Atheist IQ vs Theist IQ
Dr Sinister
<37AF5BA2.8458DD23@spam_is_really_really_lame.geocities.com>:
[snip]
>You do know that atheists are in
>general smarter than theists, right?
Can you cite some references for this assertion?
--
"I need trepanning like I need a hole in the head" - Arnold Toynbee
ath...@home.com
wrote:
>Cabrutus <locratz@spam_is_really_really_lame.geocities.com> wrote in
><37AF5BA2.8458DD23@spam_is_really_really_lame.geocities.com>:
>
>[snip]
>
>>You do know that atheists are in
>>general smarter than theists, right?
>
>Can you cite some references for this assertion?
Of course...
alt. atheism :-)
Hoyer
Dr Sinister <drsin...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8E24A03D...@news.globalserve.net...
> Cabrutus <locratz@spam_is_really_really_lame.geocities.com> wrote in
> <37AF5BA2.8458DD23@spam_is_really_really_lame.geocities.com>:
>
> [snip]
>
> >You do know that atheists are in
> >general smarter than theists, right?
>
> Can you cite some references for this assertion?
http://www.holysmoke.org/skeptic-tank/iq_relig.htm
Craig Hoyer a.a#821
just the facts, ma'am
RobRPM2222
sharks-that-are-hungry/iq_andmyanus.htm
>
HA HA HE USED MENSA DATA HA HA NOW WE CAN MAKE FUN OF HIM!
And, BTW, when did IQ become a _real_ measure of intelligence? If it is, then
black people must be stupider than whites. Are you willing to support that
statement? I'm sure not.
IQ and SAT's ( which are the most pathetic test to get into college that I've
ever seen, and are not directly related to intelligence, rather they are a
so-called measure of college aptitude ) basically measure just how much of a
monkey you are. Observe the people in the Mensa groups.
Please, if you must sit around and just feel smug that you're so smart, take it
to rec.assholes.mensa.
Rob Meyer
Student, Georgia Tech
"Witty quotes mean nothing"- Voltaire
" Can't you see....
McDonald's is the enemy!
Can't you see....
They'se in cahoots with Walt Disney!
It's an alien conspiracy,
Mm Mm Messin' with me! "
Dr Sinister
>On 16 Aug 1999 18:45:10 GMT, Dr Sinister <drsin...@my-deja.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Cabrutus <locratz@spam_is_really_really_lame.geocities.com> wrote in
>><37AF5BA2.8458DD23@spam_is_really_really_lame.geocities.com>:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>You do know that atheists are in
>>>general smarter than theists, right?
>>
>>Can you cite some references for this assertion?
>
>Of course...
>alt. atheism :-)
Let's consider a more well documented group: Mensa.
Look at it this way. If you studied 50 mensa theists and 50 mensa
atheists, would you find that, on average, the mensa-atheists are
mentally superior to the mensa-theists?
--
"What Gauss did is rather nonsequitur."
- Jeff Candy(alt.atheism) commenting on classical constructions.
Jim F
>
> ath...@home.com wrote in <37b8646e.684929167@news-server>:
>
> >On 16 Aug 1999 18:45:10 GMT, Dr Sinister <drsin...@my-deja.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>Cabrutus <locratz@spam_is_really_really_lame.geocities.com> wrote in
> >><37AF5BA2.8458DD23@spam_is_really_really_lame.geocities.com>:
> >>
> >>[snip]
> >>
> >>>You do know that atheists are in
> >>>general smarter than theists, right?
> >>
> >>Can you cite some references for this assertion?
> >
> >Of course...
> >alt. atheism :-)
>
> Let's consider a more well documented group: Mensa.
>
> Look at it this way. If you studied 50 mensa theists and 50 mensa
> atheists, would you find that, on average, the mensa-atheists are
> mentally superior to the mensa-theists?
I would think that the more interesting and relevent question would
be whether atheists are disprortionately represented in Mensa in
comparison with the general population.
Jim F.
Dr Sinister
>Dr Sinister wrote:
>>
>> ath...@home.com wrote in <37b8646e.684929167@news-server>:
>>
>> >On 16 Aug 1999 18:45:10 GMT, Dr Sinister <drsin...@my-deja.com>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>Cabrutus <locratz@spam_is_really_really_lame.geocities.com> wrote in
>> >><37AF5BA2.8458DD23@spam_is_really_really_lame.geocities.com>:
>> >>
>> >>[snip]
>> >>
>> >>>You do know that atheists are in
>> >>>general smarter than theists, right?
>> >>
>> >>Can you cite some references for this assertion?
>> >
>> >Of course...
>> >alt. atheism :-)
>>
>> Let's consider a more well documented group: Mensa.
>>
>> Look at it this way. If you studied 50 mensa theists and 50 mensa
>> atheists, would you find that, on average, the mensa-atheists are
>> mentally superior to the mensa-theists?
>
>I would think that the more interesting and relevent question would
>be whether atheists are disprortionately represented in Mensa in
>comparison with the general population.
>
> Jim F.
Yes, certainly a good question.
Now. Let's consider, for the moment, that intelligence is primarily,
genetic in nature. That is, one's genes determines one's ultimate
intellectual capacity. Coupled with Cabrutus's assertion that atheists
have superior intellects, this would imply the possible existence of a
cause-effect relationship between one's genetics and one's theological
memetic infestations.
Based on this, one can now classify humanity into the following
categories:
1) theist, non-mensa: the usual barely-sentient inferior beings.
2) atheist, non-mensa: beings intelligent enough to serve as housepets
for categories 3 & 4.
3) theist, mensa: Intelligent beings who will never quite attain
their full potential.
4) atheist, mensa: Nietzschean supermen.
There is a fifth category, albeit a rare one: non-atheist, non-theist,
mensa. These demigods are rare, with IQ's typically in the 200+ range.
Most of caregory-5 individuals can't be bothered posting to Usenet, but
there are exceptions. Some have even been seen in, oh, say, alt.atheism.
--
"What Gauss did is rather nonsequitur."
- Jeff Candy (alt.atheism) commenting on straightedge/compass
constructions.
John Gilmer
> <37AF5BA2.8458DD23@spam_is_really_really_lame.geocities.com>:
>
> [snip]
>
> >You do know that atheists are in
> >general smarter than theists, right?
>
> Can you cite some references for this assertion?
Wait a minute! Stop the presses! You can exchange eternal life for 2 IQ
points. What a bargain! I mean, who REALLY wants to live forever?
JLG
ath...@home.com
wrote:
>ath...@home.com wrote in <37b8646e.684929167@news-server>:
>
>>On 16 Aug 1999 18:45:10 GMT, Dr Sinister <drsin...@my-deja.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Cabrutus <locratz@spam_is_really_really_lame.geocities.com> wrote in
>>><37AF5BA2.8458DD23@spam_is_really_really_lame.geocities.com>:
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>>You do know that atheists are in
>>>>general smarter than theists, right?
>>>
>>>Can you cite some references for this assertion?
>>
>>Of course...
>>alt. atheism :-)
>
>Let's consider a more well documented group: Mensa.
>
>Look at it this way. If you studied 50 mensa theists and 50 mensa
>atheists, would you find that, on average, the mensa-atheists are
>mentally superior to the mensa-theists?
I don't know. What would be the point of such a study?
It would seem to me that once a human reaches the point that logic and
reason determine his beliefs the I.Q. wouldn't matter in questions
relating to god belief. In other words it doesn't take a genius to
decide the bible is full of holes but the courage and willingness to
admit it. There are also many social factors involved that are not
related to I.Q.
>--
>"What Gauss did is rather nonsequitur."
Electro
>From: Dr Sinister drsin...@my-deja.com
>Date: Tue, 17 August 1999 07:16 AM EDT
>Message-id: <8E2551BA...@news.globalserve.net>
>>>
>>> ath...@home.com wrote in <37b8646e.684929167@news-server>:
>>>
>>> >On 16 Aug 1999 18:45:10 GMT, Dr Sinister <drsin...@my-deja.com>
>>> >wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>Cabrutus <locratz@spam_is_really_really_lame.geocities.com> wrote in
>>> >><37AF5BA2.8458DD23@spam_is_really_really_lame.geocities.com>:
>>> >>
>>> >>[snip]
>>> >>
>>> >>>You do know that atheists are in
>>> >>>general smarter than theists, right?
>>> >>
>>> >>Can you cite some references for this assertion?
>>> >
>>> >Of course...
>>> >alt. atheism :-)
>>>
>>> Let's consider a more well documented group: Mensa.
>>>
>>> Look at it this way. If you studied 50 mensa theists and 50 mensa
>>> atheists, would you find that, on average, the mensa-atheists are
>>> mentally superior to the mensa-theists?
>>
>>be whether atheists are disprortionately represented in Mensa in
>>comparison with the general population.
>>
>> Jim F.
>
>Yes, certainly a good question.
>
>Now. Let's consider, for the moment, that intelligence is primarily,
>genetic in nature. That is, one's genes determines one's ultimate
>intellectual capacity. Coupled with Cabrutus's assertion that atheists
>have superior intellects, this would imply the possible existence of a
>cause-effect relationship between one's genetics and one's theological
>memetic infestations.
>
>Based on this, one can now classify humanity into the following
>categories:
>
>1) theist, non-mensa: the usual barely-sentient inferior beings.
>
>2) atheist, non-mensa: beings intelligent enough to serve as housepets
> for categories 3 & 4.
>
>3) theist, mensa: Intelligent beings who will never quite attain
> their full potential.
>
>4) atheist, mensa: Nietzschean supermen.
>
>There is a fifth category, albeit a rare one: non-atheist, non-theist,
>mensa. These demigods are rare, with IQ's typically in the 200+ range.
>Most of caregory-5 individuals can't be bothered posting to Usenet, but
>there are exceptions. Some have even been seen in, oh, say, alt.atheism.
>
What about category 6? People eligible for MENSA membership who think the 45
bucks a year could be better spent on something pertinent to existence, like
say, food?
Electro
Theism - (noun) - the ill effect of habitual excess in tea drinking.
[from Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary]
M. Otis Beard
Dr Sinister wrote in message <8E2551BA...@news.globalserve.net>...
>
>Based on this, one can now classify humanity into the following
>categories:
>
>1) theist, non-mensa: the usual barely-sentient inferior beings.
>
>2) atheist, non-mensa: beings intelligent enough to serve as housepets
> for categories 3 & 4.
Housepets? YM "slaves and human toilets". HTH!
-M. Otis Beard
Dr Sinister
<19990817171342...@ng-ft1.aol.com>:
[snip]
>What about category 6? People eligible for MENSA membership who think
>the 45 bucks a year could be better spent on something pertinent to
>existence, like say, food?
>
>
>Electro
I was saving category 6 for the obvious 'non-theist, non-atheist,
non-mensa'.
--
Atheism is the opiate of the masses - Groucho Marx
bobp...@concentric.net
Dr Sinister <drsin...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8E25BD77...@news.globalserve.net...
Aaron I. Spielman
> Dr Sinister wrote:
> >
> > ath...@home.com wrote in <37b8646e.684929167@news-server>:
> >
> > >On 16 Aug 1999 18:45:10 GMT, Dr Sinister <drsin...@my-deja.com>
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > >>Cabrutus <locratz@spam_is_really_really_lame.geocities.com> wrote in
> > >><37AF5BA2.8458DD23@spam_is_really_really_lame.geocities.com>:
> > >>
> > >>[snip]
> > >>
> > >>>You do know that atheists are in
> > >>>general smarter than theists, right?
> > >>
> > >>Can you cite some references for this assertion?
> > >
> > >Of course...
> > >alt. atheism :-)
> >
> > Let's consider a more well documented group: Mensa.
> >
> > Look at it this way. If you studied 50 mensa theists and 50 mensa
> > atheists, would you find that, on average, the mensa-atheists are
> > mentally superior to the mensa-theists?
>
> I would think that the more interesting and relevent question would
> be whether atheists are disprortionately represented in Mensa in
> comparison with the general population.
Jim, I recall that there were many more atheists in Mensa than theists,
at least in the L.A. area, back when I was an active member (1988-89).
--
Aaron I. Spielman | Atheist #1467 | "The good die young - because they
aa...@rockethouse.net | Cussard #.357 | see it's no use living if you've
www.rockethouse.net | BAAWA Knight! | got to be good."
Official Lunatic Biker of the EAC | ---John Barrymore
Aaron I. Spielman
> On 17 Aug 1999 09:26:24 GMT, Dr Sinister <drsin...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> >ath...@home.com wrote in <37b8646e.684929167@news-server>:
> >
> >>On 16 Aug 1999 18:45:10 GMT, Dr Sinister <drsin...@my-deja.com>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>>Cabrutus <locratz@spam_is_really_really_lame.geocities.com> wrote in
> >>><37AF5BA2.8458DD23@spam_is_really_really_lame.geocities.com>:
> >>>
> >>>[snip]
> >>>
> >>>>You do know that atheists are in
> >>>>general smarter than theists, right?
> >>>
> >>>Can you cite some references for this assertion?
> >>
> >>Of course...
> >>alt. atheism :-)
> >
> >Let's consider a more well documented group: Mensa.
> >
> >Look at it this way. If you studied 50 mensa theists and 50 mensa
> >atheists, would you find that, on average, the mensa-atheists are
> >mentally superior to the mensa-theists?
>
> I don't know. What would be the point of such a study?
> It would seem to me that once a human reaches the point that logic and
> reason determine his beliefs the I.Q. wouldn't matter in questions
> relating to god belief. In other words it doesn't take a genius to
> decide the bible is full of holes but the courage and willingness to
> admit it. There are also many social factors involved that are not
> related to I.Q.
And IQ is overratted as a measurement in any case. It means _nothing_ in
any ral sense.
Aaron I. Spielman
<snip>
> > comparison with the general population.
> >
> > Jim, I recall that there were many more atheists in Mensa than theists,
> > at least in the L.A. area, back when I was an active member (1988-89).
>
> Resembling that remark, the local Mensa chapter boasts several of
> each. Me.. I follow something Kant said (I think)
>
> If you believe in god and god does not exist then heaven or hell does not
> matter
> If you don't believe in god and god does exist then your screwed.
> QED better to believe and be wrong then not and be screwed.
>
> Or something like that. Although it was probably censored for the text book
> version.
Pascal's Wager. **YAWN**. Been there, refuted that. It's possibly the
single _worst_ reason to believe that you could have:
What if you're half-right - and the OneTrueGod(tm) is Allah? Or worse
(for you) Wotan? Or any other of the thousands of gods out there.
Also, do you think it possible that a god that's supposedly omniscient
would be able to tell that your belief isn't real, but a way of avoiding
possible unpleasantness? Far better to disbelieve in something that has
not shown a single shred of physical evidence for existing, than to
believe out of fear.
dotcom
>
> Aaron I. Spielman <it's.in.t...@the.end.of.the.post>
> > > >
> > > > ath...@home.com wrote in <37b8646e.684929167@news-server>:
> > > >
> > > > >On 16 Aug 1999 18:45:10 GMT, Dr Sinister <drsin...@my-deja.com>
> > > > >wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >>Cabrutus <locratz@spam_is_really_really_lame.geocities.com> wrote in
> > > > >><37AF5BA2.8458DD23@spam_is_really_really_lame.geocities.com>:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>[snip]
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>You do know that atheists are in
> > > > >>>general smarter than theists, right?
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Can you cite some references for this assertion?
> > > > >
> > > > >Of course...
> > > > >alt. atheism :-)
> > > >
> > > > Let's consider a more well documented group: Mensa.
> > > >
> > > > Look at it this way. If you studied 50 mensa theists and 50 mensa
> > > > atheists, would you find that, on average, the mensa-atheists are
> > > > mentally superior to the mensa-theists?
> > >
> > > be whether atheists are disprortionately represented in Mensa in
> >
> > Jim, I recall that there were many more atheists in Mensa than theists,
> > at least in the L.A. area, back when I was an active member (1988-89).
>
> Resembling that remark, the local Mensa chapter boasts several of
> each. Me.. I follow something Kant said (I think)
>
> If you believe in god and god does not exist then heaven or hell does not
> matter
> If you don't believe in god and god does exist then your screwed.
> QED better to believe and be wrong then not and be screwed.
>
> Or something like that. Although it was probably censored for the text book
> version.
And I always thought that someone smart enough to be in Mensa would be
smart enough to figure out the flaws in Pascal's Wager on their own. Of
course, I used to believe in god, too. Two things I was wrong about.
A day you learn something new can not be a totally wasted day.
dotcom, off...
yes, I am an atheist, and no, I don't want to hear about jeeezus
There is no god worth our worship.
Martin Schlottmann
Aaron I. Spielman
> And I always thought that someone smart enough to be in Mensa would be
> smart enough to figure out the flaws in Pascal's Wager on their own. Of
> course, I used to believe in god, too. Two things I was wrong about.
Naah. Mensans = people who score really well on a variety of tests /
people willing to shell out $ in return for mambership bennies (such as
they are).
I knew a lot of interesting people in the LA & San Diego groups, but I met
a lot of serious losers, too.
Just like any other social grouping. Except for the EAC. Of course, it
would hardly count, as it doesn't exist.
> A day you learn something new can not be a totally wasted day.
Yup.
Michelle Malkin
wrote:
And, once again Pascal's Wager rears its ugly head.
>
>Or something like that. Although it was probably censored for the text book
>version.
>
>
>:) Mr Happyguy (:
>
>Beer might kill brain cells
>but it only kills the weak ones.
>
Michelle Malkin (Mickey)
raven1
Try Blaise Pascal. It's commonly known as Pascal's Wager, and has been
refuted to death.
>
> If you believe in god and god does not exist then heaven or hell does not
>matter
> If you don't believe in god and god does exist then your screwed.
> QED better to believe and be wrong then not and be screwed.
Of course, that assumes you choose the right God, or that God isn't
arbitrary, or that God won't punish you more for being a hypocrite,
etc.
raven1
>On 16 Aug 1999 18:45:10 GMT, Dr Sinister <drsin...@my-deja.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Cabrutus <locratz@spam_is_really_really_lame.geocities.com> wrote in
>><37AF5BA2.8458DD23@spam_is_really_really_lame.geocities.com>:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>You do know that atheists are in
>>>general smarter than theists, right?
>>
>>Can you cite some references for this assertion?
>
>Of course...
>alt. atheism :-)
From an aa post by Michael Kutzen:
Paraphrased and summarized from The Effect of Intelligence on
Religious
Faith, Burnham P. Beckwith, Free Inquiry, Spring 1986:
1. Thomas Howells, 1927
Study of 461 students showed religiously conversative students "are,
in
general, relatively inferior in intellectual ability."
2. Hilding Carlsojn, 1933
Study of 215 students showed that "there is a tendency for the more
intelligent undergraduate to be sympathetic toward ... atheism."
3. Abraham Franzblau, 1934
Confirming Howells and Carlson, tested 354 Jewish children, 10-16.
Negative
correlation between religiosity and Terman intelligence test.
4. Thomas Symington, 1935
Tested 400 young people in colleges and church groups. He reported,
"there
is a constant positive relation in all the groups between liberal
religious
thinking and mental ability...There is also a constant positive
relation
between liberal scores and intelligence..."
5. Vernon Jones, 1938
Tested 381 stydents, concluding "a slight tendency for intelligence
and
liberal attitudes to go together."
6. A. R. Gilliland, 1940
At variance with all other studies, found "little or no relationship
between
intelligence and attitude toward god."
7. Donald Gragg, 1942
Reported an inverse correlation between 100 ACE freshman test scores
and
Thurstone "reality of god" scores.
8. Brown and Love, 1951
At U. of Denver, tested 613 male and female students. Mean test scores
of
non-believers = 119, believers = 100. Percentile NBs = 80, BBs = 50.
Their
findings "strongly corroborate those of Howells."
9. Michael Argyle, 1958
Concluded that "although intelligent children grasp religious concepts
earlier, they are also the first to doubt the truth of religion, and
intelligent students are much less likely to accept orthodox beliefs."
10. Jeffrey Hadden, 1963
Found no correlation between intelligence and grades. This was an
anomalous
finding, since GPA corresponds closely with intelligence. Other
factors may
have influenced the results at the U. of Wisconsin.
11. Young, Dustin and Holtzman, 1966
Average religiosity decreased as GPA rose.
12. James Trent, 1967
Polled 1400 college seniors. Found little difference, but high-ability
students in his sample group were over-represented.
13. C. Plant and E. Minium, 1967
The more intelligent students were less religious, both before
entering
college and after 2 years of college.
14. Robert Wuthnow, 1978
Of 532 students, 37% of christians, 58% of apostates, and 53 percent
of
non-religious scored above average on SATs.
15. Hastings and Hoge, 1967, 1974
Polled 200 college students and found no significant correlations.
16. Norman Poythress, 1975
Mean SATs for strongly antireligious (1148), moderately anti-religious
(1119), slightly antireligious (1108), and religious (1022).
17. Wiebe and Fleck, 1980
Studied 158 male and female Canadian university students. The reported
"nonreligious S's tended to be strongly intelligent" and "more
intelligent
than religious S's.
Student Body Comparisons-
1. Rose Goldsen, Student belief in a divine god, percentages 1952.
Harvard 30; UCLA 32; Dartmouth 35; Yale 36; Cornell 42; Wayne 43;
Weslyan
43; Michigan 45; Fisk 60; Texas 62; N. Carolina 68.
2. National Review Study, 1970 Students Belief in Spirit or Divine
God. Percentages: Reed 15; Brandeis 25; Sarah Lawrence 28; Williams
36;
Stanford 41; Boston U. 41; Yale 42; Howard 47; Indiana 57; Davidson
59; S.
Carolina 65; Marquette 77.
3. Caplovitz and Sherrow, 1977
Apostasy rates rose continuously from 5% in "low" ranked schools to
17% in
"high" ranked schools.
Niemi, Ross, and Alexander, 1978
In elite schools, organized religion was judged important by only 26%,
compared with 44% of all students.
Studies of Very-High-IQ groups.
1. Terman, 1959
Studied group with IQ > 140. Of men, 10% held strong religious belief,
of
women 18%. 62% of men and 57% if women claimed "little religious
inclination" while 28% men and 23% of women claimed it was "not at all
important."
2. Warren and Heist, 1960
Found no differences among National Merit Scholars. Results may have
been
affected by the fact that NM scholars are not selected on the basis of
intelligence or grades alone, but also on "leadership" and such like.
3. Southern and Plant, 1968
42 male and 30 female members of Mensa. Mensa members were much less
religious in belief than the typical American college alumnus or
adult.
1. William S. Ament, 1927
C. C. Little, president U. of Michigan, checked persons listed in
Who's Who
in America: "Unitarians, Episcopalians, Congregationalists,
Universalists,
and Presbyterians are ... far more numerous in Who's Who than would be
expercted on the basis of the population which they form. Baptists,
Methodists, and Catholics are distinctly less numberous."
Ament confirmed Little's conclusion. He noted that Unitarians, the
least
religious, were more than 40 times as numerous in Who's Who as in the
U.S.
population.
2. Lehman and Witty, 1931
Identified 1189 scientists found in both _Who's Who_ (1927) and
American Men
of Science (1927). Only 25% in AM of S and 50% of those listed in
Who's Who
reported their religious denomination despite the specific requests to
do
so, "religious denomination (if any)." Well over 90% of the general
population claims religious affiliation. The figure of 25% suggest far
less
religiosity among scientists.
Unitarians were 81.4 times as numerous among eminent scientists as
non-Unitarians.
3. Kelley and Fisk, 1951
Found a negative (-.39) correlation between the strength of religious
values
and research competence. [How these were measured I have no idea.]
4. Ann Roe, 1953
Interviewed 64 "eminent scientists, nearly all members of the
prestigious
National Academy of Sciences or the American Philosophical Society.
She
reported that, while nearly all of them had religious parents and had
attended Sunday school, 'now only three of these men are seriously
active in
church. A few others attend upon occasion, or even give some financial
support to a church which they do not attend... All the otheres have
long
since dismissed religion as any guide to them, and the church plays no
part
in their lives...A few are militantly atheistic, but most are just not
interested.'"
5. Francis Bello, 1954
Questionnaired or interviewed 107 young (<= 40) nonindustrial
scientists
judged by senior colleagues to be outstanding. 87 responded. 45%
claimed to
be "agnostic or atheistic" and an additional 22% claimed no religious
affiliation. For 20 most eminent, "the proportion who are now
a-religious is
considerably higher than in the entire survey group."
6. Jack Chambers, 1964
Questionnaired 740 US psychologists and chemists. He reported, "the
highly
creative men [jft- assume no women included] ... significantly more
often
show either no preference for a particular religion or little or no
interest
in religion." Found that the most eminent psychologists showed 40% no
preference, 16% for the most eminent chemists.
7. Vaughan, Smith, and Sjoberg, 1965
Polled 850 US physicists, zoologists, chemical engineers, and
geologists
listed in American Men of Science_(1955) on church membership, and
attendance patterns, and belief in afterlife. 642 replies.
38.5% did not believe in afterlife, 31.8% did. Belief in immortality
was
less common among major university staff than among those employed by
business, government, or minor universities. The contemporaneous
Gallup poll
showed 2/3 of US population believed in afterlife, so scientists were
far
less religious than typical adult.
From Beckwith's concluding remarks:
Conclusions
In this essay I have reviewed: (1)sixteen studies of the correlation
between
individual measures of student intelligence and religiosity, all but
three
of which reported an inverse correlation. (2) five studies reporting
that
student bodies with high average IQ and/or SAT scores are much less
religious than inferior student bodies; (3) three studies reporting
that
geniuses (IQ 150+) are much less religious than the general public
(Average
IQ, 100), and one dubious study, (4) seven studies reporting that
highly suc
cessful persons are much less religious in belief than are others; and
(5)
eight old and four new Gallup polls revealing that college alumni
(average
IQ about 115) are much less religious in belief than are grade-school
pollees.
I have also noted that many studies have shown that students become
less
religious as they proceed through college, probably in part because
average
IQ rises.
All but four of the forty-three polls I have reviewed support the
conclusion
that native intelligence varies inversely with degree of religious
faith;
i.e., that, other factors being equal, the more intelligent a person
is, the
less religious he is. It is easy to find fault with the studies I have
reviewed, for all were imperfect. But the fact that all but four of
them
supported the general conclusion provides overwhelming evidence that,
among
American students and adults, the amount of religious faith tends to
vary
inversely and appreciably with intelligence.
There are no entirely satisfactory measures of intelligence, nor even
satisfactory definitions of what is to be measured. Intelligence seems
be
something, though, and every tack we take in trying to catch the
elusive
winds of thought carries us further toward workable definitions. Is
intelligence a good memory, the ability to sculpt, make a diving catch
in
center field, play blindfold chess, construct sentences of "learned
length
and thundering sound", or time a punchline?
SAT tests, IQ tests, success in life, measures of fame and esteem in
peer
groups all fail to give that satisfying, final readout of how smart or
stupid any given person is. The evidence we have indicates that the
more we
know about the real world, the less likely we are to believe in an
imaginary
one.
Ben Allen
>
>Aaron I. Spielman <it's.in.t...@the.end.of.the.post>
>> In article <rrid0c...@corp.supernews.com>, deb...@gis.net wrote:
>>
>> > Dr Sinister wrote:
>> > >
>> > > ath...@home.com wrote in <37b8646e.684929167@news-server>:
>> > >
>> > > >wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >>Cabrutus <locratz@spam_is_really_really_lame.geocities.com> wrote in
>> > > >><37AF5BA2.8458DD23@spam_is_really_really_lame.geocities.com>:
>> > > >>
>> > > >>[snip]
>> > > >>
>> > > >>>You do know that atheists are in
>> > > >>>general smarter than theists, right?
>> > > >>
>> > > >>Can you cite some references for this assertion?
>> > > >
>> > > >Of course...
>> > > >alt. atheism :-)
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Look at it this way. If you studied 50 mensa theists and 50 mensa
>> > > atheists, would you find that, on average, the mensa-atheists are
>> > > mentally superior to the mensa-theists?
>> >
>> > I would think that the more interesting and relevent question would
>> > be whether atheists are disprortionately represented in Mensa in
>> > comparison with the general population.
>>
>> Jim, I recall that there were many more atheists in Mensa than theists,
>> at least in the L.A. area, back when I was an active member (1988-89).
>
>Resembling that remark, the local Mensa chapter boasts several of
>each. Me.. I follow something Kant said (I think)
>
>matter
> If you don't believe in god and god does exist then your screwed.
> QED better to believe and be wrong then not and be screwed.
>
>version.
based on whether the potential screwee believed in it.
Plus you're overlooking that there are many different potential deities
in which a potential screwee could or could not believe in.
Me, I think we should gather up all the deities into secluded camps, where
they will be quietly and humanely executed. It's the Final Solution to the
god problem.
Oh yeah, and you put QED in the wrong place, HTH.
--
Ben Allen, hiwayremove...@wport.com
"Modern society without organized religion would be like a crazed maniac
without a chainsaw."
ath...@home.com
it's.in.t...@the.end.of.the.post (Aaron I. Spielman) wrote:
>In article <rrid0c...@corp.supernews.com>, deb...@gis.net wrote:
>
>> Dr Sinister wrote:
>> >
>> > ath...@home.com wrote in <37b8646e.684929167@news-server>:
>> >
>> > >On 16 Aug 1999 18:45:10 GMT, Dr Sinister <drsin...@my-deja.com>
>> > >wrote:
>> > >
>> > >>Cabrutus <locratz@spam_is_really_really_lame.geocities.com> wrote in
>> > >><37AF5BA2.8458DD23@spam_is_really_really_lame.geocities.com>:
>> > >>
>> > >>[snip]
>> > >>
>> > >>>You do know that atheists are in
>> > >>>general smarter than theists, right?
>> > >>
>> > >>Can you cite some references for this assertion?
>> > >
>> > >Of course...
>> > >alt. atheism :-)
>> >
>> > Let's consider a more well documented group: Mensa.
>> >
>> > Look at it this way. If you studied 50 mensa theists and 50 mensa
>> > atheists, would you find that, on average, the mensa-atheists are
>> > mentally superior to the mensa-theists?
>>
>> I would think that the more interesting and relevent question would
>> be whether atheists are disprortionately represented in Mensa in
>> comparison with the general population.
>
>Jim, I recall that there were many more atheists in Mensa than theists,
>at least in the L.A. area, back when I was an active member (1988-89).
There were two subjects members of the Memphis chapter had apparently
agreed should not be discussed. One was politics and the other
religion.
80-81(?)
ath...@home.com
it's.in.t...@the.end.of.the.post (Aaron I. Spielman) wrote:
>In article <37b9c096.774070405@news-server>, ath...@home.com wrote:
>
>> On 17 Aug 1999 09:26:24 GMT, Dr Sinister <drsin...@my-deja.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >ath...@home.com wrote in <37b8646e.684929167@news-server>:
>> >
>> >>On 16 Aug 1999 18:45:10 GMT, Dr Sinister <drsin...@my-deja.com>
>> >>wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>Cabrutus <locratz@spam_is_really_really_lame.geocities.com> wrote in
>> >>><37AF5BA2.8458DD23@spam_is_really_really_lame.geocities.com>:
>> >>>
>> >>>[snip]
>> >>>
>> >>>>You do know that atheists are in
>> >>>>general smarter than theists, right?
>> >>>
>> >>>Can you cite some references for this assertion?
>> >>
>> >>Of course...
>> >>alt. atheism :-)
>> >
>> >Let's consider a more well documented group: Mensa.
>> >
>> >Look at it this way. If you studied 50 mensa theists and 50 mensa
>> >atheists, would you find that, on average, the mensa-atheists are
>> >mentally superior to the mensa-theists?
>>
>> I don't know. What would be the point of such a study?
>> It would seem to me that once a human reaches the point that logic and
>> reason determine his beliefs the I.Q. wouldn't matter in questions
>> relating to god belief. In other words it doesn't take a genius to
>> decide the bible is full of holes but the courage and willingness to
>> admit it. There are also many social factors involved that are not
>> related to I.Q.
>
>And IQ is overratted as a measurement in any case. It means _nothing_ in
>any ral sense.
i thank yur rite. i aint got wun and it dont hurt me none :-)
Jimmy Durante
I have a 140 IQ and I accept and believe in God.
Einstein had an IQ above that and he accepted and believed in God.
Newton had a high IQ and he believed and accepted God too.
You reject God whether you have a high IQ or not because you want your way,
right or wrong (and it's mostly wrong), not because you are smart or
otherwise. You care nothing for the rights or the feelings of other human
beings, and that is the reason you reject morality, truth and God. They are
incompatible with your selfishness, therefore in your mind they must be
rejected.
=====================================================
ath...@home.com wrote in message <37b8646e.684929167@news-server>...
>On 16 Aug 1999 18:45:10 GMT, Dr Sinister <drsin...@my-deja.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Cabrutus <locratz@spam_is_really_really_lame.geocities.com> wrote in
>><37AF5BA2.8458DD23@spam_is_really_really_lame.geocities.com>:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>You do know that atheists are in
>>>general smarter than theists, right?
>>
>>Can you cite some references for this assertion?
>
>Of course...
>alt. atheism :-)
>
Therion Ware
<ji...@durante.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>Baloney.
>
>I have a 140 IQ and I accept and believe in God.
>Einstein had an IQ above that and he accepted and believed in God.
>Newton had a high IQ and he believed and accepted God too.
A statement that just goes to show that a high IQ doesn't guarantee
that you know shit about the religious beliefs of Einstein or, indeed,
Newton.
>You reject God whether you have a high IQ or not because you want your way,
>right or wrong (and it's mostly wrong), not because you are smart or
>otherwise. You care nothing for the rights or the feelings of other human
>beings, and that is the reason you reject morality, truth and God. They are
>incompatible with your selfishness, therefore in your mind they must be
>rejected.
>
>=====================================================
>ath...@home.com wrote in message <37b8646e.684929167@news-server>...
>>On 16 Aug 1999 18:45:10 GMT, Dr Sinister <drsin...@my-deja.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Cabrutus <locratz@spam_is_really_really_lame.geocities.com> wrote in
>>><37AF5BA2.8458DD23@spam_is_really_really_lame.geocities.com>:
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>>You do know that atheists are in
>>>>general smarter than theists, right?
>>>
>>>Can you cite some references for this assertion?
>>
>>Of course...
>>alt. atheism :-)
>>
>>ath...@home.com#1554
>>
>>
>>>--
>>>"I need trepanning like I need a hole in the head" - Arnold Toynbee
>>
>
- ----- ------
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
- attrib: Pauline Reage.
------ <http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/6671/entry/hell.html>
ICQ: 29168081
John P. Boatwright
> Baloney.
Certainly, and balloona too.
> I have a 140 IQ and I accept and believe in God.
140 sounds pretty good.
And you believe God too.
Excellent.
> Einstein had an IQ above that and he accepted and believed in God.
Ya, but Einstein's dead.
His ability to prove God right is severely hampered.
> Newton had a high IQ and he believed and accepted God too.
Ditto the additional hamper and/or hampering.
> You reject God whether you have a high IQ or not
Exactly.
> because you want your way, right or wrong (and it's
> mostly wrong), not because you are smart or
> otherwise.
Of course.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Proof God described the planet density profile
BEFORE science did:
http://www.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
(see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)
Malcolm Osborne
Electro <elect...@aol.come2gether> wrote in message >
> What about category 6? People eligible for MENSA membership who think the
45
> bucks a year could be better spent on something pertinent to existence,
like
> say, food?
>
children with the help of a receptive, intelligent and suitable partner. I
met several prospective partners via Mensa, and I have a 3 year old
daughter, whose mother I met at a Mensa party. Thats gotta be a good
investment!
BTW. You remain a member even if you stop paying your dues, you are just a
"non financial member".
Mal Osborne
MCSE Mensa
ath...@home.com
>Baloney.
>
>I have a 140 IQ and I accept and believe in God.
>Einstein had an IQ above that and he accepted and believed in God.
>Newton had a high IQ and he believed and accepted God too.
>
>You reject God whether you have a high IQ or not because you want your way,
>right or wrong (and it's mostly wrong), not because you are smart or
>otherwise. You care nothing for the rights or the feelings of other human
>beings, and that is the reason you reject morality, truth and God. They are
>incompatible with your selfishness, therefore in your mind they must be
>rejected.
I would suggest you sue for a refund on the test if that's the best
you can come up with. (Or at least get a second opinion).
Btw, tell Ms. Kalabash I said hello.
Therion Ware
<M...@hwhouse.com.au> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
>Electro <elect...@aol.come2gether> wrote in message >
>> What about category 6? People eligible for MENSA membership who think the 45
>> bucks a year could be better spent on something pertinent to existence, like
>> say, food?
>>
>I found the annual membership relevant in my natural desire the father
>children with the help of a receptive, intelligent and suitable partner. I
>met several prospective partners via Mensa, and I have a 3 year old
>daughter, whose mother I met at a Mensa party. Thats gotta be a good
>investment!
Heh - ever heard of the "dotty Dons delinquent daughter" syndrome?
Very common amongst couples with children at Cambridge University, and
I presume, other institutions with bright members.
>BTW. You remain a member even if you stop paying your dues, you are just a
>"non financial member".
>
>Mal Osborne
>MCSE Mensa
>
>
Dr Sinister
[snip]
>And I always thought that someone smart enough to be in Mensa would be
>smart enough to figure out the flaws in Pascal's Wager on their own. Of
>course, I used to believe in god, too. Two things I was wrong about.
>
>A day you learn something new can not be a totally wasted day.
>
>dotcom, off...
>yes, I am an atheist, and no, I don't want to hear about jeeezus
You know, I have been meaning to ask you something, dotcom. It's about
your pic on the EAC webpage (dotcom.jpg)
http://www.rockethouse.net/EAC_Eyes_Only/
Why are you standing next to a 5' tall severed prick?
--
"An atheist _can_ believe in god." - Mark Jobling
Malcolm Osborne
Therion Ware <tw...@geocities.com> wrote in message >
> Heh - ever heard of the "dotty Dons delinquent daughter" syndrome?
> Very common amongst couples with children at Cambridge University, and
> I presume, other institutions with bright members.
>
to check, I did a search on "purple bananas" and got 70 hits. "steel
flowers" gave 117. Are you making this up?
Mal Osborne
MCSE Mensa
Malcolm Osborne
:) <no...@loopback.com> wrote in message
news:37ba...@newsfeed.sexzilla.net...
> Resembling that remark, the local Mensa chapter boasts several of
> each. Me.. I follow something Kant said (I think)
>
> If you believe in god and god does not exist then heaven or hell does
not
> matter
> If you don't believe in god and god does exist then your screwed.
> QED better to believe and be wrong then not and be screwed.
>
> Or something like that. Although it was probably censored for the text
book
> version.
>
I am going off to smoke a few joints, just in case the rastifarians got it
right!
Mal Osborne
MCSE Mensa
Guido Schimmels
>And IQ is overratted as a measurement in any case. It means _nothing_ in
>any ral sense.
I fully support that statement.
I'm into chess-programming. After 30 years there is still no working test for
ranking chess-programs - the only way to test, is let them play hundreds of
games ! How do people dare say a test they created can cope with the multitude
of human skills, when it doesn't work in such a limited field ?
Another point:
A. K. Dewdney once wrote a program for good old Commodore 64, which could
solve typical IQ-test problems in no time !
In one way IQ-tests actually work:
People who create them and believe in them expose themselves as fools :)
BTW: There is simple way to raise your IQ:
Kill those damnded wise-asses and the bell-curve will be with you ;-)
--
Guido
Therion Ware
<M...@hwhouse.com.au> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
Well, it is an informal reference...! Seriously though, it's as well
validated as the Vicar's Daughter syndrome...
Malcolm Osborne
> On Wed, 18 Aug 1999 20:30:05 +0800, "Malcolm Osborne"
> <M...@hwhouse.com.au> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
> >
> >Therion Ware <tw...@geocities.com> wrote in message >
> >> Heh - ever heard of the "dotty Dons delinquent daughter" syndrome?
> >> Very common amongst couples with children at Cambridge University, and
> >> I presume, other institutions with bright members.
> >>
> >er NO. I put that string into my web search engine, and got no hits.
Just
> >to check, I did a search on "purple bananas" and got 70 hits. "steel
> >flowers" gave 117. Are you making this up?
>
> Well, it is an informal reference...! Seriously though, it's as well
> validated as the Vicar's Daughter syndrome...
>
Mal Osborne
MCSE Mensa
Hello
Dr. Sinister wrote the following:
"Look at it this way. If you studied 50 mensa theists and 50
mensa atheists, would you find that, on average, the
mensa-atheists are mentally superior to the mensa-theists? "
Dr. Sinister, this question is epidemiologically weak.
Taking 50 mensa theists and comparing them with 50 mensa
atheists biases your study.
The assertion was that atheists are in general smarter or
have bigger iqs than theists. To evaluate this claim, one
must take a random sampling of atheists and theists to
reflect the distribution of iqs in a population. Taking
atheists and theists from mensa means you have selected from
a specific population with high iqs to begin with; this
automatically invalidates such an undertaking, or at least
introduces a little bit of bias. Your question would be
more relevant if the question were specifically looking at
religious beliefs of people with high iqs.
Let me give some numbers to clarify: Let's say there are
2000 atheists, 1500 of whom have high iqs and 500 who are
dumbshits. There are 20000 theists, 15000 of whom are
dumbshits and 5000 who have high iqs. Let's say that you
need an extremely high iq to get into sinisteria, which is a
society for egotisitical but pretty smart people. In
sinisteria, there will be 5000 theists and 500 atheists.
Taking 50 of each won't tell you much, since they're pretty
smart to begin with. However, doing a random sampling of
the population will give you a much clearer picture of just
how stupid theists tend to be.
This example also illustrates a mistake many people make
when looking at data (you probably would never do this, but
I hate hearing this stuff from people): You'll look at the
numbers and say, well, there are ten times as many theists
as atheists in sinisteria!!! Theists are smarter! No.
Absolutely not. Given the number of theists in the
population, even with a low percentage of high iqs, the
bright theists (I'm sorry, I hate oxymorons) will still
outnumber the number of bright atheists, even if 75% of the
atheists population is smart.
Hey, have you written anything dramatic lately? I haven't
had much time to read through alt.atheism but I just started
a different rotation and hopefully will have more internet
time.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
raven1
<ji...@durante.com> wrote:
>Baloney.
>
>I have a 140 IQ and I accept and believe in God.
*Sigh*. Another one who thinks that IQ scores are impressive. I don't
believe in God/s. If my IQ is higher, will you become an atheist?
>Einstein had an IQ above that and he accepted and believed in God.
Einstein believed in an underlying order to the universe. He did not
believe in a personal "God".
>Newton had a high IQ and he believed and accepted God too.
He also believed in astrology. So?
>
>You reject God whether you have a high IQ or not because you want your way,
>right or wrong (and it's mostly wrong), not because you are smart or
>otherwise.
I reject the idea of god/s for the same reasons I reject the idea of
leprechauns and elves: there's no evidence that such creatures exist.
> You care nothing for the rights or the feelings of other human
>beings, and that is the reason you reject morality, truth and God. They are
>incompatible with your selfishness, therefore in your mind they must be
>rejected.
Your Christian charity has been duly noted.
<plonk>
Andrew Lias
Your intelligence quotient is ample evidence that a high IQ is not proof
against being suseptible to spurious logic.
Try something other than an argument from authority next time.
--
Please direct all replies to anrwlias AT hotmail.com | Siste viator
*-----------*------------------*-----------------------*------------*
Christian Fundamentalism: The doctrine that there is an absolutely
powerful, infinitely knowledgeable, universe spanning entity that is
deeply and personally concerned about my sex life.
*-----------*------------------*-----------------------*------------*
http://www.wco.com/~anrwlias
dotcom
>
> Baloney.
>
> I have a 140 IQ and I accept and believe in God.
> Einstein had an IQ above that and he accepted and believed in God.
> Newton had a high IQ and he believed and accepted God too.
>
> right or wrong (and it's mostly wrong), not because you are smart or
> beings, and that is the reason you reject morality, truth and God. They are
> incompatible with your selfishness, therefore in your mind they must be
> rejected.
I see that like belief in god, high IQ's have no connection to truth or
reality. Has it ever occurred to you, O Intelligent One, to actually
find out *why* people are atheists? Or do you find that you save enough
time by parroting someone else's definition you have enough extra time
to do those high IQ things?
dotcom, off...
yes, I am an atheist, and no, I don't want to hear about jeeezus
There is no god worth our worship.
Martin Schlottmann
Jason McGrody
Jimmy Durante <ji...@durante.com> wrote in message
news:7pdles$mmf$1...@newsmaster.pathcom.com...
> I have a 140 IQ and I accept and believe in God.
I have a 160 IQ and don't believe in god. neener neener.
we can play 'my IQ is bigger than your IQ' all day if you want.
> Einstein had an IQ above that and he accepted and believed in God.
> Newton had a high IQ and he believed and accepted God too.
--
Jason McGrody
Cabrutus
Dr Sinister wrote:
> Cabrutus <locratz@spam_is_really_really_lame.geocities.com> wrote in
> <37AF5BA2.8458DD23@spam_is_really_really_lame.geocities.com>:
>
> [snip]
>
> >You do know that atheists are in
> >general smarter than theists, right?
>
> Can you cite some references for this assertion?
Gladly.
1. A wide variety of sources over a wide period of time. Try the
following link; if it's not up, it should be up later:
http://24.6.208.162/cabrutus/philo/relig_study.htm
2. According to Nature 394:313, a recent survey of members of the
National Academy of Sciences showed that 72% are outright atheists, 21%
are agnostic and only 7% claim to believe in a personal God.
3. According to the Skeptic magazine vol.6 #2 1998, the general public
was just over 90% likely to believe in God. Scientists in general were
just under 40% likely. Mathematicians were just over 40% likely,
biologists just under 30%, and physicists were barely over 20% likely to
believe in God.
>
>
> --
> "I need trepanning like I need a hole in the head" - Arnold Toynbee
--
Cabrutus
Atheist #820
locratz @ geocities . com (delete "spam_ist_sehr_lahm." in email address
to reply)
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3587/ | DALnet: #atheology
Cabrutus
Jim F wrote:
> Dr Sinister wrote:
> >
> > ath...@home.com wrote in <37b8646e.684929167@news-server>:
> >
> > >On 16 Aug 1999 18:45:10 GMT, Dr Sinister <drsin...@my-deja.com>
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > >>Cabrutus <locratz@spam_is_really_really_lame.geocities.com> wrote in
> > >><37AF5BA2.8458DD23@spam_is_really_really_lame.geocities.com>:
> > >>
> > >>[snip]
> > >>
> > >>>You do know that atheists are in
> > >>>general smarter than theists, right?
> > >>
> > >>Can you cite some references for this assertion?
> > >
> > >Of course...
> > >alt. atheism :-)
> >
> > Let's consider a more well documented group: Mensa.
> >
> > Look at it this way. If you studied 50 mensa theists and 50 mensa
> > atheists, would you find that, on average, the mensa-atheists are
> > mentally superior to the mensa-theists?
>
> I would think that the more interesting and relevent question would
> be whether atheists are disprortionately represented in Mensa in
> comparison with the general population.
>
> Jim F.
They are. See Southern and Plant, 1968. 42 male and 30 female members of
Mensa were studied. Mensa members were much less religious in belief than
the typical American college alumnis or adult.
>
>
> >
> > --
> > "What Gauss did is rather nonsequitur."
> > - Jeff Candy(alt.atheism) commenting on classical constructions.
Cabrutus
Jimmy Durante wrote:
> Baloney.
>
> I have a 140 IQ and I accept and believe in God.
You're a relative rarity then.
>
> Einstein had an IQ above that and he accepted and believed in God.
False. Einstein did not believe in God.
>
> Newton had a high IQ and he believed and accepted God too.
>
> You reject God whether you have a high IQ or not because you want your way,
> right or wrong (and it's mostly wrong), not because you are smart or
> otherwise. You care nothing for the rights or the feelings of other human
Too bad your high IQ doesn't give you more knowledge. If it did, you'd know
that argumentum ad nauseaum is not a valid argument form.
>
> beings, and that is the reason you reject morality, truth and God. They are
Atheists in the United States are in general morally better than non-atheists.
>
> incompatible with your selfishness, therefore in your mind they must be
> rejected.
[snip]
Dr Sinister
<19990818002448...@ng-fm1.aol.com>:
>Mensa? Pleeeeease! You mean the Idiot Paranoid Support Group for folks
>who are insecure about being human. Only a complete moron would be an
>Atheist and deny the existence of "Bob". Evidence of the Conspiracy
>surrounds them: They only need to open their eyes and look... and
>perhaps think about it just a little eeny wheeny bit- but Noooooo.
>They're too busy trying to show off by making snap judgements about
>stuff they're clueless about. Fine. Let them deny Dobbs as much as they
>want. To paraphrase a great German philosopher, "what doesn't allow them
>on the saucers makes us stronger."
Yes, a very astute summary of the affair, Mr Wax. But there are two types
of atheists. Those who *lack belief* in Bob (weak atheists), and those
who believe Bob does not exist (strong atheists).
Don't mix up the two or some friggin atheist psycho is sure to get
medieval on your ass.
[snip]
--
"Negative numbers, in fact, have no relationship to any material thing
that exists in the world. " - NMS
Aaron I. Spielman
> Baloney.
>
> I have a 140 IQ and I accept and believe in God.
So? Mine is somewhere around 148. I'm an atheist.
> Einstein had an IQ above that and he accepted and believed in God.
Outright falsehood.
> Newton had a high IQ and he believed and accepted God too.
So?
> You reject God whether you have a high IQ or not because you want your way,
> right or wrong (and it's mostly wrong), not because you are smart or
> otherwise.
Actually, I could not _possibly_ reject god - to do so, I would have to believe
in a god first, in order to have something to reject.
I'll give you a hint - I don't believe in any gods.
> You care nothing for the rights or the feelings of other human
> beings, and that is the reason you reject morality, truth and God.
Oh really? Why would you make such an assumption? You know me not at all.
> They are
> incompatible with your selfishness, therefore in your mind they must be
> rejected.
Unfortunately, this is the exact ttyoe of religious dog-vomit I've been
subjected to all my life.
Actually, you are right about me in one regard. Should you & I ever meet
face-to -face, and you should happen to insult me as blithely as you did
above, I would enthusiastically violtae you "civil" rights. Your kind
(the self-aggrandizing, moralizing, holier-than-thou, thoughlessly
arrogant religious half-wits) are a disease afflicting the rest of
humanity.
Aaron I. Spielman
> On Tue, 17 Aug 1999 19:39:29 -0700,
> it's.in.t...@the.end.of.the.post (Aaron I. Spielman) wrote:
>
> >In article <37b9c096.774070405@news-server>, ath...@home.com wrote:
> >
> >> On 17 Aug 1999 09:26:24 GMT, Dr Sinister <drsin...@my-deja.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >ath...@home.com wrote in <37b8646e.684929167@news-server>:
> >> >
> >> >>On 16 Aug 1999 18:45:10 GMT, Dr Sinister <drsin...@my-deja.com>
> >> >>wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>Cabrutus <locratz@spam_is_really_really_lame.geocities.com> wrote in
> >> >>><37AF5BA2.8458DD23@spam_is_really_really_lame.geocities.com>:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>[snip]
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>You do know that atheists are in
> >> >>>>general smarter than theists, right?
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Can you cite some references for this assertion?
> >> >>
> >> >>Of course...
> >> >>alt. atheism :-)
> >> >
> >> >Let's consider a more well documented group: Mensa.
> >> >
> >> >Look at it this way. If you studied 50 mensa theists and 50 mensa
> >> >atheists, would you find that, on average, the mensa-atheists are
> >> >mentally superior to the mensa-theists?
> >>
> >> I don't know. What would be the point of such a study?
> >> It would seem to me that once a human reaches the point that logic and
> >> reason determine his beliefs the I.Q. wouldn't matter in questions
> >> relating to god belief. In other words it doesn't take a genius to
> >> decide the bible is full of holes but the courage and willingness to
> >> admit it. There are also many social factors involved that are not
> >> related to I.Q.
> >
> >And IQ is overratted as a measurement in any case. It means _nothing_ in
> >any ral sense.
>
> i thank yur rite. i aint got wun and it dont hurt me none :-)
I was wondering when this would happen. It's not that I can''t spell,
it's that I can't tipe worth shite.
Dr Sinister
-ex0108-058.remarq.com>:
>Dr. Sinister wrote the following:
>
>"Look at it this way. If you studied 50 mensa theists and 50
>mensa atheists, would you find that, on average, the
>mensa-atheists are mentally superior to the mensa-theists? "
>
>
>Dr. Sinister, this question is epidemiologically weak.
>Taking 50 mensa theists and comparing them with 50 mensa
>atheists biases your study.
This is not necessarily so. The set of Mensans may already be biased
toward atheism. Mensans are perceived, among some circles, as degenerate
assholes. Atheists, being of like mind, may be drawn to such a society.
Whereas intelligent Hindus, Buddhists, and Muslims might not even give a
damn. This of course is just an example, but we have no way of knowing
why a Mensa-atheist joins Mensa, other than by what he claims. Which is
probably a lie anyway.
One attempt at eliminating such cultural factors is to take N mensa
theists and N mensa atheists, tally up their IQs, and determine which set
has a larger value.
>The assertion was that atheists are in general smarter or
>have bigger iqs than theists. To evaluate this claim, one
>must take a random sampling of atheists and theists to
>reflect the distribution of iqs in a population. Taking
>atheists and theists from mensa means you have selected from
>a specific population with high iqs to begin with;
So what? If the assertion is true, it will hold.
>this
>automatically invalidates such an undertaking, or at least
>introduces a little bit of bias.
The assertion was without restriction. "atheists are smarter than
theists". This is not the same as "there are more atheists in the 100-120
IQ range than theists," etc.
Another interesting point related to what you have said is this: What
about the very top levels of IQ? What is the distribution of
theists/atheists among, say the International Society for Philosophical
Inquiry (top 99.9%), The Prometheus Society (top 99.997%), or the Mega
Society, (top 99.9999%)? What is the distribution of theism among 200+
and higher IQs?
Just suppose (you know, for fun) that among the 200+, 90% were theists.
This would demolish any argument-from-authority contemplated by atheists
brandishing statistics on lower percentile groups.
It would be interesting to see the results of such studies, no?.
>Your question would be
>more relevant if the question were specifically looking at
>religious beliefs of people with high iqs.
That is not the assertion which interests me. The assertion was:
"atheists are smarter than theists." Your question above has been
studied, and it doesn't interest me. I've heard people drone on about it
countless times. But the assertion "atheists are smarter than theists"
attracted my attention because it is sweeping, with broad implications. I
don't think I have heard it phrased that way before, except as a joke.
>Let me give some numbers to clarify: Let's say there are
>2000 atheists, 1500 of whom have high iqs and 500 who are
>dumbshits. There are 20000 theists, 15000 of whom are
>dumbshits and 5000 who have high iqs. Let's say that you
>need an extremely high iq to get into sinisteria, which is a
>society for egotisitical but pretty smart people.
There is such a group: Sinistral SIG.
>In
>sinisteria, there will be 5000 theists and 500 atheists.
>Taking 50 of each won't tell you much, since they're pretty
>smart to begin with. However, doing a random sampling of
>the population will give you a much clearer picture of just
>how stupid theists tend to be.
I understand what you are getting at, and you are asking to perfom some
nice, valid statistics. I just don't find it interesting though. That's
all.
>This example also illustrates a mistake many people make
>when looking at data (you probably would never do this, but
>I hate hearing this stuff from people): You'll look at the
>numbers and say, well, there are ten times as many theists
>as atheists in sinisteria!!! Theists are smarter! No.
>Absolutely not. Given the number of theists in the
>population, even with a low percentage of high iqs, the
>bright theists (I'm sorry, I hate oxymorons) will still
>outnumber the number of bright atheists, even if 75% of the
>atheists population is smart.
The same objections can be raised against any group of individuals that
voluntarily submit themselves to an IQ test.
>Hey, have you written anything dramatic lately?
Yes, you missed a great deal of dramatic entertainment: the Goatmaster
Dave episode, the huge debate about imaginary numbers that spread into
sci.math, the ass-kicking of Don Kresch, Dan Fake and David
"Footsucker" Trout, a legthy "discussion" with NMS about 6" tall humans
and his other stupid assertions, etc, etc. Indeed, you missed quality
stuff.
> I haven't
>had much time to read through alt.atheism but I just started
>a different rotation and hopefully will have more internet
>time.
There's always dejanews.
Electro
>>who are insecure about being human. Only a complete moron would be an
>>Atheist and deny the existence of "Bob". Evidence of the Conspiracy
>>surrounds them: They only need to open their eyes and look... and
>>perhaps think about it just a little eeny wheeny bit- but Noooooo.
>>They're too busy trying to show off by making snap judgements about
>>stuff they're clueless about. Fine. Let them deny Dobbs as much as they
>>want. To paraphrase a great German philosopher, "what doesn't allow them
>>on the saucers makes us stronger."
>
>Yes, a very astute summary of the affair, Mr Wax. But there are two types
>of atheists. Those who *lack belief* in Bob (weak atheists), and those
>who believe Bob does not exist (strong atheists).
>
>Don't mix up the two or some friggin atheist psycho is sure to get
>medieval on your ass.
Atheists don't fnord.
Electro
Theism - (noun) - the ill effect of habitual excess in tea drinking.
[from Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary]
ath...@home.com
it's.in.t...@the.end.of.the.post (Aaron I. Spielman) wrote:
>In article <37ba533e.811620284@news-server>, ath...@home.com wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 17 Aug 1999 19:39:29 -0700,
>> it's.in.t...@the.end.of.the.post (Aaron I. Spielman) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <37b9c096.774070405@news-server>, ath...@home.com wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 17 Aug 1999 09:26:24 GMT, Dr Sinister <drsin...@my-deja.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >ath...@home.com wrote in <37b8646e.684929167@news-server>:
>> >> >
>> >> >>On 16 Aug 1999 18:45:10 GMT, Dr Sinister <drsin...@my-deja.com>
>> >> >>wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>Cabrutus <locratz@spam_is_really_really_lame.geocities.com> wrote in
>> >> >>><37AF5BA2.8458DD23@spam_is_really_really_lame.geocities.com>:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>[snip]
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>>You do know that atheists are in
>> >> >>>>general smarter than theists, right?
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>Can you cite some references for this assertion?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Of course...
>> >> >>alt. atheism :-)
>> >> >
>> >> >Let's consider a more well documented group: Mensa.
>> >> >
>> >> >Look at it this way. If you studied 50 mensa theists and 50 mensa
>> >> >atheists, would you find that, on average, the mensa-atheists are
>> >> >mentally superior to the mensa-theists?
>> >>
>> >> I don't know. What would be the point of such a study?
>> >> It would seem to me that once a human reaches the point that logic and
>> >> reason determine his beliefs the I.Q. wouldn't matter in questions
>> >> relating to god belief. In other words it doesn't take a genius to
>> >> decide the bible is full of holes but the courage and willingness to
>> >> admit it. There are also many social factors involved that are not
>> >> related to I.Q.
>> >
>> >And IQ is overratted as a measurement in any case. It means _nothing_ in
>> >any ral sense.
>>
>> i thank yur rite. i aint got wun and it dont hurt me none :-)
>
>I was wondering when this would happen. It's not that I can''t spell,
>it's that I can't tipe worth shite.
Couldn't help meself :-)
Aaron I. Spielman
S'alright. I get over it eventually. Next July, maybe...
Wan Dum Gy
those of us who would like to get into Mensa but are too dammed stupid to
know what "theism" and "atheism" mean! (Did I spell "dammed" rite?)
Wan Dum Gy
> It would seem to me that once a human reaches the point that logic and
> reason determine his beliefs the I.Q. wouldn't matter in questions
> relating to god belief. In other words it doesn't take a genius to
> decide the bible is full of holes but the courage and willingness to
> admit it. There are also many social factors involved that are not
> related to I.Q.
Bible full of holes? Fill me in here. What holes? Don't misunderstand me.
I'm not trying to tell you that there are no holes. It's just that I keep
hearing that the Bible is fill of holes (or contradictions, or whatever you
want to call them), but nobody ever tells me what the holes are; and it's
not as if I can ask those who have the professional training on the Bible
because they're Clergymen who swear by the Bible and, therefore, would
likely deny any holes even if they fell into every one and broke every bone
in their bodies in the process! So give it to me straight. WHAT ARE THE
HOLES???
Kevin Ault
> Bible full of holes? Fill me in here. What holes? Don't misunderstand me.
> I'm not trying to tell you that there are no holes. It's just that I keep
> hearing that the Bible is fill of holes (or contradictions, or whatever
you
> want to call them), but nobody ever tells me what the holes are; and it's
> not as if I can ask those who have the professional training on the Bible
> because they're Clergymen who swear by the Bible and, therefore, would
> likely deny any holes even if they fell into every one and broke every
bone
> in their bodies in the process! So give it to me straight. WHAT ARE THE
> HOLES???
This is a great resource:
http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/
Example holes for which I don't remember the verses:
-The earth sits on four huge pillars and is flat
-Jesus has two incompatible family trees
-There are four incompatible versions of the "tomb story"
-God killed David's son for David's sin
It's more that just contradictions, it's the record of the mythical
christian god as outright moral monster.
Tukla Ratte
"Damned". >8-)
--
Tukla, Eater of Theists, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Director, EAC Animoid Shocktroop Division
Defender of the Honor of She Who Leads the EAC
atheist #1347, Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism
BAAWA Knight, Pregnant Calico Angora Rat
Furry Peace! http://www.fur.com/peace
Richard Hayward
Kevin Ault <kevind...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:eBnv3.1413$fz.3...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net...
lie down in the lillies with and produce two sons, Cane and Able, who then
spawned the entire human race.
I wonder, where did Cane and Able found their "Li'll ladies"?
I suppose boys will be boys and they trawled the local "dawn of the age of
man" bars. And instead of giving up a rib each they had their wallets
surgically removed, a far more painful process! Still practised even today
when picking up future bridal prospects in bars;-)
I wonder who married the lucky couples, there were no priests. Perhaps they
jumped the broomstick, oh no there were no broomsticks either. Maybe God
thought marriage unnecessary as the guy's had no sir names yet to pass on.
Oh well back to the beer!! ;-) If God created beer remind me to thank
him/her/it. After all reality is an illusion created by lack of alcohol.
Medieval Knievel
John Gilmer wrote in message <37b98252$0$14...@mojo.crosslink.net>...
>
>Dr Sinister <drsin...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>news:8E24A03D...@news.globalserve.net...
>> Cabrutus <locratz@spam_is_really_really_lame.geocities.com> wrote in
>> <37AF5BA2.8458DD23@spam_is_really_really_lame.geocities.com>:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >You do know that atheists are in
>> >general smarter than theists, right?
>>
>> Can you cite some references for this assertion?
>
>Wait a minute! Stop the presses! You can exchange eternal life for 2 IQ
>points. What a bargain! I mean, who REALLY wants to live forever?
>
>JLG
you misunderstand - you can't trade 2 IQ points for everlasting life
(although I suspect it's a good deal more than 2) only theists are stupid
enough to believe you can. When Xers die they are just as dead as the
intelligent interesting people who did something with their lives.
>>
>> --
>> "I need trepanning like I need a hole in the head" - Arnold Toynbee
>
>
The Virgin Mary aa#1638
EAC Wet Nursing and Art Terrorism Squad Leader
She Who Battles The PTA
Dr Sinister
<37BB608C.59AC057D@spam_ist_sehr_lahm.geocities.com>:
>Jimmy Durante wrote:
>
>> Baloney.
>>
>> I have a 140 IQ and I accept and believe in God.
>
>You're a relative rarity then.
I admit that I started this thread, and I ignored it for the longest
time. Please exercise your capacity of human empathy to try to understand
why I became physically sick while reading Rabbi Spielmann babble on
about his 148 IQ. That an idiot with the articulative capacity of a
well-trained simian can say this - well - you can understand how ill it
made me feel.
Anyway, I have read the material in this thread, and I will now present
to you my conclusions. But there's no point in debating this further. I
think that neither of us will advance our issues, because, as it will
become clear to you in a moment, I have agreed to disagree with you.
Besides, this is a boring topic and I lament ever bringing it up.
The original assertion, which you made, was:
Cabrutus:
>You do know that atheists are in
>general smarter than theists, right?
And, like a good boy, you proceeded to quote many urls in support of
this.
Actually, I have no problem with this issue. If atheists are, in general,
smarter than theists, then so be it. However, there are some perplexing
statements made in defense of this, which seem rather self-contradictory
to me.
First, there is something I must say about the idiomatic usage of
"atheists are in general a lot smarter than theists". When you say this
to a theist, there is the implied meaning: "and you would be smarter if
you became an atheist." Ok, so perhaps you don't mean to convey this
message. Nevertheless, it is there, for such is the nature of our
language. I don't see atheists rebuking theists with: "and did you know
that there is a (noncausal) correlation between atheism and smartness"?
No, I don't see them saying this, because this is not the meaning they
wish to convey. OK, fine. You don't agree. Then we agree to disagree. I
claim there is this idiomatic implication in your apologetics. You and
that retard Danilcheko say otherwise. Fine. Hey, this is just my opinion.
Now, here is where I ran into something which doesn't make sense.
"In general, atheists are smarter than theists."
Ok, so I proposed a simple experiment. Take a bunch of smart people, like
Mensa, and divide them up into 100 theists and 100 atheists. Then average
their IQs. Now, some morons said this experiment wouldn't prove anything:
ath...@home.com wrote in <37b9c096.774070405@news-server>:
I don't know. What would be the point of such a study?
I wonder why he said this. If 'atheists are smarter than theists' is a
generally true statement, then it should hold true for most samples under
study. And that includes the 100 theists, 100 atheists Mensa sample. We
can try it with many such Mensa samples. If it's generally true, then it
will be generally true within such samples, no?
Anyway. That's besides the issue. I just found it amusing that an atheist
would be afraid of performing such a study. On to more important matters.
You said:
>You do know that atheists are in
>general smarter than theists, right?
And I suggested that this be evaluated by IQ. Now, some morons, like
Rabbi Aaron, claim to have a 148 IQ, and at the same time, claim that IQ
is unrelated to 'smartness':
Aaron I. Spielman <it's.in.t...@the.end.of.the.post> wrote in
<it's.in.the.sig-1...@tetsubo.local.net>:
> It[IQ] means _nothing_ in any ral[sic] sense.
Maybe you don't agree with this. I have no idea. All I know is that some
atheists say that IQ is not a measure of 'smartness.' So let's go with
that.
Next, it was put to you that great minds like Newton were theist. [Oh,
and there are many, many more.] Certainly you cannot say that Newton was
an idiot. So how is your initial assertion justified by atheists: that
smartness and atheism are correlated? I recall the answer [and I
paraphrase]:
'Newton did not have sufficient scientific knowledge.'
Now here is where the whole argument gets really interesting.
1. smartness is correlated with atheism
2. Newton wasn't an atheist because he lacked sufficient scientific
knowledge.
Therefore we can conclude:
1. People who lack scientific knowledge are not smart.
2. Dostoyevsky, Herodotus, Homer, being examples of (1) were less than
smart.
Surely, you don't mean to associate 'scientific knowledge' with
smartness, do you? How would you justify that? How did scientific
knowledge arise if indeed all people prior to the onset of such knowledge
were less than intelligent? Divine atheist inspiration?
--
If atheism is the lack of belief in god, then baldness is the lack of
belief in hair. - Jean Paul Sartre
Fish
<snip>
> Ok, so I proposed a simple experiment. Take a bunch of smart people, like
> Mensa, and divide them up into 100 theists and 100 atheists. Then average
> their IQs. Now, some morons said this experiment wouldn't prove anything:
>
> ath...@home.com wrote in <37b9c096.774070405@news-server>:
> I don't know. What would be the point of such a study?
>
> I wonder why he said this. If 'atheists are smarter than theists' is a
> generally true statement, then it should hold true for most samples under
> study. And that includes the 100 theists, 100 atheists Mensa sample. We
> can try it with many such Mensa samples. If it's generally true, then it
> will be generally true within such samples, no?
I'm curious why you would choose to randomly select theists and
atheists for your study from the set of Mensans as opposed to
the general population. Why not randomly select theists and
atheists from the complete set of theists and atheists rather
than limit the selection to just those who are members of Mensa?
<snip>
--
"Fish" (David B. Trout)
Alt.Atheism #623
ICQ# 25302291
fi...@infidels.org.god
(remove "god" to reply by email)
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
"If the sum of credible evidence we have is
that the universe lacks anything like a god,
then we shouldn't be shy about concluding that
there isn't one." -- Neal M. Stevens (NMS)
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Victor Danilchenko
>
> Cabrutus <locratz@spam_ist_sehr_lahm.geocities.com> wrote in
> <37BB608C.59AC057D@spam_ist_sehr_lahm.geocities.com>:
>
> >Jimmy Durante wrote:
> >
> >> Baloney.
> >>
> >> I have a 140 IQ and I accept and believe in God.
> >
> >You're a relative rarity then.
>
> to you my conclusions. But there's no point in debating this further. I
> think that neither of us will advance our issues, because, as it will
> become clear to you in a moment, I have agreed to disagree with you.
> Besides, this is a boring topic and I lament ever bringing it up.
You know, kiddo, you have a rather peculiar manner of agreeing to disagree --
this is the first 'agree to disagree' statement I have ever seen which actually
actively seeks to enflame the opponent with whom you are supposedly seeking the
truce.
> The original assertion, which you made, was:
>
> Cabrutus:
> >You do know that atheists are in
> >general smarter than theists, right?
>
> And, like a good boy, you proceeded to quote many urls in support of
> this.
>
> Actually, I have no problem with this issue. If atheists are, in general,
> smarter than theists, then so be it. However, there are some perplexing
> statements made in defense of this, which seem rather self-contradictory
> to me.
OK, let's get on with it, then...
> First, there is something I must say about the idiomatic usage of
> "atheists are in general a lot smarter than theists". When you say this
> to a theist, there is the implied meaning: "and you would be smarter if
> you became an atheist." Ok, so perhaps you don't mean to convey this
> message. Nevertheless, it is there, for such is the nature of our
> language.
No, such ios the nature of people who don't know diddly squat about statictics
-- which seems to include you. Between your ignorance of statictics and your
idiotic arrogance, it is no surprise that you chose to blame the language for
your ignorance, rather than yourself.
> I don't see atheists rebuking theists with: "and did you know
> that there is a (noncausal) correlation between atheism and smartness"?
This statement is too vague to be answered.
> No, I don't see them saying this, because this is not the meaning they
> wish to convey. OK, fine. You don't agree. Then we agree to disagree. I
> claim there is this idiomatic implication in your apologetics. You and
> that retard Danilcheko say otherwise. Fine. Hey, this is just my opinion.
An opinion of an ignorant idiot who is proud of his ignorance, it seems. I
don't know about others, but when I cite the studies showing the negative
correlation between intelligence and belief in god, I typically stress that the
point of it is not to draw a causal relationship between the two, but rather to
show something interesting about belief in god.
> Now, here is where I ran into something which doesn't make sense.
>
> "In general, atheists are smarter than theists."
>
> Ok, so I proposed a simple experiment. Take a bunch of smart people, like
> Mensa, and divide them up into 100 theists and 100 atheists. Then average
> their IQs.
<LOL> Wow. This would earn you a failing grade in a statistics class. Your
sample is hopelessly unrepresentative. Your purport to be seeking the
correlation in general population, but you only sample the population of mensa
members. Wow! Go back to school.
> Now, some morons said this experiment wouldn't prove anything:
Well, it would prove SOMETHING. It would prove something about members of mensa
-- at best. How exactly does it relate to your thesis? (Hint: it does not).
> ath...@home.com wrote in <37b9c096.774070405@news-server>:
> I don't know. What would be the point of such a study?
>
> I wonder why he said this. If 'atheists are smarter than theists' is a
> generally true statement, then it should hold true for most samples under
> study.
BS. As it, 'total bullshit'. There is no such thing as 'should hold true for
most samples', unless the samples are drawn from the same population. Basically
(as in, 'introductory statistics' kind of 'basically'), the fact that theism and
intelligence are negatively correlated, tells you exactly NOTHING about any
population different from the population for which the correlation was
established. You could possibly draw such a tentative conclusion IF you managed
to convincingly demonstrate that the criteria for the population selection (say,
Mensa members of seminary students) is independent of either intelligence or
theism.
In short, you are an ignorant fool with an axe to grind.
> And that includes the 100 theists, 100 atheists Mensa sample. We
> can try it with many such Mensa samples. If it's generally true, then it
> will be generally true within such samples, no?
Nope. Not at all obvious.
> Anyway. That's besides the issue. I just found it amusing that an atheist
> would be afraid of performing such a study. On to more important matters.
I find it amusing that you are so hell-bent on making your point, that you are
willing to ignore and any all problems, no matter how fundamental, that impede
your progress. Well, guess what bucko -- ignboring them doesn't make them go
away...
> You said:
>
> >You do know that atheists are in
> >general smarter than theists, right?
>
> And I suggested that this be evaluated by IQ. Now, some morons, like
> Rabbi Aaron, claim to have a 148 IQ, and at the same time, claim that IQ
> is unrelated to 'smartness':
1) At best, IQ correlates with only one aspect of intelligence
2) The studies showing negative correlation between theism and intelligence have
been performed using a variety of intelligence measurement -- much better than
just IQ, they relied on achievement, peer recognition, social status, academic
performance, etc. Almost all studies show the same thing -- theism and
intelligence (in whatever incarnation is being measured in that particular
study) are negatively correlated.
Anyway, what I find interesting is that you first seem to agree that the
concludion in question are acceptable, yet you immediatekly proceed to try and
undermine them in a roundabout way -- namely, by attacking people who spoke of
it, rather than the studies themselves.
--
Victor Danilchenko
alt.atheist 696
Virgil
<fi...@infidels.org.god> wrote:
>> Ok, so I proposed a simple experiment. Take a bunch of smart people, like
>> Mensa, and divide them up into 100 theists and 100 atheists. Then average
>> their IQs.
If you are suggesting that what might prove true for the population of
Mensa members will be representative of the entire population of
humankind, you are insulting one of those populations.
--
Virgil
vm...@frii.com
Richard E. Nickle
Virgil wrote in message ...
Hey, Mensa members are from all walks of life! They just care about and
are interested in Men! Just because some people in this benighted society
find it difficult to accept doesn't mean they aren't representative of
society! It would be just like taking a sample population of NAMBLA or
NASDA and dividing them into 100 atheists and 100 theists.
I would like to to point out thought that I have never seen a clearer
case for proportional representation. On the whole I think it is clear
that atheists are less empowered than theists (by their very nature) and
I think that should be considered by weighting the vote. I would suggest
making each base atheist vote worth 1.66 votes. Also, to allow for a larger
"tent", I would automatically assign agnostics 33 votes (taken equally from
atheists and theists) and a token bloc of 3 votes for the stillborn (by
fiat with no penalty to any other bloc).
Rick
>--
>Virgil
>vm...@frii.com
David DeLaney
>Hey, Mensa members are from all walks of life! They just care about and
>are interested in Men! Just because some people in this benighted society
>find it difficult to accept doesn't mean they aren't representative of
>society! It would be just like taking a sample population of NAMBLA or
>NASDA and dividing them into 100 atheists and 100 theists.
>On the whole I think it is clear
>that atheists are less empowered than theists (by their very nature) and
Guess what _I_ wackyparsed this as?
Dave "statistically sadistic" DeLaney
--
\/David DeLaney d...@panacea.phys.utk.edu "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://panacea.phys.utk.edu/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ/ I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
LeNakiz
Just adding some of my own thoughts to this discussion:
> >On the whole I think it is clear
> >that atheists are less empowered than theists (by their very nature) and
> ^^^^^^^^^
That is true only because as metioned earlier on in the debate, athiests are more
intelligent than thiest. By definition, this means we are a minority in the Earth's
population.
To those who argues against this, why does the majority of Atheists consists of very
intelligent people, e.g., astrophysicists, astronomers, physicists, doctors,
philosophers, etc. Remember that the majority of theists consist of nothing more
than laymen and uneducated populace.
Hence we can conclude that the more intelligent you are, the higher the chance of
you starting to think for yourself and recognise that there is no evidence to
suggest the existence of a deity in the creation of the universe/man/virus/etc.
Cheers!
--
"A thiest is like a blind man, searching for a black cat
in a dark room.... and finding it!"
...Love Always...
LeNakiz
Joedy
I'm new to this group, but I've read a bit of your discussion. Before
I contribute, I'd just like to say that
I'm immensely enjoying this debate.
Such smart people, arguing with such passion.
-Joedy
leemerkel
> Hi
>
> Just adding some of my own thoughts to this discussion:
>
> > >On the whole I think it is clear
> > >that atheists are less empowered than theists (by their very nature) and
> > ^^^^^^^^^
>
> That is true only because as metioned earlier on in the debate, athiests are more
> intelligent than thiest. By definition, this means we are a minority in the Earth's
> population.
>
All groups of people are minorities in the Earth's population. I think the only
clear majority is viruses. If you're talking strictly about people, then
examples of majority groups would be: those with one head; those with
two legs; those with two eyes; etc. As I see it, there's no real merit in
being a minority or majority. It's just another stat.
> To those who argues against this, why does the majority of Atheists consists of very
> intelligent people, e.g., astrophysicists, astronomers, physicists, doctors,
> philosophers, etc. Remember that the majority of theists consist of nothing more
> than laymen and uneducated populace.
>
Ha. As if education had any value. Intelligent people are those who have kept
their wits despite the attempts of schools to destroy them.
Also, all astrophysicists are idiots savants, which means they don't
know what they believe, and can tell you that to 35 decimal places.
What, by the way, is wrong with being a layman? It means being a
human, as opposed to being a lawyer or business exec.
Do you think a college degree confers something besides a
higher starting salary? If money's all you value, go print
some up. It can't be any worse than the crap the Fed
Reserve calls money.
--
--- Lee Merkel
~~ You're always at the frontier of reality ~~
ath...@home.com
wrote:
<snip>
>Cabrutus:
>>You do know that atheists are in
>>general smarter than theists, right?
>
>And, like a good boy, you proceeded to quote many urls in support of
>this.
>
<snip>
>Now, here is where I ran into something which doesn't make sense.
>
>"In general, atheists are smarter than theists."
>
>Ok, so I proposed a simple experiment. Take a bunch of smart people, like
>Mensa, and divide them up into 100 theists and 100 atheists. Then average
>their IQs. Now, some morons said this experiment wouldn't prove anything:
>
>ath...@home.com wrote in <37b9c096.774070405@news-server>:
>I don't know. What would be the point of such a study?
>
>I wonder why he said this.
It's called a question. That's why the little thingy at the end is
called a question mark.
>If 'atheists are smarter than theists' is a
>generally true statement, then it should hold true for most samples under
>study. And that includes the 100 theists, 100 atheists Mensa sample. We
>can try it with many such Mensa samples. If it's generally true, then it
>will be generally true within such samples, no?
>
>Anyway. That's besides the issue. I just found it amusing that an atheist
>would be afraid of performing such a study. On to more important matters.
If you are referring to me I certainly don't have a clue as to why you
feel I would be "afraid" of such a study. It simply wouldn't interest
me. The whole debate over I.Q. is rather comical in my opinion. There
are a number of Mensa level people in prison, living on the streets
and painting houses for a living. To suggest that a high I.Q. is a
requisite attribute in the decision to disgard a belief in the
supernatural is a bit silly.
>You said:
>
>>You do know that atheists are in
>>general smarter than theists, right?
>
>And I suggested that this be evaluated by IQ. Now, some morons, like
>Rabbi Aaron, claim to have a 148 IQ, and at the same time, claim that IQ
>is unrelated to 'smartness':
>Aaron I. Spielman <it's.in.t...@the.end.of.the.post> wrote in
mberg...@vax2.winona.msus.edu
Mark A. Berger
"Awaken now, Soldier of Love" - Ai no Senshi
On Wed, 8 Sep 1999, LeNakiz wrote:
> Hi
>
> Just adding some of my own thoughts to this discussion:
>
>
> > >On the whole I think it is clear
> > >that atheists are less empowered than theists (by their very nature) and
> > ^^^^^^^^^
>
> That is true only because as metioned earlier on in the debate, athiests are more
> intelligent than thiest. By definition, this means we are a minority in the Earth's
> population.
Attack ad hominem. PROOF IS REQUIRED. I strongly doubt that you are more
intelligent than I am.
> To those who argues against this, why does the majority of Atheists consists of very
> intelligent people, e.g., astrophysicists, astronomers, physicists, doctors,
> philosophers, etc. Remember that the majority of theists consist of nothing more
> than laymen and uneducated populace.
What a coincidence: the largest religions in the world are theistic in
nature. Furthermore, the majority of humanity lacks the intelligence and
sensibility to question the beliefs they were raised with. Therefore, the
majority of humanity will continue to follow the theistic religions that
they were raised in.
This does not say anything about theists versus atheists, this says
something about the state of the human race in general. If the majority
of human thought was based on an atheistic viewpoint, then it would be
only the more intelligent and educated who believed in a higher power
(insert Deity of your choice here).
A more relevant comparison would be not to compare the state of atheism in
general to that of theism in general, but to compare the state of belief
or nonbelief in the educated - the group of people more likely to question
their beliefs and come up with a world- and religious view that suits them
fully.
> Hence we can conclude that the more intelligent you are, the higher the chance of
> you starting to think for yourself and recognise that there is no evidence to
> suggest the existence of a deity in the creation of the universe/man/virus/etc.
And here you're begging the question. Just because your mental
explorations of the universe have rewarded you with an existence
completely devoid of a Creator doesn't mean that it's the only possible
conclusion to which an intelligent educated person can come. I'm an
intelligent, educated person myself. And I profess to the religion that
has been most commonly associated with unquestioning obedience: Roman
Catholic Christianity.
Ironic, ain't it? Actually, no. I questioned my religion and found that
it fit my beliefs and worldview.
Ja na,
Mark Berger
B
mberg...@VAX2.WINONA.MSUS.EDU says...
With your education and intelligence, could you please enlighten me as to how
you could possibly believe that the god, as described by your religion, is
compassionate or benevolent, given that benevolence is usually associated with
some form of help or protection or some other action that benefits others. In
other words, if I witness a child drowning in a lake and I have at my immediate
disposal means to rescue that child but do not, you would (or most people
anyway) consider me anything *but* compassionate or benevolent- while at the
same time holding a belief that an omnipotent god who also does not save that
child is all-loving and omnibenevolent...
--
BJM #1519
Dr Sinister
<37D43518...@cs.umass.edu>:
>Dr Sinister wrote:
[snip]
> You know, kiddo, you have a rather peculiar manner of agreeing to
> disagree --
Yes, I see. You will now propose various irrelevancies based on your
stylisic preferences. One must disagree with an atheist in the manner
approved by Danilchenko.
Dr Sinister:
>> I don't see atheists rebuking theists with: "and did you know
>> that there is a (noncausal) correlation between atheism and
>> smartness"?
>
> This statement is too vague to be answered.
Odd, because it isn't much different from a statement you made:
Victor Danilchenko <dani...@cs.umass.edu> wrote in
<37C1B07C...@cs.umass.edu>:
>There is a negative *correlation* between theism and
>intelligence; that does not mean that it is a causal link --
As in the 'falsification in mathematics' thread, it didn't take you long
to say something stupid, Vic.
[snip]
Dr Sinister:
>> I wonder why he said this. If 'atheists are smarter than theists' is a
>> generally true statement, then it should hold true for most samples
>> under study.
> BS. As it, 'total bullshit'.
So 'atheists are generally smarter than theists' is not a statement which
should generally be true?
> There is no such thing as 'should hold
> true for
>most samples', unless the samples are drawn from the same population.
But we are drawing the samples from the same population of Mensans. If it
turns out that 'atheists are smarter than theists' does not hold for
Mensans, then we have found an interesting exception to the "generally
true" rule.
OK you can now insert a quip about how you don't personally find it
interesting, blah, blah.
[snip stylistic critique]
David DeLaney
>LeNakiz wrote:
>> > >On the whole I think it is clear
>> > >that atheists are less empowered than theists (by their very nature) and
>> > ^^^^^^^^^
Ha, I win!!!1! My meme is Subliminally Embedded in alt.atheism AND IT CAN'T
GET (IT) UP!
Dave "and I even have Plausible Deniability!!" DeLaney
Victor Danilchenko
>
> Victor Danilchenko <dani...@cs.umass.edu> wrote in
> <37D43518...@cs.umass.edu>:
>
> >Dr Sinister wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > disagree --
>
> stylisic preferences. One must disagree with an atheist in the manner
> approved by Danilchenko.
<shrug> No, I think it's a manner accepted by the society at large. The point
of 'aghreeing to disagree' is parting in peace despite differences of opinion;
making inflamatory comments is hardly conducive to that.
> Dr Sinister:
> >> I don't see atheists rebuking theists with: "and did you know
> >> that there is a (noncausal) correlation between atheism and
> >> smartness"?
> >
> > This statement is too vague to be answered.
>
> Odd, because it isn't much different from a statement you made:
IFt's VERY different. Yes, it is just a correlation and not a causal link --
but it's your 'I don't see atheists rebuking theosts with...' part that was
entirely unclear. if you mean to say that atheists mislead theists by omission,
you should have said it more clearly.
> Dr Sinister:
> >> I wonder why he said this. If 'atheists are smarter than theists' is a
> >> generally true statement, then it should hold true for most samples
> >> under study.
>
> > BS. As it, 'total bullshit'.
>
> So 'atheists are generally smarter than theists' is not a statement which
> should generally be true?
No, idiot. It's not a statement that 'should hold true for most samples under
study' -- not if you use the 'samples' of the mind you proposed when you
suggested sampling Mensa members.
>
> > There is no such thing as 'should hold
> > true for
> >most samples', unless the samples are drawn from the same population.
>
> But we are drawing the samples from the same population of Mensans.
No, WE are drawing samples from the same population of general population --
that is the group that the negative correlation was established for. YOU are
trying to draw the samples from mensa members, but as you have been explained
before, this is completely invalid for the purposes of investigating the
correlation in the population in general (which is what 'atheists tend to be
smarter than theists' refers to).
> If it
> turns out that 'atheists are smarter than theists' does not hold for
> Mensans, then we have found an interesting exception to the "generally
> true" rule.
<LOL> It would not be an exception, asshole. Any correlation that is true for
the population, is not necessarily true for any non-representative segment of
the population (remember the presidential election telephone polls conducted
when FDR ran for the first time? telephone owners tended to be rich and voted
republican, thus completely skewing the poll results -- the population was
voting democratic). You should really read up on sample selection methods.
That being said, there WERE such studies done, and the correlation DOES hold
for Mensans. My point was methodological -- you cannot use Mensa members for the
experiment, yet draw conclusions about the general population from it.
> OK you can now insert a quip about how you don't personally find it
> interesting, blah, blah.
> [snip stylistic critique]
No, I simply find you to be an idiot with an ax to grind. And, BTW, the
so-called 'stylistic critique' you snipped, liar, was actually a critique of
your point (if you can be said to have one) and of your moronic methods in
supporting the said point.
I find it amazing that you are actually seriously trying to avoid addressing my
points in *such an obviously dishonest manner*. The least you could do, is
display some subtlety in your lies and evasions.
J. Orlith
could tell you the exact nature of the universe and thus prove that God
doesn't exist, science itself has a religious quality- nowadays, most
people have to take everything a scientist tells them on faith (just like
in religion), since so much scientific background is required to be at the
point of understanding current views of the nature of the (physical)
universe. Take string theorists- they tell us that (they think) the
universe has either 10 or 26 dimensions- but try listening to the
explanation. Only another string theorist could fully understand, though
undoubtedly many intelligent non-string theorists could do fairly well.
Plus, a lot of what we know about space and time isn't directly observable
to your average person, but we believe it when Stephen Hawking tells it to
us. I guess the main difference between science and religion is that
science doesn't give you moral rules by which to live.
Incidentally, I've encountered scientists who, based on what they've
learned about the nature of things, have become more decidedly religious.
J. Orlith
excuse me if my thoughts sound muddled- it's nearly 4AM!
remove ".og" to email
ju...@pconline.com.spambait
: How clear-cut is the line between theism and atheism? Even if scientists
: could tell you the exact nature of the universe and thus prove that God
: doesn't exist, science itself has a religious quality- nowadays, most
: people have to take everything a scientist tells them on faith (just like
: in religion), since so much scientific background is required to be at the
: point of understanding current views of the nature of the (physical)
: universe.
You confuse faith and trust. Faith tells you that you should believe
something 'just because'--that there is something noble about believing
something without a good reason. Trust tells you 'this has always been
the case in the past, so I will extend conditional acceptance to it in the
future.' We TRUST science because they've usually been right in the
past, and in most cases if you really want to understand a certain theory,
you CAN study it and see the evidence and proof for yourself. Religion,
on the other hand, has NEVER proven itself to be right about something in
the past, and no matter how closely it is studied it has been unable to
produce any sound evidence to back it's claims and ideas up. If you
don't believe in gravity or genes I can demonstrate their existance in
objective, reproducible ways. If I don't believe in god, what can you do
or show to support the idea that god IS real? I'm still searching for
that mythical beast: The logical christian.
: Take string theorists- they tell us that (they think) the
: universe has either 10 or 26 dimensions- but try listening to the
: explanation. Only another string theorist could fully understand, though
: undoubtedly many intelligent non-string theorists could do fairly well.
Your point being...? Most people would have no idea what I meant
by 'racing cam', but I can assure you, car engines exist. :-) And
that's what it really comes down to: When you press science for proof and
explanations, they can deliver them. Religion usually just beats it's
chest and acts indignant about anybody DARING to question their position.
: Plus, a lot of what we know about space and time isn't directly observable
: to your average person, but we believe it when Stephen Hawking tells it to
: us. I guess the main difference between science and religion is that
: science doesn't give you moral rules by which to live.
Basketball doesn't give us moral rules to live by either, but I don't
see how that makes basketball fans anti-morality. :-) Science is a
tool, a discipline. It doesn't have any real bearings on ethics, a field
outside of the domain of physical sciences. Ethics, however, stands very
well on it's own--you don't need any sort of religion for ethics to make
sense. (In fact, religion is a barrior to ethical behavior since it makes
people think and act irrationally.)
: Incidentally, I've encountered scientists who, based on what they've
: learned about the nature of things, have become more decidedly religious.
*shrug* And some people drink their own urine because of what they
see in the bible. That something happens doesn't mean it makes
sense--humans have an almost infinate capacity for foolishness and self
delusion.
'Than
mike list
brainlock,
agnostics are the people who show a capacity to learn.
Show me evidence and I will believe,
-Mike List
Victor Danilchenko
http://anytime.cs.umass.edu/~danilche/default_E-.html
How about them apples, Oh Indecisive One?..
P.S. I suggest you remain similarly agnostic with respect to the Flying Purple
People Eater, and to the invisible untouchable unsmellable inaudible dragon
under your chair.
egor
Except that there's a bit more reason to at least entertain the notion of an
intellienge greater than ours being a reality, than there is to assume there
*might* be any of the above named creatures lurking about.
Theists are annoyed with atheists for their lack of belief, and atheists are
annoyed with theists for their willingness to beieve. Interesting. The only
time
belief, or lack of belief, annoys me, is when someone else wants to force me
to
accept it. Other than that, I say, "have at it".
mike list
this
thread dealing with what is certainly advanced reasoning, managed to butcher the
spelling
of Occam's Razor. Since the spelling is consistent throughout the page, I'm ruling
out a typo.
-Mike List
mike list
> [alt.agnosticism added]
>
> mike list wrote:
> >
> > It seems to me that both theists and atheists suffer from a similar
> > brainlock, agnostics are the people who show a capacity to learn.
> >
> > Show me evidence and I will believe,
>
> http://anytime.cs.umass.edu/~danilche/default_E-.html
> How about them apples, Oh Indecisive One?..
>
> P.S. I suggest you remain similarly agnostic with respect to the Flying Purple
> People Eater, and to the invisible untouchable unsmellable inaudible dragon
> under your chair.
>
> --
> Victor Danilchenko
> alt.atheist 696
I inadvertently left out the qualifier "sufficient", and I'm on really good terms
with the dragon, but the purple thing keeps getting into my stash. heh.
Victor Danilchenko
Ummm... thanks for the left-handed compliment; however, 'Ockham' IS the correct
spelling -- or, at least, the *original* correct spelling. 'Occam' is a
bastardization, although both spellings are in active use now. Pick up some good
reference on philosophy (try 'Oxford Companion to Philosophy' for starters --
it's easy to find) and convince yourself, dude.
--
Victor Danilchenko,
The advanced reasoning dude,
Ockham butcher,
Renaissance man,
alt.atheist 696
mike list
> How clear-cut is the line between theism and atheism? Even if scientists
> could tell you the exact nature of the universe and thus prove that God
> doesn't exist, science itself has a religious quality- nowadays, most
> people have to take everything a scientist tells them on faith (just like
> in religion), since so much scientific background is required to be at the
> point of understanding current views of the nature of the (physical)
> universe. Take string theorists- they tell us that (they think) the
> universe has either 10 or 26 dimensions- but try listening to the
> explanation. Only another string theorist could fully understand, though
> undoubtedly many intelligent non-string theorists could do fairly well.
> Plus, a lot of what we know about space and time isn't directly observable
> to your average person, but we believe it when Stephen Hawking tells it to
> us. I guess the main difference between science and religion is that
> science doesn't give you moral rules by which to live.
>
> Incidentally, I've encountered scientists who, based on what they've
> learned about the nature of things, have become more decidedly religious.
>
> J. Orlith
>
> excuse me if my thoughts sound muddled- it's nearly 4AM!
>
> remove ".og" to email
I might agree that people in general will believe nearly anything a
scientist of enough
eminence or celebrity, but scientists whose careers depend on either
fastidious research
or a breakthrough of some kind, there are always researchers looking at
alternative views.
Some of these are very crackpot, some sound good but don't pan out, and a few
actually
survive to change the paradigms that future scientists will operate unless
someone
can refine or disprove that current view.
Atheism is CERTAIN without a doubt that there is no God, theism is JUST AS
CERTAIN
that there is, but science is not concerned with that issue. God may well
have had a hand in
evolution or not, but evolution DID/DOES occur, and all living things are
subject to it, including
christian fundamentalists.
As for scientists being "religious" about their field of study, I'm sure that
a successful businessman
is "religious" about his career in the same manner. I'll leave all that
idolatry stuff alone for the
purpose of this rant.
I was raised as a Catholic and it taught me, not purposely I'm sure, to look
at things carefully.
I am an agnostic, not just to a christian god, but to a god as an interactive
creative intelligence.
It would be a cop out I'm sure, to assign divinity to something like the laws
of thermodynamics,
which could indeed turn out to be the creative force behind the creation of
the universe, and I'm
not sure that there is more to it than that. I don't however, need an
evangelist, or any tracts sent
to my home (evangelicals, take note, I'll be pissed).
-Mike List
Fish
> mike list wrote:
> >
> > I 'm really amazed that such a website as was linked to the previous
> > message in this thread dealing with what is certainly advanced reasoning,
> > managed to butcher the spelling of Occam's Razor. Since the spelling is
> > consistent throughout the page, I'm ruling out a typo.
>
> Ummm... thanks for the left-handed compliment; however, 'Ockham' IS the correct
> spelling -- or, at least, the *original* correct spelling. 'Occam' is a
> bastardization, although both spellings are in active use now. Pick up some good
> reference on philosophy (try 'Oxford Companion to Philosophy' for starters --
> it's easy to find) and convince yourself, dude.
Ock·ham also Oc·cam ( Ľk“…m), William of. 1285?-1349? 1.
English scholastic philosopher who rejected the reality of
universal concepts.
Ock·ham's razor also Oc·cam's razor ( Ľk“…mz) n. 1. A rule in
science and philosophy stating that entities should not be
multiplied needlessly. This rule is interpreted to mean that the
simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable and
that an explanation for unknown phenomena should first be
attempted in terms of what is already known. Also Called law of
parsimony. [After William of Ockham]
--
"Fish" (David B. Trout)
Alt.Atheism #623
ICQ# 25302291
fi...@infidels.org.god
(remove "god" to reply by email)
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
The intelligent man portions his belief to the evidence. - Hume
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
maff91
wrote:
>Victor Danilchenko posted the following to alt.atheism:
>
>> mike list wrote:
>> >
>> > I 'm really amazed that such a website as was linked to the previous
>> > message in this thread dealing with what is certainly advanced reasoning,
>> > managed to butcher the spelling of Occam's Razor. Since the spelling is
>> > consistent throughout the page, I'm ruling out a typo.
>>
>> Ummm... thanks for the left-handed compliment; however, 'Ockham' IS the correct
>> spelling -- or, at least, the *original* correct spelling. 'Occam' is a
>> bastardization, although both spellings are in active use now. Pick up some good
>> reference on philosophy (try 'Oxford Companion to Philosophy' for starters --
>> it's easy to find) and convince yourself, dude.
>
>Ock·ham also Oc·cam ( Ľk“…m), William of. 1285?-1349? 1.
>English scholastic philosopher who rejected the reality of
>universal concepts.
>
>Ock·ham's razor also Oc·cam's razor ( Ľk“…mz) n. 1. A rule in
>science and philosophy stating that entities should not be
>multiplied needlessly. This rule is interpreted to mean that the
>simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable and
>that an explanation for unknown phenomena should first be
>attempted in terms of what is already known. Also Called law of
>parsimony. [After William of Ockham]
Try http://pvspade.com/Logic/docs/ockham.pdf
http://www.eppc.org/library/articles/weigel/wprog194.html
http://skepdic.com/occam.html
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/o/ockham.htm
<http://dir.yahoo.com/Arts/Humanities/Philosophy/Philosophers/William_of_Ockham__1280__1347__/>
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/:/OCCAMRAZ.html
http://philosophy.wisc.edu/simplicity/
http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/~donpaul/diversions/occams_2.html
--
L.P.#0000000001
Magenta
>[alt.agnosticism added]
>
>mike list wrote:
>>
>> It seems to me that both theists and atheists suffer from a similar
>> brainlock, agnostics are the people who show a capacity to learn.
>>
>> Show me evidence and I will believe,
>
> http://anytime.cs.umass.edu/~danilche/default_E-.html
> How about them apples, Oh Indecisive One?..
>
>P.S. I suggest you remain similarly agnostic with respect to the Flying Purple
>People Eater, and to the invisible untouchable unsmellable inaudible dragon
>under your chair.
I am. Show me proof and I will believe, if not my life is completely
unaffected by the existence or lack thereof of such a creature.
Now, in all of the vastness of space, time and dimensions, can you be
absolutely 100% certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is
absolutely positively NO one eyed one horned flying purple eater?
Victor Danilchenko
>
> Victor Danilchenko <dani...@cs.umass.edu> wrote:
>
> >mike list wrote:
> >>
> >> It seems to me that both theists and atheists suffer from a similar
> >> brainlock, agnostics are the people who show a capacity to learn.
> >>
> >> Show me evidence and I will believe,
> >
> > http://anytime.cs.umass.edu/~danilche/default_E-.html
> > How about them apples, Oh Indecisive One?..
> >
> >P.S. I suggest you remain similarly agnostic with respect to the Flying Purple
> >People Eater, and to the invisible untouchable unsmellable inaudible dragon
> >under your chair.
>
> I am. Show me proof and I will believe, if not my life is completely
> unaffected by the existence or lack thereof of such a creature.
OK, so you are also agnostic with regard to Santa Claus?.. Ritualistic magic?..
green tea elves?.. lamarkian evolution?.. ether?.. ptolemaic astrophysics?.. If
no, why not?
> Now, in all of the vastness of space, time and dimensions, can you be
> absolutely 100% certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is
> absolutely positively NO one eyed one horned flying purple eater?
I see you did NOT read the site I posted the URL to. Please do so -- it will
answer the question you just asked (which happens to be a strawman of my
position).
Victor Danilchenko
>
> Victor Danilchenko <dani...@cs.umass.edu> wrote:
>
> >Magenta wrote:
> >>
> >> Victor Danilchenko <dani...@cs.umass.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> > http://anytime.cs.umass.edu/~danilche/default_E-.html
> >> > How about them apples, Oh Indecisive One?..
> >> >
> >> >P.S. I suggest you remain similarly agnostic with respect to the Flying Purple
> >> >People Eater, and to the invisible untouchable unsmellable inaudible dragon
> >> >under your chair.
> >>
> >> I am. Show me proof and I will believe, if not my life is completely
> >> unaffected by the existence or lack thereof of such a creature.
> >
> > OK, so you are also agnostic with regard to Santa Claus?.. Ritualistic magic?..
> >green tea elves?.. lamarkian evolution?.. ether?.. ptolemaic astrophysics?.. If
> >no, why not?
>
> Think about it- if you have no evidence to support or deny, then there
> is no reason to believe something is either true or false.
This goes against the very basic premises of scientific method. Are you
familiar with the notion of 'null-hypothesis' in statistics? Statistics
underlies all experimental science, and the 'null-hypothesis' concept is an
essential part of statistical analysis -- and also happens to be basically
equivalent to the epistemological stance my page outlines.
> Are you under the impression that there is no evidence to disprove
> ptolemaic astrophysics or lamarkian evolution? Those were theories
> that were PROVED incorrect by additional evidence.
No theory is EVER proven or disproven. They are only more or less supported. No
knowledge exists in a vacuum -- all knowledge is theory-ladden, and sufficient
amount of bending over backwards will allow you to hold on to pretty much any
belief (as xians do); if you don't know what I am talking about, read Kuhn's
'Structure of Scientific Revolution'.
The point of this is that no knowledge is absolute, all knowledge is a matter
of a *degree* of certainty or uncertainty. There is no such thing as '100%
certain knowledge'; so, if you insist on only holding theories 100% known to be
true, you will never accept ANY theories -- and if you make some point of
certainty cutoff beyond which you accept a theory, I would ask you to explain
exactly how and why you hold that particular cutoff point.
> This all weighs on PROOF.
There is no 'proof' in empirical sciences -- only in math and logic. When we
speak of 'scientific proof', we actually refer to inductive affirmation
(typically couched in statistical terms).
> >> Now, in all of the vastness of space, time and dimensions, can you be
> >> absolutely 100% certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is
> >> absolutely positively NO one eyed one horned flying purple eater?
> >
> >I see you did NOT read the site I posted the URL to. Please do so -- it will
> >answer the question you just asked (which happens to be a strawman of my
> >position).
>
> No, it is not a strawman argument- it exactly proves my point. If you
> can not be 100% sure the creature does not exist, and you can not be
> sure the creature does exist, you are agnostic to the existence of the
> creature.
You can NEVER be 100% sure of either existence or non-existence of ANYTHING.
There is no such thing as total certainty, except in math (and not even there,
in Quine is to be believed).
> It remains an UNKNOWN. It is an inherently faulty to assume
> that every discussion must end in a conclusion.
If you call anything less than 100% an 'unknown', then EVERTHING is unknown,
because I can trivially demonstrate how any bit of knowledge that you would
consider to be 100% certain, is not.
> And as for your page, since the initial premise is faulty, the logic
> is useless. You state:
>
> An argument is only meaningful if both sides have at least a potential
> for winning.
>
> This automatically assumes we must reach a conclusion about the
> existence of this creature.
If your criteria demands 100% certainty for proclaiming either side a winner,
then nobody will EVER win, because 100% certainty is unattainable. You offer no
meaningful alternative. Any other objections?
> This might work in a theist vs atheist
> argument, but it completely ignores the agnostic position- there is
> just not enough information to reach a conclusion about the existence
> of God or the OEOHFPPE, so drawing any conclusion one way or the other
> is illogical.
If we remained agnostic about everything we are not totally certain about, we
would forever remain agnostic about everything. Is this the position you are
advocating -- or is there a certain probabilistic curoff point beyond which you
suggest accepting something, even if it is not 100% certain?
Victor Danilchenko
All measurement is theory-ladden. Especially measurement that does not rely on
our direct sensory perceptions.
> We all exist within our own
> subjective realities, which are composed of what we take in with our
> senses. We all share some unknown called "actuality". The more
> information we can gather from each subjective reality that
> corresponds to each other, the closer we can approximate reality.
> Think about a car accident with a number of witnesses, and you are the
> officer who shows up at the scene. In order to get a picture of what
> happened, you interview each witness- the details that they all agree
> on have a much higher probability of existing in actuality.
Not necessarily. In fact, eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable -- the
eyewitness testimonies are ridiculously easy to affect.
> If they all say the red car is at fault for hitting the green car, you
> have a strong case.
Unless, of course, you are in a small Connecticut town, and the red car car
huge letters 'NYC' on the rear window... The eyewitnesses may be sincerely
convinced that the fucking asshole NYC driver was at fault, even if that is not
actually the case (New York City drivers are notorious for their aggression, and
Connecticut is very close to NYC).
> If the witnesses can't even agree on what color
> the cars were, you don't. If not a single witness saw the accident,
> that does not mean the accident didn't happen- it was just not a part
> of any subjective realities.
>
> The existence of mater, air, the earth, electricity, plants, animals-
> all of these things can be demonstrated to exist in all of our
> realities, thus in actuality.
Are you suggesting that we know this with 100% certainty? Well, our knowledge
of these things may be considered extremely close to 100% (I don't want to
quibble about THAT point at the moment). What about electrons, though? We are
reasonably sure they exist, but our knowledge of them relies on certain theories
in physics -- theories which are by no means 100% certain (no theories ever
are). Are you agnostic WRT electrons? or are you simply assuming those theories
are true, even though you are not 100% certain, nor is everyone you meet
directly aware of those theories' veracity?
> The concept of God cannot be proven to exist or NOT exist within
> actuality- only in a few unconnected subjective realities with little
> if any common threads.
I can buy 'cannot be proven to NOT exist' -- but I see absolutely no reason to
say that it cannot be (rather than 'has not been') proven to exist. if god does
indeed exist, it is entirely possible that it can be shown to exist beyond
reasonable doubt -- and your proclamation to the contrary smells of a premise
made to justify the conclusion (rather than the pother way around).
> Thus God remains an unknown, while those things within our collective
> experiences are known to exist.
My point is that there are PLENTY of things we do not know with great -- or
even any -- certainty, yet we take sides. This is simply how we -- and our
epistemic methods -- work. No such assumptions == no knowledge beyond immediate
sensory data (and arguably not even that).
> And here is the main point- how you live your life. YOu don't even
> live your life based on Actuality, but based on your own subjective
> reality- all you know of the world is what you have perceived, and
> what you believe to exist based on other's perceptions.
Duh!
So, HAVE you directly perceived electrons today?
> And yes, the same goes for elves and one-eyed-one-horned...
I take it your subjective reality does not include anything that you don't
directly experience, then? For example, I am sure you do not assume that the
computer still exists when you are not looking at it, are you? I am sure you are
explicitly agnostic WRT your computer when it's out of your sight... and WRT
induction in general, too.
BTW, I see you snipped my point about science and the concept of
null-hypothesis in statistics -- which point was directly and cruicially related
to my position. Can you please address it, one way or another?
Victor Danilchenko
>
> Victor Danilchenko <dani...@cs.umass.edu> wrote in
> <37DC6213...@cs.umass.edu>:
>
> >Magenta wrote:
> >> Think about it- if you have no evidence to support or deny, then there
> >> is no reason to believe something is either true or false.
> >
> > This goes against the very basic premises of scientific method. Are you
> >familiar with the notion of 'null-hypothesis' in statistics? Statistics
> >underlies all experimental science, and the 'null-hypothesis' concept is
> >an essential part of statistical analysis -- and also happens to be
> >basically equivalent to the epistemological stance my page outlines.
>
> not equivalent to statistical 'null hypothesis',
Not of course totally equivalent, but pretty damn close to it (in case you are
about to accuse me of switching position -- this is what English word
'basically' is commonly used for: designating similarity but not identity).
> and (2) your website is of no interest to anyone but you.
<shrug> that remains to be seen.
> Null hypothesis works like this. Suppose you have a statistic on a system
> which results in H0. Usually this is via a purely random process. Now
> suppose you change some parameters in this system. The null hypothesis is
> that, to within statistical tolerances, the measurement H1 will be H0 if
> there is no effect [outside of a random process, but this is not alway
> the case in defining a null hypothesis]. For example. I create mercury
> droplets with lognormal mass distribution. This is H0. Then I apply a
> magnetic field. The resulting droplet mass distribution H1, is to be
> compared with the null hypothesis. If there are statistically significant
> diffrences between H0 and H1 then we can say that the null hypothesis is
> rejected.
>
> Now. I want you to do the following.
>
> 1. Explain how 'burden of proof' is equivalent to null hypothesis.
Null hypothesis holds a similar methodological position -- it is something we
assume to be true, barring statistically significant contrary data. In fact, the
null hypothesis is commonly about non-existence of something (if existence of
the said something would produce some additional effect).
> 2. Explain how Hermann Weyl's Guage theory concept arose from a null
> hypothesis.
How is some specific old hypothesis about gravity relevant to this -- why
SHOULD I try to draw such a connection? Furthermore, how the hell is it relevant
to the argument about agnosticism?
> 3. If you cannot do (2), then explain why guage theory is not science.
Well, first of all, I am not familiar with 'guage theory of gravity' -- I
merely heard the name. Nevertheless, I would be really interested in hearing
about the reasons behind this demand -- after all, hypotheses are commonly
formed without use of statistical analysis (although they of course rely on the
previous experimental and theoretical results). I also wouldn't mind a quick
summary of what 'guage theory' is, or a pointer to such summary.
wenchpoet
news:37DC6213...@cs.umass.edu...
IHNJH IJLTSing ~~I've got spuuuurs that jingle Danilchenko~~ to the tune of
Gene Autry's "(I've got Spurs That) Jingle Jangle Jingle"
wench "oops, wrong newsfroup" poet
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What if the Hokey Pokey really is what it's all about?
ju...@pconline.com.spambait
: It seems to me that both theists and atheists suffer from a similar
: brainlock,
: agnostics are the people who show a capacity to learn.
Agnostics may learn--atheists HAVE learned. :-) When a theory is
unsupported, the logical position is that it is untrue. To be an
agnostic is an act of intellectual cowardice--the unwillingness to aply
logic to situations where doing so would upset people (theists.) Saying
that you are an agnostic essentially ammounts to saying 'well, I just
don't know if there's a god--maybe you theists are right.' To be an
atheist, by contrast, says to theists 'the center of your life and most
dearly held beliefs are garbage, and probably the result of personal
stupidity.' Which is more socially acceptable? Theists prefer
agnostics over atheists. Many people would rather BE agnostic instead of
atheists because they can't quite shake a lifetime of superstitious
brainwashing. But no, agnosticism isn't an intellectually valid
position unless you can produce some moderately compeling argument that
there might, in fact, be gods.
'Than
Magenta
>Magenta wrote:
>>
>> Victor Danilchenko <dani...@cs.umass.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >mike list wrote:
>> >>
>> >> It seems to me that both theists and atheists suffer from a similar
>> >> brainlock, agnostics are the people who show a capacity to learn.
>> >>
>> >> Show me evidence and I will believe,
>> >
>> > http://anytime.cs.umass.edu/~danilche/default_E-.html
>> > How about them apples, Oh Indecisive One?..
>> >
>> >P.S. I suggest you remain similarly agnostic with respect to the Flying Purple
>> >People Eater, and to the invisible untouchable unsmellable inaudible dragon
>> >under your chair.
>>
>> I am. Show me proof and I will believe, if not my life is completely
>> unaffected by the existence or lack thereof of such a creature.
>
> OK, so you are also agnostic with regard to Santa Claus?.. Ritualistic magic?..
>green tea elves?.. lamarkian evolution?.. ether?.. ptolemaic astrophysics?.. If
>no, why not?
Dub....
Think about it- if you have no evidence to support or deny, then there
is no reason to believe something is either true or false.
Are you under the impression that there is no evidence to disprove
ptolemaic astrophysics or lamarkian evolution? Those were theories
that were PROVED incorrect by additional evidence.
This all weighs on PROOF.
>> Now, in all of the vastness of space, time and dimensions, can you be
>> absolutely 100% certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is
>> absolutely positively NO one eyed one horned flying purple eater?
>
>I see you did NOT read the site I posted the URL to. Please do so -- it will
>answer the question you just asked (which happens to be a strawman of my
>position).
No, it is not a strawman argument- it exactly proves my point. If you
can not be 100% sure the creature does not exist, and you can not be
sure the creature does exist, you are agnostic to the existence of the
creature. It remains an UNKNOWN. It is an inherently faulty to assume
that every discussion must end in a conclusion.
And as for your page, since the initial premise is faulty, the logic
is useless. You state:
An argument is only meaningful if both sides have at least a potential
for winning.
This automatically assumes we must reach a conclusion about the
existence of this creature. This might work in a theist vs atheist
argument, but it completely ignores the agnostic position- there is
just not enough information to reach a conclusion about the existence
of God or the OEOHFPPE, so drawing any conclusion one way or the other
is illogical.
Dr Sinister
[snip]
>P.S. I suggest you remain similarly agnostic with respect to the Flying
>Purple People Eater, and to the invisible untouchable unsmellable
>inaudible dragon under your chair.
It is clear that you are making an analogy pointing out the inconsistency
between the agnostic position on gods and their positive disbelief in
invisible dragons.
If this is the case, then atheists should lack belief in invisible
dragons.
But since the definition of an atheist contains no such requirement, we
must conclude that your argument is without any relevancy to the issue of
atheism vs agnosticism.
Dr Sinister
<384498b1....@news1.newscene.com>:
>Try http://pvspade.com/Logic/docs/ockham.pdf
>http://www.eppc.org/library/articles/weigel/wprog194.html
Do recall that maff has used Ockham's Razor to conclude:
Maff91: http://x35.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=509675220
>It[Cosmological Matter] always existed. Occam's razor precludes any
>other explanation.
Magenta
>Magenta wrote:
> If we remained agnostic about everything we are not totally certain about, we
>would forever remain agnostic about everything. Is this the position you are
>advocating -- or is there a certain probabilistic curoff point beyond which you
>suggest accepting something, even if it is not 100% certain?
Yes- measurable actuality- simple as that. We all exist within our own
subjective realities, which are composed of what we take in with our
senses. We all share some unknown called "actuality". The more
information we can gather from each subjective reality that
corresponds to each other, the closer we can approximate reality.
Think about a car accident with a number of witnesses, and you are the
officer who shows up at the scene. In order to get a picture of what
happened, you interview each witness- the details that they all agree
on have a much higher probability of existing in actuality.
If they all say the red car is at fault for hitting the green car, you
have a strong case. If the witnesses can't even agree on what color
the cars were, you don't. If not a single witness saw the accident,
that does not mean the accident didn't happen- it was just not a part
of any subjective realities.
The existence of mater, air, the earth, electricity, plants, animals-
all of these things can be demonstrated to exist in all of our
realities, thus in actuality.
The concept of God cannot be proven to exist or NOT exist within
actuality- only in a few unconnected subjective realities with little
if any common threads.
Thus God remains an unknown, while those things within our collective
experiences are known to exist.
And here is the main point- how you live your life. YOu don't even
live your life based on Actuality, but based on your own subjective
reality- all you know of the world is what you have perceived, and
what you believe to exist based on other's perceptions.
And yes, the same goes for elves and one-eyed-one-horned...
Dr Sinister
>Magenta wrote:
>> Think about it- if you have no evidence to support or deny, then there
>> is no reason to believe something is either true or false.
>
> This goes against the very basic premises of scientific method. Are
> you
>familiar with the notion of 'null-hypothesis' in statistics? Statistics
>underlies all experimental science, and the 'null-hypothesis' concept is
>an essential part of statistical analysis -- and also happens to be
>basically equivalent to the epistemological stance my page outlines.
There are two things you should understand here. (1) Burden of proof is
not equivalent to statistical 'null hypothesis', and (2) your website is
of no interest to anyone but you.
Null hypothesis works like this. Suppose you have a statistic on a system
which results in H0. Usually this is via a purely random process. Now
suppose you change some parameters in this system. The null hypothesis is
that, to within statistical tolerances, the measurement H1 will be H0 if
there is no effect [outside of a random process, but this is not alway
the case in defining a null hypothesis]. For example. I create mercury
droplets with lognormal mass distribution. This is H0. Then I apply a
magnetic field. The resulting droplet mass distribution H1, is to be
compared with the null hypothesis. If there are statistically significant
diffrences between H0 and H1 then we can say that the null hypothesis is
rejected.
Now. I want you to do the following.
1. Explain how 'burden of proof' is equivalent to null hypothesis.
2. Explain how Hermann Weyl's Guage theory concept arose from a null
hypothesis.
3. If you cannot do (2), then explain why guage theory is not science.
--
Dr Sinister
>Dr Sinister wrote:
>> There are two things you should understand here. (1) Burden of proof
>> is not equivalent to statistical 'null hypothesis',
>
> Not of course totally equivalent, but pretty damn close to it (in
> case you are
>about to accuse me of switching position -- this is what English word
>'basically' is commonly used for: designating similarity but not
>identity).
Then explain in what sense the null hypothesis is 'basically' equivalent
to the burden of proof.
>> and (2) your website is of no interest to anyone but you.
>
> <shrug> that remains to be seen.
Vic, you don't even understand where gauge theories come from. Hence, you
cannot possibly understand the orgins of modern physics. Thus, only an
idiot would give serious credence to your pronouncements on the nature
and philosphy of science. But, as you say, it remains to be seen.
[snip]
>> 1. Explain how 'burden of proof' is equivalent to null hypothesis.
>
> Null hypothesis holds a similar methodological position -- it is
> something we
>assume to be true, barring statistically significant contrary data.
That's complete nonsense. I have given you an example. Suppose you
measure the mass distribution of mercury fragments and they are
lognormal. This is your null hypothesis. Now, I apply a magnetic field to
the fragmentation process. Do you really expect somone, as a scientist,
to accept the null hypothesis as the default truth until shown otherwise?
The null hypothesis is there for you to draw statistical comparison
against in order to determine levels of significance and confidence in
your interpretation empirical measurments and the error distribution
thereof.
You are doing exactly what feeble minded idiots like Septic do: they
confuse hypothesis with *belief*.
> In
>fact, the null hypothesis is commonly about non-existence of something
That is false.
[snip]
>> 2. Explain how Hermann Weyl's Guage theory concept arose from a null
>> hypothesis.
>
> How is some specific old hypothesis about gravity relevant to this -
You are severly mistaken as to the nature of Weyl's work.
> - why
>SHOULD I try to draw such a connection? Furthermore, how the hell is it
>relevant to the argument about agnosticism?
It is relevant for the following reasons. You said that skepticism, null
hypothesis, and burden of proof, are central and fundamental to modern
science. I want you to now deliver on this and explain how Weyl's gauge
theory arose as a consequence of these 'fundamentals' of science. If you
can't do that, then explain why Weyl's gauge theory is not science.
>> 3. If you cannot do (2), then explain why guage theory is not science.
>
> Well, first of all, I am not familiar with 'guage theory of gravity'
Gauge theory and 'gauge theory of gravity' are two totally different
issues. In fact, most physicists will tell you that gravitation is not a
gauge theory[1].
> -- I
>merely heard the name.
The concept is fundamental to the history and philosophy of science. You
can't simply ignore it or pretend it isn't there.
>Nevertheless, I would be really interested in
>hearing about the reasons behind this demand
The demand is simple. You have babbled on about what science *is* and
what it is *not*. So now I want you to reconcile Weyl's work into your
point of view, or reject it as non-science. Or find a happy medium which
fits into your world view.
> -- after all, hypotheses
>are commonly formed without use of statistical analysis
Then the null hypothesis is not fundamental after all.
>(although they
>of course rely on the previous experimental and theoretical results). I
>also wouldn't mind a quick summary of what 'guage theory' is, or a
>pointer to such summary.
Weyl, Gravitation and Electricity, 1918
Weyl, Electron and Gravitation, 1929
Please note Einstein's response to Weyl's 1918 paper and see if you can
reconcile it with 'burden of proof', 'skepticism' or similar ad hoc
bullshit.
****
It is a local SL(2,C) gauge theory, in fact [Carmeli].
Leo Sgouros
wenchpoet <te...@q7.com> wrote in message
news:GC_C3.39249$FG4.1...@news1.teleport.com...
atheistic dribble's on
doo da
doo da
no
ELVIS!!!
Oooh oooh oooh
I feel my newsgroup collidin
higher and higher
its burning through to my piles
url url url
you gonna get me all tired
my faith is flaming
and I dont know which way to go
but your disses took me higher
like a sweet sting on my thigh-er
you bite my morning tires
my burning dove
im just
AHUNKA HUNKA BURNIN DOVE
AHUNKA A HUNKA BURNIN SCRUBS
AHUNKA HUNKA BURNIN TUBS TUBS
thank you
thank you very musch-
Victor Danilchenko
>
> Victor Danilchenko <dani...@cs.umass.edu> wrote in
> <37DC745B...@cs.umass.edu>:
>
> >Dr Sinister wrote:
> >> There are two things you should understand here. (1) Burden of proof
> >> is not equivalent to statistical 'null hypothesis',
> >
> > Not of course totally equivalent, but pretty damn close to it (in
> > case you are
> >about to accuse me of switching position -- this is what English word
> >'basically' is commonly used for: designating similarity but not
> >identity).
>
> Then explain in what sense the null hypothesis is 'basically' equivalent
> to the burden of proof.
I have already done that.
> >> and (2) your website is of no interest to anyone but you.
> >
> > <shrug> that remains to be seen.
>
> Vic, you don't even understand where gauge theories come from. Hence, you
> cannot possibly understand the orgins of modern physics.
Are you suggesting that guage theory is a key component in modern
physics? I am passing familiar with history of physics, but I never
heard about it... You make an interesting claim, but you have not backed
it up.
> Thus, only an
> idiot would give serious credence to your pronouncements on the nature
> and philosphy of science. But, as you say, it remains to be seen.
<LOL> Wow, quite a leap of logic. In one fell swoop, you assume that:
1) One could not possibly understand history of physics without
understanding guage theory
2) One could not possibly understand history of science without
understanding history of physics.
Really, you will have to do better than just making such assumptions.
BTW, curious factoid: A search of AltaVista on 'guage AND Weyl' turned
up only 8 pages, 6 of which were merely mentioning the word 'guage' in a
listing of some sort or another. Methinks you are mistaken about the
role of guage theory in history of physics -- something as important as
you claim it to be, would certainly have been referenced a bit more, I
think (BTW, search of DejaNews turned up NO valid articles on 'guage AND
weyl' at all).
> >> 1. Explain how 'burden of proof' is equivalent to null hypothesis.
> >
> > Null hypothesis holds a similar methodological position -- it is
> > something we
> >assume to be true, barring statistically significant contrary data.
>
> That's complete nonsense. I have given you an example. Suppose you
> measure the mass distribution of mercury fragments and they are
> lognormal. This is your null hypothesis. Now, I apply a magnetic field to
> the fragmentation process. Do you really expect somone, as a scientist,
> to accept the null hypothesis as the default truth until shown otherwise?
Ummm, yes, that is exactly what happens. You stick to your guns (to the
default state) until proven otherwise. If you fail to achieve result you
are looking for, you provisionally assume that the null-hypothesis is
true -- and you continue looking until you either show it false or are
convinced that it's true (in which case you publicsh and wait for others
to confirm or falsify your results).
> > In
> >fact, the null hypothesis is commonly about non-existence of something
>
> That is false.
You just said it yourself in your example -- specifically, it would be
about lack of change of mass distribution of a mercury droplet within a
magnetic field. The null-hypothesis is that there is no effect, just as
I said (and note that I said 'commonly' -- it was my sheer luck that you
were not smart enough to pick a different (and not supportive of my
point) example for illustrating the null-hypothesis concept).
> >> 2. Explain how Hermann Weyl's Guage theory concept arose from a null
> >> hypothesis.
> >
> > How is some specific old hypothesis about gravity relevant to this -
>
> You are severly mistaken as to the nature of Weyl's work.
Possibly -- but you have so far done nothing to convince me about it.
Considering how infrequently it is mentioned, I am beginning to think
that oerhaos I was *not* mistaken about its importance after all. I
could certainly be wrong, but you are yet to show that.
> > - why
> >SHOULD I try to draw such a connection? Furthermore, how the hell is it
> >relevant to the argument about agnosticism?
>
> It is relevant for the following reasons. You said that skepticism, null
> hypothesis, and burden of proof, are central and fundamental to modern
> science. I want you to now deliver on this and explain how Weyl's gauge
> theory arose as a consequence of these 'fundamentals' of science. If you
> can't do that, then explain why Weyl's gauge theory is not science.
Before I do that, you STILL have to demonstrate how Weyl's guage theory
is in some way cruicial to this topic. Until you do that, you are (as
far as I can tell) talking caca.
> >> 3. If you cannot do (2), then explain why guage theory is not science.
> >
> > Well, first of all, I am not familiar with 'guage theory of gravity'
>
> Gauge theory and 'gauge theory of gravity' are two totally different
> issues. In fact, most physicists will tell you that gravitation is not a
> gauge theory[1].
OK. I am not a physicist anyway, and I already admitted to ignorance of
guage theory. BTW, isn't it 'guage' rather than 'gauge'?..
> The concept is fundamental to the history and philosophy of science. You
> can't simply ignore it or pretend it isn't there.
It may well be -- but you have not done anything to support this claim,
besides merely asserting it. Not very different from your usual fare.
> >Nevertheless, I would be really interested in
> >hearing about the reasons behind this demand
>
> The demand is simple. You have babbled on about what science *is* and
> what it is *not*. So now I want you to reconcile Weyl's work into your
> point of view, or reject it as non-science. Or find a happy medium which
> fits into your world view.
Again, you first have to show in what way Weyl's guage theory is
cruicial to this topic. You are yet to do so. Let me give you an
example:
"Cartesian astrophysics is cruicial to understanding history of
science. It is a perfect example of how explanatory power of a
hypothesis is not monotonously related to its truth -- is has been shown
to be false, yet at the time it explained some phenomena that Kepler's
astrophysics could not account for. Cartesian astrophysics is thus an
excellent real-life example of theory-laddenness of observation".
-- Me.
Something like this would be a good start. Please explain to me why
Weyl's guage theory is so cruicial to understanding the history of
physics in particular and science in general.
> > -- after all, hypotheses
> >are commonly formed without use of statistical analysis
>
> Then the null hypothesis is not fundamental after all.
A non-sequitur if I ever saw one. See that word 'commonly' there?
Null-hypothesis is a special class of hypothesis; it is always formed
within statistical context, while other nypotheses may or may not be
formed thusly.
> >(although they
> >of course rely on the previous experimental and theoretical results). I
> >also wouldn't mind a quick summary of what 'guage theory' is, or a
> >pointer to such summary.
>
> Weyl, Gravitation and Electricity, 1918
> Weyl, Electron and Gravitation, 1929
>
> Please note Einstein's response to Weyl's 1918 paper and see if you can
> reconcile it with 'burden of proof', 'skepticism' or similar ad hoc
> bullshit.
I have a big reading list and not all that much time to waste. Before I
do this, I ask you to show how Weyl's guage theory is cruicial to
understanding history of science; THEN we will talk more. Simply
claiming that it IS criocial, is not sufficient.
Rodman
a mild to severe bigot. Theists because they the majority refuse to accept
what has been established by direct observation, and atheists because they
close their minds to the possibility of something unobservable.
In response to your statement about the invalidity of the agnostic's
position, I think it is a completely valid position until someone can
disprove the existence of God. I would find this hard to do, since it is
impossible to rule out the possibility that there may be a being in a
subdimension of our own, simply watcing everything we do, never interfering.
Such a being can not be proved or disproved by the sienctific method to
exist.
Furthermore, your comment aout agnostics being atheists who just don't
have the chutzpah to say so in public is pure poppycock. I am an agnostic,
and if someone asked me what I believe concerning Christianity, I would tell
them it is a load of stupidity and hypocrisy for the large part. However,
simply because Christianity is not what I believe to be "right," I do not
disavow the entire idea of something greater.
Gideon
ju...@pconline.com.spambait> wrote in message
news:7rgh5n$eqp$2...@bell.pconline.com...
> In alt.atheism mike list <ros...@troll.dhis.org> wrote:
> : It seems to me that both theists and atheists suffer from a similar
> : brainlock,
> : agnostics are the people who show a capacity to learn.
>
Victor Danilchenko
Rodman wrote:
>
> In my humble opinion, being either theist or atheist makes an individual
> a mild to severe bigot.
Look up the word 'bigot' in the dictionary, dude. Educate yourself.
> Theists because they the majority refuse to accept
> what has been established by direct observation, and atheists because they
> close their minds to the possibility of something unobservable.
Get a clue-by-four, you ignorant self-righteous ass. Find out what atheism is
BEFORE you stuff both of your feet and your vestigal tail into your mouth.
> In response to your statement about the invalidity of the agnostic's
> position, I think it is a completely valid position until someone can
> disprove the existence of God.
Did you read the link I posted? Do you have any *specific* objections to it?
No? Then shut up. Yes? Then put up! (in case you missed it, it's
http://anytime.cs.umass.edu/~danilche/default_E-.html)
BTW, 'agnostic position' is perfectly valid -- but not in respect to god, not
if you try to cast it as a third alternative to theism and atheism. Agnosticism
is a position on knowledge and not on god, dude -- it's orthogonal to
theism/atheism axis.
> I would find this hard to do, since it is
> impossible to rule out the possibility that there may be a being in a
> subdimension of our own, simply watcing everything we do, never interfering.
And I, a hard-core ('strong') atheist, do not rule out such a possibility -- as
you would have found out, had you not been so intent on making yourself look
like a total moron by setting up a strawman that pretty much anyone (anyone but
you, that is) can see for what it is.
> Such a being can not be proved or disproved by the sienctific method to
> exist.
Cannot be disproven -- perhaps. Cannot be proven -- why the fuck not? If god
comes down and performs some major miracles repeatedly, I would certainly
concede that it has proven its existence to the exacting standards of scientific
method.
Furthermore, if we could show that god could not be proven OR disproven, the
very concept of 'god' would be utterly incoherent -- if it does not intersect
with our 'slice of reality', we cannot fit it into our conceptual framework
because we lack means to relate to it. In this case, the notion of 'god' would
be about as meaningful as 'invisible untouchable and totally otherwise
undetectable firebreathing dragon'.
> Furthermore, your comment aout agnostics being atheists who just don't
> have the chutzpah to say so in public is pure poppycock. I am an agnostic,
> and if someone asked me what I believe concerning Christianity, I would tell
> them it is a load of stupidity and hypocrisy for the large part. However,
> simply because Christianity is not what I believe to be "right," I do not
> disavow the entire idea of something greater.
Nor does anyone with IQ higher than their shoesize (unless you refer to
specific logically inconsistent versions of 'god', of course -- like the typical
xian god). Stop attacking strawmen, dude, and wake up to reality -- if you
don't, you will bruise your back with excessive self-patting.