Author Topic: The answer to WWGHA: God can't do and here is why  (Read 272 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online eh!

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1589
  • Darwins +59/-31
  • Gender: Male
  • jimmy hendrix is jesus
Re: The answer to WWGHA: God can't do and here is why
« Reply #29 on: October 18, 2014, 11:48:08 PM »
I state without proof males are better at abstract fields with narrowly defined problems.

not about opportunity it is about the way god made us, (I state the existence of god without proof).
Signature goes here...

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1434
  • Darwins +97/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: The answer to WWGHA: God can't do and here is why
« Reply #30 on: Yesterday at 12:15:34 AM »
I state without proof males are better at abstract fields with narrowly defined problems.

not about opportunity it is about the way god made us, (I state the existence of god without proof).

Now that we have more opportunities, results of education show that females are better on average.

Personally, I think the few real geniuses are men which just makes women look worse than they actually are.
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Online eh!

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1589
  • Darwins +59/-31
  • Gender: Male
  • jimmy hendrix is jesus
Re: The answer to WWGHA: God can't do and here is why
« Reply #31 on: Yesterday at 12:27:46 AM »
ah, results I have seen show girls are better at a younger age and the best boys leave them behind in senior years. most schools these days strive to be inclusive as a matter of law, yet the boys gravitate to some subjects eg physics and girls to biology, chem in the middle.

sorry no links.

as one lecturer explained it, men will build the most complex structure eg a dam in the most impossible conditions, the girls will say, if we just moved the site 5 km along the river we can build a better dam with less risk  at a fraction of the cost to supply more people and be better for the environment - the boys go "oh never thought of that but it will just be a dam, we can build a monument"
Signature goes here...

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12438
  • Darwins +323/-84
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The answer to WWGHA: God can't do and here is why
« Reply #32 on: Yesterday at 12:52:02 AM »
http://psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201010/girls-are-more-intelligent-boys-men-are-more-intelligent-w

Quote
The male advantage in general intelligence does not emerge until after puberty, because girls mature faster than boys.

In an earlier post, I discuss the new consensus in the intelligence research in the 21st century that men on average are slightly (but significantly) more intelligent than women, by about 3-5 IQ points.  However, in the same post, I also note that it is not because they are male that men are more intelligent but because they are taller.  Taller individuals are more intelligent than shorter individuals, and men just happen to be taller than women.  In fact, once we control for height, women on average are more intelligent than men.  It still remains true, however, that, without controlling for height or anything else, if you simply compare men and women, men on average are slightly more intelligent than women.

Another little-known fact is that, because girls on average mature faster than boys, the male advantage in intelligence does not appear until after puberty, when boys and girls finish maturing and growing.  Until then, girls are on average always more mature than boys at any given chronological age.  So comparing boys and girls, say, at age 10, is like comparing boys at age 10 and girls at age 12.  Naturally, older and more mature children have greater cognitive capacity than younger and less mature children.  So if you compare boys and girls at the same chronological age, girls on average are more intelligent than boys.  In other words, the sex difference in the rate of maturity masks and drowns the sex difference in general intelligence.


Here’s a perfect demonstration, using data from the National Child Development Study (NCDS) in the United Kingdom.  The NCDS contains a population (not a sample) of all babies born in Great Britain (England, Wales, and Scotland) in one week in March 1958 (n = 17,419), and has followed them throughout their lives for more than half a century.  The NCDS also has one of the best measures of general intelligence in all of survey data.  They measure intelligence at age 7 (with four different cognitive tests), at age 11 (with five different cognitive tests), and at age 16 (with two different cognitive tests).  Note that the respondents are largely before puberty at ages 7 and 11, but largely after puberty at age 16.

Here are the graphs that chart the mean IQ of the NCDS respondents by sex at ages 7 and 11, before puberty.  You notice that girls are slightly but (given the large sample size) statistically significantly more intelligent than boys at both ages.  At age 7, the mean IQ for girls is 100.6 while the mean IQ for boys is 99.4.  At age 11, the mean IQ for girls is 100.4 while the mean IQ for boys is 99.6.

It's not by much, either way.

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11037
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: The answer to WWGHA: God can't do and here is why
« Reply #33 on: Yesterday at 01:06:58 AM »
dennis

We do have a debate board where you can choose to discuss a given subject with just one other member. Others can comment in a separate thread, but you would be dealing with only one person directly.

You probably wouldn't want to pick Nam.  ;D

I'm up for that. ;D
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2718
  • Darwins +221/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburgerâ„¢
Re: The answer to WWGHA: God can't do and here is why
« Reply #34 on: Yesterday at 01:08:10 AM »
My overall view is this:
I considered all the pros and cons, problems and principles of both worldviews (theism and atheism) within the limits of my intellectual capacity.
I arrived at a certain point where, on balance, theism makes more sense to me and I devoted more time to trying to understand theology - at the expenses of science.
Most readers here arrived at the same point and decided that science makes more sense and went down a different path.

BOTH groups suffer from confirmation bias and start seeing what we want to see, but I honestly try and stay up to date with science because it is a wonderful thing.

(I am sensing most of you think - erroneously - that it is either science OR religion, and nothing can be further form the truth.)

E.g. Objections like that of @Fiji : "Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours", are easily refuted/explained in the proper theological context. The same goes for 'God promotes genocide' and silly claims like that.

Theology is not science and they concern themselves with different perspectives of the human condition.

The most theologically educated people can become Atheists in The Pulpit.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200712/atheist-in-the-pulpit

There is no correlation between understanding "theology" and knowing that Christianity is true. You could think you totally understand it, and then be deconverted by some minor thing that resonated with your experience. The problem for most Christians, is that although the theology may make perfect sense to them, they have not actually experienced anything [supernatural] of substance, or that couldn't be reinterpreted by a different viewpoint.

As a Christian you have been trained to have blind spots in the theology. The blind spots are so culturally ignored that it takes a skeptic years to actually find them, by googling and reading random websites. When you find them, you can't just dismiss them. They stay as permanent blights.

I was terribly surprised to find that there was no hell (or afterlife) in the OT. It just never occurred to me. I told a skeptic friend, and he was *gobsmacked* as well. I told an evangelical Christian that, and he had to go and look at the OT, and then came back, and said I was right. But he had had a convincing conversion experience, and had been a bad boy, so his religion was holding his life together. The next realization comes when you see how desperate early Christians were for hell to exist, that they deliberately mistranslated it into the Vulgate and KJV. The problem comes from Christians needing to ignore other Jewish salvation ideas, or the books where hell was developed, being rather shonky and inconsistent, and not backed up by a convincing Prophet. Judaism really couldn't develop, after the fictional "Moses" wrote his stuff down, so they escaped to an "Oral Tradition". None of that got recorded, but Christians use certain versions of old stable books, so there is a big jump to Jesus' "understanding". Jesus never said which books he was quoting from. He just says "You have heard", or "did you not read", or "you do not know your scripture". Apart from the 5 books of Torah, the texts of Judaism were in disarray, and the Torah does nothing to back up a belief in hell, or the word "eternal", which seems to be used a lot, and erroneously in the NT.

The next terrible blind spot in Christianity is the schism between the Jerusalem Church and Paul. Atheists are fond of quoting the Sermon on the Mount, to confound modern Christians. We know that you don't adhere to any of it, and regard it as hyperbole. It takes some time to realise why that's important, though, because the Sermon also contains comments that insist Jewish law is in force until the end of time, and furthermore, if you tell anyone otherwise, you will go to hell (so, be careful of your reply). One Catholic chap, here, actually told me that this was Jesus talking hypothetically, prior to him being the savior - that is: you would have to follow the Sermon, prior to Jesus being the Savior, but not after. The big blind spot, is that Christians are taught to view all the NT books as a consistent work, rather than see the obvious: that they were written by competing sects, and pushing different ideas. The book of Matthew is written by the Jerusalem Church, and casts a big rock at Paul, telling the audience that many will come in Jesus' name, and will fool the elect. Paul certainly fooled the elect, and you. A big question that Christians never ask themselves, is why Jesus (who was a God) would be unable to communicate his true message to his disciples, but instead needed another guy (who never met him) to fix up all the mess that the people who met him made. It's very similar to someone else coming along and changing things, which is exactly what the Jerusalem Church says Paul is doing. The irony is that modern Christians left that all in Galatians and Acts, and it's supposed to be somehow convincing. We are supposed to believe Paul, because he says he wouldn't lie to us, and that Jesus' work would have been in vain, if you don't believe what Paul says. No, Jesus would have just been unsellable, so you pick that version of Jesus. You have to.

I'm sure you think you have explanations, but you will find the explanations you have, have to be based on assumptions. Assumptions like that the NT was written as a coherent work, by people who believed the same thing.
« Last Edit: Yesterday at 01:36:31 AM by Add Homonym »
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.