http://news.yahoo.com/low-iq-conservative-beliefs-linked-prejudice-180403506.html

Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found. Those ideologies, in turn, stress hierarchy and resistance to change, attitudes that can contribute to prejudice, Hodson wrote in an email to LiveScience.

"Prejudice is extremely complex and multifaceted, making it critical that any factors contributing to bias are uncovered and understood," he said.

Ha ha, ha ha ha ha ha.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

I think most people of even average intelligence drew this conclusion long ago.

I'd always assumed that poor education was a stronger factor.
That, and religion.

History and facts disagree with you
Attachments:

behonestwtl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> History and facts disagree with you


According to whom? You?

Obviously, the higher your education, the less likely you are to be religious.
And the less likely you are to be religious, the less likely you are to vote conservatively.


.
Attachments:

I predict, intelligently, that WTL's favorite little troll will infest this thread with ad hominems and straw man arguments. Just sayin..

______________________________________________
I have had to change the addresses to my retaliatory blogs over half a dozen times.

Ding an sich Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> behonestwtl Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > History and facts disagree with you
>
>
> According to whom? You?
>
> Obviously, the higher your education, the less
> likely you are to be religious.
> And the less likely you are to be religious, the
> less likely you are to vote conservatively.
>
>
> .


According to 50+ years of polling shown in the graphs above.

You made no statistical link between the two there. If you turned that statistical argument in for a thesis your committee would laugh you out of the room. Saying because of this that happens isnt an argument. Your own charts still show that 3/4 people with an advanced degree dont believe the bible is all lies.

Your argument is basically the equal to i go to bed at night and the sun comes up in the morning. Therefore because i go to bed at night the sun rises.

Hell even 73 percent of dems in that poll view the bible as some form of the word of god. Go back and take stats again because you definitely werent paying attention the first time.

fairfaxdude Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I predict, intelligently, that WTL's favorite
> little troll will infest this thread with ad
> hominems and straw man arguments. Just sayin..


I predict wiesel will make yet another sn and be little people when facts get in the way of his beliefs.

Dam to late already happened

behonestwtl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Your argument is basically the equal to i go to
> bed at night and the sun comes up in the morning.
> Therefore because i go to bed at night the sun
> rises.


It is called a correlation. I never said that correlation implies causation.
However, even if I were, considering who/what I was replying to, it would still be appropriate.


Edit: Actually, I just realized it was you I was replying to. So really, you have no right to be criticizing what I've posted.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/26/2012 06:10PM by Ding an sich.

Ding an sich Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> It is called a correlation. I never said that
> correlation implies causation.
> However, even if I were, considering who/what I
> was replying to, it would still be appropriate.

Theres no correlation in the numbers you posted. Theres a 6 percent increase in people that think the bible is false with an advanced degree. Theres even a 1 percent increase in postgraduate degrees for people that believe everything in the bible is true. Over 70 percent of Dems still feel the bible is some word of god. Had there been a 30 percent difference or something substantial between college and post graduate you could make an argument.

A 6 percent difference doesnt mean much at all. You also havent shown anything that indicates that at some point during their life their views changed as a result of the education. Those people could have all had the exact some opinions now that they had in first grade which would make education completely irrelevant to whether or not someone has those religious views.

And no its not called a correlation when non exists. You have to prove a correlation or a causation. No correlation exists when over 70 percent of dems believe in religion.

In order for a correlation to exists you have to prove that there is a dependence between the two. People arent religious because they are conservative or conservative because they are religious. If that were the case 70 percent of dems wouldnt be conservative as well.

Not only would your argument not pass a post graduate thesis board, but it wouldnt even pass an undergrad class. Theres no statistical correlation between the two and the data doesnt even pass the eye ball test. People on bode sides of the isle are religious, people on both sides of the isle are for and against abortion, the same can be said for people with all education levels.

> Edit: Actually, I just realized it was you I was
> replying to. So really, you have no right to be
> criticizing what I've posted.

I have no right to be calling out that your trying to spin the charts oh okay glad to know youre one of them that cant actually discuss anything honestly.

You really need to go back to school or go tell your stats teacher he failed you if you really believe youve just proved some form of dependance between education, religion, and political views with those two polls.

Oh, I see - it's okay for you to post your graphs, but I can't post my statistics...
Gallup is more reliable than NES either way.

Ding an sich Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh, I see - it's okay for you to post your graphs,
> but I can't post my statistics...
> Gallup is more reliable than NES either way.


You can post your graphs all you want. You cannot post graphs and claim dependencies that dont exist and the numbers dont support. As I explained above nothing in your two polls suggests the dependence you are trying to say they do. Theres no statistical correlation, and it doesnt pass the eyeball test either.

But you probably know you were making a huge reach and hoping no one would know it which is why you wont bother to address the fact the numbers dont support your claim and any academic institution worth a dam would fail you if you came in with a paper suggesting that

behonestwtl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ding an sich Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Oh, I see - it's okay for you to post your
> graphs,
> > but I can't post my statistics...
> > Gallup is more reliable than NES either way.
>
>
> You can post your graphs all you want. You cannot
> post graphs and claim dependencies that dont exist
> and the numbers dont support. As I explained
> above nothing in your two polls suggests the
> dependence you are trying to say they do. Theres
> no statistical correlation, and it doesnt pass the
> eyeball test either.


CLEARLY you do not understand the difference between a correlation and a dependency.

Ding an sich Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> CLEARLY you do not understand the difference
> between a correlation and a dependency.


CLEARLY you do not understand that a statistical correlation is based on a dependency. "Correlation refers to any of a broad class of statistical relationships involving dependence."

Furthermore, your polls would show no relationship between them because there are far to many factors that can be influencing education and religion. Whether or not the degree was necessary, whether they could afford it, type of job offers already obtained, how much they like school, some event could have happened in their life that made them stop or start believing in god. Far to many dems are also religions for the political party to be a defining factor.

In order for your argument to be true you would have to prove that one affects the other (aka a DEPENDENCY ON EACHOTHER) and that this dependency was caused by education and not an outside force. You cant prove either of those from those polls.

The poll even shows belief in the bible as 100 percent true increased in post graduates which is contrary to the argument that people become less religion with school.

While the polls are interesting to know, they prove nothing when it comes to the argument you are trying to make. Again you should go tell your stats teacher he failed you if you ever took that class.

Ding an sich Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gallup is more reliable than NES either way.


OMG. You have to be kidding. All you did was just admit you have no freaking clue what the NES is. Plus, your Gallup studies cannot be reliably interlinked.

behonestwtl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ding an sich Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > CLEARLY you do not understand the difference
> > between a correlation and a dependency.
>
>
> CLEARLY you do not understand that a statistical
> correlation is based on a dependency.
> "Correlation refers to any of a broad class of
> statistical relationships involving dependence."
>
>
> Furthermore, your polls would show no relationship
> between them because there are far to many factors
> that can be influencing education and religion.
> Whether or not the degree was necessary, whether
> they could afford it, type of job offers already
> obtained, how much they like school, some event
> could have happened in their life that made them
> stop or start believing in god. Far to many dems
> are also religions for the political party to be a
> defining factor.
>
> In order for your argument to be true you would
> have to prove that one affects the other (aka a
> DEPENDENCY ON EACHOTHER) and that this dependency
> was caused by education and not an outside force.
> You cant prove either of those from those polls.


If you wish to argue this way, what is to stop me from looking at your graph and declaring 'cum hoc ergo propter hoc'? You can't criticize what I've posted and stand by your own postings.


> While the polls are interesting to know, they
> prove nothing when it comes to the argument you
> are trying to make. Again you should go tell your
> stats teacher he failed you if you ever took that
> class.


I have no problem with statistics, though the issue at hand is not related to statistics. (But you might want to stop reusing the same old tired insult in every post - it gets old)
I would recomend that YOU take a course on logic and reason, as your current education has clearly exposed you little to either.


But, returning to the original topic...

http://scienceprogressaction.org/intersection/2012/01/republicans-not-democrats-are-the-dinosaurs-with-saddles-crowd-qed/

WTF? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ding an sich Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Gallup is more reliable than NES either way.
>
>
> OMG. You have to be kidding. All you did was
> just admit you have no freaking clue what the NES
> is. Plus, your Gallup studies cannot be reliably
> interlinked.


I know what the fucking NES is. Why would I refer to Gallup as 'more reliable' if I didn't know what I was comparing it to?

Ding an sich Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WTF? Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Ding an sich Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Gallup is more reliable than NES either way.
> >
> >
> > OMG. You have to be kidding. All you did was
> > just admit you have no freaking clue what the
> NES
> > is. Plus, your Gallup studies cannot be
> reliably
> > interlinked.
>
>
> I know what the fucking NES is. Why would I refer
> to Gallup as 'more reliable' if I didn't know what
> I was comparing it to?


Because you were attempting to butress your own argument. So, Gallup's 3 day poll of how many people is more reliable than a longitudinal study back by the NSF? This is your contention? Really? No, really?

Ding an sich Wrote:
> If you wish to argue this way, what is to stop me
> from looking at your graph and declaring 'cum hoc
> ergo propter hoc'? You can't criticize what I've
> posted and stand by your own postings.

I know latin too. Theres a lot of after this therefore because of this which is what youre trying to do with your two polls. The point of the graph was to show how stupid and wrong the first post was and how dumb it was.

That said youre free to argue all you want that theres other factors in play, which there are for sure, but a 50 year study that consistently holds the same results suggests some sort of correlation since no matter how much other conditions changed that changes as well. Probably a weak correlation, but non the less it holds MUCH MUCH more weight than two polls take dont even cover multiple years.

> I have no problem with statistics, though the
> issue at hand is not related to statistics. (But
> you might want to stop reusing the same old tired
> insult in every post - it gets old)
> I would recomend that YOU take a course on logic
> and reason, as your current education has clearly
> exposed you little to either.

You obviously do have a problem with statistics because your polls dont support any of the claims you are making. Not only would they not hold up to a single test statistically, they dont even pass the eye ball test.

You should take a course on logic. Logic means you are using fact and reason to come to a conclusion. There is nothing logical about manufacturing results from a poll to fit what you want to be true. There is also nothing logical about putting more weight into a poll of people that represents what they say at only that moment in time and lets them define themselves with no subjective standards (hence a bunch of liberals on there dont seem to think they are dems but if they vote theyre voting dem every time i bet), over a 50 plus year study.

A liberal government subsized college professor finds that he's smart, his ideology is correct and his biases are all based on reason and logic and anyone who disagrees with him is stupid. Gee, what a shocker.

All those liberal black folks in DC are fricking genuises.

behonestwtl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ding an sich Wrote:
> > If you wish to argue this way, what is to stop
> me
> > from looking at your graph and declaring 'cum
> hoc
> > ergo propter hoc'? You can't criticize what
> I've
> > posted and stand by your own postings.
>
> I know latin too. Theres a lot of after this
> therefore because of this which is what youre
> trying to do with your two polls. The point of
> the graph was to show how stupid and wrong the
> first post was and how dumb it was.
>
> That said youre free to argue all you want that
> theres other factors in play, which there are for
> sure, but a 50 year study that consistently holds
> the same results suggests some sort of correlation
> since no matter how much other conditions changed
> that changes as well. Probably a weak
> correlation, but non the less it holds MUCH MUCH
> more weight than two polls take dont even cover
> multiple years.
>
> > I have no problem with statistics, though the
> > issue at hand is not related to statistics.
> (But
> > you might want to stop reusing the same old
> tired
> > insult in every post - it gets old)
> > I would recomend that YOU take a course on
> logic
> > and reason, as your current education has
> clearly
> > exposed you little to either.
>
> You obviously do have a problem with statistics
> because your polls dont support any of the claims
> you are making.

Oh? And which claims are those?


> You should take a course on logic. Logic means
> you are using fact and reason to come to a
> conclusion.



I HAVE taken COURSES (PLURAL) on logic, and have read the works of more philosophers than you've even heard of. Reason and logic are completely separate from facts, even when influenced by the 'knowledge' of facts.

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> http://news.yahoo.com/low-iq-conservative-beliefs-
> linked-prejudice-180403506.html
>
> Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward
> socially conservative ideologies, the study found.
> Those ideologies, in turn, stress hierarchy and
> resistance to change, attitudes that can
> contribute to prejudice, Hodson wrote in an email
> to LiveScience.
>
> "Prejudice is extremely complex and multifaceted,
> making it critical that any factors contributing
> to bias are uncovered and understood," he said.
>
> Ha ha, ha ha ha ha ha.

Obviously published by a liberal research company.

Ding an sich Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Oh? And which claims are those?

"Obviously, the higher your education, the less likely you are to be religious.
And the less likely you are to be religious, the less likely you are to vote conservatively."

Now you cant even remember what you say yourself?

> I HAVE taken COURSES (PLURAL) on logic, and have
> read the works of more philosophers than you've
> even heard of. Reason and logic are completely
> separate from facts, even when influenced by the
> 'knowledge' of facts.

You seriously should ask for youre money back because those courses have failed you. Judging by your superiority complex even when proven wrong time and again im guessing you are still in college with the know it all attitude. South Park had a great episode about people like you.

You can say youve read as many books as you want, it doesnt make anything youve said true or any of your comments intelligent. You try and hide behind saying I did this in school and using phrases from other languages to put out an appearance of a higher intelligence and people that put on fronts are always trying to hide the truth.

You havent done anything to make you any more special or intelligent than anyone else especially when you come one here making correlations that dont exist and just change the subject when proven wrong. Then you go on to say your two polls are more reliable than a 50 year study. Point proven right there. Stop playing the education game too unless you have an advanced degree got you beat there too, hell even if you do have one if this is how yours taught you to think people would be better off not going to that school.

behonestwtl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ding an sich Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Oh? And which claims are those?
>
> "Obviously, the higher your education, the less
> likely you are to be religious.
> And the less likely you are to be religious, the
> less likely you are to vote conservatively."
>
> Now you cant even remember what you say yourself?


I never said I couldn't remember, I asked what you were disagreeing with.
So tell me, how is what I've said incorrect?
Are you saying that the higher educated are NOT less likely to be religious than those with less education?


> > I HAVE taken COURSES (PLURAL) on logic, and
> have
> > read the works of more philosophers than you've
> > even heard of. Reason and logic are completely
> > separate from facts, even when influenced by
> the
> > 'knowledge' of facts.
>
> You seriously should ask for youre money back
> because those courses have failed you. Judging by
> your superiority complex even when proven wrong
> time and again im guessing you are still in
> college with the know it all attitude. South Park
> had a great episode about people like you.
>
> You can say youve read as many books as you want,
> it doesnt make anything youve said true or any of
> your comments intelligent. You try and hide
> behind saying I did this in school and using
> phrases from other languages to put out an
> appearance of a higher intelligence and people
> that put on fronts are always trying to hide the
> truth.
>
> You havent done anything to make you any more
> special or intelligent than anyone else especially
> when you come one here making correlations that
> dont exist and just change the subject when proven
> wrong. Then you go on to say your two polls are
> more reliable than a 50 year study.


If you think '50 years' guarentees reliability, you are in no place to discuss logic.

My dad can beat up your dad.

Emeritus Q. Beaker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My dad can beat up your dad.


Oh yeah?! Well MY DAD is older than YOUR DAD! So hah!

Oh yea? Well you don't know the relationship between oldness and beatupabilitiness.

Make me a graph that explains it.

behonestwtl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> fairfaxdude Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I predict, intelligently, that WTL's favorite
> > little troll will infest this thread with ad
> > hominems and straw man arguments. Just sayin..
>
>
> I predict wiesel will make yet another sn and be
> little people when facts get in the way of his
> beliefs.
>
> Dam to late already happened

Man, I am a whiny little fucking BITCH!

PS - 'Honest' is the LAST thing I am!

behonestwtl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ding an sich Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Oh? And which claims are those?
>
> "Obviously, the higher your education, the less
> likely you are to be religious.
> And the less likely you are to be religious, the
> less likely you are to vote conservatively."
>
> Now you cant even remember what you say yourself?
>
> > I HAVE taken COURSES (PLURAL) on logic, and
> have
> > read the works of more philosophers than you've
> > even heard of. Reason and logic are completely
> > separate from facts, even when influenced by
> the
> > 'knowledge' of facts.
>
> You seriously should ask for youre money back
> because those courses have failed you. Judging by
> your superiority complex even when proven wrong
> time and again im guessing you are still in
> college with the know it all attitude. South Park
> had a great episode about people like you.
>
> You can say youve read as many books as you want,
> it doesnt make anything youve said true or any of
> your comments intelligent. You try and hide
> behind saying I did this in school and using
> phrases from other languages to put out an
> appearance of a higher intelligence and people
> that put on fronts are always trying to hide the
> truth.
>
> You havent done anything to make you any more
> special or intelligent than anyone else especially
> when you come one here making correlations that
> dont exist and just change the subject when proven
> wrong. Then you go on to say your two polls are
> more reliable than a 50 year study. Point proven
> right there. Stop playing the education game too
> unless you have an advanced degree got you beat
> there too, hell even if you do have one if this is
> how yours taught you to think people would be
> better off not going to that school.

I just fuckin' SUCK! Willful ignorance ain't pretty.

Please kill me.

Ding an sich Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I never said I couldn't remember, I asked what you
> were disagreeing with.
> So tell me, how is what I've said incorrect?
> Are you saying that the higher educated are NOT
> less likely to be religious than those with less
> education?

Obviously you couldnt remember, I wouldnt be referring to anything you didnt said. Again a lack of logic on your part.

No you arent less likely to be religious. A 6 percent change means very little and you have yet to prove those people were religious in the first place and education had any affect on if they were or werent. NO CORRELATION


> If you think '50 years' guarentees reliability,
> you are in no place to discuss logic.

Right we should just discount 50 years of information from a reliable non partisan source so that the information fits what you want it too. Its pretty obvious that you are in no place to discuss anything with these arguments

behonestwtl Wrote:

> I just fuckin' SUCK! Willful ignorance ain't
> pretty.
>
> Please kill me.


Weisel number 17. They have free mental health places you can use weisel. I would strongly urge you to go and take advantage of that.

behonestwtl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> behonestwtl Wrote:
>
> > I just fuckin' SUCK! Willful ignorance ain't
> > pretty.
> >
> > Please kill me.
>
>
> Weisel number 17. They have free mental health
> places you can use weisel. I would strongly urge
> you to go and take advantage of that.

Did I mention the schizophrenia? I can barely function in society and rarely leave my Mom's basement. Eesh comes by & takes me anally every once in a while (I wish it were more often).

Well, thanks for listening.

behonestwtl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> behonestwtl Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > behonestwtl Wrote:
> >
> > > I just fuckin' SUCK! Willful ignorance ain't
> > > pretty.
> > >
> > > Please kill me.
> >
> >
> > Weisel number 17. They have free mental health
> > places you can use weisel. I would strongly
> urge
> > you to go and take advantage of that.
>
> Did I mention the schizophrenia? I can barely
> function in society and rarely leave my Mom's
> basement. Eesh comes by & takes me anally every
> once in a while (I wish it were more often).
>
> Well, thanks for listening.


You truly are one sad sad individual that youve resorted to this now weisel. It really must be horrible to just be wrong about everything. But dont worry theres enough conservatives out there to keep supporting you on tax dollars.

behonestwtl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ding an sich Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > I never said I couldn't remember, I asked what
> you
> > were disagreeing with.
> > So tell me, how is what I've said incorrect?
> > Are you saying that the higher educated are NOT
> > less likely to be religious than those with
> less
> > education?
>
> Obviously you couldnt remember, I wouldnt be
> referring to anything you didnt said. Again a
> lack of logic on your part.


'Obviously'? No. Go back and re-read. You were circling around multiple topics. I was ATTEMPTING to re-focus you on what started this exchange.


> No you arent less likely to be religious. A 6
> percent change means very little and you have yet
> to prove those people were religious in the first
> place and education had any affect on if they were
> or werent. NO CORRELATION

I'm sorry, I mispoke (/mistyped). I should not have said 'religious'. Allow me to rephrase that question.
IS the percentage of people with a high school or lower education that believe the Bible is the actual word of 'God' significantly higher than the percentage of people with 'some college' education or more/higher that believe the same thing? [Hint: All you need to do is consult the table...]


> > If you think '50 years' guarentees reliability,
> > you are in no place to discuss logic.
>
> Right we should just discount 50 years of
> information from a reliable non partisan source so
> that the information fits what you want it too.
> Its pretty obvious that you are in no place to
> discuss anything with these arguments


If you think that somethings age is a determinant in (or proof of) something's skill or worth, you can't possibly have a background in logic.
But even were such a supposition were correct, Gallup has been around since 1935. So let's stop pretending like those '50 years' really mean anything.
Attachments:

logic pisses off the mentally ill Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> behonestwtl Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > behonestwtl Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > behonestwtl Wrote:
> > >
> > > > I just fuckin' SUCK! Willful ignorance
> ain't
> > > > pretty.
> > > >
> > > > Please kill me.
> > >
> > >
> > > Weisel number 17. They have free mental
> health
> > > places you can use weisel. I would strongly
> > urge
> > > you to go and take advantage of that.
> >
> > Did I mention the schizophrenia? I can barely
> > function in society and rarely leave my Mom's
> > basement. Eesh comes by & takes me anally
> every
> > once in a while (I wish it were more often).
> >
> > Well, thanks for listening.
>
>
> You truly are one sad sad individual that youve
> resorted to this now weisel. It really must be
> horrible to just be wrong about everything. But
> dont worry theres enough conservatives out there
> to keep supporting you on tax dollars.

I am truly am one sad sad individual that Ive
resorted to this now weisel. It really is
horrible to just be wrong about everything. But
dont worry theres enough conservatives out there
to keep supporting me on tax dollars.

.

 
Attachments:

Interesting article, but we already knew this from footage of Tea Party rallies. I'm surprised RV and mcsmack haven't flooded this thread yet.

Ding an sich Wrote:

> 'Obviously'? No. Go back and re-read. You were
> circling around multiple topics. I was ATTEMPTING
> to re-focus you on what started this exchange.

No everything I was discussing was related to your initial claim and I was explaining to you why your findings couldnt be true.

> I'm sorry, I mispoke (/mistyped). I should not
> have said 'religious'. Allow me to rephrase that
> question.
> IS the percentage of people with a high school or
> lower education that believe the Bible is the
> actual word of 'God' significantly higher than the
> percentage of people with 'some college' education
> or more/higher that believe the same thing?

Considering that the people who believe that is higher with post graduate degrees than just college degrees, there is nothing here that suggests that it is anything more than circumstances that have caused these numbers to be what they are. People arent any more or less religious because of education, its just that people with those beliefs happen to have more or less religious beliefs.

Again you can post that 3 day poll all that you want but the poll doesnt even remotely begin to explain why those people have those beliefs.

In order to try and say that education is the cause for those numbers you have to be able to rule out outside influences. You havent proved that people became less religious because of education, you just showed that 6 percent more people dont believe in the bible at all that go on in education.

Furthermore, you have completely left out the fact that kids in their late teens early 20s arent even think about that stuff at all for the most part. Theyre young and think theyre invincible and will live forever and are just worrying about the moment. Lots of people just do what they want then and their beliefs change as they get older or something happens in their life. Ive seen it work both ways as has everyone else whose not sheltered or doesnt just surround them selves with people who have the exact same views as they do.

But bottom line your graph in no way shape or form proves that education has any impact on religion. In some cases it may one way or another, most people in that poll had the same views at that time of the poll as when they started out in education.

>
> If you think that somethings age is a determinant
> in (or proof of) something's skill or worth, you
> can't possibly have a background in logic.
> But even were such a supposition were correct,
> Gallup has been around since 1935. So let's stop
> pretending like those '50 years' really mean
> anything.

Im not talking about how long NES has been around. Again a complete lack of intelligence on your part. The ACTUAL graph its self starts more than 50 years ago and tracks data during that time. My chart is a 50 plus year graph that shows the exact opposite of you trying to say that people with more education are more liberal, where your counter argument is two polls that took less then a week to do and measured a single point in time, without having any correlation together.

Ding an sich Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> behonestwtl Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Ding an sich Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> >
> > > I never said I couldn't remember, I asked
> what
> > you
> > > were disagreeing with.
> > > So tell me, how is what I've said incorrect?
> > > Are you saying that the higher educated are
> NOT
> > > less likely to be religious than those with
> > less
> > > education?
> >
> > Obviously you couldnt remember, I wouldnt be
> > referring to anything you didnt said. Again a
> > lack of logic on your part.
>
>
> 'Obviously'? No. Go back and re-read. You were
> circling around multiple topics. I was ATTEMPTING
> to re-focus you on what started this exchange.
>
>
> > No you arent less likely to be religious. A 6
> > percent change means very little and you have
> yet
> > to prove those people were religious in the
> first
> > place and education had any affect on if they
> were
> > or werent. NO CORRELATION
>
> I'm sorry, I mispoke (/mistyped). I should not
> have said 'religious'. Allow me to rephrase that
> question.
> IS the percentage of people with a high school or
> lower education that believe the Bible is the
> actual word of 'God' significantly higher than the
> percentage of people with 'some college' education
> or more/higher that believe the same thing?
>
>
> > > If you think '50 years' guarentees
> reliability,
> > > you are in no place to discuss logic.
> >
> > Right we should just discount 50 years of
> > information from a reliable non partisan source
> so
> > that the information fits what you want it too.
>
> > Its pretty obvious that you are in no place to
> > discuss anything with these arguments
>
>
> If you think that somethings age is a determinant
> in (or proof of) something's skill or worth, you
> can't possibly have a background in logic.
> But even were such a supposition were correct,
> Gallup has been around since 1935. So let's stop
> pretending like those '50 years' really mean
> anything.

Dude, I am a total fuckin tool. Why are you wasting your time on me?

weiselwillstealthisnametoo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ding an sich Wrote:
>
> > 'Obviously'? No. Go back and re-read. You were
> > circling around multiple topics. I was
> ATTEMPTING
> > to re-focus you on what started this exchange.
>
> No everything I was discussing was related to your
> initial claim and I was explaining to you why your
> findings couldnt be true.
>
> > I'm sorry, I mispoke (/mistyped). I should not
> > have said 'religious'. Allow me to rephrase
> that
> > question.
> > IS the percentage of people with a high school
> or
> > lower education that believe the Bible is the
> > actual word of 'God' significantly higher than
> the
> > percentage of people with 'some college'
> education
> > or more/higher that believe the same thing?
>
> Considering that the people who believe that is
> higher with post graduate degrees than just
> college degrees, there is nothing here that
> suggests that it is anything more than
> circumstances that have caused these numbers to be
> what they are. People arent any more or less
> religious because of education, its just that
> people with those beliefs happen to have more or
> less religious beliefs.
>
> Again you can post that 3 day poll all that you
> want but the poll doesnt even remotely begin to
> explain why those people have those beliefs.
>
> In order to try and say that education is the
> cause for those numbers you have to be able to
> rule out outside influences. You havent proved
> that people became less religious because of
> education, you just showed that 6 percent more
> people dont believe in the bible at all that go on
> in education.
>
> Furthermore, you have completely left out the fact
> that kids in their late teens early 20s arent even
> think about that stuff at all for the most part.
> Theyre young and think theyre invincible and will
> live forever and are just worrying about the
> moment. Lots of people just do what they want
> then and their beliefs change as they get older or
> something happens in their life. Ive seen it work
> both ways as has everyone else whose not sheltered
> or doesnt just surround them selves with people
> who have the exact same views as they do.
>
> But bottom line your graph in no way shape or form
> proves that education has any impact on religion.
> In some cases it may one way or another, most
> people in that poll had the same views at that
> time of the poll as when they started out in
> education.
>
> >
> > If you think that somethings age is a
> determinant
> > in (or proof of) something's skill or worth,
> you
> > can't possibly have a background in logic.
> > But even were such a supposition were correct,
> > Gallup has been around since 1935. So let's
> stop
> > pretending like those '50 years' really mean
> > anything.
>
> Im not talking about how long NES has been around.
> Again a complete lack of intelligence on your
> part. The ACTUAL graph its self starts more than
> 50 years ago and tracks data during that time. My
> chart is a 50 plus year graph that shows the exact
> opposite of you trying to say that people with
> more education are more liberal, where your
> counter argument is two polls that took less then
> a week to do and measured a single point in time,
> without having any correlation together.

Dude, I am a total fuckin tool. Why are you wasting your time on me?

Anyone who doesnt blindly follow a liberal agenda is obviously of lower intelligence.

weiselwillstealthisnametoo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ding an sich Wrote:
>
> > 'Obviously'? No. Go back and re-read. You were
> > circling around multiple topics. I was
> ATTEMPTING
> > to re-focus you on what started this exchange.
>
> No everything I was discussing was related to your
> initial claim and I was explaining to you why your
> findings couldnt be true.
>
> > I'm sorry, I mispoke (/mistyped). I should not
> > have said 'religious'. Allow me to rephrase
> that
> > question.
> > IS the percentage of people with a high school
> or
> > lower education that believe the Bible is the
> > actual word of 'God' significantly higher than
> the
> > percentage of people with 'some college'
> education
> > or more/higher that believe the same thing?
>
> Considering that the people who believe that is
> higher with post graduate degrees than just
> college degrees


one percent...
One percent! ONE FUCKING PERCENT! Are you fucking KIDDING ME? Don't you give me that bullshit about 'statistic' and then go and point out ONE MEASLEY FUCKING PERCENT when 'high school or lower' is 46% (!) and with just 'SOME college' it drops to 22% (!!!!!!).
Taken in perspective, that one percent doesn't mean jack shit. (Yes, I'm sure there's a REASON for it, but as 1% is so insignificant, the reason is irrelevant).


> >
> > If you think that somethings age is a
> determinant
> > in (or proof of) something's skill or worth,
> you
> > can't possibly have a background in logic.
> > But even were such a supposition were correct,
> > Gallup has been around since 1935. So let's
> stop
> > pretending like those '50 years' really mean
> > anything.
>
> Im not talking about how long NES has been around.
> Again a complete lack of intelligence on your
> part.


A 'complete lack of intelligence'.

Well then precisely what the fuck are you doing wasting your time arguing with someone so lacking in intelligence?
Dumbass.

The ACTUAL graph its self starts more than
> 50 years ago and tracks data during that time. My
> chart is a 50 plus year graph that shows the exact
> opposite of you trying to say that people with
> more education are more liberal, where your
> counter argument is two polls that took less then
> a week to do and measured a single point in time,
> without having any correlation together.


Gallup knows how to poll, and has been doing so since Roosevelt was in office.
I don't think there's any organization, government, or entity of any sort that puts out as many polls as they do. They are efficient.

But since you've brought this up more than once (for no legitimate reason), might I ask - Exactly how long SHOULD their poll have taken?

Ding an sich Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> one percent...
> One percent! ONE FUCKING PERCENT! Are you fucking
> KIDDING ME? Don't you give me that bullshit about
> 'statistic' and then go and point out ONE MEASLEY
> FUCKING PERCENT when 'high school or lower' is 46%
> (!) and with just 'SOME college' it drops to 22%
> (!!!!!!).
> Taken in perspective, that one percent doesn't
> mean jack shit. (Yes, I'm sure there's a REASON
> for it, but as 1% is so insignificant, the reason
> is irrelevant).

6 percent of change isnt anything significant either. THATS THE WHOLE POINT. The poll has numbers all over the place BECAUSE THERES 100 OTHER THINGS THAT AFFECT RELIGIOUS BELIEF MORE THAN EDUCATION. Thats been the point since the first post. Youre the one trying to link it when THE POLL DOES NOTHING TO PROVE A CORRELATION, ALL IT PROVES IS THATS WHAT IT IS AT THAT TIME.

> Gallup knows how to poll, and has been doing so
> since Roosevelt was in office.
> I don't think there's any organization,
> government, or entity of any sort that puts out as
> many polls as they do. They are efficient.
>
> But since you've brought this up more than once
> (for no legitimate reason), might I ask - Exactly
> how long SHOULD their poll have taken?

I never said gallup doesnt know what their doing. NES knows what theyre doing too. Gallup made the poll just to show the stats. You are the one whose trying to take it to the next level. Just because something is how it is in the poll doesnt mean that it happened because of what the education level is. Gallup doesnt claim it does either.

Their poll should have taken however long it took to do. Their poll was measuring a single point in time. I brought that up because you seem to think that poll is more telling than 50+ years of tracking by another legitimate poll. If the correlation of people with education are less likely to be religious, and more likely to be liberal, there wouldnt be more republicans with college degrees than dems over the last 50 plus years.

Same goes with the article that started this thread. If the GOP is just a bunch of low IQ racists, than dems must be REALLY stupid since more republicans have a college degree than liberals do.

weiselwillstealthisnametoo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ding an sich Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > one percent...
> > One percent! ONE FUCKING PERCENT! Are you
> fucking
> > KIDDING ME? Don't you give me that bullshit
> about
> > 'statistic' and then go and point out ONE
> MEASLEY
> > FUCKING PERCENT when 'high school or lower' is
> 46%
> > (!) and with just 'SOME college' it drops to
> 22%
> > (!!!!!!).
> > Taken in perspective, that one percent doesn't
> > mean jack shit. (Yes, I'm sure there's a REASON
> > for it, but as 1% is so insignificant, the
> reason
> > is irrelevant).
>
> 6 percent of change isnt anything significant
> either. THATS THE WHOLE POINT. The poll has
> numbers all over the place BECAUSE THERES 100
> OTHER THINGS THAT AFFECT RELIGIOUS BELIEF MORE
> THAN EDUCATION. Thats been the point since the
> first post. Youre the one trying to link it when
> THE POLL DOES NOTHING TO PROVE A CORRELATION, ALL
> IT PROVES IS THATS WHAT IT IS AT THAT TIME.


That wasn't a 6% change... 46% to 22% - that's a 24% drop.
But, since appearently MY analysis of the information is insufficient for you, perhaps you would prefer GALLUP'S:

"Belief in a literal interpretation of a Bible declines as educational attainment increases. Forty-six percent of Americans with a high school education or less take the Bible literally, compared with no more than 22% of Americans with at least some college education. The majority of Americans with at least some college education believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God."

Now what?
Are they also misinterpretting the data?


> > Gallup knows how to poll, and has been doing so
> > since Roosevelt was in office.
> > I don't think there's any organization,
> > government, or entity of any sort that puts out
> as
> > many polls as they do. They are efficient.
> >
> > But since you've brought this up more than once
> > (for no legitimate reason), might I ask -
> Exactly
> > how long SHOULD their poll have taken?
>
> I never said gallup doesnt know what their doing.
> NES knows what theyre doing too. Gallup made the
> poll just to show the stats. You are the one
> whose trying to take it to the next level. Just
> because something is how it is in the poll doesnt
> mean that it happened because of what the
> education level is. Gallup doesnt claim it does
> either.


Should I re-paste the Gallup quote, or do you think you can reference back to the last part of this reply?


> Their poll should have taken however long it took
> to do. Their poll was measuring a single point in
> time. I brought that up because you seem to think
> that poll is more telling than 50+ years of
> tracking by another legitimate poll.


More quotes from the survey:

"Three in 10 Americans interpret the Bible literally, saying it is the actual word of God. That is similar to what Gallup has measured over the last two decades, but down from the 1970s and 1980s. A 49% plurality of Americans say the Bible is the inspired word of God but that it should not be taken literally, consistently the most common view in Gallup's nearly 40-year history of this question. Another 17% consider the Bible an ancient book of stories recorded by man."

"These results are based on a May 5-8 Gallup poll. The high point in the percentage of Americans favoring a literal interpretation of the Bible was 40%, recorded in 1980 and 1984. The low point was 27% in 2001."


My guess is you're just a conservative that is mad that the general conservative demographic is not of a higher caliber. I don't see why else you would argue against the obvious.

I mean, come on - science v. religion. You really think someone intelligent and well educated is just as likely to pick religion over science as someone that dropped out of high school?

Ding an sich Wrote:
\
> "Belief in a literal interpretation of a Bible
> declines as educational attainment increases.
> Forty-six percent of Americans with a high school
> education or less take the Bible literally,
> compared with no more than 22% of Americans with
> at least some college education. The majority of
> Americans with at least some college education
> believe the Bible to be the inspired word of
> God."
>
> Now what?
> Are they also misinterpretting the data?

They arent being honest about it then. You can say less people believe its 100 percent true but people who believe its the inspired word are still religious. 78 percent of people with some college, and 79 percent of people with a 4 year degree either believe its true or that its the inspired word of god. You could say that theyre less likely to believe the bible is 100 percent fact, but to say they arent religious is misleading. If your talking about people going from religious to not religious at all you have to look at the people who think its a book of lies which has a 6 percent change.

Again nothing else is being controlled for which a real scientific position would require.


> More quotes from the survey:
>
> "Three in 10 Americans interpret the Bible
> literally, saying it is the actual word of God.
> That is similar to what Gallup has measured over
> the last two decades, but down from the 1970s and
> 1980s. A 49% plurality of Americans say the Bible
> is the inspired word of God but that it should not
> be taken literally, consistently the most common
> view in Gallup's nearly 40-year history of this
> question. Another 17% consider the Bible an
> ancient book of stories recorded by man."
>
> "These results are based on a May 5-8 Gallup poll.
> The high point in the percentage of Americans
> favoring a literal interpretation of the Bible was
> 40%, recorded in 1980 and 1984. The low point was
> 27% in 2001."
>
>
> My guess is you're just a conservative that is mad
> that the general conservative demographic is not
> of a higher caliber. I don't see why else you
> would argue against the obvious.
>
> I mean, come on - science v. religion. You really
> think someone intelligent and well educated is
> just as likely to pick religion over science as
> someone that dropped out of high school?

Im not mad about anything. Youre just a liberal whose distorting facts and making correlations that just flat out dont exist. More conservatives are college educated so I guess you consider less education to be of a higher caliber.

weiselwillstealthisnametoo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ding an sich Wrote:
> \
> > "Belief in a literal interpretation of a Bible
> > declines as educational attainment increases.
> > Forty-six percent of Americans with a high
> school
> > education or less take the Bible literally,
> > compared with no more than 22% of Americans
> with
> > at least some college education. The majority
> of
> > Americans with at least some college education
> > believe the Bible to be the inspired word of
> > God."
> >
> > Now what?
> > Are they also misinterpretting the data?
>
> They arent being honest about it then. You can
> say less people believe its 100 percent true but
> people who believe its the inspired word are still
> religious. 78 percent of people with some
> college, and 79 percent of people with a 4 year
> degree either believe its true or that its the
> inspired word of god. You could say that theyre
> less likely to believe the bible is 100 percent
> fact, but to say they arent religious is
> misleading. If your talking about people going
> from religious to not religious at all you have to
> look at the people who think its a book of lies
> which has a 6 percent change.
>
> Again nothing else is being controlled for which a
> real scientific position would require.


Like I said, I mispoke when I said 'religious'. The survey was in regards to belief in the legitimacy of the Bible as 'God's word'.
But I've only displayed and quoted part of the findings. Maybe you'd prefer to look over the entirety of the survey results.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/148427/Say-Bible-Literally.aspx


> > More quotes from the survey:
> >
> > "Three in 10 Americans interpret the Bible
> > literally, saying it is the actual word of God.
> > That is similar to what Gallup has measured
> over
> > the last two decades, but down from the 1970s
> and
> > 1980s. A 49% plurality of Americans say the
> Bible
> > is the inspired word of God but that it should
> not
> > be taken literally, consistently the most
> common
> > view in Gallup's nearly 40-year history of this
> > question. Another 17% consider the Bible an
> > ancient book of stories recorded by man."
> >
> > "These results are based on a May 5-8 Gallup
> poll.
> > The high point in the percentage of Americans
> > favoring a literal interpretation of the Bible
> was
> > 40%, recorded in 1980 and 1984. The low point
> was
> > 27% in 2001."
> >
> >
> > My guess is you're just a conservative that is
> mad
> > that the general conservative demographic is
> not
> > of a higher caliber. I don't see why else you
> > would argue against the obvious.
> >
> > I mean, come on - science v. religion. You
> really
> > think someone intelligent and well educated is
> > just as likely to pick religion over science as
> > someone that dropped out of high school?
>
> Youre just a liberal

Nope.

> whose distorting facts and making correlations
> that just flat out dont exist.

Wrong again.

Ding an sich Wrote:

> Like I said, I mispoke when I said 'religious'.
> The survey was in regards to belief in the
> legitimacy of the Bible as 'God's word'.
> But I've only displayed and quoted part of the
> findings. Maybe you'd prefer to look over the
> entirety of the survey results.
> http://www.gallup.com/poll/148427/Say-Bible-Liter
> ally.aspx

If were just talking about the everything is literal in the bible vs not theres enough of a drop from high school to some college where you can say it had probably at least some effect. But the effect definitely stops there as theres not enough of a difference after that.

Basically my issue with a poll like that is that theres just way to many things that go into someone being religious and their religious views to try and just generalize it with a simple poll like that too. Id bet good money that a good percentage of that drop from high school to some college is military enlistment.

weiselwillstealthisnametoo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ding an sich Wrote:
>
> > Like I said, I mispoke when I said 'religious'.
> > The survey was in regards to belief in the
> > legitimacy of the Bible as 'God's word'.
> > But I've only displayed and quoted part of the
> > findings. Maybe you'd prefer to look over the
> > entirety of the survey results.
> >
> http://www.gallup.com/poll/148427/Say-Bible-Liter
> > ally.aspx
>
> If were just talking about the everything is
> literal in the bible vs not theres enough of a
> drop from high school to some college where you
> can say it had probably at least some effect. But
> the effect definitely stops there as theres not
> enough of a difference after that.
>
> Basically my issue with a poll like that is that
> theres just way to many things that go into
> someone being religious and their religious views
> to try and just generalize it with a simple poll
> like that too. Id bet good money that a good
> percentage of that drop from high school to some
> college is military enlistment.


Well think about it this way: Simply put, the longer you're in school, the longer you are going be learning things that contridict what is written in the Bible. It's kind of hard to believe the Bible is infallible, when you're learning about evolution, astronomy, nature...and there's greater likelihood of being exposed to sexual minorities. When one accepts these things, the Bible loses its credibility.

Ding an sich Wrote:

> Well think about it this way: Simply put, the
> longer you're in school, the longer you are going
> be learning things that contridict what is written
> in the Bible. It's kind of hard to believe the
> Bible is infallible, when you're learning about
> evolution, astronomy, nature...and there's greater
> likelihood of being exposed to sexual minorities.
> When one accepts these things, the Bible loses its
> credibility.


The problem with the longer in school argument is that theres no difference between some college and completing where if it were all about schooling youd see a difference there too. Simple polls like that are very easy to make things look like some thing is there when its not

Most religious people dont believe its a literal account anyway believing that theres purposeful exaggerations ect to prove the moral story it was intended to convey. But theres no need to start attacking religion.

weiselwillstealthisnametoo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The problem with the longer in school argument is
> that theres no difference between some college and
> completing where if it were all about schooling
> youd see a difference there too. Simple polls
> like that are very easy to make things look like
> some thing is there when its not

It's a generalization. The more complicated a poll gets, the higher the margin of error, and it also makes the results more painful to read.

Ding an sich Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> It's a generalization. The more complicated a poll
> gets, the higher the margin of error, and it also
> makes the results more painful to read.

If a poll is to simple its easy to infer relationships that dont exist, or overstate any relationship that does

Theres a lot of jobs where college just isnt necessary and those people have no reason to go. It would have been more interesting if the did a poll asking if their views had changed because of their schooling and if so in what way.

weiselwillstealthisnametoo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ding an sich Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > It's a generalization. The more complicated a
> poll
> > gets, the higher the margin of error, and it
> also
> > makes the results more painful to read.
>
> If a poll is to simple its easy to infer
> relationships that dont exist, or overstate any
> relationship that does
>
> Theres a lot of jobs where college just isnt
> necessary and those people have no reason to go.
> It would have been more interesting if the did a
> poll asking if their views had changed because of
> their schooling and if so in what way.


Since many causes of change in thinking happen subconsciously, that would result in an entirely different poll (just because someone THINKS something did or did not influence them, doesn't guarentee that it actually did).

I think the Gallup poll accomplished exactly what it set out to accomplish.

I actually just checked out the whole study theres another thing thats interesting that would point to gallup coming to the wrong conclusions. In there graph that dates back into the 1970s the level for all three groups remains relatively the same (with their plus or minus 4 margin of error everything is in that range) despite the number of college graduates increasing dramatically. In 1989 only 21 percent of the population has a college degree, in 2009 that number was up to about 30 percent. If you go back into the 1970s like the poll did the change in overall educational levels changes even more dramatically.

Interestingly enough the low point for beliefs and the high point for complete disbelief came in 2001 which all things considered isnt that surprising. Still interesting though

Ding an sich Wrote:

> Since many causes of change in thinking happen
> subconsciously, that would result in an entirely
> different poll (just because someone THINKS
> something did or did not influence them, doesn't
> guarentee that it actually did).
>
> I think the Gallup poll accomplished exactly what
> it set out to accomplish.


Theres definitely some funny results in there too like the 5 percent of people who believe the bible is literal yet arent religious. That doesnt make much sense.

Over all it did a good job the but the education and religion tie is weak at best

weiselwillstealthisnametoo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Interestingly enough the low point for beliefs and
> the high point for complete disbelief came in 2001
> which all things considered isnt that surprising.
> Still interesting though


I think it's interesting that "The high point in the percentage of Americans favoring a literal interpretation of the Bible was 40%, recorded in 1980 and 1984".

weiselwillstealthisnametoo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ding an sich Wrote:
>
> > Since many causes of change in thinking happen
> > subconsciously, that would result in an
> entirely
> > different poll (just because someone THINKS
> > something did or did not influence them,
> doesn't
> > guarentee that it actually did).
> >
> > I think the Gallup poll accomplished exactly
> what
> > it set out to accomplish.
>
>
> Theres definitely some funny results in there too
> like the 5 percent of people who believe the bible
> is literal yet arent religious. That doesnt make
> much sense.
>
> Over all it did a good job the but the education
> and religion tie is weak at best


I check a lot of their polls. Sometimes you'll find things like '6% of the unreligious believe religion should have a stronger roll in government' or '3% of Democrats describe themselves as conservative' - things that just don't make sense.
Then again, many people don't make sense, so I suppose that's to be expected.

Ding an sich Wrote:

>
> I check a lot of their polls. Sometimes you'll
> find things like '6% of the unreligious believe
> religion should have a stronger roll in
> government' or '3% of Democrats describe
> themselves as conservative' - things that just
> don't make sense.
> Then again, many people don't make sense, so I
> suppose that's to be expected.


Theres seems to always be a segment of the population that loves to just intentionally screw up results by giving contradictory answers. Either that or some people really just are that dumb.

I dont care what religion it is, if I believed their book was the literal word of god im definitely going to follow it.

weiselwillstealthisnametoo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Theres seems to always be a segment of the
> population that loves to just intentionally screw
> up results by giving contradictory answers.
> Either that or some people really just are that
> dumb.

I didn't even consider the possibility of intentional mis-answering. I think I'd rather assume that people are just ignorant than believe that a significant portion of the population would intentionally try to derail Gallup polls. I have a lot of respect for Gallup and their mission. Messing up their polls is like falsifying Wikipedia articles. It's just unethical.


> I dont care what religion it is, if I believed
> their book was the literal word of god im
> definitely going to follow it.


I'd assume that most people, if convinced that a book was of God, would follow its commandments. To believe that there exists a god that wishes something of you and to disobey would be incredibly foolish. One would have to think themself to be a god to have such audacity.
But that the case with religion - everyone claims theirs is correct, but no one can definitively prove that God (or the gods) actually endorse their religion.

Personally, I find myself more concerned with deciding whether Kant or Nietzsche was closer. But I don't think there exists a theoretical entity that could clear that up for me.

Ding an sich Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I didn't even consider the possibility of
> intentional mis-answering. I think I'd rather
> assume that people are just ignorant than believe
> that a significant portion of the population would
> intentionally try to derail Gallup polls. I have a
> lot of respect for Gallup and their mission.
> Messing up their polls is like falsifying
> Wikipedia articles. It's just unethical.

Youd be amazed at what people will actually do. If ethics were always a concern prisons would be a lot less crowded.

> I'd assume that most people, if convinced that a
> book was of God, would follow its commandments. To
> believe that there exists a god that wishes
> something of you and to disobey would be
> incredibly foolish. One would have to think
> themself to be a god to have such audacity.
> But that the case with religion - everyone claims
> theirs is correct, but no one can definitively
> prove that God (or the gods) actually endorse
> their religion.
>
> Personally, I find myself more concerned with
> deciding whether Kant or Nietzsche was closer. But
> I don't think there exists a theoretical entity
> that could clear that up for me.

I guess its possible that they can be religious without belonging to a religion in the sense that the believe in it but dont like what man has turned it into or just have their own relationship with god outside of a church. Then again they could just not care and assume theyd go to heaven since almost all religions have a merciful god.

weiselwillstealthisnametoo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ding an sich Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > I didn't even consider the possibility of
> > intentional mis-answering. I think I'd rather
> > assume that people are just ignorant than
> believe
> > that a significant portion of the population
> would
> > intentionally try to derail Gallup polls. I have
> a
> > lot of respect for Gallup and their mission.
> > Messing up their polls is like falsifying
> > Wikipedia articles. It's just unethical.
>
> Youd be amazed at what people will actually do.
> If ethics were always a concern prisons would be a
> lot less crowded.


Very true, though I have to point out that much of the American system of justice is unethical. Go check out the 'prisons' in Norway. 'Prisoners' get to kayaking and horseback riding, all sorts of things - and the guards aren't even armed! Yet, you contrast this with America's hardcore rape-you-in-the-ass prisons, and find that Norway's recidivism rate is only a fraction of America's. Obviously they're doing something right. Maybe locking people up like animals doesn't really work out so well...


> > I'd assume that most people, if convinced that
> a
> > book was of God, would follow its commandments.
> To
> > believe that there exists a god that wishes
> > something of you and to disobey would be
> > incredibly foolish. One would have to think
> > themself to be a god to have such audacity.
> > But that the case with religion - everyone
> claims
> > theirs is correct, but no one can definitively
> > prove that God (or the gods) actually endorse
> > their religion.
> >
> > Personally, I find myself more concerned with
> > deciding whether Kant or Nietzsche was closer.
> But
> > I don't think there exists a theoretical entity
> > that could clear that up for me.
>
> I guess its possible that they can be religious
> without belonging to a religion in the sense that
> the believe in it but dont like what man has
> turned it into or just have their own relationship
> with god outside of a church. Then again they
> could just not care and assume theyd go to heaven
> since almost all religions have a merciful god.


Having studied many religions (theology fascinates me), I would argue that most religions do not have 'merciful' gods, even if you limit yourself to only the 'major religions'.
Which were you thinking of?

Ding an sich Wrote:

> Having studied many religions (theology fascinates
> me), I would argue that most religions do not have
> 'merciful' gods, even if you limit yourself to
> only the 'major religions'.
> Which were you thinking of?


The major ones, maybe merciful wasnt the correct term, maybe the ability to redeem yourself would have been a better way to describe it. Theoretically someone could take the chance of just doing what ever they wanted their whole life then at the end confess everything and think theyre fine, not sure how well that would go over but at least in theory it could work.

If this is true then why is all of DC's poor and uneducated democrat?

Ding an sich Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Very true, though I have to point out that much of
> the American system of justice is unethical. Go
> check out the 'prisons' in Norway. 'Prisoners' get
> to kayaking and horseback riding, all sorts of
> things - and the guards aren't even armed! Yet,
> you contrast this with America's hardcore
> rape-you-in-the-ass prisons, and find that
> Norway's recidivism rate is only a fraction of
> America's. Obviously they're doing something
> right. Maybe locking people up like animals
> doesn't really work out so well...

Dont say that out loud in Texas or they might execute you. Just for the fun of it.

And now it’s time to say

What I forgot to say

Baby, baby, baby

Come on, what’s wrong

It’s a radiation vibe I’m grooving on

Don’t it make you want to get some sun?

Shine on, shine on, shine on

Like thunder needs rain
Like a preacher needs pain
Like tongues of flame
Like a sheet stained
I need your love

Like a needle needs a vein
Like someone to blame
Like a thought unchained
Like a runaway train
I need your love

Like faith needs a doubt
Like a freeway out
I need your love

Like powder needs a spark
Like lies need the dark
I need your love

weiselwillstealthisnametoo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Like thunder needs rain
> Like a preacher needs pain
> Like tongues of flame
> Like a sheet stained
> I need your love
>
> Like a needle needs a vein
> Like someone to blame
> Like a thought unchained
> Like a runaway train
> I need your love
>
> Like faith needs a doubt
> Like a freeway out
> I need your love
>
> Like powder needs a spark
> Like lies need the dark
> I need your love


Shocking the wiesel doesnt wake up until noon. Not surprising again his mentally ill self immediately gets on here and makes 3 fake posts yet again.

Why do we gives people like wiesel internet at the Lamb Center again?

I don't believe finishing college has anything to do with a high IQ. Do you know how many C students there are with bullshit majors?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/27/2012 02:41PM by WashingTone-Locian.

I am a moderate. I do not like foreigners or niggers. I would not describe all blacks as niggers. I have a B.S., an M.Agr., and a M.S. in Safety Management. I also have an above average IQ.

behonestwtl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> History and facts disagree with you

What does the level of education attained have to do with IQ? Lots of low-IQ folks have diplomas from for-profit "colleges", whose standards are none-too-high.

Not Vexxxed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> behonestwtl Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > History and facts disagree with you
>
> What does the level of education attained have to
> do with IQ? Lots of low-IQ folks have diplomas
> from for-profit "colleges", whose standards are
> none-too-high.


Youre probably wiesel and just havent shown yourself yet but ill respond anyway.


Yes theres diploma factories now, theyre werent in the 70s and 80s when a smaller percent had a diploma. That said not every one with a college degree has a high IQ. But overall yes the group of college educated individuals are more educated and the point was that study and article is all just a bunch of bs from some guy with an agenda

behonestwtl1 Wrote:

>
>
> Yes theres diploma factories now, theyre werent in
> the 70s and 80s when a smaller percent had a
> diploma. That said not every one with a college
> degree has a high IQ. But overall yes the group
> of college educated individuals are more educated
> and the point was that study and article is all
> just a bunch of bs from some guy with an agenda


I would venture to guess that having a four-year diploma has as much to do with a family having money or a legacy with a school as it does with the intelligence of the student.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I would venture to guess that having a four-year
> diploma has as much to do with a family having
> money or a legacy with a school as it does with
> the intelligence of the student.


Back in the day sure, not really now. It may change the school you go to, but it wont keep you out of school. Theres still plenty of people that do manage to fail out of college or never graduate for whatever reason.

I would venture to say you would have a different opinion if this agenda driven study was about dems and not republicans. Either way bias research is bias research and does nothing but divide the country even more