Thread: The Nonreligious Are More Intelligent

Originally Posted by DeathCell

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.)

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

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.

Much of the South is lobbying for the teaching of Creationism in public schools as an alternative to evolution. Luckily, they have been unsuccessful thus far, but it is only a matter of time before they stumble upon a loophole of some sort. Also keep in mind that many are in favor of bringing back School Prayer.

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.

Again with the title issue. Drop it, and pay attention to the rest of the argument. This is hardly relevant.

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

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.

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.

Let it go. For the love of god! It's a shaky foundation to base an argument off of, too.

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

It's the truth. Come up with a real argument, or kindly shut up.

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

Originally Posted by O'nus

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.

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.

I can see room for reconciliation in this matter. I hope you will strive to do the same.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

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.

~

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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?

~

.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

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?

Originally Posted by DeathCell

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.

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.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

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?

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/

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?

~

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.

Originally Posted by WakataDreamer

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.

Originally Posted by WakataDreamer

so is he the little girl or the ass?

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

Originally Posted by O'nus

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/

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?

~

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.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

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.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

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.

Originally Posted by mowglycdb

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.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

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?