Do atheists indocrinate their children into their belief system?

[iceaura]

“
Thank you in advance.
”
Thank you, for making it so easy .

You were asked to back up your claim that I posted anything about children and comparative intelligence, or made any related reference to "theistic" vs "atheistic" children at all.

You responded with quotes from me about education and a fundie adult preference for childhood ignorance.

Now, it's common for fundies to confuse intelligence and education (it's the basis for their claims of being called dumb, when their ignorance is pointed out). So maybe that dodge of yours was not intellectual dishonesty, the kind of lying anyone would take it as if they weren't cutting a fundie some slack, but actual failure to comprehend the issue.

So you may be honest, here, and simply confused in a familiar way. But in any case, it settles the issue: you cannot back up your claims about my posts. I have made no posts about relative childhood intelligence in "theistic" vs "atheistic" children.

Others seem to have made such posts since (without the "theistic children" muddle) - after - your false claims about mine. So the issue is on the table, but my take on it is not.

The measurement of intelligence is full of confusions, anyway. There are plenty of reason the children of overtly atheistic parents in a strongly religious country might score higher, on average, than children of more normal parents, on standard intelligence tests, that have nothing to do with atheism per se.

 

[redwards]

Belief doesn't come into. Anybody can say anything to suit their own purposes. I just want to see the evidence, is that such a hard thing?

JAN.

For the love of God, TELL ME WHAT YOU ARE ASKING FOR.

The studies demonstrate a statistical inverse correlation between intelligence and religiosity. That is evidence. What more do you want?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Look foreward to your answer of greenbergs questions ?

Jan.

 

[redwards]

Which kind of intelligence were they testing for?

And how is that particular intelligence the most relevant one for human intelligence?

I listed some of the measurements. I certainly agree that human intelligence is very difficult to quantify. Fortunately, the picture is fairly clear, as almost every one of the 43 tests produced the same outcome.

It's quite easy to look a particular test and declare the metric invalid on the basis of whatever criteria you like, but when so many tests agree, the probability that this is mere coincidence becomes extraordinarily low.

 

[Jan Ardena]

For the love of God, TELL ME WHAT YOU ARE ASKING FOR.

The studies demonstrate a statistical inverse correlation between intelligence and religiosity. That is evidence. What more do you want?

That is the result of evidence, evidence nobody has seen.
Your position is one of belief, because it appeals to you.

Jan.

 

[redwards]

That is the result of evidence, evidence nobody has seen.
Your position is one of belief, because it appeals to you.

Jan.

Statistical correlation is evidence. You declaring otherwise does not make it so.

 

[greenberg]

The studies demonstrate a statistical inverse correlation between intelligence and religiosity. That is evidence. What more do you want?

What kind of intelligence were they testing for?
And how is that particular kind of intelligence the most relevant one for measuring human intelligence?

Moreover, how did they measure "religiosity"?


The study you quoted was done in 1986, on studies done much earlier than that. This was well before modern methods for measuring intelligence.

Additionally, they were measuring "religiosity" in the sense of a particular Christian belief in God. Not religiosity in terms of Hinduism or Buddhism or some other religion.


- All this leads me to dismiss that study's relevance.

 

[Jan Ardena]

You were asked to back up your claim that I posted anything about children and comparative intelligence, or made any related reference to "theistic" vs "atheistic" children at all.

You responded with quotes from me about education and a fundie adult preference for childhood ignorance.

Now, it's common for fundies to confuse intelligence and education (it's the basis for their claims of being called dumb, when their ignorance is pointed out). So maybe that dodge of yours was not intellectual dishonesty, the kind of lying anyone would take it as if they weren't cutting a fundie some slack, but actual failure to comprehend the issue.

So you may be honest, here, and simply confused in a familiar way. But in any case, it settles the issue: you cannot back up your claims about my posts. I have made no posts about relative childhood intelligence in "theistic" vs "atheistic" children.

Others seem to have made such posts since (without the "theistic children" muddle) - after - your false claims about mine. So the issue is on the table, but my take on it is not.

The measurement of intelligence is full of confusions, anyway. There are plenty of reason the children of overtly atheistic parents in a strongly religious country might score higher, on average, than children of more normal parents, on standard intelligence tests, that have nothing to do with atheism per se.

You're never going to act reasonably are you?
Let's call it a day. Thanks.

Jan.

 

[Enmos]

I'm just posting this, so don't bother getting all pissed off at me.

IQ and Religion

Atheists are smarter than religious people

Atheists do statistically have a higher IQ than devout religious people. A new survey done by the Danish Helmuth Nyborg, a professor in development psychology, based on an American survey shows this, according to the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. The researcher claims that the difference between the IQ of the believers and non-believers is 5.8 points.
Original article here: http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2007/01/28/490228.html

 

[redwards]

What kind of intelligence were they testing for?
And how is that particular kind of intelligence the most relevant one for measuring human intelligence?

Moreover, how did they measure "religiosity"?


The study you quoted was done in 1986, on studies done much earlier than that. This was well before modern methods for measuring intelligence.

I've answered most of these questions previously. The 1986 article was not, itself, a study, although I suppose you could liken it to a meta-analysis. It was simply an article which referenced numerous other studies. Each of those studies tracked different criteria. I would not call any one of them definitive by themselves. However, their overwhelming agreement is quite significant.

Additionally, they were measuring "religiosity" in the sense of a particular Christian belief in God. Not religiosity in terms of Hinduism or Buddhism or some other religion.

Not true, the metrics for this aspect varied as well. Some simply asked if a subject was 'religious/somewhat religious/not religious,' etc., some addressed more specific criteria, such as 'belief in the afterlife.'

- All this leads me to dismiss that study's relevance.

You don't appear to have even read my posts. :shrug:

 

[greenberg]

I've answered most of these questions previously. The 1986 article was not, itself, a study, although I suppose you could liken it to a meta-analysis. It was simply an article which referenced numerous other studies. Each of those studies tracked different criteria. I would not call any one of them definitive by themselves. However, their overwhelming agreement is quite significant.

Just look at this part I bolded.

It's like saying "Mary ate apples; she says they are sweet. Thomas ate bananas; he says they are sweet. Peter ate cherries; he says they are sweet."
Yes, Mary, Thomas and Peter are in overwhelming agreement ...

You speak of studies that have used different criteria but came to the same conclusions. This should alarm you.

Not true, the metrics for this aspect varied as well. Some simply asked if a subject was 'religious/somewhat religious/not religious,' etc., some addressed more specific criteria, such as 'belief in the afterlife.'

At least some of the studies were apparently using criteria for measuring religiosity that are extraneous to religion.
Have you any idea how vague the notion of "being religious" can be from a religious person's perspective? There are people whom other believers of the same faith consider "deeply religious" while those people themselves don't consider themselves particularly religious at all. And then there are many religious bigmouths who wear their religion on their sleeve and profess it at every occasion - while at the same time not really believing what they claim to believe. This is the reality about being "religious" and it only makes sense to look at religiosity from the inside of a particular religion. Which, as far as the scientific method is concerned, cannot be done anyway.

You don't appear to have even read my posts.

I read them. I am not convinced by your arguments.

 

[greenberg]

It's amazing how you invert these concepts.

Something that I can tell you to believe, but not demonstrate, I would call a platitude, and entirely unsubstantial.

Something that I can concretely demonstrate, I would claim has substance.

How you've inverted those, I'm not certain.

I don't care much about "scientifc demonstrations".

I care first and foremost about things that are true for me, right now.

Even the most rigorous scientifc theory is nothing but a platitude to me if it says that something is true for 98% of the tested population, while I am among the 2% for whom said thing is not true.

 

[iceaura]

You're never going to act reasonably are you?
Let's call it a day. Thanks.

I'll take that as an admission of dishonesty - you knew what you were doing, when you misrepresented my posts.

Just as we may now assume you know what you are doing when you run others around in circles by pretending not to see the direction of their "evidence".

How do you square that kind of behavior with your religious doctrine ? Is atheism so evil that any counter to its blandishments is justified ?

 

[redwards]

Just look at this part I bolded.

It's like saying "Mary ate apples; she says they are sweet. Thomas ate bananas; he says they are sweet. Peter ate cherries; he says they are sweet."
Yes, Mary, Thomas and Peter are in overwhelming agreement ...

You speak of studies that have used different criteria but came to the same conclusions. This should alarm you.

They used different metrics to test, essentially, the same thing. Your analogy is attempting to paint all of these metrics as unrelated.

A proper analogy might be: Mary ate apples and said they were sweet, Peter tested the chemical content of an apple for sugar, Thomas tested the reaction of specific taste buds to apples, and Jeff tested the sweetness receptors in the brain of people who were eating apples.

At least some of the studies were apparently using criteria for measuring religiosity that are extraneous to religion.
Have you any idea how vague the notion of "being religious" can be from a religious person's perspective? There are people whom other believers of the same faith consider "deeply religious" while those people themselves don't consider themselves particularly religious at all. And then there are many religious bigmouths who wear their religion on their sleeve and profess it at every occasion - while at the same time not really believing what they claim to believe. This is the reality about being "religious" and it only makes sense to look at religiosity from the inside of a particular religion. Which, as far as the scientific method is concerned, cannot be done anyway.

All you're demonstrating here is that degree of religiosity can be a subjective criteria. Again, would you feel better if I said, "People who claim to be religious are generally less intelligent?" That's not an issue for me.

I read them. I am not convinced by your arguments.

You responded as though you had not read them, which leads me to believe that your stance is predetermined, and that your reaction is based on that, and not careful consideration of the information.

 

[Myles]

I don't care much about "scientifc demonstrations".

I care first and foremost about things that are true for me, right now.

Even the most rigorous scientifc theory is nothing but a platitude to me if it says that something is true for 98% of the tested population, while I am among the 2% for whom said thing is not true.

What would characterize something that you would regard as truth ? If you have no clear criteria you are simply stumbling about in the dark on the basis that when you bump into you will know it.

Has it occured to you that something may be true for you but you are unable to accept it for some reason ?

 

[Myles]

That is the result of evidence, evidence nobody has seen.
Your position is one of belief, because it appeals to you.

Jan.

You have just defined your own position. How about a response to my last post to you ?

 

[superluminal]

God damn, the theists here are a bunch of the densest folks it's been my pleasure to interact with. Sheesh.

 

[Jan Ardena]

greenberg,

In that it is an uncertainty about which religion is "the right one", there is uncertainty whether there is such a thing as "the right religion" and how to find out which one that is.

Sometimes that enquiry can be used as a diversion, to waste time, by those who have no regard for God or religion, other than to denigrate it. They are anti-God/theist.

For someone who grew up within Christianity, this is a perfectly reasonable line of inquiry.

But not for someone who has an intense disliking for it.

For example, two scriptures might both say that God is the One Supreme Original Cause, but one goes on to say that God will judge and send those who don't believe into eternal hellfire, and the other says no such thing and instead says that beings inherit their next lives in accord with their karma.

So if they both say God is the One Supreme Original Cause, then why think it refers to a different being? Why not think it is the one God, pertaining to a different time, place and circumstance?

Here is a good example of how not just anything can be taught to just anyone: In some Buddhist traditions, practitioners can take the vow to not teach emptiness to the untrained. The topic of emptiness and proper understanding of it is deemed as so important in those traditions that a specific vow exists about it. Even though emptiness is one of the central topics in Buddhism.

I don't understand what you mean.
Perhaps if you quickly explain "emptiness", I may get more of an overall idea of your point.

You know, I've had Christians telling me the same things you do here. Yet those same people would behave like I described above.

Do you think there are Christians who say the same thing, and behave accordingly? If yes, what does that tell you?

The relativist, constructivist part.
From a philosphical perspective, the issue seems unresolvable - official Western philosophy hasn't solved the problem of identity.

Then look into other philosophy, unless you think western philosophy is the dog's-bollocks (the best/only one).

I have no idea.

You have no idea, but you have decided that you are not a theist, but an atheist in some capacity. Is this position definate, and if so, why?

Jan.

 

[superluminal]

Theists attempting logic. It's disturbingly funny.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Myles,

You have just defined your own position.

If I claimed that your strawman God existed for real, yeah you would be correct.

How about a response to my last post to you ?

You are a sometimes man, in that I will post responses and you don't return them. What's the point?
The only atheist in this forum who has some repect for his fellow human, not treating them like some kind of enemy, because they think differently, whom I have conversed with, is greenberg, and as such he is the only worth talking to, at the moment.
You all need to chill the f__k out. :m:

peace
Jan.