Archive for nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 



       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Atheist chat
genghiscant

I knew it!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news...ng-back-over-decades-8758046.html
Shaker

*ahem*  
The Boyg

It it also the case that they're less observant?

http://nglreturns.myfreeforum.org/sutra92950.php#92950
Ketty

Shaker wrote:
*ahem*  


Powwow

Again for all the smarty pants atheists. lol
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4AV4YYciRj4
Powwow

Yup, smart as a door knob.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZQfLmCd634&feature=player_embedded
Farmer Geddon

Awwwww

Didn't powwow start off as such a nice young man...  someone you could take home to mummy and Daddy!!
Powwow

I have a feeling that these studies were carried out by atheists. lol
I find it offensive that these obviously flawed studies are encouraging atheists to believe that they are more intelligent than the pagans. Not nice.
Shaker

pow wow wrote:
I have a feeling that these studies were carried out by atheists.

Why?

Quote:
lol

Bizarre.
Quote:
I find it offensive that these obviously flawed studies

Why are they obviously flawed?
Quote:
are encouraging atheists to believe that they are more intelligent than the pagans. Not nice.

Atheism and paganism are not mutually exclusive. There are plenty of atheist pagans.
Shaker

Farmer Geddon wrote:
Awwwww

Didn't powwow start off as such a nice young man...  someone you could take home to mummy and Daddy!!

If your name is Wednesday Addams, sure  
Powwow

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/201...telligent-atheists_n_3750096.html
Powwow

Oh dear, seems some of these studies were carried out by promoters of eugenics and race based intelligence. Nasty stuff. But if that's what atheists need to use to toot their horns.
Powwow

My yes, those atheists are sooooo intelligent. lol
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSTx_qTWMQI
Shaker

pow wow wrote:
Oh dear, seems some of these studies were carried out by promoters of eugenics and race based intelligence.

Says who? Where is the evidence for this claim?

(Not that it actually matters, since even if this assertion were true, it wouldn't invalidate any other research. This is a fallacy known as poisoning the well. What is it with you and the logical fallacies this week powsers? Are you going for the full set? You're doing well so far  )
Powwow

Don't you know how to use google Shaker? Guess you're not more intelligent after all. Here's some help for you little buddy, find out who authored those old studies that are being used today to promote your superior intelligence. lol Even I was able to find the authors and do a bio check on them. Duh

So what do you think of eugenics and raced based intelligence Shaker? And what do you think of people that promoted such ideas?
Shaker

pow wow wrote:
Don't you know how to use google Shaker? Guess you're not more intelligent after all. Here's some help for you little buddy, find out who authored those old studies

Not all of them that old. The samples for this meta-study range from 1928 to 2012.

Quote:
that are being used today to promote your superior intelligence. lol Even I was able to find the authors and do a bio check on them. Duh

Right. And did the authors of this new meta-study do that? If so, why? If not, why not?

Quote:
So what do you think of eugenics and raced based intelligence Shaker?

Eugenics = depends on which type of eugenics you're referring to.

Race-based intelligence = Sounds like a load of eyewash, especially in the absence of any commonly-agreed definition of intelligence to start off with.

Quote:
And what do you think of people that promoted such ideas?


I think whatever they believed about eugenics and race-based intelligence is irrelevant to the topic under discussion (on which I am staying) for the reasons given in my previous post.
cyberman

Shaker wrote:
the absence of any commonly-agreed definition of intelligence


Does this absence render this thread meaningless?
Shaker

cyberman wrote:
Shaker wrote:
the absence of any commonly-agreed definition of intelligence


Does this absence render this thread meaningless?

Pretty much, yep.

The (negative) correlation between religious adherence and educational attainment has been well known for donkey's years - that one, it seems, is pretty much done and dusted - but educational attainment on its own isn't the be-all and end-all of intelligence. That's why I haven't commented on any of the threads about this: admittedly I haven't delved into the stories about this in any detail but I'm not aware that there has been any cohesive definition of intelligence provided. Given that this is a meta-study of sixty-three studies perhaps some of those have sought to define what they're trying to measure, I don't know. I'd like to think that at least some of them out of sixty-three will have had a go. But I don't know as much.
Powwow

Well delve away Shaker. Learn something about those authors. The Huffington post raises some interesting questions concerning all those, atheists are smarter na, na studies.
trentvoyager

pow wow wrote:
Well delve away Shaker. Learn something about those authors. The Huffington post raises some interesting questions concerning all those, atheists are smarter na, na studies.


I wonder if there has been a study done on the correlation between the religious and the irredeemably smug.
Shaker

pow wow wrote:
Well delve away Shaker. Learn something about those authors.

Why should I need to?
Powwow

If you want to depend on studies put out by people that promoted eugenics and race based intelligence that's your unintelligent choice of course.

I understand that some of Richard Lynn's work was used. Great, a racist bigot, confirms your intelligence.
http://racialreality.blogspot.ca/...ng-criticism-of-richard-lynn.html
Shaker

pow wow wrote:
If you want to depend on studies put out by people that promoted eugenics and race based intelligence that's your unintelligent choice of course.

Unintelligent is what I would regard as your employment of various fallacies in this regard. In fact I've just spotted the third one this week over on another thread.

Quote:
I understand that some of Richard Lynn's work was used.

And?

       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Atheist chat
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum