From: martinharran@gmail.com   
      
   On Wed, 04 Feb 2026 07:38:47 -0800, Vincent Maycock   
    wrote:   
      
   >On Wed, 04 Feb 2026 12:55:28 +0000, Martin Harran   
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >>On Mon, 02 Feb 2026 15:49:38 -0800, Vincent Maycock   
   >> wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>On Mon, 02 Feb 2026 12:45:26 +0000, Martin Harran   
   >>> wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>>On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 22:22:27 -0800, Mark Isaak   
   >>>> wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>On 1/29/26 8:50 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >>>>>> On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 08:29:34 -0800, Mark Isaak   
   >>>>>>  wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> On 1/27/26 4:48 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>[…]   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> Right through your posts above e.g. your very poor understanding of   
   >>>>>>>>> statistical surveys.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> You claimed adolescents were not a representative sample of the   
   >>>>>>>> population at large, 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.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> You are correct about that, but I don't think religious belief is   
   stable   
   >>>>>>> by adolescence. It certainly was not in my case.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Perhaps you would be kind enough to also confirm that results from a   
   >>>>>> survey of adolescents cannot be applied to the general population.   
   >>>>>> Vincent is rather reluctant to accept it from me.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>It depends on what you're surveying, and whether there have been any   
   >>>>>demographic shifts in that quality over time. For qualities such as   
   >>>>>handedness, eye color, or IQ, I expect a survey of adolescents would be   
   >>>>>a pretty good indicator of the population as a whole, barring influences   
   >>>>>such as, say, a mass immigration of foreign workers who tend to be older   
   >>>>>and have different eye colors than the original native population.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>Those are physical attributes, Vincent's survey is about attitudinal   
   >>>>aspect, not physical attributes.   
   >>>   
   >>>Marks on a paper are just as physical as types of eye color.   
   >>   
   >>Now you are just trying to be silly   
   >   
   >You're determined to avoid measuring what's going on inside the human   
   >brain, aren't you?   
   >   
   >> so I think this discussion really has exceeded its shelf life.   
   >   
   >Well, no one's forcing you to be here.   Suit yourself.   
      
   I'll leave you with a parting thought. If you really want to persevere   
   with your idea that atheist scientists are more intelligent than   
   theist ones, you really need figure out a way of dealing with the fact   
   that 86% of Nobel Prize winners from 1901 to 2000 were religious (65%   
   Christian, 21% Jewish) with only 10.5% being atheists, agnostics, and   
   freethinkers. The figures are particularly striking in science with   
   religious believers accounting for 87% in Chemistry, 80% in Physics   
   and 86% in Medicine. The only discipline where atheists, agnostics,   
   and freethinkers have had significant impact is Literature where they   
   account for 35%.   
      
   https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Religion_of_Nobel_Prize_   
   inners_between_1901_and_2000.png   
      
   (Apparently based on Shalev, B. A. (2002). 100 years of Nobel prizes.   
   The Americas Group)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)