Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

Atheist IQ stats

Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 11:10:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Atheists do not have higher IQs when society is evenly represented rather than represented only by students at secular academic institutions.

See here http://www.independent.co.uk... for more details.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 1:43:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/21/2014 11:10:28 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Atheists do not have higher IQs when society is evenly represented rather than represented only by students at secular academic institutions.

See here http://www.independent.co.uk... for more details.

Atheists are more intelligent than religious people? That's "sciencism" at its worst
This study exhibits more prejudice than worthwhile research.

Do you know how many times that has been pointed out to Beastty? Wanna take any bets that THIS time it'll be accepted that really, atheism doesn't magically make you transcend human reality?
lifemeansevolutionisgood
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 1:50:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/21/2014 11:10:28 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Atheists do not have higher IQs when society is evenly represented rather than represented only by students at secular academic institutions.

See here http://www.independent.co.uk... for more details.

How about providing peer reviewed journals when trying to talk about studies?
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 1:55:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/21/2014 1:50:57 PM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 8/21/2014 11:10:28 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Atheists do not have higher IQs when society is evenly represented rather than represented only by students at secular academic institutions.

See here http://www.independent.co.uk... for more details.

How about providing peer reviewed journals when trying to talk about studies?

Maybe you should read the article ... atheist ... wait, you are not an atheist, just taking their side again. IMMEDIATELY.
lifemeansevolutionisgood
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 1:57:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/21/2014 1:55:19 PM, neutral wrote:
At 8/21/2014 1:50:57 PM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 8/21/2014 11:10:28 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Atheists do not have higher IQs when society is evenly represented rather than represented only by students at secular academic institutions.

See here http://www.independent.co.uk... for more details.

How about providing peer reviewed journals when trying to talk about studies?

Maybe you should read the article ... atheist ... wait, you are not an atheist, just taking their side again. IMMEDIATELY.

Not an atheist, and I have not taken any side. I do not accept that atheists have a higher IQ, but that does not mean that I cannot ask for reliable evidence from theists. I also did read the article, and it doesn't really show anything.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 2:00:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/21/2014 1:57:44 PM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 8/21/2014 1:55:19 PM, neutral wrote:
At 8/21/2014 1:50:57 PM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 8/21/2014 11:10:28 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Atheists do not have higher IQs when society is evenly represented rather than represented only by students at secular academic institutions.

See here http://www.independent.co.uk... for more details.

How about providing peer reviewed journals when trying to talk about studies?

Maybe you should read the article ... atheist ... wait, you are not an atheist, just taking their side again. IMMEDIATELY.

Not an atheist, and I have not taken any side. I do not accept that atheists have a higher IQ, but that does not mean that I cannot ask for reliable evidence from theists. I also did read the article, and it doesn't really show anything.

Then, like I said, you should read the article which deal with the very demand you are making and how the process is ... bad science. Again, you didn't disagree with the article, you asked it to be a survey instead, when its an analysis of ... SURVEYS and the methodology used in those surveys ... PEER REVIEW. Both things you asked for.
Material_Girl
Posts: 264
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 2:01:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The statement that "atheists are smarter," is analogous to "theists are nicer," and just as coincidental if it is the case. IQ is total BS anyway - intelligence can't be measured in such a way because there are so, so many different forms of intelligence. Why do people have to quantify absolutely everything?
http://commissaress.wordpress.com...

Political Compass
Economic Left: -10.00
Social Libertarian: -7.13

Yes, I am an evil godless commie.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 2:22:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/21/2014 2:01:52 PM, Material_Girl wrote:
The statement that "atheists are smarter," is analogous to "theists are nicer," and just as coincidental if it is the case. IQ is total BS anyway - intelligence can't be measured in such a way because there are so, so many different forms of intelligence. Why do people have to quantify absolutely everything?

We're neurotic?
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 5:18:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
IQ scores shouldn't be equivocated with intelligence.

Studies linking religiousity with IQ scores are just that: a measure of IQ scores and religiosity. Intelligence is more multi-faceted than any IQ test could possibly measure. Perhaps the most important aspect of intelligence that IQ tests don't measure is critical thinking. IQ test are an "inside the box" testing method that generally utilize pattern recognition to determine the score. There's emotional intelligence, social intelligence, intuitive intelligence, common sense intelligence, book smart intelligence, creative and critical thinking intelligence, etc. etc. that these tests don't measure. It doesn't mean that those who believe in God don't do well on IQ tests anyway, I believe that God exists and my IQ (by a Mensa test) was measured at 138. I don't believe that on the grounds of an IQ test alone that it makes me a well-rounded intelligent person.

The implied conclusion is that those who have higher IQ scores are more likely to know a metaphysical truth (like God doesn't exist). This is faulty. The truth of whether God exists or not is independent of consensus. Even if you did appeal to those who have higher IQ scores to determine whether or not God exists, you would have to concede that those who have the highest scores of quantitatively measured intelligence - whose beliefs are currently known - believe in God. Christopher Langan and Kim Ung Yong are among those people (~200+ IQ)
Redspectre
Posts: 37
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 5:48:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Believing in something so radical doesnt make you smarter than everyone else ,it just makes you more ignorant
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 6:34:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/21/2014 5:18:38 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
IQ scores shouldn't be equivocated with intelligence.

Studies linking religiousity with IQ scores are just that: a measure of IQ scores and religiosity. Intelligence is more multi-faceted than any IQ test could possibly measure. Perhaps the most important aspect of intelligence that IQ tests don't measure is critical thinking. IQ test are an "inside the box" testing method that generally utilize pattern recognition to determine the score. There's emotional intelligence, social intelligence, intuitive intelligence, common sense intelligence, book smart intelligence, creative and critical thinking intelligence, etc. etc. that these tests don't measure. It doesn't mean that those who believe in God don't do well on IQ tests anyway, I believe that God exists and my IQ (by a Mensa test) was measured at 138. I don't believe that on the grounds of an IQ test alone that it makes me a well-rounded intelligent person.

The implied conclusion is that those who have higher IQ scores are more likely to know a metaphysical truth (like God doesn't exist). This is faulty. The truth of whether God exists or not is independent of consensus. Even if you did appeal to those who have higher IQ scores to determine whether or not God exists, you would have to concede that those who have the highest scores of quantitatively measured intelligence - whose beliefs are currently known - believe in God. Christopher Langan and Kim Ung Yong are among those people (~200+ IQ)

There is an inverse relationship between education level/IQ and belief in God. The higher the education level or IQ the more likely one is to disbelieve in a god. That is not the same as stating belief in God makes a person stupid, because obviously there are some very smart theists. Christopher Langan and Kim Ung Yong do not disprove the relationship between IQ and religiosity though. On average males are generally taller than females. The fact the some females are taller than some males does not make the statistic incorrect. It is the same with IQ and belief.

Btw, do you have a link to Kim Ung Hong and his religious beliefs? You've piqued my curiosity.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
irreverent_god
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 6:35:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/21/2014 1:55:19 PM, neutral wrote:
At 8/21/2014 1:50:57 PM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 8/21/2014 11:10:28 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Atheists do not have higher IQs when society is evenly represented rather than represented only by students at secular academic institutions.

See here http://www.independent.co.uk... for more details.

How about providing peer reviewed journals when trying to talk about studies?

Maybe you should read the article ... atheist ... wait, you are not an atheist, just taking their side again. IMMEDIATELY.

You won't watch a video, stating that it's a "waste of time," but you're all over this, immediately accept it as gospel truth (without ANY citation from the author), and immediately start quoting the article. Biased, much?

LOL
Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.
irreverent_god
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 6:39:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/21/2014 11:10:28 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Atheists do not have higher IQs when society is evenly represented rather than represented only by students at secular academic institutions.

See here http://www.independent.co.uk... for more details.

This was not a study. This was a critique OF a study... Nothing valid or substantial, here.
Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 8:28:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I have to say after reading the article, "that cinches it"!

Atheists definitely are more intelligent (on average), than theists. And the fact that a theist would post that article as evidence to the contrary is further only further substantiates the finding. Where in that article, did anyone see the claim that the data is faulty?

Where did it even say that the data is faulty? Where did it say that the conclusion was faulty? It didn't. It insinuated, it used loose, sloppy language to hint at the possibility of arriving at conclusions not fully consistent with actuality. And that's all it did.

The article does absolutely nothing to undermine the findings of "the research" - which is mostly established on the basis of intelligence data which was not gathered for the purpose of this study. Most of the data was gathered for schools, for comparisons across occupations, entrance exams, etc.

It was after the 63 studies (or the majority of them), had already produced the data, that the data was then analyzed in correlation to the religious (or non-religious) views of the test subjects. And the finding was (and IS), that in 53 of the 63 studies, the atheists demonstrated greater intellectual capability than theists.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
bulproof
Posts: 25,225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 10:27:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/21/2014 2:00:29 PM, neutral wrote:
SURVEYS and the methodology used in those surveys ... PEER REVIEW.

Look at what he thinks constitutes peer review.
Oh dear.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2014 3:40:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
What this shows is that theists are no better at reading articles than they are at reading the Bible. They don't read what is written. They read into what is written. Let's have a look at the article's best attempts to try to damage the finding of the research.

- "Atheists are more intelligent than religious people? That's "sciencism" at its worst"

It starts by slapping on a label; "sciencism", and then demonizing the label. Once the label is demonized, the article coasts on implied associations. (And the article never does show any flaw in the research.)

- "bears all the hallmarks of a rigorous scientific monograph"

Really? What "hallmarks"? The article doesn't say. Do these "hallmarks" actually indicate any flaw in the conclusion? None is mentioned.

- "the relationship between "research shows" and the truth is often as dodgy as that between the claim "God said" and what actually occurred"

It's "often as dodgy". But is there anything dodgy about the conclusion here? The author couldn't seem to find anything.

- "such studies are fraught with methodological difficulty"

And yet, not only has no one had ANY problem with the methodology which has been employed for ages, but the article itself can't seem to find any specific flaw in the methodology. The author is just batting at imaginary flies.

- "Intelligence itself is a contested concept"

Then why are theists so incensed to find themselves rated to have less of it?
So I guess it's safe to say there is no variation in cognitive ability between the mentally retarded child, and the ground-breaking particle physicist? Really? Talk about manufacturing ghosts to chase!

- "it is far from evident what is measured in these studies"

So methods of measuring intellect which have become fully accepted especially in the fields of education, are suddenly being questioned because they cast an unfavorable light on the religious, who comprise the vast majority. One can complain all they wish. There is a definite diversity of cognitive capability across the range of test subjects, and it does correlate with ability to understand new concepts, the ability to separate fact from fiction, and the ability to accurately develop new concepts correlating to observation.

- "meaning becomes lost if it becomes quantified and reduced to numbers"

And yet, numbers are a man-made concept, developed to help model and quantify reality. According to the statement from the article, it shouldn't matter to a theist if he is paid $0.25 per hour, or $250 per hour. Because once you reduce the pay to numbers, all the meaning is lost. So much for judging athletic capability through sports scores. Why care how much you weigh, or how high your serum cholesterol is, or be concerned about the numeric quantification of the tumor markers in your blood?

- "Any attempt to establish a causal relationship between personal belief and raw intelligence is likely to be an exercise in forced abstraction."

"Likely to be"? That's a nice vague comment. It doesn't require any substantiation. It's just an opinion, with nothing provided to indicate that the opinion is correct, or that it correlates with the research being addressed.

The belief that Earth is flat tells us nothing about the intellect of the believer?
The belief that all (name a race) are automatically inferior tells us nothing about the intelligence of the believer?
The belief that Elvis Presley is still alive doesn't give us any indication about the cognitive abilities of the believer?

- "because smart people spend more time in education and because high schools and especially universities tend to be secular institutions they will produce proportionally more atheists people than those who drop out."

So theists aren't less intelligent, they're just more likely to be drop-outs! Got it! And of course, because the educational facilities don't teach about God, they produce more atheists! Then again, they don't teach that there isn't a God either. So if you don't teach people that God exists, people will believe he doesn't.

- "Smart kids who don't go to university are more likely to retain their religious affiliation because they are expected to conform to different values. And secular researchers are likely to discover what they already suspect which is a co-relation between their values and high levels of intelligence."

So if an intelligent individual is brought up in a religious environment, and never escapes that environment, they are more likely to retain their religious beliefs than an equally intelligent person who does escape from that religious indoctrination. I think I can go along with that. But why are only "secular researchers" likely to discover what they already suspect?

- [Researchers] "suffer from a tendency to discover what they already suspect"

So if you lift your purse and it feels lighter than normal, you may begin to suspect that some substantial contents are missing. And in researching that suspicion, you are likely to find what you already suspected. Why is that a problem? That's why objective methodologies must be employed, and when they're not, the research doesn't pass peer-review. (This research did.)
I woke up to a cold house one day last winter. I suspected the furnace might have failed. And upon researching that suspicion, I found that the furnace had indeed, gone out. The technician who came to repair it found that that the electronic igniter system was no longer functioning, replaced it, and the furnace began to work properly again.
It makes good sense not to replace the igniter before confirming that the furnace isn't functioning. But there is nothing methodologically unsound about forming suspicions based on evidence, and objectively researching to confirm (or refute), those suspicions. But the article attempts to suggest that this methodology - which we all use regularly - is the equivalent of a witch hunt.

- "it is inevitable that the authority of science will be harnessed to prove the religious stupid"

As opposed to reading tea leaves to decide if there is a diversity of intellect between the religious and non-religious?
Perhaps we should use tarot cards?
Certainly there must be a better system than actually requesting that people demonstrate their most sincere cognitive capabilities, and then objectively grouping the outcome into categories... isn't that what this is saying?

No one has ever had any substantial problem with the methodologies of measuring intellect... until theists - the majority of the human race - are found to be inferior in this regard. Then suddenly it is declared that the entire system is evil, flawed, biased, false, prejudiced and wrong. And yet, there isn't a single objective or specific criticism to be leveled at the findings of the study. It is hinted that the methodology could be questioned. But no specific flaws to the methodology are mentioned. It's suggested that the researchers themselves are expressing their bias, and yet the methodology is shown to be objective and sound. The entire article is a witch hunt, despite not providing any indication that it even knows how to look for a witch.

- "The polemical use of science " called scientism- has nothing to with real science, which is the disinterested pursuit of the truth"

So it's not the methodology (which is sound and objective), but the nature of the valid and accurate conclusions, to show a variation in intellect, drawn on specific lines. So it wouldn't be "real science" to show flat-Earthers are wrong, because that would constitute "polemical use of science".
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2014 4:36:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/21/2014 6:34:45 PM, Skepticalone wrote:

There is an inverse relationship between education level/IQ and belief in God. The higher the education level or IQ the more likely one is to disbelieve in a god. That is not the same as stating belief in God makes a person stupid, because obviously there are some very smart theists. Christopher Langan and Kim Ung Yong do not disprove the relationship between IQ and religiosity though. On average males are generally taller than females. The fact the some females are taller than some males does not make the statistic incorrect. It is the same with IQ and belief.

Btw, do you have a link to Kim Ung Hong and his religious beliefs? You've piqued my curiosity.

Right, this claim is backed up by .... the faith of atheists that they are more intelligent automatically. The studies listed produced, even by atheist standards a less than 1% standard deviation - which is ... statistically negible and small enough in IQ to produce no meaninful difference in actual intelligence - i.e. - ite within the statistical margin of error - every time.

So what though? Its not about facts or statistics, its about ... arrogance.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2014 4:37:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/22/2014 3:40:58 AM, Beastt wrote:
What this shows is that theists are no better at reading articles than they are at reading the Bible. They don't read what is written. They read into what is written. Let's have a look at the article's best attempts to try to damage the finding of the research.


Case in point - cheery picking and partially quoting ... while accusing OTHERS of the deliberate mininterpretation. Gotcha.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2014 4:50:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/22/2014 4:37:49 AM, neutral wrote:
At 8/22/2014 3:40:58 AM, Beastt wrote:
What this shows is that theists are no better at reading articles than they are at reading the Bible. They don't read what is written. They read into what is written. Let's have a look at the article's best attempts to try to damage the finding of the research.


Case in point - cheery picking and partially quoting ... while accusing OTHERS of the deliberate mininterpretation. Gotcha.

There's nothing wrong with partial quoting as long as there is no intent of altering the context. So if you want to complain, then show where the quotations have been truncated to alter the meaning. That didn't happen. I intentionally clipped the most highly critical comments from the article - start to finish - to show that at their absolute worst, they had nothing at all damaging to say.

They're a collection of unsupported insinuations, innuendos, and assumptions with not a single concrete fault to present.

Of course if you had the intellect of an atheist, you'd have noticed that. (And you'd realize it's wrong to engage in slavery.)
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2014 9:49:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/22/2014 4:50:07 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/22/2014 4:37:49 AM, neutral wrote:
At 8/22/2014 3:40:58 AM, Beastt wrote:
What this shows is that theists are no better at reading articles than they are at reading the Bible. They don't read what is written. They read into what is written. Let's have a look at the article's best attempts to try to damage the finding of the research.


Case in point - cheery picking and partially quoting ... while accusing OTHERS of the deliberate mininterpretation. Gotcha.

There's nothing wrong with partial quoting as long as there is no intent of altering the context.

That is pretty much what partial quoting does and what you did Beastt - while accusing others of 'reading into' something. Its why partial quoting is strongly frowned upon in the academic community. Not, however, by atheists.
bulproof
Posts: 25,225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2014 9:51:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
It's nice to see the lowest 1% getting involved.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2014 9:56:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/22/2014 9:51:21 AM, bulproof wrote:
It's nice to see the lowest 1% getting involved.

Every time you show up ... you don;t have to advertise it though troll.

The lowest 1% is here ... MEEE TROLL BOY!!!!! Look I have a cape and all! YEAH ATHEISM!!!

Lets begin ... crap pours out of mouth.
bulproof
Posts: 25,225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2014 9:58:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/22/2014 9:56:55 AM, neutral wrote:
At 8/22/2014 9:51:21 AM, bulproof wrote:
It's nice to see the lowest 1% getting involved.

Every time you show up ... you don;t have to advertise it though troll.

The lowest 1% is here ... MEEE TROLL BOY!!!!! Look I have a cape and all! YEAH ATHEISM!!!

Lets begin ... crap pours out of mouth.

It's nice to see the lowest 1% getting involved.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2014 10:01:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/22/2014 9:58:58 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/22/2014 9:56:55 AM, neutral wrote:
At 8/22/2014 9:51:21 AM, bulproof wrote:
It's nice to see the lowest 1% getting involved.

Every time you show up ... you don;t have to advertise it though troll.

The lowest 1% is here ... MEEE TROLL BOY!!!!! Look I have a cape and all! YEAH ATHEISM!!!

Lets begin ... crap pours out of mouth.

It's nice to see the lowest 1% getting involved.

If you wish to advertise your stupidity, your ability to troll, inability to tell funny joke, and basic rapcious and abusive attitude - by my guest troll.

You make atheists look so dern intelligent.

Please atheists, continue to turn a blind eye. Allow him to hijack your image.
bulproof
Posts: 25,225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2014 10:16:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
After being told millions of times, the object of my ridicule is still trying to claim that it is intelligent by using the word "dern" Go you hillbilly.

Sorry little newt, you are a fukwit regardless of your pathetic self opinion. hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin