Atheists are subjected to discrimation?

[Tommycat]

Interestingly enough I did provide a rebuttal source on the intelligence debate.

 

Spirituality in Higher Education

Don't know how much I trust it... I mean it's only UCLA and not TAMU(hehe mimartin should get it).

 

Guess I didn't do enough to point it out. The premise of it is that the spiritual students tend to be more dedicated to study.

 

I dislike that whole debate, as I could probably find a study that shows that men have higher IQ's than women. Can I then use that study to justify calling women inferior intellectually? No, because it is not a fair treatment.

[mur'phon]

Interesting, I wonder why they are more commited?

 

I could probably find a study that shows that men have higher IQ's than women

 

You could, but as IQ tests are A: made with a male brain in mind, and B:are easier the more you take them (so males would win simply due to having taken more tests in their life), it wouldn't be very credible. Still, if you have a study showing this, please bring it up (possibly in another thread.

[GarfieldJL]

Interesting' date=' I wonder why they are more commited?[/quote']

 

That could be multiple reasons.

 

 

You could, but as IQ tests are A: made with a male brain in mind, and B:are easier the more you take them (so males would win simply due to having taken more tests in their life), it wouldn't be very credible. Still, if you have a study showing this, please bring it up (possibly in another thread.

 

And what's to say the other tests weren't deliberately geared to make Religious people look bad, or the test had to do with an area that the Atheist had specialized studies in. This is an extreme example but say we the Aetheist is in the medical field and the religious person is a Mechanical Engineer, and the test is on Human Anatomy, which do you think would do better on the exam?

[Astor]

And what's to say the other tests weren't deliberately geared to make Religious people look bad,

 

By the same token, what's to say they were?

[SkinWalker]

And what's to say the other tests weren't deliberately geared to make Religious people look bad, or the test had to do with an area that the Atheist had specialized studies in.

 

By the same token, what's to say they were?

 

Anyone with access to the data sets (ASVAB test scores and the correlating demographics) and an Excel spreadsheet. The test scores are empirical, meaning they are hard scores. The demographics are self reported at the time the tests were administered. ASVABS are administered in just about every public high school in the United States sponsored by the Dept of Defense.

This is an extreme example but say we the Aetheist is in the medical field and the religious person is a Mechanical Engineer, and the test is on Human Anatomy, which do you think would do better on the exam?

 

That has no bearing on the study in question. The tests were standard ASVAB, designed to multiple areas of cognitive function not specific learned knowledge like engineering or anatomy.

[GarfieldJL]

Anyone with access to the data sets (ASVAB test scores and the correlating demographics) and an Excel spreadsheet. The test scores are empirical, meaning they are hard scores. The demographics are self reported at the time the tests were administered. ASVABS are administered in just about every public high school in the United States sponsored by the Dept of Defense.

 

Again it depends on how the test was administered, there are so many different variables that can invalidate these, that the test is laughable. This is one reason why many Atheists get looked upon in a negative light. The way they come across trying to act superior to everyone else and trying to justify it, like you're doing now is extremely insulting and if the situation were reversed I'd probably be banished or facing a lawsuit.

 

That has no bearing on the study in question. The tests were standard ASVAB, designed to multiple areas of cognitive function not specific learned knowledge like engineering or anatomy.

 

It was an example that many people can understand.

[Doomie]

And what's to say the other tests weren't deliberately geared to make Religious people look bad, or the test had to do with an area that the Atheist had specialized studies in. This is an extreme example but say we the Aetheist is in the medical field and the religious person is a Mechanical Engineer, and the test is on Human Anatomy, which do you think would do better on the exam?

 

IQ tests test your IQ, so the only reason an IQ test could be geared towards one group is if that group on average has a higher IQ than the other. I don't think this argument works in your favour.

 

EDIT: Afterall, in your example it is a perfectly valid conclusion to say that the atheists, who specialised in the medical field know more about human anatomy. Is this unfair towards the religious mechanical engineers?

[SkinWalker]

Again it depends on how the test was administered, there are so many different variables that can invalidate these, that the test is laughable.

 

It was the ASVAB test. It was administered to millions of teenagers in the United States by those that are seeking to fill the ranks of the military with the best and brightest? What concerns might you have with that?

 

It looks like you're just making excuses.

 

like you're doing now is extremely insulting and if the situation were reversed I'd probably be banished or facing a lawsuit.

 

Pure, un-informed rhetoric. Have you any examples of anyone "facing a lawsuit" at LF for citing empirical data from a scientific paper? Have you any examples of any member having their account closed at LF for citing empirical evidence from a scientific report? Come on Garf... you're better than that.

 

It was an example that many people can understand.

 

It was an example that was misleading and dishonest in the context of what we're discussion. Lets remain rational.

[GarfieldJL]

It was the ASVAB test. It was administered to millions of teenagers in the United States by those that are seeking to fill the ranks of the military with the best and brightest? What concerns might you have with that?

 

It looks like you're just making excuses.

 

Why don't you look at other historical studies on people based on race or religion and you'll see why I seriously question the credibility of the study.

 

 

Pure, un-informed rhetoric. Have you any examples of anyone "facing a lawsuit" at LF for citing empirical data from a scientific paper? Have you any examples of any member having their account closed at LF for citing empirical evidence from a scientific report? Come on Garf... you're better than that.

 

Do you seriously want an honest answer to that question?

 

It was an example that was misleading and dishonest in the context of what we're discussion. Lets remain rational.

 

Let's see you use a study that reeks of trying to further an ulterior agenda, there are plenty of historical examples as to why this study probably isn't credible, and you accuse me of being irrational.

 

The reason a lot of people have a problem with atheists has to do with their attitude.

[SkinWalker]

Why don't you look at other historical studies on people based on race or religion and you'll see why I seriously question the credibility of the study.

 

Those "historical studies" don't appear to be related to the one I'm citing. I'm not aware of any other studies that use Dept of Defense ASVAB scores and the demographic data obtained to look at correlations and trends. Feel free to cite these alleged 'historical studies' should they actually exist.

 

In the mean time, I'll remain in the present with the empirical data that currently exists. Data that you appear to simply wish away or ignore simply because it isn't to your liking. You have a conclusion. You're interested in only that data which are supportive. This is rational?

 

Do you seriously want an honest answer to that question?

 

Honest answers are all I'm ever interested in.

 

Let's see you use a study that reeks of trying to further an ulterior agenda, there are plenty of historical examples as to why this study probably isn't credible, and you accuse me of being irrational.

 

I can't imagine what use I'd have for such a study. You'd like that since it creates a strawman you can more easily knock down. Using such a study would be irrational so I stick to being rational. I accuse you of being irrational because you're not demonstrating otherwise.

 

The reason a lot of people have a problem with atheists has to do with their attitude.

 

That's the same comment I used to hear adults say when I was a kid. They weren't talking about "atheists," though. They were talking about blacks who were getting "uppity" and not sticking in "their place."

[Tommycat]

I didn't see it in the study, but did they ever go back and see how many of the "Athiests" remained athiest.

 

Another thing to note is that the ASVAB would only test those athiests that intended to join the service. Since most of the athiests I knew had no intention of going off to war their ASVAB scores are unavailable. Getting their SAT scores would be awful difficult as well as they ended up dropping out of HS. An area the religious tend to be better at. Higher graduation rate. Seeing as how you have to graduate to join the service, the dumber of the athiests tend to get left off.

[ET Warrior]

Another thing to note is that the ASVAB would only test those athiests that intended to join the service.

Every student at my high school was given the ASVAB tests, regardless of intent to join the military.

An area the religious tend to be better at. Higher graduation rate.

Source?

[Tommycat]

Every student at my high school was given the ASVAB tests, regardless of intent to join the military.

Source?

Not at my school.

Unfortunately I lost my source. My apologies, I had a browser crash before I could copy it.

 

Oh and by the way,

http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2008/11/conservative-men-more-intelligent-than.html

WRT the IQ issue...

[SkinWalker]

Another thing to note is that the ASVAB would only test those athiests that intended to join the service.

 

This premise isn't sound. N=10,650,267 in the study, representing the number of teens tested by CAT-ASVAB instruments. I don't know the numbers recruited for 1997-1998 for the Army, Navy, Air Farce, and Marines, but I do know that the number for 2004 was somewhere in the neighborhood of 120,000 combined for the four branches. If you really need a source, I could probably find one. But the important thing to keep in mind is that far, far more teens are tested than ever sign up. In addition, the ASVAB wasn't the only instrument used. The CAT was also used to obtain the relevant data. But since recruiters test nearly a million (around 800,000) students a year, even 120,000 indicates that far, far more are tested than ever plan to join the service.

 

Since most of the athiests I knew had no intention of going off to war their ASVAB scores are unavailable.

 

I don't see how this anecdotal evidence is useful. The military prides itself in being representative of the general U.S. population. Indeed, there's no compelling reason to believe that atheists are any less patriotic than their superstitious counterparts.

 

Getting their SAT scores would be awful difficult as well as they ended up dropping out of HS. An area the religious tend to be better at.

 

This is interesting. What's are data you use to arrive at that conclusion.

 

Seeing as how you have to graduate to join the service, the dumber of the athiests tend to get left off.

 

Hmmm... I'm beginning to think you aren't really citing any data or empirical knowledge but relying on your own fallible perceptions and anecdotes. I'm sorry, but this doesn't seem to be a valid or sound argument. Your premise is that atheists are more likely to drop out of school and obtain a degree or equivalent. The military does, by the way, accept the GED -indeed, you actually get more promotional points for a GED than a HS diploma!

[SkinWalker]

Not at my school.

Unfortunately I lost my source. My apologies, I had a browser crash before I could copy it.

 

Oh and by the way,

http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2008/11/conservative-men-more-intelligent-than.html

WRT the IQ issue...

 

That tertiary source lists something he refers to as the GSS, but I couldn't find a citation or footnote that reveals what this is. Do you know, perhaps, what the source or methodology is for the data acquisition and analysis? I'll look back over this blog again later when I get time, but if you know where to find it, please leave it here or send me a PM.

[ET Warrior]

Unfortunately I lost my source. My apologies, I had a browser crash before I could copy it.

Ctrl+h = Browser history.

[Samnmax221]

Another thing to note is that the ASVAB would only test those atheists that intended to join the service. Since most of the atheists I knew had no intention of going off to war their ASVAB scores are unavailable. Getting their SAT scores would be awful difficult as well as they ended up dropping out of HS. "There are three types of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics."

Spelling.

An area the religious tend to be better at. Higher graduation rate. Seeing as how you have to graduate to join the service, the dumber of the atheists tend to get left off.

Uh, what? Also corrected spelling.

 

 

I should probably mention that when I was in Basic Training there were a few who couldn't handle that I didn't go to church. There was nothing they could do about it, except piss and moan. They also couldn't keep their mouths shut about about Mormons, Catholics, and Jews either.

[Tommycat]

Official GSS web site

http://www.norc.org/GSS+Website

 

And ET, I am quite aware of the history function, however since that was on my laptop, I prefer to have it automatically purge the history.

 

Sam, Yes, I was also in the military. When I first signed up I was an atheist(please note that spelling is not tied to intelligence at all, but thank you for showing me how much of a nit picker you are). In fact it wasn't until a few years after I had gotten out of the service that I became spiritual again.

 

As for the graduation rates, I wish I could find the study again.. I think I hit a perfect google search, then the browser crash. I apologize for not having that source available. In fact, I may have been looking at another study. One stating either Liberal or Democrat graduation rates versus Conservative or Republican. And no, I'm not looking that one up either. I am not doing my thesis on this subject, so I refuse to sit there and play the source game.

[ET Warrior]

I am not doing my thesis on this subject, so I refuse to sit there and play the source game.

Well then please forgive us if we don't want to just take you on your word that you saw on some unnamed website that atheists drop out of high school at a higher rate than theists.

 

It is not reasonable to make definitive claims about statistics like that if you've no numbers to back them up.

[GarfieldJL]

Well then please forgive us if we don't want to just take you on your word that you saw on some unnamed website that atheists drop out of high school at a higher rate than theists.

 

It is not reasonable to make definitive claims about statistics like that if you've no numbers to back them up.

 

If Tommycat said he had a source, then Tommycat had a source, and it'd probably be a better source than the one you guys are using where the head researcher has a record of tampering with research data.

 

 

 

And SkinWalker I want your word that you will take responsibility if I get in trouble for citing examples, cause I will not set myself up...

 

I can't imagine what use I'd have for such a study. You'd like that since it creates a strawman you can more easily knock down. Using such a study would be irrational so I stick to being rational. I accuse you of being irrational because you're not demonstrating otherwise.

 

Your actions contradict your words, otherwise you wouldn't be using the study you are using as a reference.

[True_Avery]

If Tommycat said he had a source, then Tommycat had a source, and it'd probably be a better source than the one you guys are using where the head researcher has a record of tampering with research data.

Umm, no. It means he doesn't have a source. All we have is his word that he has seen a source somewhere at some time that said such. That does not make "He has a source" fact.

 

For all we know, he made something up on the spot and is hiding behind a poor excuse. Is he doing that? I do not know, and I cannot judge as I do not have proof either way. Until he presents said source, what he stated has no evidence to back up and he probably shouldn't have said it in the first place if he was just going to say "i don't feel like playing the source game".

 

Besides, do you have any proof for or against the fact that Tommy's study may have been skewed as well? How, may I ask, do you determine the religion of every member of a countries schools and then follow their graduations, not taking in mind possible changes in faith, etc?

 

It is also interesting that you would back Tommy on such an argument, as you yourself have stated that any study relating to the subject isn't correct anyway.

 

Your actions contradict your words, otherwise you wouldn't be using the study you are using as a reference.

Your actions contradict your words. See above.

 

Again it depends on how the test was administered, there are so many different variables that can invalidate these, that the test is laughable. This is one reason why many Atheists get looked upon in a negative light. The way they come across trying to act superior to everyone else and trying to justify it, like you're doing now is extremely insulting and if the situation were reversed I'd probably be banished or facing a lawsuit.

[GarfieldJL]

Umm, no. It means he doesn't have a source. All we have is his word that he has seen a source somewhere at some time that said such. That does not make "He has a source" fact.

 

Yeah, and I'm saying Tommycat has the reputation that if he says he has a source, then he has a source.

 

For all we know, he made something up on the spot and is hiding behind a poor excuse. Is he doing that? I do not know, and I cannot judge as I do not have proof either way. Until he presents said source, what he stated has no evidence to back up and he probably shouldn't have said it in the first place if he was just going to say "i don't feel like playing the source game".

 

In all honesty, he may have a source but even when we've used a government's own web page, people have still claimed the source is invalid. If you'll check, he provided a tertiary source, so he provided a source, which leads me to believe he's telling the truth.

 

Besides, do you have any proof for or against the fact that Tommy's study may have been skewed as well? How, may I ask, do you determine the religion of every member of a countries schools and then follow their graduations, not taking in mind possible changes in faith, etc?

 

Key word: may

 

Seriously, you need more evidence than mere supposition, at least when I'm saying your source isn't a valid one, your source has a reputation of tampering with the gathered data, you have yet to present any evidence that demonstrates that fact concerning Tommycat's source.

 

It is also interesting that you would back Tommy on such an argument, as you yourself have stated that any study relating to the subject isn't correct anyway.

 

The fact I respect Tommycat and would back him on this has nothing to do with ideology, it has to do with behavior on the part of parties involved. Tommycat just interjected into the argument in a respectful manner only to have his head bit off, his integrity challenged, etc.

 

Your actions contradict your words. See above.

 

In a pig's eye.

 

 

Cute, but in my personal experience it's usually the atheists that start the baiting and insults, while the religious person ignores them. Then the atheists go a step further and the religious person finally complains publically.

 

Case and point is the commentary that we've been seeing in the Senate Chambers.

[mimartin]

In all honesty, he may have a source but even when we've used a government's own web page, people have still claimed the source is invalid. If you'll check, he provided a tertiary source, so he provided a source, which leads me to believe he's telling the truth.[/Quote] This is true. I once used the IRS website as my source and a member said I did not know what I was talking about even though it was right there in black and white on the government's own web site. I really wish I could remember who that member was that said the IRS web site was invalid, although at least now I know it must have been an Atheist, most likely Achilles then.

 

Cute, but in my personal experience it's usually the atheists that start the baiting and insults, while the religious person ignores them. Then the atheists go a step further and the religious person finally complains publically.

 

Case and point is the commentary that we've been seeing in the Senate Chambers.[/ started this thread?

Who started this thread?

 

Perhaps the same person that said a government website was invalid when it disproved their point.

 

Edited: For those that would like to look at the post I'm talking about instead of just making me out to be a lair. Looks like there are links there to me. http://www.lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2546398&postcount=99

[GarfieldJL]

This is true. I once used the IRS website as my source and a member said I did not know what I was talking about even though it was right there in black and white on the government own web site. I really wish I could remember who that member was that said the IRS web site was invalid, although at least now I know it must have been an Atheist, most likely Achilles then.

 

You didn't post up the IRS page if I recall, and that was my bad due to prior experience I've had with you.

 

Who started this thread?

 

Though the first post is mine, this thread was split off another thread by SkinWalker, I would have given this thread a different title and started this entirely different.

 

Perhaps the same person that said a government website was invalid when it disproved their point.

 

Again you didn't post the source if I remember correctly, where-as the person in the case I'm referring to did. And what I remember from my business law class contradicted some of what you claimed, so at the time since you had no sources posted I was going to rely on my knowledge of the topic.

[True_Avery]

Yeah, and I'm saying Tommycat has the reputation that if he says he has a source, then he has a source.

Then where is it?

 

I could honestly care less if he was a horrible person, or a saint. If he's going to make a statement like "theists graduate more", then I'd like to see proof. You probably would too if I had said "theists graduate less".

 

Key word: may

 

Seriously, you need more evidence than mere supposition, at least when I'm saying your source isn't a valid one, your source has a reputation of tampering with the gathered data, you have yet to present any evidence that demonstrates that fact concerning Tommycat's source.

Tommy's Source? What source? He has yet to give one. I cannot prove or disprove something that has yet to be presented to even existing.

 

As you ignored in a post a few threads back, I posted the report on the so called "tempering" with data and it was clearly written that there was no evidence of tampering. He was suspended for poor follow up to his research on that particular study. The studies are looked into, and they are reviewed and the review backs me up.

 

This, however, only has your supposition that it has been tampered with. Seriously, you need more evidence than mere supposition

 

The fact I respect Tommycat and would back him on this has nothing to do with ideology, it has to do with behavior on the part of parties involved. Tommycat just interjected into the argument in a respectful manner only to have his head bit off, his integrity challenged, etc.

No, he interjected into the argument and made a strong statement and then refused to back it up. We have asked him to do such, and he has clearly stated he does not want to.

 

If anyone took a bite at him, it was himself.

 

I want to point out, however, that I am not calling him a liar or trying to discredit his character, merely his argument.

 

In a pig's eye.

To what? Not looking above?

 

Case and point is the commentary that we've been seeing in the Senate Chambers.

So, all atheists are like people in Senate?

 

Nice generalizing. I'll go ahead and consider every "right wing" to be Ann Coulter from now on then, since she's a "right" that talks.

 

If you find it offensive, then you can leave. This is a debate forum, and in this forum we debate. I'm sorry if your claim that "god did it" doesn't hold much water with no proof, but if you are going to present it then you of all people should know it can be challenged. The rules allow it.

 

If you would like to start a thread on god with no challenge to your beliefs, then go to Ahto or one of the other casual boards to discuss. Better yet, go to a christian site and converse with like minded individuals.

 

If you do not like Skinwalker's sourced accusations of the religious, then debate back with your own facts. You have thus far given supposition, and as you said "Seriously, you need more evidence than mere supposition."

 

This is not an ad campaign. This is not your campaign trail. This is a debate forum. Either debate, or take your campaign to someone who cares.