Intelligence and Religiosity

[lilpixieofterror]

Did he claim to be a scientist?

Does he try to act like all of his opponents are too stupid to understand basic scientific understandings?

[lilpixieofterror]

Why would I give a rude, unpleasant person like you the benefit of the doubt, when you didn't do the same for me?

I believe in treating people as they treat other's and since you treat all of your opposition as though they are all stupid; I extend you the same courtesy in return.

If you're going to accuse me of poor reading comprehension and blind accusations, when I pointed out what you actually wrote (something you denied writing, even though you wrote it), then you better be darn sure you can take what you get in response, without complaining.

Hey, you got to 'win' somehow and when all you got left is to whine about a typo. Take it.

[lilpixieofterror]

^^^ Substance-free rant.

Still describing your own posting style and your tedency to rant and rave, without actually addressing what people asked?

You're the person who said I had poor reading comprehension when I pointed out what you actually said, when it turns out you were too dumb (to use your term) to remember what you actually wrote. So you really have no room to talk.

If I accidentally posted something that I didn't mean to post, how would I remember what I actually posted if I thought I posted something else? Hey, when you can't win by logic, try winning though screaming about typo's and hoping that making typo's 'proves' your opponent is wrong about everything they said. Poor fundy atheist, so frustrated that he has to resort to 'winning' by whining about typo's. That is when you know you have lost badly...

You claimed that the studies did not control for education level.

"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'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?

For the thousand time:

I READ THE SECOND STUDY ONLY!!!

Do I need to repeat this 5,000 more times before you'll actually READ it?

Likewise, those pages say zero about what degrees the subjects in each study earned. Something I've kept pointing out and you keep ignoring while repeating yourself in the sad hopes that my question will disappear into a puff of smoke. You're very dishonest, in not answering EVERYTHING your opponents say, huh? Now again, what is the chosen field of education, for those in the studies? Are you going to answer that question already or will you keep ranting and raving that I said X and totally ignoring that I also said Y and Z as well? Guess you need to feel smarter than your opponents, without actually being smarter in any real sense. You also still having said a word about what these beliefs anybody in the study held and what these beliefs are about. Of course, I guess when you're too stupid to refute what your opponents say, rip your opponents words out of context (ignore the rest of what they said), and puff... you have an 'argument'. I can see why nobody bothers to talk to you anymore since you love to do this. Why do you hate Christians and Christianity so much?

^^^ Unintentional irony.

Yep, still too clueless to see your own attitude being reflected right back in your face, eh?

Who's the "arrogant jack ass"?

Hey, I'm not the one trying to use some 'study' to prove I'm smarter than my opponents without actually proving I am.

Already addressed:
[INDENT]"[URL="http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?8387-Intelligence-and-Religiosity&p=244537#post244537"]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.

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.

[...]

In other words, you're going to keep hiding behind other people's work because you can't actually understand what they are saying nor say what they are saying, in your own words. Got it. Now again, where does these studies break down everything by education level and when do you care to explain how they got their sample data? Likewise, when are you going to admit that survey data is sometimes wrong? I know you threw a little fit about the historical example with Truman by whining about it happening over 60 years ago. Too bad that the survey data failed to properly predicted the US 2014 election and failed to properly predict the British 2015 election. Don't believe me, go look for yourself and see what is being said about it because CNN and other sources wrote plenty about the failed predictions that happened during these two elections. Well, so much for that argument. Perhaps you can call those who run the data methods and let them know how perfect their methods are. I'm sure they'd love the confidence booster after all the recent failures to properly predicted the recent election results or you could just admit they are not perfect and several reasons can be it (including biasness of those collecting the data).

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.

Of course I don't because I dare to disagree with you and dare ask you questions you can't answer without mindlessly giving links without actually explaining how this 'proves' what you're trying to say. Sweety, I know you hate Christians, Christianity, and religion, but do try to keep your hatred out of discussions. It makes you look 1000% smarter when you do that.

And now you've gone back to making up falsehood. How do you know whether I'm a scientist or not?

The fact you keep mindlessly parroting articles that are far less bold as you are or that you don't show any of the signs of being one, is a good indication of that?

It's hard to teach willfully dishonest people who call other people arrogant asses and pretend they read things they actually hadn't read, while lying about scientific research they haven't read.

Already refuted, but if that lie helps you sleep better at night, use it.

I quoted the studies and gave you page numbers. Pelase stop pretending I only gave you links. That's dishonest.

Which didn't answer what I actually asked you. Don't worry, maybe if you repeat yourself again and again, it will all become true!

I already answered your question and rebutted your false claim about the paper you pretend to have read. Once again:

Already refuted, but I guess repeating yourself over and over again and just plan making up stories about what I said is far easier than addressing a word I said. When you're too stupid to refute what your opponents say, lie about what they say, rip their words out of context, and really hope that others believe you. Don't worry, Brave Sir Jaecb and Tazzy Wazzy will keep amening you because their hatred of me overrides their judgment and logic.

Till you rant again,
lilpixie

[lilpixieofterror]

Did I ever claim that analytic thinking was better than intuitive thinking? Please stop attacking a strawman you erected.

Considering that your second link was testing for thinking styles; yeah you did or do you not remember what you posted? Here is a reminder:

"Recent research has indicated a negative relation between the propensity for analytic reasoning and religious beliefs and practices."

Don't remember what you said, eh? So please explain why analytical reasoning is better than intuitive please. Thanks!

In any event, analytic thinking is needed for science, philosophy, and subjects like that.

Both are actually needed in science, philosophy, and many other subjects.

[Jichard]

Considering that your second link was testing for thinking styles; yeah you did or do you not remember what you posted?

This coming from the person who couldn't even remember what they themselves wrote.

Here is a reminder:

"Recent research has indicated a negative relation between the propensity for analytic reasoning and religious beliefs and practices."

Don't remember what you said, eh? So please explain why analytical reasoning is better than intuitive please. Thanks!

Nowhere in there did I claim that analytic reasoning was better than intuitive thinking. You simply fabricated the claim that I did. So please don't lie about what other's have said, just so you can erect a strawman of their position. Thanks!

In any event, analytic thinking is needed for science, philosophy, and subjects like that.

Both are actually needed in science, philosophy, and many other subjects.

Please dont fabricate claims for which you have no evidence. Thanks!


Since I don't think you've read any of the studies, I'll quote one of them for you:

"The origins of religious 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 (23)."

[lilpixieofterror]

This coming from the person who couldn't even remember what they themselves wrote.

Sorry that I was busy planning my 5th anniversary and taking care of my kid. Again though, I guess when you don't have an actual argument, any shelter in a storm will due.

Nowhere in there did I claim that analytic reasoning was better than intuitive thinking. You simply fabricated the claim that I did. So please don't lie about what other's have said, just so you can erect a strawman of their position. Thanks!

Did they claim it was? No, but are you trying to pretend as though it is? Yeah you are and if that is wrong... please explain what the entire point was in making that post, but to make yourself feel better without actually demonstrating that you're smarter than your opposition.

Please dont fabricate claims for which you have no evidence. Thanks!

Irony at it's finest. Please, give your point for giving that link and giving that paragraph than if you were not trying to make yourself feel smarter than your opposition without actually proving you are.

Since I don't think you've read any of the studies, I'll quote one of them for you:

Of course I didn't read them because I dare to question you and dare to disagree with your bald assertions. Sorry idiot, you haven't answered a word I said because what is their education level and I don't mean merely degree earned, but what sort of degree did they earn. Did the people in these studies earn degrees in science, history, literature or what? That is very important to determine for this type of study because the types of intelligence that is used, in different fields, isn't the same. A writer tends to use more creativity (which tends to be more of a intuitive trait) while the scientist is going to be more fact base (which tends to be more of an analytical trait). I know you're desperate to prove yourself right, but it is quite possible to disagree with you and have read the information presented. Now please answer the question:

Analytical thinking is better than intuitive (as you keep trying to imply) because...

Or you could just admit neither one is 'better' than the other, but that would require you to abandon your arrogant presumptions about people who dare to disagree with you and you can't have that. It's far easier to scream, "WAAA! STRAWMAN!" than to give what your point was in giving that link if you are not trying to draw the link that one type of intelligence is somehow 'better' than the other.

"The origins of religious 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 (23)."

Doesn't refute a word I said, but again... when you can't refute what your opponents say... pretend they didn't read the papers and hope that you can avoid answering what they ask by screaming, "WAAA!! STRAWMAN!" and hoping their arguments and questions disappear into a puff of smoke. Now again, if you were not trying to prove one was better than the other; why did you give that link and use that quote? I'm waiting or you can just accuse me of using logical fallacies that you don't understand...

[klaus54]

To me the upshot of this thread is, "Who gives a flying poop what Fundy Atheists think about Christians?"

[Jichard]

To me the upshot of this thread is, "Who gives a flying poop what Fundy Atheists think about Christians?"

Let me know when you finally have something of substance to say on this thread's topic...

[Jichard]

I was talking about your first link sweety (which yes, I did read and found that issue, that you still haven't addressed). Most of these studies suffer from small sample sizes and problems that OBP brought up (and I see you ignored it).

Liar; you didn't read any of the studies.

Since I don't think you've read any of the studies, I'll quote one of them for you:

Of course I didn't read them because I dare to question you and dare to disagree with your bald assertions.

[klaus54]

I like me some "moderate" Atheists, since at least they don't try to proselytize.

But the Fundies think of themselves as the "Brights" and feel compelled to spread the word to us dummies.

[Jichard]

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.



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).

Looks like you were lying when you claimed to have read the studies...

Since I don't think you've read any of the studies, I'll quote one of them for you:

Of course I didn't read them because I dare to question you and dare to disagree with your bald assertions.

[Jichard]

Sorry that I was busy planning my 5th anniversary and taking care of my kid. Again though, I guess when you don't have an actual argument, any shelter in a storm will due.

It's silly of you to accuse people of poor reading comprehension, when they have to correct you on what you yourself wrote.

Did they claim it was? No, but are you trying to pretend as though it is? Yeah you are and if that is wrong... please explain what the entire point was in making that post, but to make yourself feel better without actually demonstrating that you're smarter than your opposition.

I never claimed that analytic reasoning was better than intuitive thinking. You lied and claimed that I did say that. Nice try.

In any event, in the OP I made it clear what my point was. Please 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."

To paraphrase you: improve your reading comprehension.

Irony at it's finest. Please, give your point for giving that link and giving that paragraph than if you were not trying to make yourself feel smarter than your opposition without actually proving you are.

Once again, I made it clear in the OP. Please improve your reading comprehension:

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."

Of course I didn't read them because I dare to question you and dare to disagree with your bald assertions.

You lied and claimed you read them.

Sorry idiot, you haven't answered a word I said because what is their education level and I don't mean merely degree earned, but what sort of degree did they earn. Did the people in these studies earn degrees in science, history, literature or what? That is very important to determine for this type of study because the types of intelligence that is used, in different fields, isn't the same. A writer tends to use more creativity (which tends to be more of a intuitive trait) while the scientist is going to be more fact base (which tends to be more of an analytical trait). I know you're desperate to prove yourself right, but it is quite possible to disagree with you and have read the information presented.

Already addressed your lies on that subject:

You claimed that the studies did not control for education level.

"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'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?

Now please answer the question:

Analytical thinking is better than intuitive (as you keep trying to imply) because...

Or you could just admit neither one is 'better' than the other, but that would require you to abandon your arrogant presumptions about people who dare to disagree with you and you can't have that. It's far easier to scream, "WAAA! STRAWMAN!" than to give what your point was in giving that link if you are not trying to draw the link that one type of intelligence is somehow 'better' than the other.

I never claimed that analytic reasoning was better intuitive. So stop being dishonestly pretending that I did. You've already shown yourself to be a liar, when you claimed to have read studies you didn't actually read.

Doesn't refute a word I said, but again... when you can't refute what your opponents say... pretend they didn't read the papers and hope that you can avoid answering what they ask by screaming, "WAAA!! STRAWMAN!" and hoping their arguments and questions disappear into a puff of smoke. Now again, if you were not trying to prove one was better than the other; why did you give that link and use that quote? I'm waiting or you can just accuse me of using logical fallacies that you don't understand...

Dear liar,

I already explained in the OP why I cited the research. 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."

So improve your reading comprehension.

Sincerely,
Jichard

[klaus54]

Your Ph.D.s are better than our Ph.D.s...

And you gotses more of 'em.

So there.

Nyah, nyah, nyah...

Obvious to all but the most ignorant.

P.S. Religion is the opiate of the masses. A hill you can die on...

[Jichard]

Still describing your own posting style and your tedency to rant and rave, without actually addressing what people asked?

Nothing of substance from you there.

If I accidentally posted something that I didn't mean to post, how would I remember what I actually posted if I thought I posted something else? Hey, when you can't win by logic, try winning though screaming about typo's and hoping that making typo's 'proves' your opponent is wrong about everything they said. Poor fundy atheist, so frustrated that he has to resort to 'winning' by whining about typo's. That is when you know you have lost badly...

You should improve your reading comprehension, so that you can understand and remember what you wrote.

For the thousand time:

I READ THE SECOND STUDY ONLY!!!

You didn't read any of the studies.

Since I don't think you've read any of the studies, I'll quote one of them for you:

Of course I didn't read them because I dare to question you and dare to disagree with your bald assertions.

Do I need to repeat this 5,000 more times before you'll actually READ it?

Likewise, those pages say zero about what degrees the subjects in each study earned. Something I've kept pointing out and you keep ignoring while repeating yourself in the sad hopes that my question will disappear into a puff of smoke. You're very dishonest, in not answering EVERYTHING your opponents say, huh? Now again, what is the chosen field of education, for those in the studies? Are you going to answer that question already or will you keep ranting and raving that I said X and totally ignoring that I also said Y and Z as well? Guess you need to feel smarter than your opponents, without actually being smarter in any real sense. You also still having said a word about what these beliefs anybody in the study held and what these beliefs are about. Of course, I guess when you're too stupid to refute what your opponents say, rip your opponents words out of context (ignore the rest of what they said), and puff... you have an 'argument'. I can see why nobody bothers to talk to you anymore since you love to do this. Why do you hate Christians and Christianity so much?

Already addressed this nonsense:

You claimed that the studies did not control for education level.

"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'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?

Yep, still too clueless to see your own attitude being reflected right back in your face, eh?

More substance-free gibberish from you.

Hey, I'm not the one trying to use some 'study' to prove I'm smarter than my opponents without actually proving I am.

And you're back to lying about what I said.

In other words, you're going to keep hiding behind other people's work because you can't actually understand what they are saying nor say what they are saying, in your own words. Got it. Now again, where does these studies break down everything by education level and when do you care to explain how they got their sample data? Likewise, when are you going to admit that survey data is sometimes wrong? I know you threw a little fit about the historical example with Truman by whining about it happening over 60 years ago. Too bad that the survey data failed to properly predicted the US 2014 election and failed to properly predict the British 2015 election. Don't believe me, go look for yourself and see what is being said about it because CNN and other sources wrote plenty about the failed predictions that happened during these two elections. Well, so much for that argument. Perhaps you can call those who run the data methods and let them know how perfect their methods are. I'm sure they'd love the confidence booster after all the recent failures to properly predicted the recent election results or you could just admit they are not perfect and several reasons can be it (including biasness of those collecting the data).

Already dealt with this nonsense that last time you posted it:

"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.


*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.



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.


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


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

Of course I don't because I dare to disagree with you and dare ask you questions you can't answer without mindlessly giving links without actually explaining how this 'proves' what you're trying to say. Sweety, I know you hate Christians, Christianity, and religion, but do try to keep your hatred out of discussions. It makes you look 1000% smarter when you do that.

And you've gone back to making up more lies about me. I've repeatedly told you that that was not my purpose in citing the research, but my purpose was instead to support certain claims I'd made. Of course, my pointing that out doesn't stop you from lying about what my purpose was. You truly are a dishonest person.

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.


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.

The fact you keep mindlessly parroting articles that are far less bold as you are or that you don't show any of the signs of being one, is a good indication of that?

You would know whether the articles are more "bold" than me, since you haven't read the articles. So please stop lying and preting that you've read them.

Already refuted, but if that lie helps you sleep better at night, use it.

I'm not the one who lied about stuff they hadn't read.

Which didn't answer what I actually asked you. Don't worry, maybe if you repeat yourself again and again, it will all become true!

Yes it did. No need to keep pretending otherwise.

You claimed that the studies did not control for education level.

"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'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?

Already refuted, but I guess repeating yourself over and over again and just plan making up stories about what I said is far easier than addressing a word I said.

You didn't refute anything. You claimed that "[w]e do not know anything about the people being studied, from their individual beliefs, to their education levels". You were shown to be wrong. Deal with it.

When you're too stupid to refute what your opponents say, lie about what they say, rip their words out of context, and really hope that others believe you. Don't worry, Brave Sir Jaecb and Tazzy Wazzy will keep amening you because their hatred of me overrides their judgment and logic.

Till you rant again,
lilpixie

More substance-free nonsense.

[Jichard]

I like me some "moderate" Atheists, since at least they don't try to proselytize.

But the Fundies think of themselves as the "Brights" and feel compelled to spread the word to us dummies.

OK, you're just a troll then. Got it.