From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Date: 27 Dec 92 16:28:21 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Iikka Paavolainen (iikkap@mits.mdata.fi) wrote:
: In article <1992Dec26.152251.12274@jcnpc.cmhnet.org> mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mi
ke A. McAngus) writes:
: >Iikka Paavolainen (iikkap@mits.mdata.fi) wrote:
: >: If you find an increasing number of atheists the higher you go in logical
: >: intelligence, I think that is much more proof than you can show.
: >
: >People tend to associate with others who share their values and outlook. So
: >Stephen Doe is correct, your anecdotal experiences are not statistically
: >significant.
:
: Yes, do tend to associate with people like me, intelligent people, and my bes
t
: friends "happen" to be atheists. Some were previously strictly of Hindu faith
,
: but when I showed them the pure logic of things concerning religion, they
: converted to atheism quite fast. It was just a question of realizing the
: situation.

This is still statistically insignificant, anecdotal evidence.

:
: >
: >:
: >: >influential people in Christian history (Luther, Calvin, Wesley etc.)
: >: >were *very* intelligent.  In fact, I would think that the intelligent
: >:
: >: Proof?
: >: How about aspects of personality such as courage, sacrifice and valour?
: >
: >Of what is this a proof?
:
: Why not answer the question instead of evading the point?

Sorry, I thought this was a rhetorical question related to your sentence 
"Proof?" above.
Now I will say that, given the context, I don't understand what you are asking.
What is the point I'm evading?

:
: >
: >:
: >: >believer, internalizing the psychological ploys that biblical belief
: >: >boils down to, will suffer *more* than the rank and file believer, and
: >: >will be more firmly enmeshed in the biblical scheme.
: >: >
: >: >I have yet to see a satisfactory definition of intelligence, one that
: >: >doesn't boil down to how well one does on some arbitrary intelligence
: >: >test.
: >:
: >: Nobody was talking about the whole definition of intelligence, just the
: >: logical and abstract thinking part, which is easy to measure.
: >
: >Where is your statistical study of this area of intelligence?
:
: On my desk.

Could you post the results and email a copy to me?

:
: >
: >:
: >: >
: >: >It isn't illogical to presuppose a supernatural realm, unperceived by
: >: >our senses, any more than it is illogical to suppose that the Many
: >: >Worlds Hypothesis is a reasonable interpretation of quantum mechanics;
: >: >it's just that such speculations are far-fetched.  They have the
: >: >virtue (from the believer's perpsective) of being non-disprovable.
: >:
: >: Illogical? In absence of evidence it seems more like fantasizing.
: >: Of course one believes what one has most rational (this is where logical
: >: intelligence comes in) proof of. In an environment where Christianity
: >: has a stranglehold, other proof is basically unavailable. Thus, he/she
: >: will most likely become a Christian (correlation applies).
: >
: >I think you are begging the question here.
:
: You don't sound very convincing. Try reading my statement again.

The question is, are atheists more intelligent, in general, than Xians?  You 
say that their belief "seems more like fantasizing", but this is your belief.  
Given that Mr. Doe and I are arguing that your personal experiences are not 
significant, pointing to your belief and saying that Xians will suppress 
evidence is begging the question.

:
: >
: >: >
: >: >I become very uneasy when I see people say "Oh the religious are
: >: >dumber (or smarter) than others on average."  It can too easily
: >: >degenerate into an ad hominem attack, in which one dismisses beliefs
: >: >one disagrees with because one believes one's opponent lacks
: >: >intelligence.  Being intelligent is no guarantee that one is right.
: >:
: >: Then what is? And what is intelligence then?
: >
: >There are no guarantees.  Who knows, at very great distances from Sol (i.e.
: >many millenia in the past) the laws of physics may be different from what we

: >observe here.  We act as if physics is consistent in the observable universe

: >but we have no guarantees, regardless of our rationality.  Again, I think
: >Stephen Doe is correct, this whole thread is a series of ad hominem argument
s.
:
: People tend to believe what they have most proof of. Intelligence is used to
: deduce which of the options is the 'most' correct.

Intelligence is used to decide which option is most workable.  Utility and 
Truth are not necessarily synonymous.

:
: >
: >: When you talk of these kinds of things, try to be indifferent. You seem so
: >: emotionally attached (see message you replied to) to Christianity.
: >
: >And you're not emotionally wedded to the notion that athiests are more
: >intelligent (since I'm an atheist I should feel complimented, but I think yo
ur
: >argument is pointless without proper study).
:
: And the stuff in the Bible is pointless without proper study. Gotcha.

I'll also ask the Xians for proof of their assertions.  When the Xians state 
that god exists, we in this group ask for corroboration independent of their 
holy texts.  When you state that Atheists are more intelligent than Xians, it
is reasonable for people to ask you for corroboration independent of your
circle of friends.
-- 
Mike McAngus 			 | As if I needed Another time consuming hobby.
(mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org)		 | 
The Truth is still the Truth	 | This Post exploits illiterates.
Even if you choose to ignore it. |