Thread: The Nonreligious Are More Intelligent

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 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.