Are Defenders simply incorrigible?

[_stemelbow]

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.

Sadly your sensationalistic approach isn't simply stating a position or belief. Its more along the lines of trying to poison the well, or get in some digs before the topic is even explored.

[_Buffalo]

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?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/14765500/Aver ... Lynn-et-al

[_Buffalo]

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.

Sadly your sensationalistic approach isn't simply stating a position or belief. Its more along the lines of trying to poison the well, or get in some digs before the topic is even explored.

Which part of this is sensationalist?

"1-Faced charges in court in 1826 for the then illegal practice in the State of New York of glass-looking for hire, using a magic rock and claiming evil spirits underground were moving the treasures, to prevent those digging from finding the treasures. This was 130+ years after the Salem Witch Trials, which had by the 1820s become reviled in the north eastern part of the U.S. as a sordid misuse of legal process based on irrational fears. The New York Assembly had years before made glass-looking for hire illegal in that state. "Folk magic" may have been more common in the 1820s than it is today, but that does not mean it was mainstream in the 1820s by any stretch."

[Guest]

Interesting article, Buffalo. Perhaps we should all instead believe in a non-deistic religion like shinto if the statistics are a guide? Not only will we be more intelligent, we won't have a cultural belief in God to skew the numbers, eh?

[_stemelbow]

Which part of this is sensationalist?

Fair enough question. Let's see:

"1-Faced charges in court in 1826 for the then illegal practice in the State of New York of glass-looking for hire

In actuality this is what we have:

The charge is listed in the various accounts as:

Benton (1831): a disorderly person
Cowdery (1835): a disorderly person
Noble (1842): under the Vagrant act
Marshall (1873): a disorderly person and an imposter
Purple (1877): a vagrant, without visible means of livelihood
Tuttle (1882): a disorderly person and an imposter
Judge Neely: a misdemeanor

Nothing mentions "glass-looking" as the charge, but I believe it is said that Joseph Smith was called a glass looker on one document.

, using a magic rock and claiming evil spirits underground were moving the treasures,

huh? What is he even talking about?

to prevent those digging from finding the treasures. This was 130+ years after the Salem Witch Trials, which had by the 1820s become reviled in the north eastern part of the U.S. as a sordid misuse of legal process based on irrational fears. The New York Assembly had years before made glass-looking for hire illegal in that state. "Folk magic" may have been more common in the 1820s than it is today, but that does not mean it was mainstream in the 1820s by any stretch."

This is all fine by me.

[_Chap]

Interesting article, Buffalo. Perhaps we should all instead believe in a non-deistic religion like shinto if the statistics are a guide? Not only will we be more intelligent, we won't have a cultural belief in God to skew the numbers, eh?

Do you mean non-theistic? I know that usage, as I know the theist/deist distinction, but I have never met the expression non-deist before, and although I am not a professional in the field I think I have a fairly reliable level of theological literacy.

Anyway, if by non-deist you mean 'not believing in a god or gods', I don't think Shinto will do. Shinto gods are not like the god of Abraham, but they have names, shrines, festivals and worshipers (been there, done that, got the amulet).

Are you perhaps thinking of Buddhism?

[_1 Iron]

Chaps,

I was thinking that the statistics shared by Buffalo were interesting when we see nations like Japan with an incredibly high percentage of responders who did not believe in God and also had one of the highest levels of intelligence. If the question asked was, "Do you believe in God?", would a Shinto believer answer differently than a Christian? I don't know since I missed if they included the actual questions and if the questions were more open ended: i.e. - what religion do you believe in?

I'm still not sure that the article writer is wrong - the table he shared shows that while people become less likely to believe in God as their IQ approaches 100, or average, it seems that once the line crosses to the really intelligent people it drops back to somewhere in the middle. This could indicate that intelligence, by itself as the interpreter of data, isn't the real cause of the disbelief. The writer posits that it could be the result of people wanting to appear different and intellectual. Does the graph show this isn't likely? I have my doubts. Very intelligent people may not feel a need to differentiate themselves using contrived means.

It's interesting, none the less.

[Guest]

Why is it so popular with academics and "brights" who obviously are aware of these things?

Simon,

Your lack of general knowledge and understanding of things in the real world is something you really need to work on, my friend.

For example, do you even know what a "Bright" is?

Since it is pretty obvious from your comments that you do not even have a clue what you are talking about, please allow me to refer you to the Brights website.http://www.the-brights.net/

Hopefully you will note that among the foremost members of the Brights are academics and authors such as Dr. Daniel Dennet, and Dr. Sam Harris and entertainers like James Randi, and Penn and Teller (are you starting to get the picture here). If not, perhaps you do not know that these individuals are among the leading atheists and anti-religoinists in the world.

In case you decide that you really don't wish to know ridiculous your comment about Brights really was, or aren't curious enough to go to our website, here are a couple of excerpts:

What is a bright?
•A bright is a person who has a naturalistic worldview
•A bright's worldview is free of supernatural and mystical elements
•The ethics and actions of a bright are based on a naturalistic worldview

In other words, pretty much the last thing that would be popular among Brights is Mormonism, one of the most magic thinking, supernatural oriented, myth-based religions available on th Earth today.

Again from the Brights website:

The movement's three major aims are:

A.Promote the civic understanding and acknowledgment of the naturalistic worldview, which is free of supernatural and mystical elements.

B.Gain public recognition that persons who hold such a worldview can bring principled actions to bear on matters of civic importance.

C.Educate society toward accepting the full and equitable civic participation of all such individuals.

And so Simon, as a former member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and one who has figured it out and become a "Bright" (as I would guess many other "apostates" here are, or would be if they thought much about it), I consider your wholly uninformed comment as pretty much symptomatic of everything that this thread is about.

Specifically, you have given us another great example of naïve, inexperienced, sheltered, and under-informed, (if not undereducated) religionists holed up in their dens of unfounded and false belief while attempting to convince the world that they are right or at least have something of value to offer.

[Guest]

Which part of this is sensationalist?

Fair enough question. Let's see:

"1-Faced charges in court in 1826 for the then illegal practice in the State of New York of glass-looking for hire

In actuality this is what we have:

The charge is listed in the various accounts as:

Benton (1831): a disorderly person
Cowdery (1835): a disorderly person
Noble (1842): under the Vagrant act
Marshall (1873): a disorderly person and an imposter
Purple (1877): a vagrant, without visible means of livelihood
Tuttle (1882): a disorderly person and an imposter
Judge Neely: a misdemeanor

Nothing mentions "glass-looking" as the charge, but I believe it is said that Joseph Smith was called a glass looker on one document.

Look closer, dips***, at Judge Neely's bill (if you're not just quoting FAIR) and you'll see the judge listed the case as against Joseph Smith The Glass-Looker.

, using a magic rock and claiming evil spirits underground were moving the treasures,

huh? What is he even talking about?

Maybe you ought to look beyond FAIR/FARMS to find out the real historical record. Have you tried reading Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling, for example? Better yet, read this treatment by Dan Vogel from, If I recall correctly, 1994.

Next time I'd appreciate it if you'd read up a bit before you come here showing off your ignorance of the historical record.

to prevent those digging from finding the treasures. This was 130+ years after the Salem Witch Trials, which had by the 1820s become reviled in the north eastern part of the U.S. as a sordid misuse of legal process based on irrational fears. The New York Assembly had years before made glass-looking for hire illegal in that state. "Folk magic" may have been more common in the 1820s than it is today, but that does not mean it was mainstream in the 1820s by any stretch."

This is all fine by me.

Well, if it's okay by you, let's throw a party.

[_Simon Belmont]

That's one interpretation of the data. But the fact remains that atheists are smarter than believers, on average.

Questionable Cause Fallacy.