# Off-Topic Discussion > Extended Discussion >  >  The Nonreligious Are More Intelligent

## O'nus

I recently read an article by Dr. James Allan Cheyne which argued a new hypothesis on the Flynn effect.  With it came a lot of other evidence to provide the idea that rising Atheism is related to rising intelligence.

 ::arrow::  *The Flynn Effect*

For those un-aware, each generation has been having rising average IQ scores.  
+ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19056409
+ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

So, for each generation, we are getting smarter!  But it is silly think that our older ancestors were complete retards, so we must think of what it is we are getting smarter at!

 ::arrow::  *ACH Thinking*

Abstract Categorical and Hypothetical (ACH) thinking is assessed in the Raven's and Weschler Similarities tests (segments of the primary IQ tests).  Now while our ancestors and elders are obviously not complete Neanderthals, they were actually lacking in their scores for ACH thinking.  Instead of focusing on developing independent ACH thinking, there was more focus on fundamental learning for immediate pertinent use (ie. writing, arithmetic, and reading - the three "R"'s).

In our later generations, though, we have developed this thinking and learned to become more engrossed in our creative venture.  It was because of people like Dewey who encouraged pragmatic learning that encourage this ACH thinking.
+ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dewey
+ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pragmatism/

But what does ACH thinking encourage for religious beliefs and how is it affected?

 ::arrow::  *Rise of Atheism*

It is of no question that Atheism has been a minority group for a long time in our history.  However, correlated with the Flynn effect and rising ACH thinking is Atheism!  To better represent this, we can see the highly educated peoples beliefs in God rise over time.  Within the National Academy of Science, it is only around 7% of them (in 2007) that believe in a higher power.  


+ http://community.boredofstudies.org/...reject-god.pdf


+ http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

 ::arrow::  *Atheism and IQ*

Now, in consideration of the above, let us look at comparisons of Atheism and intelligence.


*Spoiler* for _Intelligence and Belief in God - Large Graph_: 








+ http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...f6f8ce4b6001de

_"Atheists score 1.95 IQ points higher than Agnostics, 3.82 points higher than Liberal persuasions, and 5.89 IQ points higher than Dogmatic persuasions. Denominations differ significantly in IQ and income. Religiosity declines between ages 12 to 17"_
+ http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...603d3a648ff43a


+ http://hypnosis.home.netcom.com/iq_vs_religiosity.htm
- The one circled in red is the US. 
- Verified link: http://hypnosis.home.netcom.com/iq_vs_religiosity.htm
- Note; the image above is a remake of the graph from the link provided here.

It is easy to see then that there is a direct correlation with Atheism and intelligence.  Furthermore, countries religious beliefs reflect their IQ scores.

 ::arrow::  *Evolution*

As a side note, I wanted to quickly review the relation of evolution to Atheism and IQ.


- This is a visual representation of IQ scores and countries
+ http://www.lnb.lt/stotisFiles/upload...9617104937.pdf


+ http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=507

I cannot help but notice the striking evolutionary nonacceptance and the United States' still relatively high IQ.  So I looked further;


+ http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=...TOKEN=46350460

_"The results show that the majority of people polled have heard of Charles Darwin with the highest levels of awareness in Russia (93%), Mexico (91%), Great Britain (91%), and China (90%) whilst less than half of people polled in Egypt (38%) and South Africa (27%) saying they had not heard of him. Overall, the majority (70%) of people surveyed have heard of the British naturalist.

Adults in the United States (84%) showed the highest levels of awareness and understanding of evolution and Darwin’s theories followed by Great Britain (80%) saying they had a ‘good or some knowledge’ of the theory of evolution

In all countries polled more people agreed than disagreed that it is possible to believe in a God and hold the view that life evolved on Earth by means of natural selection at the same time, with those in India most likely (85%) to be of this opinion, followed by Mexico (65%), Argentina (63%), South Africa, Great Britain (54%), USA, Russia (53%), Egypt, Spain (45%), and China (39%).

In six out of ten countries the majority of people who had heard of Charles Darwin and know something about his theory of evolution agreed with the view that there is enough scientific evidence that exists to support the theory against an overall average of 54 percent.

Only Russia (48%), USA (42%), South Africa (41%) and Egypt (25%) remained sceptical about the scientific evidence that exists to support Darwin’s theory.

The results also show that a significant proportion of those people surveyed in the USA, South Africa and India (43%) believe that all life on Earth, including human life, has always existed in its current form.

In all other countries, people in China (74%), Mexico (69%), Argentina (68%), Great Britain (63%) Russia, Spain (56%), and Egypt (52%) were of the view that more people thought that life on Earth, including human life, evolved over time either by a process guided by God or as a result of natural selection in which no God played a part."_
+ http://www.britishcouncil.org/new/Pr...-of-evolution/
+ http://www.britishcouncil.org/darwin...vey_global.pdf

The odd thing about these surveys is that the USA stands out as an outlier.  Although the USA has the second lowest acceptance of evolution, it still maintains a rather high IQ.  However, in the words of this blogger:





> As you can see, there is a clear correlation between religiosity and intelligence on the international stage. Countries with a high religious population have an inversely proportional intelligence rate. High religiosity indicates low intelligence, high intelligence indicates low religiosity.
> 
> On closer inspection you notice the one outlier; the United States (shown in red). The US has a moderately high intelligence rate, it doesn’t break 100, but it’s fairly good, but also has a rather high religiosity. My opinion is that this is due to their unique “Separation of Church and State” laws, which, whether you like it or not, are blatantly apparent in the constitution and memoirs of the founding fathers. This lack of government support forced the Churches to adapt to the community in order to survive and as a result less of the population dropped their religion. This is why religion in the US is much more progressive than fundamentalist groups in Europe, which have lost up to 90% of the population to Atheism.
> 
> Notice how the most religious country is also the least intelligent. Australia is shown in blue.



 ::arrow::  *Conclusions*

Abstract categorical and hypothetical (ACH) thinking is rising.  Atheism is rising.  Intelligence is rising.  Evolutionary acceptance and knowledge is rising.

It is really just that simple.

What do you think...?

~

----------


## davej

this is pretty much the same as Christians are more moral then athiest thread over in R/S

I would also rather be the person I am today then to be brilliant and not have God in my life.
I may not be the smartest person in the world but I have a great job, i have a great wife and I have a great daughter.  We make planty of money and want for nothing. And I owe that all to God and all the blessings he has given me...

----------


## O'nus

> this is pretty much the same as Christians are more moral then athiest thread over in R/S



These are from numerous peer reviewed and scientific journals. How are any of th biased or problematic?  You are not actually saying anything here but demonstrating negligence. 





> I would also rather be the person I am today then to be brilliant and not have God in my life.
> I may not be the smartest person in the world but I have a great job, i have a great wife and I have a great daughter.  We make planty of money and want for nothing. And I owe that all to God and all the blessings he has given me...



Do you think that the nonreligious cannot have a great job, great wife, great family?  Do you not think that people of every denomination feel just as passionate/delusional as you?  

Either way the point remains - religious people are not as intelligent. 

~

----------


## davej

it came out of a scientific journal so it must be right.....
I didn't say that others couldn't have a great life.  I said that i did and i wouldn't trade what i have and my faith to be "smarter".
Just because a person is a Christian or of any other religion does not mean they can't learn. it is if they believe it or not. basically what you are saying is that something shuts the brain off inside a religious person to where they can not learn.  so are you saying that someone of religion doesn't have the functioning brain to learn?  i don't want to assume you are saying something you are not.

and by the way, a statement like this 




> Either way the point remains - religious people are not as intelligent.



is just as bad as if i were to say white people are more intelligent then black
*i don't believe that by the way*

----------


## Lseadragon

I find it interesting

that if you switch it around, and say "less intelligent people are more religious"

SUDDENLY

it's somewhat less offensive-seeming.

----------


## davej

It didn't offend me ha ha... i just think it is ironic how everyone got their feather ruffled over in the religious are more moral thread but then i turn around and see a post like this.

----------


## Lseadragon

> It didn't offend me ha ha... i just think it is ironic how everyone got their feather ruffled over in the religious are more moral thread but then i turn around and see a post like this.



the thang is, that post had one (1) source and the people surveyed could have quite easily been lying about what they did. Would you tell a random surveyer you're cheating on your wife? What if the information got out? What if you were supposedly an upstanding member of the community except for your secret blackjack habit

why would you divulge something like that to anybody except maybe your psychologist?

------

Anyway, I'd argue that you may not have total correlation = causation going here. 

Do you have the importance of family and tradition for each country?

Is this actually about religious belief, or is it about acceptance of evolutionary theory? quite a difference

----------


## Indecent Exposure

First of all, you should be applauded on a well thought out, well researched argument. In response to the title, I doubt it. In some cases intelligence and the ability to reason will inevitably lead to atheism, but there are billions of exceptionally intelligent people who firmly believe in religion, this being due to the power of brainwashing a young child. Thus, I would say that location and upbringing are the primary influences in wether a child grows up to be religious or not. That being said, as we develop out abilities to think critically and reason using logic I imagine atheism will continue to rise. So I'd be happy to conclude that higher intelligence increases the probability of atheism in an individual, but not that atheists are more intelligent.
That's just my take on it.

----------


## khh

That's kinda fun, though to be honest I would have guessed. But is it that less intelligent people are more prone to religion, or is it that religion itself makes people more stupid?  :Cheeky: 





> is just as bad as if i were to say white people are more intelligent then black
> *i don't believe that by the way*



If there was a scientific, unbiased study that researched the matter thoroughly and reached that conclusion, then it wouldn't be "bad". It would simply be the way things are.

----------


## davej

Again basically you are saying that religious people can't learn.  that is a really ignorant statement.

----------


## khh

> Again basically you are saying that religious people can't learn.  that is a really ignorant statement.



Where did I say that?

----------


## Xei

Pointless thread kinda. I don't care what views are correlated to whichever group of people. I make a judgement based on the validity of the views themselves.

Although of course in the case of religion I think that the views are baseless.

----------


## O'nus

> it came out of a scientific journal so it must be right.....
> I didn't say that others couldn't have a great life.  I said that i did and i wouldn't trade what i have and my faith to be "smarter".
> Just because a person is a Christian or of any other religion does not mean they can't learn. it is if they believe it or not. basically what you are saying is that something shuts the brain off inside a religious person to where they can not learn.  so are you saying that someone of religion doesn't have the functioning brain to learn?  i don't want to assume you are saying something you are not.



If I cannot use scientific journals to support an argument, then what should I use?  You are not giving any substantial points here that either of us can work on.

The charts are not depicting a chart where atheists suddenly have a larger IQ and the religious have an IQ dropped below retarded.  Are you ignoring the fact that I have provided evidence that the religious still have a relatively high IQ?  

Also, I am arguing that there is something in the religious mind that is not as active as the non-religious; ACH thinking.  Did you not read my post?  The religious have significant difficulty in ACH thinking in comparison to nonreligious.  I have provided the evidence, if you will not accept it, then what could I possibly provide that you would?  Or is this really being closed-minded in disguise..?





> and by the way, a statement like this 
> 
> is just as bad as if i were to say white people are more intelligent then black
> *i don't believe that by the way*



Of course you do not, but I have provided actual evidence for this.  I am not saying that the religious are suddenly retarded or something; I still give room for their high IQ.  Although I have provided evidence that Atheists are generally smarter.  It is correlated with ACH thinking and the acceptance of evolution.  





> It didn't offend me ha ha... i just think it is ironic how everyone got their feather ruffled over in the religious are more moral thread but then i turn around and see a post like this.



If you review my past threads, you will see that I have mentioned these points far before the morality thread.





> Anyway, I'd argue that you may not have total correlation = causation going here. 
> 
> Do you have the importance of family and tradition for each country?
> 
> Is this actually about religious belief, or is it about acceptance of evolutionary theory? quite a difference



Of course, this is not cum hoc ergo propter hoc where we would ideally search for post hoc ergo propter hoc.  However, this does not negate the relationship and that correlation always gives a strong hint.  

There is the obvious inclination that the lifestyle of a country can lead to the acceptance of evolution and religious beliefs.  Perhaps we ought to explore the educational systems in relation to all these.

But I have taken that into account for the USA's outliar in the religiosity graph.  Due to policies keeping religion out of education, it is very difficult to find a direct causation case study because there does not really exist any more specific data than this.  





> Again basically you are saying that religious people can't learn.  that is a really ignorant statement.



I am saying religious people are significantly less capable at ACH thinking (which, ironically, you are demonstrating right now) than the nonreligious.  It is not ignorant because I have actually proven it.  The one being ignorant is actually you for not providing any substantial criticism.  If I were just blatantly stating, "Durrr yeah religious pppl are dumb, lolz" then yes, I would be being ignorant.  However, I have actually researched this and given evidence.  Make sure to pay attention to the fact that I am not saying that religiousness=stupid, but a significant less capability than the nonreligious at certain aspects of the IQ test (ie. ACH thinking and episodic memory, as illustrated in the links).





> Pointless thread kinda. I don't care what views are correlated to whichever group of people. I make a judgement based on the validity of the views themselves.
> 
> Although of course in the case of religion I think that the views are baseless.



There is not any judging going on here with the data.  It is simply that Raven's and Weschler IQ tests demonstrate a significant difference in IQ scores across races and religiosity.  

Furthermore, I just took an extra step to explore the idea of evolutions acceptance.  That point is weak, in my view, and simply an addition for discussions sake.  The rest, however, is concrete.

~

----------


## Maria92

Congrats on a nicely-compiled, well-though-out thread, with actual facts and trustworthy statistics to back up your claims!

----------


## ClouD

One could debate that IQ is based on scientific understanding?

----------


## Black_Eagle

The AmazingAtheist said it best:



EDIT: Why will this embed not work?


Link

----------


## Invader

> To better represent this, we can see the highly educated peoples beliefs in God rise over time.



Your hand may have slipped up somewhere!

And as for this:



Why is the belief for immortality dropping? The human lifespan increases as time 
progresses and new breakthroughs are made, I was under the impression that it was rather 
popularly believed that we would eventually overcome natural death.






> One could debate that IQ is based on scientific understanding?



Our IQ tests require basic reasoning skills, and not so much the understanding of 
scientific concepts. There's a section that measure's one's capacity for visual/spatial 
problems, for example.


*@Black_Eagle*

You was to be using the forward slash ( / ) in the end of your tag.

----------


## Xaqaria

In order to examine the validity of your assessment, we need to examine the validity of the variables you've examined and the perceived correlation between them.

Intelligence quotent is determined through standardized tests that typically measure spatial awareness, linear and verbal reasoning and rational problem solving. They do this with various visual, linguistic and arithmetical puzzles. The tests are designed by scientists and are inherently scientific in nature. For the most part, they measure the so called "left brain" rational and linear brain functions. 

Basically what you are saying is that there is a correllation between Scientific, or materialistic minded people and their ability to score highly on a test that is meant to test rational and linear thought processes. 

Religious beliefs usually coincide with the more non-linear intuitive thought processes, so it would seem to make sense that someone who leans more in the direction of religious belief would be less likely to score highly on a test of reasoning. 

It seems that all you've managed to show is that the average human tends to lean either towards reason or intuition, and that most people do not have a balance between the two. 

I'd also like to point out that all of the correllative studies you cited have been done by scientists who more than likely are not particularly religious. I'm sure with the proper bias someone could come up with some good looking graphs showing a correllation between some perceived measure of intelligence and religious belief.

Edit: Is your source the article in Skeptic? Don't you think a magazine dedicated to not believing in anything is a just a bit too biased for a balanced judgement of beliefs in general?

I also thought of a few more holes in the theory. The available religions in the global society are stereotypically dogmatic and unyielding which is by definition opposed to critical thinking which is what you are comparing here. There are many people who believe that there is or may be something more than what materialism has to offer but do not believe in any of the established Religions. These people tend to associate more with Atheism especially since many people seem to believe that agnosticism is a subset of atheism.

----------


## O'nus

> Your hand may have slipped up somewhere!



Oh you are right, I made a typo lol.





> Why is the belief for immortality dropping? The human lifespan increases as time 
> progresses and new breakthroughs are made, I was under the impression that it was rather 
> popularly believed that we would eventually overcome natural death.



I am not sure.  Although it is not really pertinent to the point, I did not really look into what "immortality" they are speaking of.





> Our IQ tests require basic reasoning skills, and not so much the understanding of 
> scientific concepts. There's a section that measure's one's capacity for visual/spatial 
> problems, for example.



I will address this simultaneously with Xaqaria's.  





> Intelligence quotent is determined through standardized tests that typically measure spatial awareness, linear and verbal reasoning and rational problem solving. They do this with various visual, linguistic and arithmetical puzzles. The tests are designed by scientists and are inherently scientific in nature. For the most part, they measure the so called "left brain" rational and linear brain functions.



The IQ tests were utilizing the Raven's similarities tests and Wechsler IQ tests (WAIS).

In regards to the WAIS:

_"Verbal Scales
			Information: 			Range of knowledge
			Comprehension: 		Judgement
			Arithmetic: 			Concentration
			Similarities:			Abstract thinking
			Digit Span:			 memory, anxiety
			Vocabulary:			Vocabulary level
			Letter-Number-
			Sequencing

			Performance Scales
			Digit Symbol:			Visual-motor functioning
			Picture Completion:		Attention to detail
			Picture Arrangement:		Planning ability
			Block Design:			Nonverbal reasoning
			Object Assembly:		Analysis of part-whole relationships
			Matrix Reasoning
			Symbol Search

Each subtest has a scaled score of 10 with a SD of 3.






	Reliability Information:

Test-Retest:  Done for two age groups 25-34 and 45-54.  Given in a 2 to 7 week interval.  Reliability coefficient ranges from a low of .67 (Object Assembly 45-54) to a high of .94 (Information 45-54).  VIQ = .94 (25-34) and .97 (45-54).  PIQ = .89 (25-34) and .90 (45-54).  FIQ = .95 (25-34) and .96 (45-54) 

Split-Half: Spearman-Brown for all subtests except for Digit Span and Digit Symbol for age ranges from 16-17 to 70-74.  Reliability coefficient ranges from a low of .52 (Object Assembly 16-17) to a high of .96 (Vocabulary across many of the age ranges).  VIQ = .97.  PIQ = .93.  FIQ = .97.

Alternate-Form: none given

Interitem Consistency: not done.  However, correlations between subtests (intrasubtest) and VIQ, PIQ, and FIQ are given but a Cronbach Alpha was not done.

Inter-Rater: not applicable


Standard Error of Measurement: each subtest has a SEM a low of .49 (Vocabulary 16-17) and high of 1.91 (Object Assembly 16-17).  Average SEM were VIQ 2.74, PIQ 4.14, and FIQ 2.53


	Validity Information:

Face Validity: has face validity

Content Validity: has content validity

Criterion-Related Validity: with academic success, tests of achievement, and formal education

Construct Validity: convergence with similar IQ measures, no divergence given

	Standardization:

Size and Composition of the Standardized Sample: 2,450 people comprised the standardization sample reflecting ages 16-89
Describe the Sampling Procedures: Stratified Random Sampling based on the most current census data.

Administration Procedures: individual administration procedure, should be done by a trained evaluator.

Scoring: is done by hand by the evaluator

Interpretation: guidelines for interpreting each interval of scores is given: very superior - mentally retarded.

	Comments:

Appropriate Client Use: people for whom the test was standardized.  It is a test of intelligence so caution should be used when interpreting it for occupations, education, and training. 

Appropriate for Which Groups of People with Disabilities: generally those people who would not fall into the categories below.

Groups of People with Disabilities not Appropriate: people who were institutionalized for mental illness, people with traumatic brain injuries, people with severe behavioral or emotional problems, people with physical impairments which restrict responses to test items, people whose primary language is other than English."_
+ http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&l...Nh4ENB42OVHgcE

As for the Raven's similarities test:
+ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven&#39;s...ssive_Matrices
+ http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...558f47dc222ade

These tests utilize more than what you have limited the frame to.  Do not be so quick to ignore the full dynamic of these tests.





> Basically what you are saying is that there is a correllation between Scientific, or materialistic minded people and their ability to score highly on a test that is meant to test rational and linear thought processes. 
> 
> Religious beliefs usually coincide with the more non-linear intuitive thought processes, so it would seem to make sense that someone who leans more in the direction of religious belief would be less likely to score highly on a test of reasoning.



No.  You did not read what I said.  ACH thinking is not rational and linear thought processes and this is where we find the significance that I am focusing upon.





> It seems that all you've managed to show is that the average human tends to lean either towards reason or intuition, and that most people do not have a balance between the two.



You are making prejudice remarks on these IQ tests; they test a lot more than this.  Please consider the above to elaborate on the depths of ACH thinking.





> I'd also like to point out that all of the correllative studies you cited have been done by scientists who more than likely are not particularly religious. I'm sure with the proper bias someone could come up with some good looking graphs showing a correllation between some perceived measure of intelligence and religious belief.



That is simply speculation.  You have not provided any grounds for bias.

Furthermore, most of these cited articles are peer-reviewed and confounding.





> Edit: Is your source the article in Skeptic? Don't you think a magazine dedicated to not believing in anything is a just a bit too biased for a balanced judgement of beliefs in general?



I already said, at the very beginning of my post, that I read an article by Dr. James Allan Cheyne.  You cannot possibly argue that it is a bias because that just shows your ignorance to the magazine.  The magazine has reverends writing and several people of faith.  Furthermore, the last months magazine focused entirely on Christian origins conspiracy theories (that being the defense of Christianity against Atheists bombardment of conspiracies regarding religious conjuration.)  
+ http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/.../vol15n01.html





> I also thought of a few more holes in the theory. The available religions in the global society are stereotypically dogmatic and unyielding which is by definition *opposed to critical thinking* which is what you are comparing here. There are many people who believe that there is or may be something more than what materialism has to offer but do not believe in any of the established Religions. These people tend to associate more with Atheism especially since many people seem to believe that agnosticism is a subset of atheism.



So, in your first point, it just demonstrates that you are ignoring ACH thinking, which is not specifically critical thinking.  

Also, it is a good point to say that Atheism is a implied by other beliefs.  I mean, I do not explicitly consider my self Atheist but Humanist Existential.  Thus, it is a bit misleading to even say that Atheism itself, alone, is a religious or belief doctrine itself.  I think the idea is that, those doctrines that imply or include Atheism, are correlated with higher IQ (as those all encompassing beliefs integrate ACH thinking as opposed to direct dogmatic beliefs).

What do you think..?

~

----------


## juroara

It is already known that being religious or spiritual is the work of the _right_ brain. IQ tests on the other hand, is the product of the _left_ brain.

Don't you think that an argument that atheists are more _intelligent_, is an argument that religious or spiritual individuals are _inferior_? 

Did you think the need to feel superior above others is something unique? Haven't we seen these kinds of arguments in the past, about who is and who isn't superior? Haven't these arguments been backed up by so called "logical" information? .......................Haven't they always led to the suffering of another human being?

I'll give you small hint. left brain intelligence. 

_right brain........................wisdom

_What do we get with super high intelligence without wisdom??? We get imperialism, dictatorship, communism, racism, genocides, unspeakable experiments, global warming, mass extinction, weapons of mass destruction, and millions of dollars poured into science _for the sake of science_ instead of the sake of humanity

I'd rather be a whole brain than half brain

But if I had to be half a brain, then I'd gladly choose to be a retard who still understood that the worth and measure of a human being can not be measured with numbers and graphs

----------


## O'nus

Juroara, you did not read my post then. Firs of all, left/right brain psycholgy is a myth propogated by laymen - not academics. 

Second of all, I included the type of broad abstract categorical and hypthetical thinking; ACH thinking is where the significant difference is and atheists score higher.  

Furthermore, you use the word wisdom but don't define it. I suppose wisdom, to you, is being faithful. Considering you have no other substance I. Your argumet, that is the only presumption that can be made. 

From your demonstration of ignorance to the WAIS IQ tests and conjecture of wisdom, I can tell that what you have said was said out of desperation rather than contemplative thought. 

Ironic that your post actually supports the main point and proves yourself e
wrong. 

~

----------


## juroara

> Juroara, you did not read my post then. Firs of all, left/right brain psycholgy is a myth propogated by laymen - not academics. 
> 
> Second of all, I included the type of broad abstract categorical and hypthetical thinking; ACH thinking is where the significant difference is and atheists score higher.  
> 
> Furthermore, you use the word wisdom but don't define it. I suppose wisdom, to you, is being faithful. Considering you have no other substance I. Your argumet, that is the only presumption that can be made. 
> 
> From your demonstration of ignorance to the WAIS IQ tests and conjecture of wisdom, I can tell that what you have said was said out of desperation rather than contemplative thought. 
> 
> Ironic that your post actually supports the main point and proves yourself e
> ...




thank you


you have proven my point as well

----------


## O'nus

My post clealry illustrates your complete misunderstanding of the point and content and you think I have proven left/right brain pseudo-science? Ok, how?

I think responses like juroara ought to be referenced for the inability to commit ACH thinking as juroara is utterly stubborn to the idea. 

~

----------


## grasshoppa

It almost seems as if people who are more religious/spiritual have a tendency to be somewhat anti-intellectual. Perhaps that has something to do with all this...I mean, look: 





> it came out of a scientific journal so it must be right.....







> I'd gladly choose to be a retard who still understood that the worth and measure of a human being can not be measured with *numbers and graphs and science oh my!*







> What do we get with super high intelligence without wisdom??? We get imperialism, dictatorship, communism, racism, genocides, unspeakable experiments, global warming, mass extinction, weapons of mass destruction, and millions of dollars poured into science for the sake of science instead of the sake of humanity



I don't think that religious/spiritual people are born with less intelligence (on average), it has more to do with being raised to think a certain way, which often leads to misplaced skepticism.

----------


## juroara

> My post clealry illustrates your complete misunderstanding of the point and content and you think I have proven left/right brain pseudo-science? Ok, how?
> 
> I think responses like juroara ought to be referenced for the inability to commit ACH thinking as juroara is utterly stubborn to the idea. 
> 
> ~




I'm ignorant and stubborn!  ::D:  please tell me what else I am o'nus? 

go ahead..*judge me*

----------


## grasshoppa

> I'm ignorant and stubborn!  please tell me what else I am o'nus? 
> 
> go ahead..*judge me*



You realize you are proving his point further by reacting emotionally instead of with a thought-out response...

----------


## O'nus

I am not judging if you admit the behaviour. 

Is that really the best you got?  I was hoping for something a little more, dare I say, intelligent?

~

----------


## juroara

> You realize you are proving his point further by reacting emotionally instead of with a thought-out response...



I'm sorry..........It must have been this pow-wow music I've been listening to lately. It gets to me, you know, remembering all the Native Americans that suffered because White people thought they were more superior. 

Oh man, which one had more technology again? Wait...never mind. What am I babbling about. That's not relative or important is it??

HEY! I've got a smart idea.

Why don't we measure out wisdom.....Yeah, that'll be fun! I have graph paper and a ruler!!! Who wants to help me??  ::D:

----------


## Invader

> Why don't we measure out wisdom.....Yeah, that'll be fun! I have graph paper and a ruler!!! Who wants to help me??



I guess the irony in this case is that it is not wise to dodge a question by 
babbling (as you put it) about irrelevant information, or by trying to distort 
O'nus's claim and then attribute it to his ethnic background.

----------


## juroara

> I guess the irony in this case is that it is not wise to dodge a question by 
> babbling (as you put it) about irrelevant information, or by trying to distort 
> O'nus's claim and then attribute it to his ethnic background.



 :Dead Horse:

----------


## ClouD

> Our IQ tests require basic reasoning skills, and not so much the understanding of 
> scientific concepts. There's a section that measure's one's capacity for visual/spatial 
> problems, for example.



Where would the lines be drawn between science, reasoning, and religion?

----------


## Invader

> Where would the lines be drawn between science, reasoning, and religion?



I'm not sure how they can be confused? The scientific process is a method. 
Religion is a system of beliefs and practices that often involves a supernatural 
element that cannot be objectively observed or proven. Science is built upon 
basic reasoning skills in order to achieve consistent, reliable results. Religion, 
too, utilizes a form of reasoning (however accurate that reasoning may or may 
not be) in order to reach its own conclusions. Reasoning is not proof. The 
scientific method requires the use of reason in order to _create_ observable 
proof. Religion uses a form of reason in order to assert the validity of its claims.

Reason, by itself, is only a matter of discerning correct from incorrect. Truth 
from non-truth.

If I am wrong about any of this, someone, please correct me.



juroara, I don't know if it was intended, but under the context of my post 
your deadhorse icon suggests that you often argue by changing the subject 
and attacking the person in the argument. I'm not aware of what other 
meaning its use could have had in light of what I said..

----------


## O'nus

> I'm sorry..........It must have been this pow-wow music I've been listening to lately. It gets to me, you know, remembering all the Native Americans that suffered because White people thought they were more superior. 
> 
> Oh man, which one had more technology again? Wait...never mind. What am I babbling about. That's not relative or important is it??
> 
> HEY! I've got a smart idea.
> 
> Why don't we measure out wisdom.....Yeah, that'll be fun! I have graph paper and a ruler!!! Who wants to help me??



Do you understand how an IQ test works?

~

----------


## Indecent Exposure

> I'm sorry..........It must have been this pow-wow music I've been listening to lately. It gets to me, you know, remembering all the Native Americans that suffered because White people thought they were more superior. 
> 
> Oh man, which one had more technology again? Wait...never mind. What am I babbling about. That's not relative or important is it??
> 
> *HEY! I've got a smart idea*.
> 
> Why don't we measure out wisdom.....Yeah, that'll be fun! I have graph paper and a ruler!!! Who wants to help me??



No you haven't. You never have, and never will.

----------


## Vampyre

I have to say... the posts here suggesting O'nus' research is faulty haven't really suggested a better alternative. IQ tests are designed to give the best measurement of what would be considered a person's intellect. They're honed and defined by multiple researchers to be as unbiased as possible.

The religious fans here seem to suggest that these tests are ineffective, but I would challenge to ask ... then what test would be better? Is there an IQ test that somehow includes these "left-brain" and religious ideals, in a way that makes them unbiased? Would that support posts like Juroara? I highly doubt it...

----------


## Licity

Premise: IQ tests are an effective measure of a person's ability to think logically.

Premise: Thinking logically is thinking without contradicting yourself.

Premise: Faith - defined as belief sans proof - is not within the domain of logic.

Therefore: A person that lacks faith in a higher power does not because of an inclination to think logically.

Conclusion: Atheists will score higher on objective measures of logical prowess because their worldview avoids acceptance of something that cannot be arrived at through logical means.

----------


## O'nus

> Premise: IQ tests are an effective measure of a person's ability to think logically.
> 
> Premise: Thinking logically is thinking without contradicting yourself.
> 
> Premise: Faith - defined as belief sans proof - is not within the domain of logic.
> 
> Therefore: A person that lacks faith in a higher power does not because of an inclination to think logically.
> 
> Conclusion: Atheists will score higher on objective measures of logical prowess because their worldview avoids acceptance of something that cannot be arrived at through logical means.



You obviously did not read my post.  You will find that Atheists have actually scored higher than Theists on ACH thinking.

ACH thinking is Abstract Categorical and Hypothetical Thinking.  This has nothing to do with logic but the ability to think in these ACH terms.  For example; gestalt functional fixedness.

~

----------


## Licity

> You obviously did not read my post.  You will find that Atheists have actually scored higher than Theists on ACH thinking.
> 
> ACH thinking is Abstract Categorical and Hypothetical Thinking.  This has nothing to do with logic but the ability to think in these ACH terms.  For example; gestalt functional fixedness.
> 
> ~



Logic is a lot more than just the three R's - One of the greatest works of the scientific and logical process was brought about indirectly by an apple hitting a certain mathematician on the head... and another important one was brought about by bored musing about electricity while working in a patent office. It's pretty hard to get anything done by what you think logic is, one has to think creatively to even find a starting point! Logic is simply thinking without contradictions, and the vast majority of religions tend to make statements that directly contradict things we know...

----------


## guitarboy

Like religious nut or a spiritual person?
I've scored higher on IQ tests then all of my atheist friends. I'm not incredibly religious, and while I'm 'Catholic', I'm probably agnostic.

----------


## Kuhnada29

Einstein wasn't atheist. This is what he said.  





> "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."



Spinoza believed that God IS nature..the divine, it's everything, God is the universe and everything in existence ..which is the same thing spirituality is. Scientific Pantheism is the way to go. 

What's with all these threads bashing religion anyway, now it's leaking out into the main extended discussion area.

----------


## juroara

> I have to say... the posts here suggesting O'nus' research is faulty haven't really suggested a better alternative. IQ tests are designed to give the best measurement of what would be considered a person's intellect. They're honed and defined by multiple researchers to be as unbiased as possible.
> 
> The religious fans here seem to suggest that these tests are ineffective, but I would challenge to ask ... then what test would be better? Is there an IQ test that somehow includes these "left-brain" and religious ideals, in a way that makes them unbiased? Would that support posts like Juroara? I highly doubt it...




my post isn't rocket science, it isn't that hard to get

religious ideals have nothing to do with my post

my post has to do with the two sides of the human being, best illustrated with our two brain halves. one side is more intellectual, the other is more intuitive. also known as one side being masculine and the other side being feminine. the IQ test is still not perfect.*

But even less perfect and less reliable are statistics as a way to measure someones intellect!!* You can not use a statistic to decide what an individuals intellect is going to be. A random atheist can not use these statistics to go up to a random theist and say "you are less intelligent than me". That is the same as racism.

my argument is a CONCERN of why this type of thread is made anyways, except to boast atheist elitism. 

some atheists came to the conclusion that atheists scored higher on the IQ test because they question more than any other group, and the capacity to question means they have a higher intelligence

by their reasoning I am more intelligent than atheists because I question religion _and_ science! elitist atheists are blind and ignorant if they honestly believe no one else has their capacity to question

I brought up the feminine side of the human being as a way to remind that intellect alone is not enough to view any group of people as superior. That such ideology that intelligence is the superior human quality, is what creates elitism of every kind. I brought up the feminine side of the human being as a way to humble the super intelligence of atheist scientists, who without the feminine side of their being, miss the obvious truths in life. And we, as a masculine society, have missed the subtler obvious truths that native and feminine cultures have never forgotten. Such as, not destroying your own habitat!

In other words, even super intelligence can still be blind and ignorant

There is an entire history of elitism here, and it's always had to do with suppressing the feminine side of the human being. For example, people get annoyed if I get emotional in this kind of atmosphere?  ::D:  Why aren't I allowed to be emotional? I'll tell you why. Because once upon a time women were suppressed, and thought of as inferior. Therefore it was believed, and created a stigma for a long time, that emotions and intelligence don't go together. 

Look at the history of the IQ test. Why do we even have or need an IQ test? In the past men statistically scored higher than women.* It was concluded this meant women are less intelligent than men*. *Sound familiar?

*Critics of the IQ test then pointed out that men created and designed the test, and men score higher. And not just any men, but white men, and white men above colored men were scoring higher. It was suggested that the IQ test was biased. And it turns out, it was. Changes have been made.

Now the IQ test scores atheists higher. We also know that a large number of scientists are atheists. We also know scientists have been 'battling' religion for a while now, weeding out creationism. And sure enough in these statistics that's what I see.......Atheists and Religion. Where the hell is spirituality in the mix? Why are these statistics so cookie cutter? Exactly who is creating these tests and statistics anyways and for what purpose?

And no, I don't have an alternative to the IQ test. Nor do I see a need for one. Tell me a good reason why we need the IQ test except to divide and conquer

----------


## Indecent Exposure

> Like religious nut or a spiritual person?
> I've scored higher on IQ tests then all of my atheist friends. I'm not incredibly religious, and while I'm 'Catholic', I'm probably agnostic.



Gross misconception. If you don't believe in God and all the other tenents of the Catholic faith, like the Holy Spirit you aren't a Catholic. You just have parents who are either Catholics or call themselves Catholics.

----------


## Photolysis

> go ahead..*judge me*



Everyone judges everyone else. Some of us just don't pretend not to do it. Nor is it a bad thing.

----------


## Indecent Exposure

[quote=HaRd_WiReD;1215322]Einstein wasn't atheist. This is what he said. 



Spinoza believed that God IS nature..the divine, it's everything, God is the universe and everything in existence ..which is the same thing spirituality is. Scientific Pantheism is the way to go. 

*What's with all these threads bashing religion anyway, now it's leaking out into the main extended discussion area.[/*quote]

You haven't been here too long have you?

----------


## Xaqaria

O'nus, can you give more info on ACH thinking? I can't seem to find any reason why you might think that this is a good judge of intelligence. In fact, I can't really find _anything_ about it, since all that comes up in internet searches is this thread, and a thread on another forum (the atheist's toolbox) called "Atheism Rising".

I feel like you ignored a lot of what I was trying to say in my post. IQ tests judge people on the kind of analytical thinking that is valued in our society that has made it illegal to teach religion in schools. People who do well on this sort of test are more likely to question the things that authorities are telling them, both academic and religious. There is information made available for people who would question academia and science, but virtually no information available for those that would question their parent's religion. In my mind, this is most likely to lead people to be "atheists" only because they don't really see that validity in what they have been taught and yet have no access to alternatives.

----------


## O'nus

> Logic is a lot more than just the three R's - One of the greatest works of the scientific and logical process was brought about indirectly by an apple hitting a certain mathematician on the head... and another important one was brought about by bored musing about electricity while working in a patent office. It's pretty hard to get anything done by what you think logic is, one has to think creatively to even find a starting point! Logic is simply thinking without contradictions, and the vast majority of religions tend to make statements that directly contradict things we know...



Who are you addressing?  Do you understand what the concept of ACH thinking is?





> Like religious nut or a spiritual person?
> I've scored higher on IQ tests then all of my atheist friends. I'm not incredibly religious, and while I'm 'Catholic', I'm probably agnostic.



Of course, you must understand the fundamental concept of statistics; there are still instances where Theists will score higher than Atheists.  However, this is not a proper representation to take your subjective conjecture as statistical inference to the population.  It is simply insignificant.





> my post isn't rocket science, it isn't that hard to get
> 
> religious ideals have nothing to do with my post



You are right - they are not hard to get.  But I do not see why you are upset if you are not religious?  





> my post has to do with the two sides of the human being, best illustrated with our two brain halves. one side is more intellectual, the other is more intuitive. also known as one side being masculine and the other side being feminine. the IQ test is still not perfect.*
> *



*

Left/right brain psychology is a myth.  Do you understand that yet?  It is a layman term that is let slid by the academics as it takes a deeper understanding of the field to get a proper understanding of the matter.  IQ tests do not work like that and neither does psychology.

IQ tests assess what you are speaking of, and, in part, it is ACH thinking; which Atheists score higher in.






			
				But even less perfect and less reliable are statistics as a way to measure someones intellect!!
			
		


*



> You can not use a statistic to decide what an individuals intellect is going to be. A random atheist can not use these statistics to go up to a random theist and say "you are less intelligent than me". That is the same as racism.



I already provided statistical evidence that the WAIS and Raven's similarities tests are reliable.  It is not my fault if you do not have the understanding to see that or the patience to read it and than spew lies and hypocrisy.  I am reading you points, the least you could do is give respect to mine - even if you do not have the education (ironically) to understand them.





> my argument is a CONCERN of why this type of thread is made anyways, except to boast atheist elitism.



I provided facts.  You respond with conjecture.

Tell me, how am I boasting anything?  I am not ignoring the Theists IQ, the difference is minimal but it is significant.  Perhaps you ought to consider why this is. 

Do you really think I am out to say, "Yo, atheists are smarter, dawg, join us!"?  Come on now, I have no other purpose than mutual enlightenment; something you are not offering in respect.





> some atheists came to the conclusion that atheists scored higher on the IQ test because they question more than any other group, and the capacity to question means they have a higher intelligence



I am not sure what you are talking about here.  Can you clarify?  It seems to me that you do no have an understanding of the WAIS test and simply conjecturing on the content than actually giving research.





> by their reasoning I am more intelligent than atheists because I question religion _and_ science! elitist atheists are blind and ignorant if they honestly believe no one else has their capacity to question



I am sorry, you do not think scientists question science and religion?  Do you understand what peer-review is?  Have you ever been through a publishing panel before?  There is no one more critical and scrutinizing than the science community.  However, the religious are certainly more stubborn and closed-minded.  Perhaps the evidence in this thread can prove why.  





> I brought up the feminine side of the human being as a way to remind that intellect alone is not enough to view any group of people as superior. That such ideology that intelligence is the superior human quality, is what creates elitism of every kind. I brought up the feminine side of the human being as a way to humble the super intelligence of atheist scientists, who without the feminine side of their being, miss the obvious truths in life. And we, as a masculine society, have missed the subtler obvious truths that native and feminine cultures have never forgotten. Such as, not destroying your own habitat!



What is this masculine/feminie jargon?  I have provided nothing but evidence and facts and you respond with vague concepts?  It really appeals to me to be reaching for straws when you cry out to a patriarchy society as the blame for IQ score differences. 

Statistics are statistics are statistics.  





> In other words, even super intelligence can still be blind and ignorant



I never said otherwise.  Stop presuming.  Read what I am saying.





> There is an entire history of elitism here, and it's always had to do with suppressing the feminine side of the human being. For example, people get annoyed if I get emotional in this kind of atmosphere?  Why aren't I allowed to be emotional? I'll tell you why. Because once upon a time women were suppressed, and thought of as inferior. Therefore it was believed, and created a stigma for a long time, that emotions and intelligence don't go together.



Entirely irrelevant.  Emotional responses do not provide any substance or proof or anything.  If you simply started crying in a court trial, would that count for anything?  No.  If you started pleading the tough history of your ethnicity for your court trial, would that help your case any further?  No.  

If you want to talk about tribulations, then how about we look at the long oppression to science by religion.  Do not be so damn arrogant to ignore that fact.  It is irrelevant and selfish to try and frame yourself as a victim. 





> Look at the history of the IQ test. Why do we even have or need an IQ test? In the past men statistically scored higher than women.* It was concluded this meant women are less intelligent than men*. *Sound familiar?*



You are taking this completely out of context and ignoring a massive part of history; how many women, proportionally, graduate compare to men?  Especially when IQ scores were first invented, women were just on the bring of gaining independence.  As a result, it was society that suppressed womens accessibility to education.  Thus, we can say that, yes, their intelligence was lower.  However, it was because of a patriarchy society.

But, how that is at all relevant to religion, you tell me.  That does not even make sense considering that Atheism is a minority and still rates higher IQ's.  Thus, your point is entirely moot and irrelevant.





> Critics of the IQ test then pointed out that men created and designed the test, and men score higher. And not just any men, but white men, and white men above colored men were scoring higher. It was suggested that the IQ test was biased. And it turns out, it was. Changes have been made.



Of course, changes are always made, this is the beauty of science; it is open-minded and falsifiable!  It can be modified to accept new and wondrous facts.  

Furthermore, you have no evidence at all.  I find it insulting that I put a lot of time into my research and you provide none.  





> Now the IQ test scores atheists higher. We also know that a large number of scientists are atheists. We also know scientists have been 'battling' religion for a while now, weeding out creationism. And sure enough in these statistics that's what I see.......Atheists and Religion. Where the hell is spirituality in the mix? Why are these statistics so cookie cutter? Exactly who is creating these tests and statistics anyways and for what purpose?



Your ignorance is profoundly insulting to the entire science of psychology.  It is your attitude that is detrimental to the progression of good education and science.

 ::arrow::  *Benefits of IQ Tests*
+ Learning appropriate learning methods for children
+ Assessing environmental factors for socio-economical calsses (ie. correlations)
+ Warranting benefits and enrichment programs for the gifted
+ Assessing differences in mental attitude in longitudinal studies as humans grow

For these reasons alone, the IQ tests are the best method of assessment.  Namely, the WAIS.  If you knew anything about it, you would know it does not include anything about religion of spirituality because those things have no concrete grounds for reliable proof or evidence.

Furthermore, are you saying that religious and spiritual people ought not to take these tests because of science understanding?  In that case, you already admit to the point anyway; theists are less intelligent than atheists.





> And no, I don't have an alternative to the IQ test. Nor do I see a need for one. Tell me a good reason why we need the IQ test except to divide and conquer



You really disappoint me.  I would assume that you would want to be able to find ways to assess knowledge and enrichments.  Divide and conquer?  This is the silliest thing I have ever heard - are you seriously arguing that IQ tests are a means to world domination?  





> O'nus, can you give more info on ACH thinking? I can't seem to find any reason why you might think that this is a good judge of intelligence. In fact, I can't really find _anything_ about it, since all that comes up in internet searches is this thread, and a thread on another forum (the atheist's toolbox) called "Atheism Rising".



ACH thinking is very recent and has yet to really be set forth as a public definition.  I providing some privy information.  However, you can find the WAIS and Raven's similarities tests in the links I have already provided.  





> I feel like you ignored a lot of what I was trying to say in my post. IQ tests judge people on the kind of analytical thinking that is valued in our society that has made it illegal to teach religion in schools. People who do well on this sort of test are more likely to question the things that authorities are telling them, both academic and religious. There is information made available for people who would question academia and science, but virtually no information available for those that would question their parent's religion. In my mind, this is most likely to lead people to be "atheists" only because they don't really see that validity in what they have been taught and yet have no access to alternatives.



Pardon me, I am finding it difficult to understand your point.  I will respond, but correct me if I am digressive;

You are saying that, society tries to teach us proper questioning and critical thinking methods to criticize authorities such as religion and parents?  As a result, these people, who are taught properly, will do better on these IQ tests?

If that is the case, then it really reinforces my point; people who are taught and can learn turn out to be more intelligent and often Atheist.  What other test ought we enforce that would be reliable?  Spiritual IQ tests..?  How could anyone, in their right mind, statistically justify such a test..?

Again, correct me if I mis-understand though.

~

----------


## Kuhnada29

O'nus, your theory that the nonreligious is more intelligent is a pile of steaming horse shit. 

Einstein was religious....he was a scientific pantheist. Pantheism IS a religion. 

/thread debunked

----------


## Maria92

> O'nus, your theory that the nonreligious is more intelligent is a pile of steaming horse shit. 
> 
> Einstein was religious....he was a scientific pantheist. Pantheism IS a religion. 
> 
> /thread debunked



If you'd care to read some of his posts, he's stating that, on a _general trend_, those possessing religious beliefs tend to be more lacking in the type of critical thinking known as ACH thinking.

----------


## Scatterbrain

> O'nus, your theory that the nonreligious is more intelligent is a pile of steaming horse shit. 
> 
> Einstein was religious....he was a scientific pantheist. Pantheism IS a religion. 
> 
> /thread debunked



FYI, Einstein claimed to subscribe to Spinoza's god, and that is naturalistic pantheism, which is nowhere near religion.





> Naturalistic pantheism is a form of pantheism that holds that the Universe, although *unconscious and non-sentient* as a whole, behaves as a single, interrelated, and solely natural substance. Accordingly, Nature is seen as being what religions call "God" only in a non-traditional, impersonal sense, *where the terms Nature and God are synonymous*. Therefore, naturalistic pantheism is also known as "impersonal pantheism" and "impersonal absolutism," *and does not posit any form of supernatural belief.*

----------


## Kuhnada29

Right, spirituality is the SAME thing as Pantheism, just direct knowledge of it.  





> Religion: an institution to express belief in a divine power;







> Pantheism: The belief that the universe is divine and should be revered.



Pantheism is a religion, it's just that the God of Pantheism doesn't have a personality, it has an "everything is interconnected", "everything is one" attitude. 

Even if it's NOT a religion, Pantheism is still determinism. 

I doubt you know _anything_ about Pantheism OR spirituality anyway.

----------


## LucidFlanders

I don't get why people mention mr E being religious...is it a proof that religion is right? it's a belief, nothing more.

----------


## Scatterbrain

From what I have seen of your posts I can conclude I do know more than you about spirituality, or anything else really. It's hardly an achievement. 


I already linked and quoted the definition of naturalistic pantheism, which you ignored and is the type of pantheism Einstein apparently defended. But even regular pantheism is just barely supernatural anyway, so it's doesn't matter if we make the distinction. The point is Einstein wasn't religious, and even if he was that wouldn't refute the studies O'nus posted. (I know you think it would, but that's just because of your general lack of understanding about everything that doesn't involve the supernatural, conspiracies and other bs)

----------


## Kuhnada29

> From what I have seen of your posts I can conclude I do know more than you about spirituality.



no.....you don't. And why would you know anything about it anyway, since it's all bullshit to you.

You didn't even know what pantheism WAS until i brought it up. I'm not even going to argue with you. I know you want the last word, so uhh, yea go ahead. Feel free to inflate your ego some more.

----------


## O'nus

Hard wired, you have done nothing but demonstrate negligence and deliberate ignorance to what I have postulated. Your posts, with lacking intellectual perspicacity for logic, only perpetuate the truth of my original post. You fail to understand statistical trends and then rely on fallacious debating tactics. Sarcasm and desperate antagonism only reinforce the evidence as you may lack the intellectual capacity to actually read and understand the evidence, like juroara. I am not trying to be insulting, but when people respond like this, it really only gives the original content more confounding evidence: people have no good rebuttals. The best one I've seen was from xaqaria and I do not think he is of main line denomination at all. 

I trust you will use your intellect and literacy skills in your next response rather than a sophomoric emotional response (eg. Attack of the ego arguments). 

I should add; how is it a "theory" (what you intend to be hypothesis I think) if I have provided evidence?  You are not speaking as though you read what I posted at all. 

~

----------


## Scatterbrain

> no.....you don't. And why would you know anything about it anyway, since it's all bullshit to you.
> 
> You didn't even know what pantheism WAS until i brought it up. I'm not even going to argue with you. I know you want the last word, so uhh, yea go ahead. Feel free to inflate your ego some more.





I've talked about pantheism here long before you were even a member of DV. And you would do well to know that spirituality isn't exclusive property of religion and new age.

But this is all irrelevant to the discussion...

----------


## O'nus

I <3 that vid.

I should note that I thought about editing Hard_Wired's immature posting behaviour, but decided to leave it to picture his intellectual contributions.  Hopefully a redeeming post will soon follow suit.

~

----------


## Naiya

So.....when someone spends one half of their life religious, and the next half nonreligious, does that mean their intelligence goes up?  :tongue2: 

This is a little silly IMO, because so many people (and dare I say, a great chunk of nontheists) don't hold the exact same beliefs system (or lack thereof) throughout their entire lives. 

I spent part of my life Christian, part, pagan, part agnostic, part atheist, and part deist. So what does that say about my intelligence? How do I fit into the equation? I am religious or nonreligious depending on what part of my life you happen to find me. Many others are just like me. People start out Christian and become atheists later, and vice-versa. Did those people who grew up atheist and suddenly found Jesus later in life have a lower or higher IQ?

I assume that the statistics are based on the person's present belief system. The entire argument only makes sense to me if people's belief systems remain static. While some do, others do not. 

So how do these statistics account for this? Is there really any validity in a correlation between intelligence and a belief system?

I did read that most people gravitate toward their religion during their teen years. But even then, many people still change their beliefs later in life, sometimes more than once. It would be oversimplifying things to imply that one chooses or accepts their belief system during that period and just keeps it forever. 

IMO, it's good to remember that correlation does not mean causation. IQ and atheism are rising. So is obesity. Are they connected? Maybe they are, loosely. But one thing does not necessarily directly cause another.

----------


## O'nus

> So.....when someone spends one half of their life religious, and the next half nonreligious, does that mean their intelligence goes up?



When someone goes half their life not knowing about Chemistry and then learns it, does their IQ go up?  

Remember, the IQ tests are not arbitrary scores; they are based on reliable testing techniques.  I have already provided evidence of the WAIS reliability.  





> This is a little silly IMO, because so many people (and dare I say, a great chunk of nontheists) don't hold the exact same beliefs system (or lack thereof) throughout their entire lives.



This is true.  In fact, Atheism alone is not really a belief system at all but a constituent of another belief system (unless you are a fundamentalist, of course).  However, this really does not say anything about the persons IQ score.  I did not always know about Chemistry, but one day I did and, of course, my IQ would have gone up because of that.  Also, I can learn a lot about Chemistry in just one lecture.  This argument does not really hold any water.





> I spent part of my life Christian, part, pagan, part agnostic, part atheist, and part deist. So what does that say about my intelligence? How do I fit into the equation? I am religious or nonreligious depending on what part of my life you happen to find me. Many others are just like me. People start out Christian and become atheists later, and vice-versa. Did those people who grew up atheist and suddenly found Jesus later in life have a lower or higher IQ?



Again, this is really insignificant because, analogously, I did not know about Chemistry till I was older and, because of that, my IQ went up.

You could not say that Atheism is not the same because the reason I brought this evidence up in the first place is because of the belief systems affect on their IQ scores.  Also, it does not really matter how the person qualifies their belief system, the point is that they identify with it.  Of course, the statistics do account for lying and manipulating their own scores.  You can review the variables in my OP.





> I assume that the statistics are based on the person's present belief system. The entire argument only makes sense to me if people's belief systems remain static. While some do, others do not.



Belief systems obviously do not remain static just as our plasticity is always changing.  Did you actually review how the WAIS works..??





> So how do these statistics account for this? Is there really any validity in a correlation between intelligence and a belief system?



See my OP - I already provided this.





> I did read that most people gravitate toward their religion during their teen years. But even then, many people still change their beliefs later in life, sometimes more than once. It would be oversimplifying things to imply that one chooses or accepts their belief system during that period and just keeps it forever.



No one said this.  You are digressing.





> IMO, it's good to remember that correlation does not mean causation. IQ and atheism are rising. So is obesity. Are they connected? Maybe they are, loosely. But one thing does not necessarily directly cause another.



This is a good point, and I have acknowledged this.  I never said that one causes the other, but that there is a statistical significant correlation.  Although it does not necessitate causation, it most certainly indicates a relationship.  That, is undisputed.

~

----------


## Xei

> 



Hahaha...

That could come in useful.

----------


## Xaqaria

> Pardon me, I am finding it difficult to understand your point.  I will respond, but correct me if I am digressive;
> 
> You are saying that, society tries to teach us proper questioning and critical thinking methods to criticize authorities such as religion and parents?  As a result, these people, who are taught properly, will do better on these IQ tests?
> 
> If that is the case, then it really reinforces my point; people who are taught and can learn turn out to be more intelligent and often Atheist.  What other test ought we enforce that would be reliable?  Spiritual IQ tests..?  How could anyone, in their right mind, statistically justify such a test..?
> 
> Again, correct me if I mis-understand though.
> 
> ~



People who question what their parents and teachers tell them can keep looking and find the answers they are looking for. Often times teachers show a very simplistic version of scientific phenomena, and if some young critical thinker who is capable of hypothetical reasoning decides that the teacher isn't quite right, they can search and find a more detailed and accurate version of the truth. 

Religion, however has been pushed aside in our modern culture. The information available in schools is presented as mythological, and although many people claim to be religious, the ideas and modes of thinking involved in religion and spirituality aren't really utilized by most of these people. This sort of environment leaves a void for those that might question religion. They may recognize that the outmoded judeo-christian model doesn't live up to rigor, but anything more specific is hard to come by. There are more accurate models available in the world that do a better job of explaining phenomena but they are difficult to find, hard to understand and since religion has become so _unnessecary_ in most people's minds; it is hardly worth the effort to study it. Therefore, instead of searching for the religious and spiritual paradigms that have merit, many people simply claim agnostic or atheist, and the hardline atheists that really have come to the conclusion that there is no god use these numbers to bolster their claims that materialism is the answer.

I am also suggesting that I.Q. tests are designed to judge people on the type of thought that might lend oneself to a more scientific outlook; i.e. logical rational reasoning. Most esoteric 'spiritual sciences' first attempt to _silence thought_ so that one can open up atrophied and dormant senses beyond the recognized physical ones. This type of awareness is diametrically opposed to rational thought and therefore can not be judged by I.Q. tests. The better someone is at reasoning their way through an I.Q. test, the less likely it will be that they are also adept in achieving the 'no mind' type of awareness associated with esoteric spiritual practices. There is little balance in the world, after all.

----------


## Naiya

O'nus, your analogy doesn't seem to fit here. Can you explain it more to me? I'm having trouble understanding exactly where you are going with it. 





> When someone goes half their life not knowing about Chemistry and then learns it, does their IQ go up?  
> 
> Again, this is really insignificant because, analogously, I did not know about Chemistry till I was older and, because of that, my IQ went up.




So are you saying that when one becomes an atheist, their IQ score will be higher? I don't get it. This is why analogies are not very good for debating--it reframes everything and we're in danger of arguing over apples and oranges. 

I'm still very confused about how exactly a belief system _on its own_ has any effect on one's IQ. I am more interested in finding out exactly how these two are related, and why I should care. I mean, really, there are a lot of things which are correlated in modern society. In my opinion, you cannot ignore all the other factors involved here. For example, one of your sources notes that wealthier people scored higher on IQ tests as well. I think it has far more to do with our society which is wealthier and gives more people a chance at an education, among many other things. In other words, I think we should be looking at the big picture here. 





> Belief systems obviously do not remain static just as our plasticity is always changing. Did you actually review how the WAIS works..??



No, I didn't...I've been looking for it in your OP. Mind showing me a link or something? Thanks. Again, not really sure what you are trying to say here. Does intelligence really change with one's belief system throughout their life? If I become an atheist tomorrow, will I get smarter? Will I score higher on an IQ test? Why or why not? If my high IQ makes it really more likely for me to become an atheist later, what does it say if I become an atheist and then later find JAYSUS? I just don't see how that is explained in your statistics. 

It would help me if you could explain it to me without using an analogy.

Doesn't the crystallized intelligence stay the same throughout adulthood? Fluid intelligence peaks in then 20s, the declines regardless of religious beliefs. So I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here.





> No one said this. You are digressing.




Here's where I got it from. Recognize it?  :wink2: 

"Religiosity declines between ages 12 to 17. It is suggested that IQ makes an individual likely to gravitate toward a denomination and level of achievement that best fit his or hers particular level of cognitive complexity."

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...cc5bec9#secx11

----------


## O'nus

> People who question what their parents and teachers tell them can keep looking and find the answers they are looking for. Often times teachers show a very simplistic version of scientific phenomena, and if some young critical thinker who is capable of hypothetical reasoning decides that the teacher isn't quite right, they can search and find a more detailed and accurate version of the truth. 
> 
> Religion, however has been pushed aside in our modern culture. The information available in schools is presented as mythological, and although many people claim to be religious, the ideas and modes of thinking involved in religion and spirituality aren't really utilized by most of these people. This sort of environment leaves a void for those that might question religion. They may recognize that the outmoded judeo-christian model doesn't live up to rigor, but anything more specific is hard to come by. There are more accurate models available in the world that do a better job of explaining phenomena but they are difficult to find, hard to understand and since religion has become so _unnessecary_ in most people's minds; it is hardly worth the effort to study it. Therefore, instead of searching for the religious and spiritual paradigms that have merit, many people simply claim agnostic or atheist, and the hardline atheists that really have come to the conclusion that there is no god use these numbers to bolster their claims that materialism is the answer.
> 
> I am also suggesting that I.Q. tests are designed to judge people on the type of thought that might lend oneself to a more scientific outlook; i.e. logical rational reasoning. Most esoteric 'spiritual sciences' first attempt to _silence thought_ so that one can open up atrophied and dormant senses beyond the recognized physical ones. This type of awareness is diametrically opposed to rational thought and therefore can not be judged by I.Q. tests. The better someone is at reasoning their way through an I.Q. test, the less likely it will be that they are also adept in achieving the 'no mind' type of awareness associated with esoteric spiritual practices. There is little balance in the world, after all.



I want others to note this above post, as it is a good argument and sets forth good rebuttals.  The idea is that you are debating exactly how we judge intelligence and how other religions may fit in.

Of course, we can compare all religions on IQ comparisons (and I already have) but these are based on the IQ tests variables which may not be spiritually inclined.

So, I must ask though, how can we form any means to measure intelligence from a spiritual point of view?  Obviously it is likely that we ought not to, but, in our society, we do rely on IQ scores a lot and it significantly helps with education.  

Thus, ought we really be debating then on what education we ought to be teaching children?  If we are testing IQ based on verbal skills, math, writing, visual-spatial, etc. but spiritualists/other beliefs systems do not value these, then how _do_ we measure intelligence to be fair and compromising to all belief systems?





> O'nus, analogy is the weakest form of argument, 'yknow. I wouldn't rely on it too much. Yours doesn't seem to fit here. Can you explain it more to me? I'm having trouble understanding exactly where you are going with it.



Analogies are never my argument but my best way of representing what my argument is in the easiest format.  I am not sure which one you are speaking of either.  

There are skills we learn that are used in the IQ test and I could specifically talk about them too.  For example, math skills.  You once did not know math, and then you did.  Your IQ went up because of that.  You can learn a lot of math in just one day.  You can also forget a lot of math in one day.





> So are you saying that when one becomes an atheist, their IQ score will be higher? I don't get it. This is why analogies are not very good for debating--it reframes everything and we're in danger of arguing over apples and oranges.



Well now we are looking for causation here.  I cannot really say what it is that immediately switches in someone to cause a higher IQ or the embrace of Atheism.  I can tell you that those with higher ACH skills are more likely to be Atheist.  That is all I am saying.  

Note that Atheism is still a constituent belief of other systems and I believe most of the scores also include non-religious and agnostic.





> I'm still very confused about how exactly a belief system _on its own_ has any effect on one's IQ. I am more interested in finding out exactly how these two are related, and why I should care. I mean, really, there are a lot of things which are correlated in modern society. In my opinion, you cannot ignore all the other factors involved here. For example, one of your sources notes that wealthier people scored higher on IQ tests as well. I think it has far more to do with our society which is wealthier and gives more people a chance at an education, among many other things. In other words, I think we should be looking at the big picture here.



Right.  Perhaps you are ignoring your own point here; the education one has, the more non-religious they are.

The underlying argument that a lot of scientists are nervous to make is that religion deters intellectual and critical thinking.  Now there is evidence for it; religious thinking deters ACH thinking.  

With ACH thinking, you are more likely to critically analyze those things presented to you.  Do I need to elaborate..?





> No, I didn't...I've been looking for it in your OP. Mind showing me a link or something? Thanks. Again, not really sure what you are trying to say here. Does intelligence really change with one's belief system throughout their life? If I become an atheist tomorrow, will I get smarter? Will I score higher on an IQ test? Why or why not?



The reason is _why_ you become an Atheist.  It is not so much an arbitrary decision but the means of reasoning executed to come to the conclusion.  That type of thinking is associated with critical thinking/ACH thinking.  

If you are curious about the reliability of the WAIS, the evidence of overwhelming:

_"Test-Retest:  Done for two age groups 25-34 and 45-54.  Given in a 2 to 7 week interval.  Reliability coefficient ranges from a low of .67 (Object Assembly 45-54) to a high of .94 (Information 45-54).  VIQ = .94 (25-34) and .97 (45-54).  PIQ = .89 (25-34) and .90 (45-54).  FIQ = .95 (25-34) and .96 (45-54) 

Split-Half: Spearman-Brown for all subtests except for Digit Span and Digit Symbol for age ranges from 16-17 to 70-74.  Reliability coefficient ranges from a low of .52 (Object Assembly 16-17) to a high of .96 (Vocabulary across many of the age ranges).  VIQ = .97.  PIQ = .93.  FIQ = .97.

Alternate-Form: none given

Interitem Consistency: not done.  However, correlations between subtests (intrasubtest) and VIQ, PIQ, and FIQ are given but a Cronbach Alpha was not done.

Inter-Rater: not applicable

Standard Error of Measurement: each subtest has a SEM a low of .49 (Vocabulary 16-17) and high of 1.91 (Object Assembly 16-17).  Average SEM were VIQ 2.74, PIQ 4.14, and FIQ 2.53"_
+ http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=...e=367&expand=1


"Religiosity declines between ages 12 to 17. It is suggested that IQ makes an individual likely to gravitate toward a denomination and level of achievement that best fit his or hers particular level of cognitive complexity."

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...cc5bec9#secx11[/QUOTE]

_"Reliability of the WAIS-III for 100 male patients with substance abuse disorders was determined. Means for age and education were 46.06 years (SD = 8.81 years) and 12.70 years (SD = 1.51 years). There were 63 Caucasians and 37 African Americans. Split-half coefficients for the 11 subtests (Digit Symbol-Coding, Symbol Search, and Object Assembly were omitted) ranged from .92 for Vocabulary and Digit Span to .77 for Picture Arrangement. The median subtest reliability coefficient was .86. Composite reliabilities were excellent for the Indexes (.94 to .95) and IQs (.94 to .97), with all coefficients? .94. Using the Fisher z test to compare correlation coefficients from independent samples, none of the reliability estimates differed significantly from those reported for the WAIS-III standardization sample. Similar findings emerged when reliabilities were determined separately for Caucasian and African American participants."_
+ http://asm.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/7/2/151

_"In general, the reliability and stability of all three tests were acceptable and approximately equivalent. "_
+ http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=...TOKEN=92795211

_"WAIS-R subtest and composite scale reliabilities, standard errors of measurement, and standard errors of estimate were determined for a sample of psychiatric inpatients (N = 100). For Digit Span and Digit Symbol, test- retest stability coefficients were obtained; split-half reliability coefficients were calculated for all other subtests. With the exception of Object Assembly (rxx =.38), all subtest and composite scale reliability coefficients were large and acceptable. Based on the standard error of measure, the most reliable WAIS-R subtests were Digit Symbol (.77), Information (1.04), and Picture Completion (1.07). Reliability coefficients for the psychiatric inpatient sample were, in general, comparable to those values reported for the standardization group (Wechsler, 1981). Significant differences were obtained only on the Object Assembly and Vocabulary subtests."_
+ http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/j...TRY=1&SRETRY=0





> Doesn't the crystallized intelligence stay the same throughout adulthood? Fluid intelligence peaks in the 20s, the declines regardless of religious beliefs. So I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here.



Well yes, our intelligence does not significantly raise through adulthood.  It can also be argued that certain chromosomes are directly related to IQ performance.

However, this does not really relate to the point, unless you are asking if Atheists have a neurological advantage to Theists?  The point is that, through child to adulthood, Atheists score higher.  Of course, this still does not ignore the high probability that people will gain more intelligence as they get older.  It is not as though once you hit 20 you cannot learn anymore.  It is just likely that you cannot learn _much_ more.

I think we, in a round about way, agree on this..?





> Onus, you don't read your own sources? That's where I got it from.



Oh well, pardon me, I was not arguing over IQ scores and their adaptation to religion.  However, it is a good point.  It is not likely that someone with lower IQ would befriend those with higher IQ - they would likely have difficulties communicating.  

What of it?  I do not really understand your point, if you have one..?

You are just wondering what it is about Atheists that makes them score higher.  The evidence I have provided shows that it is that Atheists tend to value critical thinking more.

~

----------


## Naiya

> Oh well, pardon me, I was not arguing over IQ scores and their adaptation to religion.  However, it is a good point.  It is not likely that someone with lower IQ would befriend those with higher IQ - they would likely have difficulties communicating.  
> 
> What of it?  I do not really understand your point, if you have one..?
> 
> You are just wondering what it is about Atheists that makes them score higher.  The evidence I have provided shows that it is that Atheists tend to value critical thinking more.
> 
> ~



Whoa there. Where did I say anything about people with different IQs not talking to each other? Where'd you get that idea? o_O

All I said was that one of your sources pointed out that people tend to gravitate toward their current belief system in their teen years. My point was that this, to me, implied that people would keep to the same belief system for the rest of their lives.

Thanks for posting the stuff. In a sense, yes I do agree with you. I agree that atheism is less of a choice than it is a conclusion reached through a lot of thinking, experiencing, and critically analyzing their belief system. Or for me, a realization at the end of all those things. 

I also do agree that religious organizations are anti-intellectual, anti-critical thinking. So yes, they may raise their children in a way that suppresses those things. On the other hand, as one of your sources said, more liberal denominations scored higher than conservative ones. So if religion itself evolves in a way that _encourages_ intellectualism (let's just leave that as a hypothetical situation), these statistics would likely change. In my opinion, it's more about the culture itself, of which religion is an extension.  :wink2: 

But, like I said, it would not really account for those atheists who have a sudden 180 later on. What happened to those people when they suddenly got Jaysus? did their IQ drop before, or after? Was it just always low, because if it were high they would have remained an atheist (that to me would be the biggest cop-out and smacks of the not-a-true-scotsman thing)? What gives? What happened to all those great thinking skills they had which led them to atheism in the first place? That's my main point, really. I feel that there are still some things missing in these studies, that's all. Studies and statistics in general can be very limiting. 

Basically my point is, you have to be careful not to single out religion as the only culprit here.

Another point you brought up is that your IQ goes up after learning math. I think that right there is where I was getting confused. I was under the impression that you were equating IQ with intelligence (because of the name of the thread). 

My other issue with all this stuff as a whole is, like I said, it oversimplifies things. There are too many other factors involved. Yes, there is a relationship/correlation. But that's all it is. I could just as easily throw in statistics on obesity and show that fat rich people are "smarter" than skinny poor people.

----------


## O'nus

> Whoa there. Where did I say anything about people with different IQs not talking to each other? Where'd you get that idea? o_O
> 
> All I said was that one of your sources pointed out that people tend to gravitate toward their current belief system in their teen years. My point was that this, to me, implied that people would keep to the same belief system for the rest of their lives.



Well yes, it is generally true.  I just do not see the relevance.





> I also do agree that religious organizations are anti-intellectual, anti-critical thinking. So yes, they may raise their children in a way that suppresses those things. On the other hand, as one of your sources said, more liberal denominations scored higher than conservative ones. So if religion itself evolves in a way that _encourages_ intellectualism (let's just leave that as a hypothetical situation), these statistics would likely change. In my opinion, it's more about the culture itself, of which religion is an extension.



Of course.  It would be encouraged for liberal religions to educate critical thinking.





> But, like I said, it would not really account for those atheists who have a sudden 180 later on. What happened to those people when they suddenly got Jaysus? did their IQ drop before, or after? Was it just always low, because if it were high they would have remained an atheist (that to me would be the biggest cop-out and smacks of the not-a-true-scotsman thing)? What gives? What happened to all those great thinking skills they had which led them to atheism in the first place? That's my main point, really. I feel that there are still some things missing in these studies, that's all. Studies and statistics in general can be very limiting.



Why are you ignoring the very basic rule of statistics; they are general trends.  Statistics always allow for outliers and information to lie outside the found statistical distribution.  Z scores.  





> Basically my point is, you have to be careful not to single out religion as the only culprit here.



I am not.  Of course there are still Atheists that score lower in IQ, but this is taking the averages and representative distributions.





> Another point you brought up is that your IQ goes up after learning math. I think that right there is where I was getting confused. I was under the impression that you were equating IQ with intelligence (because of the name of the thread).



Well.. that is where you would better find an argument.  IQ does stand for Intelligence Quotient for a reason.  It scores verbal skills, written abilities, visual-spatial, etc. etc. etc.  So, what ought IQ tests use to measure intelligence if not these things..?





> My other issue with all this stuff as a whole is, like I said, it oversimplifies things. There are too many other factors involved. Yes, there is a relationship/correlation. But that's all it is. I could just as easily throw in statistics on obesity and show that fat rich people are "smarter" than skinny poor people.



See, you are actually debating from analogy here now, not me.  What are you saying?  All this evidence I have provided clearly shows a strong correlation. You focus too hard on the 'correlation =/= causation' but completely ignore that correlation still indicates a relationship!  Furthermore, the IQ tests have pretty strict statistics.  

I think I ought to counter you by asking, if religions correlation is not the causation of the significant difference, then what could be?

~

----------


## Invader

> I am also suggesting that I.Q. tests are designed to judge people on the type of thought that might lend oneself to a more scientific outlook; i.e. logical rational reasoning. Most esoteric 'spiritual sciences' first attempt to _silence thought_ so that one can open up atrophied and dormant senses beyond the recognized physical ones. This type of awareness is diametrically opposed to rational thought and therefore can not be judged by I.Q. tests. The better someone is at reasoning their way through an I.Q. test, the less likely it will be that they are also adept in achieving the 'no mind' type of awareness associated with esoteric spiritual practices. There is little balance in the world, after all.







> So, I must ask though, how can we form any means to measure intelligence from a spiritual point of view?  Obviously it is likely that we ought not to, but, in our society, we do rely on IQ scores a lot and it significantly helps with education.
> ~



My answer to your question, O'nus, is based off of the point Xaqaria already 
made about the nature of spirituality and how it utilizes this "lack of thought" 
practice in order to grasp otherwise dormant faculties of the mind. I do not 
believe spirituality is based on a form of intelligence that is applicable to 
reasoning or critical thought at all (consider kinesthetic intelligence), but 
rather an intuitive grasp of one's feelings and/or modes of perception.

Kinesthetic intelligence can more or less be measured though, _to a degree_, 
so I understand that it is not fully relatable to spirituality in that one can be 
observed and the other cannot.

----------


## O'nus

> My answer to your question, O'nus, is based off of the point Xaqaria already made about the nature of spirituality and how it utilizes this "lack of thought" practice in order to grasp otherwise dormant faculties of the mind. I do not believe spirituality is based on a form of intelligence that is applicable to reasoning or critical thought at all (consider kinesthetic intelligence), but rather an intuitive grasp of one's feelings and/or modes of perception.



Points made;
+ Other forms of religion/spirituality value lack of thought
+ Other forms do not value those things tested on the WAIS
+ Spirituality does not fundamentally rely on critical thought 
+ Spirituality does rely on intuition and modes of perception

Firstly, this is saying that these religions do not value a lot of things; writing, math, verbalization, abstract thinking, visual-spatial thinking, etc.  There are so many things then being ignored by these other religions.. so what exactly _are_ they valuing then?  

If spirituality does not rely on critical thought, ought that not be a point against it?  In order to embrace these other doctrines you ought to not critically question nor think about their content..?  

Also, the WAIS and other IQ tests can and do test intuition and different modes of perception.  For example, ACH thinking itself utilizes abstract perceptual problem solving.  





> Kinesthetic intelligence can more or less be measured though, _to a degree_, 
> so I understand that it is not fully relatable to spirituality in that one can be 
> observed and the other cannot.



Yes, Gardner did a lot of work on the variations of intelligence, including kinesthetic.

+ http://www.k12connections.iptv.org/d...ellegences.pdf

However, those can still be tested.  When we talk about kinesthetic, then the spiritual is really in a moot spot because neurology can explain much more depths of muscle and kinetic control than spiritual vagaries can.  

Let us not forget that spirituality is still a presumption and how can you study or inquire something that assumes it's proposition is already true?

~

----------


## Xaqaria

> Points made;
> + Other forms of religion/spirituality value lack of thought
> + Other forms do not value those things tested on the WAIS
> + Spirituality does not fundamentally rely on critical thought 
> + Spirituality does rely on intuition and modes of perception
> 
> Firstly, this is saying that these religions do not value a lot of things; writing, math, verbalization, abstract thinking, visual-spatial thinking, etc.  There are so many things then being ignored by these other religions.. so what exactly _are_ they valuing then?  
> 
> If spirituality does not rely on critical thought, ought that not be a point against it?  In order to embrace these other doctrines you ought to not critically question nor think about their content..?  
> ...



Nobody said that religous people do not value language, math, etc. or even that religions don't. Remember that the first historians, scientists, etc. were all members of the clergy. What is being claimed is that 'spiritual science', or  that which would lead one to a sense of spirituality and religious awe does not involve the same types of thought or even the same frames of awareness as what is used to study the physical world and what is tested in an I.Q. test. 

You seem to have the tendency to reduce issues to the point of meaninglessness. A well rounded individual would have a strong ability for critical thought, _and_ intuitive awareness. Religion or spirituality is just one aspect of a potentially healthy human being, and there is no need to define one's life by just one mode of thought.

I'm surprised you would question the study of spirituality based on the fact that one must assume it is already true before they can begin studying it. This is exactly the same for lucid dreaming. Perhaps we can see some sort of outward signs of awareness during sleep (ex. Laberge's eye movement experiments) but the only way to control one's dreams is to first take it on faith that it is indeed possible. What do you tell someone who questions whether it is possible to control one's dreams? Keep at it whole heartedly and eventually you will see for yourself.

----------


## O'nus

> Nobody said that religous people do not value language, math, etc. or even that religions don't. Remember that the first historians, scientists, etc. were all members of the clergy. What is being claimed is that 'spiritual science', or  that which would lead one to a sense of spirituality and religious awe does not involve the same types of thought or even the same frames of awareness as what is used to study the physical world and what is tested in an I.Q. test. 
> 
> You seem to have the tendency to reduce issues to the point of meaninglessness. A well rounded individual would have a strong ability for critical thought, _and_ intuitive awareness. Religion or spirituality is just one aspect of a potentially healthy human being, and there is no need to define one's life by just one mode of thought.



That is unfortunate. I like to think I try to simplify things and then pursue their integrity.





> I'm surprised you would question the study of spirituality based on the fact that one must assume it is already true before they can begin studying it. This is exactly the same for lucid dreaming. Perhaps we can see some sort of outward signs of awareness during sleep (ex. Laberge's eye movement experiments) but the only way to control one's dreams is to first take it on faith that it is indeed possible. What do you tell someone who questions whether it is possible to control one's dreams? Keep at it whole heartedly and eventually you will see for yourself.



Spirituality is not a known fact.  The best we can argue is that known facts are based on dogmatic reasoning.  But what other reasoning could we enforce to pursue the truth of the world around us?  We must remove the illogical and uncertain things in order to pursue the rational.

Really, this is opening the doors to the debate about intelligence which does not really interest me at this time.  The point is that, with what the WAIS does test, Atheists score higher.  Whether or not that is of value to you, is up to you.

~

----------


## Naiya

> I think I ought to counter you by asking, if religions correlation is not the causation of the significant difference, then what could be?
> 
> ~



Like I've said several times, religion is one part of a culture. Any culture will have many, many things which contribute to whether or not their kids grow up with a higher intelligence. Religion is one of those factors, but you cannot prove that it is contributing any more or less than wealth, education, political view, physical health, nutrition, and genetic predisposition toward higher intelligence. My bringing up these other contributing factors and other things correlated with higher intelligence has everything to do with the subject, because when you have more than one variable in something you are studying, you should be considering them all, not just looking at one of them as the cause of higher intelligence. 

You can single out certain factors for the sake of finding a relationship or correlation, but for a problem as complex as intelligence, you also can't afford to ignore all of the other contributing factors. 

For example, I know a person who never finished his IQ test because he had ADHD and couldn't sit still long enough to finish it. So the IQ test was a poor measurement of his intelligence--he got a much lower score than was really possible just because he didn't finish. The IQ score did not reflect his true intelligence, therefore an IQ score could not possibly be equated with one's actual intelligence. 

IQ is a _measurement_ of intelligence, not intelligence itself. Intelligence itself is the _capacity_ to learn. IMO, it would be naive to believe that our current way of measuring intelligence is the definition of intelligence. Of course we try our best to keep it as accurate as possible, and it is very accurate, but it isn't so accurate as to be equated with intelligence itself.

Keeping in mind that we still have a lot to learn about ourselves allows for more growth in the scientific community.  :wink2: 

Anyway, no one is disputing the relationship, however, you've yet to give any solid evidence that it is anything beyond that. In your OP you don't, so there's no reason for me to feel obligated to agree to stretch the correlation to have any more meaning that just that. You seem to want to push that now, and I'm not really sure why. I essentially agree with you here--I'm just not willing to stretch the facts to any conclusions which I don't believe they support, and I'm looking at them through a larger picture.

----------


## Invader

> Firstly, this is saying that these religions do not value a lot of things; writing, math, verbalization, abstract thinking, visual-spatial thinking, etc.  There are so many things then being ignored by these other religions.. so what exactly _are_ they valuing then?



I never said they did not value these things. "Lack of thought" is in quotes, 
followed by the word 'practice'. I am attempting to describe what goes on 
when in the appropriate mindset for exercising one's spirituality, or for 
experiencing something beyond what typical awareness allows. Could I not 
also describe the act of meditation similarly? One who meditates does not 
devalue critical thought, though it's typical to let go of such thoughts while 
in the meditative state.





> If spirituality does not rely on critical thought, ought that not be a point against it?  In order to embrace these other doctrines you ought to not critically question nor think about their content..?



Any system of belief does not need to rely on critical thought in and of itself 
in order for one to critically question it. What happens when you critically 
question another's beliefs and end up agreeing? Can you not embrace those 
beliefs?





> Yes, Gardner did a lot of work on the variations of intelligence, including kinesthetic.



Right, I agree because I said that kinesthetic attributes can be observed and 
therefor measured. Thank you for the link in any case, will be reading.





> Let us not forget that spirituality is still a presumption and how can you study or inquire something that assumes it's proposition is already true?
> ~



What does it matter if it claims that it's already true? The assumption could 
be based on any number of things, from some phenomenon that can be 
objectively observed or by an individual experience. I'm not sure I understand 
what your asking, but what a doctrine assumes about itself should not deter 
study into it's potential truths or lack thereof.

----------


## Xaqaria

> That is unfortunate. I like to think I try to simplify things and then pursue their integrity.
> 
> 
> 
> Spirituality is not a known fact.  The best we can argue is that known facts are based on dogmatic reasoning.  But what other reasoning could we enforce to pursue the truth of the world around us?  We must remove the illogical and uncertain things in order to pursue the rational.
> 
> Really, this is opening the doors to the debate about intelligence which does not really interest me at this time.  The point is that, with what the WAIS does test, Atheists score higher.  Whether or not that is of value to you, is up to you.
> 
> ~



That may have been your point, but you have proven nothing. You have shown a correllation between statistical scores and statistical religious affiliation. The exact same correllation exists between just about a gazillion other factors that you have completely ignored, any number of which could be affecting or affected by the scores, the religious affliation, both or neither independantly or in concert. Like I said before, you use a reductionist argument to prove your point but end up in meaningless self aggrandizement since you completely disregard the intrinsically holistic nature of reality. You feel yourself to be intelligent, and you are an atheist; so naturally you would like to find a connection between the two. You found one between the pages of Skeptic magazine and so you believe they are a purveyor of truth and now preach their sermon here.

----------


## O'nus

Undoutedly, when someone finds so much opposition, they either have a very good point or completely idotic. 

I ought to note that many of the things I have quoted were before the skeptic article and only ACH thinking being trut pertinent to that. I have obviously cited spires older than it. 

On the othe note, I am not really trying to argue anything. There's a correlation and I simply wanted to stir debate over what the relationship. 

Now I am on my iPhone right now so I will have to save a more appropriate reply for later. 

~

----------


## O'nus

I'm going to try and reconcile this now.





> Like I've said several times, religion is one part of a culture. Any culture will have many, many things which contribute to whether or not their kids grow up with a higher intelligence. Religion is one of those factors, but you cannot prove that it is contributing any more or less than wealth, education, political view, physical health, nutrition, and genetic predisposition toward higher intelligence. My bringing up these other contributing factors and other things correlated with higher intelligence has everything to do with the subject, because when you have more than one variable in something you are studying, you should be considering them all, not just looking at one of them as the cause of higher intelligence.



You are right - I cannot prove religions direct causation to intelligence.  I can, however, prove the relationship, and I have.  That is all.  What we make of it is entirely speculation really.





> You can single out certain factors for the sake of finding a relationship or correlation, but for a problem as complex as intelligence, you also can't afford to ignore all of the other contributing factors. 
> 
> For example, I know a person who never finished his IQ test because he had ADHD and couldn't sit still long enough to finish it. So the IQ test was a poor measurement of his intelligence--he got a much lower score than was really possible just because he didn't finish. The IQ score did not reflect his true intelligence, therefore an IQ score could not possibly be equated with one's actual intelligence.



This is what reliability scores are for.  They account for incidents like this.





> IQ is a _measurement_ of intelligence, not intelligence itself. Intelligence itself is the _capacity_ to learn. IMO, it would be naive to believe that our current way of measuring intelligence is the definition of intelligence. Of course we try our best to keep it as accurate as possible, and it is very accurate, but it isn't so accurate as to be equated with intelligence itself.



Right, but we have little, if any, alternatives.





> Anyway, no one is disputing the relationship, however, you've yet to give any solid evidence that it is anything beyond that. In your OP you don't, so there's no reason for me to feel obligated to agree to stretch the correlation to have any more meaning that just that. You seem to want to push that now, and I'm not really sure why. I essentially agree with you here--I'm just not willing to stretch the facts to any conclusions which I don't believe they support, and I'm looking at them through a larger picture.



No, you're right.  I am not trying to prove a causation just speculating it.  Personally, I think that ACH thinking is what leads to it.  Critical thinking is the very foundation of questioning knowledge and that is what, I think, leads to question religion and then losing faith.  Sound reasonable?





> I never said they did not value these things. "Lack of thought" is in quotes, 
> followed by the word 'practice'. I am attempting to describe what goes on 
> when in the appropriate mindset for exercising one's spirituality, or for 
> experiencing something beyond what typical awareness allows. Could I not 
> also describe the act of meditation similarly? One who meditates does not 
> devalue critical thought, though it's typical to let go of such thoughts while 
> in the meditative state.



Well, true.  Although, how do these people describe intelligence?  Does it really have nothing that entails in the WAIS test?  What sorts of things do they recognize as 'intelligence'?  Of course, it is likely to argue that they value intelligence as being free of categories and labels, etc. and all that proverbial nonsense.  However, those things which they so disagree with have enabled us to build cities, civilizations, sky-scrapers, art, and all that we have around us.  So really, what is "spiritual" intelligence?  A vague ill-defined definition that ought to hold precedence over scientific intelligence?  





> Any system of belief does not need to rely on critical thought in and of itself 
> in order for one to critically question it. What happens when you critically 
> question another's beliefs and end up agreeing? Can you not embrace those 
> beliefs?



Well of course, that is what lead to my beliefs!  I am arguing for this.  We agree here.





> What does it matter if it claims that it's already true? The assumption could 
> be based on any number of things, from some phenomenon that can be 
> objectively observed or by an individual experience. I'm not sure I understand 
> what your asking, but what a doctrine assumes about itself should not deter 
> study into it's potential truths or lack thereof.



Well let me put it this way.  I see several arguments against the scientific definition of intelligence and yet the alternatives have almost nothing to offer but an "intuitive" and "spiritual" plane of self-transcendence that has little definitions and, in fact, thrives on the very fact that is has no definitions.  Am I wrong?





> That may have been your point, but you have proven nothing. You have shown a correllation between statistical scores and statistical religious affiliation. The exact same correllation exists between just about a gazillion other factors that you have completely ignored, any number of which could be affecting or affected by the scores, the religious affliation, both or neither independantly or in concert. Like I said before, you use a reductionist argument to prove your point but end up in meaningless self aggrandizement since you completely disregard the intrinsically holistic nature of reality. You feel yourself to be intelligent, and you are an atheist; so naturally you would like to find a connection between the two. You found one between the pages of Skeptic magazine and so you believe they are a purveyor of truth and now preach their sermon here.



I was not trying to prove anything.  

You are not providing anything to work on by saying this like, "...a gazillion other factors".  You realize that many of those factors are being accounted for in psychology (ie. Socio-economical status, education, income, etc.).  So how can you retort against me with conjecture?  

Furthermore, you denigrate my points by trying to explain what lead to my inspiration to posting it?  Yes, I found an article.  However, you are completely ignoring that I have come across this information far before it and, fortunately, learned about these things years ago.

So I learned about these factors from studies.  How come you do not consider that this is really a reason why I am encouraged to continue thinking the way I am and see if anyone has anything better to offer?  I am not trying to preach or convert anyone; I want to be proven wrong.  However, you have done nothing but try and denigrate my position by explaining it away and offering no support for your meager points.  

What alternatives are there if all we say is, "You're wrong" ok, well then what? "Nothing.  Deal with it." 

But I am the one reducing things to meaninglessness..??  

~

----------


## Invader

> Well, true.  Although, how do these people describe intelligence?  Does it really have nothing that entails in the WAIS test?  What sorts of things do they recognize as 'intelligence'?  Of course, it is likely to argue that they value intelligence as being free of categories and labels, etc. and all that proverbial nonsense.  However, those things which they so disagree with have enabled us to build cities, civilizations, sky-scrapers, art, and all that we have around us.  So really, what is "spiritual" intelligence?  A vague ill-defined definition that ought to hold precedence over scientific intelligence?



I don't see why they wouldn't classify intelligence the same way we do. A 
quick look into ancient architecture demonstrates a healthy knowledge of 
applied methematics and practical construction tricks that have had the lot 
of us puzzled for years even in the modern day! The spiritual mindset 
coexisted quite well with philosophy/mathematics/writing in the past. 

In order to define spiritual intelligence we should first define that which is 
considered spiritual. If we are speaking strictly about those things that we 
experience subjectively (the idea of self trascendence, or of being one with 
something far beyond oneself), then to be spiritually intelligent is to possess 
the ability to effectively grasp the experience and develope some intuitive 
understanding of what those experiences mean (with respect to the person 
or the world around them).

It is, in this case, _different but not opposite_  from any other form of 
intelligence (mathematical, musical, linguistic, kinesthetic, and so on). All 
forms of intelligence do not necessarily oppose any other.

If your definition of the spiritual is at all different, please say so. I am not 
equating spirituality to religious doctrine, as I believe religion by itself is 
independant of intelligence, much the same way a novel or instruction 
manual is.





> Well let me put it this way.  I see several arguments against the scientific definition of intelligence and yet the alternatives have almost nothing to offer but an "intuitive" and "spiritual" plane of self-transcendence that has little definitions and, in fact, thrives on the very fact that is has no definitions.  Am I wrong?



I agree that it's poorly defined, sure. What I don't understand is why there 
would be an argument at all for alternatives to the scientific definition of 
intelligence so far, being that the nature of "spiritual intelligence" lies beyond 
the scope of measurement at this moment. Perhaps in the future as our 
understanding of consciousness developes that will change.

----------


## O'nus

> I don't see why they wouldn't classify intelligence the same way we do. A 
> quick look into ancient architecture demonstrates a healthy knowledge of 
> applied methematics and practical construction tricks that have had the lot 
> of us puzzled for years even in the modern day! The spiritual mindset 
> coexisted quite well with philosophy/mathematics/writing in the past.



Okay so, in this case, we can then still look at the evidence and wonder why it is then that Atheists score higher than Theists.  Emphasis on the wonder and perhaps encourage to hypothesize.





> In order to define spiritual intelligence we should first define that which is 
> considered spiritual. If we are speaking strictly about those things that we 
> experience subjectively (the idea of self trascendence, or of being one with 
> something far beyond oneself), then to be spiritually intelligent is to possess 
> the ability to effectively grasp the experience and develope some intuitive 
> understanding of what those experiences mean (with respect to the person 
> or the world around them).



Right, and Atheists can still do this.  I am not quite sure I know if there is a point here or if we're just having a good discussion.  I am siding with the latter.





> It is, in this case, _different but not opposite_  from any other form of 
> intelligence (mathematical, musical, linguistic, kinesthetic, and so on). All 
> forms of intelligence do not necessarily oppose any other.



Quite true, I profoundly agree.  I simply wonder then where we could pursue to find the causation or if there are other variables that are worth investigating.  When we look at education, the majority of those educated are Atheist.  This is also the same with income levels and socio-economic.  However, the majority of people on the planet are Theist, but also impoverished.  





> If your definition of the spiritual is at all different, please say so. I am not 
> equating spirituality to religious doctrine, as I believe religion by itself is 
> independant of intelligence, much the same way a novel or instruction 
> manual is.



You may not be, but there certainly many Theists who could call themselves spiritual.  

On that note, though, if religion is independent of intelligence, then what is that person exercising, cognitively, that justifies believing in their religion..?





> I agree that it's poorly defined, sure. What I don't understand is why anyone 
> would be arguing for alternatives to the scientific definition of intelligence so 
> far, being that the nature of "spiritual intelligence" lies beyond the scope of 
> measurement at this moment. Perhaps in the future as our understanding of 
> consciousness developes that will change.



I would hope so.  However, when you refer to our developing understanding and our ability to categorize spiritual intelligence, then what is it that we are really hoping for..?  How exactly can we pursue it if we have no variables to work with from the get-go..?

~

----------


## Invader

> Okay so, in this case, we can then still look at the evidence and wonder why it is then that Atheists score higher than Theists.  Emphasis on the wonder and perhaps encourage to hypothesize.
> 
> I simply wonder then where we could pursue to find the causation or if there 
> are other variables that are worth investigating.  When we look at education, 
> the majority of those educated are Atheist.  This is also the same with 
> income levels and socio-economic.  However, the majority of people on the 
> planet are Theist, but also impoverished.



It may be that one with abstract critical thinking and reasoning skills is going 
to be more _able_ to see the logical shortcomings of modern theistic 
doctrine than a person that is lacking in those areas. I don't think there's a 
factor that _makes_ atheists more intelligent, but rather that high 
intelligence ends up making more atheists!

Of course that's not always the case, since both intellectualism and 
retardation exist on both sides of the fence, but it looks like that's the 
common trend.





> Right, and Atheists can still do this.  I am not quite sure I know if there is a point here or if we're just having a good discussion.  I am siding with the latter.



Yes, that they can. The point was to make sure we were on the same level 
with our definition of the word, but we _are_ having a good discussion 
too.






> On that note, though, if religion is independent of intelligence, then what is that person exercising, cognitively, that justifies believing in their religion..?



I'm sure this changes from one religion to the next, but I believe the viewer 
is the one that finds meaning in the religion (or just gets indoctrinated). 
Following the instruction manual requires no critical reasoning ability, but one 
can always find the rhyme and reason in the pages (or lack thereof). All I'm 
saying is that such reasoning ability is not a requirement.





> I would hope so.  However, when you refer to our developing understanding and our ability to categorize spiritual intelligence, then what is it that we are really hoping for..?  How exactly can we pursue it if we have no variables to work with from the get-go..?



That depends on where technology goes. It may become possible if a means 
of communicating mind-to-mind is developed, or upon the discovery of some 
new field that is effected by human intention, if such a thing exists. We may 
have no variables, but we do have some reason to believe that spiritual 
experience is a legitimate phenomenon, the same way relativity was 
before we had the ability to conduct the appropriate experiments.

----------


## O'nus

> It may be that one with abstract critical thinking and reasoning skills is going 
> to be more _able_ to see the logical shortcomings of modern theistic 
> doctrine than a person that is lacking in those areas. I don't think there's a 
> factor that _makes_ atheists more intelligent, but rather that high 
> intelligence ends up making more atheists!



Yup.  I think you're right.





> That depends on where technology goes. It may become possible if a means 
> of communicating mind-to-mind is developed, or upon the discovery of some 
> new field that is effected by human intention, if such a thing exists. We may 
> have no variables, but we do have some reason to believe that spiritual 
> experience is a legitimate phenomenon, the same way relativity was 
> before we had the ability to conduct the appropriate experiments.



Actually, as far as I know in my academic endeavor, we have more reason to believe that "spiritual phenomenon" is nothing but glorified emotional experiences.  How can we explore something, like the spirit, when we do not even know it exists in the first place?  Ought we not first prove that it does?

~

----------


## Invader

> Actually, as far as I know in my academic endeavor, we have more reason to believe that "spiritual phenomenon" is nothing but glorified emotional experiences.  How can we explore something, like the spirit, when we do not even know it exists in the first place?  Ought we not first prove that it does?



In order to better know where you stand on the issue, perhaps you can share 
some of these reasons? As I understand it, we have been able to artificially 
stimulate anger, happiness, sorrow and what have you, but not so with other 
extreme moments of 'insight'. My knowledge of the subject is not sufficient 
enough to say for certain.

----------


## Xaqaria

> Okay so, in this case, we can then still look at the evidence and wonder why it is then that Atheists score higher than Theists. Emphasis on the wonder and perhaps encourage to hypothesize.



I don't remember any of your charts matching specific test scores to individual's religious affiliation. Like I said before, you showed a correllation between two different statistics. You showed that countries and time periods in which test scores are higher, fewer people identify with a religion. This means that statistically speaking, the fewer religious people in countries with high I.Q.'s also scored higher.   





> Actually, as far as I know in my academic endeavor, we have more reason to believe that "spiritual phenomenon" is nothing but glorified emotional experiences.  How can we explore something, like the spirit, when we do not even know it exists in the first place?  Ought we not first prove that it does?
> 
> ~



It sounds like you've never had a glorious emotional experience. You may not know if it exists, and maybe that is why you don't explore it. those of us who do explore it know.


The human spirit cannot be found in academia. It can only be found in humans. The easiest place to start is with yourself. Do you read a book in order to learn what its like to see, or do you simply open your eyes?

----------


## DeathCell

Atheists calling superiority of intelligence over religious people just makes you look like an assclown.

Has atheism really came to the point that they need to spread propaganda or faulty correlations? Reminiscent of the church telling us to abandon our other religions for Heaven, now we must abandon religion for intelligence I assume? After all his study shows us.... lol

This is a disservice to the atheist movement.

----------


## Xei

You talk about atheism as if it's a single institution.

It isn't. Atheists are individuals and most of those individuals don't see any point in arguing about the correlation between intelligence and faith.

----------


## Maria92

> Atheists calling superiority of intelligence over religious people just makes you look like an assclown.
> 
> Has atheism really came to the point that they need to spread propaganda or faulty correlations? Reminiscent of the church telling us to abandon our other religions for Heaven, now we must abandon religion for intelligence I assume? After all his study shows us.... lol
> 
> This is a disservice to the atheist movement.



*facepalms*

Really, I don't think I need to say anything; you basically just proved O'nus's point. Had you actually _read_ his post, you would know that Atheists aren't calling themselves superior in intelligence, and that this is NOT propaganda. What studies are showing, time and again, is that atheists and the non-religious in general tend to be stronger in a certain way of thinking known as abstract categorical and hypothetical (ACH) thinking. 





> ACH Thinking
> 
> Abstract Categorical and Hypothetical (ACH) thinking is assessed in the Raven's and Weschler Similarities tests (segments of the primary IQ tests). Now while our ancestors and elders are obviously not complete Neanderthals, they were actually lacking in their scores for ACH thinking. Instead of focusing on developing independent ACH thinking, there was more focus on fundamental learning for immediate pertinent use (ie. writing, arithmetic, and reading - the three "R"'s).
> 
> In our later generations, though, we have developed this thinking and learned to become more engrossed in our creative venture. It was because of people like Dewey who encouraged pragmatic learning that encourage this ACH thinking.



Also note which conclusions O'nus draws:




> Conclusions
> 
> Abstract categorical and hypothetical (ACH) thinking is rising. Atheism is rising. Intelligence is rising. Evolutionary acceptance and knowledge is rising.
> 
> It is really just that simple.
> 
> What do you think...?



Next time, I recommend you actually read the post before commenting.

----------


## DeathCell

> *facepalms*
> 
> Really, I don't think I need to say anything; you basically just proved O'nus's point. Had you actually _read_ his post, you would know that Atheists aren't calling themselves superior in intelligence, and that this is NOT propaganda. What studies are showing, time and again, is that atheists and the non-religious in general tend to be stronger in a certain way of thinking known as abstract categorical and hypothetical (ACH) thinking.



The studies are propaganda. Nothing but.
Thinly veiled correlations, used in conjunction with a specific objective.


You can't just assume these two things are related without evidence.





> Next time, I recommend you actually read the post before commenting.



Next time, I recommend you actually understand the post before commenting. And perhaps stepping back and looking at this terrible use of data.

I'm not quite sure who you think you are mario, but perhaps you should go back to the pipe you climbed out of.





> You talk about atheism as if it's a single institution.
> 
> It isn't. Atheists are individuals and most of those individuals don't see any point in arguing about the correlation between intelligence and faith.



I quite understand that, but atheism as a whole is being dis-serviced by movements like this. And regardless of it being a very individual path, it's not necessarily viewed at that by the rest of the population. Just like people group all groups of Christians together... not necessarily fair, but reality.

The last thing this topic and others like it will do is convince people to become an atheist, so if your goal is to alienate yourself from the rest of society and attain no new members continue on this path.

----------


## really

> The human spirit cannot be found in academia. It can only be found in humans. The easiest place to start is with yourself. Do you read a book in order to learn what its like to see, or do you simply open your eyes?



Haha, wow.  :wink2:  

It's really that simple.

----------


## C-Fonz

These are the most useless posts possible.  You think IQ is the best measurement of human intelligence?  That is ridiculous.  IQ tests only apply to one part of the brain, left brain.  Precise, exact, linear.  What about the right part of the brain...EQ emotional intelligence, abstract thinking creativity?


How is it that most of these countries are seen on an IQ average as close to mentally handicapped....wtf?  Obviously if other countries citizens not as proficient in some of the sub tests within the IQ tests will do horrible, their education system isn't as good, their left brained education system.  There is a reason the U.S was not following the line in that graph, we're more educated, we have more resources, but we are still relatively religious.

There will never be an accurate way to measure intelligence.  You need a whole brain test and not a half brain test.

----------


## Scatterbrain

> These are the most useless posts possible.  You think IQ is the best measurement of human intelligence?  That is ridiculous.  IQ tests only apply to one part of the brain, left brain.  Precise, exact, linear.  What about the right part of the brain...EQ emotional intelligence, abstract thinking creativity?
> 
> 
> How is it that most of these countries are seen on an IQ average as close to mentally handicapped....wtf?  Obviously if other countries citizens not as proficient in some of the sub tests within the IQ tests will do horrible, their education system isn't as good, their left brained education system.  There is a reason the U.S was not following the line in that graph, we're more educated, we have more resources, but we are still relatively religious.
> 
> There will never be an accurate way to measure intelligence.  You need a whole brain test and not a half brain test.



That's an ignorant oversimplification of the lateralization of the functions of the brain.

----------


## Alric

Seems fairly questionable to me for a few reason. First the short term 1982-2007, the chart shows no real change. Secondly the person said Australia is the most religious country, while the chart says the average Australian has an IQ of 98, 2 points below average, and far from the bottom. Which is very conflicting to what they said. 

Third the red orange yellow map is being used out of context. As it is a rating of races and native people in a country, and not a reflection of modern day average population. No the average austrialian isn't mentally retarded, which you can double check on the other chart, which says they are not. Fourth the first poll is asking about belief in a personal god, and doesn't address any other form of religion, that believes other things. 

Also, I have no clue what a "Greater" scientist is supposed to mean, so that chart has no meaning. Also Austria has a above average IQ yet, appears to be on the lower side of the chart for believing in evoultion, also conflicting what the person said.

Overall, there is a lot of questionable data, as well as data that does not match from one chart to the next, and some are taken out of context.

----------


## mowglycdb

People that are way to submissive, only be of one religion and not questioning about it, yeah  aren't that intelligent.

People that have a balanced left and right side of their brain , usually don't fall into fanatism.

----------


## O'nus

> I don't remember any of your charts matching specific test scores to individual's religious affiliation. Like I said before, you showed a correllation between two different statistics. You showed that countries and time periods in which test scores are higher, fewer people identify with a religion. This means that statistically speaking, the fewer religious people in countries with high I.Q.'s also scored higher.



Of course.  I am always acknowledging the statistical leniency for non-generalizations.  Come on people, learn statistics.





> It sounds like you've never had a glorious emotional experience. You may not know if it exists, and maybe that is why you don't explore it. those of us who do explore it know.



That's a pretty prejudicial thing to say; I must not believe it because, if I had experienced it, then I must truly believe it then.  Could I not say the same to you?  Is that any more convincing?

Of course not, it's a simple bias you are stretching for.





> The human spirit cannot be found in academia. It can only be found in humans. The easiest place to start is with yourself. Do you read a book in order to learn what its like to see, or do you simply open your eyes?



I do both.  You are talking to someone who firmly believes that "the human spirit" is nothing but the over-glorification of the already amazing beauty of the weak mortal humans.  There is nothing outside or further fact of the context - we are weak fragile mortals and there's nothing more to it than that.  





> Atheists calling superiority of intelligence over religious people just makes you look like an assclown.



I provided evidence.  Making prejudicial and simple rebuttals actually makes you look like an ass if all you got is ad hominems.





> Has atheism really came to the point that they need to spread propaganda or faulty correlations? Reminiscent of the church telling us to abandon our other religions for Heaven, now we must abandon religion for intelligence I assume? After all his study shows us.... lol



How are they faulty again?  It sounds like you have no argument and just squirming to find any sort of defense.  Remember, none of this is saying that no religious person can be smarter than another non-religious one.





> This is a disservice to the atheist movement.



Nice try.





> The studies are propaganda. Nothing but.
> Thinly veiled correlations, used in conjunction with a specific objective.



I would say this too if I had no better rebuttal or substantial way to debate the topic.





> You can't just assume these two things are related without evidence.



It is evidence.  Do you read?





> Next time, I recommend you actually understand the post before commenting. And perhaps stepping back and looking at this terrible use of data.



This comment is terribly ironic as you have demonstrated your clearly obvious hypocrisy.  You ought to consider the context before jumping in and making a mockery of yourself.





> I quite understand that, but atheism as a whole is being dis-serviced by movements like this. And regardless of it being a very individual path, it's not necessarily viewed at that by the rest of the population. Just like people group all groups of Christians together... not necessarily fair, but reality.



It's not a movement - it's truth; Atheists are more often smarter than Theists.

Deal with it.





> These are the most useless posts possible.  You think IQ is the best measurement of human intelligence?  That is ridiculous.  IQ tests only apply to one part of the brain, left brain.  Precise, exact, linear.  What about the right part of the brain...EQ emotional intelligence, abstract thinking creativity?



No one in academia uses the terms "left and right" brains.  You clearly have no idea what the science of intelligence is.

Furthermore, if you do not think that visual spatial reasoning, mathematical skills, verbal skills, abstract thinking, writing, and more are not measures of intelligence, please tell me what you do think is.





> How is it that most of these countries are seen on an IQ average as close to mentally handicapped....wtf?  Obviously if other countries citizens not as proficient in some of the sub tests within the IQ tests will do horrible, their education system isn't as good, their left brained education system.  There is a reason the U.S was not following the line in that graph, we're more educated, we have more resources, but we are still relatively religious.



Mentally handicapped is < 70.  Please double check your posts before making asinine rebuttals.





> There will never be an accurate way to measure intelligence.  You need a whole brain test and not a half brain test.



Again, using such terms as "whole" and "half" brain only demonstrates your ignorance to the WAIS.





> Seems fairly questionable to me for a few reason. First the short term 1982-2007, the chart shows no real change. Secondly the person said Australia is the most religious country, while the chart says the average Australian has an IQ of 98, 2 points below average, and far from the bottom. Which is very conflicting to what they said.



You saw no change in the 1982-2007 chart?  Take another look.

Also, the chart clearly shows that Australia's is averaging 60.  Where are you misreading this?





> Third the red orange yellow map is being used out of context. As it is a rating of races and native people in a country, and not a reflection of modern day average population. No the average austrialian isn't mentally retarded, which you can double check on the other chart, which says they are not. Fourth the first poll is asking about belief in a personal god, and doesn't address any other form of religion, that believes other things.



Yeah, native people *to* a country.

Also, mentally retardation is relative to culture contexts.  In Australia, it is regarded mildly retarded to have an IQ of 50.





> Also, I have no clue what a "Greater" scientist is supposed to mean, so that chart has no meaning. Also Austria has a above average IQ yet, appears to be on the lower side of the chart for believing in evoultion, also conflicting what the person said.



Perhaps you should actually consider reading the articles before jumping to conclusions to make the most jumbled rebuttal you could possibly muster.

Greater is used in parenthesis because it is referring to:
+ Greater = National Academy of Scientists (NAS)
+ Lesser = Non-members

The results are still similar.  You can easily look this up, if you had the open-mind to do so.





> Overall, there is a lot of questionable data, as well as data that does not match from one chart to the next, and some are taken out of context.



No, there are a lot of questionable responses.  

It seems people are far too defensive and would rather debate the truth to their death rather than possibly learn and grow from it.  Remember, even Atheists have varying dynamic beliefs and still debate the quality of research to.  Something that Theists have a significantly difficulty in doing.

I look forward to quality responses.

~

----------


## Alric

That one chart the numbers only change a little and seems to be in no specific pattern. Meaning it was all probably within the margin of error for it. 

The map that shows austrila as having an average IQ of 60, conflicts directly with the chart saying they have an IQ of 98. Because the map shows the IQ of the aboriginal population. Not everyone living in the country. The same goes for all the other countries on that map.

----------


## O'nus

> That one chart the numbers only change a little and seems to be in no specific pattern. Meaning it was all probably within the margin of error for it.



Which chart?  Remember, on small numbers, the margin of error too is small.





> The map that shows austrila as having an average IQ of 60, conflicts directly with the chart saying they have an IQ of 98. Because the map shows the IQ of the aboriginal population. Not everyone living in the country. The same goes for all the other countries on that map.



After investigating, you are right that the one study is primarily focused on native peoples of the countries.  We can still utilize this for the argument.

However, you are wrong that it is similarly applicable to other countries.  It is not uncommon for studies to have minor differences, or even a few major ones.  However, that is by no means reason to ignore the significant confounding evidence in the other respects.  

It would be completely asinine to ignore that fact in favor of a bias.

~

----------


## really

> I do both.  You are talking to someone who firmly believes that "the human spirit" is nothing but the over-glorification of the already amazing beauty of the weak mortal humans.  There is nothing outside or further fact of the context - we are weak fragile mortals and there's nothing more to it than that.



Over-glorification of the already amazing beauty of the weak mortal humans? From what existence can you even claim this? The human spirit. Your mind may disagree, but your mind is attached to the words and stories of the book. You may say that you use your eyes, but by that time it is already too late, is it not?

----------


## Maria92

> Over-glorification of the already amazing beauty of the weak mortal humans? From what existence can you even claim this? The human spirit. Your mind may disagree, but your mind is attached to the words and stories of the book. You may say that you use your eyes, but by that time it is already too late, is it not?



What the hell? Are you suggesting that the human spirit is, indeed, truth; that all humans have a spirit or soul within them? And you accept this with little evidence and no proof, flinging logic and reason in the face of Occam's Razor? 

What I meant to say was...how did you reach your conclusions that the human spirit/soul is a matter of fact, which appears to be how you are treating it? Why, dare I ask, do you appear to place so little confidence in Occam's Razor? Pardon me if I seem a bit arrogant or troll-like, as I do not mean to be.

----------


## really

> What the hell? Are you suggesting that the human spirit is, indeed, truth; that all humans have a spirit or soul within them? And you accept this with little evidence and no proof, flinging logic and reason in the face of Occam's Razor? 
> 
> What I meant to say was...how did you reach your conclusions that the human spirit/soul is a matter of fact, which appears to be how you are treating it? Why, dare I ask, do you appear to place so little confidence in Occam's Razor? Pardon me if I seem a bit arrogant or troll-like, as I do not mean to be.



Do I need to reach the conclusion that I exist? I'm not going to spoil this topic, so I won't elaborate, and I don't think that's necessary anyway.

----------


## Maria92

> Do I need to reach the conclusion that I exist? I'm not going to spoil this topic, so I won't elaborate, and I don't think that's necessary anyway.



Yes, you exist, but why does a spirit/soul even need to enter the equation at all?  ::wtf::  If this is, indeed, the conclusion you have reached, I would be most interested in learning how you arrived there.

----------


## really

> Yes, you exist, but why does a spirit/soul even need to enter the equation at all?  If this is, indeed, the conclusion you have reached, I would be most interested in learning how you arrived there.



If you read deeply about your existence and your spirit, you will conceptually find that they're identical. Reaching a conclusion is something the mind does. Meditating on it, however, is another beautiful topic altogether.

----------


## Maria92

> If you read deeply about your existence and your spirit, you will conceptually find that they're identical. Reaching a conclusion is something the mind does. Meditating on it, however, is another beautiful topic altogether.



I seem to be having trouble understanding exactly what it is you are getting at, here. You claim that, because I exist, I have a spirit...is this not so? If this is what you are saying, then do dogs and bugs, trees and rocks, also have spirits? They exist, so by the reasoning you give, they must also have spirits. Does every grain of sand on any given beach have a spirit, too? If you smash a rock in two, do you create another spirit? Or is the spirit something restricted entirely to humans? You have some s'plaining to do.

----------


## O'nus

> Over-glorification of the already amazing beauty of the weak mortal humans? From what existence can you even claim this? The human spirit. Your mind may disagree, but your mind is attached to the words and stories of the book. You may say that you use your eyes, but by that time it is already too late, is it not?



why do i waste my life trying to talk to people.  

i give in.

----------


## really

> I seem to be having trouble understanding exactly what it is you are getting at, here. You claim that, because I exist, I have a spirit...is this not so? If this is what you are saying, then do dogs and bugs, trees and rocks, also have spirits? They exist, so by the reasoning you give, they must also have spirits. Does every grain of sand on any given beach have a spirit, too? If you smash a rock in two, do you create another spirit? Or is the spirit something restricted entirely to humans? You have some s'plaining to do.



This thread may help you, but I'm not going off topic explaining things in _this_ thread. Thanks for asking.  :wink2:  

Supporting arguments for Spiritual Reality





> why do i waste my life trying to talk to people.  
> 
> i give in.



This means.. You think you're wasting your time? Is this an intelligent response?

----------


## Maria92

> TThis means.. You think you're wasting your time? Is this an intelligent response?



I think it means he realizes when arguing with someone is a futile attempt, because the person has a tendency to be illogical/irrational/set in their beliefs/stubborn/close-minded/unbending/unwilling to change/etc.

----------


## really

> I think it means he realizes when arguing with someone is a futile attempt, because the person has a tendency to be illogical/irrational/set in their beliefs/stubborn/close-minded/unbending/unwilling to change/etc.



That's probably what it seems to him, but I believe Xaqaria and myself are talking about something more subtle than what meets the intellect.

If there's nothing for him to add then I won't add anything either.

----------


## O'nus

> That's probably what it seems to him, but I believe Xaqaria and myself are talking about something more subtle than what meets the intellect.



disappointing.

----------


## Alric

The second ones where the numbers go, 44%, 47%, 44%, 47%, 45%, 45% in that order. That isn't a trend, that is the same result every time with a slight differences because of the margin of error. And if you look at the other two columns they both reflect that as well. They claim it is a trend, but it isn't, and it obviously isn't.

The IQ of native americans has no reflection on the IQ of average people living in the US. So you can throw that entire map out.

Then you have two charts that directly conflict with each other. I have no idea which is true and which isn't. But you can't really use either to prove something since you know for a fact one is wrong, and you would just be guessing.

The problem is the data is to inconsistent and not complete. It is even worse, when you are trying to compare multiple charts from different time periods, dealing with different topics.

I am not ignoring any facts. I am simply saying the facts are not facts, if it comes from questionable data.

----------


## C-Fonz

> Furthermore, if you do not think that visual spatial reasoning, mathematical skills, verbal skills, abstract thinking, writing, and more are not measures of intelligence, please tell me what you do think is.
> 
> Mentally handicapped is < 70.  Please double check your posts before making asinine rebuttals.
> 
> Again, using such terms as "whole" and "half" brain only demonstrates your ignorance to the WAIS.
> ~



1. I do, i just am talking out of my own experiences of being tested, in which I was ONLY tested on math, memory, and abstract thinking, which left me feeling as if I wasn't tested on all levels.  So maybe I'm biased in that respect.

2. I took it from that scatter plot graph, 10 dots are _close_ to mentally handicapped.  I shouldn't have said most, but its still significant.

3. It does.  I just find it hard to accept countries are on average mentally handicapped?  Which is why I explained the intelligence isn't correctly being calculated.

Everything I'm saying probably is ignorant, you asked for my thoughts.

----------


## acatalephobic

> why do i waste my life trying to talk to people. i give in.



Oh come now, it can't be as bad as all that can it? What good are ideas without someone to bounce them off...it offers the opportunity to learn from others, or to strengthen your own convictions...and _both_, if you're lucky. I would be inclined to think a scenario in which we were to all seamlessly agree would be a far greater waste of time...


And, forgive me if I'm missing something here...but if you are saying you aren't attempting to prove strict causation [for which one would need a wealth of further evidence], and that the evidence simply points to a correlation [which it obviously does]...

...why does it seem like everyone is arguing as if the proposed evidence [or someone's percieved lack thereof] represents a causal claim? Am i missing something?



That being said though, I'm humbly of the belief stated elsewhere in this thread...that although the evidence clearly points to a correlation, I feel there are most likely many other factors which could be shown to influence IQ, and therefore to say it is the _predominant_ one would require far more evidence.

----------


## DeathCell

> I provided evidence.  Making prejudicial and simple rebuttals actually makes you look like an ass if all you got is ad hominems.



Actually it's the truth, if this is what you feel is an important study than you look like an assclown. It's that simple, it's not an ad hominem attack that's how you will be viewed by the majority of people.






> How are they faulty again?  It sounds like you have no argument and just squirming to find any sort of defense.  Remember, none of this is saying that no religious person can be smarter than another non-religious one.



 This study like many others can easily be rigged to put out the kind of data that you want. You keep believing it, I'm sure you've done 0% fact checking.



Nice try.






> I would say this too if I had no better rebuttal or substantial way to debate the topic.



 You provided us some junk science, congratulations.






> It is evidence.  Do you read?



I read it jumps to the conclusion that IQ's and Religion are linked, simply because of some poorly designed statistics. You assume that because if this study is even accurate that they are automatically somehow dependent.. This is simply a stupid statistic that in a few years if done by a different group would have different statistics.. 






> This comment is terribly ironic as you have demonstrated your clearly obvious hypocrisy.  You ought to consider the context before jumping in and making a mockery of yourself.



 Their is no mockery, you posted someone elses "data" , and assumed it's accurate and refuse to accept that it makes your movement look like a bunch of "I am superior", whiners.






> It's not a movement - it's truth; Atheists are more often smarter than Theists.
> 
> Deal with it.



Atheists* such as yourself tend to buy into any study without an ounce of fact checking or understanding how their is no clear correlation and nothing but an assumption. And in the end it makes you look like a blowhard with a superiority complex.

All your study proves it that countries that are less developed tend to be more religious and less intelligent... America being more religious and more intelligent shows my point to be true.

Alric seems to have this under control already, he can smell a fishy study obviously.

*Atheists - Not all, just ones like yourself who focus on stupid studies.


On a side note - It may be wise to get in touch with your emotional side, you'll find yourself alone but you'll have your numbers.

----------


## O'nus

> Actually it's the truth, if this is what you feel is an important study than you look like an assclown. It's that simple, it's not an ad hominem attack that's how you will be viewed by the majority of people.
> 
> 
>  This study like many others can easily be rigged to put out the kind of data that you want. You keep believing it, I'm sure you've done 0% fact checking.
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try.
> 
> ...



You know, I spent an actual hour or two researching these topics and it really pisses me off to see that there are humans out there that give such asinine responses. 

You, and all others, have not provided any alternative data nor really (save Alric) provided any substantial criticism to the research other than "This is hate data!"

To say that I have not done any fact finding and that it is junk science, then call me an assclown, does nothing but show your lack of respect for me as I have provided nothing but facts and research studies.  The hypocrisy is ridiculous; accuse me of being an assclown and providing no research but you actually do not do any justifications or reasoning for saying these things.  You are not saying why you think they are junk science nor why I am an assclown.

Honestly, I am losing confidence in the majority's capability to debate, let alone think.  The responses in this thread clearly demonstrate that many people would rather be defensive and act childish then actually debate on a substantial level.

Save for Alric - thank you for your thoughtful scrutiny, I highly respect it, opposed to the nonsense and non-thinking for the rest of these pillocks.  I will give you a fair response later on after I honestly double check my sources as you noted I ought to (which is fair).

I challenge any of you to provide evidence of the opposite of what I have shown.  Not to prove me wrong, but to prove you have a capacity for real debate.

~

----------


## really

Respect others whether you agree with them or not; whether you think they're providing a substantial debate (as you see it). 

Maybe you should stick to your own word, and respond again to my posts with the quality you want to see in others. But as for now I have nothing more to say about the statistics; I think they've been well criticized already.

----------


## O'nus

> Respect others whether you agree with them or not; whether you think they're providing a substantial debate (as you see it). 
> 
> Maybe you should stick to your own word, and respond again to my posts with the quality you want to see in others. But as for now I have nothing more to say about the statistics; I think they've been well criticized already.



All you did was try to derail the topic into spirituality; what responses are you referring to when you say I ought to give them fair responses because they surely were not yours.  You have completely failed in offering any scrutiny but offered a lot of digression and irrelevant propositions.  You can debate what intelligence is all you want, but there is an obvious premise of intelligence in this thread and it is defined by the WAIS.  If you want to debate that, go ahead, but that is irrelevant and I have grown intolerant of you derailing behaviour.  

~

----------


## DeathCell

> You know, I spent an actual hour or two researching these topics and it really pisses me off to see that there are humans out there that give such asinine responses. 
> 
> You, and all others, have not provided any alternative data nor really (save Alric) provided any substantial criticism to the research other than "This is hate data!"
> 
> To say that I have not done any fact finding and that it is junk science, then call me an assclown, does nothing but show your lack of respect for me as I have provided nothing but facts and research studies.  The hypocrisy is ridiculous; accuse me of being an assclown and providing no research but you actually do not do any justifications or reasoning for saying these things.  You are not saying why you think they are junk science nor why I am an assclown.
> 
> Honestly, I am losing confidence in the majority's capability to debate, let alone think.  The responses in this thread clearly demonstrate that many people would rather be defensive and act childish then actually debate on a substantial level.
> 
> Save for Alric - thank you for your thoughtful scrutiny, I highly respect it, opposed to the nonsense and non-thinking for the rest of these pillocks.  I will give you a fair response later on after I honestly double check my sources as you noted I ought to (which is fair).
> ...



What don't you understand? No one else has studied this nonsense, so I don't have any data to provide you. Alric has already taken care of showing your data to be junk, I have no need to repeat him. 

This isn't worth a second and third debate, it's nothing but simple debauchery of statistics. Why would I repeat his words, it doesn't even make sense.. But as always onus, you'll go off on your little tangents. No one can handle a real debate, etc.. etc... 

No one is going to waste their time to put together a study proving the opposite, because it's pointless.. You know I could probably find a correlation between Cow milk drinking and IQ as well, you still don't get it.



(It's also not my fault you don't understand how humans think or work. I think it's self explanatory why people would view you as I put it an "assclown". You may understand the bones, but probably have little understanding of true human emotion)


P.S. It's junk science, because it's a bunch of studies that are unrelated and in different time periods and made it fit to support someones theory, who really cares if large assumptions are made... (Alric has already been discussing this with you, do I really need to repeat his exact words? Redundancy is something you need?)

----------


## Lucidness

What about agnostic's ? We have a different look out into the world. Exploring different ways, i would say thats the best.

----------


## O'nus

> What about agnostic's ? We have a different look out into the world. Exploring different ways, i would say thats the best.



Most of the data was including Agnostics with Atheists and non-Theists.





> What don't you understand? No one else has studied this nonsense, so I don't have any data to provide you. Alric has already taken care of showing your data to be junk, I have no need to repeat him.



Firstly, he has not shown it to be junk data, just questionable context.  Further, it was only for two sources which I am going to respond to now in this post.

The fact that you cannot provide an intelligent response to this and instead favour emotional distress only reinforces my original argument.





> This isn't worth a second and third debate, it's nothing but simple debauchery of statistics. Why would I repeat his words, it doesn't even make sense.. But as always onus, you'll go off on your little tangents. No one can handle a real debate, etc.. etc...



It's not a debauchery at all and just because you preposition it as so does not make it true but only demonstrates your incapability to debate.  I understand though if you have a problem accepting facts and lack the intelligence to do so.  





> No one is going to waste their time to put together a study proving the opposite, because it's pointless.. You know I could probably find a correlation between Cow milk drinking and IQ as well, you still don't get it.



Wow.  





> (It's also not my fault you don't understand how humans think or work. I think it's self explanatory why people would view you as I put it an "assclown". You may understand the bones, but probably have little understanding of true human emotion)



I am sorry, I have a degree in psychology and philosophy.  I believe I may be actually qualified in it as opposed to yourself.  Could you perhaps offer any sort of substantial argument rather than ad hominems and other immature displays of childish prepositions?





> P.S. It's junk science, because it's a bunch of studies that are unrelated and in different time periods and made it fit to support someones theory, who really cares if large assumptions are made... (Alric has already been discussing this with you, do I really need to repeat his exact words? Redundancy is something you need?)



lol, do you read?  Alric didn't disprove anything but questioned the context of TWO studies.  

The most important one, by Lynn, has not been touched upon by anyone yet.





> The second ones where the numbers go, 44%, 47%, 44%, 47%, 45%, 45% in that order. That isn't a trend, that is the same result every time with a slight differences because of the margin of error. And if you look at the other two columns they both reflect that as well. They claim it is a trend, but it isn't, and it obviously isn't.



I was not intending to focus on the Creatinist view column but the Naturalistic Evolution column.  Although the growth is small, it is still growing in an upward trend.  I have not drawn the margin of error for it, but if it makes any difference to you, that chart is taken from a religious website and still supports my cause.

If there are problems in the data finding, it would actually most likely be in the Christian bias as the statistics in this specific chart are funded by Christian organizations.  

I think that ought to quell the bias argument as well.  DeathCell ought to pay attention here.





> The IQ of native americans has no reflection on the IQ of average people living in the US. So you can throw that entire map out.



Firstly, you are going to argue that native people are not people that ought to be considered when we debate humans in general?  Natives still have religious beliefs and they do differ amongst countries.  Isn't that obvious?  We can still consider their data and use them.

More importantly, this is only one minor study I did not use as a major keystone; the Lynn argument is.  That should be obvious by my headings.





> Then you have two charts that directly conflict with each other. I have no idea which is true and which isn't. But you can't really use either to prove something since you know for a fact one is wrong, and you would just be guessing.



You must consider the confounding of these data sets.  There are always discrepancies but there are more similarities.  This is just a common thing in statistics and you must not always look at the minority.  In this case, there are actually more similarities.





> The problem is the data is to inconsistent and not complete. It is even worse, when you are trying to compare multiple charts from different time periods, dealing with different topics.



This is simply not true.  You're exaggerating now.

Either way, I challenge you to provide data in the opposing view.





> I am not ignoring any facts. I am simply saying the facts are not facts, if it comes from questionable data.



You have questioned two minor sources of mine that were of most minor value to me of all of them.  The one was even from a Christian organization.

The most important study in this argument, by Lynn, has not been touched upon at all.

---

I understand if people have a problem accepting facts, but honestly these responses would get some of you people removed in a public academic forum.  Unfortunately, you must accept that religious beliefs can and do affect IQ results as well as lifestyle choices.  This is just simple fact alongside many other beliefs that affect your lifestyle.  There will be statistical probabilities found amongst these lifestyles.  In this instance, it is that non-Theists have a higher IQ.  This is only really by about 10 though (above statistically significant).

I am not saying that Atheists are superior, I am simply showing the results of studies and asking what people think of them.  Does this mean that more people ought to be Atheist?  Clearly no.  I never said that.  Does it mean we maybe ought to reinforce removal of Church from education though?  Clearly YES, I do think that.

~

----------


## DeathCell

> Firstly, he has not shown it to be junk data, just questionable context.  Further, it was only for two sources which I am going to respond to now in this post.



 I mean junk science! And that's what it is, you are taking unrelated statistics and correlating them. 





> The fact that you cannot provide an intelligent response to this and instead favour emotional distress only reinforces my original argument.



Their is no emotional distress, you are just playing your card of ignorance in this round. Your original argument has to do with the nonreligious being more intelligent, on shady correlations. And the fact that Alric and I noticed, and the fact that I don't feel the need to repeat whats already been said has given you a reason to dig for a way to change the subject. Claim with no real explanation that I am being emotional, you mistake passion for an emotional problem. But it's not much of a surprise, I don't expect you to have a good grasp on human emotions.





> It's not a debauchery at all and just because you preposition it as so does not make it true but only demonstrates your incapability to debate.  I understand though if you have a problem accepting facts and lack the intelligence to do so.



 You just wasted two sentences that said nothing. More of a personal attack, you still seem to refuse to accept that Alric has already gone over this. I think you lack the humility to accept that you can be wrong. After all... we'll see your "boasting" later in your post.






> Wow.



YES WOW ONUS. Did you know because two things are shown to be in relation, doesn't mean one and the other are necessarily linked! Their could be many other factors affecting this apparent link, but you rely on this forums ignorance to that to make your study somehow true.






> I am sorry, I have a degree in psychology and philosophy.  I believe I may be actually qualified in it as opposed to yourself.  Could you perhaps offer any sort of substantial argument rather than ad hominems and other immature displays of childish prepositions?



Perhaps you should take your own advice Onus.




> lack the intelligence to do so.



But remember Onus has a "degree" in boasting on the internet. I believe you may be actually qualified in bullshiting on the internet.






> lol, do you read?  Alric didn't disprove anything but questioned the context of TWO studies.



Context is one of the most important parts of a study. It's that simple. You can easily use your study out of context to prove your point. Alric disproved you, by using studies in questionable context, you make it invalid.


Just because we don't have studies proving the opposite doesn't mean your study is any more accurate than a loose, out of context, two hour ordeal. And you seem to get rather emotionally charged when people question your study.

----------


## O'nus

> I mean junk science! And that's what it is, you are taking unrelated statistics and correlating them.



No.  I am not.  You clearly demonstrate your negligence.





> Their is no emotional distress, you are just playing your card of ignorance in this round. Your original argument has to do with the nonreligious being more intelligent, on shady correlations. And the fact that Alric and I noticed, and the fact that I don't feel the need to repeat whats already been said has given you a reason to dig for a way to change the subject. Claim with no real explanation that I am being emotional, you mistake passion for an emotional problem. But it's not much of a surprise, I don't expect you to have a good grasp on human emotions.



Interesting that you think Alric and yourself have pointed out such significant problems whereas, if you read, you will notice that my point still remains strong.  In fact, my strongest point remains completely untouched (Lynn study).

But you seem to be so blinded by your "passion" that you fail to see that.





> You just wasted two sentences that said nothing. More of a personal attack, you still seem to refuse to accept that Alric has already gone over this. I think you lack the humility to accept that you can be wrong. After all... we'll see your "boasting" later in your post.



No one has gone over the strongest crux of my point.





> YES WOW ONUS. Did you know because two things are shown to be in relation, doesn't mean one and the other are necessarily linked! Their could be many other factors affecting this apparent link, but you rely on this forums ignorance to that to make your study somehow true.



What?  Are you saying that I ought to hold back evidence and arguments because this forum is too ignorant and sensitive?





> But remember Onus has a "degree" in boasting on the internet. I believe you may be actually qualified in bullshiting on the internet.



You accuse me of using emotional attacks and ad hominems..?  Are you reading yourself..?





> Context is one of the most important parts of a study. It's that simple. You can easily use your study out of context to prove your point. Alric disproved you, by using studies in questionable context, you make it invalid.



Alric did not disprove me whatsoever.  Even if he was right in his points, 100%, they were only subsequent points.  Why do you exaggerate this to the destruction of the entire post?

I am not surprised though; you see someone make a substantial point, something you cannot do, and piggy-back off of them because you lack the ability to come up with anything but a hoping emotional argument.

Your best argument is that:
- O'nus is an emotional attacking prick
- Thus, O'nus is wrong.

But I have actually provided evidence.  You ignore it. 

Who is the ignoramus in this respect..?





> Just because we don't have studies proving the opposite doesn't mean your study is any more accurate than a loose, out of context, two hour ordeal. And you seem to get rather emotionally charged when people question your study.



I seem to get emotionally charged?  I will tell you when I am, and I have done so in the past.  It is infrequent that I do, but I will tell you.  You can clearly search and see it for yourself.

What disappoints me the most is that I thought some religious people, like yourself, would disprove or act in the minority, with some responses of substance.  You have done nothing but prove otherwise.  Keep trying to attack me instead of the evidence (which has not been touched upon by a single post yet).

~

----------


## DeathCell

Onus you are seriously misguiding yourself because you did this study yourself. Their was no personal attacks, I simply told you how you'd be viewed by the majority of the world. Onus you have a degree in boasting, because who in their right mind boasts about the degrees and qualifications you have on a forum?(Excuse my previous sarcastic manner, but you should easily be able to understand why I would scoff at someone talking themselves up)

My argument had nothing to do with you being an "emotional prick" I simply have mentioned your obvious emotional response, after your claiming I was... 

P.S. If your argument is left down to one thing as a crux, than your argument is probably not very well done.. You keep pulling away at layers of the onion, and find out it's nothing but straw.

P.S.S. Your study simply relies on assuming that even if this data matches up, that they must be related. Like I said, their are probably many other factors affecting IQ levels.. As you can see the US has higher IQ and higher religion, so perhaps it's the more "civilized" world having higher IQs for lack of a better term. We don't know because you said it yourself, you spend two hours doing this.. Hardly enough time to be a completely unbiased, accurate, statement.

Onus you want to do something good for science and the world? This isn't it. All you're doing is driving a bigger wedge.

----------


## O'nus

> Onus you are seriously misguiding yourself because you did this study yourself. Their was no personal attacks, I simply told you how you'd be viewed by the majority of the world. Onus you have a degree in boasting, because who in their right mind boasts about the degrees and qualifications you have on a forum?(Excuse my previous sarcastic manner, but you should easily be able to understand why I would scoff at someone talking themselves up)
> 
> My argument had nothing to do with you being an "emotional prick" I simply have mentioned your obvious emotional response, after your claiming I was... 
> 
> P.S. If your argument is left down to one thing as a crux, than your argument is probably not very well done.. You keep pulling away at layers of the onion, and find out it's nothing but straw.
> 
> P.S.S. Your study simply relies on assuming that even if this data matches up, that they must be related. Like I said, their are probably many other factors affecting IQ levels.. As you can see the US has higher IQ and higher religion, so perhaps it's the more "civilized" world having higher IQs for lack of a better term. We don't know because you said it yourself, you spend two hours doing this.. Hardly enough time to be a completely unbiased, accurate, statement.
> 
> Onus you want to do something good for science and the world? This isn't it. All you're doing is driving a bigger wedge.



Your points:
A) I boast my degree
B) I have emotional responses
C) My evidence is unrelated
D) Other factors affect IQ
E) Crux of arguments make it insignificant

Responses:
A) When have I ever boasted my degree?  You provide me one single quotation.  The only time I would ever mention this is if someone questioned my "authority" or "credentials" to say something.

B) The only emotional response I have had is disappointment.  You provide me one single good quotation to show otherwise.  Furthermore, even if you do, what is the point?  It still has nothing to do with my original argument whatsoever, even if I had an emotional response.  You can do better than that.. or so I thought.

C) My evidence is completely and absolutely related and that is why it is so ground-breaking at this time.  You obviously did not read a single thing but instead piggy-backed off of Alrics criticism of two of the minor studies.  The major study is from Lynn.

D) Yes, other factors can contribute to correlations and IQ.  I have been accepting this the entire time.  You have been neglecting it.  Please review the posts before making a complete ass of yourself.

E) There is a crux in every argument.  Don't be stupid.  You are really reaching for straws if you are seriously going to argue that, if I have a primary study to rely upon, that I must not have a very good argument.  There are plenty of confounding variables, and you are not accepting that.

Please, no more nonsense from you.  Your emotional antagonizing nature is taxing to my patience.  It does nothing but prove your incapability to actually provide any argument whatsoever.  Note that "Why repeat what Alric said" is not an argument but laziness.

~

----------


## DeathCell

> Your points:
> A) I boast my degree
> B) I have emotional responses
> C) My evidence is unrelated
> D) Other factors affect IQ
> E) Crux of arguments make it insignificant



These were never my original points, only after you started with your nonsense.





> A) When have I ever boasted my degree?  You provide me one single quotation.  The only time I would ever mention this is if someone questioned my "authority" or "credentials" to say something.



 That was the quote I was talking about, no one questioned your "authority", really no one online cares. It's simple showboating, to post your credentials in a forum.





> B) The only emotional response I have had is disappointment.  You provide me one single good quotation to show otherwise.



 You shouldn't have asked..





> Honestly, I am losing confidence in the majority's capability to debate, let alone think. The responses in this thread clearly demonstrate that many people would rather be defensive and act childish then actually debate on a substantial level.



 And it's really funny to see you break down because people don't think your evidence is any good, and don't believe this half-assed study to be the final word on anything. You seem to refuse to accept that people aren't going to waste their time trying to put together a study showing the opposite, because their is things in peoples lives, or time a scientist could be using to invent, or discover something that has some use. Not meaningless studies showing some group more intelligent than the other, especially when you COMPLETELY continue to disregard the fact that their are other FACTORS affecting IQ than just religious affiliations.





> I understand though if you have a problem accepting facts and lack the intelligence to do so.







> I believe I may be actually qualified in it as opposed to yourself.







> Save for Alric - thank you for your thoughtful scrutiny, I highly respect it, opposed to the nonsense and non-thinking for the rest of these pillocks. I will give you a fair response later on after I honestly double check my sources as you noted I ought to (which is fair).



You are just being immature yourself, you are simply ignoring the fact that I entered this topic after Alric, and have no need or reason to repeat what he already said. I said my piece, my opinion and for some reason because it's not a study of my own it's not valid enough for you. You are simply blinded by your own ambition.

No one is providing you counter-evidence, no one has actually wasted their time to study this. Simply Alric showing you that your argument is based on questionable connections, and my point that you've ignored multiple times. Which is that even if IQ and religious affiliation has some connection, the fact that the US breaks out of this mold could be cause/reason to believe that something else is affecting IQ such as how civilized a country is. But you have yet to say anything about that, that would be counterproductive to your nonsense about emotional outbursts. You do realize just because you can repeat yourself multiple times, doesn't make your statement accurate?





> Furthermore, even if you do, what is the point?  It still has nothing to do with my original argument whatsoever, even if I had an emotional response.  You can do better than that.. or so I thought.



Onus you seem to have a hard time following, you mentioned my emotional response in the first place.. and than I pointed out the fact that you seem to be doing it.. You are the one who has been trying to change the subject and aim some sort of emotional instability my way. I should be telling you, that you can do better than that.





> C) My evidence is completely and absolutely related and that is why it is so ground-breaking at this time.  You obviously did not read a single thing but instead piggy-backed off of Alrics criticism of two of the minor studies.  The major study is from Lynn.



It's an assumption, I'm not piggy-backing it's true.





> D) Yes, other factors can contribute to correlations and IQ.  I have been accepting this the entire time.  You have been neglecting it.  Please review the posts before making a complete ass of yourself.



Than why would you name the topic the nonreligious are more intelligent.. You are simply backpedaling. You want us to believe that IQ and religion are linked, when you have yet to give an explanation for the OUTLIER!






> E) There is a crux in every argument.  Don't be stupid.  You are really reaching for straws if you are seriously going to argue that, if I have a primary study to rely upon, that I must not have a very good argument.  There are plenty of confounding variables, and you are not accepting that.



 If you have an argument and the crux is all that's left, one has to wonder how accurate your work was. It's that simple if when we start to pick apart at your onion and find it to be nothing but straws, what could be at the core?





> Please, no more nonsense from you.  Your emotional antagonizing nature is taxing to my patience.  It does nothing but prove your incapability to actually provide any argument whatsoever.  Note that "Why repeat what Alric said" is not an argument but laziness.



Please, Onus. Your the one who is obviously having an emotional response. You put your time into this study, and your reactions show your emotion. Why should I repeat alric? You have yet to explain why I should repeat the same things he already said, you claim it's lazy, I claim it would be redundant.





> Either way the point remains - religious people are not as intelligent.



Onus, with posts like that.... You'd have a job with the Nazi' any day.. Just switch out religious people with Jews. 


Onus, someday maybe you'll understand the profound impact your words and time can have. Just imagine with your intelligence what kind of study you could be doing that would have some actually positive impact on the world, instead your spending your time trying to prove you're more intelligent... haha (in case you don't understand this, you are an atheist(agnostic) who isn't religious... so you are thus "proving" your more intelligent... or at least equally delusional.)

You obviously don't seem to understand how condescending your attitude is, but it's not a surprise.

----------


## DeathCell

The following is excerpts i've found about Lynn online.





> Lynn has been frequently criticized as a Pioneer fund grantee.



The following is about the Lynn study, that is your "crux".





> The figures were obtained by taking unweighted averages of different IQ tests. The number of studies is very limited; the IQ figure is based on one study in 34 nations, two studies in 30 nations. There were actual tests for IQ in 81 nations. In 104 of the world's nations there were no IQ studies at all and IQ was estimated based on IQ in surrounding nations.[4] The number of participants in each study was usually limited, often numbering under a few hundred. The exceptions to this were the United States and Japan, for which studies using more than several thousand participants are available.
> 
> Many nations are very heterogeneous ethnically. This is true for many developing countries. It is very doubtful that an often limited number of participants from one or a few areas are representative for the population as whole.
> 
> Studies that were averaged together often used different methods of IQ testing, different scales for IQ values and/or were done decades apart. IQ in children is different although correlated with IQ later in life and many of the studies tested only young children.
> 
> A test of 108 9-15-year olds in Barbados, of 50 13–16-year olds in Colombia, of 104 5–17-year olds in Ecuador, of 129 6–12-year olds in Egypt, of 48 10–14-year olds in Equatorial Guinea, and so on, all were taken as measures of 'national IQ'.[5]
> 
> The notion that there is such a thing as a culturally neutral intelligence test is disputed.[28][29][30][31][32] There are many difficulties when one is measuring IQ scores across cultures, and in multiple languages. Use of the same set of exams requires translation, with all its attendant difficulties and possible misunderstandings in other cultures.[33] To adapt to this, some IQ tests rely on non-verbal approaches, which involve pictures, diagrams, and conceptual relationships (such as in-out, great-small, and so on).







> There are also errors in the raw data presented by authors. The results from Vinko Buj's 1981 study of 21 European cities and the Ghanaian capital Accra used different scaling from Lynn and Vanhanen's. A comparison of the reported to actual data from only a single study found 5 errors in 19 reported IQ scores.[34][35]
> 
> The national IQ of Ethiopia was estimated from a study done on 250 fifteen-year-eld Ethiopian Jews one year after their migration to Israel. The research compares their level of performance with native Israelis using progressive matrices tests. It is strange that the data used to represent the "IQ of Ethiopia" are restricted to a tiny ethnic minority in Ethiopia, and that the tests were not even conducted in Ethiopia. Furthermore, one study showed that after intensive training, the cognitive ability of Ethiopian Jewish immigrants improved and caught up with that of their native Israeli peer groups.[36]







> As noted earlier, in many cases arbitrary adjustments were made by authors to account for the Flynn effect or when the authors thought that the studies were not representative of the ethnic or social composition of the nation.
> 
> One critic writes: "Their scheme is to take the British Ravens IQ in 1979 as 100, and simply add or subtract 2 or 3 to the scores from other countries for each decade that the relevant date of test departs from that year. The assumptions of size, linearity and universal applicability of this correction across all countries are, of course, hugely questionable if not breathtaking. Flynn's original results were from only 14 (recently extended to twenty) industrialised nations, and even those gains varied substantially with test and country and were not linear. For example, recent studies report increases of eight points per decade among Danes; six points per decade in Spain; and 26 points over 14 years in Kenya (confirming the expectation that newly developing countries would show more rapid gains)."[5]
> 
> There is controversy about the definition and usage of IQ and intelligence. See also race and intelligence.
> 
> It is generally agreed many factors, including environment, culture, demographics, wealth, pollution, and educational opportunities, affect measured IQ.[37] See also Health and intelligence.
> 
> Finally, the Flynn effect may well reduce or eliminate differences in IQ between nations in the future. One estimate is that the average IQ of the US was below 75 before factors like improved nutrition started to increase IQ scores. Some predict that considering that the Flynn effect started first in more affluent nations, it will also disappear first in these nations. Then the IQ gap between nations will diminish. However, even assuming that the IQ difference will disappear among the babies born today, the differences will remain for decades simply because of the composition of the current workforce. Steve Sailer noted as much when discussing the workforce in both India and China (see second diagram) [7]



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_...ions#Criticism





I must apologize, people really did waste their time studying this nonsense.

----------


## O'nus

> The following is excerpts i've found about Lynn online.
> 
> I must apologize, people really did waste their time studying this nonsense.



Well I am glad you replied with something with substance.  It saddens me that the best you can come up with is Wikipedia.





> Lynn has been frequently criticized as a Pioneer fund grantee.



_
"The Pioneer Fund is a U.S. non-profit foundation established in 1937 "to advance the scientific study of heredity and human differences." Currently headed by psychology professor J. Philippe Rushton, the fund focuses on projects it perceives will not be easily funded due to controversial subject matter."_

How is this a bad thing in this context..?

The rest of the criticism is true and sound.  I cannot make any justification in Lynn's place for it is not my study.  However, this does not mean that the study is "completely debunked and absolute nonsense" or "junk science".  It would be absolutely ignorant to categorize it as junk science or nonsense based on this criticism; it is good, but not enough to completely ignore the data sets.  There is still very good reason to continue investigation into the matter, is there not?

Please, be more considerate when debating with someone.  You cannot seriously believe that I am arguing that religion alone is the only contributing factor to IQ.  That would be completely idiotic and a gross mistake on your part to think.  There are many, many factors contributing to IQ and it is a great endeavor to try and figure out which ones are firstly significant and which ones are more significant than others.  Are you going to argue and say that you do not want to know which factors in life are better than others that could make humans smarter?  If you want to argue that, then go ahead and believe it, I won't argue someone who does not want to be smarter.

As another note; you must also not ignore the fact that I am not relying solely on one study.  There are also the plethora of studies showing that, with more education, the less religious someone is.  In fact, in the National Academy of Scientists, the vast majority are non-religious.  While this information is still premature, I think it would be completely disingenuous to the human quest for knowledge to say that we ought to ignore that and label it "Atheist Propaganda" - it's science. 

~

----------


## DeathCell

Onus I know you have a hard time grasping this, but I don't feel this subject is worth my time. I saw an obvious stupid study, with obvious problems. And made a few quick posts, I am not and will not be spending a lot of time researching something that is in my opinion pointless. You aren't helping science, you aren't helping atheism, you and Lynn are basically doing nothing useful.

Onus no matter how intelligent you are, it'll never help you with dealing with people. Especially when you claim that religion isn't the only factor for intelligence, perhaps you should learn the fundamentals of properly labeling topics/reports. Because "The Nonreligious are More Intelligent" is a pretty bold statement, and in no where did you want to admit that their are other factors until later in the topic.. 

And your last paragraph explains why people who take the scholarly path end up abandoning religion, but that is still no indication that "the nonreligious are more intelligent", only that those who tend to be intelligent, have a higher tendency to becoming nonreligious.  It is propaganda, it's all about how you present the information.. It's presented in a format to make those who are religious appear inexorably unintelligent, you don't necessarily come out in the first post that this is nothing but an assumption and very little has been studied supporting your theory but some statistics. Might I add you, not very stable statistics. And if you really think this study is part of the "human quest for knowledge" than I don't know exactly what to think about you. I think this is more akin to the human quest for superiority.

Who exactly will benefit from this study? What invention is being made to improve life or even for simple fun? What is being cured, what part of society are we really understanding? Or are we simply driving the wedge between religion and science? If you think this study will somehow prove to anyone anything, you are mistaken.. It will simply be hated by the religious, and viewed as gospel by certain atheists... You shouldn't come in here with something that as you said yourself

You really think you've figured out one of the main causes of intelligence??? I highly doubt religion plays any role in that, but our intelligence might play a role in our decisions when it comes to religion. Chew on that.


P.S. Wikipedia is one of the best places available online to "start" research, at that point you move on to confirm sources and find more direct sources.

P.S.S. You and Lynn could be better spending your time.

----------


## Kromoh

> Onus I know you have a hard time grasping this, but I don't feel this subject is worth my time. I saw an obvious stupid study, with obvious problems. And made a few quick posts, I am not and will not be spending a lot of time researching something that is in my opinion pointless. You aren't helping science, you aren't helping atheism, you and Lynn are basically doing nothing useful.



O'nus has a hard time grasping this? Oh, _please_. I have yet to see an argument coming from you.





> Onus no matter how intelligent you are, it'll never help you with dealing with people. Especially when you claim that religion isn't the only factor for intelligence, perhaps you should learn the fundamentals of properly labeling topics/reports. Because "The Nonreligious are More Intelligent" is a pretty bold statement, and in no where did you want to admit that their are other factors until later in the topic..



He doesn't need to. If there is a statistical correlation between irreligiosity and intelligence, then what he said was true. Of _course_ there are other factors that correlate with intelligence. Maybe you would know this if you knew better what statistical correlations are. To cite a few, the following are positively correlated with intelligence: wealth, leftist political positioning, doctor's degree, altruism, humour, myopia, talking speed, voluntary migration.





> And your last paragraph explains why people who take the scholarly path end up abandoning religion, but that is still no indication that "the nonreligious are more intelligent", only that those who tend to be intelligent, have a higher tendency to becoming nonreligious.  It is propaganda, it's all about how you present the information.. It's presented in a format to make those who are religious appear inexorably unintelligent, you don't necessarily come out in the first post that this is nothing but an assumption and very little has been studied supporting your theory but some statistics. Might I add you, not very stable statistics. And if you really think this study is part of the "human quest for knowledge" than I don't know exactly what to think about you. I think this is more akin to the human quest for superiority.



If people who study more abandon religion _and_ become more intelligent, that is already enough to make a statistical correlation. That is because people who take the survey will be more likely to be irreligious _and_ have a degree at the same time. It's why it's called "statistical correlation". Jesus.





> Who exactly will benefit from this study? What invention is being made to improve life or even for simple fun? What is being cured, what part of society are we really understanding? Or are we simply driving the wedge between religion and science? If you think this study will somehow prove to anyone anything, you are mistaken.. It will simply be hated by the religious, and viewed as gospel by certain atheists... You shouldn't come in here with something that as you said yourself



There is a difference between science and technology. Just because you won't use it, doesn't mean it's not important.

Yet, as O'nus said, this is utmost proof that religious education should be dropped from schools.

Man, this is a statistical correlation. O'nus didn't just come and say "I find that irreligious people are smarter". Nah. He said "It has been observed in statistics that irreligious people tend to be smarter". There are exceptions to any statistics, and basing your argument on this fact is dumb, for we all know it.





> You really think you've figured out one of the main causes of intelligence??? I highly doubt religion plays any role in that, but our intelligence might play a role in our decisions when it comes to religion. Chew on that.



Correlation doesn't imply causation. It could be that intelligence causes irreligiosity, or it could be that irreligiosity causes intelligence, or it could be that both mutually cause each other, or it could be that both irreligiosity and intelligence are caused by some third factor. If you knew what statistical correlations are, you'd know this..






> P.S.S. You and Lynn could be better spending your time.



You wanna talk about spending time? Get off the Internet and go study. Jebus, drop the unnecessary _ad hominems_.

----------


## O'nus

> Onus I know you have a hard time grasping this, but I don't feel this subject is worth my time. I saw an obvious stupid study, with obvious problems. And made a few quick posts, I am not and will not be spending a lot of time researching something that is in my opinion pointless. You aren't helping science, you aren't helping atheism, you and Lynn are basically doing nothing useful.



The obvious falsehood of this post is proven in the very fact that you have posted.  Now, why have you posted then and what have you contributed?  Nothing, save for a Wiki article.  Which would be considered junk science in the scientific community; something you accuse me of doing.





> Onus no matter how intelligent you are, it'll never help you with dealing with people. Especially when you claim that religion isn't the only factor for intelligence, perhaps you should learn the fundamentals of properly labeling topics/reports. Because "The Nonreligious are More Intelligent" is a pretty bold statement, and in no where did you want to admit that their are other factors until later in the topic..



It is a bold statement.  Are you saying that bold statements ought not to be made?  Are you so certain that all major things we hold dear are true?  Ought we have had ignored Galileo when he claimed that the Earth was *not* the center of the Earth?  Who was it that opposed him?  Who is it that is constantly opposed to scientific endeavor?  Opposed to the continuing of humans understanding of the universe around us?  Of ourselves?  Of our minds?

If those things do not interest you, then fine, leave the thread.





> And your last paragraph explains why people who take the scholarly path end up abandoning religion, but that is still no indication that "the nonreligious are more intelligent", only that those who tend to be intelligent, have a higher tendency to becoming nonreligious.  It is propaganda, it's all about how you present the information.. It's presented in a format to make those who are religious appear inexorably unintelligent, you don't necessarily come out in the first post that this is nothing but an assumption and very little has been studied supporting your theory but some statistics. Might I add you, not very stable statistics. And if you really think this study is part of the "human quest for knowledge" than I don't know exactly what to think about you. I think this is more akin to the human quest for superiority.



Why are you so hellbent on trying to argue that Atheists want domination over Theists?  If there is reasonable reason to think that there is actual evidence supporting the idea that Atheists are smarter than Theists, then would you not want to consider the actual evidence?  It could very well be the other way around, but this is not the apparent case.  This is just as there are psychological differences amongst many many other things.  

Context is everything; maybe you ought to consider that I am a research assistant from a psychology and philosophy program and such data should not be a surprise coming from someone who dedicates their life to studying human behaviour and questioning existence.  

Of course, if such things do not interest you.. then why are you speaking?





> Who exactly will benefit from this study? What invention is being made to improve life or even for simple fun? What is being cured, what part of society are we really understanding? Or are we simply driving the wedge between religion and science? If you think this study will somehow prove to anyone anything, you are mistaken.. It will simply be hated by the religious, and viewed as gospel by certain atheists... You shouldn't come in here with something that as you said yourself



Benefits from studying intelligence;
+ Educational systems
+ Childhood development
+ Economical maintenance of SES 
+ Sociological legislature
+ Measuring variables on IQ

Only to name a select few.  Each with a plethora of sub-reasons.

Of course, if you feel that these things are not important at all... then I think you are stupid, but that is your opinion and you are free to be stupid.  That being my opinion too that such things are important.





> You really think you've figured out one of the main causes of intelligence??? I highly doubt religion plays any role in that, but our intelligence might play a role in our decisions when it comes to religion. Chew on that.



No, I do not think so.  I think that there are much more significant factors.  But is it not intriguing to consider that religion is a contributing factor?  Realize that there are plethora of reasons, I have always acknowledged and, in fact, make the mistake of assuming that other people.  How foolish of me to assume that I ought to put a disclaimer and thorough explanation in all of my controversial posts for the insensitive people out there.  

Grow up.





> P.S. Wikipedia is one of the best places available online to "start" research, at that point you move on to confirm sources and find more direct sources.



I find it incredibly ironic that you accuse me of junk science and bad research and then your first substantial rebuttal is from the most disregarded and lousiest form of researching of all scientific mediums.  The only reasonable reason I would quote Wikipedia is for defining a term (ie. the flynn effect).  But not for proving it (this is why I provided a defining site from wiki and a scientific article under the flynn effect).

Yet here you are, a walking contradiction and projecting mess of the very example that my original point is about; religious people significantly lack the perspicacity to debate or even think. 





> P.S.S. You and Lynn could be better spending your time.



Really?  What would you suggest as an alternative?  Please, give me one that is better and I will immediately take it up.

What would be such a better thing to do than study the human mind, our intelligence, environmental affects on our intelligence, the economy and our sociological behaviour, socio-economical intelligence, philosophical definitions of intelligence, and the common quest for human understanding?

I understand that you may not want to question what makes us intelligence.

That would make sense.. coming from you.

Expect a PM.  No more of this.

~

----------


## sanctispiritus

I think a religious person could be as intelligent as a non-believer and even more there is the possibility that that person could be even more inteligent than an atheistic.  But it does not matter. Religion for me is not more than placebo.  There is no god.

----------


## Vampyre

> I think a religious person could be as intelligent as a non-believer and even more there is the possibility that that person could be even more inteligent than an atheistic.  But it does not matter. Religion for me is not more than placebo.  There is no god.



Indeed a religious person _could_ be as intelligent (or moreso). However, on average, statistically, they're not.

The point isn't so much as saying "You're religious, so you must be dumb." It's moreover stating "If you're a smart person, then you're probably not religious." As displayed best in the diagram comparing greater scientists. Those 7% of scientists with a personal belief in god are just as smart as the other scientists, but, as you can see, there are much more who don't hold that belief.

----------


## Carôusoul

> Who exactly will benefit from this study?




I benefited very much.

Threads like this make me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

----------


## DeathCell

> O'nus has a hard time grasping this? Oh, _please_. I have yet to see an argument coming from you.



 Must not read very well. You realize that just because my argument doesn't have a set of statistics behind it, doesn't mean it's not an argument.






> He doesn't need to. If there is a statistical correlation between irreligiosity and intelligence, then what he said was true.



 Not at all. You are not sure if the effect is before or after people gain their intelligence. All you've shown is that people with higher intelligence tend to disregard religion, it doesn't prove that "the nonreligious are more intelligent".





> If people who study more abandon religion _and_ become more intelligent, that is already enough to make a statistical correlation. That is because people who take the survey will be more likely to be irreligious _and_ have a degree at the same time. It's why it's called "statistical correlation". Jesus.



 And it still doesn't mean... "the nonreligious are more intelligent" it's a loaded topic.







> There is a difference between science and technology. Just because you won't use it, doesn't mean it's not important.



 So it has no use, since you didn't give any examples.





> Yet, as O'nus said, this is utmost proof that religious education should be dropped from schools.



 What schools other than private ones provide religious education?? I'd support teaching about all religions, and history of them.. never would support a public school forcing religion... I'm unsure what your point even is.





> Man, this is a statistical correlation. O'nus didn't just come and say "I find that irreligious people are smarter". Nah. He said "It has been observed in statistics that irreligious people tend to be smarter". There are exceptions to any statistics, and basing your argument on this fact is dumb, for we all know it.



 No calling a statistical correlation some sort of proof that the nonreligious are more intelligent, makes you all come off looking like a bunch of pompous blowhards. I know science, perhaps you guys should learn about actual human interaction for once.

Or maybe the fact that the US is a huge outlier might show you a problem with how the statistics were gathered. If you are well versed in statistics you must understand the importance of outliers?

Perhaps a few links will make you understand a little bit clearer.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Outlier.html





> "An outlier is an observation that lies outside the overall pattern of a distribution (Moore and McCabe 1999). Usually, the presence of an outlier indicates some sort of problem. This can be a case which does not fit the model under study, or an error in measurement. "



http://cc.uoregon.edu/cnews/spring2000/outliers.html





> There are several other problematic effects of outliers, including
> 
>     * bias or distortion of estimates
>     * inflated sums of squares (which make it unlikely you'll be able to partition sources of variation in the data into meaningful components)
>     * distortion of p-values (statistical significance, or lack thereof, can be due to the presence of a few--or even one--unusual data value)
>     * faulty conclusions (it's quite possible to draw false conclusions if you haven't looked for indications that there was anything unusual in the data)








> Correlation doesn't imply causation. It could be that intelligence causes irreligiosity, or it could be that irreligiosity causes intelligence, or it could be that both mutually cause each other, or it could be that both irreligiosity and intelligence are caused by some third factor. If you knew what statistical correlations are, you'd know this..



 I'm well aware of what a statistical correlation is, thank you very much. But the topic is called the nonreligious are more intelligent, and it's a bold statement and you are a doing a disservice to your study in the way the topic is worded.







> You wanna talk about spending time? Get off the Internet and go study. Jebus, drop the unnecessary _ad hominems_.



 Oh yeah? Ad hominems eh? People just seem to be in love with that term.

----------


## Maria92

> Must not read very well. You realize that just because my argument doesn't have a set of statistics behind it, doesn't mean it's not an argument.
> 
> Statistics are a good way to back up your points, mate. Simply throwing attacks around isn't going to get you too far. Even an outside source would be appreciated.
> 
>  Not at all. You are not sure if the effect is before or after people gain their intelligence. All you've shown is that people with higher intelligence tend to disregard religion, it doesn't prove that "the nonreligious are more intelligent".
> 
>   And it still doesn't mean... "the nonreligious are more intelligent" it's a loaded topic.
> 
> Why the hell won't you just drop this? You're going to debase O'nus's entire argument based on the title of the thread? (Which, by the way, was based in question format, not to be confused with conclusion-drawing format or something to be accepted as unconditional truth. Understand this, I beg of you.)
> ...



Are you a troll, or just stupid? Pardon me and my personal attacks, but I've had just about enough of this nonsense.

----------


## DeathCell

> The obvious falsehood of this post is proven in the very fact that you have posted.  Now, why have you posted then and what have you contributed?  Nothing, save for a Wiki article.  Which would be considered junk science in the scientific community; something you accuse me of doing.



 Not a falsehood, not worth a lot of my time. Meaning this study isn't worth my time doing hard research to prove you wrong. I could care far less than that.






> It is a bold statement.  Are you saying that bold statements ought not to be made?  Are you so certain that all major things we hold dear are true?  Ought we have had ignored Galileo when he claimed that the Earth was *not* the center of the Earth?  Who was it that opposed him?  Who is it that is constantly opposed to scientific endeavor?  Opposed to the continuing of humans understanding of the universe around us?  Of ourselves?  Of our minds?



You obviously don't know what I meant by a bold statement, I meant insulting, demeaning and unnecessary. Galileo claiming the earth not being the center of the earth was a scientific theory that turned out to be true. I don't understand your comparison to something as unimportant as the effect of religion and intelligence with how our solar system works...

So because the church, apparently the only religion that exists? Opposed science, now in turn you must oppose them? That's all I got out of this little section of posting.





> If those things do not interest you, then fine, leave the thread.



 Your apparent decision of knowing the truth is what brought me into this thread. But that doesn't mean I have the true interest in the subject matter.







> Why are you so hellbent on trying to argue that Atheists want domination over Theists?  If there is reasonable reason to think that there is actual evidence supporting the idea that Atheists are smarter than Theists, then would you not want to consider the actual evidence?



 I as I already said, looked at your study and see a ton of problems and no actual evidence.







> It could very well be the other way around, but this is not the apparent case.  This is just as there are psychological differences amongst many many other things.



 Their is far more to intelligence than this study that the "nonreligious are more intelligent"





> Context is everything; maybe you ought to consider that I am a research assistant from a psychology and philosophy program and such data should not be a surprise coming from someone who dedicates their life to studying human behaviour and questioning existence.



 Where you come from doesn't make your study any more valid. It really has little to no consequence on the discussion. It may give you a personal point of experience to work from, and that should come out in your writings not by announcement.






> Of course, if such things do not interest you.. then why are you speaking?



 A study centered on the nonreligious being more intelligent has little interest to me. Study of humanity, and interactions is extremely interesting.






> Benefits from studying intelligence;
> + Educational systems
> + Childhood development
> + Economical maintenance of SES 
> + Sociological legislature
> + Measuring variables on IQ



Not what I was talking about. I said what did the benefits of studying that the nonreligious being more intelligent than the religious has? Not what studying the general benefits of intelligence, you seemed to sidestep that one pretty well.





> Of course, if you feel that these things are not important at all... then I think you are stupid, but that is your opinion and you are free to be stupid.  That being my opinion too that such things are important.



 Once again. Not what I've said. I think studying the nonreligious being more intelligent instead of the actual factors is stupid. Instead of getting into the nitty gritty and the many things affecting intelligence, you grasp onto this unprovable stat.








> No, I do not think so.  I think that there are much more significant factors.



 Than how come your post and this study focuses on something that is as you are implying not the most significant factor? Because religion for some reason needed to be the focus even if it's only a secondary factor?





> But is it not intriguing to consider that religion is a contributing factor?



 I never said it wasn't but "the nonreligious are more intelligent" is still rude, and since religion is only a contributing factor than why make such a bold statement?






> Realize that there are plethora of reasons, I have always acknowledged and, in fact, make the mistake of assuming that other people.  How foolish of me to assume that I ought to put a disclaimer and thorough explanation in all of my controversial posts for the insensitive people out there.



 It's not the controversy it's the fact that you make a topic "the nonreligious are more intelligent" how do you think any religious person would react to that? Honestly are you that ignorant to human interaction? Unless your goal was to make atheists feel superior and to demean those who follow religion, or you are completely devoid of normal human emotion and understanding how people react to how you word things?





> Grow up.



 You repeating me?






> I find it incredibly ironic that you accuse me of junk science and bad research and then your first substantial rebuttal is from the most disregarded and lousiest form of researching of all scientific mediums.



 What is your point exactly? I never said that wikipedia was a scientific medium, In fact wikipedia is a site that users update. I'm as I already said, not spending a lot of time researching. I googled and found that quite quickly. If theirs a problem with the rebuttal by all means address it, seems more of a cop-out. The fact that you presented your junk science with questionable correlations is in no way similar to linking to a site that links to other sources.







> The only reasonable reason I would quote Wikipedia is for defining a term (ie. the flynn effect).  But not for proving it (this is why I provided a defining site from wiki and a scientific article under the flynn effect).



 Ok you want an award for spending more time and going to the trouble of finding an original scientific article?





> Yet here you are, a walking contradiction and projecting mess of the very example that my original point is about; religious people significantly lack the perspicacity to debate or even think.



 And people such as your self significantly lack the perspicacity to understand human emotions, or even present yourself in a way that doesn't make you look like a pretentious douchebag.

Who admits that their are probably other more important factors on religion/intelligence, yet names his topic the nonreligious are more intelligent. Putting out that image that they would obviously be the most important correlation that is basically linked. As I said, I could probably spending enough time find that drinking milk has a large bit to play on intelligence as well.








> Really?  What would you suggest as an alternative?  Please, give me one that is better and I will immediately take it up.



Finding a cure for cancer, aids, or many other diseases.
How about studying the effect that having two parents over one has on a childs growth.

How about studying the effect that having two negative parents has over a child with two positive parents and compared to one with a negative/positive parent. (Positive/Negative as in their attitude)





> What would be such a better thing to do than study the human mind, our intelligence, environmental affects on our intelligence, the economy and our sociological behaviour, socio-economical intelligence, philosophical definitions of intelligence, and the common quest for human understanding?



 Too bad you've spent all your time proving the nonreligious are more intelligent, instead of what you just listed.





> I understand that you may not want to question what makes us intelligence.
> 
> That would make sense.. coming from you.



Actually I would have you actually question what makes us intelligence, instead of making topics obsessed with the nonreligious being more intelligent.

But you are lost in your own intelligence, that you've graduated to a superiority complex. It would make sense... coming from you.





> Are you a troll, or just stupid? Pardon me and my personal attacks, but I've had just about enough of this nonsense.
> __________________



Yes, I'm the troll with more posts than you.

What exactly was the point of your post other than whining? How come the atheists and the religious around these forums tend to be so angry, pissed off, ready to fight, and full of shit?

The funny thing is.. I would be willing to wager that my IQ score would be higher than your own.. but I don't want to sound pompous.





> There will always be outliers, mate.They are inescapable. And although there are numerous reasons why the U.S. may be an exception, it does not nullify O'nus's argument.



Actually unless they can be accurately explained they show a preponderance for their most likely being an error in the way the data was gathered..Or may indicate bias.. Everyone who knows statistics knows this. I never said outliers don't show up, but unless you have an explanation their is a problem.

I love how I'm accused of ad hominem attacks because I tried to explain to Onus how others would view him.

----------


## mowglycdb

quit with drama and act like adults lol.

Debating like this isn't gonna help any of you's it will just make your ego get stronger.

----------


## O'nus

I can see room for reconciliation in this matter.  I hope you will strive to do the same.





> Not a falsehood, not worth a lot of my time. Meaning this study isn't worth my time doing hard research to prove you wrong. I could care far less than that.



Of course I do not expect you to argue a whole new study or fund a new case to argue otherwise.  It was simply for discussion and I think you, and some others, may have provided it hidden under emotional reactions.  Let us try to get to it, respectably.





> You obviously don't know what I meant by a bold statement, I meant insulting, demeaning and unnecessary. Galileo claiming the earth not being the center of the earth was a scientific theory that turned out to be true. I don't understand your comparison to something as unimportant as the effect of religion and intelligence with how our solar system works...



If you think that Galileo's statement was not insulting or demeaning, you are highly mistaken.  There's a good reason why he was persecuted.  There are a plethora of people who have studied controversial topics and have been persecuted.  The point is that there are definitely controversial things worth investigating; that's why they are controversial!  Do you not want to investigate the possibility that religion could affect intelligence?  

Let us not forget the very ways in which Galileo came to use conclusions; he was part of a society within the Illumnati that embraced Science.  Also, he was later literally forced to be non-religious (ie. excommunicated).  Of course, there is controversy over whether not he was truly religious or just trying to fit into society.  But my point here is that he used intellectual means to disprove a major bold statement in their world view.  Do you not think that the matter of intelligence is an acting variable here..?  Do you not think that this could be affecting many other things in our daily lives?  Our economy?  Education?  Health?  

Ask yourself how many things intelligence affects.  If you are not interested in that inquiry or think it is not important to wonder about intelligence... what does that make you?  What is the definition of stupid?  I do not mean this as an emotional attack, the point is that there is an acting definition of stupid and what would it be in this respect?





> I as I already said, looked at your study and see a ton of problems and no actual evidence.



It is quite the opposite.  You have provided next to no evidence (wiki) and no apparent problems.

I believed you have provided this later below, so I'll just leave this for the moment.





> Their is far more to intelligence than this study that the "nonreligious are more intelligent"
> 
>  Where you come from doesn't make your study any more valid. It really has little to no consequence on the discussion. It may give you a personal point of experience to work from, and that should come out in your writings not by announcement.



I do not understand why _who I am_ has anything to do with this study.  Stop bringing it up.  I do not care about my involvement in it whatsoever.





> A study centered on the nonreligious being more intelligent has little interest to me. Study of humanity, and interactions is extremely interesting.



Oh, I see.  You believe that the interaction of humans has nothing to do with intelligence?  

There are far too many sarcastic comments to be made here.  I truly hope you see the foolishness of this statement; honestly.  You speak of humbleness but look at what you are saying and ask yourself who truly needs to be humble.  (I mean specifically in comments like this).  And please, do not just respond by attacking me in response, it demonstrates a lack of responsibility in your words if all you can do to defend what you are saying is attacking the person offering the propositions.





> Not what I was talking about. I said what did the benefits of studying that the nonreligious being more intelligent than the religious has? Not what studying the general benefits of intelligence, you seemed to sidestep that one pretty well.
> 
>  Once again. Not what I've said. I think studying the nonreligious being more intelligent instead of the actual factors is stupid. Instead of getting into the nitty gritty and the many things affecting intelligence, you grasp onto this unprovable stat.



Oh I see, you think that controlling factors on intelligence is irrelevant to our daily lives.  

If you think that it does not matter whether or not we involve religion and how it affects intelligence into our daily lives, economy, education, and health system.. then by all means, you go ahead and say that.

On the other hand I would say that religion and its direct affect on intelligence involves;

+ Religious integration into education
- Learning the scientific method as opposed to religious inquiry
- Historical accuracy and its importance
- Learning methods and encouraging open-mindedness instead of closed-mindedness
- Religious indoctrination; allow children the choice to choose their religion.  You do not encourage your children to choose a political party, why make them choose a religious one?

+ Religious integration into the economy juxtaposed to intelligence
- Making sociological legislature for families and towns based on religious purposes rather than logical or scientific (eg. marriage rights, abortion, employment, etc.)
- Equality amongst all ethnicities as opposed to religious persecution of ethnicities due to religious favouring (eg. pepsi products of antiquity, bus riding regulation, bathroom allowance, etc.)
- Equal employment of all people (eg. discrimination to hiring due to religion)

+ Religious integration to general human intelligent inquiry
- Presupposing variables before investigating them
- Ignoring possible variables that could be affecting daily life routines that would benefit us all
- Neglecting evidence that could benefit us all as a human race but instead casting it aside as "nonsense"

Hrmm.. do you want more?

The idea of what intelligence provides us and how religion has suppressed it is astronomical.  Do not be so willingly ignorant of this fact. 

..unless you do not think it is important to be intelligent.





> Than how come your post and this study focuses on something that is as you are implying not the most significant factor? Because religion for some reason needed to be the focus even if it's only a secondary factor?



Why would I ever make a thread saying, "IQ; The Many Variables on IQ" and then provide only ones related to religion?  The idea is that there is new evidence showing that religion significantly affects IQ.

But you want a disclaimer because people might get upset at the idea.

People also get upset at the fact that poor people are also stupider than the rich.  That one is undeniable; are you going to get emotionally upset about that one to?  It won't prove it wrong.

I presumed that everyone knew that there are many factors affecting intelligence.  Only an idiot would assume that only one thing affects it more than others, or, even dumber, at all.  Come on now.  Do I really need to provide a lecture about IQ and its measurements before each study?  I thought there was an age requirement for this forum.





> I never said it wasn't but "the nonreligious are more intelligent" is still rude, and since religion is only a contributing factor than why make such a bold statement?



There are a few major reasons why I made that title;
1) It's provocative; we got the discussion we wanted.  Discussion leads to truth. (One way or another)
2) There are many things (if not everything) that affect intelligence.  *Why should religion be exempt from that?* What are its affects?  Do you not want to know?





> It's not the controversy it's the fact that you make a topic "the nonreligious are more intelligent" how do you think any religious person would react to that? Honestly are you that ignorant to human interaction? Unless your goal was to make atheists feel superior and to demean those who follow religion, or you are completely devoid of normal human emotion and understanding how people react to how you word things?



Yeah you're right.. I went through all the trouble of providing scientific studies for the sole purpose to personally upset people.  You got me.





> What is your point exactly? I never said that wikipedia was a scientific medium, In fact wikipedia is a site that users update. I'm as I already said, not spending a lot of time researching. I googled and found that quite quickly. If theirs a problem with the rebuttal by all means address it, seems more of a cop-out. The fact that you presented your junk science with questionable correlations is in no way similar to linking to a site that links to other sources.



You keep prepositioning my evidence as "junk" but you have provided no reason to it.  The wiki article does provide some criticism, but I honestly think that you just copied and pasted it without reading.  The criticism does, in no way, completely negate the study at all!  In fact, it just gives more reason to give more investigation to it.





> And people such as your self significantly lack the perspicacity to understand human emotions, or even present yourself in a way that doesn't make you look like a pretentious douchebag.



Tell me a nice way to present actual evidence that religious people are stupider than non-religious.  





> Who admits that their are probably other more important factors on religion/intelligence, yet names his topic the nonreligious are more intelligent. Putting out that image that they would obviously be the most important correlation that is basically linked. *As I said, I could probably spending enough time find that drinking milk has a large bit to play on intelligence as well.*



Good luck.





> Finding a cure for cancer, aids, or many other diseases.
> How about studying the effect that having two parents over one has on a childs growth.



I am sorry.. I forget but.. how is it that we find these cures..?  What methods do we employ to study these effects you desire..?  I'm having trouble here.. but I could swear that it was..

*INTELLIGENCE*

Oh yeah.. and erm.. correct me if I am wrong but.. would it not then be important to study the best form of intelligence to employ then..?  I could be wrong but.. erm.. if there are many important things to study.. and uh.. we need intelligence to find it... ought we then not enforce the best possible form of intelligence we have?  Thus, finding all the strongest and most significant variables and then utilizing them?

I could be wrong though; I am, of course, only saying this to piss you off and I obviously have no other motivation whatsoever.. no no, I went through all this trouble and provided all the evidence just to emotionally bother you, DeathCell.





> How about studying the effect that having two negative parents has over a child with two positive parents and compared to one with a negative/positive parent. (Positive/Negative as in their attitude)



Would you be upset if I told you that there is significant evidence saying that religious authoritarian parenting is the most psychological damaging form of parenting?





> Too bad you've spent all your time proving the nonreligious are more intelligent, instead of what you just listed.



Yeah you're right..

..intelligence has nothing to do with anything.





> Actually I would have you actually question what makes us intelligence, instead of making topics obsessed with the nonreligious being more intelligent.
> 
> But you are lost in your own intelligence, that you've graduated to a superiority complex. It would make sense... coming from you.



Well that is reasonable, perhaps it ought to have been done before this thread.  I say this because it seems obvious now that people are complete ignorant to what "intelligence" means in the scientific sense.

But the problem is that we are all experts when it comes to this.  Everyone does not think of themselves as stupid in anyway.  You will never get someone to admit that they are stupid for a certain variable reason.  Good luck.





> The funny thing is.. I would be willing to wager that my IQ score would be higher than your own.. but I don't want to sound pompous.



My IQ is only 138... but I do no want to sound pompous..





> I love how I'm accused of ad hominem attacks because* I tried to explain to Onus how others would view him.*



lol wut?

*Reconciliation:*

Or "tl;dr" if you like.

Tell me if we agree on this now, after all this debate;

1) There are many things, if not everything, that affect IQ
2) It is important for us, as a thinking race, to determine the best form of intelligence
3) Religion does affect religion and it is worth further investigation

I have confident reason to believe how religion affects us, but I do agree with you that it deserves much more investigation.  Lynn's study does have some flaws, that does not completely negate it, but demonstrates that it needs further investigation.  The problem is, people are too nervous to fund it.  Why do you think that is?  Do you not think it is worth looking into?

If we can at least agree upon that, then we have already accomplished something that even the greatest academics are incapable of; civil agreement, reconciliation.

~

----------


## Xaqaria

I find it interesting that you call the reactions of your detracters _emotional_ ones, since your position from the outset was that they are less equipped to make intellectual ones. In my opinion, your conclusions are just as emotional, since one could easily draw the conclusion that religious people in countries with a stronger atheist presence are more intelligent than atheistic people in countries with very little atheist presence and it would be just as valid.

----------


## O'nus

> I find it interesting that you call the reactions of your detracters _emotional_ ones, since your position from the outset was that they are less equipped to make intellectual ones.



Let us define stupid;
+ Someone who is irritating, tedious, or lacking reason.

Now, when we look at the previous posts, there were very little context full of reason.  Instead, it was simply an emotional reaction.  While I understand that reaction, I just want it known that there is a functioning word "stupid" that can describe someone that is not an insult.

Believe it or not, there are stupid people out there.  Just because you use the word "stupid" does not immediately mean you are favouring emotional defenses to intellectual.  There were plenty of responses that had no content except "this is stupid" or "this thread is dumb" etc.  What would you call those responses, if not stupid?  

Detracting, yes, but why?





> In my opinion, your conclusions are just as emotional, since one could easily draw the conclusion that religious people in countries with a stronger atheist presence are more intelligent than atheistic people in countries with very little atheist presence and it would be just as valid.



Well of course, I am not denying that obvious regional possibility.  I would much more like to see individual studies and case studies.  But they are not being funded.  Why do people not see it as an important idea that this ought to be researched more?

I want to make my original intent blatantly clear here;
+ I never for a moment thought that, beyond a doubt, non-religious people are smarter than religious
- The topic title was chosen to start conversation about the idea of the truth in the matter.  It encourages discussion and discussion is what leads to inquiry.  
+ I fervently believe this topic needs more investigation and that these studies prove that.  

Agreed?

~

----------


## Catbus

.

----------


## Kromoh

> Must not read very well. You realize that just because my argument doesn't have a set of statistics behind it, doesn't mean it's not an argument.



Quote me your argument.





> Not at all. You are not sure if the effect is before or after people gain their intelligence. All you've shown is that people with higher intelligence tend to disregard religion, it doesn't prove that "the nonreligious are more intelligent".



Correlation doesn't imply causation. I've said this already.





> And it still doesn't mean... "the nonreligious are more intelligent" it's a loaded topic.



Yes it does mean.





> So it has no use, since you didn't give any examples.



No use for you. I see lots of use. And as I said, useless doesn't mean worthless.





> What schools other than private ones provide religious education?? I'd support teaching about all religions, and history of them.. never would support a public school forcing religion... I'm unsure what your point even is.



Any kind of school should be prohibited of teacher a religion. That's my point.





> No calling a statistical correlation some sort of proof that the nonreligious are more intelligent, makes you all come off looking like a bunch of pompous blowhards. I know science, perhaps you guys should learn about actual human interaction for once.



LOL Man. Learn what a statistical correlation is. If the people in group A have higher IQ than people in group B on average, then group A is smarter than group B.






> Or maybe the fact that the US is a huge outlier might show you a problem with how the statistics were gathered. If you are well versed in statistics you must understand the importance of outliers?



The US is a huge outlier? Only in your book. China is a huge outlier, which their enormous population, and still the highest IQ average on Earth.






> I'm well aware of what a statistical correlation is, thank you very much. But the topic is called the nonreligious are more intelligent, and it's a bold statement and you are a doing a disservice to your study in the way the topic is worded.



Shit get over the name of the topic. You just can't accept the truth, and go all the way to bitch about it. Newspapers make bad titles all the time. This thread's title is good.





> Oh yeah? Ad hominems eh? People just seem to be in love with that term.



Yep? Ok, I'll call it something else: _personal attack_. Better now? Different wording doesn't mean you didn't do it.

----------


## Vampyre

At this point, I'm inclined to think DeathCell is trolling. If you're that convinced that statistics are biased, then you obviously don't care what anyone says because it ultimately leads to the statistics in the OP; no need to debate over evidence that you dismiss, based on your prejudgment that they're biased/flawed.

I'd like to point out again, that the best, most relevant, chart is the one about greater scientists. It's a study of the top; the best.

Taking the wrong perception leaves you thinking: "He's saying that I'm dumber than him because I'm religious." Meanwhile, that's not the point. That's kinda like saying "White people are bad at basketball" because most of the NBA players are black. It's not meant to target someone in a negative way. It targets intelligent people and shows that the vast majority of them are atheist or otherwise non-religious. That's all. From there it's your own perception that demonizes it to offend you.

----------


## DeathCell

Or a topic called "the nonreligious are more intelligent" is generally offensive.. Black people are less intelligent would also be offensive.. even if it was true.

----------


## Kromoh

> Or a topic called "the nonreligious are more intelligent" is generally offensive.. Black people are less intelligent would also be offensive.. even if it was true.



Religion is a choice. Skin colour isn't. That's why it'd be unethical to say something about black people, but it isn't unethical to say something about religious people.

----------


## DeathCell

> Religion is a choice. Skin colour isn't. That's why it'd be unethical to say something about black people, but it isn't unethical to say something about religious people.



I don't understand why something being a choice means that it all of a sudden isn't unethical?

So basically, if I called homosexuals less intelligent with data backing it... since homosexuality is a "choice" it would be totally ethical?

----------


## Maria92

> I don't understand why something being a choice means that it all of a sudden isn't unethical?
> 
> So basically, if I called homosexuals less intelligent with data backing it... since homosexuality is a "choice" it would be totally ethical?



God damn...

NO! Homosexuality has been PROVEN time and again to NOT be a choice. As it is BEYOND the CONTROL of the individual, there would definitely be an element of political incorrectness. 

Again, religion is a choice. You can control this aspect of your life. It's tantamount to saying, "People who eat too much candy without brushing tend to have bad teeth." It is statement of fact and a lifestyle choice within control of the individual.

Now, I beg you, either drop the issue you have with the title or go away.

----------


## Kromoh

Homosexuality is an orientation, and calling it a choice would get some political-correctness nazis to bash you. Just between you and me, I tried to stop liking boys, and couldn't. Michael Jackson tried to stop being black, too.

Yet, if you tried to let go of religion, you would be able to. That's why religion is a choice. And it is perfectly ethical to disagree with choices. Thus, the title is ethical.

Seriously, lower IQ doesn't mean inferior. Science should not have judgement of value.

----------


## O'nus

> I don't understand why something being a choice means that it all of a sudden isn't unethical?
> 
> So basically, if I called homosexuals less intelligent with data backing it... since homosexuality is a "choice" it would be totally ethical?



 ::arrow::  Homosexuality in Animals;

A Comparison of LH Secretion and Brain Estradiol Receptors in Heterosexual and Homosexual Rams and Female Sheep.  Sciene Direct;
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...d57ca07e932fe3

 ::arrow::  Homosexuality in Humans

A neuroendocrine predisposition for homosexuality in men. Springer Netherlands. 
+ http://www.springerlink.com/content/g1176x7289822289/

Sexual Orientation and the size of the anterior commissure in the human brain.   Neurobiology.
+ http://www.pnas.org/content/89/15/7199.full.pdf

Male Homosexuality: The Adolescent’s Perspective.  Pediatrics
+ http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...urcetype=HWCIT

Abnormalities of Male-Specific FRU Protein and Serotonin Expression in the CNS of fruitless Mutants in Drosophila.  Journal of Neuroscience;
+ http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content...urcetype=HWCIT

An enlarged suprachiasmatic nucleus in homosexual men.  Science Direct.
+ http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...d21363fa9ce91d

The association between the fraternal birth order effect in male homosexuality and other markers of human sexual orientation.  Biology Letters.
+ http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.o...urcetype=HWCIT

Sexual Differentiation of the Bed Nucleus of the Stria Terminalis in Humans May Extend into Adulthood.  Journal of Neuroscience;
+ http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content...urcetype=HWCIT

Need more?

Edit: Do you accept links as non-junk science if they are *not* from wikipedia?  Ought I link to wikipedia or some other simplistic site for you to read?

+++++++

Furthermore, why do people keep bringing up the ethics of the title?

Let us say that a ethnicity, a race, or some other random trait of a human had significant evidence for being more intellectual than the other.  Would you not want to consider what that evidence then?  Would it not be useful for us?

Also, why do people keep saying that this is Atheist propaganda?

The IQ test is not religious bias whatsoever; anyone who argues that is just ignorant (honestly, read the WAIS).  There's no religious subtext in "2+2=?" or "what comes next..?" in a pattern recognition.

If the results show that religious people average lower than non-religious, then what propaganda am I preaching?  

~

----------


## WakataDreamer

I'm religious... and frankly, I don't care about your study.

I don't care if I'm less intelligent (my IQ is almost off the charts and yes, I am a Christian who regularly attends church, but if you want to claim that its a fluke and most religious people are less intelligent than average than so be it).

I don't care what you have to say.

I'm posting this, and then I'm never looking at this thread again, because it doesn't concern me at all.

Debates similar to this have been going on forever... atheists attempting ot undermine the religious by claiming that they are less intelligent since they believe in something beyond , and religious attempting to defend themselves.

I don't care if you try and hide behind the phrase "I'm merely posting data," you yourself know that attempting to undermine the religious is *exactly* what you're doing, otherwise why would you bother to post all of this data? Don't give me excuses and flimsy "it's for science" shit. Anyone with half a brain can see right through that.

You're not going to change anyone's opinion, your merely looking to start an argument because deep inside you _know_ that your data is not going to change anyone's opinion on the matter. Religious will stay opposed to it, despite all of your data, and atheists will rally around it perhaps, but in the end nothing changes.



Jesus, people, come on.

You can reply if you want, quote me, etc... I don't care because I'm not responding anyways... I've said what I'm going to say, and hopefully some of you will see the futility of this thread and all the others revolving around similar topics.

In the end, no one changes their mind.

Nothing changes.

The thread may as well have not existed, and it only served as a warzone for argument... no real progress was made.

Its happened before, ever since this forum started, and you guys are just feeding it, prolonging it.

Bah, I'm done.

----------


## ♥Mark

> Nothing changes.



This is only true of hard-headed louts who make drive by posts that do nothing but assure us they are stubborn fools uninterested in the truth. Your post is the most useless and intellectually robbed post in this entire thread.

----------


## nerve

> 



so is he the little girl or the ass?

----------


## sephiroth clock

The religious have the lowest intelligence. The atheist have higher intelligence, that's not bad. But if your IQ gets even higher, those who have the REALLY big IQs then you find the religion behind the religion, the spirituality behind the spirituality. 

But those rules get broken all the time anyway : ), just keep living your life as well as you can. 

edit: and I don't mean this is as a hierarchy really, some are meant to be religious I am glad for them they are full of goodness and intelligence. Some are meant to be atheist and they are full of goodness and intelligence and some are meant in the third category and likewise. Just from my humble opinion anyways  :tongue2:

----------


## DeathCell

> Homosexuality in Animals;
> 
> A Comparison of LH Secretion and Brain Estradiol Receptors in Heterosexual and Homosexual Rams and Female Sheep.  Sciene Direct;
> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...d57ca07e932fe3
> 
>  Homosexuality in Humans
> 
> A neuroendocrine predisposition for homosexuality in men. Springer Netherlands. 
> + http://www.springerlink.com/content/g1176x7289822289/
> ...



Yes Onus, I'm well aware of Homosexuality in animals, and the evidence contrary of peoples opinions. I was using it as a what if statement.. lots of people believe it to be a choice.

I didn't say "choice" for no reason, Onus.


P.S. White People Are Smarter Than Non-Whites!!! 

Wonder if that title would offend anyone...

Your study isn't the final word on intelligence, and it's barely scratching the beginning of real research.

----------


## O'nus

> Yes Onus, I'm well aware of Homosexuality in animals, and the evidence contrary of peoples opinions. I was using it as a what if statement.. lots of people believe it to be a choice.
> 
> I didn't say "choice" for no reason, Onus.



The people who "believe" it to be "choice" are wrong.  People can believe wrong things, did you know that?





> P.S. White People Are Smarter Than Non-Whites!!! 
> 
> Wonder if that title would offend anyone...
> 
> *Your study isn't the final word on intelligence, and it's barely scratching the beginning of real research.*





Are you a complete idiot or deliberately trying to annoy everyone?  I have said that exact same thing.  Read my damn posts.  You are one step away from a troll.

~

----------


## mowglycdb

> The people who "believe" it to be "choice" are wrong.  People can believe wrong things, did you know that?



Living in acordance to homosexuality is a choice, having atraction for males isn't a choice. Same as living a life acording to heterosexuality is a choice.

----------


## Kromoh

> Living in acordance to homosexuality is a choice, having atraction for males isn't a choice. Same as living a life acording to heterosexuality is a choice.



Feeling hungry isn't a choice, but eating is. Seriously, your point is stupid.


Also, "homosexuality" is defined as "having attraction to males". But I understood what you meant.

----------


## mowglycdb

> Feeling hungry isn't a choice, but eating is. Seriously, your point is stupid.
> 
> 
> Also, "homosexuality" is defined as "having attraction to males". But I understood what you meant.




You must take life really seriously to find a point like that stupid, maybe things aren't going nice for you?

----------


## Maria92

> Living in acordance to homosexuality is a choice, having atraction for males isn't a choice. Same as living a life acording to heterosexuality is a choice.



Ah, I see, so if someone isn't a heterosexual, they should be condemned to a lifetime of misery? Perhaps you would feel better if they all just shot themselves in a fit of depression? Are they denied the rights to love and the pursuit of happiness? 

One more question: Are you nuts?





> You must take life really seriously to find a point like that stupid, maybe things aren't going nice for you?



WTF? Troll?

----------


## mowglycdb

> Ah, I see, so if someone isn't a heterosexual, they should be condemned to a lifetime of misery? Perhaps you would feel better if they all just shot themselves in a fit of depression? Are they denied the rights to love and the pursuit of happiness? 
> 
> One more question: Are you nuts?
> 
> WTF? Troll?



Hahaha,  excuse me,   look I didn't say heterosexuality was wrong, I'm ok with all of it actually, I didn't say it trying to offend anyone with that point, but I see that you tried to look at it like if I was ( maybe you want to fight ? or something alike).

Every choice in life is valid.

Maybe I'm a little nuts =) lol

Naw I'm no troll you can check my posts in the help section, and most of my posts if you want, you'll see I'm not one.

----------


## Maria92

I can't make heads or tails out of your first post, but it sounded like you want people to suppress the homosexual urges and go about living a life of heterosexuality, which I find to be disgusting.

----------


## Kromoh

> You must take life really seriously to find a point like that stupid, maybe things aren't going nice for you?



You need a logic teacher more than I need a fake psychologist.

Here's a Banana to cheer everyone up:
 ::banana::

----------


## mowglycdb

> You need a logic teacher more than I need a fake psychologist.
> 
> Here's a Banana to cheer everyone up:



haha, cheers. I "used" to use alot of logic, but no more  :tongue2:  *screams*.








> I can't make heads or tails out of your first post, but it sounded like you want people to suppress the homosexual urges and go about living a life of heterosexuality, which I find to be disgusting.




I am homosexual =)

----------


## O'nus

The only reason anyone has ever had a problem with homosexuality is because of religious purposes.  If it is otherwise, please state it.

In a thread about the nonreligious being more intelligent than the religious, is it really a good idea to start a new debate over something that stems from a religious standpoint?

Please, stick to the topic.

~

----------


## mowglycdb

> The only reason anyone has ever had a problem with homosexuality is because of religious purposes.  If it is otherwise, please state it.
> 
> In a thread about the nonreligious being more intelligent than the religious, is it really a good idea to start a new debate over something that stems from a religious standpoint?
> 
> Please, stick to the topic.
> 
> ~



Yes there are, I've seen that alot of people  that really love their country too much and consider it to better, more cool than others, and I say for example , yeah! I'm chilean horray,  yeah I'm american! ( USA ) 
can have problems with homosexuality, mostly because it's something strange and diferent , people that compete and feel that their country is better than others are likely to be homophobics.

and yes statisticly I believe non religious people would have a higher IQ

----------


## O'nus

> Yes there are, I've seen that alot of people  that really love their country too much and consider it to better, more cool than others, and I say for example , yeah! I'm chilean horray,  yeah I'm american! ( USA ) 
> can have problems with homosexuality, mostly because it's something strange and diferent , people that compete and feel that their country is better than others are likely to be homophobics.



...?  What..?  

Who's competing about countries..?  I'm lost.

~

----------


## Kromoh

> ...?  What..?  
> 
> Who's competing about countries..?  I'm lost.
> 
> ~



I basically think he's saying that, if you have one prejudice, you are more likely to have another. Which is rather true in my humble opinion. Xenophobics, homophobics, racists, sexists, and religious zealots are usually one cohesive group.

----------


## O'nus

> I basically think he's saying that, if you have one prejudice, you are more likely to have another. Which is rather true in my humble opinion. Xenophobics, homophobics, racists, sexists, and religious zealots are usually one cohesive group.



Likely a correlation with closed-mindedness. 

~

----------


## DeathCell

> The people who "believe" it to be "choice" are wrong.  People can believe wrong things, did you know that?
> 
> [/b]
> 
> Are you a complete idiot or deliberately trying to annoy everyone?  I have said that exact same thing.  Read my damn posts.  You are one step away from a troll.
> 
> ~



Onus, you are ridiculous. One step away from a troll huh? If you didn't think it was important or even proof of anything why would you name it a topic like you did... only after being confronted do you admit.. 

You are one step away from being invalid. Honestly Onus, I used to have some respect for you, but most of that is gone. I've done nothing but come in here and show you how ridiculous your statements are and I'm a troll. Simply because my arguments aren't concrete enough for you, your a god damn hypocritical, stuck up snob. It's that simple, not everyone on a forum is going to waste hours studying something so unimportant and useless. It's doing nothing useful for the world, it's not helping explain intelligence, only categorizing people to drive a bigger wedge between humans.(I'm going to reply to your large post a page back and than I'm hopefully going to stop listening to you.. because you keep accusing me of having no argument or cause, when I clearly do.. so just because you can ignore everything I say.. doesn't mean I don't have an argument...)


P.S. I love your whole dodging the outliers thing.. but why would you have to address that...?

----------


## Maria92

> Onus, *you are ridiculous*. One step away from a troll huh? If you didn't think it was important or even proof of anything why would you name it a topic like you did... only after being confronted do you admit.. 
> 
> You are one step away from being invalid. *Honestly Onus, I used to have some respect for you, but most of that is gone.* *I've done nothing but come in here and show you how ridiculous your statements are and I'm a troll*. Simply because my arguments aren't concrete enough for you, your *a god damn hypocritical, stuck up snob*. It's that simple, not everyone on a forum is going to waste hours studying something so unimportant and useless. *It's doing nothing useful for the world, it's not helping explain intelligence, only categorizing people to drive a bigger wedge between humans.*(I'm going to reply to your large post a page back and than I'm hopefully going to stop listening to you.. because you keep accusing me of having no argument or cause, when I clearly do.. so just because you can ignore everything I say.. doesn't mean I don't have an argument...)
> 
> 
> P.S. I love your whole dodging the outliers thing.. but why would you have to address that...?



Troll.

*Spoiler* for _._: 








All I see is a big wall of bait and flame. Your arguments can hardly be considered valid, and the fact that you won't let the thread title issue die discredits you entirely. You're annoying, and few people like you...perhaps you should brush up on your definition of "troll."


*Spoiler* for _._: 








^That is precisely what you are doing, intentional or not.

----------


## DeathCell

Go climb in a fucking pipe.


All of a sudden I'm a troll? It's funny because I've been posting here since August of 2008 and this is the first topic I've been accused of this... Perhaps your just full of shit, and since you have no argument against what I've said you ignore my arguments and focus on bullshit like calling me a troll..  Just throw any word around and keep repeating yourself! It makes it true right.



Just because I think this topic and his study is stupid, moronic and not accurate means I'm a troll?


You know what? F**k you. Your the one whose post have added nothing to the discussion. Absolutely nothing, I've from the start stated my feelings and my opinions.. Just because you guys have your heads stuck so far up your asses that any argument I make is not valid doesn't mean I haven't made them..

Go stroke your own cocks somewhere else.







(Alrics rebuttals, than my posting about how others would view onus(which he took as a personal attack, when my worlds clearly said.."Atheists calling superiority of intelligence over religious people just makes you look like an assclown." ,outliers like the US and no proper explanation which is a No-No in statistics, and little to no mention of other factors.. It's obvious what the agenda of a study like this is, if you don't want to accept that that's fine but at least try debating with me instead of wasting text and making useless accusations that the majority of this forum knows is bullshit.)

P.S. Titling is one of the most important concepts we have available, and is the first thing the majority of people will notice... 

Here is a few articles on the importance of titles, just because you are unaware of it's importance doesn't mean it's not. More likely shows your age or lack of experience when it comes to communication and writing skills.

http://www.writingsimplified.com/200...of-titles.html
http://www.readwritethink.org/lesson...ew.asp?id=1109
http://www.whitepapersource.com/writing/writing_titles/

His title left no room for anything but the nonreligious being more intelligent, whether religion is the main factor as Onus said has little effect on him.. Which is very misleading, especially if their are more pressing and important factors affecting intelligence.

----------


## Maria92

Flame wars. I've never seen someone so upset before...

Look, it's all very simple. O'nus created a topic with a bold statement partly because statistics show a correlation (not causation) between religiosity and intelligence (which they do), and partly to encourage debate. Simple. Let it die.

If you would take a second look at the statistics, we can, in fact, see a general trend between religion and intelligence (specifically ACH thinking). We're not claiming, "Yeah, we're atheist, and we're the smartest bastards in the world. All you other little religious bastards are inferior to our awesome intellect." Nobody claims this. 

This study is useful, too. For one thing, it shows that it may be a very good idea to remove religion entirely from the educational system. It's not here simply to stroke the egos of atheists and the non-religious. 

Now please, think about your next post first. If you retaliate with a big wall of flame or bait, you cement your standing as a troll.

----------


## DeathCell

F**k you. Call me a troll all you want. I really don't care about the opinion of you and Onus. I'll show you a flame war, because this is hardly close to one.

This just in you, you and your posse aren't the whole forum.


Still no proper explanation of the outlier.. But why should you have to address something that invalidates your data?\


Please for the love of the goddess, think before you make your next post instead of repeating yourself and explain why their is an outlier.


Whites are more intelligent. 

Men are more intelligent.


I wonder how that could possibly offend anyone? But I know you don't care about offending anyone, because of causation. You know even in the world of science, people should learn how to communicate their information in a way that won't offend.  

For example, look at this article...

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/j/jencks-gap.html

Should I now start a topic titled, White people are more intelligent than black people ?

After all their is data supporting it..

----------


## Maria92

> Flame wars. I've never seen someone so upset before...
> 
> Look, it's all very simple. O'nus created a topic with a bold statement partly because statistics show a correlation (not causation) between religiosity and intelligence (which they do), and partly to encourage debate. Simple. Let it die.
> 
> If you would take a second look at the statistics, we can, in fact, see a general trend between religion and intelligence (specifically ACH thinking). We're not claiming, "Yeah, we're atheist, and we're the smartest bastards in the world. All you other little religious bastards are inferior to our awesome intellect." Nobody claims this. 
> 
> This study is useful, too. For one thing, it shows that it may be a very good idea to remove religion entirely from the educational system. It's not here simply to stroke the egos of atheists and the non-religious. 
> 
> *Now please, think about your next post first. If you retaliate with a big wall of flame or bait, you cement your standing as a troll.*







> Fuck you. Call me a troll all you want. I really don't care about the opinion of you and Onus. 
> 
> This just in you, you and your posse aren't the whole forum.



*facepalm* 

You really are a troll, aren't you? I try to be nice and logical, and I get flamed at. Brilliant. Are you nine or something? Grow up.

If you don't like the thread, you may leave. The door is right there, mate.

----------


## DeathCell

> *facepalm* 
> 
> You really are a troll, aren't you? I try to be nice and logical, and I get flamed at. Brilliant. Are you nine or something? Grow up.
> 
> If you don't like the thread, you may leave. The door is right there, mate.



Listen here you child. I don't take your little ultimatums. You are in no way in control of my actions. So if you demand something from me I will do the opposite, especially when you've added less than me to this debate. Grow up, perhaps you should pull that mote out of your own eye first darling. 

I don't like the thread, but I'm not leaving.


P.S. Please think about not being a moron in your next post, or your place as pointless poster will be cemented.



It's funny when people come in preaching moral superiority or some sort of perfectness when they are in fact themselves acting like a troll. You're the one who keeps addressing me with nothing, certainty no rebuttal to my arguments.



*So far any arguments I've posted you've ignored...

----------


## O'nus

> Listen here you child. I don't take your little ultimatums. You are in no way in control of my actions. So if you demand something from me I will do the opposite, especially when you've added less than me to this debate. Grow up, perhaps you should pull that mote out of your own eye first darling. 
> 
> I don't like the thread, but I'm not leaving.
> 
> P.S. Please think about not being a moron in your next post, or your place as pointless poster will be cemented.
> 
> It's funny when people come in preaching moral superiority or some sort of perfectness when they are in fact themselves acting like a troll. You're the one who keeps addressing me with nothing, certainty no rebuttal to my arguments.
> 
> *So far any arguments I've posted you've ignored...



Your digression and trolling have gone far enough.  Any further derailing will be deleted.  It has not only been myself that have asked you to quote your apparent "point" or "argument" and you have failed in doing so.  Instead, you attack in turn.  This only proves, not only your lacking ability to debate, but respect for other posters.  

~

----------


## Kromoh

> Your digression and trolling have gone far enough.  Any further derailing will be deleted.  It has not only been myself that have asked you to quote your apparent "point" or "argument" and you have failed in doing so.  Instead, you attack in turn.  This only proves, not only your lacking ability to debate, but respect for other posters.  
> 
> ~



That. DeathCell, if you continue your flame wars, I'll ask a mod that's not involved to delete your posts.

----------


## TheUncanny

2 1/2  years later and the same tired squabbles still prevalent here at dreamviews, I see.  Can't say I'm too surprised.

I liken threads like this to masturbation. It has one sole purpose, _self-gratification_ in its most shameless form.  Similarly, doing this in a public format should be equally embarrassing. And in the end, all that remains is a sticky mess, exhaustion, and a fading high back down to the oh-so-familiar plateau that made indulging in such an idea in the first place seem like a good idea at the time. 

People shouldn't be too surprised or judgmental when some participants respond to this thread in the exact way the thread was designed to have them respond. After all, the thread seems to have been created for at least one of two reasons: 1.) For like-mind peers to sit around and enjoy the smell of their own farts [/southpark] 2.) To antagonize those who feel differently, not for the sake of civil debate, but for the sake of childish teasing/torment.  

Antagonizing people to respond in a less than civil manner, and then turning around criticizing them for doing so is pretty sad IMO. This is not to say that I am defending the person(s) in question, but what did you really expect would happen when you created this thread?  Surely you knew it was going to get _someone_ all fired up...

If you can't deal with it, don't purposefully provoke people any more. 

AS FOR THE TOPIC AT HAND, I think two words can sum it up nicely: _Spurious Correlation_.

----------


## DeathCell

I love the mob mentality in this topic, who all gang up and call me a troll.

 I've constantly repeated myself onus with my argument, you are a troll.. First I left it up to Alric, because he came to this topic before and addressed many issues. Than when I give you my own personal argument it's not good enough? Because you keep ignoring my words and say I didn't... It's not my fault you guys have reading comprehension problems.





> All your study proves it that countries that are less developed tend to be more religious and less intelligent... America being more religious and more intelligent shows my point to be true.
> 
> Alric seems to have this under control already, he can smell a fishy study obviously.



Than their was the information I provided that contradicted your Lynn study, but you made no attempt to address those problems... I know I didn't type it myself, but this entire topic is not really your own research...

Perhaps Onus, if people don't agree with you.. instead of calling them a troll after you were being insulting yourself.... you just agree to disagree..





> Or maybe the fact that the US is a huge outlier might show you a problem with how the statistics were gathered. If you are well versed in statistics you must understand the importance of outliers?
> 
> Perhaps a few links will make you understand a little bit clearer.
> 
> http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Outlier.html







> "An outlier is an observation that lies outside the overall pattern of a distribution (Moore and McCabe 1999). Usually, the presence of an outlier indicates some sort of problem. This can be a case which does not fit the model under study, or an error in measurement. "





P.S. I find it laughable the so apparent hypocrisy calling me a troll, but for some reason... Onus can say whatever rude things he feels like without so much as a whimper from Mario or Kromoh, but it's not too much of a surprise.. you guys are all on the "same side", I'm sure that's how your mind looks at it..


Onus, I'll show you and Mario some respect when you show me some as well.. You paint yourselves as some morally superior, highly educated debaters, but really when it comes down the nitty gritty your just as rude and obnoxious as the rest of us.

----------


## mowglycdb

> I love the mob mentality in this topic, who all gang up and call me a troll.
> 
>  I've constantly repeated myself onus with my argument, you are a troll.. Because you keep ignoring my words and say I didn't... It's not my fault you guys have reading comprehension problems.



chill out bro ,  they think you're a troll  because  you  insult when answering and you show anger, if you answer in a more relaxed way  maybe it would change.

----------


## DeathCell

> chill out bro ,  they think you're a troll  because  you  insult when answering and you show anger, if you answer in a more relaxed way  maybe it would change.



I'll answer in a non-insulting way, when I'm accorded the same respect.. That has not been the case since I came into this topic.

Just because Onus tries to veil his insults in a wall of text, doesn't mean I can't see them.

And this isn't the first time I've had issues with these people, they don't think I'm a troll.. They know I've been posting here for ages, never having been accused of such nonsense. They are simply, because they know their little study and topic is utter bullshit, have degenerated into labeling the opposition as something.(Troll)

Otherwise maybe they'd have more to say about rebuttal of Lynn I posted for him. Or the fact that an outlier in statistics unless properly explained has a high chance of indicating a problem in how the data was gathered.. But that's not enough of an argument for them, I'm just a troll as they keep repeating.... 

He's a troll!!! For getting pissed off for being insulted omg!!

Let's show Onus being a rude, self-serving, hypocritical, snob.





> I highly respect it, opposed to the nonsense and non-thinking for the rest of these pillocks.







> I am losing confidence in the majority's capability to debate, let alone think.







> The fact that you cannot provide an intelligent response to this and instead favour emotional distress only reinforces my original argument.



Onus, just because you don't agree with an me, doesn't mean my argument is not valid.. nor does it reinforce your original argument.. It does show you being a snob. Their was no emotional distress in my posts, and claiming such nonsense is just silly. My response was quite intelligent, sad that you are so cut off from reality. Their is more to life that poorly correlated statistics.





> I understand though if you have a problem accepting facts and lack the intelligence to do so.







> I am sorry, I have a degree in psychology and philosophy. I believe I may be actually qualified in it as opposed to yourself.







> Could you perhaps offer any sort of substantial argument rather than ad hominems and other immature displays of childish prepositions?



 Perhaps you should take your own advice, ad hominems seem to be your cup of tea. And I love your non explanation of "childish prepositions", Implying something without any reasoning or evidence.. just because you have no proper rebuttal to my argument doesn't mean it's childish.. just means you feel superior.





> The most important one, by Lynn, has not been touched upon by anyone yet.



And than when it is... you don't address that rebuttal because you can't... yet your study is somehow still fact in your mind.





> Interesting that you think Alric and yourself have pointed out such significant problems whereas, if you read, you will notice that my point still remains strong. In fact, my strongest point remains completely untouched (Lynn study).
> 
> But you seem to be so blinded by your "passion" that you fail to see that.



Now that your Crux has been crushed, your passion seems to have you blinded..





> You accuse me of using emotional attacks and ad hominems..? Are you reading yourself..?



I should be asking you that same question Onus...





> Your best argument is that:
> - O'nus is an emotional attacking prick
> - Thus, O'nus is wrong.



That was never my argument, and the fact that all my words were never actually read and processed by yourself.. You in your haste and anger, assumed that was my argument.. My original point was that this study does nothing to service the atheist movement, and that you would be viewed as an "assclown" for lack of a better term by a large majority of people... Course you don't care how people react, that is quite obvious in your style of posting. Than I said your wrong, because of the shoddy correlations, and later posted rebuttals to the Lynn Study and than I pointed out an unexplained outlier.. which is an important part of statistics.





> Who is the ignoramus in this respect..?



You sir.





> I seem to get emotionally charged? I will tell you when I am, and I have done so in the past. It is infrequent that I do, but I will tell you. You can clearly search and see it for yourself.



 Infrequent??? Well here are many examples I've provided above. All from this one topic.





> What disappoints me the most is that I thought some religious people, like yourself, would disprove or act in the minority, with some responses of substance. You have done nothing but prove otherwise. Keep trying to attack me instead of the evidence (which has not been touched upon by a single post yet).



 I never attacked you in the beginning... explaining to you how others will view you is not an attack.. I've provided plenty of substance, you choose to ignore it because my "assclown" comment obviously tipped you off. 

Onus is just a lovely peach cobbler who never does an ounce of harm, he doesn't even show his emotions or lack of taste in any of his posts....

----------


## mowglycdb

> I'll answer in a non-insulting way, when I'm accorded the same respect.. That has not been the case since I came into this topic.
> 
> Just because Onus tries to veil his insults in a wall of text, doesn't mean I can't see them.
> 
> And this isn't the first time I've had issues with these people, they don't think I'm a troll.. They know I've been posting here for ages, never having been accused of such nonsense. They are simply, because they know their little study and topic is utter bullshit, have degenerated into labeling the opposition as something.(Troll)








> Atheists calling superiority of intelligence over religious people just makes you look like an assclown.
> 
> Has atheism really came to the point that they need to spread propaganda or faulty correlations? Reminiscent of the church telling us to abandon our other religions for Heaven, now we must abandon religion for intelligence I assume? After all his study shows us.... lol
> 
> This is a disservice to the atheist movement.




I'm quoting your first message in this topic, you started.

----------


## DeathCell

Ok? Just makes you look like an assclown..

Like I said. I never said, you are an assclown Onus! I said it makes you look like one.. And in later posts made sure that I properly explained what that sentence meant.





> I provided evidence. Making prejudicial and simple rebuttals actually makes you look like an ass if all you got is ad hominems.







> Actually it's the truth, if this is what you feel is an important study than you look like an assclown. It's that simple, it's not an ad hominem attack that's how you will be viewed by the majority of people.



I was trying to make Onus aware that his actions, and how he words himself, and what he chooses as important will have a great effect on how the majority of people will view him...

But he didn't want anything to do with that, he could careless how others see him he's more worried about other things..



More on topic, because this discussion is nothing but cluttering up this forum.

http://www.businessweek.com/innovate...929_872877.htm





> The test achieves reliability by defining intelligence very narrowly, as the ability to solve simple analytical problems. It measures intelligence via a multiple-choice test that can be evaluated with no possibility of bias in measurement or judgment.
> 
> The problem is that IQ doesn't serve as a particularly great predictor of anything. In his best-selling book Emotional Intelligence, Daniel Goleman argues that EQ makes for a much better predictor of success in life than IQ. In essence, he argues that while IQ may demonstrate high reliability, it has modest validity.
> 
> To increase the validity of any process, one must consider a wide array of relevant variables. Goleman's EQ, for instance, builds on more qualitative considerations and judgment to produce what he argues has higher validity.
> 
> Of course, we would like a process that has both high validity and reliability. Up to a point, it's possible to get more of both, simply by being more thoughtful and less sloppy. But ultimately, more reliability requires fewer variables and therefore less validity, and vice versa. Reliability and validity seem to conflict.



Whole article is well worth the read.

----------


## Maria92

> chill out bro ,  they think you're a troll  because  you  insult when answering and you show anger, if you answer in a more relaxed way  maybe it would change.



^This. Dude, you've been posting flame and insults for the last couple of days, and nothing more. I've tried to have some patience, but it is quickly wearing thin. Now please, either stop attacking people, or leave the thread. I'm asking nicely, here. 





> *Onus, you are ridiculou*s. One step away from a troll huh? If you didn't think it was important or even proof of anything why would you name it a topic like you did... only after being confronted do you admit.. 
> 
> You are one step away from being invalid. Honestly Onus, I used to have some respect for you, but most of that is gone. I've done nothing but come in here and show you how ridiculous your statements are and I'm a troll. Simply because my arguments aren't concrete enough for you, your a god damn hypocritical, stuck up snob. It's that simple, not everyone on a forum is going to waste hours studying something so unimportant and useless. It's doing nothing useful for the world, it's not helping explain intelligence, only categorizing people to drive a bigger wedge between humans.(I'm going to reply to your large post a page back and than I'm hopefully going to stop listening to you.. because you keep accusing me of having no argument or cause, when I clearly do.. so just because you can ignore everything I say.. doesn't mean I don't have an argument...)
> 
> 
> P.S. I love your whole dodging the outliers thing.. but why would you have to address that...?







> Go climb in a fucking pipe.
> 
> 
> All of a sudden I'm a troll? It's funny because I've been posting here since August of 2008 and this is the first topic I've been accused of this... Perhaps your just full of shit, and since you have no argument against what I've said you ignore my arguments and focus on bullshit like calling me a troll..  Just throw any word around and keep repeating yourself! It makes it true right.
> 
> 
> 
> Just because I think this topic and his study is stupid, moronic and not accurate means I'm a troll?
> 
> ...







> F**k you. Call me a troll all you want. I really don't care about the opinion of you and Onus. I'll show you a flame war, because this is hardly close to one.
> 
> This just in you, you and your posse aren't the whole forum.
> 
> 
> Still no proper explanation of the outlier.. But why should you have to address something that invalidates your data?\
> 
> 
> Please for the love of the goddess, think before you make your next post instead of repeating yourself and explain why their is an outlier.
> ...







> Listen here you child. I don't take your little ultimatums. You are in no way in control of my actions. So if you demand something from me I will do the opposite, especially when you've added less than me to this debate. Grow up, perhaps you should pull that mote out of your own eye first darling. 
> 
> I don't like the thread, but I'm not leaving.
> 
> 
> P.S. Please think about not being a moron in your next post, or your place as pointless poster will be cemented.
> 
> 
> 
> ...







> I'll answer in a non-insulting way, when I'm accorded the same respect.. That has not been the case since I came into this topic.
> 
> Just because Onus tries to veil his insults in a wall of text, doesn't mean I can't see them.
> 
> And this isn't the first time I've had issues with these people, they don't think I'm a troll.. They know I've been posting here for ages, never having been accused of such nonsense. They are simply, because they know their little study and topic is utter bullshit, have degenerated into labeling the opposition as something.(Troll)
> 
> Otherwise maybe they'd have more to say about rebuttal of Lynn I posted for him. Or the fact that an outlier in statistics unless properly explained has a high chance of indicating a problem in how the data was gathered.. But that's not enough of an argument for them, I'm just a troll as they keep repeating.... 
> 
> He's a troll!!! For getting pissed off for being insulted omg!!
> ...







> Ok? Just makes you look like an assclown..
> 
> Like I said. I never said, you are an assclown Onus! I said it makes you look like one.. And in later posts made sure that I properly explained what that sentence meant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was trying to make Onus aware that his actions, and how he words himself, and what he chooses as important will have a great effect on how the majority of people will view him...
> ...



Yeah, about 80% of that is pure flame. Not saying I'm not guilty in all of this, but not nearly to the extent you are. Messages like that have no place in our happy forum. If you would like a civilized debate, then please act like it. People are much more likely to respond in a positive fashion when you aren't hurling insults about.

----------


## TheUncanny

> If you would like a civilized debate, then please act like it. People are much more likely to respond in a positive fashion when you aren't hurling insults about.



I think we are all astute enough to recognize that this thread was never intended for civil debate.

----------


## DeathCell

> ^This. Dude, you've been posting flame and insults for the last couple of days, and nothing more. I've tried to have some patience, but it is quickly wearing thin. Now please, either stop attacking people, or leave the thread. I'm asking nicely, here. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Stop acting like my anger is unwarranted. It's a cop-out to debating. I don't just come in here looking to insult, but when I'm insulted you damn sure better be ready to face my wrath. If you don't want to hear my pissed off words, try showing some respect.. and don't come in here demanding my actions.. Your not the boss/admin. Leave the moderating to the MODERATORS.

----------


## Maria92

> Stop acting like my anger is unwarranted. It's a cop-out to debating. I don't just come in here looking to insult, but when I'm insulted you damn sure better be ready to face my wrath. If you don't want to hear my pissed off words, try showing some respect.. and don't come in here demanding my actions.. Your not the boss/admin. Leave the moderating to the MODERATORS.



Look, I'm going to be chill about this. Now, you should very well know, whenever someone insults you over the internet, the single worst thing you can do is respond to it. Besides...





> Originally posted by *Deathcell*
> Atheists calling superiority of intelligence over religious people *just makes you look like an assclown.*
> 
> Has atheism really came to the point that they need to spread propaganda or faulty correlations? Reminiscent of the church telling us to abandon our other religions for Heaven, now we must abandon religion for intelligence I assume? After all his study shows us.... lol
> 
> This is a disservice to the atheist movement.



...technically speaking, you started it. This, however, is beside the point. I'm willing to put all this aside and get back to the debate so that _someone_ may finally answer a few of your questions. 

Right, you were wondering about the great outlier known as the United States? I have a hypothesis for this: perhaps, because America has such a strict separation of church and state, religion is not there to interfere as much in the education process as some other world nations. Because religion does not play as great a role in formal education, it has less overall impact on the ACH thinking of individuals. 

Another possibility is that many Americans are "passively" religious. Maybe they were raised a certain way, but don't like being called "nonreligious" or "atheist," which would account for the apparent extreme religiosity of America. Just an idea, but I could see it happening. Similar things can be seen in the political system. When a person takes a stance on politics opposite that taken by their parents, rather than identifying with the opposite party, they simply label themselves as "independent." So, this idea may hold some water.

----------


## TheUncanny

Or maybe there is no direct correlation between religious belief and intelligence. 

In all honesty, it seems much more reasonable to contribute the world's rising Atheism, not to the fact that intelligence on average is also rising, but rather because of _the progression of science and its increasing ability to account for things that otherwise used to fall in the domain of religious belief_. The second factor to consider is the ever increasing exposure to opposing cultures and belief systems that conflict with one another.

The increase in Intelligence/ACH is no doubt related to the fact that the percentage of people going to school has been increasing over the years. And in addition, on average the number of years of education completed by people has been rising as well.  A second thing to consider is the progression of technology and how that has impacted our average level of intelligence. I don't know about you, but I most likely wouldn't be as intelligent as I am now if I didn't have the Internet. Plus the increase of technology not only allows for more education, it also allows for more expsoure to other cultures and belief systems...

If you consider all of these things, the increase in Atheism seems more likely attributed to _the advancement of technology an its increasing availability_ rather than intelligence itself.  The fact that Atheists on average higher ACH/IQ than Religious Believers can be attributed to the fact that the people who have less technology available to them (and thus are more likely to be religious) are also the people who have less education on average (and thus are more likely to be less intelligent)...not that a higher intelligence leads to Atheism. That would be on par with saying humans evolved from monkeys.  The *causal relationships*  within the data is what is suspect, not the actual data itself.  

There are no doubt millions of things that have positive and negative correlations with the rise of atheism, but most of those things have no direct relationship to one another. This is called "spurious correlation", and it doesn't take much to create a provocative theory fueled by these types of correlations, whether it be knowingly or unknowingly, but they would be fallacious nonetheless.

----------


## O'nus

> Or maybe there is no direct correlation between religious belief and intelligence. 
> 
> In all honesty, it seems much more reasonable to contribute the world's rising Atheism, not to the fact that intelligence on average is also rising, but rather because of _the progression of science and its increasing ability to account for things that otherwise used to fall in the domain of religious belief_. The second factor to consider is the ever increasing exposure to opposing cultures and belief systems that conflict with one another.



What exactly would that correlation be..?  What is used to measure that progression?

Why are you so convinced that my original intents were not to have a civil discussion?  I offer some new controversial evidence that warrants further investigation and inquiry, and you reply by saying, "That is too offensive, let us ignore it"??  Do you truly believe that?





> The increase in Intelligence/ACH is no doubt related to the fact that the percentage of people going to school has been increasing over the years. And in addition, on average the number of years of education completed by people has been rising as well.  A second thing to consider is the progression of technology and how that has impacted our average level of intelligence. I don't know about you, but I most likely wouldn't be as intelligent as I am now if I didn't have the Internet. Plus the increase of technology not only allows for more education, it also allows for more expsoure to other cultures and belief systems...



You can see a rise in the IQ's of those in the National Academy of Sciences which would quell your education argument.  There have always been scientists.  





> If you consider all of these things, the increase in Atheism seems more likely attributed to _the advancement of technology an its increasing availability_ rather than intelligence itself.  The fact that Atheists on average higher ACH/IQ than Religious Believers can be attributed to the fact that the people who have less technology available to them (and thus are more likely to be religious) are also the people who have less education on average (and thus are more likely to be less intelligent)...not that a higher intelligence leads to Atheism. That would be on par with saying humans evolved from monkeys.  The *causal relationships*  within the data is what is suspect, not the actual data itself.



It sounds more like you are actually trying to give a causal argument for why atheists are more intelligent than the religious.  

That is fine with me.  But I still think it warrants further investigation.  





> There are no doubt millions of things that have positive and negative correlations with the rise of atheism, but most of those things have no direct relationship to one another. This is called "spurious correlation", and it doesn't take much to create a provocative theory fueled by these types of correlations, whether it be knowingly or unknowingly, but they would be fallacious nonetheless.



I do not understand this screwed up perception of the data being that you must be Atheist to be intelligent.  I never said anything near that.  There are obviously some religious people in the higher echelons of education (albeit, a minority).  

Perhaps you ought to understand that some people out there want to learn and develop.  The best things to learn from are obviously the most controversial things, not the most mundane and politically correct.  How else do you progress as a human being? 

Be open-minded.  

~

----------


## TheUncanny

I believe that there was more to your motivation to post this topic than civil debate. Clearly you feel strong enough about atheism to do that amount of research on the issue, and then title the way you did??


I don't mean to seem closed minded, but I am a realist. Are you telling me that "taking a jab at religion" played no part in your motivation? Because I am definitely getting that vibe  :wink2: 




Anywho, my whole point comes down to these things:

- I believe that our level of intelligence is rising on average
- I believe that the number of atheists is also rising (per capita)
- I believe that your ACH chart was not falsified.

However, with those things said, showing that Atheists score higher on ACH tests as compared to Religious people implies something that I feel deserves more investigation.  It implies that there is a direct correlation between being intelligent and being an atheist...and that relationship is what I feel is suspect.

Here is a classic example that helps illustrate my point. There is plenty of evidence that shows, as hand size increases, so to do the convictions of shoplifting.  If that was as far as we went, stopping at just that set of data, we could conclude that people with larger hands are more likely to shoplift. 

Though it is true that there is a statistical correlation between hand-size and shoplifting (similarly to there being a statistical correlation between religious belief and ACH scores), the reason _why_ there is a correlation is not always correctly implied by the data. 

In truth, the reason why people with larger hands are more likely to shoplift is because, on average, men have larger hands than women...and on average, men are more likely to shoplift than women.  Therefore, in a way, it is true that there is some sort of relationship between hand-size and shoplifting, but not what the data would seem to suggest on the surface.

Bringing this all back to Atheism and Intelligence, I assume the data itself it accurate, and that there is some sort of (real) inverse correlation between religious belief and ACH scores.  _Why_ there is this relationship is the question... 

I have already voiced possible reasons why this relationship exists, but your stance regarding "why" there is an inverse correlation seems to be implied in your argument. Maybe I am mistaken, but did you or did you not mean to make the implication that there is a *direct* correlation between intelligence and religious belief?  After all, the title kind of says it all...

If that is the case, you will have to do a lot more than show that ACH scores decrease with religious belief, even if we assume that data is perfectly accurate. Don't you agree?

----------


## Kromoh

Alright. Logic lesson. If there is a negative correlation between religiosity and intelligence tests, then there is a positive correlation between irreligiosity and intelligence tests. Simply because religiosity and irreligiosity are opposites. It's a logical consequence.

Also, correlation doesn't imply causation. The original post never spoke of causation. You're the one talking about it.

Finally, I don't think O'nus point with this thread was to bitch. If any single person on this entire forum is reasonable, it's him. Any other person (including me) would brag about the correlation, but he didn't. Now please stop accusing him of something he didn't do. Of course he _could_ be biased because he is irreligious, but he wasn't - simply because he's only posting a statistical fact, and not building a philosophical argument. For the tenth time in this thread: there are no arguments against facts.

The only thing you could attack in the statistics is the method of evaluation of intelligence, but unless you are a pedagogue or a psychiatrist, I don't think you're qualified to do it.

----------


## O'nus

> I believe that there was more to your motivation to post this topic than civil debate. Clearly you feel strong enough about atheism to do that amount of research on the issue, and then title the way you did??



I study psychology and philosophy.. of course this is important to me.  I also value the opinion of the people on DV.  Ought I not present controversial topics for discussion?  Perhaps we should only discuss teddy bears.





> I don't mean to seem closed minded, but I am a realist. Are you telling me that "taking a jab at religion" played no part in your motivation? Because I am definitely getting that vibe



What benefit would that give me?  I have nothing to gain from the pretension of "atheists are smarter than theists".  That gives me no satisfaction at all.  What purpose would it even hold to hold such glory if the people are actually dumber? 

Remember, I did actually provide real evidence for it.  I did not just randomly say it with no justification or reason.  





> Anywho, my whole point comes down to these things:
> 
> - I believe that our level of intelligence is rising on average
> - I believe that the number of atheists is also rising (per capita)
> - I believe that your ACH chart was not falsified.



I agree.  The evidence is also supportive of this.





> However, with those things said, showing that Atheists score higher on ACH tests as compared to Religious people implies something that I feel deserves more investigation.  It implies that there is a direct correlation between being intelligent and being an atheist...and that relationship is what I feel is suspect.



I agree.  It does deserve further investigation.





> Here is a classic example that helps illustrate my point. There is plenty of evidence that shows, as hand size increases, so to do the convictions of shoplifting.  If that was as far as we went, stopping at just that set of data, we could conclude that people with larger hands are more likely to shoplift. 
> 
> Though it is true that there is a statistical correlation between hand-size and shoplifting (similarly to there being a statistical correlation between religious belief and ACH scores), the reason _why_ there is a correlation is not always correctly implied by the data. 
> 
> In truth, the reason why people with larger hands are more likely to shoplift is because, on average, men have larger hands than women...and on average, men are more likely to shoplift than women.  Therefore, in a way, it is true that there is some sort of relationship between hand-size and shoplifting, but not what the data would seem to suggest on the surface.
> 
> Bringing this all back to Atheism and Intelligence, I assume the data itself it accurate, and that there is some sort of (real) inverse correlation between religious belief and ACH scores.  _Why_ there is this relationship is the question...



Yes, Stats 101.  Thank you.

Of course, there is also the irrefutable fact that the mass majority of acclaimed scientists are always non-religious.  Why do you ignore that now?





> I have already voiced possible reasons why this relationship exists, but your stance regarding "why" there is an inverse correlation seems to be implied in your argument. Maybe I am mistaken, but did you or did you not mean to make the implication that there is a *direct* correlation between intelligence and religious belief?  After all, the title kind of says it all...



The evidence was pretty clear; people who claimed to be religious were less intelligent, on average, to those that claimed to not be religious.

What else do, or can, you take from this?  

Grabbing for straws.





> If that is the case, you will have to do a lot more than show that ACH scores decrease with religious belief, even if we assume that data is perfectly accurate. Don't you agree?



Of course I agree it is worth further investigation.  I have said this from the beginning.  Unfortunately, people are too nervous to fund such a research.  Just look at the reactions on here; imagine the public in general!

The unfortunate truth is that the mass majority of society is pretty dumb.  Education is a rarity and especially in statistics.  The public would not be able to grasp the idea of z scores and bell curves, let alone outliers and correlations.  So why fund such a thing?

Well, personally, I think funding such a thing is important and deserves investigation.  The benefits are worth it and it certainly pisses me off that religious zealots best argument is that out of sensitivity.  

I suppose we should always be gentle with our closed-minded, dim-witted, inane, religious brethren.  Not that I want to.  You must understand how counter-productive religion has been for science in the past.  I would like to finally see some damn balls from the scientific community to say, "back off, you don't know what you're talking about" with actual evidence.

~

----------


## O'nus

> Like I said. I never said, you are an assclown Onus! I said it makes you look like one.. And in later posts made sure that I properly explained what that sentence meant.



I suppose if I find controversial research, I ought to not bring it up at DV because it might offend people.

My apologies; I will make sure to only post threads about teddy bears and rainbows.





> I was trying to make Onus aware that his actions, and how he words himself, and what he chooses as important will have a great effect on how the majority of people will view him...
> 
> But he didn't want anything to do with that, he could careless how others see him he's more worried about other things..



Just what other things do you think that was..?  

Do you really think I care of the feelings of the greatest suppression to human inquiry of knowledge?  Ever since Socrates' death there has been an iron curtain between those who are closed and those who are open minded.  Which side are you on?  It certainly does not seem like you want to investigate possible falsehood in your belief, nor discuss them, so what would that make you?

Enjoy your mental isolation.  Personally, I choose to open it.

~

----------


## TheUncanny

> Alright. Logic lesson. If there is a negative correlation between religiosity and intelligence tests, then there is a positive correlation between irreligiosity and intelligence tests. Simply because religiosity and irreligiosity are opposites. It's a logical consequence.



OK, I'm not sure why you brought this up but I agree nonetheless. 





> Also, correlation doesn't imply causation. The original post never spoke of causation. You're the one talking about it.



Indeed, correlation does not imply causation (that was the general point I was making with my post). Granted the OP did not come out an say "The more religious you are, the dumber you are...", the title he chose to use says something about his intentions/motivation (whether this was a conscious decision, or just his personal feelings on the subject unconsciously affecting his word choice).  It would have been more accurate (and scientific) to title this thread "The nonreligious score higher on ACH testing"...since that would be a purely objective conclusion to draw off of the findings. In short, his word choice and the overall way he formulated this finding seems to make the implication of causation on his behalf.  This is a just nice way of being able to say what you want to say without making yourself vulnerable to counter criticism.






> For the tenth time in this thread: there are no arguments against facts.
> 
> The only thing you could attack in the statistics is the method of evaluation of intelligence, but unless you are a pedagogue or a psychiatrist, I don't think you're qualified to do it.




I never argued the facts presented, I just questioned the_ implied_ causation created by the way the facts were assembled and portrayed. 

___________________________________________









> ...Ought I not present controversial topics for discussion?  Perhaps we should only discuss teddy bears.



This more or less the sort of thing I am talking about.  It's not that the topic itself is controversial, but rather the way you relish and perpetuate the controversy. Every time you say something like "perhaps we should only discuss teddy bears..." it gives a glimpse of where you are truly coming from. Thats all I'm saying...






> What benefit would that give me?  I have nothing to gain from the pretension of "atheists are smarter than theists".  That gives me no satisfaction at all.  What purpose would it even hold to hold such glory if the people are actually dumber?



To me it's clear that you have some sort of grudge against religion...





> I suppose we should always be gentle with our closed-minded, dim-witted, inane, religious brethren.  Not that I want to.  You must understand how counter-productive religion has been for science in the past.




It doesn't seem all that unreasonable to think that you would get some sort of pleasure from posting statistical facts that _could_ suggest that those you have a grudge against are, on average, less intelligent than yourself and those who share your same beliefs. 





> I would like to finally see some damn balls from the scientific community...



Perhaps, like you, they are simply trying to save face  :tongue2: 





> Of course, there is also the irrefutable fact that the mass majority of acclaimed scientists are always non-religious.  Why do you ignore that now?



I don't know what relevance this has to what you had quoted of my post, or why you assert that I was ignoring the fact that most acclaimed scientists are nonreligious. All I was doing is pointing out that data does not always suggest what it _seems_ to suggest on the surface. 

In fact, I actually proposed that one of the reasons I felt atheism was growing was because of the progression of science (and its increasing ability to account for phenomena that otherwise would normally fall under the realm of religion). This seems to fall right in line with "...the mass majority of acclaimed scientists are always non-religious", wouldn't you say?





> The evidence was pretty clear; people who claimed to be religious were less intelligent, on average, to those that claimed to not be religious.
> 
> What else do, or can, you take from this?



Implied causation, obviously.  You didn't attempt to explore *why* religious people score less on ACH tests, possibly because that was beyond the point of posting this finding in the first place.

You seem like a bright guy, and I am sure you are very familiar with how people (especially politicians) can "misuse" statistics to suggest things that otherwise may not be entirely true.  When you post sets of data that correlate with one another, people are automatically going to attempt to determine causation.  In this case, without going why religious people score lower on ACH tests, people have no choice but to assume that there is a direct correlation between being unintelligent and being religious...as if one lends to the other.

If I had to guess, this is most likely the overall point of the posting this finding....eventhough, as I am sure you already know given your background, stats do not suggest anything, _people do_. The reality of the situation is that a direct correlation is not justified by the data present, which you seem to agree with.  And yet, I feel that a direct correlation is implicit in your thesis, given your tone, word choice, etc.  

I don't expect you to admit to it (nor will denying it change my opinion), but to me it's the elephant in the room. Its like this:

_Person 1: "Look at these stats, they show a spike in being African American and the number of times, on average, people eat at KFC a month as compared to other Ethnicities."

Person 2: "I see. So what are you getting at?"

Person 1:  "Who me? nothing."

Person 2: "You're not trying to imply that African Americans like KFC?" 

Person 1: "Whoa whoa whoa, hold on a second, I didn't say that!"

Person 2: "..."

Person 1: "Just Sayin"_


Your impartiality is transparent and your point is clear, let's stop acting so coy, shall we?

----------


## Kromoh

Stop bickering about the title, the title is good. It is logically accurate. Any underlying implications you get from it are your own judgement - that's because we usually associate "less intelligent" with "incapable", "dumb" or "idiot". Being less intelligent doesn't mean being stupid.

In fact, all this bickering about the title only shows how some people make speedy conclusions.

----------


## really

> Of course, there is also the irrefutable fact that the mass majority of acclaimed scientists are always non-religious. Why do you ignore that now?



Are you impying that the majority of acclaimed scientists are intelligent? I've heard of many scientific explanations that are simply shallow and fallacious, etc.

What have you to say about those intelligent people who believe in God?

----------


## Maria92

> *Are you implying that the majority of acclaimed scientists are intelligent?*



*struggles greatly*

That assumption is completely bogus. Because, you know, we wouldn't want to trust the people with far more schooling than the common population. You know, the people who have demonstrated advanced critical thinking skills and superior intellect. No, why should we trust _them_ to be intelligent at all?  ::shakehead2::

----------


## Naiya

This thread could benefit from lightening up. 

Don't take it too seriously.  :wink2:

----------


## Maria92

Hehe, I'm loving actually having a debate. This is great!

----------


## Kromoh

> Are you impying that the majority of acclaimed scientists are intelligent? I've heard of many scientific explanations that are simply shallow and fallacious, etc.



There are statistics showing scientists have higher IQs.





> What have you to say about those intelligent people who believe in God?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception

----------


## acatalephobic

Of interest, maybe: Religious belief among American scientists

I found this part most revealing:

"...Religious belief among scientists varies somewhat by sex, age and scientific specialty. Younger scientists are substantially more likely than their older counterparts to say they believe in God. In addition, more chemists than those in other specialties say they believe in God..."

This is only regarding Americans however, so...I don't know. I just thought it was interesting.


p.s. - sheesh, this thread has gotten really nasty since i looked at it last. passion for something is one thing, but being downright insulting to one another is quite another. i happen to believe in God, but by all means, don't _"be gentle with [your] closed-minded, dim-witted, inane, religious brethren."_

----------


## TheUncanny

> Stop bickering about the title, the title is good. It is logically accurate. Any underlying implications you get from it are your own judgement - that's because we usually associate "less intelligent" with "incapable", "dumb" or "idiot". Being less intelligent doesn't mean being stupid.
> 
> In fact, all this bickering about the title only shows how some people make speedy conclusions.



Then what would you say was the point of making this thread if not to discuss the implications of the findings?  It couldn't be to argue the facts because, as you so eloquently put it:





> For the tenth time in this thread: there are no arguments against facts.



So given that the point of this thread was supposedly about stating _nothing but the facts_ , wouldn't that then make the creation of this thread (and placement of it in "extended discussions") a pointless endeavor assuming facts cannot be debated? 

After all, I see only two possibilities here: Either the thread did make implications, or the thread did not make implications. Given this, let's explore each alternative individually:

If we assume it did make implications, then the thread was spreading misleading information in favor of / against specific groups of people.

If we assume that it did not make implications, then the creation of this thread in the Extended Discussion Forum was more or less pointless.

So, the real question is, was the thread pointless or propaganda? I'll let you decide.

----------


## really

I'm with you on this one Ethen, good points by the way.





> There are statistics showing scientists have higher IQs.



That may be true, but it really dodges my question doesn't it? Higher IQ doesn't necessarily mean you can make strong scientific theories, etc.





> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception



Is this worth a response? I'd like somebody to eleborate, if you can't.

----------


## Maria92

> Then what would you say was the point of making this thread if not to discuss the implications of the findings?  
> 
> So given that the point of this thread was supposedly about stating _nothing but the facts_ , wouldn't that then make the creation of this thread (and placement of it in "extended discussions") a pointless endeavor assuming facts cannot be debated? 
> 
> The facts are open to debate, but virtually no sound arguments against them have come to light. The crux of O'nus's case has yet to really be touched on and proven to be bunk. By all means, if you actually have an argument against the evidence and facts presented, go ahead and post them. I would love to debate.
> 
> After all, I see only two possibilities here: Either the thread did make implications, or the thread did not make implications. Given this, let's explore each alternative individually:
> 
> If we assume it did make implications, then the thread was spreading misleading information in favor of / against specific groups of people.
> ...







> That may be true, but it really dodges my question doesn't it? Higher IQ doesn't necessarily mean you can make strong scientific theories, etc.
> 
> It sure helps a whole hell of a lot. I'd like to see some poor Hillbilly hick do any better.
> 
> Is this worth a response? I'd like somebody to eleborate, if you can't.
> 
> 97% is a fucking huge majority. This should tell you something. There will always be exceptions to every rule. Simple as that. What would you like, a 100% unified scientific community? Then you'd be griping about nonreligious bias in every little thing. At least this way, the religious have a tiny representation in the field of science, not that it much matters.



.

----------


## SkA_DaRk_Che

Mario is absolutely correct, High IQ's tend to help a lot. An IQ test gauges in part how well a person can problem solve. The better you are at problem solving, the better you would do on an IQ test. Those who do less well on an IQ test are by that same token not likely to be the best at problem solving or making scientific theories. 

That said, an IQ is not an absolute indicator of wether or not you will be a good problem solver or good at formulating scientific theories;However, considering the fact that the formulating of scientific theories is critical thinking intensive, the higher your IQ the likelihood of you being better at it increases (substantially).

----------


## O'nus

> p.s. - sheesh, this thread has gotten really nasty since i looked at it last. passion for something is one thing, but being downright insulting to one another is quite another. i happen to believe in God, but by all means, don't _"be gentle with [your] closed-minded, dim-witted, inane, religious brethren."_



There are fundamentalists in every ideology.  These are whom I referring to and those are unknowingly oppress the scientific endeavor.  I just wanted to clarify that it is the people that say, "God did not want us to do this" etc. that I am very upset with.  

Religion has always been the biggest obstacle for science.  Well, aside from lacking technology.





> OK, I'm not sure why you brought this up but I agree nonetheless.



I think you will find that mostly agree.  I was just building on what you said.





> It would have been more accurate (and scientific) to title this thread "The nonreligious score higher on ACH testing"...since that would be a purely objective conclusion to draw off of the findings. In short, his word choice and the overall way he formulated this finding seems to make the implication of causation on his behalf.  This is a just nice way of being able to say what you want to say without making yourself vulnerable to counter criticism.



It is not just ACH testing that they score higher.  On average, it is, but not always.  This is the thing with statistics, you ought to know this.  I cannot just say, "They score higher on ACH" because that is not necessarily true.  It warrants further investigation but it is the proposed hypothesis, or explanation, of the results as it mostly spikes there.  





> I never argued the facts presented, I just questioned the_ implied_ causation created by the way the facts were assembled and portrayed.



That's your perception.  Maybe I ought to have added a "?" in the title, but even that is not accurate either.  There's no perfect title.  Deal with it.





> This more or less the sort of thing I am talking about.  It's not that the topic itself is controversial, but rather the way you relish and perpetuate the controversy. Every time you say something like "perhaps we should only discuss teddy bears..." it gives a glimpse of where you are truly coming from. Thats all I'm saying...



Oh give me a break.  You are prepositioning me.  How could I possibly reply without you _not_ thinking this of me?  This is like a Freudian circle.  Next you will accuse me of denying it.  





> To me it's clear that you have some sort of grudge against religion...



Again, this is your perception of me, and it is prepositional.  Of course, when you do this, there is nothing I can really say to prove you otherwise.  Open your mind and realize that, although I do hate religious oppression to science (notice my humility in admitting this for a good reason), I still work with religion a lot and learn from it a lot.  I am able to distinguish perceptions, you know.





> I don't know what relevance this has to what you had quoted of my post, or why you assert that I was ignoring the fact that most acclaimed scientists are nonreligious. All I was doing is pointing out that data does not always suggest what it _seems_ to suggest on the surface. 
> 
> In fact, I actually proposed that one of the reasons I felt atheism was growing was because of the progression of science (and its increasing ability to account for phenomena that otherwise would normally fall under the realm of religion). This seems to fall right in line with "...the mass majority of acclaimed scientists are always non-religious", wouldn't you say?



Of course.  You ought to find that I never disagreed with this.  The data includes non-religious, atheist, and agnostics all together for the most part.





> Implied causation, obviously.  You didn't attempt to explore *why* religious people score less on ACH tests, possibly because that was beyond the point of posting this finding in the first place.



How could I explore why?  I only offered this data for discussion and to show how difficult it actually is to fund a study of this sort.  Do I want to scientifically explore it?  Yes.  But I cannot.  The next best thing is to at leas discuss it.  Wouldn't you say?





> You seem like a bright guy, and I am sure you are very familiar with how people (especially politicians) can "misuse" statistics to suggest things that otherwise may not be entirely true.  When you post sets of data that correlate with one another, people are automatically going to attempt to determine causation.  In this case, without going why religious people score lower on ACH tests, people have no choice but to assume that there is a direct correlation between being unintelligent and being religious...as if one lends to the other.



There is no specific reason why there's a difference on ACH scores; you're asking of the impossible.  There's a plethora of reasons why one persons scores higher than another on an IQ test.  It is suddenly science's responsibility to explain every detail to make them feel better about getting a C instead of a B on a test?  Come on.

Also, it is not my fault if people are so sensitive that they are prejudice on the title and not read the post.  





> If I had to guess, this is most likely the overall point of the posting this finding....eventhough, as I am sure you already know given your background, stats do not suggest anything, _people do_. The reality of the situation is that a direct correlation is not justified by the data present, which you seem to agree with.  And yet, I feel that a direct correlation is implicit in your thesis, given your tone, word choice, etc.  
> 
> I don't expect you to admit to it (nor will denying it change my opinion), but to me it's the elephant in the room. Its like this:
> 
> _Person 1: "Look at these stats, they show a spike in being African American and the number of times, on average, people eat at KFC a month as compared to other Ethnicities."
> 
> Person 2: "I see. So what are you getting at?"
> 
> Person 1:  "Who me? nothing."
> ...



Your prepositioning is irritating.  

+ I have already admitted my hatred towards religious oppression.
+ I have no problem with working with religious people, nor socializing with them
+ I fully admit, and know, that there are many intelligent theists.  My data even supports this.
+ I do think that there is worthy reason to believe that the religious are not as intelligent, on average, as the non-religious.

Why do I have to keep defending my personal stance on this?  I swear you people need to learn how to debate if your best hope is attacking the proposition maker.

"I think X"
"You're just an asshole!"
"Uhm"





> Are you impying that the majority of acclaimed scientists are intelligent? I've heard of many scientific explanations that are simply shallow and fallacious, etc.



Firstly, according to the data, yes, they are intelligent.  This is intelligence defined as the WAIS.  I understand you would likely define it otherwise, but I define it as writing ability, verbal skills, mathematics, abstract thinking, etc.  In this case, they typically score higher.

Of course they are still able to post fallacious data and conclusions.  This is why science has peer-reviewed journals.  I do not think anything goes through more scrutiny than a science journal entry.  





> What have you to say about those intelligent people who believe in God?



They exist.  I never denied this.  Ken Jennings was a mormon and did the best on Jeaporday.  There are still many theists working in science and do a good job.  *I never denied this.*

~

----------


## Michael

the IQ vs. religiosity doesn't go up to 145 IQ (my score)... but if it did, the importance of religion would be at 0%. i have 0% interest and therefore this chart is true 100%. =P lol

----------


## TheUncanny

I will respond this last time but I otherwise have lost my motivation to continue posting.





> That's your perception.



Yes, it is my perception.  It's also my opinion that you can express an idea or thought without necessarily spelling it out word-for-word. In this circumstance, I don't think I need to quote specific instances of animosity to make my case. It seems pretty clear to me that what I am saying is more or less accurate based on was already in the thread. 






> Oh give me a break.  You are prepositioning me.  How could I possibly reply without you _not_ thinking this of me?  This is like a Freudian circle.  Next you will accuse me of denying it.  
> 
> Again, this is your perception of me, and it is prepositional.  Of course, when you do this, there is nothing I can really say to prove you otherwise.  Open your mind and realize that, although I do hate religious oppression to science (notice my humility in admitting this for a good reason), I still work with religion a lot and learn from it a lot.  I am able to distinguish perceptions, you know.



I did quote passages of your's that reinforced why I had that opinion, perhaps it would be beneficial to go back and read what I had quoted to better understand why I made the accusation. It seems you are looking for me to make a stronger case for my opinion. I suppose I could go back through the entire thread an quote every time you said something similar, but I don’t see a good enough reason to justify the effort it would take. If I am wrong, I am wrong.  However (and though you are well spoken) it’s my opinion that you have some animosity towards religion by the way you speak of it repressing science, AND by the way you (occasionally) flat out attack it with insults.  





> How could I explore why?  I only offered this data for discussion and to show how difficult it actually is to fund a study of this sort.  Do I want to scientifically explore it?  Yes.  But I cannot.  The next best thing is to at leas discuss it.



Hypothesize, like I did.  I gave some possible examples of why this correlation may exist (and how the correlation in question could plausibly be indirect).  All I needed to do from there is look up the corresponding "hard numbers" to see if they are consistent with my proposal. That’s how.

But again, what else (aside from causal implications) would there be to discuss if you were just pointing out facts?  I mean, was the purpose _really_ so that people could debate method of measuring intelligence?  Was _really_ it so that people could question the specific method of gathering facts in this circumstance?  Those are clearly possible reasons, however I personally just don’t think those things were the actual reason. I’m sorry. And I have already explained why I feel this way. 

I do see that you are trying to be objective here, and you did provide a good deal of evidence for your case, but I don’t think I am being unreasonable here either. If one just steps back and considers this thread in a more holistic way, I think my point of view makes sense.

Can we still be friends?

----------


## O'nus

> Yes, it is my perception.  It's also my opinion that you can express an idea or thought without necessarily spelling it out word-for-word. In this circumstance, I don't think I need to quote specific instances of animosity to make my case. It seems pretty clear to me that what I am saying is more or less accurate based on was already in the thread.



I understand what you are saying.  What I don't understand is why there is so much focus on my behaviour whereas I am being personally attacked as well.  

It is completely aside from the point and severe digression encouraged just from the matter of the debate.





> I did quote passages of your's that reinforced why I had that opinion, perhaps it would be beneficial to go back and read what I had quoted to better understand why I made the accusation. It seems you are looking for me to make a stronger case for my opinion. I suppose I could go back through the entire thread an quote every time you said something similar, but I don’t see a good enough reason to justify the effort it would take. If I am wrong, I am wrong.  However (and though you are well spoken) it’s my opinion that you have some animosity towards religion by the way you speak of it repressing science, AND by the way you (occasionally) flat out attack it with insults.



How many times do you want me to admit that I hate religion?  

*I hate religion*.  

Is that clear?

*I think religion is the greatest detriment to the human race.* 

Am I clear?

*I do think there are capable and intelligent religious people.*

Is it reasonable that, although I hate religion, I can at least respect it?





> But again, what else (aside from causal implications) would there be to discuss if you were just pointing out facts?  I mean, was the purpose _really_ so that people could debate method of measuring intelligence?  Was _really_ it so that people could question the specific method of gathering facts in this circumstance?  Those are clearly possible reasons, however I personally just don’t think those things were the actual reason. I’m sorry. And I have already explained why I feel this way. 
> 
> I do see that you are trying to be objective here, and you did provide a good deal of evidence for your case, but I don’t think I am being unreasonable here either. If one just steps back and considers this thread in a more holistic way, I think my point of view makes sense.
> 
> Can we still be friends?



Well of course. 

I really agree with you already.  I think the only thing we're clearing up here is the ambiguity of intent over the internet.  I do hate religions, but I still respect the people.  

I proposed this topic for discussion.  Perhaps DV is not the best grounds for controversial debate.  I usually take it to skepticforum.com.  I understand if I ought to cease and be more sensitive to the other readers of the people here.

~

----------


## DeathCell

Mario you did nothing but quote entire walls of texts, and continue to refuse to accept that my "assclown" comment was never intended as an insult.. or as you said "started it". I've already explained that, it's how he would be viewed.. though you keep ignoring my repeating of the same thing.. It's not a surprise for the desperate.

I never came into the topic and said Onus is an assclown.. For lack of a better term a large majority of people will probably view him in even less kosher of terminology.

It's obvious that some people hate Religion so much, that they find this topic to be of utmost importance. Sadly, their time could be better spent.. but don't tell them that.

----------


## Maria92

Did you even _read_ what I wrote _inside_ the walls of text? Yeah, all that red is me talking. I think it's a lot easier to go through and deal with your points in that fashion instead of wrapping "quote" tags about every little thing. 

Furthermore, I fail to see any real points you made in your last post. You're the one hung up on whether you started it or not. I said, "Though it doesn't much matter." 





> Atheists calling superiority of intelligence over religious people just makes you look like an assclown.
> 
> Has atheism really came to the point that they need to spread propaganda or faulty correlations? Reminiscent of the church telling us to abandon our other religions for Heaven, now we must abandon religion for intelligence I assume? After all his study shows us.... lol
> 
> This is a disservice to the atheist movement.



Yeah, I view that post as being quite ambiguous, and without further explanation, is mostly an insult. 

Also, was my explanation for the outlier satisfactory?

----------

