Thread: The Nonreligious Are More Intelligent

Originally Posted by Mario92

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.

Originally Posted by Mario92

^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.













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.

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.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

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.

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.

Originally Posted by ethen

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.

~

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




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?

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.

Originally Posted by ethen

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.

~

Originally Posted by DeathCell

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.

~

Originally Posted by 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.

OK, I'm not sure why you brought this up but I agree nonetheless.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

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.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

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.

___________________________________________

Originally Posted by O'nus

...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...

Originally Posted by O'nus

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...

Originally Posted by O'nus

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.

Originally Posted by O'nus

I would like to finally see some damn balls from the scientific community...

Perhaps, like you, they are simply trying to save face

Originally Posted by O'nus

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?

Originally Posted by O'nus

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?

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.

Originally Posted by O'nus

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?

Originally Posted by really

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?

This thread could benefit from lightening up.

Don't take it too seriously.

Hehe, I'm loving actually having a debate. This is great!

Originally Posted by really

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

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."

Originally Posted by 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.

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:

Originally Posted by Kromoh

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.

I'm with you on this one Ethen, good points by the way.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

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.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception

Is this worth a response? I'd like somebody to eleborate, if you can't.

Originally Posted by ethen

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.

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.

This thread was for discussion and critiquing of O'nus's argument, that the religious generally tend to be less adept at ACH thinking. Some arguments have been stated and either shot down or agreed on with limits. Progress has been made, and the case is now not as bulletproof as it once was. There is a general consensus that more research and studies must be done on at least several factors.

Originally Posted by really

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.

.

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).

Originally Posted by acatalephobic

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.

Originally Posted by ethen

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."

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?

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"

Originally Posted by really

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.

~

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

I will respond this last time but I otherwise have lost my motivation to continue posting.

Originally Posted by O'nus

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.

Originally Posted by O'nus

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.

Originally Posted by O'nus

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?