IQ vs. Religiosity

[Celebrity]

If you can't articulate your own stance, just say so

My stance on what? I thanked you for providing your thoughts on religiosity. My adherence to faith which is observant of the points you mentioned is not of relevance to this thread, I will hold my tongue.

I replied to several posts in my post #61 of this thread. Perhaps you would care to read the post, it is clear on my stance.

 

[domer76]

My stance on what? I thanked you for providing your thoughts on religiosity. My adherence to faith which is observant of the points you mentioned is not of relevance to this thread, I will hold my tongue.

I replied to several posts in my post #61 of this thread. Perhaps you would care to read the post, it is clear on my stance.

My posts had nothing to do with IQ. I was in a series of posts with Logicman and others and you jumped in. But now you won't engage because I asked a couple of uncomfortable questions based on your response.

 

[Celebrity]

My posts had nothing to do with IQ. I was in a series of posts with Logicman and others and you jumped in. But now you won't engage because I asked a couple of uncomfortable questions based on your response.

The line of questioning is irrelevant to the thread. I don't think it's oversharing to thank you for prompting me to reexamine my personal belief through your line of questioning. If you want to debate me about the merits of faith in general, that won't require anecdote or personal conviction. I see things in a different light. This is not an "I'll show you mine if you show me yours" thread. Maybe you should directly message someone if you want to have a private conversation.

 

[domer76]

The line of questioning is irrelevant to the thread. I don't think it's oversharing to thank you for prompting me to reexamine my personal belief through your line of questioning. If you want to debate me about the merits of faith in general, that won't require anecdote or personal conviction. I see things in a different light. This is not an "I'll show you mine if you show me yours" thread. Maybe you should directly message someone if you want to have a private conversation.

Thanks for your non-response. Move on now.

 

[Celebrity]

Thanks for your non-response. Move on now.

Ok so now that I've proved your line of questioning to be futile, I'd like to show you how the final item is irrelevant to the thread. This thread is entitled IQ vs. Religiosity. The following quote shows a disconnect with the discussion at large.

Why do innocents die?

First, your question about a quality of life is not a representative question of religiosity or IQ. Hence, it is a leading question which attempts to exploit users convictions on the basis that previous questioning was false. This is like sophistry, because it does not disprove the questions you asked on principle, but asks others to either violate their own convictions (innocence) or express an answer which does not suffice for the purposes of religiosity vs IQ (why do things die?).

You are not attempting to contribute to the thread by simply suggesting "life itself proves that I'm right" or alternatively, "the fact that something will at some point cease to exist proves that you are wrong if that thing takes on a certain quality." At best you appear to have provided a strawman argument.

 

[domer76]

Ok so now that I've proved your line of questioning to be futile, I'd like to show you how the final item is irrelevant to the thread. This thread is entitled IQ vs. Religiosity. The following quote shows a disconnect with the discussion at large.



First, your question about a quality of life is not a representative question of religiosity or IQ. Hence, it is a leading question which attempts to exploit users convictions on the basis that previous questioning was false. This is like sophistry, because it does not disprove the questions you asked on principle, but asks others to either violate their own convictions (innocence) or express an answer which does not suffice for the purposes of religiosity vs IQ (why do things die?).

You are not attempting to contribute to the thread by simply suggesting "life itself proves that I'm right" or alternatively, "the fact that something will at some point cease to exist proves that you are wrong if that thing takes on a certain quality." At best you appear to have provided a strawman argument.

My post was to someone else asking, is your god:

Omniscient?
Omnipotent?
Omnibenevolent?

You waded in with a 'yes'. You didn't need to. But now you have and can't answer uncomfortable questions that put at risk any of the attributes to used to describe your god. Fine and dandy. Just drop it and move on. Or next time, just shut the hell up if you don't wish to continue the line that you voluntarily stepped in to.

 

[Celebrity]

My post was to someone else asking, is your god:

Omniscient?
Omnipotent?
Omnibenevolent?

You waded in with a 'yes'. You didn't need to. But now you have and can't answer uncomfortable questions that put at risk any of the attributes to used to describe your god. Fine and dandy. Just drop it and move on. Or next time, just shut the hell up if you don't wish to continue the line that you voluntarily stepped in to.

You seem to misunderstand my position. Although I appreciate your input on qualities which are commonly attributed to God, I am not debating whether or not they are valid in the context of this thread. I did not "voluntarily" engage you in a line of questioning, because expressing my gratitude does not solicit any form of question. I only stepped in on my own account, once you began to question personal conviction. I shouldn't answer a question of that nature because a strawman is not a contribution.

You are free to derail threads at will, and no, I won't police you. My thoughts on how this thread should continue is that there should be a concerted effort to make some form of progress without personal attacks or slighting remarks about posts I've made. You have yet to show that your question had anything to do with my post which was quoted. If you're going to quote a post, it won't be necessary to expect implicit conclusions to be drawn. Rhetorically, I can write my position on IQ without resorting to indulging your belief.

From my earlier post:

The point of an IQ test is to measure and interpret an intellectual quality. Incidentally, that relates your question to the cultural bias of human error or cultural barriers. So maybe the purpose of the thread is to show that uneducated people fail IQ tests because religion subdues intellectual learning. I think the test measures intelligence or learning. It's inappropriate to measure learning where learning doesn't exist. So there will be bias when you draw conclusions in that respect. I'm not calling anyone intellectually impoverished, but before we get into the touchy feely bits, let's just remember that specialized education prohibits learning.

Q.E.D.

 

[domer76]

You seem to misunderstand my position. Although I appreciate your input on qualities which are commonly attributed to God, I am not debating whether or not they are valid in the context of this thread. I did not "voluntarily" engage you in a line of questioning, because expressing my gratitude does not solicit any form of question. I only stepped in on my own account, once you began to question personal conviction. I shouldn't answer a question of that nature because a strawman is not a contribution.

You are free to derail threads at will, and no, I won't police you. My thoughts on how this thread should continue is that there should be a concerted effort to make some form of progress without personal attacks or slighting remarks about posts I've made. You have yet to show that your question had anything to do with my post which was quoted. If you're going to quote a post, it won't be necessary to expect implicit conclusions to be drawn. Rhetorically, I can write my position on IQ without resorting to indulging your belief.

From my earlier post:

Q.E.D.

Then let it go and move along. Next time, perhaps you shouldn't jump in on a conversation if you don't wish to participate in the question it posed.

Dismissed now.

 

[Celebrity]

Then let it go and move along. Next time, perhaps you shouldn't jump in on a conversation if you don't wish to participate in the question it posed.

Dismissed now.

You're not going to make a real, substantive reply? Come on, things were just getting good. I mean, if you must bow out, by all means...

 

[domer76]

You're not going to make a real, substantive reply? Come on, things were just getting good. I mean, if you must bow out, by all means...

Move along. You offered nothing after your first interruption. I have no hope you will.

Dismissed from the conversation. Go to bed.

 

[Celebrity]

Move along. You offered nothing after your first interruption. I have no hope you will.

Dismissed from the conversation. Go to bed.

Do you think that by quoting me, your arbitrary condescension somehow will be legitimized? Man, somebody mustn't have let you take an IQ test when you were little.

 

[SocialD]

Without even going into the question about validity of the very concept of "country IQ": Take this graph and cut off the third world countries with cultures way too different for sensible IQ comparisons - i.e. draw a line approximately on the level "Uzbekistan to Brazil", and erase everything below. Now you have no correlation whatsoever: super-religious Poland is just as "smart" as atheistic Sweden.

So interesting... this charge sources for IQ to Lynn, Harvey and Nyborg of countries except the USA.

Richard Lynn
Lynn, who is listed by the Southern Poverty Law Centers as an extremist white nationalist, appears to be a proponent of eugenics...
He has stated that
"some races are inherently more psychopathic" and
"I think the only solution lies in the breakup of the United States. Blacks and Hispanics are concentrated in the Southwest, the Southeast and the East, but the Northwest and the far Northeast, Maine, Vermont and upstate New York have a large predominance of whites. I believe these predominantly white states should declare independence and secede from the Union."

Helmuth Nyborg
Nyborg was a keynote speaker at the seminar "Revolt against Civilization" staged by the holocaust revisionist organization "Dansk Selskab for Fri Historisk Forskning" ("Danish Society for Free Historical Research"),[17] where he was photographed alongside the other speakers including David Duke, Kevin B. MacDonald and Tomislav Sunić.[18]

As I'm not sure which John Harvey this one is I wont comment on him.

But anyway, two of the 3 there at least are quite... err.. well questionable.

 

[domer76]

Do you think that by quoting me, your arbitrary condescension somehow will be legitimized? Man, somebody mustn't have let you take an IQ test when you were little.

Pally, don't try your BS IQ stuff on me. You'll lose.

You inserted yourself in my posts. So yes, by quoting you, your own lack of participation is noted. Either continue with what you inserted yourself into or STFU. Comprende?

 

[Celebrity]

Pally, don't try your BS IQ stuff on me. You'll lose.

You inserted yourself in my posts. So yes, by quoting you, your own lack of participation is noted. Either continue with what you inserted yourself into or STFU. Comprende?

That's cute. I still don't understand how you are approaching the issue, other than addressing me personally.

 

[domer76]

That's cute. I still don't understand how you are approaching the issue, other than addressing me personally.

I see you reported me. Grow a pair or butt out of my posts.

 

[Celebrity]

Does anyone honestly believe that innocent breathing people impale themselves on air every morning when they wake up? Members of this forum have a responsibility to advocate their positions by substantiating their claims. I don't see how a meaningful debate will take place unless we share knowledge. Thanks in advance for your reply.

 

[domer76]

Does anyone honestly believe that innocent breathing people impale themselves on air every morning when they wake up? Members of this forum have a responsibility to advocate their positions by substantiating their claims. I don't see how a meaningful debate will take place unless we share knowledge. Thanks in advance for your reply.

Another report I see. Are you so insecure that you have to reports rather than reply?

 

[ludin]

The chart in question is bunk.

It actually is a fallacy that to try and compare the two.
IQ has little or not affect or comparison when it comes to religious beliefs.

 

[Celebrity]

What about historical learning? Priests were historically more literate than the rest of the population.

That's all I've got. Really, the debate is kind of moot if it doesn't apply to the present day. I don't think future priests want to oppress learning in secular communities.