides a little bit less information than to be desired.