QUESTION: Are Atheists Really Smarter?


----------------

A dating website has implied that atheists are more educated or intelligent than religious people. But applying the rationality that is supposed to accompany atheist thought highlights some major caveats.

It’s not often you can release a set of statistics comparing the reading levels of people of different religions and it be among the least contentious sections of a report, but that’s what’s happened with dating site OKcupid. As we’ve covered on a couple of occasions, the people behind the site make a regular habit of digging into the database of user profiles and uncovering data trends.

Their latest effort involved scanning the profile essays written by 526,000 users. Their report on the results concentrates on the statistical distinctions between users of different racial backgrounds. The resulting lists aren’t the words used most often by each group, but rather the words which appeared most for that group in comparison to people as a whole.

If you are currently trying to rid your mind of prejudiced assumptions that white people like golf and hockey, black people like basketball and Kanye West, Latinos like dancing and fighting, and Asians like software development and muay thai, don’t worry: the results suggest you are exactly right. Still, this section was completely worthwhile for OKCupid’s Christian Rudder noting:

” If you’re trying to figure out if white dudes like something, put ‘fucking’ in the middle, and say it out loud. If it sounds totally badass, white dudes probably love it.”

The report also looked at the writing style used by people of different backgrounds and used a readability index to assess how sophisticated the writing was. On the racial side, if your assumption is that Asian and Indian people are on top (for international readers, the US definition of “Asian” refers to the far East) and that black and Latino people are on the bottom, you are again correct.

The site also listed a breakdown by religious background, as shown above.

At first glance this is great news for avid atheists who believe their view shows a greater degree of reason. I’m not going to discuss that belief (I’ll leave that to the comment section), but it is important to note that if reason is the issue, there are some objective points that mean we just can’t be sure how firm a conclusion can be drawn from this study:

* The differences really aren’t that significant: from top to bottom is perhaps a little more than one grade. While its debatable as to what the correct baseline is for reading ages by grades (and reading grades don’t represent a proportional increase), if you start the y axis at “zero”, the differences look less spectacular:

* The reading level at which you write is not necessarily a sign of education or intelligence. While it’s likely that the brighter you are, the more sophisticated or complex the level you are capable of writing will be, there comes a point where some writers will consider it more effective to write in a clearer manner that, while doing a better job of communication, scores lower on automated scales. The results could even indicate that people of certain religions (or non-religions) might be more likely to write in a style designed primarily to make them look more intelligent.

* There’s a flaw with the sample group. While 526,000 users means we can be confident it very accurately reflects the population, that population is users of dating sites rather than the general public. If you want to create a hypothesis to dismiss the results as significant, you could argue that those of a more religious background are more likely to have wanted to get married earlier in life — and the smart ones were snapped up first, leaving the less bright ones looking for a mate alongside clever atheists who find it more efficient to look for love online than at church dances.

Of course, there’s no evidence that any of my suggestions have any validity whatsoever. But anyone who believes in rational thought (regardless of their personal faith) should realize the study doesn’t give anywhere near enough evidence to back Rudder’s comment “Is there a Comic Sans version of the Bible? There really should be.”







91 Responses to QUESTION: Are Atheists Really Smarter?

      • Actually it does.

        "Protestant n / adj Protestant [?prot?st?nt]
        (a member) of any of the Christian churches that separated from the Roman Catholic church at or after the Reformation."

        • Unless you consider yourself to be part of an independent Christian spiritual faction that has developed away from BOTH factions.

        • There were christian groups that predate what we know as the catholic church that still persist in some form. The reformation is a relatively recent event. They would likely be too much of a minority to consider for this graph though.

        • Actually it doesn't.

          Orthodox Church

          — n
          1. Byzantine Church , Eastern Orthodox Church , Also called: Greek Orthodox Church the collective body of those Eastern Churches that were separated from the western Church in the 11th century and are in communion with the Greek patriarch of Constantinople.

          For those who do not know, the Reformation did not happen until the 16th century.

        • The reformation from what? the apostolic tradition from catholics that never existed? it is just a scam made up by roman emperors as justinian…
          mormons aren't protestants they are christians though…read more of them or hear the missinaries you'll be surprized

        • Harmony did not say "To say I am Protestant/Catholic, is not to say I am Christian."
          Had Harmony said this, many of the following posts claiming that the statement was incorrect would be right, however, Harmony said "…to say I'm Christian, does not say that I'm Catholic or Protestant."
          This is not an assertion that Protestants and Catholics are not Christian.
          This statement that those are not the only two branches of Christianity, which is correct.

  1. Actually it covered Christians – splitting them between Protestant and Catholic, ignoring the many other factions of Christianity.

  2. Never mind my initial post. Its been cleared up by…gratefully not so aggressive people. :] (Thanks for not trolling.) If I had been any good Christian I would have known. So yes, I was ignorant to the fact that anyone not Catholic is a Protestant. And that there are different denominations of Protestant, but Catholic is of its own.

  3. This doesn't necessarily place an emphasis on matters such as nationality, background, wealth and so on, which often play a huge role in how children develop mentally and socially. Not to presume to know anything about the members of organised religion as a whole, but I would imagine that the majority of the world's Muslims don't exactly attend affluent schools in the nicer areas of America.

    What I DO find intriguing is that agnostics only rank in the middle; is choosing to follow Judaism a sign of greater intellect than being unable to decide your religion?

    For the record, I was an atheist for years and I've only just recently started applying Buddhist philosophy to my life; perhaps I'm becoming more stupid as the years go by.

  4. This makes me giggle…
    I am a Christian, but I study religion and philosophy because it intrigues me.
    I also am constantly studying and researching how science and religion often tie together…and I have an IQ that surpasses 190. :) Heh, this is a very interesting study to say the least.

    • So you're saying that you have an IQ higher than, say, Stephen Hawking, René Descartes, or Leonardo da Vinci?
      While I realize that the entire IQ scale becomes a bit more "off" all the time, due to technological and scientific advances, I somehow find that very hard to believe.

    • 190 IQ, wow. Only one out of 100 million people have an IQ that high, that means there are only approximately 65 to 70 people in the world with an IQ equivalent to you.

      • It’s the internet. Anyone can hide behind a faceless image and vomit BS to make their dick seem bigger.

        Considering that out of 526,000 people on that dating site and the average for the highest scoring religion was less than a 9th grade level, I think it’s safe to assume that everyone on that site is retarded.

      • It's the internet. Anyone can hide behind a faceless image and vomit BS to make their dick seem bigger.

        Considering that out of 526,000 people on that dating site and the average for the highest scoring religion was less than a 9th grade level, I think it's safe to assume that everyone on that site is retarded.

        • Average reading level for a group != reading level for everyone in the group. There will be people higher and lower than the averages posted.

          On a side note, it was amusing when we took a reading test in paralegal school and only two people scored above 11th grade in a group of 38. (The requirement to get into the school is 110+ IQ.)

      • Well, that depends on the IQ test, of course. If it was the OKcupid one, it might not mean anything…

        That said, I compared my own MENSA-tested IQ to a few notable genius-level examples and decided IQ is a poor test of intellect. If I am in the top 1% of the population, gods help the human race…

      • Well, that depends on the IQ test, of course. If it was the OKcupid one, it might not mean anything…

        That said, I compared my own MENSA-tested IQ to a few notable genius-level examples and decided IQ is a poor test of intellect. If I am in the top 1% of the population, gods help the human race…

      • That conflict only exists if you strictly define religion to the supernatural, which is a recent development. Up until the last century or so the study of the natural was seen as just as much a study of God as theology was. I find that most people that choose to define religion in such a way have already decided that there is no god.

    • as you should know, boasting about your high IQ, the IQ is not a measure of intelligence. Its fitted to a bell curve, which was chosen arbitrarily. The IQ test is useless for gauging a person's intelligence, it is only useful for helping in the diagnosis of mental retardation. Maybe if you spent half the time you boast about studying philosophy and religion studying actual science, you would understand that. As a Scientist to a Christian, stop being an idiot.

    • as you should know, boasting about your high IQ, the IQ is not a measure of intelligence. Its fitted to a bell curve, which was chosen arbitrarily. The IQ test is useless for gauging a person's intelligence, it is only useful for helping in the diagnosis of mental retardation. Maybe if you spent half the time you boast about studying philosophy and religion studying actual science, you would understand that. As a Scientist to a Christian, stop being an idiot.

  5. I would be interested to see a frequency distribution and/or range bars on the graphe displayed above. As Mark Twain says: "There are lies, damn lies, and Statistics"

  6. Yes, changing the scale DOES make the data look different! Too bad there's no such thing as 0th grade, and too bad it doesn't actually CHANGE THE DATA. But if you want the differences to look REALLY insignificant, try a y-axis scale from 0th to 100th grade. That ought to do it.

    • 0th grade is presumably no education. I think the graph should have been 0 through 12 since 12th grade is the level of education that the majority of us complete. But then again that would have made them all look even less intelligent.

    • Wow… Way to miss the point, Dude.

      Nobody claimed that it changed the data. The people who made the graph set the lowest extreme at 7th grade to make it look more dramatic.

      "0th grade would mean "completely uneducated", or "kindergarten-level". Funny enough, there IS no 100th grade…

      Nice try, though! ;)

      It would have been smartest to set the graph from zero to twelve.

      • Sorry, but no, you’re missing the point. When creating a graph, one should select the smallest relevant range that includes each data point. There were no results below 7th or above 10th, which is why the graph was created the way it is. Creating a graph that goes all the way down to 0, includes 7 points on a 10-point scale that includes 0 data points. If either chart is attempting to manipulate the way the data appears, it is the second, not the original, sorry.

      • Sorry, but no, you're missing the point. When creating a graph, one should select the smallest relevant range that includes each data point. There were no results below 7th or above 10th, which is why the graph was created the way it is. Creating a graph that goes all the way down to 0, includes 7 points on a 10-point scale that includes 0 data points. If either chart is attempting to manipulate the way the data appears, it is the second, not the original, sorry.

  7. Religious affiliation aside, I think it's hilarious that the average person on the site has the writing ability of a 13 year old.

  8. Just a quick clarification: the references to grades in the index used in the analysis are not that the person had the writing ability of, say, somebody in ninth grade, but rather that they wrote in a way understandable to a ninth grade reader.

    • Really?

      Whether there is one atheist in the group, or 500,000, their level is averaged out. It has nothing to do with how many are in the data sample.

      (Based on your comment, and the data presented above, I'm going to guess that you hold some sort of religious beliefs).

  9. Anytime religion is a topic, much response is expected.I'm perhaps either agnostic or atheist, but I tend to be more agnostic.I continue to debate in my mind how much religion impacts people's ability to allow themselves to question, and learn. I dislike making huge stereotypes that are based on my own biased conclusions. Although I strongly believe religion's attempt to explain the nature of our existence should be treated in the same way science approaches the possibility of being completely wrong.To think we know it all, can hinder our ability to observe new possibilities.

  10. I’m inclined to disregard the results based on several issues:

    1) It was done by automation. Who programmed the software? What criteria did they follow?

    2) It scanned the profiles of members of OkCupid, as opposed to the general population. As such it is skewed towards people who think they’ll actually find love online, following the notion that “if no one I meet in real life will love me, then it must be that everyone I know is wrong about me and therefore I must seek over the internet” as opposed to addressing the fact that the person is question in interminably undatable.

    3) The current trend of writing for a fourth grade level that magazines and newspapers demand means that anyone who regularly submits to publications gets locked into patterns of simpler communication, something the “program” that ran the results would not recognize, though it would record the pattern of a lower level writer, which would result in skewed results for the dominant faiths. As so many Americans are religious, and most of OkCupid’s members are Americans, it stands to reason that most writers on OkCupid would be Protestant, followed by Catholic, etc. It, of course, is supposition, but its a reasonable one.

  11. I'm inclined to disregard the results based on several issues:

    1) It was done by automation. Who programmed the software? What criteria did they follow?

    2) It scanned the profiles of members of OkCupid, as opposed to the general population. As such it is skewed towards people who think they'll actually find love online, following the notion that "if no one I meet in real life will love me, then it must be that everyone I know is wrong about me and therefore I must seek over the internet" as opposed to addressing the fact that the person is question in interminably undatable.

    3) The current trend of writing for a fourth grade level that magazines and newspapers demand means that anyone who regularly submits to publications gets locked into patterns of simpler communication, something the "program" that ran the results would not recognize, though it would record the pattern of a lower level writer, which would result in skewed results for the dominant faiths. As so many Americans are religious, and most of OkCupid's members are Americans, it stands to reason that most writers on OkCupid would be Protestant, followed by Catholic, etc. It, of course, is supposition, but its a reasonable one.

  12. You know you don't have to make the data agree to liberal thought, it is possible, dare I say, that sometimes reality is not liberal.

    And in this case, illiberal reality says that atheists are smarter.

  13. Everyone seems to be forgetting that the "study" was done showing what grade level a person wrote at. All this seems to prove is that atheists use higher level words, which isn't a proof of intelligence, just a proof of use of vocabulary skills. Guess what, most of the outspoken atheists I've met are arrogant bastards that use large words in an attempt to make everyone look stupid….gosh, that fits, doesn't it?

  14. "At first glance this is great news for avid atheists who believe their view shows a greater degree of reason."

    I'm sorry, atheists do not have a "view," no more than "2 + 2 = 4" is a "view." It is a fact that God, the entity described in religious contexts, is a logical contradiction and does not exist, just like a square circle.

    • Actually, there is no proof one way or the other to God’s existence using gathered factual sensory evidence, and could be impossible to prove.

      Your view may be that God doesn’t exist, but that is your own religious belief, regardless if you want to make it somehow more logical. Atheists who make this claim (that they can “prove” God doesn’t exist) are proving nothing beyond their own arrogance.

    • Actually, there is no proof one way or the other to God's existence using gathered factual sensory evidence, and could be impossible to prove.

      Your view may be that God doesn't exist, but that is your own religious belief, regardless if you want to make it somehow more logical. Atheists who make this claim (that they can "prove" God doesn't exist) are proving nothing beyond their own arrogance.

    • Truly, arrogance at it's absolute best. Congratulations, good sir, you have proven the point that Matt details as the basis on all atheism; arrogance. Simple, unadulterated and inobfuscatable arrogance.

      You may say it is a 'logical contradiction.' It is within your rights to do so. You may shit in your bathroom, for instance, for it is the privacy of your home. However, to make a general assumption in such a way as to state in simple facts that one does not exist is in itself a contradictory statement.

      Let me break it down for ya in a few simpler words: whatcha proof and can ya' point me to this proof, yo? No? Then kindly take your arrogance and shove it up yer' arse.

  15. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Atheists working thought Alchemy~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    The ingredients for metamorphic thought substance action appearance.

    Evolves from the effects of the caused patterns of truths adherence.

    Transmuting fears and superstitions will give you full clearance.

    Focusing on love and service of manifestation brilliance.

    Working with creative human intelligent performance.

    Executing living love truth, reversing ignorance.

    All from good thought focus persistence.

    Alchemy’s substance continuance.

    Love must have dominance.

    Creative pay is relevance.

    Spend expectance.

    Live prudence.

    Abundance.

    ~Gasser~

    I'm 69…Any hot looking grandmas out there?

    Prequisites> got to ride/race off road motorcycles!

    Gasser

  16. This approach is also flawed.
    It is the natural state of humans to believe in a higher power.
    This is the baseline proved by every culture in the history of the world.
    Therefore you have millions of passive "believers" amongst the numerous faiths.
    Those who "vote Democrat" because their parents did, as it were.
    You will be hard pressed to find many of these in the atheist group.

    A similar example of flawed logic would be to compare the computer skills of any third world group in a big city with the skills of the exact same social class 100 miles outside the city. There will be a marked diff based on exposure and availability. The measurable IQ of both groups would have been nearly identical except for this new door being opened to one.

    What is far more telling is to look at a list of the greatest scientists and inventors.
    One need not even go back in history. Also one might look at those who have accomplished great acts of building in society and industry.
    There is little if any persecution or social force applied in this country against an atheist. Yet their record of achievement is pathetic compared to believers.
    Take the record of achievements of the Christians and Jews alone.
    NOW take the totality of all the rest of the categories AND MULTIPLY THEM TIMES 100 and you will see that those who believe in the GOD of the Bible (New or Old Test) are the real creators, innovators, inventors, and humanitarians.
    BY ALL MEANS….DO NOT TAKE MY WORD ON IT!
    ————————————————————————————————
    Jiang Zemin, the former leader of Communist China. was interviewed by Former Time correspondent, David Aikman interviewed the retiring head of state in Communist China in 2002 and asked what Zemin wished for in regard to China’s future. Zemin's response shocked Aikman, and much of the world, when he replied:

    “I would like for my country to become a Christian nation.” (Aikman, David. “A Report on Christianity in China: A Conversation With David Aikman.” Speech at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, September 26, 2002.)

    When asked “Why?” Zemin’s response was an amazing revelation. He explained how a panel of Chinese scholars had spent twenty years studying why China continually lagged behind the West in science, industry, and culture. After considering every possible explanation, they concluded that it was the religious heritage of the West that had allowed it to reach such heights. The statement of these Chinese scholars was:

    “One of the things we were asked to do was look into what accounted for the success, in fact, the pre-eminence of the West all over the world. We studied everything we could from the historical, political, economic, and cultural perspective. At first, we thought it was because of a more powerful military. Then we thought it was because you had the best political system. Next we focused on your economic systems. But in the past 20 years we have realized that the heart of your culture is your religion: Christianity. This is why the West is powerful. The Christian moral foundation of the social and cultural life was what made possible the emergence of capitalism and then the successful transition to democratic politics. We don’t have any doubt about this.” (Quoted from Jesus in Beijing: How Christianity is Changing the Global Balance of Power, by David Aikman.)

    • Surely this trend is due to the pervasiveness of the Abrahamic religions in the western world? The sheer numbers of people who are of Christian faith in the west and the dominance of western judicial systems by protestant and catholic laws for a large part of the modern era (just look at Ireland's recent introduction of a "Blasphemy Law") has dictated how atheists "record of achievement is pathetic compared to believers".

      If you say that "there is little if any persecution or social force applied in this country against an atheist." I would think you're living in some highly liberal nation and should count yourself lucky; for the most part this is untrue for western countries.

      The largest proportion of humanities greatest advances (medicine, space travel, communication, pharmaceuticals, engineering, etc) have come in the twentieth and now this century and they are down to scientific endeavour. I wish to seem as non-partisan as possible in this post but I dare say that the majority (not ALL, I'm aware there are exceptions) of scientists (credible scientists regularly scrutinized through peer review) today are atheist by virtue of their necessarily rational ways of thinking. Rationale and logic are anathema to belief in supernatural beings such as gods. Were it not for the misinformed prejudices with which scientific pursuits are faced from religious groups (take stem cell research for example), hindering their progress, I imagine many more scientists today and in the past would have declared their atheism. As such, I find it hard to attribute many of the great achievements of humanity to "believers" as you put it. And just to clarify, Stephen Hawking does not and Albert Einstein did not believe in God, they merely used the notion of God as an illustrative tool for those of us who couldn't grasp the physics they dealt with.

      For those achievements which can be attributed to "beleivers" (and there are a few; the printing press for example) those advancements were born of necessity in the face of stagnation of man's development by faith-systems. The vast number of "believers" compared to atheists (bear in mind that the history of persecutions such as the Spanish Inquisition gave religions judicial power making it, at least, socially awkward to be an atheist, and at worst; fatal) and the domination of schooling systems by religion, meant that many advancements simply had to come from believers because of basic statistical probability. This statistical probability is what advanced modern democratic nations to what they were at the turn of the 20th century. And I would point out, that at that time, the English were still bullying other countries, Americans were hanging black people, fascism was on the rise in central europe, and religion was still very much a power in all. These areas are what would be considered the cornerstones of the West. Come the end of WWII science was paving the way for a new era of humanity and for most of those countries, that time was the beginning of the modern western world. And from where my perspective, that had more to do with the waning of religious governmental power than its waxing. So the Chinese observers were correct. But only so far as the end of WWII. And that was hardly due to a fervent urge to advance humanity by religious groups…

  17. Wow the number of replies by christians that think they left out christians shows the level of intelligence just by reading these comments…..(rolls eyes)

    • I wouldn't be so insulting as to suggest the article writer lacked intelligence for only including Protestant and Catholic. Christians who don't consider themselves Protestant or Catholic (including non-denominational) just want to have themselves recognized.

      • Personally, I'm more spiritualist than religious in anyway. Religion these days is as perverse as bag of potatoes being dumped in a bag of M&M's. You may like the M&Ms, but the bag of potatoes get's in the way quite a bit, you see, for there are a lot of potatoes to get to your wonderful candy delicacies.

        Which reminds me. Why is there no graph on Spiritualism? Spiritualists? Ah, nevermind. OkCupid's intelligent survey is akin to a chimpanzee driving a car to Zimbabwe on a sunday afternoon while the soon is still up, with a bottle of coca puffs as his drink of choice.

        Which is to say it's nice that you tried to go there, and you may not be understanding of all the implications that it has, or that your drink is uh well, cereal, but that you're forgetting one key ingrediant that makes this all much more believable.

        In other words, why the heck are police officers allowing a chimpanzee to drive to Zimbabwe?

  18. Wow the number of replies by christians that think they left out christians shows the level of intelligence just by reading these comments…..(rolls eyes)

  19. There is only one bar to represent Hindu and there are many factions within Hindu itself. Likewise, mainstream Christians in the US are often said to be Roman Catholics or Protestants, meaning all that broke away (Protestant Reformation.) Baptists often assert their existence prior to the Reformation, but it is my understanding that the historical proof of this is sparse. That is moot though because there could easily be 16 bars for any of these religions (or non-religions.) The authors simply made the graph as they did, feel free to make your own.

    I think of belief on a continuum anyways. If positive 10 is being absolutely certain that a magical sky God exists then negative 10 would be absolute certainty of no higher spirituality or collective consciences, etc. Most folks, such as Mother Teresa, myself, and Richard Dawkins, do not consider themselves on either extreme.

    But pullleeeze, quit saying Christians are not represented here, when this group is the best represented on the graph.

    A real look into this would be interesting – Freakonomics style.

  20. There is only one bar to represent Hindu and there are many factions within Hindu itself. Likewise, mainstream Christians in the US are often said to be Roman Catholics or Protestants, meaning all that broke away (Protestant Reformation.) Baptists often assert their existence prior to the Reformation, but it is my understanding that the historical proof of this is sparse. That is moot though because there could easily be 16 bars for any of these religions (or non-religions.) The authors simply made the graph as they did, feel free to make your own.

    I think of belief on a continuum anyways. If positive 10 is being absolutely certain that a magical sky God exists then negative 10 would be absolute certainty of no higher spirituality or collective consciences, etc. Most folks, such as Mother Teresa, myself, and Richard Dawkins, do not consider themselves on either extreme.

    But pullleeeze, quit saying Christians are not represented here, when this group is the best represented on the graph.

    A real look into this would be interesting – Freakonomics style.

      • In his book he said he harbored doubts and he would not go so far as to say 100%. Mamzi T made her doubts more clear.

        • I believe he says there is probably no god. But that's from a rational statistical standpoint. You were referring to "belief on a continuum"; in which case I'd put on Richard Dawkins belief in a god as being a -10.

          I must apologise to you for this post. It is an irritating argument over a technical grammer issue most likely. I get what you're trying to say. And I don't wish to come across as the typical online person who's agruing over something they're grossly misinformed over.

          But I'm not misinformed. I'm a pretty highly qualified scientist (if I do say so myself!). And as one I must emphasise a point that Dawkins and many atheists have been trying to get across for decades, which is that we have NO belief. To quote Andyhallocks terrifically succinct post above; "…atheists do not have a "view," no more than "2 + 2 = 4" is a "view.""

  21. The writing flow of this article is disturbing sometimes, suggesting the author has an interest in defending religious groups vs atheists. It's true that the more educated you are, the more likely you are to be atheist or agnostic. We all know it, and no one can fight that statistic. It's not something open to discussion – it has been pretty much determined! So why would someone write an article, exposing no evidence against it, just mentioning the OTHER article that talks mildly about that fact? It was a waste of my time to read this.

    And who signs an article as "JLister"? :)

  22. Of course atheists are more intelligent than people that suspend reason and choose to believe in gods, witches, ghosts, and goblins. We are a society that for the most part is dominated by immature individuals that require myth to give meaning to their lives. We shouldn't be surprised that emotional immature people believe they are just as intelligent as people that don't suspend reason in the pursuit of childish nonsense. In a few hundred years people will look back on our era and say the same thing we do now about the ancients. How could they possibly have believed in all Zeus and all those silly notions?

  23. i feel that atheists are more intelligent because they seem to know how the world works and look for explanations instead of saying 'god did it' without question and theists are saying that they have no view since they don't follow a book written a long time ago or the parts that are not barbaric, contain flaws, involve horrible torture, racist(not skin colour but things against women, gays, etc), unfair, and more.