NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/atheism/24399

Text File | 1992-12-28 | 4.0 KB | 104 lines

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Path: sparky!uunet!munnari.oz.au!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!lynx!nmsu.edu!charon!sdoe
From: [e-mail] (Stephen Doe)
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: New Mexico State University
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: world,public
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 19:30:34 GMT
Lines: 91

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Iikka Paavolainen) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Stephen Doe) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Iikka Paavolainen) writes:
>>>Am I seeing wrongly, or is there a connection between one's IQ and one's
>>>religiousness? Of all people I know, I know only about 8 exceptionally smart
>>>people (IQ>125), and all of them happen to be atheists. On the contrary, the
>>>dumbest people I've seen (eg. unable to use a remote control) are the most
>>>religious. Observing other atheists that I don't know (from this group for
>>>example) leads me to make a conclusion that on the average, atheists have a
>>>much better sense of logic (and thus usually have a higher IQ) and think much
>>>more clearly than religious people. From my own experiences, I can say that
>>>freeing oneself from the grasp of religion requires a certain level of logical
>>>thinking. Coincidentally, all these 8 people are mathematically gifted.
>>>When I speak of atheism here, I mean it to be a lack of belief in any god or
>>>superstition.
>>>Opinions?
>>>
>>>BTW, if this offended you, go to a church instead of coming to alt.atheism.
>>>--
>>> __/|_  ,  ,--------------------------------------------------------------,
>>>/o    \/:--| Iikka Paavolainen / [e-mail], in Espoo, Finland  |
>>>\__~__/\:--| "I won't have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."    |
>>>   `    `  `--------------------------------------------------------------'
>>
>>Ah, here's the first post in the series.  Well, old bean, in this
>>first post you didn't:
>>
>>tell us the size of your sample (later you say it's 1000)
>
>You really aren't so stupid that you think the sample was 8?? I don't know
>the sample myself, but as I stated, every person I've met.

Doesn't know size of sample.  Insulting opponent yet again.

>>
>>tell us how you prevented any bias from creeping into your
>>observations (oh, that's right, you're not biased at all.  Yeah,
>>right, give me a break)
>
>I'm not biased to anything. Just a matter of self-control.

Claims absence of bias.  Apparently no selection criteria, other than
random meetings.

>>
>>tell us how the sample was selected
>
>That is told in the post.

I. e., "people I've met."

>>
>>tell us how you determined degree of religiousness, and IQ, for the
>>1000 person sample you later refer to
>
>By talking to them and making observations.
>How else?

Did you give them all the same interview?  Did you administer IQ tests
to all of them?

>>
>>etc.
>>
>>Do you see what I am getting at now?
>>
>>At most, tentative observations like this should prompt us to see if
>>such a correlation exists.  In and of itself, this just doesn't cut it
>>as a "proof" of your correlation, not without a lot more to back it
>>up.  This isn't a bedtime story, you can't just make sweeping
>>generalizations on the basis of such flimsy evidence.  Ah, but I
>>forget, my emotional commitment to decent intellectual standards and
>>fairness have blinded me to the Gospel as propounded by Iikka
>>Paavolainen.
>
>If you look at the post, you see no "sweeping generalizations" or anything
>passed as a hard fact. Get real.

You made the connection between IQ and religiousness.  You have also
shown you have little to back up this assertion.

>>
>>It still seems to me that this correlation is just being used as a
>>convenient device to dismiss theists with the wave of a hand.  Ad
>>hominem all the way.
>
>Your personality has defined ad hominem very well.

Insults opponent yet again.

SD