Are Defenders simply incorrigible?

[_asbestosman]

I understand that is a consideration for you. Pascal's wager is spread so thin these days that it hardly seems worth considering to me. There are so many religions, even within Christianity. One false move and you're toast. Might as well look at things from a practical standpoint - as in, which course will cause the least harm to you and your family now, in this life?

This is a bit different from the popular use Pascal's wager. I did mention adding weight to the possibilities according to evidence, did I not? Last I checked, that is also a way for an atheist to rationally bet in favor of atheism if the evidence sufficiently points there for him. It is not costless to devote one's life to religion, especially if it turns out to be the only time one exists as a conscious entity.

Giving weight to possibilities and outcomes isn't some superstitious religious trick. It's a practice of good engineering. The skill comes in properly assessing the possible outcomes and the likelihoods. When done improperly, we get Japanese nuclear power plant disasters.

[_Hoops]

There are so many religions, even within Christianity.

False.

One false move and you're toast.

False.

[_asbestosman]

Well, you first questioned the validity of the data - based on what, I don't know.

No, I do not question the validity of the data save that I question the validity of measuring IQ as an assessment of intelligence.

I'll agree with you that IQ isn't everything, and doesn't work well across cultures, but I don't think it's strictly meaningless. There's a reason why high functioning individuals have high IQs.

I agree that the measurement of IQ is correlated with intelligence. However, I don't place much trust in it based on personal experience.

But let's put IQ aside for now and even the validity of the data. The thing I would like you to address is whether my reasons to be skeptical of the conclusions were valid. What are your thoughts on the issues of vegetarianism, blacks in prison, and women in math? Do they support my skepticism about your implication that atheism is the more intelligent choice?

Note I said implication. I did not see you state such a thing outright but you do imply it, do you not, when you say that atheists are smarter than believers on average?

The fact that atheists on average have higher IQs than believers seems to be beyond dispute. I do not dispute it. What I dispute are the implications--one being the connection to intelligence (although a minor dispute I am somewhat passionate about) and another being the implication that atheism is the more intelligent option.

Does that make my position clear enough?

[_DarkHelmet]

when you consider all the facts and circumstances as a whole, Mormon apologetics is a colossal failure.

If it is so plainly obvious what a fraud Mormonism is, why is it so popular?

you think it's so popular probably because all your friends are Mormons, and maybe you live in Utah. If you are able to look at Mormonism from an outsider perspective, you will see that it really isn't that popular. The overwhelmingly vast majority of the US population is not LDS, and with all the advertising the church has done, and all the door knocking the missionaries have done, you have to wonder why the church has not made much of a dent in converting the masses, and that's just in the US. In terms of worldwide popularity, Mormonism isn't even a blip on the radar. Mormons make up about 2% of the US population. 2% is statistically insignificant. John McCain got 5% of the black vote in 2008, and I don't think he considers that a huge accomplishment. When you consider how much effort the church makes in trying to convert people with their 60,000 direct sales people knocking on doors around the world every day for decades and decades, and the millions of dollars spent on national TV, Radio, web, and print advertising over the last several decades, and the millions of Book of Mormons handed out to people, where they all have to do is read it and pray and they will be converted, and it is shocking that mormonisms market penetration in the US is only a measley 2%, and worldwide it is less than one half of 1%. Does any other religion spend so much time and money on advertising with so little results?

Now none of this means the church isn't true. If popularity = truthfulness then Islam would be the truest religion in the world. So don't use the Mormonism is popular therefore it can't be a fraud argument because 1) Popularity doesn't equal truth and 2) Mormonism isn't popular.

[_sock puppet]

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.

Maybe you could enlighten us by explaining how that same high standard of evidence was met before you chose to board that ship.

[_sock puppet]

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.

That truly gives comfort to this Ex-Mo, Ex-Missionary.

[_sock puppet]

If you feel it's sensationalized, give us what you feel is the correct context. Is that too difficult to do?

Its not a question of whether its too difficult to do. The point I raised is its not a civil or productive way to beging a discourse on disputed topics. But oh well. It doesn't matter, I guess. I'm speaking to the deaf, as they say.

Actually, stating a position or belief is exactly a productive way to begin discourse on disputed topics. You only label it any description of disbelief of what you believe in as sensational because you hold you belief 'sacred' so you view anyone disputing it as profane.

[_asbestosman]

Maybe you could enlighten us by explaining how that same high standard of evidence was met before you chose to board that ship.

It wasn't--I'm BIC.

[_Buffalo]

Well, you first questioned the validity of the data - based on what, I don't know.

No, I do not question the validity of the data save that I question the validity of measuring IQ as an assessment of intelligence.

I'll agree with you that IQ isn't everything, and doesn't work well across cultures, but I don't think it's strictly meaningless. There's a reason why high functioning individuals have high IQs.

I agree that the measurement of IQ is correlated with intelligence. However, I don't place much trust in it based on personal experience.

But let's put IQ aside for now and even the validity of the data. The thing I would like you to address is whether my reasons to be skeptical of the conclusions were valid. What are your thoughts on the issues of vegetarianism, blacks in prison, and women in math? Do they support my skepticism about your implication that atheism is the more intelligent choice?

Note I said implication. I did not see you state such a thing outright but you do imply it, do you not, when you say that atheists are smarter than believers on average?

The fact that atheists on average have higher IQs than believers seems to be beyond dispute. I do not dispute it. What I dispute are the implications--one being the connection to intelligence (although a minor dispute I am somewhat passionate about) and another being the implication that atheism is the more intelligent option.

Does that make my position clear enough?

The only reason I brought up intelligence at all is because Simon seems to think that its meaningful that some members of the church are very bright. By that standard, atheism must be truer than theism.

I won't say that I think that atheism is necessarily the most intelligent position to take. It's the only position that is consistent will all known facts about the world, but whether it is an intelligent position to take given the theistic society we live in and the disdain most believers hold for atheists, I can't say.

And while atheists seem to be smarter and have better sex lives, it would appear that belief, true or false, seems to come with some health benefits. I suppose it all depends on your priorities.

[_1 Iron]

Are you positive that your analysis here isn't based on an emotional reaction to the data?

I haven't read the article, but I laughed at the graph. The single data point out past 80% associated with an IQ between 90 and 100 is funny, considering that 100 is supposed to be average and I believe the actual average in first world countries is even higher still.

Perhaps there is more to your graph?