Backroom Poll. The (major) Religious Affiliation in Backroom...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

How much actual data does your conclusion draw from? When I was saying the poor had lower-than-average IQ scores I was drawing on just about every sociology textbook. When you say you do not trust IQ tests, you state your personal opinion, which is, while supported by many upset moms, punctured egos, :tongue: as well as some researchers, is contrary to the general scientific consensus.

---

His conclusion is "IQ tests are not the end all be all", which is kind of hard to disagree with. Don't you think there's something more to what we call intelligence than is shown on an IQ test?

Are we arguing about the same thing. I don't dispute that the poor have lower iq scores. that is right and accurate. What i am saying is couldn't their scores be higher if they had been raised a different way. Nature vs. Nurture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

His conclusion is "IQ tests are not the end all be all", which is kind of hard to disagree with. Don't you think there's something more to what we call intelligence than is shown on an IQ test?

---

I know, but I loathe those sorts of arguments, even if they have some truth. Every person dissatisfied/comforting-a-dissatisfied-person with their/their-friend's IQ test says that (not that I accuse Centurion1 of doing such thing of course). Too many times I have heard parents/some kids say things disturbingly similar to what is satirised here in this notable blog.

Look, for the third time (or is it the fourth?), standard IQ tests measure abstract reasoning. In that, they excel. Whether you choose to say that abstract reasoning is what intelligence is about - well, that is your choice. Think whatever you wish. Abstract reasoning is certainly 'not the end all be all' - this is true. But the IQ tests measure abstract reasoning, and they measure it very well. Abstract reasoning is a skill that poorer children learn slower and less thoroughly due to their lower exposure to all the needed components (found in a psych book).

no im quite satisfied with my iq.

your saying exactly what im saying, peoples iq's are based off of certain outside controllable factors. Which is why poor people average lower iq's than more wealthy people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

I know, but I loathe those sorts of arguments, even if they have some truth. Every person dissatisfied/comforting-a-dissatisfied-person with their/their-friend's IQ test says that (not that I accuse Centurion1 of doing such thing of course). Too many times I have heard parents/some kids say things disturbingly similar to what is satirised here in this notable blog.

---

Sure, I just got the impression you were lumping cent in there with them, always a hazard when you have a negative association with a certain argument. My bad.

It bugs me too, especially that guy with his "multiple intelligences" theory. Egalitarianism run amock, we love it so much we don't mind if we are being irrational (myself included).

Quote:

---

Look, for the third time (or is it the fourth?), standard IQ tests measure abstract reasoning. In that, they excel. Whether you choose to say that abstract reasoning is what intelligence is about - well, that is your choice. Think whatever you wish.

---

Tch, this is the backroom. We don't get to think whatever we wish, it must be argued.

I think abstract reasoning is very important, but that high IQ people are just as prone to cognitive biases. To actually be smart you need a high IQ, you need to put effort into your thinking, you need education, and you need the willingness to reconsider your own position and realize that you were wrong. Even then, if it's something you are passionate about you will probably not come to a very rational conclusion, if an abrasive and rude person is involved you are less likely to admit the shortcomings of your thinking, and if you don't have the right information your efforts can be futile.

Saying that IQ is to intelligence as height is to basketball ability hits pretty close to the mark I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

Which is why poor people average lower iq's than more wealthy people.

---

Because the psychology and sociology book says so :snobby:. Now quiet, you Curious George! You have questioned this society enough.

So how about that religion eh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

So how about that religion eh?

---

I believe atheists have a 1.93 higher IQ on average than agnostics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

So how about that religion eh?

---

Nah, I think I'll pass ~;)

AP:

Strike's point about this type of data (correlations v causality) is a good one. One of the things we teach in Research Methods is that correlations CANNOT equate causality. At best, they are an indicator of which relationships among variables warrant further study.

As the old example notes, an increase in the number of churches in a community correlates strongly with an increase in the number of prostitutes. Obviously, there is another factor at play.

I also disagree with your summary of religion as "anti-intellectual." You acknowledge that you're generalizing (thanks), but I don't think the explication is that simple or clear cut -- even allowing for your caveat. Conservatism v Liberality of outlook, Rural v Urban cultural dynamics, and quite a few other factors are also at play here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Strike's point about this type of data (correlations v causality) is a good one. One of the things we teach in Research Methods is that correlations CANNOT equate causality. At best, they are an indicator of which relationships among variables warrant further study.

---

Two words make a good point? Supposing the mangled fragments can be arranged into a meaningful message, I still fail to see how that qualifies as what you named it. Important point, perhaps. A good one? Well, you decide. There is nuances to every point. If two simple words had that much unquestionable power, debates would go through and equivalent of gastric bypass...

Right, so poverty does not make a healthy contribution to violence as well as poor education in urban ghettos? One of the things I was taught in the Intro to Sociology class contradicted your point. Nor did I have to take the course - I read the same in textbooks before going into the Uni.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

I also disagree with your summary of religion as "anti-intellectual." You acknowledge that you're generalizing (thanks), but I don't think the explication is that simple or clear cut -- even allowing for your caveat. Conservatism v Liberality of outlook, Rural v Urban cultural dynamics, and quite a few other factors are also at play here.

---

Now when did I say that? In the various places of this thread I made varying points. For instance, I made a point of singling out Southern Baptism as being a poor catalyst for scientific inquiry, but at the same time I praised Catholicism for its contributions to scholasticism. Certain other denominations of Christianity likewise have notable intellectual traditions. I am not even speaking about other religions...

However, at the same time, I did say that on a general basis, the current religions (by that I singled out Judeo-Christian & Islamic belief systems) are anywhere from mildly to heavily antithetical to science. Even on the most basic grounds, I put my trust in Science and Reason, as there is nothing else. A Christian/Muslim/Jew will put it in God. When the decision comes to choose between reason and religion, a true believer must choose religion. There is the anti-intellectualism. I am not speaking of purging the intelligentsia here - anti-intellectualism can be as little as putting faith before reason.

Anyhow, this is not my favoured debate topic, but you are welcome to argue :shrug:

voted other when i meant deist.

didnt know what it meant

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

Two words make a good point? Supposing the mangled fragments can be arranged into a meaningful message, I still fail to see how that qualifies as what you named it.

---

SFTS gives you a hint, assuming that you are clever enough to derive/understand the wider meaning yourself, you should really see it as a compliment that he doesn't explain it to you like you were a baby. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

I believe atheists have a 1.93 higher IQ on average than agnostics.

---

Malicious lies not serious here

I beleive atheists burn 1.93% better than agnostics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

Right, so poverty does not make a healthy contribution to violence as well as poor education in urban ghettos? One of the things I was taught in the Intro to Sociology class contradicted your point. Nor did I have to take the course - I read the same in textbooks before going into the Uni.

---

I don't think SF is suggesting that poverty does not contribute to violence or poor education. I think he's suggesting that correlation alone is not enough to make that argument. Further study may well have shown a causative relationship.

Quote:

---

Two words make a good point? Supposing the mangled fragments can be arranged into a meaningful message, I still fail to see how that qualifies as what you named it. Important point, perhaps. A good one? Well, you decide. There is nuances to every point. If two simple words had that much unquestionable power, debates would go through and equivalent of gastric bypass...

---

It wasn't two words. It was two words connected by an operator. Two words in isolation may not have 'unquestionable power,' but a proposition such as Strike's is a meaningful argument.

Quote:

---

When the decision comes to choose between reason and religion, a true believer must choose religion. There is the anti-intellectualism. I am not speaking of purging the intelligentsia here - anti-intellectualism can be as little as putting faith before reason.

---

For those who believe faith and reason are in harmony, there's no reason to believe that choice will ever arise. Why should religion be anti-intellectual if there is no conflict between faith and science?

Ajax

"...if you ask me whether or not I'm an atheist, I wouldn't even answer.
I would first want an explanation of what it is that I'm supposed not
to believe in, and I've never seen an explanation." Noam Chomsky

It is amazing how atheism is the underdog which causes the theists to bark up the walls.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

It is amazing how atheism is the underdog which causes the theists to bark up the walls.

---

que? i am confused.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

I don't think SF is suggesting that poverty does not contribute to violence or poor education. I think he's suggesting that correlation alone is not enough to make that argument. Further study may well have shown a causative relationship.

---

Exactly. You do not know what he is saying. You can only assume or presume. That is why I said two words are a pitiful excuse for an argument. Mane (yep, I am imitating Meth...), Strike is like the Bible - he writes vague things and lets others insert their favoured conclusion/explanation - thus making everyone but me happy. Shoot, I envy his wisdom.

That's like a Republican countering a long speech by Obama on universal healthcare with two words 'high taxes'. Yeah, good point, but so what? Anyone, and I mean, anyone, can blurt out a cliché.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

It is amazing how atheism is the underdog which causes the theists to bark up the walls.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

que? i am confused.

---

As a belief system atheism has an extreme povety of adherents, and the recent increases are, rather like homosxuality, more to do with people being willing to finally come out of the closet than anything else.

AFAIK actually, areligious people form a very large group throughout the West...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

AFAIK actually, areligious people form a very large group throughout the West...

---

Not really, the 2005 poll: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Europe showed that only France and the Low Countries have large numbers of atheists, and even France polls less atheists than theists. The only countries that actually poll more atheists than theists were the Czech Republic and Estonia; both former Warsar Pact countries.

So....

No, atheists do not make up "a very large" proportion of the European population.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

As a belief system atheism has an extreme povety of adherents, and the recent increases are, rather like homosxuality, more to do with people being willing to finally come out of the closet than anything else.

---

Basically, atheists are demobilised and generally do not actively "presue their faith" as some one religious might do. Also in the same light, atheists are generally apathetic and simply shrug soldiers on the religious issue, and many of these just write down their faith as baptist/catholic/etc (in the UK at least) of where they were simply baptised expressing or acting on any belief they have themselves.

The "Rise in Atheism" is akin to people coming out of the closet when homosexual. Homosexuality was really a backdoor movement (no pun intended) untill people started to go on "Gaypride" marches in the street, freely shouting "I am gay!! I can say I am gay! I am free to be gay!!" as a liberating moment. The recent rises for atheism are mobilising elements such as Richard Dawkins "The God Delusion", this attracted those atheists to it as a beacon, and by-proxy giving them a voice.

This lead to a more vocal and overt atheist attitude in many areas. What used to be the threat to the church a decade or so ago was the rise of apathy, now combined with this, there is an overt atheist stance being formed. In areas such as the USA, which is typically far more religious than us European counter-parts, this lead to instances where you would find in religion threads (especially youtube videos) where atheists and theists clash over ideology and even before Dawkins, during the rise of accepted atheist as a mainstream stance, the church was actively attacking the position. I remember many arguments from my childhood where churches would actively say things like "Without God, they are nothing", "They will burn in hell", "etc

What is interesting development, also what some argue is a "resurgence of faith" is as we know, Science especially over the last 200 years has progressed a lot. There are many theories and explanations to a majority of things, one of the key ones is Darwin's Evolution theory. What is key about this, is that it directly attacks incidences such as the creation theory. Due to Mass Communication, we are also far more enlightened than our counterparts in that we know of and have access to many religious theories which in the past, were simply unknown or heard of, in a day and age where "everyone was christian, everyone goes to church, etc".

The "resurgence of faith" is due to polarisation of views due to emergence of atheism mainstream. instead of bracing concepts held by Science, or from other sources, a lot of christians have become far more radical in their beliefs, so instead of accepting and adapting, they did the opposite, they dismiss science as godless and evil, they go back to a fundamentalist state. They see it as a threat against religion, something to be crushed, destroyed, manulipatied, etc. This also has led to attack on atheism as a concept, opposed to just attacking "godless" as a whole, using many sources, such as the bible to back up their claim. This has also led to the increase in the normal of overt atheists, as always being supressed by the church, their increase in understanding of the world know that many of what these hard-line theists say is simply false. This is further increased due to the internet and due to where many backwards parts of the world have concepts such as 'atheism = illegal' and these increasingly joining in the fight against atheism.

As many statistics will agree with me, the number of theists outnumber the atheists (like this poll does, though I am surprised at the number of those who selected atheist). However, such as the London bus adverts which simply said "There's probably no God", "Please Don't Label Me" there was a huge outcry made about this from the theists. There was a very large outcry over the book "The God Delusion" by theists, etc (hence my earlier statement).

http://yfrog.com/1acardiffmerthyrroadj
http://yfrog.com/12dsc0019dmj

It hurt too much just to agree with me, didn't it Beskar?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

It hurt too much just to agree with me, didn't it Beskar?

---

Quite contrary. It must have hurt for you to agree with me, as I said it first. :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

No, atheists do not make up "a very large" proportion of the European population.

---

With theists like you mentioned, PVC, who needs atheists?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

Exactly. You do not know what he is saying. You can only assume or presume. That is why I said two words are a pitiful excuse for an argument. Mane (yep, I am imitating Meth...), Strike is like the Bible - he writes vague things and lets others insert their favoured conclusion/explanation - thus making everyone but me happy. Shoot, I envy his wisdom.

That's like a Republican countering a long speech by Obama on universal healthcare with two words 'high taxes'. Yeah, good point, but so what? Anyone, and I mean, anyone, can blurt out a cliché.

---

The part of my post you quoted was about SF (Seamus Fermanagh), not Strike. I conveyed what I 'think' he was saying, as you seemed to be assuming he was saying something else which seemed unwarranted to me. What Strike was saying was quite clear, no presumption necessary.

Ajax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

As a belief system atheism has an extreme povety of adherents

---

Atheism is not a belief system. It is the absense of a belief system.

I have no belief in common with other atheists, no more than you as a Christian share your belief with Scientology members, simply by virtue of not believing in Hindu god Shiva.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Atheism is not a belief system. It is the absense of a belief system.

I have no belief in common with other atheists, no more than you as a Christian share your belief with Scientology members, simply by virtue of not believing in Hindu god Shiva.

---

Louis, you are far too intelligent to believe this. Atheists in Europe are as homogenous as Christians; the details may be different but the core beliefs are the same. In common you have a distrust of religion and the religious, a belief in Reason and Science as being incompatable with theism, and a hyper-secular attitude to government.