Wednesday, February 26, 2014

Lesson 2: how to turn their diversionary tactics

 photo Runningthegauntlet2byStevenWhite_zps73da724c.jpg
running the gauntlet

On CARM there was a discussion about a phil papers survey that shows the vast majority of professional philoshpers are atheists.

this is my post to answer theirs showing the stuffy they didn't tell us about, that the editors brought out as caveats.

I put up an answer "what they don't tell you about the phil papers study:"

My post begins here:
In the thread "what do most philosophers believe?" Tralala quotes a survey on phil papers that shows huge percentage are atheists.

I find that amazing because for a decade atheists on this and other boards acted like philosophy is so stupid because it's about belief in God. I told them that was amazingly ignorant and asserted that most philosophers are probably not believers in God.

I would not expect them to be.

*most philosophy students are given minimal exposure to God arguemnts.

*most philosophy anthologies are designed to make it appear that no one believes in God anymore and that the God arguments failed.

*most philosophy anthologies are light on pro God stuff and give minimal exposure to thinkers like E.L. Mascall who held down the fort in the decades before Malchom and Hartshorne revived the OA.

Philosophy is a lot different now than it was in the middle ages. It's not about answers now days. It's about asking interesting questions.

these criticisms discussed by the editors of phil papers and made by the people who took the survey.

What do most philosophers believe? Are most philosophers atheists, or theists? Do they lean toward Platonism or nominalism? Do they lean toward externalist or internalist epistemic justification?David Bourget and David Chalmers have released the results of the largest survey of professional philosophers ever conducted. There were 931 respondents from 99 leading philosophy departments around the world.1
So what are the results?

72.8% atheism
14.6% theism
12.5% other

(1) they agree it is anti-philosophical

they admit that this is sociology of philosophy and not philosophy

As for misrepresentation: We certainly agree that a philosopher's views cannot be captured in a set of survey answers. The survey answers should not be seen as any sort of definitive representation of philosophers' views. At best, they capture a few dimensions or aspects of those views. Likewise, the survey should not be taken as any sort of definitive representation of the state of the philosophical profession. Like any survey, it just captures a few limited aspects of the state of the profession.

Finally, we recognize that there is something comical about the idea of doing philosophy by multiple choice. But we think that the results are of significant interest all the same, and multiple choice is by far the most feasible way to get the relevant data.

(2) it's unfairly biased agaisnt continental traditions and for analytic.

2. The survey is biased toward certain traditions and areas. In particular, it is biased toward analytic philosophy as opposed to non-analytic traditions, including continental traditions, non-Western traditions, and others.

In response: Yes, it is. We recognized this in the survey's information page. We considered incorporating questions drawn from non-analytic traditions, but it proved difficult to find questions that would be accessible enough to a predominantly analytic audience. So we decided to explicitly orient the survey toward analytic philosophy, which is the tradition within which our own expertise lies.

A number of respondents suggested that we should have incorporated questions drawn from continental traditions, Asian traditions, the pragmatist tradition, and from the history of philosophy, among others. There were relatively few concrete questions suggested here. We appreciated the concrete suggestions that were made (e.g. "Madness: historical or ahistorical", "Hegelian dialectic or Marxist dialectic", "Early and late Wittgenstein: complementary or contradictory?"), but they tended to reinforce our initial sense that such questions would not have worked in context.
(3) limited from truth by protocols

We would have liked to have an option for a view on which the external world is somehow mind-dependent without this being idealism (e.g. social constructivism), but we couldn't find a good accessible generic term here. Of course we expected a big majority for non-skeptical realism, but we were interested to see whether there would be a good number of skeptics and idealists out there.
Read that whole page it's pretty interesting.

What percentage of philosophers read Phil papers? Are these the only surveys on these matters? they don't know. post ends here.

[one thing I didn't know but saw today is that in the field of philosophy of religion the majoirty are theists. that sort of undoes the implication].

The study was prestend as disproof of God. But the implication was made in several ways. Yet when I presented this list of caveats about the study they did not answer a single one. They began with a classic atheist ploy, which is divert attention form the issue by bringin up criticism of the person making the argument.

61 replies and not a one of them talks about the actual crititicism made above. 

 A new atheist "America" led off trying to evoke a ridiucle gautlet by using the stretegy of divert attention with persona criticism. He ceased upon my quip above about how atheists have rejected philosophy in the past and reused to accept that they do that.

Originally Posted by America View Post
That's false. Atheists do not act "like philosophy is so stupid because it's about belief in God", and you can't find a single atheist quote to show differently.

You do this a lot, don't you? Arguing against positions people don't actually hold.

He continued to pick at it (I ignored him) several times demanding "where is your proof that any atheist ever said that. I said I've been on the board 15 years, the board has been washed 60 times no way I can get those, I do remember them. He continued to assert that I must be lying it never happened, no true atheist would ever say that. I had talked about the way philosophy was taught when I was undergraduate and the way philosophy anthologies published in the 60s where structured, all of which was calculated to give the impression that belief in God was all washed up, while ignoring important current developments like the rise of the "back to God philosophers (Hartshorne and Plantinga, Purtil). Hilly Billy immediately asserted that I had to be wrong and implied I was lying:

Originally Posted by HillyBilly View Post
I do. Nothing Meta said about philosophy education is true. It's almost as though he never got a philosophy education.
you know that's bs. you clearly never read an anthology used in mid 20t century in under graduate school. Perhaps you are too young. That was my experience with the books we used. The would have St. Anselm talking about OA then Kant and Bertrand Russell saying why it's not good but not Hartshorne saying why it is. So they created the impression that it's not.

I can show you the book. I have about five books like that. I can list the citations if I have to, but that's a lot of busy work I see no need.

Nothing he says nothing about philosophy education is true that's such an obvious like it tells me he has not made university training.

The truth of it is I don't think Silly Billy ever got any kind of education other than little science stuff. He thinks he's a big philospher I'm betting he's only been intorduced to it through an Ayn Rand group.

At this point it's well on the way to becoming a ridicule gauntlet I would be overwhelmed by atheists making little sarcastic one liner quips. At this point I found a tipping point and turned around. How?
In the last lesson I gave the advice of calling them out individually and embarrassing them by demanding to know their credentials, their accomplishments, in other words saying "what do you know about it?" I started to use that appraoch and hit America  I struck gold. I just got him at a point where he embarrassed himself. He said that my criticisms were shallow and silly or something to that effect. I pointed out that the criticisms I presented were made by the editors who did the survey. So they were shallow and silly that the servery was done by incompetent people. I thanks America for disproving the survey for me. From that point on he began to falter.

Most of those posts have been deleted by the mods but they were hilarious. He had to start actually defendind the study agaisnt the criticisms that meant his purpose in divering attention was blown.
He wound up whinging and demanding to be taken seriously and I was laughing at him.

Unfortuatnely most of that has been taken out by the mods. i must learn to be faster in recording such things. but one exchange that's left, which much tamer but gives an idea:

 Originally Posted by America View Post
There's no need for a response. Your OP revealed gaping holes in your "reasoning" (lol) within the first few sentences.
No it didn't. I did nothing more than repeat what the editors of the journal said. that was the thinking of the very people who did the bleeding survey!

you can't have it both ways. if that's flawed then the survey is probalby flawed.
you must demonstrate the flaw. not just assert it. more opinion.


Until you're willing to address them, there's no need for me to be tackling anything else you've written here. Your argument is based on a straw man - deal with it like an intellectual.

PS. still no link

wrong. it's the arguemnt of the editors. you must give a reason you can't assert that it's wrong and then stick with the burden of proof. he asserts an argument must prove it.

 Originally Posted by America View Post

Editors of the journal said atheists think "philosophy is so stupid because it's about belief in God"?

You said that, and you were wrong.

Deal with it like an intellectual.
screw your head on straight. pull it out of the sand. now read again: the original OP says several criticism of the survey. they are clearly labeled as such. they includes the idea that it's biased toward analytical and against continental.

the unimportant statement about atheists think which was an after taught and off the cuff and matter not at all, was not one of the criticisms in the OP.

you have said nothing about those criticisms.

here they are again: (I repeated the OP at that point)

Originally Posted by America View Post
The original OP also says atheists think "philosophy is so stupid because it's about belief in God"

If you can't bother to not say stupid things in the first few sentences, there's no need for anyone to read further. Deal with it like an intellectual, Metacrock.
 yes. I said it was not the major point, which you would know if you read carefully. I also said it was an after thought. I added at at the end. I just didn't put it in the end I put it up front but I thought it after everything itself.

It's not very important. the stuff at the major boy id what matters. you are hiding.

The point is to head off those situations where they are ganging up and making one liners and ridiculing making you look foolish and taking the attention away form the issues by shifting the focus to their incompetents as judges.

Most of what atheists do, on CARM at any rate is  to move the spotlight from the message to the messenger, detract form the issue. everything is personal, everything is about what you do wrong, always shift the spot light from the message to the messenger. that's their stock in trade. That is clearly a hate tacit it's all about why they hate apologists.

Monday, February 24, 2014

Atheists Can Be Peranoid

The hate group aspect of atheism is obvious. All we have to do is look at how they treat people. Here they accuse me of maknig hate speech statements because I say they have no data for their anecdotal attack on Christian Character.

Quote Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
atheists accuse me of hate speech.
N manning says:

Is this hate speech:

(Meta)"That's why I don't bother with God arguments anymore. I went on the kick about realization. That wasn't concrete enough to shut them up. I think atheists have a hugely irrational standard of what they would accept as proof. they don't want proof and they are not going to accept the facts."

I think so.

when I say that the assertion that Chrsitians evade responsibility for their actions has no data to back it up they allege this is hate speech.

Decypher says:

"Must be more hate speech!! And from a Christian!! Even the Christians hate the Christians now... Wow! Metacrock, things are even worse than you think!"
So far this is not very reasonable. they are talking ordinary arguments as hate speech for no real reason other than that I said them. Here's definitions of hate speech.

Definitions of hate speech


"Hate speech is a communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence. It is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and the like. Hate speech can be any form of expression regarded as offensive to racial, ethnic and religious groups and other discrete minorities or to women."

"Legal Definitions are provided for public use and knowledge. If you don't find a definition you need, please request it.

US Legal, Inc Provides legal information in the form of Question & Answers, Definitions, Articles, Blogs and Reporting on various subjects in the United States legal field. You can also find an attorney or buy legal forms for Pro Se representation. US Legal seeks to simplify and break down the barriers to legal information."


hate speech
Bigoted speech attacking or disparaging a social or ethnic group or a member of such a group.

religion is specifically included in the targets for hate. hate speech can be dieted at religious people about their religion.

what is the point of saying that the whole Christian religion is based upon avoiding responsibility?


But do Christians have a whole religion based around them avoiding responsibility? Don't Christians want to "use Jesus" to get out of responsibility for their actions?
he doesn't use any stats, he doesn't have an data to base it on. It's his pinon based upon anecdotes, and he thinks this is not going to incite anger?

I find it extremely offensive an insulting it's a damned lie. Atheists have contracted an elaborate set of moral excuses to keep themselves from having to admit they are guilty of anything.

this is just an observation based upon looking at atheist arguments. every single one of them tries to deny the basis of sin or hurting someone or being wrong or having to make up for a wrong.

does any atheist on this board ever propose an ethical system where one must be sorry for what one has done and try to make up for it?

nothing is more bigoted than saying "all of this group is like this" despite having no evidence to back it up.

I added:
what we need to do is stop stereotyping each other and use research to valid constructive criticisms.

they went on to define this as more hate speech!

Drop the back-handed 'compliment' schtick along with the childish and uncalled-for false accusations, and you may be onto something.
what backhanded complement? to have a backhanded complement one must make the appearance of a complement. I sure can't see where I did that.

Tuesday, February 18, 2014

Are athesit insane: Here's a carm atheist so into knit pitting i makes quesiton his sanity.

Hilly Billy starts the day early this morning trying to slander me in several different ways. He says I'm a polytheist and makes many other absurd that I disprove by dissecting. That is all due to his inability to understand concepts. He doesn't really know what polytheism is becuase he can't really understand the concept of God. For example he says that God in Platonic Christianity has to be a particular because is a property (he has the property of being God) and properties have to be particulars. First he said it was because he's a person, until I am the one who pointed out that Platonic forms are abstract and thus can't have properties. Still stuck on the idea that God has to have properties (for no good reason) he thinks that must make God a particular. which would also make God a creation.

Anyway, He then denied that he said I was a polytheist, then when I proved he did he denied denying it.

 here's where he claims I'm a poly theist.

 And, no, you don't meet the qualifications for being a Christian since you waver between polytheism (which is incompatible with the essential doctrine of the trinity) and deism (which is incompatible with the essential doctrine of the incarnation) so fast that you believe they're the same thing.

 This series explains it all.

Originally Posted by HillyBilly View Post
That's not what happened. So, you're misrepresenting your own misrepresentation! It's like inception over here! Are you capable of representing any situation accurately?
who can trust you? I clearly proved that the one about polytheism did happen. right in front of your face. First you said you didn't say it then I showed you did then you denied denying it.

What Meta originally said I did was say that he supports polytheism. Since I did no such thing, I said as such. What I did say is that Meta wavers between polytheism and deism, which is a fact I provided documentation for. Now he's changing it back and saying I denied saying that he is a polytheist. He will never find a quote of me saying that, because I didn't. 
what a huge difference! that's exactly the very same thing. you just twist words and play literalism and go for the literal and legalistic. that's people do when they don't get ideas are can only deal with the words themselves not their meanings.

you are just knit picking.

 really quite a difference is it? If I'm not a polytheist at all then I'm not wavering bewteen that and deism. why does he think I am? merely becuase doesn't understand the concept of the trinity. Again the guy with the Masters degree from a major seminary doesn't know theology and the guy who has never read any does.

Here's another stupid one, abysmally stupid:

 You've recently claimed that God is truth as found in the correspondence theory of truth. Sorry, Meta, YHWH isn't a relation, he's a god. If you don't believe in YHWH, you're not a Christian.

 Saying that If God is truth in the sense of the correspondence theory of truth (my I expalined that meant truth is that which is, the nature of the case the correspondence to the nature of the world, God is the basis of what is and thus is the lynch pin of reality, and as such is both basis of an part of what is. you can more about his discussion my blog on Metacrock's blog.

He decides that that's like saying that God is a correspondence bewteen two things. Obviously he's just not willing give the benefit of a doubt that I mean by bringing the correspondence theory into it is that truth is that which is. God is that which is (as the basis of reality) thus God is truth. By that of course I don't mean God is synonymous with every trivial Continent truth such that God is the chicken sandwich I had for lunch, but that in the sense of an overarching truth that makes sense of the world that's what God is.

 This is just a wrench thrower. He's just trying to gum up the works and start slander and say things that pull down my reputation. He's a knit a picker he can't give the benefit of a doubt. what he's saying is like saying if you say that someone is tall he would say "how could he be tallness?"

Monday, February 17, 2014

Are Natural Scientists Smarter than Religous Beleivers? Richard Lynn at it again!

 photo edward-dutton_zpsb38d2c48.jpg

There seems to have come to be a lucrative field for passing off atheist propaganda as "science." There are numerous studies doing this and most of them are what we might call "inadequate." A new one has been added that claims that scientists who study natural science tend to be more intelligent than those who do social sciences becuase they tend to be atheists, it assumes atheists are smarter based upon flawed discredited studies like the one I took apart a few months ago. This new study is called "Intelligence and Religious and Political Differences Among Members of the U.S. Academic Elite," Author: Edward Dutton (University of Oulu) and Richard Lynn (University of Ulster)[1] Dutton says of himself: "I read Theology at Durham University (BA 2002) before beginning a PhD in Social Anthropology of Religion at Aberdeen University (PhD 2006)"[2] We have met Lynn before, "Atheism IQ Scam Bad science and Racist Assumptions,Kanazawa, Nyborg, Lynn, and Hamilton." AW, Jan 2, 2012

Lynn is one of the atheist racist squad, he's done much more in the past promoting ideas of the intellectual superiority of atheists over religion and people of color. Lynn lent data to Kanazawa who was cenered for racist views by BBC. Lynn supports Euginics and told the BBC "It's time for a 're-think' on eugenics."[3] Along with R.Vanhanen,He wrote IQ and the Wealth of Nations in which he basically said that poor nations are poor because they have lower IQs, and they tend to be colored becuase colored people are not has smart.[4] [5] In an article by Barry Mehler (Soutern Poverty Law Center) Lynn is quoted as saying:

What is called for here is not genocide, the killing off of the populations of incompetent cultures. But we do need to think realistically in terms of "phasing out" of such peoples. If the world is to evolve more better humans, then obviously someone has to make way for them. ... To think otherwise is mere sentimentality.
— Richard Lynn, professor of psychology, University of Ulster-Coleraine, Northern Ireland[6]

 Mehler says:
 What is clear is that the academics who see inherent IQ differences between racial groups have lent support — unwittingly or not — to overt white supremacists. In some cases, this support has gone so far as to become an unapologetic academic embrace of professional racists.
 Now Lynn has assisted Dutton in this new study that supposedly shows that atheists are smarter than Chrsitians and physicists and physical scientists are smarter than social scientists. All of that is based upon IQ.

 photo richard-lynn_zpsee4ef099.jpg

We can't get the article online yet, Colleen Flaherty,  quotes the article as saying, “There is sound evidence of a negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity and between intelligence and political extremism,” ... “Therefore the most probable reason behind elite social scientists being more religious than are elite physical scientists is that social scientists are less intelligent.”[7]
In an interview, Dutton said social scientists aren’t stupid, or necessarily extreme in their politics or possessing a belief in God. But, statistically speaking, they have lower IQs than their colleagues in biological and physical sciences and are likelier at elite U.S. and British institutions to be extremely conservative or liberal or religious, or both. Dutton said that there are many similarities between political extremism and religious fundamentalism; in other research, he uses the term “replacement religions” to describe the phenomenon.
Several things are wrong here. First of all the idea that one holds an extreme opinion becasue because it's different from some cultural norm is a very problamtic and most likely ideolgoically based idea. Such allegations are usually ideologically motivated. Secondly, He's assuming IQ is a valid measurement of intelligence, a proposition thoroughly disproved. I've written on this many times. First there is the Atheist IQ scam which seeks to make atheists seem smarter than Christians. Then there's the Zuckerman Study on comparision of IQ between religious and non religious people. The study itself was thoroughly discredited, and the concept the link bewteen IQ test scores and prediction of intelligence was disproved in Part 2.
The article goes on to quote Dutton on the intelligence of physical scientsits: "'[Physical] scientists are overwhelmingly atheist,' Dutton said. 'This is predicted by their high IQ, which allows you to rise above emotion and see through the fallacious, emotional arguments.' Arguments about God are all emotional arguments, he added." They base the assumption of the truth of the information on the IQ of the people who teach it. That really has nothing to do with the truth content of the disciplined. The same qualities that they assert phsyical science professors have of rationality and no extreme options might also be indicative of a physiological need for tranquility and/or inability to relate to people that governs the selection of their study matter. In other words like Sheldon on "Big Bang Theory" tv show they chose phsyical sciences not becuase they are more true or they themselves  are smarter but because they socially inept. We also see that Dutton knows little about God arguments. How could anyone think the ontological argument is emotional? Obviously he's never read about it. I also want them to compare IQ of physical scientists to those of mathematicians. Mathematical Genius Godel made ontological arguments for God.

It is not a foregone conclusion to assume that most physical scientist are atheists. That statistic is more limited to the NAS rather than all scinece degree holders.If Church attendance is a measure of belief science degree holders are morel likely to go to church than are non science degree holders: "The scientific fraternity conducted a poll and found that on any given Sunday 46% of Ph.D. holders in science can be found in church. That compares with 47% for the general population "[8]

The Dutton-Lynd study seeks to make claims to be ground breaking based upon it's meta analysis tying together three areas never before linked: Natural scientist, IQ compared to social scineces, religious beliefs. Flaherty says:

The paper is a meta-analysis of existing data showing several things: that natural scientists have higher IQs than social scientists; that low intelligence “predicts” political extremism and religiosity; and that physical scientists at elite institutions are less likely to believe in God or be politically extreme than their counterparts in the social sciences.
The connection between all three research areas has never been made until now, Dutton said. But – in just one example of potentially problematic methodology – the logic can’t be extended to academe in general. Several studies cited in the paper drawing from a wider mix of colleges and universities than simply the most elite show that life sciences professors are more likely to attend church than their peers in the social sciences, not less. The paper assumes this is because professors at elite institutions are smarter than their peers elsewhere.
That could mean it's ground breaking it could also mean it's bringing together ideas not brought together before because they require stupid assumptions. One assume make is that phsyical scientists are atheist because atheism is more rational and less emotional. The study purports to use IQ as it's soul meaure of intelligence, but then it seem they also use rationality, lack of emotion, they study of subject matter. One example is of obviously biased assumptions is where Dutton tries use assert that their data would used to clear the controversial anthropologist Napoleon Chagnon who has been lambasted for his book Nobel Savages.
The government of Venezuela what Chagnon wrote about the Yanomamo tribe to justify their oppressive measures toward the tribe.[9] Chagnon has been criticized for not taking the responsibility to think how his work by effect the people he lived with, who allowed him to observes their lives. Some resigned form NAS when Chagnon was admitted to it in protest of his membership. Dutton asserts that it would never be a controversy if doctros (ratioanl unemotional smarter non religous people) were making the decisions.

Still, Dutton said the data is intrinsically valuable and has certain real-world applications. For example, he said, it could explain the backlash against notorious anthropologist Napoleon Chagnon upon the publication of his book, Noble Savages, last year. Fellow anthropologists criticized Chagnon’s methodology and conclusions in his research on the Yanomamö tribe in Brazil and Venezuela, and one prominent anthropologist resigned his post at the National Academy of Sciences after Chagnon was elected as a member.  

Dutton said that Chagnon’s controversial findings regarding the tribe likely would not have incited such an “emotional” response from medical doctors, for example.[10]

The data could explain the baclash? How? One has nothing to do with the other, of course what he means is people who are upset about what happened to the tribe are stupid. Smarter people (presumably those who agree with him) would not be upset. Why would they not be upset? would that be perhaps because primitive brown people don't count? The the study is valuable because it would explain to Dutton that smart people would agree with him? That example makes no sense because short of saying "smart agree with me" it doesn't prove anything. That's not proof smart people would say anything, he just asserting they would agree with his view because they are smarter. That's the way I thought when I was 10 years old.

Meta analysis

Dutton and Lynn, like the IQ test to which they allude, by Zuckerman, and others of their circle use a method called "meta analysis." Part of the allure of the Zuckerman study was that it was the first big meta analysis of IQ studies. Meta analysis is a technqiue for combining the results of different independent studies. Meta analysis works best in health care,[11] it's not certain that IQ data would work in the same way. Logically the system depends entirley upon the quality of the work, and a thorough inclusion of all relevant data.

The danger of unsystematic (or narrative) reviews, with only a portion of relevant
studies included, is that they could introduce bias. Certain (perhaps favourable) reports may be more likely to be included in a review than those which show no significant differences; and informal synthesis may be tainted by the prior beliefs of the reviewer. Meta-analysis carried out on a rigorous systematic review can overcome these dangers –offering an unbiased synthesis of the empirical data
Yeaton and Wortman show us that meta-analysis is a newly popular method that lacks sufficient standards.[13] People are getting carried way with it and trying to make it do all kinds of things. One of the major problems seen by this fascination with the new statistician's toy is that it can be used to mask the problems of individual studies by hiding hem in the statistics of a group of studies. That sounds like the old trick of grading on a curve to get the class average up.

Meta-analysis on in the social sciences typically report findings on a side range of independent and dependent variables providing a single mean overall reliability score at best.This practice masks the unreliability of individual variables especially those used to calculate measures of effect size that are critical to inference about treatment effectiveness.[14]
It's not just masking individual studies but whole variables One variable that is obviously masked by Dutton and Lynn is IQ as a predictor of intelligence. This has been criticized, along with their whole data gathering procedure. Flaherty quotes two critics:

Elaine Howard Ecklund, a professor of sociology at Rice University who co-wrote the 2007 study on religion and science professors at 21 elite U.S. research institutions that is key to Dutton’s argument, said via email that she also was “pretty unimpressed by the methods used in this work to access intelligence. It seems sensationalist rather than scholarly.”
Drawing lines between the data to make conclusions about intelligence and religious and political life is “not so simple,” she said.

William H. Swatos, managing editor the Interdisciplinary Journal on Research and Religion, an independent, peer-reviewed online publication affiliated with Baylor University's Institute for Studies of Religion, said Dutton’s and Lynn’s paper was not typical, either in subject matter or rigor, for the journal. “That was a hard one,” he said, noting that earlier drafts of the paper had even more inflammatory language. But, as both authors have “real” academic credentials, he accepted the article in the interest of scholarly debate and “openness,” he said.[15]
So this is not the great panacea that guarantees all the answers. As a matter of fact I had proved that the Zuckerman IQ study actually leaves out important counter studies to hide the cumulative average.  Zuckerman isn't just masking variables with statistics he's actually leaving out whole studies.

Here are some of the problems I found with the Zuckerman IQ "Meta-Analysis:"[16a]

Problem 1: hints biased interpretation of data

The most recent period of studies (this century) appear to have their biases. Above I alluded to the possibility of bias in the early period (1920's-60s). Now it's time to find examples that might indicate the probability of this bias. Zuckerman and his colleagues quote the first Argyle study (1958), For example,  the first Argyle study found that "intelligent students are much less likely to accept Orthodox beliefs and rather less likely to have pro-religious attitudes."[16b] That could just as easily mean that "Orthodox includes conservative religious ideas but not theologically liberal ones." Does "rather less likely to have pre religious attitudes" equal being atheists? One could self identify as a remember of a religious tradition and have some attitudes that are classified as "not pro religious." I have atheists habitually asserting that liberal theological views are not pro religious. One site on the net where an atheist has argued the IQ issue for a long time, and he makes that assumption. The Inconclusive nature of Argyles findings is born bout by the fact that his second study (with Beit-Hallahmi--1997) draws no conclusion in the matter of the corrolation between intelligence and religous belief, saying "there is no great difference in intelligence between religious and non religious." [17]

How do Zucekrman et al classify that? Do they count the first study as "pro-negative" (correlation between intelligence and religion) and the second as no correlation? What of the implications of the first study in relation to a more liberal understanding of religion? Moreover the Thomas Simington Study (1935) finds that: "There is a constant positive relation in all the groups between liberal religious thinking and mental ability There is also a constant positive relation between liberal scores and intelligence." Thus establishing the link that liberal theological types are high IQ scorers. Oddly enough Zuckeman leaves out this study. Not listed on his bibliography.[18] Thus there is good reason to suspect that they are only using studies that measure the conservative end of belief thus are leaving out the IQ ranges of the more liberal theology inclined. They might also be leaving out the more deeply spiritual as their definition of belief seems to revolve around a more literalistic supernatural "agent" rather than mystical experience. I can't help but remember a statement from one of the studies on mystical experience:

 Overall then we have reason to believe that the studies finding negative correlations has anti-religious biases of the times. They didn't accept liberal theology as religious and sought to compare secular thinking to conservative forms of religion, or they supported the savannah theory genetics and thus see atheism as an advance in human revolution (among other biases). While the 60's studies that tend to find a positive correlation (religion and intelligence) might also have the bias of its own day we would have to examine the specific data to determine its significance.
Problem no 2: Leaving out all the major coutner studies.
There is also a point to be made about the numbers of studies and what's being left. Rathi claims that Zuckerman found 53 out of 63 studies with negative correlation. That's overwhelming unless the 63 studies are bad and the other 10 are good. While that's probably not likely we can raise more questions about the quality of the studies used. Another striking feature is the conspicuous absence of studies known to have findings of a positive correlation. Several studies that I know are positive in correlation are not found in the Zuckerman study:no Simington, no pratt, no Rummell, no Corey. All of these are found in the list by Steve Kangus (the atheist list) (see Note 17). Using his list (some of this were put in the wrong category) I have 6 negative (that high IQ not religious) vs. 17 either positive (High IQ are religious) or no correlation. Yet Rathi counts only 10 that dont' support Zuckerman's correlation. That means somewhere seven studies at least are being overlooked. Fancis says in his first study that the  greater number was with the negative. That doesn't mean the quality studies were negative. So even though it may be that the majority of studies find negative correlation, that doesn't prove that this is the answer. The studies left out (I know there are more than 10 that are not in line with the negative) are conspicuous by their absence.

Zuckerman et al says the reason for leaving studies out is:

Studies were included in the meta-analysis if they examined the relation between intelligence and religiosity at the individual level, and if the effect size (Pearson r) of that relation was provided directly or could be computed from other statistics. For several studies, intelligence and religiosity were measured, but the authors did not report the relation between these two variables. Authors of such studies were contacted to obtain the relevant information. If authors did not respond to our first request, two more reminders were sent. When necessary, second and/or third coauthors were also contacted. Studies that examined the relation between intelligence and religiosity indirectly (e.g., comparisons at group levels, comparisons between scientists and the general population) were excluded
Simington seems to report it. We can't really know more without actually getting hold of the studies but I think this is enough to raise concerns.

Summary: four arguments have been made to the effect that the Zuckerman study may have some problems that bear scrutiny.

This has major effect upon Dutton and Lynn because they rely totally on IQ as their only measure of intelligence. Their whole study stands or falls upon the issue of IQ studies. Yet the Zuckerman study was supposed to be the best, teh biggest, the most complex and the first meta-analysis ever done taking account of all the IQ studies. It's a exercise in bias and full of so many holes it could pass for Swiss cheese. How could this not indicate the weakness of Dutton's work?

all web pages accessed 2/13/14 unless otherwise noted.

 [1] Edward Dutton and Richard Lynn. "Intelligence and Religious and Political Differences Among Members of the U.S. Academic Elite." The Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion,
 Volume 10, Article 1 (2014). URL:
Author:Edward Dutton  (University of Oulu) Claims to have studied theology at Durham.  Richard Lynn (University of Ulster).

 [2] Edward Dutton, "Edward Dutton," Academia. edu,

 [3] "Call for Re-Think on Eugenics," BBC News, Firday 26, April, 2002. URL

 [4] Richard Lynn And Tatu Vanhanen, IQ and The Wealth of Nations,Westport Conn.: Prager Publishers 2002.

 [5] Richard Lynn and Greg Misenberg, "National IQ's Calculated and Validated for 108 Nations."
 Intelligence 38, Science direct PDf online 2 June (2010) URL:

 [6] Barry Mehler, "Academia at the Forefront of Racist Ideals, White Supremacy." SPLC (Soutern Poverty Law Center) Intelligence Report, Winter, 1999, 93.

[7] Colleen Flaherty, "Are Natural Scientists Smarter?" Inside Higher ed, Fed 12, (2014) online:
Flaherty is a Reporter,who covers faculty issues for Inside Higher Ed. Prior to joining the publication in 2012, Colleen was military editor at The Killeen Daily Herald, outside Fort Hood, Texas. She also has covered government and land use issues for newspapers in her home state of Connecticut. After graduating from McGill University in Montreal in 2005 with a degree in English literature, Colleen taught English and English as a second language in public schools in the Bronx, N.Y. She earned her M.S.Ed. from City University of New York Lehman College in 2008.

[8] Alan Lightman, Origins: The Lives and World of Modern Cosmologists. Cambridge Mass.:Harvard University press, 1999).

[9] Greg Laden, "Nobel Savages: Napoleon Chagnon's Fierce Book." Greg Laden's Blog, Science Blogs, April 5, (2013).

[10] Flaherty, Op Cit.

[11] Ian K. Crombie and Huw  T.O. Davies, "What is Meta Analysis?" What is...? series, published by Sanofi-aventis,  second edition, no date, URL
Iain K Crombie PhD FFPHM Professor of Public Health,University of Dundee
Huw TO Davies PhD Professor of Health Care Policy and Management, University of St Andrews.

[12] Ibid.

[13] William H. Yeaton and Paul M. Wortman, "on The Reliability of Metanalycial Reviews: The Role of Inter-coder Agreement" 1993 Pdf
William H. Yeaton, Ph.D. in Psychology, works as independent consultant on study methodology. U. of Michigan, Paul M. Wortman,Ph.D. psychology, State University of New York Stony Brook.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Flaherty, Op Cit.

[16a] Metacrock, "New Zuckerman IQ Study, Are Atheists Smarter?" Cadre Comments, august 25, (2013)

[16b] Miron Zuckerman, Jordon Silberman, and Judith Hall, "The Relation Between Intelligence and Religiosity: A Meta Analysis and Some Proposed Explanations." Personality and Social Psychology Review. Sage Publications (August 6, 2013 online first version of record). URL:
these Notes are from the original article

[17] Steve Kangus, editor, Liberalism Resurgent,  (accessed 8/12/13) this is a page combatting the myth that religious people are more intelligent. The site apparently sees religious belief and scinece as oppossies and as opponents, mutually exclusive.
note was no. 17 in original article.

[18] The Simington study was originally listed on the original website I was rebutting (see previous note). that was years ago and the site has changed its list over time. He now includes studies that show no correlation as though that proves his point. It is actually a disproof as he is trying to that atheists are smarter. No correlation means there's no link bewteen intelligence and beilef. The list still includes Simington.
note was no. 18 in original artilce

Friday, February 14, 2014

Is This guy a Shill for atheism, or just the victim of Bad theology?

This was a post on CARM yesterday. This guy's understanding of Christianity is so bad he could be a shill for atheism. It would not be the first time an atheist went on there to pretend to be a Christian who is disillusioned and giving up his faith. This guy's understanding is so bad he doesn't even speak in standard Christian cliches. But my point in bring it up is not to accuse atheists, my point is to make sure that Christians understand what needs to be taught and what needs to be dropped like a hot rock.

Originally Posted by DisgruntledChristian View Post
I have seen no improvement in life from believing in Jesus Christ.
I can no longer go on with the self loathing.

Christianity requires me to hate myself because of how I am.
I can longer believe I deserve death and hell.
First thing out of the shoot he gets it wrong. No wonder he has had no change in his life, he's not beileving the Gospel! Nothing in the Gospels that requires us to hate ourselves. Quite the contrary it requires that we love ourselves. The injunction "love your neighbor as yourself" (Matt 22:36-40 (NIV) (in KJV) assumes we love ourselves. We can't do that if we loath ourselves.
I refuse to believe that I am a worthless sinner
Good! So do I! No passage in the NT says that. Luke 12: 6-7 (NIV)

Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings, and not one of them is forgotten before God?
But even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not therefore: ye are of more value than many sparrows.

Of cousre the comparison to sparrows is ironic and  hyperbolic. He's not saying humans are only wroth a set number of birds. He's saying we are wroth much more to God than any other aspect of creation. Passages like "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son" (John 3:16) teach us that God loves every single person enough to die for them.
I can't help the fact that I am sexually confused and attracted to members of both genders.
I refuse to love and worship and serve a God who hates people and sends them to hell.
If God can't love everyone and provide a way to reconcile everyone to him that God is a malevolent entity.
No passage says God hates sinners. No passage says God hates gays. It certainly doesn't say he hates people who are confused. Only the most extreme churches teach that. It's so very cliched to speak of God loving all people that it makes me wonder if this person isn't involved in a hoax. We have very touching images of God going out of his way to bring back the lost sinners.


15 Then drew near unto him all the publicans and sinners for to hear him.
And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.
And he spake this parable unto them, saying,
What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?
And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing.
And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost.
I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.
Either what woman having ten pieces of silver, if she lose one piece, doth not light a candle, and sweep the house, and seek diligently till she find it?
And when she hath found it, she calleth her friends and her neighbours together, saying, Rejoice with me; for I have found the piece which I had lost.
10 Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth.
At that point he tells the story of the prodigal son. Even though he was reduced to the level of a servant eating pig slop he was welcomed back to the house with honors. Note that story begins with the character's initial position in the house as son, not servant. The believer is adopted as a Child of God.
But he doesn't love everyone and in fact hates everyone.

That's obviously a lie. It's also contradiction because he also says God loves the elect, so then he says God hates everyone. No passage ever says God hates anyone. He hates sins but it doesn't say he hates sinners. It sure as hell doesn't say he hates everyone. He's obviously feeling sorry for himself.

Accepting Christ has strings attached. God could have done better.
So here I am.
You have to be sincere and you have to accept what God has for you. those are not what I call "strings."

I must work on improving my health and finding a way to survive and flourish.
I must stay safe and work on ways to post pone death because as soon as I die I just might go to some deity's hell.
 So why would you post on a place like CARM? Do you really expect atheists to help you sort your relationship with God? Who will help them do that that first?
In latter posts he says:  "Jesus Christ didn't die for everyone. Only the chosen, the elect.

I have no way of knowing if I am one of the elect.

I'm tired of living in such fear anymore."
 He may be a Calvinist. I'm not real gung ho Calvinism myself. I think this is too extreme for him to be a Christian. He's either someone who was not in a chruch very long and didn't listen or someone who is hoaxing. There's a guy on CARM now he's been for a couple of years I still think he came to hoax pretending to be a chrsitian, then it has become totally clear that he was not one. I don't say that just becuase he disagrees with me. He clearly doesn't know anything about it.

This just drives home our responsibly to show the love of Christ and to really understand the gospel. Its' not hard. it's good. The Gospel is Good, God is good becuase God is love, If you have all these ideas that you are no good and God doesn't love you, you need to seek God. Not becuase he's mad at you but becuase you are not getting what he has for you that is good and positive and based upon love. God is really love. He loves you.

Bad theology is the tough love nonsense that is not love at all.

Wednesday, February 12, 2014

The Atheist Movement, Guilt by Association, and Personal Attacks

  photo Holocaust-NaziParade.gif
 Christians? Or Atheists marching?

There is a whole thread on CARM right now that exhibits exactly what I'm talking about:

Guilt by association is a fallacy and a lie. It's what people use to prove their *******. Eampels of guilt by association that we all dispose include "one black I know is lazy (so I think) thus all black people are lazy."

Yet most atheists will seem to argue for the proportion that if one Christian is a Nazi then Christianity must turn people into Nazis.

 Originally Posted by The Pixie View Post
The vast majority of Nazis were Christians.

What's the point of saying it if he's not trying to imply something? the OP is implying that they are dehumanizing Christians by implying that Christianity is full of Naizis. So to counter this the guy says most Nazis were Christians. how is that a counter? How does that not imply that being a Christian makes you Nazi? If he is trying to deny it he's doing a stupid job becuase he comes back with even more indication that Christians are Nazis:

Originally Posted by The Pixie View Post
The population of Germany in 1933 was around 60 million. Almost all Germans were Christian, belonging either to the Roman Catholic (ca. 20 million members) or the Protestant (ca. 40 million members) churches. The Jewish community in Germany in 1933 was less than 1% of the total population of the country.
One-third of Germans were Catholics and two-thirds were Protestants.

While the leaders had some strange ideas, the rank-and-file, the people working in the concentration camps were Christians.

Then HRG Steps in with a "common use argument" to again argue that these Hitler supporters were "true Christians" since that means nothing more than superficial membership in an organization:

Originally Posted by HRG View Post
According to the common use of that term, many were Christians (baptized, paying church tax, going to mass etc.). You may set up your special definition by which someone who commits an atrocity is automatically removed from Christianity, but its self-serving character is obvious.

Just like there are good Muslims and bad Muslims, good Hindus and bad Hindus, good atheists and bad atheists, there are good Christians and bad Christians.
Although he does throw off the association by stipulating that there are good one's and bad one's. That goes to the deeper argument behind the guilt by association argument, that being Christian doesn't change your lfie or make you a better person. That argument can be answered efficiently by the studies on religious experience, the fact that he makes it is encouraging becuase he's not using it as a hate slogan to tar all Christians.

When I keep pointing out that he has to be saying this for the obvious reason, they finally just say stuff that implies "if shoe fits wear it."

Originally Posted by madmax2976 View Post
If I were to guess, it would be to try to get under the skin of Christians. I just haven't seen many do this in any significant numbers.

none of them will ever admit that they really think this (Christianity causes Nazism). they will back away and say stuff like "I'm not opposing the idea that true Christians can't be Nazis." That is equally deniable as a Christian belief.

Sreve Chase admitts to using the argument facetiously to force the other guys to think it through.

Originally Posted by stevechase View Post
I have written such things. I do it in response to Christians claiming that evolution produced Hitler and the like:

and many more.
I do it to parody the "logic" of many evangelical types.
I agree with you that their logic is equally odious. I did the same thing by arguing that atheism = communism. Atheists murdered 100 million in the 20th century and so on.

these are just games either way. we should stop playing them because we are not producing anything. It's not having the desired effect. It doesn't make people think it just helps justify their BS. 

Those types actually seem to think that their absurd declarations are true. So I mock their stupidity.
I agree with you that their logic is equally odious. I did the same thing by arguing that atheism = communism. Atheists murdered 100 million in the 20th century and so on.

these are just games either way. we should stop playing them because we are not producing anything. It's not having the desired effect. It doesn't make people think it just helps justify their BS.

When are we going to stop playing this stupid game?

If there were "true" Christians supporting Hitler that does not prove Christianity produces Nazis. that's just as much a guilt by association argument as saying that Stalin's atheism proves that being an atheist turns you into a torturing murdering commie.

If the stats suggest that the vast majority of Hitler supporters were Christians it does not prove that being a Christian makes you support Hitler.

* Most opposition to Hitler in Germany were Christians.

* The vast majority of people who kicked the Nazi's asses in the war were Christians.

* Hitler was an occultist who hated Christianity and he engaged the SS to find the holy grail not becuase he bleieve in it as a Christian (no one does) but he believed in it as an occultist.

*He also dispatched searchers to Tibet to find occult secrets hat help them in the war. Although that might be hard to prove. The ostensible reason may have been to compare Asians to Ayrians. They had an extensive study of sociologically based "racial science."

*The issue of what makes one a "true Christian" has to come into it. Atheist trying to deny that there is any deeper thing required than just superficial membership in organization. Yet Christian belief itself asserts that there are deeper requirements and surface level organization in membership does not fit the bill of Jesus' teachings concerning what it means to follow him.

The problem there is the term "Christian" since Jesus never used it. Jesus never said anything about being a Christian, he talked about being born again.

* The overall issue is nothing more than guilt by association. It's a cheap poly that atheists wont let go of because they have nothing very deep to say about the nature of christian teaching.

that's typical of the whole atheist movement and they way they argue on this board. all they ever do argue about is people, what people do, what's wrong with the way Chrsitians think what's what's wrong with the way Christians argue, how Christians are dishonest and can't think ect ect. that's all they know how to discuss most of the time.

Sunday, February 9, 2014

Conclusion to my debate with Pixie on CARM

  photo small_zps83991bfc.jpeg

I was debating "Pixie" 1x1 on CARM when my brother died. I don't feel like answering all of his points, but he has declared his last speech, so I will just answer the major points that I think really win it.

If you wish to read the whole debate, from there beginning here it is.

Second Affirmative Rebuttal, Meta's conclusion.

I want to thank Pixie for debating. He did a good job he's a worthy opponent in terms of the vitality and challenge that he took to it. He had some good arguments. I appreciate his debating me.

Due to my personal loss I don't feel like answering all of the points. these are the high lights.
Originally Posted by The Pixie View Post


Thanks to Metacrock for the debate. I was not at all familiar with the subject of mystical experiences, and it has been interesting learning about it, though it has slowed me down somewhat.

As a general point, I came to this debate assuming Metacrock was trying to prove something. As I said earlier, he has admitted he cannot do that, so we do agree there!
What I proved is that it's rational to believe in God. He has no come back. he didn't even address the pages on why alts to big bang are no good, he dropped it twice.
The most he did on argument 1 (temp beginning) was merely to argue that alternatives are possible.

He and the other atheists just assume if an alternative is possible then it must be case. It doesn't even stop them for a second to realize that is faith! the are placing faith in their view.

when Chrsitians believe based upon faith the mock and ricile and say it's stupid. then they do it themselves and they act they are intellectually superior for doing so.

all of those alternatives were knocked down. twice I knocked them down with the same page from Odenwald and Pixie ignored it never said a word about it. So he lose that way back at the end of constructives when he did not answer it.

Argument from Temporal Beginning

Metacrock's whole argument turns on there being a law of physics "no change beyond time is possible", and yet a web page he cited from a world-famous physicist, Stephen Hawking, shows that that is not true. If there is no such law, then his claim that only God can break the law collapses and his rational warrant to believe dissolves away. 
that is clearly and obviously not true. this is just another example of how selectively he reads. Quote from Hawking from Brief History of Time:

"As we shall see, the concept of time has no meaning before the beginning of the universe. This was first pointed out by St. Augustine. When asked: What did God do before he created the universe? Augustine didn't reply: He was preparing Hell for people who asked such questions. Instead, he said that time was a property of the universe that God created, and that time did not exist before the beginning of the universe. [Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), p. 8]

what does he say? the concept (that is the concept of time) has no meaning before the begin of the universe. that says it right there, no time before the universe began.

It was a shame Metacrock could not explain how something that is not intelligent could be considered a god; his argument seemed particular incoherent on this issue, and I wonder if he was setting his sights lower, merely hoping to show that it was likely something started time. In the end this did not impact the discussion, as the web page he found showed that actually we do not need anything at all to kick-start the universe. 
I suspect he knows he got his *** kicked because here he resorts to total dishonesty. nothing of the kind of was said. No one said about God not being intelligent. that's just bolder dash. if anything I may have intimated that God's knowledge can't be compared with ours. We would not measure our intelligence on a scale with a single cell organism. We would not say that we are not intelligent.

Argument from Epistemic Judgement

Here his argument relies on showing that mysical experiences are all very similar and that there is good reason to suppose they come from God. 
that's a total distortion. how can he pretend that he won when he clearly doesn't' know what the argument is about.

like always atheists just totally ignore the importance of the criteria. we decide reality by that criteria that means if something fits it, then it should be understood as real. he says nothing about it.

The reality is that mystical experiences can vary wildly, with some (albeit only a few percent) being bad, some involving delusions and so on. While they do show some commonality, that may be attributed to the filtering process of what actually counts as a mystical experience.
no evidence in this debate said anything about it varying wildly he just made that up and it's is a lie. I presented tons of evidence that say it's the same. I pointed to a scholarly article in the McNamara book by Ralph Hood that shows it with numbers and he doesn't even talk about a single time. he clearly never clicked on the link to read about it. just another exampe of atheists refuse to check the facts.

Further, it is apparent that induced mystical experiences are very similar (when we consider how much variation there is anyway), and can have similarly positive and long-lasting effects. Thus there would seem to be no reason to suppose God was involved in a spontaneous experience either. 
I had several arguments that explained why that is not a disproof, one was the receptor argument, which he never mentioned or talked about. so he lost that arguemnt. take that out because he lost it. He didn't answer my answer so he lost it.

Friday, February 7, 2014

proof thhat some atheists are assholes

 Comments on the blog about my brother's death.



Tor Hershman said...
How could Hay Zeus allow such thingys?
Tor Hershman said...
Perhaps if you'd have been watchin' something else, YOU could've avoided the tragedy, ya think?
So they will use anything they can to hurt Christians. Even they have not the slightest idea what they are talking about, they dont' know anything about the situation and it's the most hurtful thing.They have no conscience. they are not moral. because they don't believe in God. so they will use anything they can get hold of they will make the worst assumptions about you and they have no boundries.

this guy is a probalby a satan worshiper and a sociopath. is there any cruelyty or immorality they wont stoop to?

this guy knows absolutely nothing about the situation but he is so certian he does. how?

this is below the level of the carm atheists. not a single carm atheists failed ot express compassion for my loss. in all fairness they aer not all like this.

this guy is too stupid to realize how he's proving the point of this blog.

Now students what have I said about why God allows the world to go on in pain, suffering and evil? Let's read it again now:

Theodicy: Soteriological Drama
why does God allow pain and evil?

page 2: "Pain and Short lives"

page 3: 12 Angry Steriotypes