Intelligence and Religiosity

[lilpixieofterror]

Another substance-free rant from you. Let me know when you finally have something of relevance to say on the thread's topics, as opposed to just hurling obsceneties.

Yep, the idiot again ignores anything he can't refute and screams, "WAAA!!! HOW DARE YOU DISAGREE WITH ME!" because he can't admit to being wrong about anything. Yet again idiot:

- You can't understand satire.
- You can't understand non literal language.
- You seriously thought that the Royal Society only had 10 members, for the entire 17th century.
- You take the most literal interpretations of people's words possible, totally ignore when they tell you otherwise, and repeat yourself over and over again in the sad hopes that your fundy literalness will override all logic and sense.
- You attempt to whine that messing up a single word, somehow magically means that others EVERYTHING a person says is a lie, no matter how many times it's explained to you because you can't admit to a mistake; you assume others can't either
- You hate Christians and thus see every Christian in the worst light possible.

No wonder you can't understand the Bible; you can't even understand literal language, but I'm supposed to seriously think you can understand a more more complex thing?

[lilpixieofterror]

Ok, so you're just a troll pretending to be Christian. Got it.

So Jesus didn't turn over money exchange tables in the temple moron? Keep talking and remember, never admit you're wrong about anything Mr Can't Even Understand Satire. I'm sorry idiot, you deserve all of this (and more) because you refuse to treat anybody, who dares to question you, with any respect so you get none in return. Doesn't it suck to get treated as you treat others?

[lilpixieofterror]

Same response. I already addresse.... WAAA! HOW DARE YOU DISAGREE WITH ME!!!!!

And yet again, the moron doesn't answer what I asked, so let me repeat it since nothing in that quote ANSWERED what I asked:

Did they make a distinction between a degree in English and a degree in physics, when they took in their data?

Go ahead moron, quote specifically, in the text, where people were divided up by degree earned or you could keep holding me to the most fundy literalism possible because you're too stupid to answer what was actually asked.

And table 3 on page 296 of the study shows that:


37.6% of natural scientists said they don't believe in God
31.2% of social scientists said they don't believe in God

Less that 25% of the natural scientists said they believe in God
Less than 32% of the social scientists said they believe in God

Not everybody, who went to school, earned a degree in the sciences only. Try again moron.

[lilpixieofterror]

And maybe English is not your first language, since you willfully ignored many pioneers of modern science, such as Laplace, Hume, Darwin, and so on.

Hume is more of a philosopher and as far as I'm aware, he wasn't part of the Royal Society of the 17th century (considering that he lived and died in the 18th, that would be rather hard). Laplace is from the 18th century. Darwin is from the 19th century. Of course, you can't have Christians looking good anywhere because you're hatred overrides everything else, thus you ignore what he said in the sad hopes that you can avoid your serious blunder about what 7 out of 10 actually means. Never admit you're wrong about anything, no matter how obvious it is because you hate Christians so much that Christians can't be right about anything.

[lilpixieofterror]

I never said that, you willfully dishonest liar.

Translation: "WAAA! HOW DARE YOU DISAGREE WITH ME!"

And thus the moron doesn't answer a word I said and repeats himself in the sad hopes that if he repeats himself long enough and hard enough, it will magically become true. Go ahead moron, tell everybody why you decided it was important to mention intuitive thinkers were more likely to have a belief in God vs analytical thinkers. I'm still waiting for you to answer the question or do you want to keep dodging it for awhile longer because you don't like what the answer would reveal?

[Jichard]

Translation: "WAAA! HOW DARE YOU DISAGREE WITH ME!"

And thus the moron doesn't answer a word I said and repeats himself in the sad hopes that if he repeats himself long enough and hard enough, it will magically become true. Go ahead moron, tell everybody why you decided it was important to mention intuitive thinkers were more likely to have a belief in God vs analytical thinkers. I'm still waiting for you to answer the question or do you want to keep dodging it for awhile longer because you don't like what the answer would reveal?

You're still dishonestly pretendign that you weren't answer on this multiple times:

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."

[Jichard]

So Jesus didn't turn over money exchange tables in the temple moron? Keep talking and remember, never admit you're wrong about anything Mr Can't Even Understand Satire. I'm sorry idiot, you deserve all of this (and more) because you refuse to treat anybody, who dares to question you, with any respect so you get none in return. Doesn't it suck to get treated as you treat others?

That's nice. Let me know when you're able to display the ove of Christ, troll. I'm just glad, for your sake, that there's no Hell for you to be thrown into.

[Jichard]

And yet again, the moron doesn't answer what I asked, so let me repeat it since nothing in that quote ANSWERED what I asked:

Did they make a distinction between a degree in English and a degree in physics, when they took in their data?

Go ahead moron, quote specifically, in the text, where people were divided up by degree earned or you could keep holding me to the most fundy literalism possible because you're too stupid to answer what was actually asked.




Not everybody, who went to school, earned a degree in the sciences only. Try again moron.

Not interested in your goalpost moves, liar. You lied and said that we don't anything about the people being studied, their education levels, etc. I showed that was a lie by literally listing the pages where the studies gave said information. Of course you don't address this, since you're dishonest. So you try to backtrack away from your lie, instead of owning up to it. I'm not stupid enough to fall for your silly goal-post moves. So feel free to finaly admit that you lied about a study you hadn't read, as opposed to dishonestly moving the goalposts.

Once again:

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?

[Jichard]

Hume is more of a philosopher and as far as I'm aware, he wasn't part of the Royal Society of the 17th century (considering that he lived and died in the 18th, that would be rather hard).

First, I never claimed Hume was apart of the Royal Society.

Second, Hume did some foundational work in the science of psychology.

Laplace is from the 18th century. Darwin is from the 19th century.

Irrelevant, as I already explained:

So you're basically cherrypicking a time-frame to exclude atheist/agnostic scientists. Ok, then.

By the way, you're moving the goalposts. You said "great pioneers of modern science" and then when you're shown great pioneers of modern sciences like biology, physics, and psychology, you move the goalposts to say they don't count. Amazing. And if you don't think Laplace, Poission, Darwin, etc. brought science into a modern conception based on mathemetics, experiment, and theoretical abstraction, then... that's rather weak.

Of course, you can't have Christians looking good anywhere because you're hatred overrides everything else, thus you ignore what he said in the sad hopes that you can avoid your serious blunder about what 7 out of 10 actually means. Never admit you're wrong about anything, no matter how obvious it is because you hate Christians so much that Christians can't be right about anything.

And now you've gone back to making up lies about me. Do better.

[lilpixieofterror]

You're still dishonestly pretendign that you weren't answer on this multiple times:

Already refuted. Keep repeating yourself and who knows, maybe if you repeat yourself long enough and hard enough, it will magically become true! Now answer the question:

Why did you post an article about intuitive thinkers being more likely to be religious than analytical thinkers, on a thread about intelligence and religiosity?

Do I need to make this question too into big bold letters, so your tiny mind will see it?

[lilpixieofterror]

First, I never claimed Hume was apart of the Royal Society.

Considering that his point was about the Royal Society, of the 17th century, you're dishonestly attacking what he really didn't say. Dishonestly misrepresenting people, who dare to disagree with you, is par the course for you though so I'm not surprised that you can't properly represent your opponents since your hatred of Christians and Christianity overrides everything else.

[Jichard]

Already refuted. Keep repeating yourself and who knows, maybe if you repeat yourself long enough and hard enough, it will magically become true! Now answer the question:

Why did you post an article about intuitive thinkers being more likely to be religious than analytical thinkers, on a thread about intelligence and religiosity?

Do I need to make this question too into big bold letters, so your tiny mind will see it?

You're still dishonestly pretending that you weren't answered on this multiple times:

"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]

Not interested in your goalpost mov...

Of course I 'moved the goal post' because you didn't want to ask for clarification of my statement and didn't bother to ASK ME what I mean by 'education level'. I quantified what I mean by 'education level' further on, but since you're a dishonest twit, who hates Christians and Christianity, you can't refute it so you repeat yourself and throw out accusations because you can't admit you're wrong. Let me ask the question again, since you STILL haven't answered it:

Did they make a distinction between a degree in English and a degree in physics, when they took in their data?

Did you tiny mind SEE the question this time and will ANSWER what I asked, this time, or do you want to keep pretending that I didn't quantify what I mean when I said 'education level'? Keep seeing the worst in anybody who dares to disagree with you and I'll keep returning the favor.

[Jichard]

Considering that his point was about the Royal Society, of the 17th century, you're dishonestly attacking what he really didn't say.

His point was about "great pioneers of modern science". That would include people like Hume, Darwin, Laplace, Poisson, etc., unless you want to deny that biology, physics, etc. are examples of modern science. I explained this already:

You and your quote are probably correct that scientists are less religious than the general population. (However, I believe that there is conflicting data on this question, depending on how questions about religion are asked.)

But it is also a historical fact that the great pioneers of modern science (Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Boyle, Maxwell, Faraday, etc.) tended to be MORE religious than the general population. Newton wrote more on theology than he did on science.

So you're basically cherrypicking a time-frame to exclude atheist/agnostic scientists. Ok, then.

By the way, you're moving the goalposts. You said "great pioneers of modern science" and then when you're shown great pioneers of modern sciences like biology, physics, and psychology, you move the goalposts to say they don't count. Amazing. And if you don't think Laplace, Poission, Darwin, etc. brought science into a modern conception based on mathemetics, experiment, and theoretical abstraction, then... that's rather weak.

Dishonestly misrepresenting people, who dare to disagree with you, is par the course for you though so I'm not surprised that you can't properly represent your opponents since your hatred of Christians and Christianity overrides everything else.

And more of your usual dishonesty about me. Sad.

[lilpixieofterror]

His point was about "great pioneers of modern science". That would include people like Hume, Darwin, Laplace, Poisson, etc., unless you want to deny that biology, physics, etc. are examples of modern science. I explained this already:

Dear moron,

The pioneers of modern science, existed over a century before any of these men were born. Do you even KNOW the history of science or are you just blurting out stupidity because you're hated of Christians and Christianity overrides everything else? Try this, what does the term 'pioneer' mean?

Here is what the dictionary says:

develop or be the first to use or apply (a new method, area of knowledge, or activity).

Now the men you mentioned came AFTER the men that Kbertsche mentioned. Hume, Darwin, and Laplace come from the 18th and 19th century while Newton, Galileo, and Kepler came from the 17th century and before.

Keep showing how you fail to read at a basic level of comprehension and don't know your basic science history.

And more of your usual dishonesty about me. Sad.

And more of your stupidity. You are aware that the men you mentioned came around over a century after the men Kbertsche mentioned. He's talking about a different period in history, you dumb twit. Keep digging and remember, never admit you're wrong about anything because you're smarter than any Christian who dares to disagree with you.

Your friend,
lilpix