Religious debates are always great fun, that's all I want to say on the matter.

First off, the whole OP is rubbish, and I mean that in the most friendly way possible. You obviously know absolutly nothing about Christianity other than what purported religious people have tried to explain to you. You some how have convinced yourself that talking about something over a number of years makes you an expert, lol. OK. I've seen people like you in these religious posts before, and you're like Casual Gamers trying to debate which is the best game of all time, when you've only played Fruit Ninja. As far Religion goes, you're a Casual dude, so stop fooling yourself and good pick up the bible.

So, I really don't want to waste time answering every single part of your rubbish post, but for the sake of argument, I will attempt to address just the parts of the OP I have selected above - but again I say, the whole thing is rubbish and can be easily rebutted.

Specifically with regards what is written in Leviticus, if you even opened the bible and applied your mind, half of your brain would tell you that Homosexuality was just one of MANY sins that those people were committing. You would see that those people were given multiple warnings from God to stop their many Sins. Abraham even bargained with  God that if he can find 50 good people in the City he will not destroy it. But Abraham could only find 1, and that one person was saved - Genesis 18 - read it! But back to Leviticus, among homosexuality, God listed many other acts that were forbiden like, Sex with your parents - do you think that is wrong or right? God also said no sex with Animals - do you like to have sex with Animals? Should God allow you to sex your cat? Well, God also said don't sex people of the same sex - again, are you gay? Maybe your point of view is that God should let Humans do whatever they want, so we should sex Animals, our Parents, Babies, our Same Sex  and American Pies?

Now, you also mentioned at the end of you past that Christians can't prove certain things. I submit that Christianity can prove all those things, but I really wouldn't waste anymore of my time. I would just pose a question to you in the hopes that you will realise how rediculous that challenge of yours is. Here's the question, Can you PROVE that Alexander the Great lived? If you can, please provide that PROOF. If you can't PROVE it, do you believe anyways that Alexander the Great Lived? If you do or don't believe, why or why not?

Good post OP. They still dont care though. Its easier to believe in a lie to them. It makes their lives simpler.

This is exactly why you won't convince anyone. Being condescending and referring to religious people in the third person when they're clearly reading this really just makes people hate you. As someone in this thread quite rightly said, criticism is acceptable; namecalling isn't.

I mean, I don't empirically believe in anyone in the sky. I'm not actively superstitious about anything. I don't believe in any lie that makes my life simpler. And yet I can't take atheists seriously. For nothing more than the fact that they're so damned arrogant.

I dont really care to convince those who dont want to be convinced. I know im right, the fact are there and obvious. That is enough for me. They can discover that the day they die.

The only thing that pisses me off is that they use it as an excuse for murder and discrimination, and that really pisses me off.

This is the part that I find incredibly sad. Most atheists have above average intelligence, a decent enough situation in the world and at least a little aptitude in science. Why would you then take such a close-minded point of view and close off any discussion? Sure, maybe in your experience all religious people have been morons and haven't been reasonable or convincing at all. But what if there's just one guy that you haven't heard who actually makes sense? And what if you're just missing out on that because you're so incredibly convinced of your point of view?

Just take the bolded part of your statement; that's the exact thing I'd expect the most hopeless of religious zealots to say. I know, it's hard to take anyone else seriously when you have empirical evidence on your side, but how can you know for sure that you've considered every single possibility out there? Just refusing to listen to religious people, even if it saves you from a hell lot of crap, could just be the one thing that prevents you from getting to the right answer. Being so fully certain of and close-minded about something certainly isn't the way of science.

The dichotomy at play in my post was purely intentional. If I have to explain it to you. Then you will never get it.

Weird. I guess I copied the wrong link. Source: http://www.slideshare.net/RatioExMachina/the-correlation-between-intelligence-and-belief

The quotation provided in my previous post was from the proper source but the link was not. I apologize for that. =)

I agree that non-fundamentalists would have different IQs, I would assume higher IQs from fundamentalists. Or do you mean non-fundamentalists per belief?

You're welcome to your reservations, but it's a tried and true process that is adapted to reflect advances in education to control an accurate average and measure. I mean, do you have examples where IQ has proven entirely inaccurate or what? I guess I just don't understand why you have your reservation. I'd love to hear more if you want?

About fundamentalist: I would actually think fundamentalists have lower IQs and lower levels of education, as the research suggests. What I mean, is that I think the other models would produce different results if fundamentalism was included as a control variable because I would expect there is a reason to think that fundamentalist religious believers and non-fundamentalist religious believers  are quite distinct from each other.....meaning the results for the correlation between intelligence and religious belief might be different if you exclude fundamentalists from the sample.

About IQ level: In the study, IQ level measures intelligence....not education. I didn't look at the operationalization of education, but education is usually accounted for by a simple question (what is the highest grade level you completed?).

My problem with IQ is that it doesn't really measure knowledge about religion. I'm more familiar with work in political science, but knowledge is not measured with IQ. It is measured with how much knowledge someone possesses about politics (typically questions with an objectively right answer). I would think the same should be applied to religious studies. IQ just captures how well someone can take a specific test.....it doesn't capture whether someone has seriously contemplated and investigated religious belief. I just think intelligence should be tied to intelligence about the topic at hand. It would kind of be like using how well people score on a math test as a proxy for intelligence in a political science study. I just don't see the connection.

Edit: For instance, I would use the "need for cognition" scale, which measures how much people enjoy problems that make them think, rather than an IQ test.

Tagging this thread for the inevitable Lulz.

Good post OP, aside from a few points, I think you're right on the money. (I am a bit more aggressive in thinking religious belief needs to be culled)