Fortress Forever

Go Back   Fortress Forever > Off Topic > Chat

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-02-2006, 08:55 PM   #81
o_uber
 
o_uber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Russian
Sir, perhaps if you cut out the indignities and name calling, 20% of the above paragraph could be weeded down to an arguement. Let me start out by removing your 45% claim. Check: This news story about the polls conducted at the 2004 election.
No, Russian I'm not calling you names. Snide attitude, yes, I'll admit it. What I said was your arguments are absurd. Why? Because your sources are absurd. That's it. The rest of the first paragraph was directed at the video.

As for the evolution, that's the exact same source where I got the 45% digit. 55% say God created humans in his present form. The other 45% say humans evolved either with or without the guidance of God.

Quote:
Alrighty, moving on... the intellegence problem. The research that video maker did was also quite well founded, heres a lot more facts to support him that he ommited... silly him. Here is the wiki on a good ammount of studies conducted with many different intelligence identifying tests.

Let me quote:

I hope 2006 is up to date enough for you.

And:

Where all these pretty little facts have their own citations you can nit-pick instead of adressing the arguement with your own facts.
OK, terrific Wikipedia as a primary source. Fine with me though. Hmm, lets take a look around. Oh what's this? Part of the page you not only omitted quoting, but even bothered to link below it! What does it say?

"Religiosity and intelligence is a subject that studies the correlation, if any, between religiosity and intelligence."

That's exactly right, and that's exactly what I said in my first reply to the video. Correlation is not causation.

"Critics in these areas examine the validity and fairness of cognitive testing, as well as the problems in the definition and operationalization of the other measurements under discussion, in this case religiosity."

Once again, something I said earlier. Are the statistics skewed at all? E.g. are the people claiming to be religious wholly so? Issues of substantiation, sir.

"There is little research directly linking IQ with higher or lower levels of religiosity and spirituality. [2]" [PDF]

What's more in this article is that he finds no "significant correlation between religiosity levels and IQ."

"Studies focusing on the correlation between religiosity and other socioeconomic factors, such as higher education and interest in science, will be mentioned. However, such studies were not designed to consider the relationship between intelligence and religiosity. Even if the attribute measured can arguably relate with intelligence, the validity of using the results to imagine a correlation between religiosity and intelligence is very limited"
What else needs to be said?

From one of the sources (4) linked in your quote passage:
"Nearly 38 percent of natural scientists -- people in disciplines like physics, chemistry and biology -- said they do not believe in God. Only 31 percent of the social scientists do not believe.

Some stand-out stats: 41 percent of the biologists don't believe, while that figure is just 27 percent among political scientists.

In separate work at the University of Chicago, released in June, 76 percent of doctors said they believed in God and 59 percent believe in some sort of afterlife.
"

I also suggest reading the criticism part of the Wikipedia source you posted. It explains how correlation does not always mean causation, how some of the studies have been taken on high school and university students (who typically are young), how atheism among people tends to decline after marriage and after the age of 30, and how nearly all of these studies have been conducted in only the U.S.

What's more there are studies that contradict the studies you are pointing out. In 1992 91% of people who received a baccalaureate degree from the University of Utah believed in (a) God, for example. 76% of Mormon graduates attended church regularly, and 78% with higher college degrees attended church regularly, for example.

---
A 1998 study by Leslie J. Francis found no correlation, positive or negative, between intelligence and religiosity among 15-16 year olds.
A 2006 study by Ellen Paek found a positive correlation between adult church-attending Christians and emotional intelligence.
A 1985 Study by Lee Ellis found "at least among church members, the evidence consistently indicates that frequent church attenders have lower crime rates than infrequent church attenders . . . belief in an afterlife with divine punishment possible, at least among people who consider themselves members of an organized religion, is associated with lower crime rates.

These are from scholarly journals found through databases provided to my university. This is the full extent of the results, really. This is what my point was, nagual678. There are reasons that very rarely will such old sources be accepted for anything in academia. Why? Because of progression. New studies tend overshadow older ones. New technology becomes available. People change. Culture changes. Was education in 1930 at all similar to how it is now? Probably very little. How come there doesn't really seem to be any peer-reviewed published articles in any scholarly journals that reflect these previous studies?

Quote:
You may feel free to attack the type of media, my grammar, my spelling, even call me names... considering its my 2nd language I think I do pretty well...but for as long as you cant address the facts, it means jack. And your avoidance of doing so only shows desperation.
I never attacked you, and I've addressed the facts. You're not listening.

Quote:
From my first arguement you questioned my logic for arguing that the rioters sought legislation, beheading, disembowlment and utter violence in responce to the cartoons but not the atrocities commited by their faithful. That information came from the horses mouth, the plackards the people were carrying while moving down the streets of the nations where theyre free to express themselves, arguing that others should not have the same freedom, and suggesting the penalties. This is what you called me on and I've explained it TWICE... its less likely that you dont see what i'm saying than you dont want to see what I'm saying. And unless you can argue for mob mentality of the entire middle east, we can argue for the individual beliefs of every person in that mob in a country that is free, individualy supporting his own intollerance, hate, and warmongering. Why? Because they are not under threat of persecution in the countries where now they wish to persecute others like in their homelands. GET IT?
OK, can you please make a clear point here. I know that were the riots and mobs in protest to the cartoons. They happened in Europe and the Middle East. OK, got that. Now what? I know that things the mobbers were saying are bad. I don't agree with them. I Never said I did. You said, however, that there were absolutely no Muslims denouncing the violence, or that they only did so after the violence. That, sir, is flatly wrong, as I said earlier. Should we condemn the violent rioting Muslims? Of course we should. Do they represent the Muslims and Arabs as a whole as you would suggest? No. What about the peaceful protests in Egypt? What about peaceful protests in America? Across every nation? I'll say it again: you continue to focus on the negative few to fuel your bigoted tirade on Muslims, Arabs, and Middle Eastern governments, and it's incorrect.

Last edited by o_uber; 12-02-2006 at 09:02 PM.
o_uber is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 12-03-2006, 12:22 AM   #82
o_the russian
 
o_the russian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
Quote:
As for the evolution, that's the exact same source where I got the 45% digit. 55% say God created humans in his present form. The other 45% say humans evolved either with or without the guidance of God.
27% of your 45% estimate believes evolution is guided by god, that is not darwinian evolution, thats convoluded creationism. Only 13% realise that no diety plays a role in evolution, only need. People who believe in both are in direct contradiction where the evidence is in environmental factors, necessities, and behavioral factors. One would have to believe these are guided by god to believe that god forced evolution, and hence not darwinian or 'real' evolution.

The bigger contradiction is the fact that they have to presume that god made an inferior biological organism in the first place, as if not forseeing the difficulties that organism would face. Where is the omnipotence and foresight? Do you see the imposibility and lie in making such assumptions?

Quote:
That's exactly right, and that's exactly what I said in my first reply to the video. Correlation is not causation.
Correlation is not by fact causation... the world did not sucumb to global warming because of the decrease in pirates. I see what you are saying, but that is not a proper arguement when in the face of a multitude of studies. No matter how many people you hear say that the Holocaust didnt happen, or "studies" trying to discredit the findings, it did. Or perhaps something less reactionary, like the pattern of declining female interests in science and math. Why is it so hard for you to accept that the majority of studies, especialy conducted by non-bias organizations, show valid trends.

What you *should* be worried about is organizations that seek to promote religiosity under the guise of institutional research, in the name of intelligence and civility. Like the research stated here , because when it was first conducted and proven to be counter-productive to the message of the institute, there are reports that the institute attempted to scrub and play down the results on the ineffectiveness of prayer vs. their pro theological theories.

Quote:
"Studies focusing on the correlation between religiosity and other socioeconomic factors, such as higher education and interest in science, will be mentioned. However, such studies were not designed to consider the relationship between intelligence and religiosity. Even if the attribute measured can arguably relate with intelligence, the validity of using the results to imagine a correlation between religiosity and intelligence is very limited"
What else needs to be said?
A lot, for instance your derived conclusions are from a single schism in the project, stemming from Utah. Your stats are only from Utah and you ignore the nation-wide stats in your arguement.

Quote:
Although the majority of studies show an inverse relationship between education and religiosity, there are several counterexamples of religious groups among which a positive correlation between educational level and religiosity has been shown. Perhaps the best-known of these studies are those involving Latter-day Saints or Mormons.

In 1992, Richard Wootton found that the proportion of LDS scientists who had received baccalaureate degrees from universities in Utah who believed that Joseph Smith was inspired by God in the formation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was 91%.[7] Belief in God and in the divinity of Jesus Christ showed similarly high numbers.[16] The percentages contrasted enough with mainstream survey data that the study was performed a second time, with the same results.[8] These findings contrast starkly with a national study of scientists in American Men and Women of Science, in which only 40% believed in a God influenced by worship or in an afterlife with personal identity.[9]

But perhaps even more striking is the correlation between education levels and religiosity displayed among the Mormons. Survey research indicated that 41% of Mormons with only elementary school education attend Church regularly. By contrast, 76% of Mormon college graduates attend Church regularly and 78% of Mormons who went beyond their college degrees to do graduate study attend Church regularly. As Mormons attain more education, it seems, they become more devout.[10] These findings, again, contrast with national norms; national survey data published by the Princeton Religious Research Center indicate that the higher the level of educational attainment, the lower the level of religious zeal. [11]

A 2004 study by the General Social Survey showed that in general 30.4% of those with a graduate degree attend religious services weekly or more. This was higher than any lesser educated group.[17]. Further the group with the highest percentage of “never attending” was composed by those with only a high school education or less. That stated, those with graduate degrees were the least likely to believe in the afterlife or the Bible as the literal word of God.

A caveat is in order. Those who regard church attendance as a measure of religiosity must take into account the fact - noted by sociologists - that people attend church regularly from a variety of motivations: conformity, sociability, status needs, even coercion.
Point being, when intelligence itself is valued by the religious movement, it thrives despite assumptions. This is however, non-traditional, as the church has historicaly opposed everything from the earth being round, to the sun being the center of the universe, to gravity, life saving medication, surgery and evolution.

Have you also not noticed the trend where these groups of LTD and Mormons that do not protest agaisnt the teaching of evolution, the acceptance of modern surgery, or concepts in science that contradict theology? While mormons may reject modernity all-together, their values place them against extremism and let them view things clearly. A stark contradiction to Born-against and Evangelists or traditional Catholics. Despite the high concentration of LTD and Mormons in Utah, abortion there is legal, and evolution is taught in both public and private schools along with contraception in health classes.

Not even the Mormons feel the need to convert others to their lifestyle. I see this as a humble recognition of individual freedoms.

Your deception is exposed.

Quote:
A 2006 study by Ellen Paek found a positive correlation between adult church-attending Christians and emotional intelligence.
A 1985 Study by Lee Ellis found "at least among church members, the evidence consistently indicates that frequent church attenders have lower crime rates than infrequent church attenders . . . belief in an afterlife with divine punishment possible, at least among people who consider themselves members of an organized religion, is associated with lower crime rates.
What is emotional intelligence? it surely is not a scientific theorem. Secondly, the 2nd study differentiates between attendance patterns of church goers... no non-church goers are even mentioned, just what kind of game are you playing?

Quote:
OK, can you please make a clear point here. I know that were the riots and mobs in protest to the cartoons. They happened in Europe and the Middle East. OK, got that. Now what? I know that things the mobbers were saying are bad. I don't agree with them. I Never said I did. You said, however, that there were absolutely no Muslims denouncing the violence, or that they only did so after the violence. That, sir, is flatly wrong, as I said earlier. Should we condemn the violent rioting Muslims? Of course we should. Do they represent the Muslims and Arabs as a whole as you would suggest? No. What about the peaceful protests in Egypt? What about peaceful protests in America? Across every nation? I'll say it again: you continue to focus on the negative few to fuel your bigoted tirade on Muslims, Arabs, and Middle Eastern governments, and it's incorrect.
We will have to agree to permanently dissagree on this... where as you think that these actions are not symptomatic of the greater muslim and arab psyche, I do. I further evidence this by the treatment of arabs and muslims of minorities in places like the US, Russia, Norway, and France where they attack not only the establishment and have been countlessly implicated in anti-semitic crimes and propaganda, despite recognizing that their freedoms to propagate such hate are the value, and not their hate, through which they intend to deny others the same liberties. I cannot ignore these calls, as they are no longer marginal or ignorable. I see them as the exportation of intollerance from the middle east.

Maybe you're too dismissive and self-obscured... maybe i'm a little paranoid and reactionary... point being, we'll never agree.

Last edited by o_the russian; 12-03-2006 at 12:28 AM.
o_the russian is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 12-03-2006, 12:32 AM   #83
o_the russian
 
o_the russian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nezumi
Well fuck you too, asshole.

That's about the most intelligent thing I've got left to say.
I question if you would be saying the same thing if the statement read as favoring the belief in god.

Just how many times have you heard atheism as attributed to 'evil' ? and just who was saying it?
o_the russian is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 12-03-2006, 12:33 AM   #84
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
And who gave a shit?
__________________
Look at all those dead links.
Circuitous is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 12-03-2006, 03:15 AM   #85
o_yomamashouse
 
o_yomamashouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Your Mamas House
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
How did the number of people who think that evolutionist is false/correct come into this? I don't even see why it matters how many think for either side. You could put 5 billion idiots together and they still wouldnt have the inventive potential of one genius.

This thread is getting really depressing.
o_yomamashouse is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 12-03-2006, 03:21 AM   #86
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
This thread lost all meaning at page 3. It's a rant-off now.
__________________
Look at all those dead links.
Circuitous is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 12-03-2006, 04:02 AM   #87
o_|404|innoc-tpf-
 
o_|404|innoc-tpf-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Midtown Express
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
It's a tl;dr competition...
o_|404|innoc-tpf- is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 12-03-2006, 04:09 AM   #88
o_yomamashouse
 
o_yomamashouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Your Mamas House
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
Oh ya well my sources confirm it ISN'T A TL;DR(I know exactly what that means) and it in fact hasn't lost its meaning by page 3!!!

__________________________________________________ ___________
A bunch of sources no one in their right mind would give a shit about
A bunch of sources no one in their right mind would give a shit about
A bunch of sources no one in their right mind would give a shit about
A bunch of sources no one in their right mind would give a shit about
A bunch of sources no one in their right mind would give a shit about
A bunch of sources no one in their right mind would give a shit about
A bunch of sources no one in their right mind would give a shit about
o_yomamashouse is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 12-03-2006, 04:45 AM   #89
o_ivaqual
 
o_ivaqual's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Europe, Front Yard
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
So if this thread is so worthless to you then by all means refrain from posting in it, a discussion is going on and if you want to add something constructive then do so. Otherwise stay away. Jesus, is this rocket science ?
o_ivaqual is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 12-03-2006, 05:31 AM   #90
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 Ginger Lord
Back to the original post, I'm in the UK and havn't seen any of this on any news channel.
Do you think it's being suppressed or that the article posted at the start was an isolated case?

As far as a hijack goes I think it's sad to see "education" and "intelligence" being used interchangeably. Different vectors and they're using studies that weren't focused on that to begin with but on other things and the "conclusions" were extrapolated. Not that it's much "cleaner" in results why not look at simple demographics. The most recent I can find publicly for MENSA (1996) shows roughly 19% in the Atheist, Agnostic and no religion categories as opposed to a report from 2001 that shows roughly 15% of the US general population in those same categories. Obviously the gen pop demographics includes Mensa members but the ~42,000 active members then are hardly enough to skew the US gen pop stats. ~4% is not what I'd call a huge difference.

In any case it seems to me like Russian has hijacked another thread to create stick pony parade in honor of another of his pet obsessions.
o_|404|innoc-tpf- is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 12-03-2006, 05:44 AM   #91
o_the russian
 
o_the russian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Buffalo, NY
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?

As far as a hijack goes I think it's sad to see "education" and "intelligence" being used interchangeably. Different vectors and they're using studies that weren't focused on that to begin with but on other things and the "conclusions" were extrapolated. Not that it's much "cleaner" in results why not look at simple demographics. The most recent I can find publicly for MENSA (1996) shows roughly 19% in the Atheist, Agnostic and no religion categories as opposed to a report from 2001 that shows roughly 15% of the US general population in those same categories. Obviously the gen pop demographics includes Mensa members but the ~42,000 active members then are hardly enough to skew the US gen pop stats. ~4% is not what I'd call a huge difference.

In any case it seems to me like Russian has hijacked another thread to create stick pony parade in honor of another of his pet obsessions.

The thread was never derailed, it evolved and you didnt evolve with it... just because you couldnt follow the train of thought, whether you didnt care or didnt want to read all the information, is not my problem. Every point is a valid and on-going arguement within the original, if you cant see it you must have blinders on.
o_the russian is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 12-03-2006, 05:48 AM   #92
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 The Russian
The thread was never derailed, it evolved and you didnt evolve with it... just because you couldnt follow the train of thought, whether you didnt care or didnt want to read all the information, is not my problem. Every point is a valid and on-going arguement within the original, if you cant see it you must have blinders on.
Valid to you but it's part of your ongoing jihad for your pet cause. Form a new thread if you want to pursue it. I am not the only one who believes that moving from the article on Sharia Law being used in place of the established law of the land to arguing the connection between education and faith is a hijack. Move on zealot.
o_|404|innoc-tpf- is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 12-03-2006, 03:25 PM   #93
o_backstaber
 
o_backstaber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: New Jersey, USA!
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
My beautiful thread .... destroyed ...
o_backstaber is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 12-03-2006, 04:56 PM   #94
o_yomamashouse
 
o_yomamashouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Your Mamas House
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
When you looked at the topic you posted did you really think it had a chance in hell?
o_yomamashouse is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 12-03-2006, 05:03 PM   #95
o_ivaqual
 
o_ivaqual's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Europe, Front Yard
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by YoMamasHouse
When you looked at the topic you posted did you really think it had a chance in hell?
When you posted this did you really think it was anything else than thread-shitting and that it was worth anything ?

No I'm not getting in a flamewar, just stay the hell out of this thread (and others threads) if your only addition consists in posts like that one.
Last post about this from me.
o_ivaqual is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 12-03-2006, 06:24 PM   #96
o_yomamashouse
 
o_yomamashouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Your Mamas House
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
Nagual what the hell is your problem? I was trying to suggest that posting controversial stuff on this board usually results in 8 paragraph long essay wars. So no my post wasn't thread shitting, go away and stop being a grumpy old man Nagual.
o_yomamashouse is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 12-03-2006, 07:37 PM   #97
o_nezumi
 
o_nezumi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: The Peoples Republic of Harmfull Free Radicals
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Russian
I question if you would be saying the same thing if the statement read as favoring the belief in god.

Just how many times have you heard atheism as attributed to 'evil' ? and just who was saying it?
I probably would, although probably not in so few words. My best friend is an athiest and complains loudly about the shit that athiests get. Notably, Bush Sr. saying that athiests are unamerican, stuff like that. I can sympathise.

My point is that you could have made your point without being snide, or use the technical term, a 'dickhead'. Bigot would be another good word to use here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Russian
The bigger contradiction is the fact that they have to presume that god made an inferior biological organism in the first place
Humans are not perfect according to any religious belief as far as I know, and evolution does not move twards perfection in any case as the environemnt changes too fast. This is pretty far off of even the new OT topic though.

(edited to fix quote)

Last edited by o_nezumi; 12-04-2006 at 09:20 PM.
o_nezumi is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 12-03-2006, 08:42 PM   #98
o_backstaber
 
o_backstaber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: New Jersey, USA!
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by YoMamasHouse
Nagual what the hell is your problem? I was trying to suggest that posting controversial stuff on this board usually results in 8 paragraph long essay wars. So no my post wasn't thread shitting, go away and stop being a grumpy old man Nagual.
So instead you keep coming back in here and keep posting nothing relevant?

Also, lets start a crusade to end sarcasm! Everything is taken too seriously these days so why try anymore ... this referring to my last sarcastic post. If you guys can't take a hint, get away from the computer for awhile. Really.
o_backstaber is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 12-03-2006, 08:49 PM   #99
o_uber
 
o_uber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
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?
I do not believe this is so wide spread as one might think. I don't really see this being as an epidemic "problem," to those who see it as one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Russian
27% of your 45% estimate believes evolution is guided by god, that is not darwinian evolution, thats convoluded creationism. Only 13% realise that no diety plays a role in evolution, only need. People who believe in both are in direct contradiction where the evidence is in environmental factors, necessities, and behavioral factors. One would have to believe these are guided by god to believe that god forced evolution, and hence not darwinian or 'real' evolution.
Darwin was a naturalist, but he also believed God as the ultimate lawgiver while developing his theory on natural selection. Nor did he deny the existence of God. "An Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind," Darwin wrote. Just thought I'd clear that. You have yet to disprove God through evolution. But please, feel free to have fun proving or disproving the existence of God. You've just failed thus far. Evidence in environmental facts, evidence in necessities, evidence in behavioral factors? Could be be more clear? Could you expand on that? Surely as an atheist you have an advanced knowledge in this subject area! After all, as you would put it the atheist are the superior being of intelligence!

You've got false assumptions to support your superiority complex.

Quote:
Correlation is not by fact causation... the world did not sucumb to global warming because of the decrease in pirates. I see what you are saying, but that is not a proper arguement when in the face of a multitude of studies. No matter how many people you hear say that the Holocaust didnt happen, or "studies" trying to discredit the findings, it did. Or perhaps something less reactionary, like the pattern of declining female interests in science and math. Why is it so hard for you to accept that the majority of studies, especialy conducted by non-bias organizations, show valid trends.
Multitude of studies? Not a proper argument? What's not a proper argument is saying my proper argument is not a proper argument! In fact using a post hoc fallacy is not proper. To say something is caused by something you have to give indisputable evidence that shows this. Thus far you've hardly even shown a correlation! I haven't heard of any studies denying the Holocaust, nor would I support them. But what's this have to do with any of our discussion. It doesn't. Studies of females declining interest in science and math? What does this have to do with intelligence and religion? Come on Russian.

As for the multitude of studies, you have yet to produce any. You linked to a Wikipedia that listed four or five articles/studies/polls describing this. This is your multitude? This is but a grain of sand in academe.

Did you miss it? "There is little research directly linking IQ with higher or lower levels of religiosity and spirituality.[2]" Came straight from your article (and they're right); you just failed to quote it.

The scientific community and academia do not support you. You've got false assumptions to support your superiority complex.

Quote:
A lot, for instance your derived conclusions are from a single schism in the project, stemming from Utah. Your stats are only from Utah and you ignore the nation-wide stats in your arguement.

Point being, when intelligence itself is valued by the religious movement, it thrives despite assumptions. This is however, non-traditional, as the church has historicaly opposed everything from the earth being round, to the sun being the center of the universe, to gravity, life saving medication, surgery and evolution.

Have you also not noticed the trend where these groups of LTD and Mormons that do not protest agaisnt the teaching of evolution, the acceptance of modern surgery, or concepts in science that contradict theology? While mormons may reject modernity all-together, their values place them against extremism and let them view things clearly. A stark contradiction to Born-against and Evangelists or traditional Catholics. Despite the high concentration of LTD and Mormons in Utah, abortion there is legal, and evolution is taught in both public and private schools along with contraception in health classes.

Your deception is exposed.
This from the man who purposefully linked below the introduction to this own Wikipedia article that claimed his research holds very little value in the scientific and academic world.

As for the Utah studies, I was using that as point to counter your idea that religiosity = stupidity. How does evolution, modern surgery, or scientific "concepts" disprove theology? You're making extraordinary claims with extraordinarily little fact.

You're making false assumptions to support your superiority complex.

Quote:
What is emotional intelligence? it surely is not a scientific theorem. Secondly, the 2nd study differentiates between attendance patterns of church goers... no non-church goers are even mentioned, just what kind of game are you playing?
Right from Ellen Paek's abstract: "(EI), the ability to perceive, understand and manage emotions toward adaptive behavior (Mayer & Salovey, 1997; Salovey & Mayer, 1990)" But if you wish to dismiss psychology and sociology as pseudosciences, fine. The third study, not second (you ignored the first), relates to religiosity and criminality. One would assume the spectrum of religiosity ranges from 0 (atheism) to devout. After all, that's how you and the other studies have been using it.

This is a good read:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Religion/BG1064.cfm

Last edited by o_uber; 12-03-2006 at 08:58 PM.
o_uber is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 12-04-2006, 02:35 AM   #100
o_the russian
 
o_the russian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
Quote:
Darwin was a naturalist, but he also believed God as the ultimate lawgiver while developing his theory on natural selection. Nor did he deny the existence of God. "An Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind," Darwin wrote. Just thought I'd clear that. You have yet to disprove God through evolution. But please, feel free to have fun proving or disproving the existence of God. You've just failed thus far. Evidence in environmental facts, evidence in necessities, evidence in behavioral factors? Could be be more clear? Could you expand on that? Surely as an atheist you have an advanced knowledge in this subject area! After all, as you would put it the atheist are the superior being of intelligence!
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.

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. Something anyone believeing in gods omnipotence cant get past.

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' ?

Quote:
You've got false assumptions to support your superiority complex.
Where as I might have conclusions and derived assumptions and question them, all you display on your behalf is faith.

Quote:
Multitude of studies? Not a proper argument? What's not a proper argument is saying my proper argument is not a proper argument! In fact using a post hoc fallacy is not proper. To say something is caused by something you have to give indisputable evidence that shows this. Thus far you've hardly even shown a correlation! I haven't heard of any studies denying the Holocaust, nor would I support them. But what's this have to do with any of our discussion. It doesn't. Studies of females declining interest in science and math? What does this have to do with intelligence and religion? Come on Russian.
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.

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.

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 (114, moderately anti-religious (1119), slightly anti-religious (110, 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."

And many more are available at that site I linked to. The greater research piece that was done in correlation with all of these studies and many more is actulay publishing its 27 volume this coming Januray, check The Council for Secular Humanism

Let me post for you the conclusion of this long long study:

Quote:
Conclusion

The consensus here is clear: more intelligent people tend not to believe in religion. And this observation is given added force when you consider that the above studies span a broad range of time, subjects and methodologies, and yet arrive at the same conclusion.

Why does this correlation exist? The first answer that comes to mind is that religious beliefs tend to be more illogical or incoherent than secular beliefs, and intelligent people tend to recognize that more quickly. But this explanation will surely be rejected by religious people, who will seek other explanations and rationalizations.

The simplest and most parsimonious explanation is that religion is a set of logical and factual claims, and those with the most logic and facts at their disposal are rejecting it largely on those grounds.
Quote:
The scientific community and academia do not support you. You've got false assumptions to support your superiority complex.
I dissagree. Your faith in your arguements is the only thing keeping you going. Making such claims and having the need to bold-face them and pair them with some pseudo-intellectual insult is a show of desperation.

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.

Last edited by o_the russian; 12-04-2006 at 02:45 AM.
o_the russian 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 06:01 AM.


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