Originally posted by Sea of red
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Natural Science 301 Guidelines
This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Intelligence and Religiosity
Collapse
X
-
"The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy
-
Originally posted by Jichard View PostWhy would I give a rude, unpleasant person like you the benefit of the doubt, when you didn't do the same for me?
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."The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jichard View Post^^^ Substance-free rant.
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.
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?
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.
Who's the "arrogant jack ass"?
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.
[...]
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.
And now you've gone back to making up falsehood. How do you know whether I'm a scientist or not?
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.
I quoted the studies and gave you page numbers. Pelase stop pretending I only gave you links. That's dishonest.
I already answered your question and rebutted your false claim about the paper you pretend to have read. Once again:
Till you rant again,
lilpixieLast edited by lilpixieofterror; 09-21-2015, 07:30 PM."The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jichard View PostDid 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.Last edited by lilpixieofterror; 09-21-2015, 07:55 PM."The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy
Comment
-
Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
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!
Originally posted by JichardIn any event, analytic thinking is needed for science, philosophy, and subjects like that.
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)."Last edited by Jichard; 09-21-2015, 09:26 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jichard View PostThis coming from the person who couldn't even remember what they themselves wrote.
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!
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:
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).""The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy
Comment
-
Originally posted by klaus54 View PostTo me the upshot of this thread is, "Who gives a flying poop what Fundy Atheists think about Christians?"
Comment
-
Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View PostI 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).
Comment
-
Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
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).
Comment
-
Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View PostSorry 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.
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.
In any event, in the OP I made it clear what my point was. Please pay attention. Once again:
Originally posted by Jichard View PostGiven 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.
Originally posted by Jichard View PostGiven 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.
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.
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?
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.
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...
I already explained in the OP why I cited the research. Once again:
So improve your reading comprehension.Originally posted by Jichard View PostGiven 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."
Sincerely,
Jichard
Comment
-
Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View PostStill describing your own posting style and your tedency to rant and rave, without actually addressing what people asked?
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...
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?
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?
Yep, still too clueless to see your own attitude being reflected right back in your face, eh?
Hey, I'm not the one trying to use some 'study' to prove I'm smarter than my opponents without actually proving I am.
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).
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.
Originally posted by Jichard View PostI 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:
^^^ 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.Originally posted by Jichard View PostGiven 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."
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?
Already refuted, but if that lie helps you sleep better at night, use it.
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!
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?
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,
lilpixieLast edited by Jichard; 09-22-2015, 05:13 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by klaus54 View PostI 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.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by whag, 06-20-2024, 09:11 PM
|
28 responses
156 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
06-24-2024, 10:07 AM
|
||
Started by shunyadragon, 05-28-2024, 01:19 PM
|
18 responses
108 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
05-30-2024, 05:13 PM
|
Comment