From: martinharran@gmail.com   
      
   On Wed, 28 Jan 2026 11:05:08 -0800, Vincent Maycock   
    wrote:   
      
   >On Wed, 28 Jan 2026 11:42:39 +0000, Martin Harran   
   > wrote:   
   >   
      
   […]   
      
   >>>What makes you think I don't understand the Bible?  Because I don't   
   >>>insist that it be read non-literally all the time?   
   >>   
   >>Because I asked you what effort you had put into understanding   
   >>religious belief and reading the Bible was all you offered.   
   >   
   >And if the Bible was meant for "uneducated people" as you've tried to   
   >claim elsewhere, why should today's layman then have trouble with   
   >understanding it?  I have studied Bart Ehrman and other types of   
   >Biblical literary criticism, but I don't think that's necessary for   
   >deciding whether to be an atheist.  Just look around you and use your   
   >common sense for that.   
      
   Ah, back to your idea that religious believers are just kinda dumb.   
      
   >   
   >>Do you think if someone read Darwin's 'Origin of the Species' and   
   >>nothing else about evolution that they would be well qualified to   
   >>challenge an ID'er?   
   >   
   >They would be, yes.  The evidence for evolution was as overwhelming in   
   >the 1860s as it is today,   
      
   Ah yes, all that stuff about DNA and epigenetics and all the other   
   stuff that has been discovered related to biology are not really all   
   that important; I guess you reckon those guys who put so much effort   
   into developing the Modern Synthesis for example, would have been   
   better spending their time on something else.   
      
   >and adding in the evidence for evolution   
   >that's been discovered since then would be just gravy for someone   
   >involved in a debate with an ID proponent.   
      
   You ignore the fact that those ID proponents, at least the better   
   qualified ones, will know all this stuff inside out. When I get into a   
   debate with someone, I like to think I am at least familiar with the   
   stuff they will bring up; your mileage apparently varies.   
      
   […]   
      
   >>>You claimed adolescents were not a representative sample of the   
   >>>population at large,   
   >>   
   >>They are not, I don't know why you try to hang onto that idea.   
   >   
   >You have failed to explain why you think they aren't, and refused to   
   >answer when I asked if you at least accepted that among U.S.   
   >adolescents, atheists are more intelligent than theists.   
      
   I told you that it is #101 statistics. It's even referred to in the   
   very first paragraph of the additional stuff you've added in below -   
   again I wonder do you even read stuff before you cite it.   
      
   >   
   >>>and I said IQ scores tend to be stable by   
   >>>adolescence, and that therefore the methods in the study being   
   >>>discussed were a valid use of statistical sampling.   
   >>   
   >>Do you even bother to read stuff before you cite it or are you   
   >>inclined towards quote mining? You cited this study from a wiki   
   >>article [1] but only quoted the first sentence. Here is the full   
   >>section about that study:   
   >   
   >Did you even read what the article said just before your quote below?   
      
   Yes, but I didn't refer to it because you had made a big enough mess   
   of the stuff you did post so I dealt with that.   
      
   >I'll include it here, for ease of access:   
      
   So you try to move the goal posts and end up scoring yet another own   
   goal. Seeing as you have difficulty understanding it, I'll take you   
   through some of the key points.   
      
   >   
   >"In a 2013 meta-analysis of 63 studies, led by professor Miron   
   >Zuckerman, a correlation of -.20 to -.25 between religiosity and IQ   
   >was particularly strong when assessing beliefs (which in their view   
   >reflects intrinsic religiosity), but the negative effects were less   
   >defined when behavioral aspects of religion (such as church-going)   
   >were examined.   
      
   Note that bit - that the correlation only applied when they considered   
   religiosity in a particular way.   
      
   >They note limitations on this since viewing intrinsic   
   >religiosity as being about religious beliefs represents American   
   >Protestantism more than Judaism or Catholicism, both of which see   
   >behavior as just as important as religious beliefs.   
      
   A perfect example of what I was trying to get through to you about the   
   results of a survey only applying to the population from which the   
   sample group was drawn,   
      
   >They also noted   
   >that the available data did not allow adequate consideration of the   
   >role of religion type and of culture in assessing the relationship   
   >between religion and intelligence. Most of the studies reviewed were   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)