Intelligence and Religiosity

[Jichard]

Nice genetic fallacy,

No genetic fallacy. Just pointing out that you rely on unreliable sources to try and rebut scientific sources.

but do you care to actually address WHY the article is wrong or do you want to keep making all kinds of logical fallacies, while pretending that your opponents are not as smart as you because you're an atheist and we're not?

Already explained why you were wrong:

"Which is irrelevant since the research in question was replicated multiple times using multiple techniques, as you would know if you read the paper."

[Jichard]

Poor little fundy atheist, he's attempting to hurl elephants at everybody and desperately hoping his little games work. I know you like to pretend your superior to every Christian here on tWeb, by virtue of being an atheist, but you haven't refuted a single point I made and just mindlessly repeated yourself.

So you didn't say anything of substance there.

Repeating yourself again in the hopes you become right? Compared to the billions of believers on the planet and the conclusions you're attempting to draw, yeah they do suffer from tiny sample sizes and not giving complete sets of data.

False. Just as one doesn't need to poll millions of Americans in order to get a large representative sample size of Americans, one does not need to sample millions of believers to get a representative sample size of believers. I don't know why you're claiming otherwise.

We do not know anything about the people being studied, from their individual beliefs, to their education levels, etc to be able to see if the comparisons are even fair to begin with.

Actually we do, since that's gone over in the studies in question. In fact, many of the studies control for factors like education level, which they wouldn't be able to do if they didn't have information on factors like educational level. You'd know this if you actually read the studies.

We also don't know the number of theist vs atheist being tested either (based on the population stats though, it's a good bet most of them were religious of some type).

Once again, false, since most of the studies go after that as well.

Why do you keep making up false claims about these studies? It's like you've never read them.

My point is quite simple; you're trying to make yourself feel superior, without actually proving you're superior in any real measure.

You're projecting and psychologizing, and doing so rather poorly.

Unless of course, you want to 'prove' you're good at mindlessly parroting what other people say and pretending as though this 'study' proves you're smarter than your opponents here on tWeb, just by virtue of being an atheist (you'll be quite disappointed since tWeb tends to attract pretty intelligent regulars).

I never claimed that this 'study' proves I'm smarter than my opponents here on tWeb. So please stop dishonestly pretending that I am. Thanks.

By the way: citing scientific evidence in support of one's claims is not "mindlessly parroting what other people say". It's instead what any scientist or scientifically-informed person would do. I get if you're opposed to doing that, but that's your problem, not mine.

So the point of this entire thread is....

I made the point clear, and you'd know what it was if you bothered to pay attention. Once again:

Given what I said, I wanted to go over some evidence in support of my claim that "there is data showing that, on average, non-religious people tend to score better on metrics of intelligence than do religious people, and that non-religious people tend to be more analytic thinkers than are religious people."

^^^ That's the point, not your fabricated attempt to pretend that I'm saying this 'study' proves I'm smarter than my opponents here on tWeb.

Already addressed above. Compared to billions of humans on the planet that you're attempting to draw conclusions about? Nope, the simple size is tiny, but do keep trying and who knows... maybe if you repeat yourself long enough and hard enough, it will magically become true!

Your response is as silly as saying:

Gallup and Pew cannot have representative samples of Americans, unless they survey millions of Americans.

That's silly, since Gallup and PEw can get fairly representativ samples without needing to look at millions of people. Same point here: the studies can get fairly representative samples without needing to survey billions of people. I don't know why you think otherwise.

I know you don't believe this, but is quite possible to read stuff and end up disagreeing with you and giving reasons for disagreements.

Oh, I know that. But it's also pretty clear that you haven't read the studies in questions, since you're making false claims about the studies, claims that would becorrected by reading the studies. So either you didn't read the studies, or you have read the studies and are willfully making flase claims about what the studies say (which would make you a liar).

Perhaps you'll try actually asking what said instead of just parroting whatever you want to believe and not actually addressing anything that was said?

I've addressed what you said. Repeatedly.

Wash, rinse, repeat, nothing addressing a word that was said...

I did address it. You made false claims about research on black people. I pointeed out that your claims are false, and pointed you to a researcher (Nisbett) who's done work showing your claims are false.

Already addressed, but your bigotry seems to be shining though quite well though.

You didn't address the evidence. You just made false claims about studies ou haven't read.

[Jichard]

So what do you conclude from this? The simplest conclusion would simple be that the atheist communities are not as diverse as religious communities. It wasn't long ago that feminist atheists started actively complaining that various meetups in America such as The Amazing Meeting, and Skepticon (though both are not atheist per say, the majority were undoubtedly atheists) consisted mostly of a bunch of old, white, college educated males (especially the speakers).

And what of the future? I think avoiding selection bias is going to be hard in such a study. There are plenty of entirely non-religious people who don't identify as atheists, but who don't believe in God either. People who identify as atheists are the kind of people who care about labels like that, and the way they are used. So there's going to be an over representation of certain population groups.

However if atheism in America starts to become more diverse, we should also see a drop in average intelligence. No because atheists are becoming dumber, but simple because they'd be spanning across a larger subsection of society.

As for me I've got a fairly high IQ score. This statistical study says nothing about why I believe (or why many on theologyweb believes for that matter), and if you think that it does you're dumber than most I know.

Already made my conclusion clear:

Given what I said, I wanted to go over some evidence in support of my claim that "there is data showing that, on average, non-religious people tend to score better on metrics of intelligence than do religious people, and that non-religious people tend to be more analytic thinkers than are religious people."

[lilpixieofterror]

No genetic fallacy. Just pointing out that you rely on unreliable sources to try and rebut scientific sources.

The article quotes scientific sources idiot. Did you actually READ the article and notice that it linked to a scientific study, which was published in a scientific journal? Oops, guess only your opponents have to read your articles and you don't have to read anything your opponents post.

Already explained why you were wrong:

"Which is irrelevant since the research in question was replicated multiple times using multiple techniques, as you would know if you read the paper."

Repeating yourself doesn't make you more right. Did you bother to READ the article quoted or is it only us that has to read articles and you can properly ignore anything that disagrees with you?

[lilpixieofterror]

So you didn't say anything of substance there.

Irony at it's finest. Neither did you, but I guess only your opponents have to post anything of 'substance' and you can ignore anything and everything that you can't answer. Nice!

False. Just as one doesn't need to poll millions of Americans in order to get a large representative sample size of Americans, one does not need to sample millions of believers to get a representative sample size of believers. I don't know why you're claiming otherwise.

How many believes are around the world? Billions right? How can you seriously expect hundreds of individuals to be represented by a few Americans in the US? Besides, we all know how inaccurate polling data can be or did you not remember your history books where Dewey was predicted to beat Truman and people were so confident about this pool data, the Chicago Daily Tribute even printed that, before the election results came in. Don't believe me, here is the famous picture:

Dewey-Beats-Truman-Paper.jpg

I know you really want to believe polling data is 100% accurate and doesn't make mistakes, but it does and even in the 2014 elections, it made mistakes and improperly predicted the wrong person winning local elections that didn't actually win. If you seriously believe poll data is as accurate as you want it to be, I got some land to sell you on the moon. If you can't even get poll data to guess election right, what make you believe they can make 100% accurate predictions about billions of people?

Actually we do, since that's gone over in the studies in question. In fact, many of the studies control for factors like education level, which they wouldn't be able to do if they didn't have information on factors like educational level. You'd know this if you actually read the studies.

And many of them did not and sorry sweety, I did read the articles in question and many of them did not include education level and didn't tell us what education these people had. Most of us are well aware that not all educations are the same and not all degrees teach the same thing. Would you seriously expect an English major to score the same, on test of scientific knowledge, as a physics major? I sure wouldn't, so what is the degrees each person holds in question and where they properly divided not just by education level, but by the degrees they earned? I know you really want to believe that anybody who doesn't bow down and agree with you didn't bother to read the material in question, but I did and am asking you to provide answers to what is asked instead of saying, "Oh yeah, some said this, so there!" and ignoring the rest of my questions and arguments. Is it very honest not to answer EVERYTHING your opponents ask? Where did ALL of the studies divide things by education level and by degree(s) that were earned?

Once again, false, since most of the studies go after that as well.

And many didn't, a thing you keep leaving out. Why?

Why do you keep making up false claims about these studies? It's like you've never read them.

Why do you keep ignoring that not all of the studies in question, when into those kind of details? Do you hope by screaming, "WAAA!! FALSE CLAIMS!" that somehow will invalidate that not all of the studies went into the details in question and we are not told how their selection methods work? I know how university selection methods work sweety and not always getting the cream of the crop. Do you care to admit that not ALL of the studies go into those details yet or do you prefer to whine that some of them do, as though that invalidates the fact that not all of them do?

You're projecting and psychologizing, and doing so rather poorly.

Irony at it's finest. Do you care to explain why SOME of the studies, going into these details somehow invalidates the fact that not ALL of them do? What percentage of these studies goes into the details and what percentage does not? The reality is quite simple, you're trying to use this to make you feel smarter than your opponents without actually being smarter than your opponents. Are you going to answer the questions yet or do you want to keep screaming, "WAAA!!! SOME OF THEM DO!" so you can ignore that not all of them are made the same? Even at that, Leon and Kbertsche gave some decent answers to those studies that do go into more details. Facts you haven't dealt with yet, but just ignored in the hopes they would go away. Now, why do you want it to appear that you atheist are the smartest people on earth? Care to answer the question yet or do you want to cry and whine a little while about obvious implications that your post imply?

I never claimed that this 'study' proves I'm smarter than my opponents here on tWeb. So please stop dishonestly pretending that I am. Thanks.

So than why did you create this thread, if it wasn't to try to brag about how smart you atheist are compared to those stupid Christians? I've seen your arrogance and how you act in other post here sweety, so don't pretend you don't act that way (about everybody, that has dealt with you, has pretty much determined you're a jerk that thinks he's smarter than anybody who doesn't agree with him).

By the way: citing scientific evidence in support of one's claims is not "mindlessly parroting what other people say". It's instead what any scientist or scientifically-informed person would do. I get if you're opposed to doing that, but that's your problem, not mine.

Yeah it is mindlessly parroting what other people say because anybody can throw up a round of 'studies' to say they are right, but not everybody can debate the position they give and can deal with the information present. Sorry sweety, but nope... scientist don't do that either. If a scientist is asked a question in their field of study, they will answer it and might give some studies or experiments, that go into more details or to prove that they are giving an answer other scientist would give. Seriously, have you ever been to college? If you were seriously right, school sure would have been easier for me to pass because all I would have to do is search the internet for a bunch of studies and links and call my papers good. Funny how my professors wanted actual writing, which should I understood what was being talked about, and not just a list of links and paragraphs, without any information as to if I actually understood them or not. What do they know, they were only in the education business and they obviously are wrong because they dare to disagree with you. I'm sorry, but you're not 'acting like a scientist at all', but you're rather acting like a TV parody of a scientist by pretending you don't have to bother to discuss anything further. A cowards way out of debate and discussion.

I made the point clear, and you'd know what it was if you bothered to pay attention. Once again:
^^^ That's the point, not your fabricated attempt to pretend that I'm saying this 'study' proves I'm smarter than my opponents here on tWeb.

Nah, your arrogance here is pretty well known by now my dear. You want to make yourself feel smarter, without actually proving you're smarter in any measurable way. You keep trying to say the 'studies prove you right', but you don't bother to discuss any of the details nor do you bother to go into anything that was already said because you're a mindless parrot that just repeats what he hears without bothering to go into details. Anybody can throw up a bunch of studies dear, it takes real effort to prove that you understand them and can answer questions about them. Let's start here:

Did ALL of the studies go into details about their sample methods or not? If not, what percentage did vs what percentage did not?

Let's start here and see if you can even get this far without whining and saying that your opponents need to read pages and pages of material, without actually referencing where the material agrees with you at and what it says.

Your response is as silly as saying:

Gallup and Pew cannot have representative samples of Americans, unless they survey millions of Americans.

That's silly, since Gallup and PEw can get fairly representativ samples without needing to look at millions of people. Same point here: the studies can get fairly representative samples without needing to survey billions of people. I don't know why you think otherwise.

Ummm nope that is a strawman of your own creation because you're too stupid to address what people actually say. Christians are more than just Americans sweety and you're not just making claims about millions of people or about one country. You're making claims about billions of people, from many different countries around the world. Something you fail to address or understand, why? Second, polls have been wrong before and continue to be wrong right into the present day. The Dewey beating Truman is a pretty classic example, but there's more. Remember, back in the 1980's, how Coke switched to a new Coke and ended up losing millions upon millions of dollars and ended up switching back to it's classic formula? They didn't just make the decision out of the blue, but made that decision based upon scientific data and poll studies (new Coke even beat both Pepsi and Coke Classic, in taste test). Yet, it didn't turn out to be a home run, but was a disaster for the company. Sorry, but this is rather common knowledge and why you shouldn't put all of your eggs into 'studies' because studies and polling data do end up being wrong (as now two examples have shown). Now do you care to discuss the reality already or do you plan on pretending that poll data is 100% reliable, never makes mistakes, and that you can always trust it to give accurate data? Who became president in 1948? Did New Coke gain a major following? Both examples are based on the same collection methods you seem to think are never wrong.

Oh, I know that. But it's also pretty clear that you haven't read the studies in questions, since you're making false claims about the studies, claims that would becorrected by reading the studies. So either you didn't read the studies, or you have read the studies and are willfully making flase claims about what the studies say (which would make you a liar).

Since I said I read the SECOND link you gave and didn't claim I read the FIRST link you gave, you have a reading 101 comprehension failure. Try actually READING what your opponents say vs what you want them to say, ok sweety? Now, answer the questions already and stop screaming for others to 'read your links'. Prove that a large percentage of the studies cited gave the data I said they needed to provide or you could always just keep saying that others didn't 'read 50+ pages of material' while showing that you haven't read it yourself.

I've addressed what you said. Repeatedly.

No, you threw our blind accusations and said the studies said what I asked, without actually quoting where at (as well as accusing me of lying when I never claimed I read your first link, but just read your second link, but I guess making false accusations is all you have left when it keep showing that you haven't actually read what you demand others to read).

I did address it. You made false claims about research on black people. I pointeed out that your claims are false, and pointed you to a researcher (Nisbett) who's done work showing your claims are false.

They are not 'false' at all sweety and you can even find the claims online that people have indeed tried to use the claims that studies prove whites are smarter than blacks and have been using the same sort of logic, you've been using, for as long. Don't believe me? Just go to Google and type in, "Studies show blacks are smarter than whites" and read what results you get. You say, "WAA THIS GUY SAYS YOU'RE WRONG!" which isn't what I believe to begin with, but something lots of people believe and lots of people cite as being true and has been used to 'prove' whites are smarter than blacks, going back to the early 20th century. Again, based upon the same data and logic you present here. Why don't we see it pasted on news articles and sources everywhere? Quite simple, it is unpopular and even outright racism to claim that some races are smarter than others, but for some strange reason; it isn't bigotry to try to claim that atheist are smarter than Christians. Interesting how bigotry only applies to some ideas, but not to others, huh?

You didn't address the evidence. You just made false claims about studies ou haven't read.

And yet, you haven't actually showed you even reading my post and you haven't even shown what I was wrong about and why. Quite entertaining, but don't worry. Tazzy Wazzy will amen you, no matter what you say, because he hates me and shows he's as big of a bigot as you are, when it comes to people who are religious believers. Now are you going to cite the specifics of the study already or do you just want to make false accusations about me and accuse me of lying about things I never actually said? Keep digging...

[Jorge]

Yes, because a meta-analysis of 60+ studies, is a small sample size.

Can you try to read studies, befoe making us false, ideologically-convenient claims about them?

Hehe - you're asking TERROR to be rational. Hehe ...
That's like asking a Clinton to be honest (ain't ever gonna happen!).

That said, your statement that:
"Well, there is data showing that, on average, non-religious people tend to score better on metrics of intelligence than do religious people, and that non-religious people tend to be more analytic thinkers than are religious people. But that's compatible with non-religious people being more motivated by compassion (in their pro-social behavior) than are non-religious people. So I don't know why you brought that up, as if there's some sort of conflict. Do you think there's some incompatibility between being compassionate and being intelligent?"

is absolutely r-i-d-i-c-u-l-o-u-s!

Some of the greatest minds in history - in science and other fields - have been deeply Christian. Try Isaac Newton just to start you off. But even that would be a very poor approach to such an issue. This is a much deeper question than you appear to realize. As one example: what IS intelligence?

Your ending question is clearly answered "No!"

Anyway, not much more to say here given that the premise is deeply flawed.

Jorge

[Jichard]

Hehe - you're asking TERROR to be rational. Hehe ...
That's like asking a Clinton to be honest (ain't ever gonna happen!).

Oh look, more nonsense from the science-denying, Young Earth creationist.

That said, your statement that:
"Well, there is data showing that, on average, non-religious people tend to score better on metrics of intelligence than do religious people, and that non-religious people tend to be more analytic thinkers than are religious people. But that's compatible with non-religious people being more motivated by compassion (in their pro-social behavior) than are non-religious people. So I don't know why you brought that up, as if there's some sort of conflict. Do you think there's some incompatibility between being compassionate and being intelligent?"

is absolutely r-i-d-i-c-u-l-o-u-s!

And yet you ignore the scientific evidence in support of my statement, just like you ignore the scientific evidence of evolution. Typical.

Some of the greatest minds in history - in science and other fields - have been deeply Christian. Try Isaac Newton just to start you off. But even that would be a very poor approach to such an issue.

Individual cases don't rebut large-scale statistical trends.

This is a much deeper question than you appear to realize. As one example: what IS intelligence?

Open a dictionary, and look up "intelligence".

[Jichard]

The article quotes scientific sources idiot. Did you actually READ the article and notice that it linked to a scientific study, which was published in a scientific journal? Oops, guess only your opponents have to read your articles and you don't have to read anything your opponents post.

I already read that scientific paper before you made your post; I've seen other science-denying Christians cite it, though most of those Christians didn't actually read the paper.

Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/34...c4716.full.pdf

Have you read the paper? If you have, then please tell me the last sentence ofthe paper (the sentence that appears right before the "REFERENCES AND NOTES" section of the paper? I don't think you'll be able to tell me that since I don't think you read the paper.

By the way, the paper does nothing to support your claims.

Repeating yourself doesn't make you more right.

I'll repeat myself as many times as it takes you to address what I said:

"Which is irrelevant since the research in question was replicated multiple times using multiple techniques, as you would know if you read the paper."

So to recap, your source does nothing to support your claim, since your source is about scientific research that has not been replicated, while the research from the OP has been replicated multiple times using different techniques.

Did you bother to READ the article quoted or is it only us that has to read articles and you can properly ignore anything that disagrees with you?

I didn't completely read the press piece, since the press isn't the most reliable place to get information on science. But I read the scientific paper long before that lik was poted. Have you read the scientific paper?

[Jichard]

Yeah. I would also argue that many atheists are quite strong in their religious belief that God does not exist, which would be contrary to the assumptions built into the studies.

"God does not exist" is not a religious belief, anymore than "magic does not exist" is a supernatural belief. Basically, you're equivocating on the term religious belief. By your logic, I might as well say that you have a magical belief, since you believe that leprechauns don't exist.

Furthermore, one can be an atheist without believing that "God does not exist".

I'd be sort of interested in seeing the argument that analytic thinking tends to undermine religious belief; analysis of my beliefs has tended to strengthen, not weaken, them.

Well, you could actually read the studies to see the evidence on this. So...

In any event, anecdotal, personal experience doesn't rebut scientific evidence. And before you resort to this claim of your's:

Further, psychological studies are notoriously difficult to replicate - cognitive studies were shown to have a whopping 50% repeatability rate. A meta-analysis is only as good as the input data (and when the data is this unreliable, it's doubtless not difficult to cherry-pick a dataset that gives the results you want).

note that the research in question has been replicated multiple times. That's part of the power of the meta-analysis: it's going over multiple studies that have replicated the relevant findings.

"Analytic Thinking Promotes Religious Disbelief"
http://math.as.uky.edu/sites/default...20Thinking.pdf

"Divine Intuition: Cognitive Style Influences Belief in God"
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~d...reene_2012.pdf

[Jichard]

I was talking about your first link sweety (which yes, I did read and found that issue, that you still haven't addressed).

Since I said I read the SECOND link you gave and didn't claim I read the FIRST link you gave, you have a reading 101 comprehension failure. Try actually READING what your opponents say vs what you want them to say, ok sweety?

No, you threw our blind accusations and said the studies said what I asked, without actually quoting where at (as well as accusing me of lying when I never claimed I read your first link, but just read your second link, but I guess making false accusations is all you have left when it keep showing that you haven't actually read what you demand others to read).

Is telling the truth difficult?

[Jichard]

Irony at it's finest. Neither did you, but I guess only your opponents have to post anything of 'substance' and you can ignore anything and everything that you can't answer. Nice!

^^^ Substance-free rant.

How many believes are around the world? Billions right? How can you seriously expect hundreds of individuals to be represented by a few Americans in the US?

Do you don't understand statistical sampling methods? One does not need to sample millions of Americans in order to get a representative sample of millions of Americans.

Besides, we all know how inaccurate polling data can be or did you not remember your history books where Dewey was predicted to beat Truman and people were so confident about this pool data, the Chicago Daily Tribute even printed that, before the election results came in. Don't believe me, here is the famous picture:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]9687[/ATTACH]

*sigh*

Your reference to Truman is irrelevant for a number of reasons. For example, you're trying to rebut modern statistical methods by pointing out events from the middle of the 20th century, as if statistical sampling methods have not improved since then. That's as silly as trying to rebut modern techniques in virology, by pointing out flawed techniques from the 1930s. Furthermore, you willfully ignored current successes in polling, such as those achieved by Nate Silver in predicting elections. You also cherrypicked one example from decades ago, as opposed to looking at successes in a more elections more recently.

I know you really want to believe polling data is 100% accurate and doesn't make mistakes,

No, that's not what I want to believe. So please stop misrepresenting me by saying. Scientific evidence doesn't require 100% accuracy (that's one of the reasons why we have measures of statistical significance). You're attacking a strawman where in order for something to be accurate, it has to work 100% of the time. Sorry, but that's silly. If you really think that, then you should never go to the doctor, never use the internet, never take a plane, etc. since all those rely on technologies that are not 100% accurate. Of course you won't do that, since you have a double-standard, where you demand 100% accuracy when it suits your purposes, but not when it doesn't.

but it does and even in the 2014 elections, it made mistakes and improperly predicted the wrong person winning local elections that didn't actually win.

No, the polling data did well in the 2014 elections.

If you seriously believe poll data is as accurate as you want it to be, I got some land to sell you on the moon. If you can't even get poll data to guess election right, what make you believe they can make 100% accurate predictions about billions of people?

Again, please stop pretending that "100% accurate predictions" is the standard here. It isn't. It's just some silly strawman you invented.

And many of them did not and sorry sweety, I did read the articles in question and many of them did not include education level and didn't tell us what education these people had.

No, you didn't. I know you didn't, since I read the papers, and they did include education level.

Most of us are well aware that not all educations are the same and not all degrees teach the same thing. Would you seriously expect an English major to score the same, on test of scientific knowledge, as a physics major? I sure wouldn't, so what is the degrees each person holds in question and where they properly divided not just by education level, but by the degrees they earned? I know you really want to believe that anybody who doesn't bow down and agree with you didn't bother to read the material in question, but I did and am asking you to provide answers to what is asked instead of saying, "Oh yeah, some said this, so there!" and ignoring the rest of my questions and arguments. Is it very honest not to answer EVERYTHING your opponents ask? Where did ALL of the studies divide things by education level and by degree(s) that were earned?

You claimed that the studies did not control for education level. That's false. For example:

"The Relation Between Intelligence and Religiosity: A Meta-Analysis and Some Proposed Explanations"
http://diyhpl.us/~nmz787/pdf/The_Rel...planations.pdf

pages 8, 12-14

Seriously, do you think I'm going to fall for what you're saying, when you obviously haven't read the studies you claimed you read?

And many didn't, a thing you keep leaving out. Why?

Why did you tell this falsehood:

"We do not know anything about the people being studied, from their individual beliefs, to their education levels, etc to be able to see if the comparisons are even fair to begin with."

when we actually do know the education level of the people in question?

Why do you keep ignoring that not all of the studies in question, when into those kind of details?

Because that wasn't your original claim. Your original claim was that:

"We do not know anything about the people being studied, from their individual beliefs, to their education levels, etc to be able to see if the comparisons are even fair to begin with."

That, of course, is a falsehood since we do know quite a bit about the educational level of said people. Now that you've been caught in said lie, you're trying to move the goalposts.

Do you hope by screaming, "WAAA!! FALSE CLAIMS!" that somehow will invalidate that not all of the studies went into the details in question and we are not told how their selection methods work? I know how university selection methods work sweety and not always getting the cream of the crop. Do you care to admit that not ALL of the studies go into those details yet or do you prefer to whine that some of them do, as though that invalidates the fact that not all of them do?

Still waiting your support for this statement:

"We do not know anything about the people being studied, from their individual beliefs, to their education levels, etc to be able to see if the comparisons are even fair to begin with."

Irony at it's finest. Do you care to explain why SOME of the studies, going into these details somehow invalidates the fact that not ALL of them do?

Your claim wasn't that not all of the studies mention education. Instead, your claim was that we don't know anything about the education level of the participants:

"We do not know anything about the people being studied, from their individual beliefs, to their education levels, etc to be able to see if the comparisons are even fair to begin with."

Of course, your statement was false.

What percentage of these studies goes into the details and what percentage does not?

The meta-study goes over that. So you would know the answer to that question if you'd actually read the study. But, of course, you don't know the answer since (as I've noted several times now) you never read the study, even though you claimed you did.

The reality is quite simple, you're trying to use this to make you feel smarter than your opponents without actually being smarter than your opponents.

That's a misrepresentation from you; that's not at all what I'm doing. Instead, I'm using the data to support the claim I made in the OP. I've made that clear from the beginning:

"Given what I said, I wanted to go over some evidence in support of my claim that "there is data showing that, on average, non-religious people tend to score better on metrics of intelligence than do religious people, and that non-religious people tend to be more analytic thinkers than are religious people.""

Are you going to answer the questions yet or do you want to keep screaming, "WAAA!!! SOME OF THEM DO!" so you can ignore that not all of them are made the same? Even at that, Leon and Kbertsche gave some decent answers to those studies that do go into more details. Facts you haven't dealt with yet, but just ignored in the hopes they would go away.

You're lying again. For example, I responded to Leon.

Now, why do you want it to appear that you atheist are the smartest people on earth?

I never claimed that. So you're misrepresenting me again.

Care to answer the question yet or do you want to cry and whine a little while about obvious implications that your post imply?

Why would I answer a question that's based on a lie about what I'm saying?

So than why did you create this thread, if it wasn't to try to brag about how smart you atheist are compared to those stupid Christians?

I made it very clear why I started this thread. To quote the OP:

"Given what I said, I wanted to go over some evidence in support of my claim that "there is data showing that, on average, non-religious people tend to score better on metrics of intelligence than do religious people, and that non-religious people tend to be more analytic thinkers than are religious people.""

So I started this thread to provide evidence for my claim. I didn't start this thread for any of the silly reasons you've made up and projected onto me.

I've seen your arrogance and how you act in other post here sweety, so don't pretend you don't act that way (about everybody, that has dealt with you, has pretty much determined you're a jerk that thinks he's smarter than anybody who doesn't agree with him).

^^^ Substance-free rant.

Yeah it is mindlessly parroting what other people say because anybody can throw up a round of 'studies' to say they are right, but not everybody can debate the position they give and can deal with the information present.

Nope. citing scientific evidence in support of one's claims is not mindless parroting. For example, citing scientific studies that provide evidence of evolution, is not mindless parroting. And no, it's not the case that "anybody can throw up a round of 'studies' to say they are right". For example, you've yet to cite any studies support your claims, nor can Young Earth creationists cite studies supporting their claims.

Sorry sweety, but nope... scientist don't do that either.

No, sweety, they do. Virtually every scientific paper written by a scientist, cites previous studies that provide evidence for their claims. So please don't pretend you know what scientists do.

If a scientist is asked a question in their field of study, they will answer it and might give some studies or experiments, that go into more details or to prove that they are giving an answer other scientist would give.

No, if a scientist is answering a scientific question in the peer-reviewed literature, they will cite the scientific research that supports their answer. This is really basic stuff.

Seriously, have you ever been to college?

I've graduated from college, written scientific papers, and do scientific research for a living.

Anything else?

If you were seriously right, school sure would have been easier for me to pass because all I would have to do is search the internet for a bunch of studies and links and call my papers good.

Typically, we don't expect high school students to cite peer-reviewed scientific papers, since they're not at that level yet. Similarly so for many college courses. But once you get to graduate school in the science, you better start reading and citing them. Otherwise, you will fail.

Funny how my professors wanted actual writing, which should I understood what was being talked about, and not just a list of links and paragraphs, without any information as to if I actually understood them or not. What do they know, they were only in the education business and they obviously are wrong because they dare to disagree with you.

Did you ever attend graduate school in the sciences? I'm guessing you didn't given from the way you write about science and what scientists do. In graduate school, when you're writing something for an upper-level science class, you're expected to cite the peer-reviewed scientific papers that support your scientific claims. If you don't, then you fail. I know this, since I've actually taken those courses.

I'm sorry, but you're not 'acting like a scientist at all', but you're rather acting like a TV parody of a scientist by pretending you don't have to bother to discuss anything further. A cowards way out of debate and discussion.

I highly doubt you have any idea how scientists actually act. The way scientists talk when they're talking to Christian laypeople who don't know much, is not the same way scientists talking when providing evidence for their claims in their writings.

Nah, your arrogance here is pretty well known by now my dear. You want to make yourself feel smarter, without actually proving you're smarter in any measurable way. You keep trying to say the 'studies prove you right', but you don't bother to discuss any of the details nor do you bother to go into anything that was already said because you're a mindless parrot that just repeats what he hears without bothering to go into details. Anybody can throw up a bunch of studies dear, it takes real effort to prove that you understand them and can answer questions about them.

^^^ Substance-free gibberish.

Let's start here:

Did ALL of the studies go into details about their sample methods or not? If not, what percentage did vs what percentage did not?

Still waiting for your support for this falsehood you told:

"We do not know anything about the people being studied, from their individual beliefs, to their education levels, etc to be able to see if the comparisons are even fair to begin with."

It's a lie since you claimed to have read the studies enough to know the above claim was true, yet the studies contradict you by showing that we do know something about the subject's education leve. For example:

"The Relation Between Intelligence and Religiosity: A Meta-Analysis and Some Proposed Explanations"
http://diyhpl.us/~nmz787/pdf/The_Rel...planations.pdf

pages 8, 12-14

Let's start here and see if you can even get this far without whining and saying that your opponents need to read pages and pages of material, without actually referencing where the material agrees with you at and what it says.

Ah, so are you admitting that you were lying when you said you read the studies?

Ummm nope that is a strawman of your own creation because you're too stupid to address what people actually say. Christians are more than just Americans sweety and you're not just making claims about millions of people or about one country. You're making claims about billions of people, from many different countries around the world. Something you fail to address or understand, why?

Are you under the false assumption that the studies in question only looked at Americans? That shows that (once again) you didn't read the studis, even though you claimed you did. For example, the meta-analysis includes studies from westernized and non-Westernized countries. And are you under the false assumption that the studies only looked at Christians? Because it looked at people of other religions as well.

Seriously, stop making up false claims about studies you haven't read.

Second, polls have been wrong before and continue to be wrong right into the present day. The Dewey beating Truman is a pretty classic example, but there's more. Remember, back in the 1980's, how Coke switched to a new Coke and ended up losing millions upon millions of dollars and ended up switching back to it's classic formula? They didn't just make the decision out of the blue, but made that decision based upon scientific data and poll studies (new Coke even beat both Pepsi and Coke Classic, in taste test). Yet, it didn't turn out to be a home run, but was a disaster for the company. Sorry, but this is rather common knowledge and why you shouldn't put all of your eggs into 'studies' because studies and polling data do end up being wrong (as now two examples have shown). Now do you care to discuss the reality already or do you plan on pretending that poll data is 100% reliable, never makes mistakes, and that you can always trust it to give accurate data? Who became president in 1948? Did New Coke gain a major following? Both examples are based on the same collection methods you seem to think are never wrong.

Nonsense addressed above.

Since I said I read the SECOND link you gave and didn't claim I read the FIRST link you gave, you have a reading 101 comprehension failure.

Liars lie and get caught in their lies:

I was talking about your first link sweety (which yes, I did read and found that issue, that you still haven't addressed).

Try actually READING what your opponents say vs what you want them to say, ok sweety? Now, answer the questions already and stop screaming for others to 'read your links'. Prove that a large percentage of the studies cited gave the data I said they needed to provide or you could always just keep saying that others didn't 'read 50+ pages of material' while showing that you haven't read it yourself.

So you're admitting that you didn't read the first link, then, even though you claimed you had read it?

No, you threw our blind accusations and said the studies said what I asked, without actually quoting where at (as well as accusing me of lying when I never claimed I read your first link, but just read your second link, but I guess making false accusations is all you have left when it keep showing that you haven't actually read what you demand others to read).

Liars lie and get caught in their lies:

I was talking about your first link sweety (which yes, I did read and found that issue, that you still haven't addressed).

They are not 'false' at all sweety and you can even find the claims online that people have indeed tried to use the claims that studies prove whites are smarter than blacks and have been using the same sort of logic, you've been using, for as long. Don't believe me? Just go to Google and type in, "Studies show blacks are smarter than whites" and read what results you get.

That's the difference between you and I: when I want to find out scientific information, I start by reading peer-reviewed scientific papers. When you want to find out scientific information, you type stuff into Google (as opposed to Google Scholar), where random stupid stuff will pop up, including stupid stuff from Neo-Nazis, conspiracy theorists, people who have no idea what they're talking about, etc.

Anyway, I've read the studies in question, the claims are false, and I pointed you to a scientist (Nisbett) who explains why the claims are false.

You say, "WAA THIS GUY SAYS YOU'RE WRONG!" which isn't what I believe to begin with, but something lots of people believe and lots of people cite as being true and has been used to 'prove' whites are smarter than blacks, going back to the early 20th century. Again, based upon the same data and logic you present here.

No, it actually isn't. As I explained to you, the scientists studies in question don't support the claim that "whites are smarter than blacks", as you would know if you read the studies.

Why don't we see it pasted on news articles and sources everywhere?

Because the scientific evidence doesn't support the claims, and the press doesn't always discuss scientific information. You seem to live in a weird world where all scientific advances show up in the press.

Quite simple, it is unpopular and even outright racism to claim that some races are smarter than others, but for some strange reason; it isn't bigotry to try to claim that atheist are smarter than Christians. Interesting how bigotry only applies to some ideas, but not to others, huh?

That's not the actual explanation.

And yet, you haven't actually showed you even reading my post and you haven't even shown what I was wrong about and why. Quite entertaining, but don't worry. Tazzy Wazzy will amen you, no matter what you say, because he hates me and shows he's as big of a bigot as you are, when it comes to people who are religious believers. Now are you going to cite the specifics of the study already or do you just want to make false accusations about me and accuse me of lying about things I never actually said? Keep digging...

Already addressed your false claims, and did so again above.

[Jorge]

Oh look, more nonsense from the science-denying, Young Earth creationist.

Hehehe " ... science denying ..."
Are you people EVER going to get tired of using that old shtick?

And yet you ignore the scientific evidence in support of my statement, just like you ignore the scientific evidence of evolution. Typical.

"Scientific" evidence? I must've dozed off during that part.

Individual cases don't rebut large-scale statistical trends.

WOW - with that statement you've just demolished thousands of years of scientific methodology.
I mean, didn't you learn during grade school that a SINGLE counter example will falsify a claim to the contrary? Here's an example since it appears that you will need it: If you claim that "All dogs have four legs" and I show you ONE counter-example (say, a two-legged dog) then your claim, as stated, is 100% refuted. Besides that, there are hundreds upon hundreds of famous top-level scientists that are Christians so you're wrong many times over. I won't charge you for that lesson.

Open a dictionary, and look up "intelligence".

Uhmm ... the concept of "intelligence" goes far, FAR beyond what any dictionary can provide.
You go ahead and use your dictionary since that appears to be the level that you operate in.

Feel free to have the final word - I'll waste no more time here.

Jorge

[Jichard]

Hehehe " ... science denying ..."
Are you people EVER going to get tired of using that old shtick?

Well you are a science-denying Young Earth creationist, since you deny all the scientific evidence that the Earth is Old.

"Scientific" evidence? I must've dozed off during that part.

I cited the scientific evidence in the OP. So I suggest you stop sleeping when you read OPs.

Individual cases don't rebut large-scale statistical trends.

WOW - with that statement you've just demolished thousands of years of scientific methodology.

No, it isn't. For example, finding one patient with HIV but who lacks AIDS, does not rebut the claim that HIV causes AIDS. Similarly, finding a single fruit fly with one wing does not rebut the large-scale statistical trend showing that the vast majority of fruit flies have multiple wings. This is scientific reasoning 101. So Jorge, please stop acting as if "thousands of years of scientific methodology" show otherwise.

I mean, didn't you learn during grade school that a SINGLE counter example will falsify a claim to the contrary?

A single counterexample rebuts a universalized, exceptionless claim. But that's irrelevant here, since I did not make a universalized, exceptionless claim. Instead, I made a claim regarding a large-scale statistical trend.

Jorge, didn't you learn the difference between universalized, exceptionless claims and claims regarding large-scale statistical trends in school? Did you sleep through that lesson?

Here's an example since it appears that you will need it: If you claim that "All dogs have four legs" and I show you ONE counter-example (say, a two-legged dog) then your claim, as stated, is 100% refuted.

Dealt with above.

Besides that, there are hundreds upon hundreds of famous top-level scientists that are Christians so you're wrong many times over. I won't charge you for that lesson.

Why do you think it's impressive to point out that hundreds of famous top-level scientists, when much of this was during a time when coming out as non-Christian in many communities would have meant social ostracization or even death? Of course many scientists will be Christian when the alternative is ostracization or even death. This is in contrast to more modern times in the West, where one can be non-Christian or Christian, without necessarily being ostracized or killed. And with that pressure thus removed, it's turned out that scientists tend to be less religious than the general population, and tha leading scientists (ex: those in the US National Academy of Sciences) tend to be less religious than the general population. This is explained, in part, by what I discussed in the OP: analytic thinking promotes religious non-belief/disbelief, and since analytic thinking is more prevalent amongst scientists, this means religious non-belief/disbelief is more prevalent amongst scientists.

" The Origins of Reigious Disbelief"
http://www.ascs.uky.edu/sites/defaul...3%20TiCS_0.pdf

"As a first example, why are scientists less religious than the general population [67]? To begin with, analytic thinkers are likely to be more attracted to science than are intuitive thinkers. The scientific enterprise selects for and encourages a materialistic understanding of the world that in many ways is counterintuitive [68]. Scientific training further cultivates habitual use of analytic thinking, possibly rendering it less cognitively effortful with practice. Moreover, we speculate that scientific subcultures enjoy high levels of existential security and generally operate in the context of societies with strong secular institutions, where religious displays are less normative. In scientific communities, disbelief is common and more pronounced among the most prestigious members [67]; therefore, conformity and prestige-driven cultural learning processes might further encourage disbelief. These various pathways converge in creating a subculture of majority nonbelievers (23-24)."

Uhmm ... the concept of "intelligence" goes far, FAR beyond what any dictionary can provide.

Well, since you had trouble understanding what the word "intelligence" means, I recommended you start with a dictionary. Once you've mastered that, you can move the the discussion of "intelligence" provided in the first paper mentioned in the OP.

You go ahead and use your dictionary since that appears to be the level that you operate in.

I'm asking you to use a dictionaary, since you seem to be so confused on what "intelligence" means, that you haven't even reached the level of a dictionary-definition. Hence you writing:

"what IS intelligence?"

Once you've mastered the dictionary definition, you can try to move to the level discussed in the first paper mentioned in the OP.

Feel free to have the final word - I'll waste no more time here.

Jorge

OK. Feel free to go back to your usual denial of science. I won't miss you.

[One Bad Pig]

"God does not exist" is not a religious belief, anymore than "magic does not exist" is a supernatural belief. Basically, you're equivocating on the term religious belief. By your logic, I might as well say that you have a magical belief, since you believe that leprechauns don't exist.

Furthermore, one can be an atheist without believing that "God does not exist".

I can clearly see that "logic" is not your strong suit.

Well, you could actually read the studies to see the evidence on this. So...

In any event, anecdotal, personal experience doesn't rebut scientific evidence. And before you resort to this claim of your's:

note that the research in question has been replicated multiple times. That's part of the power of the meta-analysis: it's going over multiple studies that have replicated the relevant findings.

"Analytic Thinking Promotes Religious Disbelief"
http://math.as.uky.edu/sites/default...20Thinking.pdf

Thanks. I'll note, first off, that the authors of the study are much more cautious in their language than you are. Second, it uses a sample size of less than 200, which is tiny. And I suspect that your aversion to anecdotal evidence stems from the overwhelming evidence that atheists here (including yourself) tend to not be very analytical in their thinking.

"Divine Intuition: Cognitive Style Influences Belief in God"
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~d...reene_2012.pdf

This study seems to be somewhat more rigorous (though I remain skeptical of online surveys), but again, I note that the authors are much more tentative in their conclusions than you are.

[Jichard]

I can clearly see that "logic" is not your strong suit.

That doesn't respond to the substance of what I actually said. Feel free to try again:

"God does not exist" is not a religious belief, anymore than "magic does not exist" is a supernatural belief. Basically, you're equivocating on the term religious belief. By your logic, I might as well say that you have a magical belief, since you believe that leprechauns don't exist.

Furthermore, one can be an atheist without believing that "God does not exist".

Thanks. I'll note, first off, that the authors of the study are much more cautious in their language than you are.

The title of their paper literally says:

"Analytic Thinking Promotes Religious Disbelief"

In my OP I said:

"there is data showing that, on average, non-religious people tend to score better on metrics of intelligence than do religious people, and that non-religious people tend to be more analytic thinkers than are religious people."

So how in the world are they "much more cautious in their language" than me? What's your basis for that claim? Did you simply invent it out of thin air?

Second, it uses a sample size of less than 200, which is tiny.

First, did you actually read the study? Because the sample size was more than 200.


Second, as I mentioned before, the results of this study have been replicated multiple times (last time I counted, in at least three other studies) with further samples. So your complaints about sample size are unwarranted.

And I suspect that your aversion to anecdotal evidence stems from the overwhelming evidence that atheists here (including yourself) tend to not be very analytical in their thinking.

First, please stop the silly, evidence-free psychoanalysis of me and the other atheists on this forum. You have no evidence for your claims, and so they aren't worth taking seriously.


Second, my aversion to anecdotal evidence is for the same reasons that scientists, doctors, etc. are averse to anecdotal when large-scale data is available: large-scale data (especially from experiments) tends to be more much more reliable than uncontrolled, anecdotal claims.

This study seems to be somewhat more rigorous (though I remain skeptical of online surveys), but again, I note that the authors are much more tentative in their conclusions than you are.

First, that study was not just based an online survey.


Second, you've yet to show that the authors were more tentative in their conclusions.

The authors write:

"Under this general framework, constructs related to intuitive thinking include thinking that is reflexive, heuristic, associative, holistic or experiential in nature, whereas reflective thinking has been related to processes such as controlled, systematic, analytic, rule-based, or “rational” thinking (423-424).
[..]
Three studies—two correlational, one experimental—showed that intuitive thinking predicts belief in God. Study 1 showed that people who exhibit thinking styles that are more intuitive and less reflective are more likely to believe in God and to believe in God with greater confidence. These results held while variables related to education, socioeconomic status, and political orientation were controlled. Study 2 showed that these results held while cognitive ability and personality were controlled. In both studies, we found that cognitive style predicted self-reported changes in belief since childhood but was uncorrelated with religious influences during childhood. This suggests that cognitive style is not only predictive of one’s beliefs but also a critical factor in the evolution of one’s beliefs over time. Consistent with this hypothesis, we demonstrated a causal relationship between (induced) cognitive style and belief in God in Study 3, showing that the induction of mindsets favoring intuition (or opposing reflection) significantly increased self-reported belief in God (427)."

That's no more tentative than my claim from the OP:

"there is data showing that, on average, non-religious people tend to score better on metrics of intelligence than do religious people, and that non-religious people tend to be more analytic thinkers than are religious people."