12-04-2006, 04:18 AM | #101 |
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Midtown Express
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
Those are completely worthless studies and reports Russian. You really are a C student at best. If you're looking for a study to represent intelligent people then where's the age cross-section? Those are all students with few, if any, exceptions. You're picking and choosing things to support your own bias. Look at a broader age cross section and use ages of people that actually know something. One thing is certain at older ages....EVERYONE looks back at their younger self and KNOWS how smug they were about what they "knew" and, hopefully, they now know the reality of how little they actually knew then.
Personally I think the Mensa vs gen pop stats are more meaningful as it cuts across all ages and the difference in percentages isn't that great. |
|
12-04-2006, 06:01 AM | #102 | |
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
Quote:
1. I could not find any information on Thomas Howells, or his study. What I did find was circular results all linking to the same page you did (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-thinkingchristians.htm). Found no references to it, no journals, no articles, no studies, etc. Maybe you could find the actual study though. 2. Read #1. Same exact thing. 3. Though I was not bale to directly access his study, I was able to find a reliable reference to his study ("Religious Belief and Character Among Jewish Adolescents"). 4. Found little results on this. Couldn't find anything about the author or his study. One vague reference the last name in one article. Oh well, according to the site, is actually goes against the claims you're making. 5. I found one reference to a Religious article (1938) authored by Vernon Jones. I was unable to access it. A few references to Jones in other articles. Regardless, the study, apparently, is about liberals and intelligence. 6. Found quite a few references to A. R. Gilliland. Regardless, his reports find little or no relationship between intelligence and attitude toward God. This is just preliminary. Perhaps you find these studies. I can't. I'll continue my search tomorrow when I have more time. What I have found thus far though is that all the results simply link back to your original page you linked to. Very little more. "Professing themselves to be wise, they have become fools" (Romans 1:22). Last edited by o_uber; 12-04-2006 at 10:33 PM. |
|
|
12-04-2006, 12:01 PM | #103 | |
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
Quote:
It's BS. Re-read my post on Page 3. The state will prosecute in cases which it deems appropriate even if the victim does not wish to press charges. In this case, I've no idea, but it may be that the state did not think it in the best interests of anyone to prosecute. The Guardian has then just put the spin on it that this is Sharia law, which is bollocks, it just so happens that one particular aspect of British law happens to have similarities with Sharia law. That doesn't make them identical. |
|
|
12-04-2006, 03:35 PM | #104 | |
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
Quote:
What is important is after all the studies were accumulated and put under the microscope for the conglomeration that became the book, the conclusion I posted in my previous post remained the same. The ammount of weight towards religiosity's connection to decreased reasoning abilities is undeniable in the face of this research. |
|
|
12-04-2006, 09:41 PM | #105 | ||||
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
Note: please skip over this post if you are not interested in the argument of Religiosity and Intelligence.
To continue 7. Found one good reference to Donald Gragg and a 1942 paper titled "Religious Attitudes of Denominational College Students," posted in the Journal of Social Psychology. I never was able to find the actual paper, so I cannot say if this one talked about in your Web page. If this is indeed it, then the title wouldn't imply anything about test scores, but rather attitudes of students in a denominational college. I'd also like to point out that this reference was in a paper written by LeRoy B. Allen about religious attitudes of 200 (51 theological graduates, 149 freshman) students from Howard University. While it's main purpose was to identify differing attitudes toward God, the Bible, the Church, and Sunday observance, it found that of the freshman men and women 79% and 88% showed belief or strong belief toward God. 3% and 4% percent of freshmen men and women, respectively, were atheist. [1]. 8. Was not able find out who either Brown or Love are (as there no first names mentioned). Found no study about "test scores," whatever that test may be, of University of Denver students in 1951. Not suprising since the Web site states its study "strongly corroborate those of Howells," a study which seems not to exist. 9. Michael Argyle is the first guy I found real evidence of existence. He was an English social psychologist at Oxford University. [2] It seems he died just this years from complications of a swimming accident. He was an evangelist [3]. He wrote "Religious Behaviour," in 1958. It appears his main purpose was to describe experiences and interaction with religion and how these correlate to the persons. After all, he wrote, Quote:
A little snippet I was able to grab (page 100): "Summary. The rate of crime is lower for people who actually go to church regularly; it is no lower for people who merely hold orthodox beliefs." For quite a good read, I suggest his later and follow-up paper coauthored with Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, titled "The Psychology of Religious Behaviour, Beliefs and Experiences." You can read quite a bit (though not all of it) on Google books. One quote stuck out: "However, there no great differences between the religious and non-religious, though fundamentalist score a little lower, and there are some denomination differences which reflect their class differences" (page 183). 10. Jeffrey Hadden was a sociologist (PhD). I was unable to find any study by him about grades and intelligence, though your Web page states he found no correlation. I don't quite see what it has to do with religion. 11. This one seems to be referring to Robert K. Young, David S. Dustin, and Wayne H. Holtzman (thought I'm not 100% sure, I'm fairly certain). These three men wrote "Change in attitude toward religion in a Southern University," in 1966. I was not able to find the paper anywhere, so I cannot comment on it. 12. I was not able to find a James Trent. Although I did find a vague reference to a James W. Trent. He a coauthor of a paper titled "The Influence of Different Types of Public Higher Education Institutions on College Attendance from Varying Socioeconomic and Ability Levels." As the title suggest, and as did the abstract, it has nothing to do with religion. It states, "AN AREA OF MAJOR CONCERN WAS THE IDENTIFICATION OF FACTORS WHICH APPEAR TO BEAR ON COLLEGE ATTENDANCE." (Sorry, I didn't capitalize that.) Besides your Web page states "found little difference." Little difference in what? Doesn't have anything to do with religion. 13. E. Minimum seems to refer to Edward W. Minium. I believe their C. Plant refers to Walter T. Plant (I don't know where they got the C. from). These two wrote a paper titled "Differential Personality Development In Young Adults As Related To Ability," in 1964 (not 1967). The abstract states: Quote:
Edit: It seems these two wrote a 1967 paper titled "Differential personality development in young adults of markedly different aptitude levels." I, however, cannot access it, so I cannot comment on it. 14. Robert Wuthnow is a sociologist (PhD) who teaches sociology of religion (Princeton University). He wrote a paper in 1978 titled "Experimentation in American Religion." You can read an overview and review of this paper here. Although I was not able to find his actual paper/book, it appears it has nothing to do with SAT scores. Edit: It appears Wuthnow wrote a paper in 1973 (not 1978) titled "Religious Loyalty, Defection, and Experimentation Among College Youth." The primary focus of this study was defection (moving away from one's own religion [or lack thereof]). However he study many other factors such as GPA, marijuana use, sex experimentation, and radical political views among the students, seperated by religion (or lack thereof). In his study, there were professional interviews and a 400 question sheet answered by roughly around 2000 students from University of California, Berkley. In contrast to your Web site, most of the results were negative for the nonreligious (and anti-religious) compared to the religious (exception of Jews). In fact Wuthnow found "While they report less concern about grades than do believers, arelgious [agnostic or no religion], and the anti-religious, their reported GPA is lower." He, however, goes on to explain how the numbers were small, how results deny th "sour grapes" claims, and dangers of using self-report academic performance. It is very quite thorough and clear. You made read it here. 15. Phillip K. Hastings and Dean R. Hoge both exist. I wasn't able to find their paper, nor did I look very hard. This is because your Web page simply states "Polled 200 college students and found no significant correlations," which means nothing to me, and does not support your argument. 16. This is first one that I found that your Web page lists correctly. In his "Literal, Antiliteral, and Mythological Religious Orientations," Poythress does claim non- or anti-religious students were more intelligent than religious of the 109 undergrad students students (64 female, 45 male) of psychology at University of Texas. However, I do not know where your Web page got the 1022 digit for Total SAT (Quantitive + Verbal, according SAT of that time) scores for religious student. Because in fact there is no such number in any of this tables. In fact, the highest of religious was 1067 (anti-literal mythological). He was right, though, in stating the lower scores of non-religious (slightly anti-religious) and moderately anti-religious. I'd like to point though, that Poythress writes, "the present sample was not representative with respect to grade level as it included disproportionate number of freshmen, and this may have biased the data. Finally, as in any individual differences study in which no experimental manipulation is performed and the data are essentially correlation in nature, it is impossible to assure that the individual differences variable selected as the basis for the group determinations is the the variable casually related to the observed group differences. . . . Consequently no conclusive casual statements can be made concerning the findings" 17. This refers to Ken F. Wiebe and J. Roland Fleck, and their 1980 paper titled "Personality Correlates of Intrinsic, Extrinsic and Non-Religious Orientations." Their abstract states: Quote:
Edit: Their conclusions: Quote:
|
||||
|
12-04-2006, 10:30 PM | #106 | ||||||
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
Note: If you are not interested in the argument of Religiosity and Intelligence, please skip this post.
Now to get to your original post. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But what's more interesting is that these claims didn't originate from the Web page you linked to, but rather "adapted from" here (as it states on the one you linked to). What's sad is every search I did to find these studies listed to some forum Web site thread, not unsimiliar to this one, linked to that Web page. They'd simply copy and paste as you have done. No where did anyone try to substantiate what they were saying or even try to produce some sort of reliable source like the actual study or a reference to it other than this simple-text-based Web page. Continuously I saw people using this as a source for "proving" that atheists are smarter than their religious counterparts. So even if you're a fool to take this Web page for its face value, why is it so important? Who is Steve Kangas (author of the page), and why is he lying to you? As Innoc pointed out quite clearly, a majority, if not all, of these studies are being done on college students (note college differed from university, way back during the earlier studies before the 1950s). Also I pointed out earlier, religiosity tends to increase after being married and atheism tends to decline after the age of 30. Seeing as how most college students aren't married and aren't over the age 30, why are all these tests being done on them? Why does the Web page's most recent study only quote a study from 27 years ago (1980)? Are we supposed to believe these 17 studies represent all the studies done between religion and cognitive ability? Are we to believe these 17 studies (which do not all support your argument) prove a causation of lower intelligence with religiosity, or even correlation. You really have to begin thinking beyond what simply being spoon-fed to you. So who really is Steve Kangas? I don't know, but you can check his Web site here which is host to the article. (An extremist "liberalist" as he proclaims. Has a complete FAQ of numerable fallacies on the right wing. Etcetera.) Edit: Apparently Steve Kangas committed suicide on Feb. 8, 1999. Quote:
Last edited by o_uber; 12-05-2006 at 01:34 AM. |
||||||
|
12-05-2006, 06:45 AM | #107 | |||
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
First off... read what I posted before you went on to 7-17... it could have saved you a lot of typing, I knew that there were unsuportive studies in there, that was the point, the truth is in the conclusion.
And those 1-17 studies are only the tip of the iceberg from that research study as you can see on the site theres dozens more. Whats important is that for intelectual honesty, it aknowledges studies unsupportive of itself when forming its summation and conclusion. What should not surprise you is the conclusion itself. Yet you dont seem to be able to get that across, and might I add that you have provided NO (0) studies proving otherwise or any summation of a multitude of studies like this research study is, in support of your arguement. You're nit-picking and grabbing at straws when confronted with a lack of evidence to support your arguement is what it looks like when you choose to attack without counter-evidence. Quote:
Quote:
What you ignore about the college students is that as GPAs increase over the years, the religiosity that was tracked drops, and amongst the top 5% of the classes, religiosity is the lowest. So its concluded, as people get smarter, they get less religious. Your over-30 estimation without ANY evidence of people becoming more religious is non-consequential to what any of us are arguing, because being 30+ doesnt make you smarter... and what you chose to ignore are the statistics of individual in higher intelligence brackets, or imminent scientists considered to be most important and how religiosity amongst them declines while intellect rises. And that was not just these studies but the modern studies I listed for you in the Wiki. Quote:
You still have no studies to contradict the point, you havnt gained any credit here by stating the obvious. The authors of the academic study obviously knew that not every one of those studies supported them, as in what they said under the 15th one. Its their conclusion which is valid in the overall conglomeration. By all means, that web page I linked to in the first place has dozens more studies in relation with other aspects of intelligence and children of intelligent individuals that you can argue against / with. The research study never claimed all the evidence was in its favour... it listed all the evidence and saw to which end the scale tipped. |
|||
|
12-05-2006, 02:35 PM | #108 |
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: New Jersey, USA!
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
You guys can drop the subject now. The thread has lost it's entertainment value.
Would a dev or mod please close my topic? |
|
12-05-2006, 07:12 PM | #109 |
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
You are a C student. And that's graded on a curve.
If you really want me to point your fallacies you can discuss it with me in PM. Lock... |
|
12-05-2006, 10:11 PM | #110 |
Useless
Retired FF Staff
|
I'm having flashbacks to the debates we had in High School English. I can't believe either of you bothered keeping it up so long.
__________________
Look at all those dead links. |
|
12-05-2006, 10:15 PM | #111 |
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Your Mamas House
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
Someone posted an awesome picture about arguing on the net a while back, i shall see if i can find it.
EDIT aha here it is lol. This is one of my favourites that i have aquired over the years. Oh ya and also.... |
|
12-05-2006, 10:17 PM | #112 | |
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Midtown Express
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
Quote:
|
|
|
12-05-2006, 10:20 PM | #113 |
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Your Mamas House
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
Haha right as i was editing it. That would be it.
EDIT here you go guys |
|
12-05-2006, 10:25 PM | #114 |
Useless
Retired FF Staff
|
Lengthy discussions about shit no one cares about, including those discussing it > these fucking pictures.
__________________
Look at all those dead links. |
|
12-05-2006, 10:40 PM | #115 |
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Midtown Express
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
No one's posted anything to suggest that Sharia Law being allowed to handle something versus the established British Courts was anything more than some isolated incident. I guess that's the only brightside of this horribly hijacked thread.
|
|
12-06-2006, 02:47 AM | #116 | |
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
Quote:
lock away.. |
|
|
12-06-2006, 02:51 AM | #117 |
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: New Jersey, USA!
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
Ok, pissyfest over now. Lock this Please.
|
|
12-06-2006, 02:53 AM | #118 | |
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
Quote:
Like I said if you want an explanation, you can PM me. Lock. |
|
|
12-06-2006, 02:08 PM | #119 | |
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
Quote:
|
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|