Thread: The Nonreligious Are More Intelligent

Originally Posted by really

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.

Originally Posted by Mario92

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.

Originally Posted by really

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Lucidness

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.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

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.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

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).

~