NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/atheism/24466

Text File | 1992-12-29 | 5.5 KB | 130 lines

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!fuug!prime!mits!iikkap
From: [e-mail] (Iikka Paavolainen)
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Organization: Microdata Oy, Helsinki, Finland
Distribution: world,public
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 14:11:14 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Usenet poster)
Nntp-Posting-Host: mits.mdata.fi
Lines: 116

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Joe Beiter) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Iikka Paavolainen) writes:
>>>
>>>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 best
>>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.
>
>Still rather weak support of your 'study'.  I've not seen anything of your
>so-called study but these threads but I would be suspicious of the nature of
>your "abstract thinking" test questions.  Like the other gentleman pointed out,

I don't have a study I've made. And this is not a debate/argument.
You can't have one unless you've made a thesis, can you?

>most people tend to associate with like minded people.  This is not the case
>on this newsgroup.  I've seen very good arguments (and stupid ones) from the
>'religion' camp here as well as good arguments (and just as stupid) ones
>from the atheists.
>
>Just to comment on your argument (and topic), I've consistantly found those that
>need to point out how intelligent they are never are.

Yes, well intelligence is hard to point out, as nobody can take it that they
are dumber than anybody else. Probably because it's used as an insult so often.

>
>>>Where is your statistical study of this area of intelligence?
>>
>>On my desk.
>
>(I thought it was a self proclaimed Einstein here rather than computer)
>
>Tell me, does it take much abstract thought to conclude that prehaps a sample
>of your questions, control group examples, and data might prehaps be helpful?
>
>If you did already, I apologize and would like a copy if you have one and its
>not a bother.

See above.

>
>>>: 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).
>
>You obviously don't live in the States.  I'd hardly call a country where
>they aren't currently killing Christians as being under a religious
>stranglehold.
>If reality were as you claim then why is it that homosexuality, fornication,
>divorce, idolitry, and blasphemey aren't against the law (like it is in
>Islamic countries)?

By stranglehold I mean that nearly everyone is a believer and no one else
to go to for other opinions.

>
>I further rarely see examples of your scenerio.  Most of the people that I've
>seen in my life time tend to rebel against their environment.  I've also
>known people that have grown up in Christian families with plenty of
>"other proof" and have rejected it as faulty.
>
>>
>>People tend to believe what they have most proof of. Intelligence is used to
>>deduce which of the options is the 'most' correct.
>
>So if the proof is insufficiant then their intelligence has little bearing on
>their grip on reality.  You do not have sufficiant proof that there is no
>God so I find your intelligence (or lack of) has little bearing on the valid-
>ity of any religion (much less Jesus Christ).
>
>I know a few atheists and do not consider them stupid but do not consider them
>very intelligent either (having nothing to do with their religious opinions).

Seems that Stephen Doe has done us all a favor by warping the subject very
badly. Here are the facts:

1) I have NOT made any theses or hard statements, thus I am indifferent
2) This was meant as a poll for opinions, NOT an argument
3) I can believe that some people are offended, but then say what your
opinion is, DON'T flame me.


>
>>--
>> __/|_  ,  ,--------------------------------------------------------------,
>>/o    \/:--| Iikka Paavolainen / [e-mail], in Espoo, Finland  |
>>\__~__/\:--| "I won't have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."    |
>>   `    `  `--------------------------------------------------------------'
>
>pssst! Your ego is hanging out all over the place.

As is your attitude.

>
>
>
>--
>|-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|
>|[e-mail]               The Long Island Network Project   |
>|The Courts of Chaos Semi-Public Access   Long Island New York: USA         |
>|-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|


--
 __/|_  ,  ,--------------------------------------------------------------,
/o    \/:--| Iikka Paavolainen / [e-mail], in Espoo, Finland  |
\__~__/\:--| "I won't have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."    |
   `    `  `--------------------------------------------------------------'