You realize you are proving his point further by reacting emotionally instead of with a thought-out response...Quote:
Originally Posted by juroara
Printable View
You realize you are proving his point further by reacting emotionally instead of with a thought-out response...Quote:
Originally Posted by juroara
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?
~
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by grasshoppa
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
I guess the irony in this case is that it is not wise to dodge a question byQuote:
Originally Posted by juroara
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.
:horse:Quote:
Originally Posted by Invader
Where would the lines be drawn between science, reasoning, and religion?Quote:
Originally Posted by Invader
I'm not sure how they can be confused? The scientific process is a method.Quote:
Originally Posted by ClouD
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..
Do you understand how an IQ test works?Quote:
Originally Posted by juroara
~
No you haven't. You never have, and never will.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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...
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Licity
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
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.
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.Quote:
"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."
What's with all these threads bashing religion anyway, now it's leaking out into the main extended discussion area.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vampyre
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by guitarboy
Everyone judges everyone else. Some of us just don't pretend not to do it. Nor is it a bad thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by juroara
[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?
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.
Who are you addressing? Do you understand what the concept of ACH thinking is?Quote:
Originally Posted by Licity
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by guitarboy
You are right - they are not hard to get. But I do not see why you are upset if you are not religious?Quote:
Originally Posted by juroara
Quote:
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.
Quote:
But even less perfect and less reliable are statistics as a way to measure someones intellect!!
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.Quote:
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 provided facts. You respond with conjecture.Quote:
my argument is a CONCERN of why this type of thread is made anyways, except to boast atheist elitism.
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.
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.Quote:
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 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.Quote:
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
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.Quote:
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!
Statistics are statistics are statistics.
I never said otherwise. Stop presuming. Read what I am saying.Quote:
In other words, even super intelligence can still be blind and ignorant
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.Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
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?
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
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?
: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.
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?Quote:
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
Pardon me, I am finding it difficult to understand your point. I will respond, but correct me if I am digressive;Quote:
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.
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.
~
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by HaRd_WiReD
FYI, Einstein claimed to subscribe to Spinoza's god, and that is naturalistic pantheism, which is nowhere near religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by HaRd_WiReD
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
Right, spirituality is the SAME thing as Pantheism, just direct knowledge of it.
Quote:
Religion: an institution to express belief in a divine power;
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.Quote:
Pantheism: The belief that the universe is divine and should be revered.
Even if it's NOT a religion, Pantheism is still determinism.
I doubt you know anything about Pantheism OR spirituality anyway.