Why Do Theists Have Lower IQs?

Author: Mandrakel ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 82
  • Mandrakel
    Mandrakel avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 144
    0
    2
    2
    Mandrakel avatar
    Mandrakel
    Father: Son, I see by your report card here that you are the absolute bottom of the class once again. What the heck anyway, that is no real indicator of your intelligence and there are flaws in the system so don't worry. What's on at school tomorrow?

    Son: Aw weow Dad, wear gonna disgust Hairy Potta in English clarse.

    Father: I don't think so, I will write a note excusing you from class. What other subjects do you have.

    Son: Oh yeah weow wear gonna do science clarse and learn about Ever lootion and biol........

    Father: .......Not going to happen. I'll write another note excusing you from that class as well. 

    Son: I fink I will go wotch the TV now. There's a dok....doc...documenatry by Neal Grassy Tyson and then there's Family Guy.
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 60
    Forum posts: 2,889
    4
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    A bunch of expected limited intelligence to introduce Neil deGrassi Tyson, a deserved astronomical expert with an admitted agnosticism hung-up on the idea of a omnipotent being who, nonetheless, allows natural disasters to occur.  https://www.cbsnews.com/video/neil-degrasse-tyson-on-god/#x

    He, like even many believers in God, cannot explain this apparent conflict of interest. One simple answer, which I have offered before, is that it is a mistake to assume that God, being omnipotent, and all the other omni- concepts, will always act by any of the omni- concepts, i.e., by creating imperfect things, including not just man and his present environment, but the entire universe around us. It's a St. Augustinian invalid argument: Can God create a stone he cannot lift? The answer is: why shouldn't he? Is God compelled to do only all-powerful things? If so, why? We and all other things in the universe, are created imperfectly in order for us [the collective "creation"] to improve ourselves from an imperfect to an eventual perfect condition, when we will then earn the right to exist in his presence. This is aGod of understanding the necessity of growth from imperfection to perfection; not a God who plays with us, blaming us for being imperfect when it is he who created us in this fashion. He understands this because he was once, many eons ago, imperfect, too. The pattern is simple: exist as an imperfection, and grow into perfection by an effort to continuously improve; the ultimate purpose of life. What's wrong with that?

    I don't know about you, but I did not grow up in an idiot household such as you present. We've been given a cartoon. I'm not laughing. Worse, your topic is presented as an absolute. Sorry, it does not hold water, because there are, as well, just like theists, idiots among the atheist households. Some, but not all. So, stop being an idiot by treating those who oppose you be the too-common epithet of all being stupid. It's just what one sees in the mirror, after all, sparking the recognition.
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 4,183
    3
    3
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @Mandrakel
    An unwarranted, unfounded and unnecessary jibe at a popular hypothesis and it's adherents.
    Behaviour that  might reasonably be deemed to be indicative of a lower I.Q.
    The pot calling the kettle black, as it were.


    Though, that is not to say, that an overbearing ideological upbringing,  will not affect intellectual diversity.





  • Mandrakel
    Mandrakel avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 144
    0
    2
    2
    Mandrakel avatar
    Mandrakel
    --> @fauxlaw
    You seem to be stuck in a rut of providing excruciating feeble excuses as answers to irrefutable facts.,,,,,,,,,,,"admitted agnosticism"; Richard Dawkins says the same thing however you somehow seem to have omitted the context, for example, Dawkins clearly stated that because God cannot be 100% ruled out he would technically call himself a .5% agnostic and only for that reason and in all probability there is no God. Have we got that little omission clear now?

    your topic is presented as an absolute. Sorry, it does not hold water
    Whatever you mean by "absolute" is anybody's guess and can be interpreted many ways......see, I can play your duck and dive game too. And the topic does hold water. Have you bothered to search the topic? I got 12,200,000 hits which to my mind would be enough to drown an entire town. 

    idiots among the atheist households
    Yes, but once again you are making a cringingly obvious attempt at mitigating the fact. The topic is about a notable drop in IQ of theists as per the many leading reports and research done by experts in their fields.
    As I said to The Wreakage, "It's quite sad really. I introduced and raised a perfectly legitimate point and the best you can do is pick holes in it instead of actually addressing it?
    There is a plethora of authoritative and properly researched reports relating to lower IQs in theists and have we seen a theist submit a post to the effect of, "Gee Mandrakel, that certainly does raise concern in our community and I think we should look into addressing the situation, what ideas do you have?"

    Can you ever muster the intestinal fortitude to actually argue a topic or offer constructive solutions instead of picking holes in someone else's (reasonably presented) argument?

  • Mandrakel
    Mandrakel avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 144
    0
    2
    2
    Mandrakel avatar
    Mandrakel
    --> @zedvictor4
    An unwarranted, unfounded and unnecessary jibe at a popular hypothesis and it's adherents.
    Behaviour that  might reasonably be deemed to be indicative of a lower I.Q.
    The pot calling the kettle black, as it were.

    Okay then, would you suggest that perhaps I should have written something like; "Um, er, well, hello, um hello, oh yes um well I have heard, and like I only heard, I didn't actually say it and I am not saying that I agree but um, er with due respect just happened in passing Goggled "why do theists have lower IQs" and I got 12,200,000 hits, um like er, just saying and um maybe you would like to say something" 

    Your so-called "hypothesis" was confirmed by numerous properly conducted researches by "adherents" who are experts in the field.

    You should also know by now that I am not one to pussy-foot around issues.
  • rosends
    rosends avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 375
    1
    2
    6
    rosends avatar
    rosends
    The problem is that statistics can be used to support a variety of hypotheses but statistics don't explain causality (and often, the positive correlation between statistics is coincidental).

    A claim that "theists have lower IQs" is, first, incredibly reductionist. Next, it posits a truth based on a limited sample and the assumption that the IQ test is an objective arbiter of anything other than the efficacy of the IQ test. The IQ test asks for certain types of demonstration of "thinking" but not types that really capture a full sense of intelligence.

    What if we started with a population, and, as any proper distribution would dictate, there are people with lower IQs. Those people, hoping to make sense of a difficult to understand world see religion as an anchor. The choice to be a theist is then not something that limits IQ but is a function of that lower IQ. The topic should then be "why do people with lower IQs choose to be theists?" and it would be a very different thread.

    Or maybe, being a theist simply instructs people to think differently about the world and make decisions in a way which does not accord with the thinking required to score higher on an IQ test.
  • Mandrakel
    Mandrakel avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 144
    0
    2
    2
    Mandrakel avatar
    Mandrakel
    --> @rosends
    The problem is that statistics can be used to support a variety of hypotheses but statistics don't explain causality (and often, the positive correlation between statistics is coincidental).

    A claim that "theists have lower IQs" is, first, incredibly reductionist. Next, it posits a truth based on a limited sample and the assumption that the IQ test is an objective arbiter of anything other than the efficacy of the IQ test. The IQ test asks for certain types of demonstration of "thinking" but not types that really capture a full sense of intelligence.

    What if we started with a population, and, as any proper distribution would dictate, there are people with lower IQs. Those people, hoping to make sense of a difficult to understand world see religion as an anchor. The choice to be a theist is then not something that limits IQ but is a function of that lower IQ. The topic should then be "why do people with lower IQs choose to be theists?" and it would be a very different thread.

    Or maybe, being a theist simply instructs people to think differently about the world and make decisions in a way which does not accord with the thinking required to score higher on an IQ test.
    Never mind about the whys and wherefores and ins and outs of the wording, how about making a comment in relation to the thrust of the OP. In case you couldn't work it out, there have been many properly researched reports made by experts in their field which confirm that theists have lower IQs than normal people. So, the invitation is to say, make a comment (assuming you are a theist) as to what steps religious institutions are taking to address such an anomaly.

    Oh, and frequenting amateurish, extremist, whacko sites will do nothing to enhance one's intellect.....tylervigen.com. Mind you the Neuroscience site does encapsulate basically the point that I am trying to convey with the skit. I think it is commonly known that theists are more predisposed to intuition, which although having its strengths also has distinct drawbacks when it comes to decision making. 
    What that report does not outline and others do is that a major contributing factor to (albeit slight) lower IQs is the restriction of learning during formative years which I touched on in the skit.

  • janesix
    janesix avatar
    Debates: 9
    Forum posts: 1,819
    3
    3
    3
    janesix avatar
    janesix
    --> @Mandrakel
    boring, willows
  • Mandrakel
    Mandrakel avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 144
    0
    2
    2
    Mandrakel avatar
    Mandrakel
    --> @janesix
    Is he?
  • ludofl3x
    ludofl3x avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,359
    3
    2
    2
    ludofl3x avatar
    ludofl3x
    How many different usernames are you going to use to post this same topic? 
  • rosends
    rosends avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 375
    1
    2
    6
    rosends avatar
    rosends
    --> @Mandrakel
    First, the tyler site is useful to show that correlation has nothing to do with causation. Attacking the site without understanding its use does not help.

    If you still want to hang your hat on a test which does not have any practical value and on the genralizing of results, then so be it. The apparent correlation doesn't always (or necessarily) apply in any specific case, it isn't fruitful in predicting behaviors and there are no useful conclusions to draw from it. Therefore your initial question "why" is not arguable.
  • Mandrakel
    Mandrakel avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 144
    0
    2
    2
    Mandrakel avatar
    Mandrakel
    --> @ludofl3x
    How many different usernames are you going to use to post this same topic? 
    How many times are theists going to stick their heads in the sand and avoid a legitimate concern raised by legitimate, concerned people?
  • ludofl3x
    ludofl3x avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,359
    3
    2
    2
    ludofl3x avatar
    ludofl3x
    --> @Mandrakel
    The answer is "every time you've started this topic regardless of which username you're posting under." So why continue to post these same uninteresting topics that don't appear to really want honest discussion? They rather seem to function as some weird way for you to workshop your material, which continues to want for refinement. I think you're a better thinker than this. 
  • Polytheist-Witch
    Polytheist-Witch avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 2,275
    3
    3
    6
    Polytheist-Witch avatar
    Polytheist-Witch
    You can't have ego and spirituality. If you think you are smarter than everyone else you will not feel the need to be spiritual.  
  • Theweakeredge
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Debates: 25
    Forum posts: 2,902
    4
    6
    10
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Theweakeredge
    --> @Mandrakel
    So its not just me? Your bullshitting is just you everyday? I see - present the evidence. Present the proof - FLRW thinks things similar to you, but he actually tries to show proof - not to mention - you have yet to prove anything regarding IQ - I think this forum is a tad more appropriate to continue our conversation though - so - demonstrate both claims - that IQ tests are actually useful at doing anything, and that Theists even make consistently lower scores in IQ testing.
  • Mandrakel
    Mandrakel avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 144
    0
    2
    2
    Mandrakel avatar
    Mandrakel
    --> @ludofl3x
    I think you're a better thinker than this. 
    And certainly a better thinker than those who do not address the topic and instead invent every excuse or diversion not to.

  • Mandrakel
    Mandrakel avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 144
    0
    2
    2
    Mandrakel avatar
    Mandrakel
    --> @Polytheist-Witch
    You can't have ego and spirituality.
    That must surely win first place in the absurd statement stakes.
    Spirituality is nothing but pure ego and absolutely nothing else.

  • Mandrakel
    Mandrakel avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 144
    0
    2
    2
    Mandrakel avatar
    Mandrakel
    --> @Theweakeredge
    So its not just me? Your bullshitting is just you everyday? I see - present the evidence. Present the proof 
    I don't know what on earth you're talking about but let me know what you are on so that I can make a point of avoiding it.

  • Mandrakel
    Mandrakel avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 144
    0
    2
    2
    Mandrakel avatar
    Mandrakel
    --> @rosends
    ....the tyler site is useful......
    ...as udders on a bull.
    Attacking the site is warranted because it is amateur, cheap and radical and deserves absolutely no consideration.
    So what anyway...how about addressing the topic?
  • Theweakeredge
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Debates: 25
    Forum posts: 2,902
    4
    6
    10
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Theweakeredge
    --> @Mandrakel
    So nothing? You have literally nothing to prove your assertion? You have made a claim - you therefore have a burden to demonstrate that such claim is true - until you do, there is no reason to believe you. Its that simple
  • Mandrakel
    Mandrakel avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 144
    0
    2
    2
    Mandrakel avatar
    Mandrakel
    --> @Theweakeredge
    You have made a claim
    Maybe we would get somewhere if you proved that I made a claim in the first place. What claim?
    And is it an hallucinogenic that you are on because you should ease up a bit?

  • Theweakeredge
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Debates: 25
    Forum posts: 2,902
    4
    6
    10
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Theweakeredge
    --> @Mandrakel
    Why Do Theists Have Lower IQs? [LINK]
    By asking why theists have lower IQs, you have necessarily claimed that theists have lower IQ than an average population. But you know you made that claim, don't play around, just demonstrate your claim - you're not being clever, just emulating a Twitter comment section.
  • Mandrakel
    Mandrakel avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 144
    0
    2
    2
    Mandrakel avatar
    Mandrakel
    --> @Theweakeredge
    you have necessarily claimed that theists have lower IQ than an average population
    I said, "There is a plethora of authoritative and properly researched reports relating to lower IQs in theists"
    I also said, "Have you bothered to search the topic? I got 12,200,000 hits....."
    So, all you need to do is copy this.......  Why Do Theists Have Lower IQs? then paste it into the Google search bar, hit "Enter" then you can select as many of the 12,200,000 proofs as you like. And guess which article comes up first...now you have to give that some credibility.
    Then of course, you may feel at liberty to address the topic......unless of course you begin to feel more at liberty to make up more diversions in order to avoid the topic and try to deliberately discredit the author. Not at all the most kosher of tactics, are they?
  • Theweakeredge
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Debates: 25
    Forum posts: 2,902
    4
    6
    10
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Theweakeredge
    --> @Mandrakel
    No - you have not verified each search result, you have not proven that each result is even relevant to the discussion at hand, you have not proven that each result is causal, you have not proven that each result is at all verifiable. You have done nothing but larp, please actually present your evidence - not just claim google results give you certain results - you are aware that google personalizes search results right? We don't get the same thing whenever we type into the search bar. Furthermore, you could simply say the same thing for any result, I typed in "God is real" and got 2.6 million results in 0.56 seconds, does that mean that every result proves that god is real? Of course not, that's absurd. 
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 60
    Forum posts: 2,889
    4
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @Mandrakel
     Have we got that little omission clear now?
    What omission?  Are we seeing things not there? What do you think an agnostic is? According to the OED:

     1. A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of immaterial things, especially of the existence or nature of God. Distinguished from atheist n.
     
    Therefore, there is doubt, as opposed to being certain, which is the realm of the atheist. The doubt, in Tysobn's case, is, as I stated clearly:

    hung-up on the idea of a omnipotent being who, nonetheless, allows natural disasters to occur.x
    It's the lack of recognition that just because a god is omnipotent does in no way mean he must act omnipotently consistently; he applies the power necessary to accomplish a task. Some tasks are more easily performed than others. And that God allows suffering to occur only means that the consideration of the duration of mortal life is not a primal, necessary factor, where we [some of us] are hung-up on the idea that it must last for as long as possible. No, not necessary. Further we [some of us] consider death as some kind of barrier, as if a door that closes on our lives and cannot be overcome. Nonsense. There's not even a door, which when closed, is a wall, anyway. Through an open passageway, there is no door; it is merely an open transition between one room and another. Thus, what we call a door is just another part of a wall, when closed. When open, it is nothing at all but open access to another space. That is what death is; no barrier at all, just a transition. However, all human suffering, no matter how small or great, is covered entirely by the atonement of Christ; He paid for it all as an innocent, though godly act that covers so much more then mere sin; it covered all suffering, all disappointment, all ill feelings, all doubts. Yes, we sometimes suffer, even by loss of life, but life continues and is so much more glorious after passing through the portal of death if we have lived mortal lives of faith, hope and charity. not so much if our lives have been filled with doubt, dismissal and greed. You don 't need to preach probability to me. I happen to have been a professional in that field as a certified Six Sigma Black Belt. Look it up.

    Even a 5% probability is still a factor allowing major doubt that something is absolute. You seem to have a problem with that word. Absolute is the desire of probability to be correct, completely.

    Have you bothered to search the topic? I got 12,200,000 hits
    Wow. Over 12M hits. That's a lot. However, my friend, what is the probability that at least one [therefore, doubt, and not so much absolute assurance] hit is an inquirer who does not accept either atheism or agnosticism, but wants to research the subjects, anyway. Yes, I have researched these subjects. Not that I agree with them, as you seem to think must be my position before looking into them, else what would spark my interest? You seem to think 12M somehow means the subjects are valid. That is, to be subtle, utter bullshyte. It's called curiosity, my friend, which is why, among the volumes in my library is Marx/Engels' Communist Manifesto, Chairman Mao's Little Red Book, and Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. They have been read, annotated, re-read, re-annotated, and so on. 

    a notable drop in IQ of theists 

    I was wondering when you would broach the subject of your topic. It was not evident in your #1. I did bring it up for you you in my #2 to save your arse.

    I don't know about you, but I did not grow up in an idiot household such as you present. We've been given a cartoon. I'm not laughing. Worse, your topic is presented as an absolute. Sorry, it does not hold water, because there are, as well, just like theists, idiots among the atheist households. Some, but not all. So, stop being an idiot by treating those who oppose you be the too-common epithet of all being stupid. It's just what one sees in the mirror, after all, sparking the recognition.
    Your problem is an all-or-nothing approach. All theists are idiots according to your topic. I've seen the survey. It does seem to have a definitive conclusion, but, there are matters apparently beyond your understanding that are faults with many published surveys: it's called Margin of Error, that is, what is the percentage of assurance that the data collected and analyzed is a true condition. Anything more than a ±2.5% begins to include doubt as to the accuracy. Take a look at your survey's MoE. If you can. Also, take a look at the number of respondents. Surveys typically short the needed number of samples in a sub-group. Third, take a look at the questions. Are they unbiased, or do are they engineered to illicit a desired response? Most do, and that invalidates the survey. How many questions? More than ten, and respondents get bored and will answer anything just to be done with what was promised as a "quick survey." All these factors contribute to a high MoE, regardless of what is planned. This IS rocket science, and most who conduct surveys don't know which direction the rocket should go.