Are Defenders simply incorrigible?

[_asbestosman]

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.

That is assuming, of course, that there's no afterlife to punish you for making the wrong choice. I actually take that into consideration. Perhaps a different church is true. What will the consequences be if I remain a Mormon despite not believing it yet some other religion is correct? Will I end up in Purgatory, or worse? I can't worry about all possibilities. I simply believe that I need to exercise caution and weight the possible outcomes according to the evidence I do have.

[_stemelbow]

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.

[_Buffalo]

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.

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

[_Buffalo]

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.

Overstated? I don't think I expressed that it would be obvious to everyone - just that those two factors are necessary in order to detect fraud.

[Guest]

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.

That is assuming, of course, that there's no afterlife to punish you for making the wrong choice. I actually take that into consideration. Perhaps a different church is true. What will the consequences be if I remain a Mormon despite not believing it yet some other religion is correct? Will I end up in Purgatory, or worse? I can't worry about all possibilities. I simply believe that I need to exercise caution and weight the possible outcomes according to the evidence I do have.

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? After all, there isn't any evidence that there IS anything beyond this life.

[_Buffalo]

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.

I'm not sure leveling charges of sensationalism without backing them up is any better than sensationalism itself.

[_stemelbow]

Overstated? I don't think I expressed that it would be obvious to everyone - just that those two factors are necessary in order to detect fraud.

The way you said it came off differently for me, anyway:

"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"

I get ya now.

[_asbestosman]

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

I can never be sure Buffalo. I recognize that as a personal limitation. However, I did attempt to give what I thought were rational reasons to be skeptical about what you seem to be saying with the data. If you would address those reasons, perhaps I could see the folly of my ways.

Of course, I can understand a reluctance to do so, especially after you wrote regarding your own team:

If there are mistakes in his assessment of the money digging issue (or any other) feel free to correct him.

I mean, you love me so much that you'd toss me a softball, right?

[_Buffalo]

Overstated? I don't think I expressed that it would be obvious to everyone - just that those two factors are necessary in order to detect fraud.

The way you said it came off differently for me, anyway:

"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"

I get ya now.

Cool, thanks. :)

[_Buffalo]

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

I can never be sure Buffalo. I recognize that as a personal limitation. However, I did attempt to give what I thought were rational reasons to be skeptical about what you seem to be saying with the data. If you would address those reasons, perhaps I could see the folly of my ways.

Of course, I can understand a reluctance to do so, especially after you wrote regarding your own team:

If there are mistakes in his assessment of the money digging issue (or any other) feel free to correct him.

I mean, you love me so much that you'd toss me a softball, right?

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