|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 23, 2020 5:20:59 GMT 10
|
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 24, 2020 2:41:14 GMT 10
Totally misrepresents what a bell curve is about. It is a fact that the vast majority of the population are theists ... so there will never be an even distribution of "believers" ranging to "non-believers" - hence, the bell-curve analogy is not relevant. Hence, it makes the study irrelevant because there will never be a balanced control group. You are using the word 'fact' too carelessly. Three things can be concluded from this video: 1. There is no evidence for a causal correlation between atheism and intelligence. 2. There is no evidence for a causal correlation between rationality and intelligence. 3. There is no evidence for a causal correlation between atheism and rationality. As evidenced by: A. There are plenty of dumbass atheists out there. B. There are many delusional people who are highly intelligent. C. And there are plenty of atheists who act irrationally. These are facts. If this study is to stand up to harsh scrutiny, these are the 3 hurdles it must pass. In my opinion, this study doesn't do enough to be considered 'scientific', because it had an a priori agenda. Attributing this work as valid simply because you ascribe the word(s) Áctual data ..(What 'act'?)or point to the man's credentials is nothing more than an argumentum ab auctoritate fallacy. Scientific knowledge is best established by evidence and experiment not argued through authority. Authority should have no place in science. And supposing that one is more intelligent simply because they ascribe to an atheistic worldview, is nothing more than a bandwagon argument. The notion is ridiculous. One does not simply become more intelligent by rejecting a God premise; neither does one become an idiot by accepting one. "Claiming to be wise, they became fools." Romans 1:22 |
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 25, 2020 0:17:14 GMT 10
There is correlation between atheism and intelligence. There is correlation between rationality and intelligence. There is correlation between atheism and rationality. I would love to hear your basis for believing that. As it stands, espousing opinion does not validate data; nor should it. That is where you and I differ in terms: Science of the Gaps. I accept data, if the conclusions are compelling, can be verified, and repeated; not simply because it was performed in a lab by men with letters at the ends of their names. I know enough people to know there are 'educated morons' out there. Education nary turns morons into savants. Ala: "It must be true because... 'Science'!" LOL Ptolemy believed the sun revolved around the earth. His theories were the science of his day-- He was wrong. Stating 'Ït's true because the studies say so' is repeating errors of his day. What if the method is flawed? Have you questioned what methods were used to come to this conclusion? Where is that freethinking, and rationality you always talk about? ...Or have you just replaced your priest with a scientist?  Neither does it support it. I would love to see what evidence you have to support that statement regarding tendency. The point of the video was that nothing could be concluded from the methods used to conduct the study. A message, I believe, it drives home fairly well. That Adam Savage quote could be applied to you, as well as to me. So that sort of argumentation gets us nowhere. As I said before, this study is nothing more than a bandwagon argument. "Come and be an atheist, or people might think you are stupid!" Sorry buddy, I'm not buying it. |
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 25, 2020 13:04:56 GMT 10
I would love to hear your basis for believing that. As it stands, espousing opinion does not validate data; nor should it. ...That correlation was in the data of numerous studies which were the basis for the video you posted.
The video acknowledged the correlation. The video questioned causality, not the correlation. Where the video went off the rails was where they substituted the data from the studies they were examining with made up data of their own. Also, that absurd bell-curve red herring.
That is where you and I differ in terms: Science of the Gaps. I accept data, if the conclusions are compelling, can be verified, and repeated; not simply because it was performed in a lab by men with letters at the ends of their names. I know enough people to know there are 'educated morons' out there. Education nary turns morons into savants. Ala: "It must be true because... 'Science'!" LOL ...Again, numerous studies have found that a higher score in intelligence tests is an indicator of an increased tendency to non-religious belief.
That was the whole basis of the video you posted. Where the video went off the rails was where they substituted the data from the studies they were examining with made up data of their own. Also, that absurd bell-curve red herring.Ptolemy believed the sun revolved around the earth. His theories were the science of his day-- He was wrong. Stating 'Ït's true because the studies say so' is repeating errors of his day. What if the method is flawed? Have you questioned what methods were used to come to this conclusion? Where is that freethinking, and rationality you always talk about? ...Or have you just replaced your priest with a scientist? Neither does it support it. I would love to see what evidence you have to support that statement regarding tendency. ....Again, numerous studies have found that a higher score in intelligence tests is an indicator of an increased tendency to non-religious belief.
That was the whole basis of the video you posted. Where the video went off the rails was where they substituted the data from the studies they were examining with made up data of their own. Also, that absurd bell-curve red herring.The point of the video was that nothing could be concluded from the methods used to conduct the study. A message, I believe, it drives home fairly well. That Adam Savage quote could be applied to you, as well as to me. So that sort of argumentation gets us nowhere. As I said before, this study is nothing more than a bandwagon argument. "Come and be an atheist, or people might think you are stupid!" Sorry buddy, I'm not buying it.
Okay... As evidenced by what? |
|
|
|
Post by fat on Jan 26, 2020 0:46:07 GMT 10
Not that this proves anything but I have met and conversed with many an intelligent Atheist, Many an intelligent Theists and many intelligent Agnostics.
I have read many intelligent words penned by all three belief sets.
I have also interacted with many of each of the above groups who would not seem so gifted.
I have found (and increasingly so) that I can learn from every one of them. Isn't that wonderful?
|
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 28, 2020 2:05:43 GMT 10
Did you view the video that was bringing together a number of studies that all found that having a higher IQ score correlates to to a higher probability of having no religious belief - and / or not being a theist? Yes, but the standards and methods of the test were spurious at best. Even you claimed an unfair ratio from believers to unbelievers. As I said, nothing can be concluded from this study without prior bias. |
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 28, 2020 11:21:03 GMT 10
Yes, but the standards and methods of the test were spurious at best. Even you claimed an unfair ratio from believers to unbelievers. As I said, nothing can be concluded from this study without prior bias. I didn't claim an unfair ratio from believers to unbelievers. I stated that the vast majority of the population are theists. Hence, using the bell-curve "misfit" argument to try to discredit the data is never going to work. Trying to apply a bell-curve to the data in the way the video attempted is a red-herring. I'm not into "fiddling the books" over the data. The data is what it is. The conclusion from bringing together the meta data of 83 studies shows that having a high score IQ is an indicator that a person is more likely to be non-religious / an atheist. The reason? Can't prove it but I think this statement goes some way toward an explanation: In their conclusions, they said: ‘Most extant explanations (of a negative relation*) share one central theme - the premise that religious beliefs are irrational, not anchored in science, not testable and, therefore, unappealing to intelligent people ... * i.e. a lower IQ score for religious / theist people. 'Irrationality is unappealing to the intelligent?' That's certainly begging the question. Irrationality is part of the human condition, intelligent or no. |
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 28, 2020 23:14:34 GMT 10
... Irrationality is part of the human condition, intelligent or no. Some try to become more rational but it isn't an easy thing to do. I'm not sure I share those final conclusions. The foundations of science itself, are philosophical by nature. As such, they are not testable. That doesn't make them irrational. It IS possible to reject one philosophy, in favour of a more compelling one. I personally reject atheism, because I find there is more evidence for a designer than not. Irrational means, 'without (a) reason', and yet I HAVE a reason. I don't fit into the category of 'irrational', on this subject. |
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 28, 2020 23:48:49 GMT 10
That too, is not testable by science. Either way, you are taking a leap. |
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 29, 2020 10:19:33 GMT 10
There is logic to my decisions .. I was told the Tooth Fairy is real. Turned out to be BS. I was told the Easter Bunny is real. Turned out to be BS. I was told Santa Claus is real. Turned out to be BS. ... See a pattern? Yes...but you were also told: -about the many other dimensions unperceivable by our reality. -About quarks, atoms and dark matter. -the universe was intelligible. -Your five senses could be relied on. -the existence of the mathematical and philosophical assumptions that science itself relies on. -concepts such as beauty and pain being real things. -That you are a conscious being. See the pattern? Extraordinary claims aren't always false, neither are they testable. |
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 29, 2020 10:26:43 GMT 10
I can't be an atheist, because I find it redundant to undermine all human intelligence by suggesting it happened by a blind force of nature. It's like saying a complex AI can result from shaking up a jar of nuts and bolts. I have to believe there is a design behind human consciousness. Do you see the pattern? It's difficult to assert that an atheist is a rational person; then undermine that statement by suggesting that said rationality was created by an accident of nature. An atheist cannot hold both statements as true, at the same time. He must either accept the notion that his mind is a design  *gasp*, or that he is very, most likely, wrong about a great many things. One of those things being, his notions about God. ...Which creates an inescapable problem for atheism. |
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 30, 2020 5:43:47 GMT 10
Well, save your time on me Occam's ... I'm firmly atheist. I glanced through the glossy brochure. I read the user reviews. I read the Product Disclosure Statement. I studied the user manual intently. I took the product for an extensive test run. If anyone asks me my opinion, I will give it. I simply prefer not to shop there anymore. If your god ever stops by to address me directly, I will apologise. ...Of course, you may willfully refuse a logical conclusion, but that neither refutes the conclusion nor changes it.  |
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 31, 2020 1:35:06 GMT 10
Product Review by confirmed customer (Capt' Nemo) * * * * * Does not deliver on promises. Deceptive advertising. Dodgy salespeople. Simply does not do what it claims to do. Steer clear of this product. It doesn't follow. Religion is to God, what science is to nature. You can't deny nature just because science gets it wrong; you can't deny God just because religion gets it wrong. |
|
*gasp*, or that he is very, most likely, wrong about a great many things.