This dumb guys keeps sending comments in. One of them said "nothing you have said on any of your sites has ever refuted anything an atheist as argued." How idiotic can you get? That is so childish. On the thing about IQ scores between atheists and theists. I show that the atheist site claiming atheists score higher, put four studies in the wrong categories. That is when you look at the actual study it says the opposite of what the person arguing thought it said. Now how could anything be more soundly refuted? It's obviously, factually, refuted. There's no question there. I have 17 studies backing my position, all of them 20 years newer than the atheist studies, which are only six, and he lied about four. How anything be more clearly refuted?
1. (#5) Vernon Jones, 1938
Tested 381 students, concluding "a slight tendency for intelligence and liberal attitudes to go together." [This doesn't say anything about religious belief or lack thereof. He's equating "liberal" with non-religious.]
2. (#6) A. R. Gilliland, 1940
At variance with all other studies, found "little or no relationship between intelligence and attitude toward god."[Obviously its not really at variance with "all" others since I just listed several others that don’t make those findings, and little or no relationship counts as negative evidence.]
3.(#10) Jeffrey Hadden, 1963
Found no correlation between intelligence and grades. This was an anomalous finding, since GPA corresponds closely with intelligence. Other factors may have influenced the results at the University of Wisconsin. [counts against his assumption that grades = intelligence so he can't measure intelligence through the studies that make that assumption. Also, what does he site in the face of this one to prove that graces indicate intelligence? And what about motivations?] (I suggest a sentence such as [This study discounts his assumption…)
4.(#12) James Trent, 1967
Polled 1400 college seniors. Found little difference, but high-ability students in his sample group were over-represented.[so they polled them? What did they use as a measure of intelligence? Doesn't say. But it does say they found no relation, or little, and virtually admit the sample is worthless so this counts as negative or at best as inconclusive.]
5. (#15) Hastings and Hoge, 1967, 1974
Polled 200 college students and found no significant correlations.[negative correlation is clearly negative evidence, there is no relation] Notice: the Francis study lists Hoge under the category of those that show no correlation between intelligence and religion, but that website lists it as positive to their thesis.
6. (#17) Wiebe and Fleck, 1980
Studied 158 male and female Canadian university students. They reported "nonreligious S's tended to be strongly intelligent" and "more intelligent than religious S's."[dosen't hint at how this was determined]
But the little know nothing just plods ahead, "O you must be wrong because I don't want you to be right." People, on both sides, are constantly mistaking emotional for logic. This is pandemic this is not something atheists do or theists do, it's all people. Most people cannot argue. It is empirically proved that i'm a good debater. I won 70% of my debates in college over a four period. While I never won anything pretentious like NDT I did beat good teams. I once beat the 14th seed team in the country. That is an objective empirical fact. Most think logic doesn't rules. I once saw an atheist on CARM say "logic is not a little language of its own with its own set of rules." Yes, that's exactly what it is! Anther atheist who had actually studied some logic cam along and set him straight, but then he was saying the same thing again the next week.
People do not think, they don't study or learn. All they is assume that what makes feel good is right. They feel uncomfortable because big mean sky Daddy is mad at them, so they feel bad becasue they can't screw with impunity. So they spend a lot of time working up hatred and anger and feeling powerful. They want to crush belief in God so they will feel superior. When you take away their supiriority they get really upset.
Take another example of absolute refutation: No evidence. In the fine tuning argument know nothing cited not one single source. He had no evdience at all. But he asserts "I am a Ph.D. student and when I say that no major scientists agrees with you that's authoritative." I had three major scientists that used by back my claims so that's automatically refuted by the facts, and one of those was an atheist.
The obvious problem is the guy doesn't know what "refutation" is. He probably things that just denying a claim is refuting it. They really out require that people take a course in logic before they are allowed o argue about important ideas on the net. Atheists must have a great deal invested in this rush of superiority that they get from mocking theists. Because they are so blind even basic nature of refutation they can't even judge something refuted when the facts are clearly documented in front of their faces, but then they think have refuted something when they just "is not!"
The situation is really quite the opposite. Very few atheists have ever successfully refuted anything I've said. That's because most of them time, 90%, I'm backing up what I say with published material and they don't do that. I'm usually the only one on a message board who even bothers to research anything. That means that most of the time I refute them and they don't refute me. But then these people who have not debated and don't the know the rules of logic and don't know what refutation is just get into the act with their emotional insistence "I must Superior, I want to screw I must be Superior.
Big mean sky Daddy wants to make them feel guilty about everything, so they are filled with hate toward any believer. Know noting whines "I don't hate you." No you aer only spending all your time lying about truth and refuting to learn anything because it makes you feel good to mock the designated target that the hate group that brain washed you tells you to hate.
The most hilarious example of non refutation of my arguments is the vast array of social science studies I present that backs up the validity of religious experience. Here the atheist onslaught has been nothing short of comical.
I present 350 studies to their 0. Then they will still say things like "you have no evidence." 350 studies to O and I have no evidence!?? They assert that religious experince is mental illness, it's emotional hysteria, it' bad for you, produces guilt, I have 350 studies that all of htat is bunk. They have 0 yet they still say they refuted my studies by asserting that they aren't true and they assert that their popular pinon outweighs the studies. So when I mention the studies on carm they think all they need to do is say "those have been refuted."
What is the major source of their refutation? they attack a bibliography compiled by one of the authors! *they think that if the Bibliography contains a source they don't like (of course they have read none of the sources, they are going entirely by the titles) then they have actually refuted the studies because they are on a bad bibliography. That is laughable enough to make a Monty Python skit.
This is so laughable and so ridiculous. The case for the valid nature of religious expedience is totally proved. It is not, of cousre, proved that God exists, but the beneficial nature of religious experience is beyond doubt. Nothing makes atheists more angry than proving a point that backs the validity of religion.**
I have two pages that talk about the findings of the studies.
*The Bib they attack is Gacenback, they have not attacked the Mohan bib which is linked above.
** this article assumes all the standard caveats about "some atheists and not all of them."