Fortress Forever

Go Back   Fortress Forever > Off Topic > Chat

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-04-2006, 04:18 AM   #101
o_|404|innoc-tpf-
 
o_|404|innoc-tpf-'s Avatar
 
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.
o_|404|innoc-tpf- is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 12-04-2006, 06:01 AM   #102
o_uber
 
o_uber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Russian
1. Thomas Howells, 1927
Study of 461 students showed religiously conservative students "are, in general, relatively inferior in intellectual ability."

2. Hilding Carlsojn, 1933
Study of 215 students showed that "there is a tendency for the more intelligent undergraduate to be sympathetic toward… atheism."

3. Abraham Franzblau, 1934
Confirming Howells and Carlson, tested 354 Jewish children, aged 10-16. Found a negative correlation between religiosity and IQ as measured by the Terman intelligence test.

4. Thomas Symington, 1935
Tested 400 young people in colleges and church groups. He reported, "There is a constant positive relation in all the groups between liberal religious thinking and mental ability… There is also a constant positive relation between liberal scores and intelligence…"

5. Vernon Jones, 1938
Tested 381 students, concluding "a slight tendency for intelligence and liberal attitudes to go together."

6. A. R. Gilliland, 1940
At variance with all other studies, found "little or no relationship between intelligence and attitude toward god."

7. Donald Gragg, 1942
Reported an inverse correlation between 100 ACE freshman test scores and Thurstone "reality of god" scores.

8. Brown and Love, 1951
At the University of Denver, tested 613 male and female students. The mean test scores of non-believers was 119 points, and for believers it was 100. The non-believers ranked in the 80th percentile, and believers in the 50th. Their findings "strongly corroborate those of Howells."

9. Michael Argyle, 1958
Concluded that "although intelligent children grasp religious concepts earlier, they are also the first to doubt the truth of religion, and intelligent students are much less likely to accept orthodox beliefs."

10. Jeffrey Hadden, 1963
Found no correlation between intelligence and grades. This was an anomalous finding, since GPA corresponds closely with intelligence. Other factors may have influenced the results at the University of Wisconsin.

11. Young, Dustin and Holtzman, 1966
Average religiosity decreased as GPA rose.

12. James Trent, 1967
Polled 1400 college seniors. Found little difference, but high-ability students in his sample group were over-represented.

13. C. Plant and E. Minium, 1967
The more intelligent students were less religious, both before entering college and after 2 years of college.

14. Robert Wuthnow, 1978
Of 532 students, 37 percent of Christians, 58 percent of apostates, and 53 percent of non-religious scored above average on SATs.

15. Hastings and Hoge, 1967, 1974
Polled 200 college students and found no significant correlations.

16. Norman Poythress, 1975
Mean SATs for strongly anti-
religious (1148), moderately anti-religious (1119), slightly anti-religious (1108), and religious (1022).

17. Wiebe and Fleck, 1980
Studied 158 male and female Canadian university students. They reported "nonreligious S's tended to be strongly intelligent" and "more intelligent than religious S's."
I'm going to address this first really quickly because I'm short on time, it's late, and I have to get up early.

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.
o_uber is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 12-04-2006, 12:01 PM   #103
o_gunslinger
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by |404|Innoc-TPF-
Do you think it's being suppressed or that the article posted at the start was an isolated case?
Sticking to the original non-quotathon topic...

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.
o_gunslinger is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 12-04-2006, 03:35 PM   #104
o_the russian
 
o_the russian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by uBeR
I'm going to address this first really quickly because I'm short on time, it's late, and I have to get up early.

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 (193 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).
Why would you presume all of these studies would be published somewhere online and in full? ... they are documented in an earlier edition of this book. Once the new edition is released this january, I'm going to see about getting myself a copy, as I did not own the old one. If you go further down the list of studies than you have, you will find studies that quote themselves as having "no distinct correlation" just like you implied ... why? ... because thats called scholarly ethics, where they linked all the legitimate studies they could find, even the ones that disagreed with them... and I even quoted that study, check #15 on that list. Its called honesty.

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.
o_the russian is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 12-04-2006, 09:41 PM   #105
o_uber
 
o_uber's Avatar
 
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:
MANY previous workers in this field have combined an interest in the psychology of religion with a desire to
support, or more commonly to attack, religion. Audiences to whom I
have talked about these matters have often been more con-
cerned about the religious implications of the findings than
about the findings themselves. This is all rather absurd;
psychologists are no more experts on the existence of God than
are theologians on the theory of learning, or art critics on the
nature of the atom. Psychologists have been diverted from their
proper task--that of discovering empirical generalizations or
laws governing religious beliefs, behaviour and experiences,
together with finding theories or mechanisms to explain these
laws.

In some parallel cases questions of the causation and the truth of beliefs are more easily separated--as for instance with the belief that negroes have a lower intelligence than white people. Something is known of the causal conditions under which people hold this belief, but that tells us nothing about whether the belief is true or not and research of quite a different kind has produced evidence on this second question. The belief in this case is empirically verifiable, whereas religious beliefs are not verifiable in any straightforward way.
So it appears the quote (from your Web page), if it really is one (I was unable to read the entire text), seems to be pulled out of context. Argyle writes, "Some people are more religious than others; what is required is some scale along which people who are more or less active can be distributed. Furthermore, the religious activity and beliefs of people take different forms, so that a number of different scales will probably be needed. . . . the most important indices of religious activity will be described, and in each case two questions will be discussed--how satisfactory the index is as a criterion of religious activity, and how accurate the measurement is likely to be in terms of actual, as opposed to merely reported behaviour." It seems, according to later papers written by Argyle, he was talking difference between Jews and those who are Orthodox Jews.

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:
The data from previous studies were used to determine if there were differential nonintellectual (personality) changes in young adults who differed markedly in measured academic aptitude. three of the former studies were for a 2-year test and retest time period, and two were for a 4-year test and retest time period. comparisons of nonintellectual changes between high- and low-aptitude groups of males and of females were conducted. this resulted in 40 possible comparisons of the changes over time for high- versus low-aptitude groups. the ethnocentrism scale, the dogmatism scale, the authoritarianism scale, the California psychological inventory, and the study of values were the instruments used to obtain the scores from the young adult subjects. the major conclusions drawn were that young adults of high aptitude exhibited more "psychologically positive" nonintellectual change over time, and the development is similar in trend to personality changes of college students in general.
So I'm not really seeing the connection here between intelligence and religiosity. That is, unless you can find another study by them; I couldn't.

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:
Personality profiles of university freshmen (N=158) were compared across religious orientation and religious affiliation. The hypotheses that profiles of extrinsically religious and non-religious subjects would correlate significantly with each other, and that both would differ significantly from intrinsically religious subjects were supported by the data. The personality profiles included superego strength, emotional sensitivity, and liberalism. Differences were also found across religious affiliation for certain personality variables
I was unable to read their actual text, so I cannot comment on what exactly they concluded.

Edit: Their conclusions:
Quote:
Personality correlates of intrinsic, extrinsic, and non-religious orientations. Journal of Psychology, 105, 181-187. (C/S survey of convenience sample of 158 Canadian college freshman; personality profiles (Cattell-PF) compared across religious orientation (Allport-Ross E-I scale) and affiliation; intrinsically religious students tended to be higher on superego strength and emotional sensitivity and lower in liberalism than extrinsically or nonreligious subjects; they had greater concern for moral standards, conscientiousness, discipline, responsibility, and consistency than non-religious or extrinsics; they were also more sensitive, dependent, emphathetic, and open to their emotions; extrinsically religious and non-religious subjects (who were significantly correlated) were more self-indulgent, indolent, and less dependable, but also more flexible, self-reliant, skeptical, pragmatic, and less sentimental, as well as more innovative, analytical, and free thinking, less rigid, and a decrease propensity towards pathology than intrinsics; combinations of denomination ane I-E was also revealing; intrinsically-oriented Protestants tended to be moderately neurotic and slightly achieving, but lower in aggression; intrinsically religious Catholics tended to be strongly neurotic and aggressive, but lower in both the intelligence and achievement dimensions; extrinsically oriented Protestants tended to be moderately achieving and intelligent, but low in agression and neurosis; extrinsically religious Catholics tended to be slightly neurotic and achieving but to a lesser degree than intrinsically-motivated Protestants; non-religious subjects tended to be strongly intelligent and moderately aggressive and exhibited the least trend toward neurosis) (no controls)
Looks to be more negative than positive toward non-religious subjects.
o_uber is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 12-04-2006, 10:30 PM   #106
o_uber
 
o_uber's Avatar
 
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:
Originally Posted by The Russian
I'll disprove it right now... God is not tangible, therefore all those who argue that god is in evolution, cannot prove if/when god entered the picture of evolution. Its called religious speculation, you'd have to believe in god first to make such an assumption. I could also have worded it better... in that it might not directly disprove some form of some god for some person, but it disproves the bible / torah / quaran. via - the world as we know it was not created in 7 days, as we know for a fact that millions of species didnt exist for billions of years, and theres no ground in any religious writing for the pre-life era, nor any accurate depiction.
You, sir, are one of the few who translate the Bible literally. I cannot account for those who do.

Quote:
My advantage as an atheist isnt direclty in intelligence, its understanding that the natural forces I listed are not causations and powers of god or representation of any devine will. That is all.
How do you know this? You haven't proved it.

Quote:
You're making everything into some kind of shovenistic commedy as you run out of ideas. Surely, person such as yourself is the most intelligent of the 'theologic bunch' ?
I'm bolding my overall conclusions so that clearly see and understand them. I was under the assumption you are not reading my entire posts. I'm not a theologist either (in the context that it's not my field of education, nor do I study Him, but rather practice the teachings of the Lord).

Quote:
Now you're just acting juveline, as if you cant read between the lines. The studies I listed we're representations of when correlation can be linked with causation, and while I agreed that correlation is not necessarily causation, there comes a point where REASON takes over and you have to give in to the correlation as in the studies I mentioned. And here is a refference for holocaust-denial scholarly articles, its a book with a collection of them, a pseudo-history. At some point, someone had to start believing that it wasnt witches causing the crops to fail. understand? The correlation you're denying just on the basis of questioning causation itself is backed up by too many sources to deny it as you do.
Oh I understand the difference between correlation and causation, as I was the one who had to explain it to you. Nevertheless your "multitude" of studies has once again failed you as you have but barely 2-3 that actually argue specifically the causations, or even correlations, of religiosity on intelligence.

Quote:
You asked for more studies? ... ok... aside from the 5 or so modern ones in that Wiki that you declared were too few..., check here for a listing, correlation, and conclusion.

Those are older studies than the Wiki, yet prove the same correlation.
These claims I specifically addressed in my previous two posts (numbered 1-17 to examine the 17 claims you presented from the Web page).

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:
And here is a better read for you, complete with citations and everything. And it will explain to you how religion != morality for #1, and #2 is actualy a detraction to global morality.
Not really. His sources are simply citing where he got specific quotes from. The rest is opinionated and unsourced information.

Last edited by o_uber; 12-05-2006 at 01:34 AM.
o_uber is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 12-05-2006, 06:45 AM   #107
o_the russian
 
o_the russian's Avatar
 
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:
Oh I understand the difference between correlation and causation, as I was the one who had to explain it to you. Nevertheless your "multitude" of studies has once again failed you as you have but barely 2-3 that actually argue specifically the causations, or even correlations, of religiosity on intelligence.
You explained nothing, instead of adressing the arguement on a factual basis you attacked it on structural... as in, instead of proving that it wasnt the cause, you basicaly stated that not every piece of evidence stems from the same symptom. And to sum up what I explained to you, is that you can only ignore causation for so long in the face of so many correlating conclusions.

Quote:
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.
I dont know why you chose not to read the valid parts of the research articles... how could you miss the fact that the article on that page was published in 1985, and stemmed from the earlier version of the book I linked to that was published that year.

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:
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.
Steve Kangas wrote just another website summarising the study, I have no idea who he is or what he's done, and I never linked to any of his info / site, as the original research is not from him in the first place...he had nothing to do with the research study itself... I dont see what the hell you're grabbing at here? sensationalism? How many times must I point you to the original source here and explain that its from an earlier version of this book.

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.
o_the russian is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 12-05-2006, 02:35 PM   #108
o_backstaber
 
o_backstaber's Avatar
 
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?
o_backstaber is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 12-05-2006, 07:12 PM   #109
o_uber
 
o_uber's Avatar
 
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...
o_uber is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 12-05-2006, 10:11 PM   #110
Circuitous
Useless
Retired FF Staff
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Class/Position: D Soldier, O Scout
Gametype: AvD
Posts Rated Helpful 9 Times
Send a message via AIM to Circuitous Send a message via MSN to Circuitous Send a message via Yahoo to Circuitous Send a message via Skype™ to Circuitous
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.
Circuitous is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 12-05-2006, 10:15 PM   #111
o_yomamashouse
 
o_yomamashouse's Avatar
 
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....
o_yomamashouse is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 12-05-2006, 10:17 PM   #112
o_|404|innoc-tpf-
 
o_|404|innoc-tpf-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Midtown Express
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by YoMamasHouse
Someone posted an awesome picture about arguing on the net a while back, i shall see if i can find it.
This one?
o_|404|innoc-tpf- is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 12-05-2006, 10:20 PM   #113
o_yomamashouse
 
o_yomamashouse's Avatar
 
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
o_yomamashouse is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 12-05-2006, 10:25 PM   #114
Circuitous
Useless
Retired FF Staff
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Class/Position: D Soldier, O Scout
Gametype: AvD
Posts Rated Helpful 9 Times
Send a message via AIM to Circuitous Send a message via MSN to Circuitous Send a message via Yahoo to Circuitous Send a message via Skype™ to Circuitous
Lengthy discussions about shit no one cares about, including those discussing it > these fucking pictures.
__________________
Look at all those dead links.
Circuitous is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 12-05-2006, 10:40 PM   #115
o_|404|innoc-tpf-
 
o_|404|innoc-tpf-'s Avatar
 
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.
o_|404|innoc-tpf- is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 12-06-2006, 02:47 AM   #116
o_the russian
 
o_the russian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by uBeR
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...
again, we boil down to insults when reason disagrees with your logic... its circular... like a tilt-a-whirl... where eventualy somebody has to throw up...

lock away..
o_the russian is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 12-06-2006, 02:51 AM   #117
o_backstaber
 
o_backstaber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: New Jersey, USA!
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
Ok, pissyfest over now. Lock this Please.
o_backstaber is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 12-06-2006, 02:53 AM   #118
o_uber
 
o_uber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by Backstaber
Ok, pissyfest over now. Lock this Please.
Just PM the mods, because no one in their right mind would read this thread anyway.

Like I said if you want an explanation, you can PM me.

Lock.
o_uber is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 12-06-2006, 02:08 PM   #119
o_gunslinger
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by |404|Innoc-TPF-
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.
Grr arg? It's not even what was allowed in some isolated incident, it was just the BS name given to a situation by some British paper. Just because it wasn't The Sun doesn't make it more than sensationalism.
o_gunslinger is offline   Reply With Quote


Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.