From the article: Bailey also said that these preferences may stem from a desire to show superiority or elitism, which also has to do with IQ. In fact, aligning oneself with "unconventional" philosophies such as liberalism or atheism may be "ways to communicate to everyone that you're pretty smart," he said.
Actually, that sounds kind of dumb to me.
That's one interpretation of the data. But the fact remains that atheists are smarter than believers, on average.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Buffalo wrote:It takes two factors to make religious fraud obvious:
1. Lack of emotional attachment to the religion 2. Access to the complete story of the religion, not just the PR version
That seems like a totally biased and unfair assessment, but I'll make note of your opinion on the matter anyway.
Come on, stem. If you're honest with yourself, you'll understand why those statements aren't biased in the least.
Take any religion other than Mormonism, apply these notions and then still maintain they're biased. You couldn't do it if you were being honest (unless your problem is with the phrase "obvious fraud." But then, if every other religion is not worthy of being called an obvious fraud, why haven't you done your homework to investigate every single one of them to see if they're correct?)
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
Buffalo wrote:It seems that most of you believers can't be bothered to correct what you feel are misrepresentations about the church - on this board, at least. But I think you should, if you feel you've got a compelling counterargument. That's what makes for a good discussion.
Lets see it seems you are proposing as a way to make a good discussion is to sensationalize each and every issue, stating as fact any disputed territory, and let the defenders come back with the corrections or disagreements? That's silly if you ask me. If we are truly going for civil, thoughtful discussion a different tact would be taken. Issues would be raised, as issues, and sensational and deceptive language would be left aside. But that's not how many things operate here at all. Its poking and prodding by SP and others. If LDS disagree and respond then mocking ensues. Sorry...I'm not feeling it today.
If you feel it's sensationalized, give us what you feel is the correct context. Is that too difficult to do?
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
sock puppet wrote:I have tried over the past 18 months on this board (before 'sock puppet' as 'nimrod') to consider that those defending the LDS Church and its claims to be reasonable, thinking people not completely given over to irrational, emotive driven behavior. But the more I read here (and when I used to also at MAD), the more I am failing in maintaining this consideration.
Well Sock, I sometimes feel the same way about humanity in general when I'm talking about politics. I just accept it as a common limitation of humanity and move on. People are to some degree irrational about various things like religion, politics, or traumatic experiences. I think the trick in life is learning what their limitations are and how you can work with them despite it. The trickier and more rewarding thing is to discover your own limitations and then in as much as possible, correct them.
I'm well aware that many things I believe look silly to others and reasons that may be. I'm aware of many difficulties in my religion. However, I don't think it's foolish for me to have a high standard of evidence before choosing to abandon ship. I have a lot to lose if I'm wrong in abandoning the faith. In fact, I have a lot to lose even if I'm correct in leaving. I'm not sure I have much of anything to gain. Waiting seems to be the prudent choice at this stage. Furthermore, I do believe there is some evidence in favor of the church--enough to make me cautious.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
asbestosman wrote:I have a lot to lose if I'm wrong in abandoning the faith. In fact, I have a lot to lose even if I'm correct in leaving. I'm not sure I have much of anything to gain.
This is absolutely true, especially if you have a family. Finding out the church isn't what it claims and then acting on that knowledge can destroy your life. If you don't act on it, you have to deal with the stress of knowing better but keeping your mouth shut. The stress of worrying about how the church might negatively impact the well-being of your children.
If you can sustain belief, and you have a strong Mormon family, it's probably better from a cost-benefit perspective to stay and never investigate too closely. If you're a convert and you have no Mormon family, it's better to leave - again from a cost/benefit perspective.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Buffalo wrote:That's one interpretation of the data. But the fact remains that atheists are smarter than believers, on average.
It's a worthless fact--if indeed it is one. I don't question that IQ may be associated with atheism. What I question is the measurement of IQ in the first place. I've been measured to have an IQ of 85. I may be dumb at times, but if I really had an IQ of 85, would I have been a consistent top scorer on math tests in high school and electrical engineering tests in college?
Another worthless fact: on average vegetarians have higher IQs (according to the article).
Another worthless fact: men tend to score higher on math tests. Another worthless fact: there is a higher proportion of blacks in prison than Caucasians.
Actually, the last two aren't worthless facts at all. They are simply deceptive facts. Men score higher in math probably because our culture discourages women from being too smart. Blacks are probably more likely to be in prison due to the cycle of poverty.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
If it is so plainly obvious what a fraud Mormonism is, why is it so popular?
It isn't popular. In fact going by the raw numbers, ex-Mormonism is more popular than Mormonism. You can baptize anywhere between 200,000 and 400,000 per year,and then be lucky to retain 35% of them. The Church produces more Ex-Mormons than Mormons.
Why is it so popular with academics and "brights" who obviously are aware of these things?
This is another myth. Most of the "brights" you allude to were LDS since childhood,which easily explains their devotion through adulthood. And it is unclear how much they really know about these things, especially when they're loyal to a Church that discourages independent research involving materials not approved by the Church.
Some Schmo wrote:Come on, stem. If you're honest with yourself, you'll understand why those statements aren't biased in the least.
Take any religion other than Mormonism, apply these notions and then still maintain they're biased. You couldn't do it if you were being honest (unless your problem is with the phrase "obvious fraud." But then, if every other religion is not worthy of being called an obvious fraud, why haven't you done your homework to investigate every single one of them to see if they're correct?)
The thing is you could find someone who has both characteristics common to him/her and still maintain a faith in the religion. That alone explains how his two pionts are overstated, at the very least.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.