|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 6, 2018 13:05:51 GMT
Pardon me for not counting the Royal Society of the UK lately having any accomplishments to show. It is the accomplishments and achievements of its members down the years that are the point, Arlon. The Society is just a convenient sampling source of the brightest and best scientists down the years and their religious thoughts. But I think you really know that is what is meant. I realise you feel obliged to make the two points above and belittle key institutions, but asserting that the members of both organisations are not, and have not been, largely speaking, illustrious in their own fields is just absurd. I see. Divorce is now a sign of intelligence and educational achievement. This 'fact' of yours might be used to argue that Christians are less educated and intelligent than other religious followers. I would not suggest that, of course. One would regularly expect those with the highest intelligence and educational achievement to have greater life-time earnings. (This is not necessarily the case in every instance though, obviously.) And as I have shown, in reference to your untrue generalisation, in the sciences at least, this would be atheists. I am not sure what this means, and it sadly sounds irrelevant since Christians and atheists are, er, different, and that difference is the point. Now you are just attacking the messenger, not the message. The case for intelligence vis-a-vis religious belief generally has just been linked to, so denying it without substantiating data is not very convincing. As mentioned already, the numbers of scientists without traditional belief, and the levels to which they often rise, has already been established. But thank you anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Mar 6, 2018 14:36:57 GMT
Pardon me for not counting the Royal Society of the UK lately having any accomplishments to show. It is the accomplishments and achievements of its members down the years that are the point, Arlon. The Society is just a convenient sampling source of the brightest and best scientists down the years and their religious thoughts. But I think you really know that is what is meant. With all due respect filmflaneur, I don’t think he does. I think you’re giving him too much credit there. The stupidity of his argument in entirety (and the degree to which it contradicts the facts) suggests that he is literally that stupid. Case in point!  Don’t worry. The reason you don’t know what he means there is because it’s nonsensical. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2018 17:00:12 GMT
Are you now seeking approval, because you are not so sure about your intelligence yourself? I'm seeking approval, but not here  . I have no doubts about my stance on any issue. You are an absolute poster boy for the Dunning-Kruger effect. Seriously, you should be on the wiki page for the DK effect as the lead image. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 7, 2018 1:48:08 GMT
A lack of belief in the deliberate supernatural is not contingent on a belief in human rights. Arlon appears to be mixing up atheists with humanists. Contrary views are, as always with Arlon's musings, quickly found: "Hardly any of the several-hundred Nobel Prize winning scientists have been Christians. Only 3.3% of the Members of the Royal Society in the UK and 7% the National Academy of Sciences in the USA, believe in a personal God. The more senior and learnéd the scientist, the less likely they are to believe in God. The children of highly religious parents suffer diminished IQs - averaging 7 to 10 points lower compared to their non-religious counterparts in similar socio-economic groups. As you would expect from these results, multiple studies have also shown that IQ is opposed to the strength of religious belief. 39 studies since 1927 (out of 43) have found that the more educated a person is, and the higher one's intelligence, the less likely someone is to hold religious beliefs - "religion declines in proportion to the rise in education and personal income". This correlation isn't new and was also observed in ancient Greece by Polybius (200-118BCE).." www.humanreligions.info/intelligence.html "A meta-analysis [has] found a negative correlation between intelligence quotient (IQ) and religiosity for western societies" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence . There is also a strong correlation between educational achievement and a slackening off of traditional religion, especially among scientists and researchers working in those fields most contradictory of creationist and fundamentalist thought. But we have been through all this already here, several times. Pardon me for not counting the Royal Society of the UK lately having any accomplishments to show. Nor do I count members of the National Academy of Sciences having accomplished anything except perhaps spending more on their education than it's worth and not necessarily even having any jobs. Although "Christians" might have higher divorce rates than atheists, no other religious group does. Although "Christians" might have lower incomes than atheists, no other religious group does. The pattern is no mystery. Christians are the "religious" group with the most in common with atheists. It is very obvious then from all the data that atheists and Christians who are no different from atheists are less intelligent, earn less money and have less secure marriages. Unlike you, I thoroughly understand that if lumberjacks gave the tests, lumberjacks would score higher on them. Even factoring that in there is no case for atheism having intelligent adherents. Atheist "scientists" are just military grunts who expect their views to be accepted on their authority and expect to take charge of more than they should. Both the Royal Society and NAS are made up of scientists who elect other scientists based on their accomplishments in the fields of science. But, then again, what would scientists know about science that Arlon doesn't know better? In fact, we should just appoint Arlon head of both (and the Nobel committee) since he knows more than all of them combined. AFAIK, you've never provided any evidence that other religious groups have lower divorce rates and incomes than atheists. You've just claimed it many times. This is basically just another example of Arlon's war on dictionaries. He doesn't like the results of studies showing atheists are more intelligent, have higher income, education level, etc., so he just discounts all of those poor-performing Christians as being no different than atheists. You've got to admire the chutzpah! Unlike you, I thoroughly understand that IQ tests are standardized and wouldn't matter a hill of beans who gave them. If lumberjacks devised a test in order to score people's lumberjacking ability, that would be a test lumberjacks would score high on, but it wouldn't be an IQ test. IQ tests involve things like analogies, pattern recognition, spatial reasoning, logic, etc. Doesn't matter whether an atheist or theist gives the test; either one has the intelligence to score well or they don't. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 7, 2018 8:11:14 GMT
1) Both the Royal Society and NAS are made up of scientists who elect other scientists based on their accomplishments in the fields of science. 2) He doesn't like the results of studies showing atheists are more intelligent, have higher income, education level, etc., so he just discounts 3) Unlike you, I thoroughly understand that IQ tests are standardized and wouldn't matter a hill of beans who gave them. 1) Who told you that? If you'll check more deeply you'll find "accomplishment" means agreeing with them. 2) Did you know you can simply search the internet for "divorce rate Jews," "income Jews," and "intelligence Jews"? 3) That proves what a pea brain you really are. |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Mar 7, 2018 8:58:38 GMT
Pardon me for not counting the Royal Society of the UK lately having any accomplishments to show. Nor do I count members of the National Academy of Sciences having accomplished anything except perhaps spending more on their education than it's worth and not necessarily even having any jobs. Although "Christians" might have higher divorce rates than atheists, no other religious group does. Although "Christians" might have lower incomes than atheists, no other religious group does. The pattern is no mystery. Christians are the "religious" group with the most in common with atheists. It is very obvious then from all the data that atheists and Christians who are no different from atheists are less intelligent, earn less money and have less secure marriages. Unlike you, I thoroughly understand that if lumberjacks gave the tests, lumberjacks would score higher on them. Even factoring that in there is no case for atheism having intelligent adherents. Atheist "scientists" are just military grunts who expect their views to be accepted on their authority and expect to take charge of more than they should. Both the Royal Society and NAS are made up of scientists who elect other scientists based on their accomplishments in the fields of science. But, then again, what would scientists know about science that Arlon doesn't know better? In fact, we should just appoint Arlon head of both (and the Nobel committee) since he knows more than all of them combined. AFAIK, you've never provided any evidence that other religious groups have lower divorce rates and incomes than atheists. You've just claimed it many times. This is basically just another example of Arlon's war on dictionaries. He doesn't like the results of studies showing atheists are more intelligent, have higher income, education level, etc., so he just discounts all of those poor-performing Christians as being no different than atheists. You've got to admire the chutzpah! Unlike you, I thoroughly understand that IQ tests are standardized and wouldn't matter a hill of beans who gave them. If lumberjacks devised a test in order to score people's lumberjacking ability, that would be a test lumberjacks would score high on, but it wouldn't be an IQ test. IQ tests involve things like analogies, pattern recognition, spatial reasoning, logic, etc. Doesn't matter whether an atheist or theist gives the test; either one has the intelligence to score well or they don't. To be fair, IQ tests measure one thing and one thing only: The ability to solve IQ tests. Whether they measure intelligence depends on the definition of intelligence. Also, trying to factor in stuff like income or marriage stability is tricky. Therr are plenty of factors in those that have nothing to do with intelligence. But then, it was Arlon who brought those up. Being called a pea brain by someone whose brain could be brought to pea size by inflating it should be taken as a compliment. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 7, 2018 11:17:47 GMT
Both the Royal Society and NAS are made up of scientists who elect other scientists based on their accomplishments in the fields of science. But, then again, what would scientists know about science that Arlon doesn't know better? In fact, we should just appoint Arlon head of both (and the Nobel committee) since he knows more than all of them combined. AFAIK, you've never provided any evidence that other religious groups have lower divorce rates and incomes than atheists. You've just claimed it many times. This is basically just another example of Arlon's war on dictionaries. He doesn't like the results of studies showing atheists are more intelligent, have higher income, education level, etc., so he just discounts all of those poor-performing Christians as being no different than atheists. You've got to admire the chutzpah! Unlike you, I thoroughly understand that IQ tests are standardized and wouldn't matter a hill of beans who gave them. If lumberjacks devised a test in order to score people's lumberjacking ability, that would be a test lumberjacks would score high on, but it wouldn't be an IQ test. IQ tests involve things like analogies, pattern recognition, spatial reasoning, logic, etc. Doesn't matter whether an atheist or theist gives the test; either one has the intelligence to score well or they don't. To be fair, IQ tests measure one thing and one thing only: The ability to solve IQ tests. Whether they measure intelligence depends on the definition of intelligence. Also, trying to factor in stuff like income or marriage stability is tricky. Therr are plenty of factors in those that have nothing to do with intelligence. But then, it was Arlon who brought those up. Being called a pea brain by someone whose brain could be brought to pea size by inflating it should be taken as a compliment. I don't believe anyone said higher divorce rates are a sign of lower intelligence necessarily. We were just discussing various differences between atheists, Christians, and people of other religions. So I agree with you that the interrelationship of the various differences can be more complicated. Lower intelligence might well be one small factor of several in higher divorce rates though. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 7, 2018 12:51:21 GMT
1) Both the Royal Society and NAS are made up of scientists who elect other scientists based on their accomplishments in the fields of science. 2) He doesn't like the results of studies showing atheists are more intelligent, have higher income, education level, etc., so he just discounts 3) Unlike you, I thoroughly understand that IQ tests are standardized and wouldn't matter a hill of beans who gave them. 1) Who told you that? If you'll check more deeply you'll find "accomplishment" means agreeing with them. 2) Did you know you can simply search the internet for "divorce rate Jews," "income Jews," and "intelligence Jews"? 3) That proves what a pea brain you really are. 1) Who told you that? If you'll check more deeply you'll find you're full of shit. 2) Did you know that when you make a claim the burden is on you to provide the evidence for the claim? 3) That proves your inability to counter a point. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 7, 2018 12:58:30 GMT
Both the Royal Society and NAS are made up of scientists who elect other scientists based on their accomplishments in the fields of science. But, then again, what would scientists know about science that Arlon doesn't know better? In fact, we should just appoint Arlon head of both (and the Nobel committee) since he knows more than all of them combined. AFAIK, you've never provided any evidence that other religious groups have lower divorce rates and incomes than atheists. You've just claimed it many times. This is basically just another example of Arlon's war on dictionaries. He doesn't like the results of studies showing atheists are more intelligent, have higher income, education level, etc., so he just discounts all of those poor-performing Christians as being no different than atheists. You've got to admire the chutzpah! Unlike you, I thoroughly understand that IQ tests are standardized and wouldn't matter a hill of beans who gave them. If lumberjacks devised a test in order to score people's lumberjacking ability, that would be a test lumberjacks would score high on, but it wouldn't be an IQ test. IQ tests involve things like analogies, pattern recognition, spatial reasoning, logic, etc. Doesn't matter whether an atheist or theist gives the test; either one has the intelligence to score well or they don't. To be fair, IQ tests measure one thing and one thing only: The ability to solve IQ tests. Whether they measure intelligence depends on the definition of intelligence. Also, trying to factor in stuff like income or marriage stability is tricky. Therr are plenty of factors in those that have nothing to do with intelligence. But then, it was Arlon who brought those up. Being called a pea brain by someone whose brain could be brought to pea size by inflating it should be taken as a compliment. I agree, but there's also the fact that IQ test scores are well correlated with things like education, income, even health/longevity. So whether or not they're measuring intelligence or not, they certainly seem to be measuring something that allows us to achieve things in life.  on the rest.  |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 7, 2018 13:21:10 GMT
1) Who told you [RAS has no significant accomplishments lately]? If you'll check more deeply you'll find you're full of shit. 2) Did you know that when you make a claim the burden is on you to provide the evidence for the claim? 3) That proves your inability to counter a point. 1) and 2) Interesting mix. 3) See 1) and 2) |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 7, 2018 13:41:14 GMT
1) Who told you [RAS has no significant accomplishments lately]. If you'll check more deeply you'll find you're full of shit. 2) Did you know that when you make a claim the burden is on you to provide the evidence for the claim? 3) That proves your inability to counter a point. 1) and 2) Interesting mix. 3) See 1) and 2) You parentheses is incorrect. The parentheses should be "RAS defines 'accomplishment' by those that agree with them," and since that was your claim, it's your burden to prove. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 7, 2018 13:56:02 GMT
1) and 2) Interesting mix. 3) See 1) and 2) You parentheses is incorrect. The parentheses should be "RAS defines 'accomplishment' by those that agree with them," and since that was your claim, it's your burden to prove. Either there are accomplishments or there are not. You are the one who sees them. It is on you to show us. This is different from my usual "status quo" definition, but I think you can deal with it. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 7, 2018 15:02:20 GMT
You parentheses is incorrect. The parentheses should be "RAS defines 'accomplishment' by those that agree with them," and since that was your claim, it's your burden to prove. Either there are accomplishments or there are not. You are the one who sees them. It is on you to show us. This is different from my usual "status quo" definition, but I think you can deal with it. I'm not a scientist or a member of the RAS or NAS; I didn't say I "saw" anything, I said that's what those academies do (or, at least, claim to do). If you're claiming they do differently, then the burden is on you to prove that, not the other way around. This is just another of your laughable attempts to convince people you know more about science than scientists. Besides, what possible "accomplishment" could I list that you couldn't just reject by redefining "accomplishment" as "something that impresses Arlon?" How about this: there are members in both that have won Nobel Prizes. Does the Nobel mean nothing, or do they only award it to scientists who agree with them? |
|
