Just going to point out that correlation does not equal causation. You can't make the claim that more education causes people to be less religious. The studies only show a correlation between higher education and atheism--they don't show that atheism is a direct result of higher education.

EDIT: In fact, the studies don't even show that. I'm assuming you got your information from Dawkin's book The God Delusion(2006, p. 103). Some people who were curious about the study he cited (saying 43 studies showed an inverse correlation between education and religious belief) and wanted to know more tracked down the source of this claim themselves and found out it was, quite frankly, BS. Read for yourself here here.

Basically, all someone did is look at a bunch of articles counted up how many wrote in their conclusions that the study found "education/intelligence inversely correlated with religion" versus how many found "education/intelligence correlated with religion." There are all sorts of problems here since what counts as intelligence and/or education, as well as the methodology used, varied widely between the studies and there really isn't the evidence there to make the claim that "increased education correlates with atheism."

For even more information about the article Dawkins cited and a look at the original 43 studies (they're worth looking at just to see how truly disparate they are) see: the original Beckwith article.

Also, see this article which shows religious attendance actually increases with education.

>> ^spoco2:

Um... You completely backwards read my post. I said that in the uneducated and simple minded is WHERE religion breeds. Not that Religion creates it, but it's where it takes hold because when you don't know better they can make it seem sensible. As soon as you up the education level, religion drops markedly.

Many tests are normalized, including the college admissions test here in the US (the SATs). The scores only have meaning relative to each other.

Sometimes the tests have to be re-normalized because the population scores differently. The SATs, for example, had to be re-normed in the 80s or 90s to keep the average at 1000, because the population was scoring lower than previous generations.
>> ^dannym3141:
>> ^dannym3141:
>> ^Drachen_Jager:
Sorry but Canadians do NOT score lower than Americans.
1. Canadian children scored Full Scale IQ= 103.34, Verbal= 101.4, Performance = 104.96 on the (American) WISC-III. Source: Wechsler, D. (1996), Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children – Third Edition, Canadian Supplement. (Communicated by Dr. D. Saklofske).
(Since the tests are standardized American tests the average American score is of course 100)

Are IQ tests standardised to FORCE the average to 100? That seems really unlikely to me. Because if we were getting thicker, we'd have an average of 90 IQ, then we'd go "Hang on a minute, add 10 to that to put the average to 100 again." Then we'd have an average of 100, and be less intelligent than a guy 10 years ago with 100IQ.
Of course IQ is an arbitrary scale invented by humans, but that scale can't MOVE surely, otherwise it puts all figures into dissaray, they mean nothing. It's like saying "Ok, earth temperatures have gone up by 2 degrees celsius. So we're adjusting the scale downwards by 2 degrees. Temperature restored guys!"

I'll reply to myself. Apparently they are regularly normalised to 100. What a rediculous system. The numbers mean absolutely nothing, then?

>> ^dannym3141:
>> ^Drachen_Jager:
Sorry but Canadians do NOT score lower than Americans.
1. Canadian children scored Full Scale IQ= 103.34, Verbal= 101.4, Performance = 104.96 on the (American) WISC-III. Source: Wechsler, D. (1996), Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children – Third Edition, Canadian Supplement. (Communicated by Dr. D. Saklofske).
(Since the tests are standardized American tests the average American score is of course 100)

Are IQ tests standardised to FORCE the average to 100? That seems really unlikely to me. Because if we were getting thicker, we'd have an average of 90 IQ, then we'd go "Hang on a minute, add 10 to that to put the average to 100 again." Then we'd have an average of 100, and be less intelligent than a guy 10 years ago with 100IQ.
Of course IQ is an arbitrary scale invented by humans, but that scale can't MOVE surely, otherwise it puts all figures into dissaray, they mean nothing. It's like saying "Ok, earth temperatures have gone up by 2 degrees celsius. So we're adjusting the scale downwards by 2 degrees. Temperature restored guys!"


I'll reply to myself. Apparently they are regularly normalised to 100. What a rediculous system. The numbers mean absolutely nothing, then?

>> ^Drachen_Jager:
Sorry but Canadians do NOT score lower than Americans.
1. Canadian children scored Full Scale IQ= 103.34, Verbal= 101.4, Performance = 104.96 on the (American) WISC-III. Source: Wechsler, D. (1996), Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children – Third Edition, Canadian Supplement. (Communicated by Dr. D. Saklofske).
(Since the tests are standardized American tests the average American score is of course 100)


Are IQ tests standardised to FORCE the average to 100? That seems really unlikely to me. Because if we were getting thicker, we'd have an average of 90 IQ, then we'd go "Hang on a minute, add 10 to that to put the average to 100 again." Then we'd have an average of 100, and be less intelligent than a guy 10 years ago with 100IQ.

Of course IQ is an arbitrary scale invented by humans, but that scale can't MOVE surely, otherwise it puts all figures into dissaray, they mean nothing. It's like saying "Ok, earth temperatures have gone up by 2 degrees celsius. So we're adjusting the scale downwards by 2 degrees. Temperature restored guys!"

Sorry but Canadians do NOT score lower than Americans.

1. Canadian children scored Full Scale IQ= 103.34, Verbal= 101.4, Performance = 104.96 on the (American) WISC-III. Source: Wechsler, D. (1996), Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children – Third Edition, Canadian Supplement. (Communicated by Dr. D. Saklofske).

(Since the tests are standardized American tests the average American score is of course 100)

I miss his radio show on Indie 103.1. :"(

quality is far more effective. Kronos qualitied this post when it had 103 votes. Now it has 180. With a promote it would maybe have gotten a maximum of 20 more votes.

Average pounds per year of Sugar Consumption
1700: 4 lbs
1800: 18 lbs
1900: 90 lbs
2000: 145 lbs
2009: 156 lbs

Cancer, Heart Disease, Diabetes, Dementia, etc. were all virtually nonexistent several hundred years ago. Life expectancy figures you've likely heard where people only lived to be 35, etc. are complete B.S. High infant mortality rates, accidents, and infectious disease dramatically skew the life expectancy downward. Those subsets of the population not affected by these outside factors lived to be in excess of 80-100 years old without any incidence of cancer, heart disease, diabetes - the so called "diseases of civilization." Here is a table of ages of deaths for a population of Inuit from the Moravian Church in Labrador
and the Russian Church in Alaska, 1822-1836:

Aleuts, Unalaska district
Died ages 1-4 -- 92
Died ages 4-7 -- 17
Died ages 7-15 -- 41
Died ages 15-25 -- 41
Died ages 25-45 -- 103
Died ages 45-55 -- 66
Died ages 55-60 -- 29
Died ages 60-65 -- 22
Died ages 65-70 -- 24
Died ages 70-75 -- 23
Died ages 75-80 -- 11
Died ages 80-90 -- 20
Died ages 90-100 -- 2

People who lived in the jesus damn Artic 200 years ago, had zero access to fruits or vegetables and subsisted on a diet of 100% meat (fish, seals, whales, etc.) for their entire lives. 25% of them lived to be over 60 years old, with some living past 90...in a freaking igloo!

In one study of terminally ill patients, patients who were so close to dying that any treatment (including no treatment) was deemed ethical, an intervention method consisting of the complete removal sugar from their diets (think about what most hospital diets consist of for a second) was introduced. Those patients living past the first week (most were so far gone, they died before the study could even start) had their tumors either regress enough to be surgically treated, or experienced full remission. Patients who were previously given less than a week to live were now cancer-free simply by removing sugar from their diets.

Cancer cells have been shown in many studies ( including this one http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=296896) to have a disproportionally higher number of insulin receptor cells. Cancerous cells are "successful" mutations from an evolutionary perspective in that they lead to massive cell propagation. However, most cancerous cells have no method of internal cell metabolism, and must subsist and grow almost exclusively on energy supplied by blood glucose (hence the elevated receptor count). Essentially, cancerous cells are "parasites." By removing all sources of glucose from the body, and entering a state of ketosis, where acetone bodys supply energy to the cells as opposed to glucose, the cancer cells starve; dying or slowing growth to the point where the body's immune system can sucessfully remove them.

Long story short, you wanna live to be 100, stop drinking so much f*ing soda.

You're fighting the shadow of communism QM and Farhad start reading for someday you'll have to fight the real thing. Until people remain much ignorant about communism your arguments stands quite chances but not further.

You could start by watching http://www.youtube.com/brendanmcooney in order econ 101, 102, 103. It's not perfect but at least you stand a chance of criticizing actual Marxism.

I hated this station and was happy to see it go down the tubes.

KXLU, KSPC, KUCI, and good old CDs and MP3s will long live. 103.1, to me, never played anything decent. What they considered "the best" music, seemed like a lot of washed-up old punk and grunge nonsense with an occasional good tune here or there.

I've got thousands of pieces of vinyl at home, 100's of GBs of mp3s and a huge CD collection that I'm quite happy with. Combine that with podcasts and streaming radio, I don't ever see the need to ever listen to a corporate radio station laden with commercials ever again.

Good riddance, 103.1. I hope you take your jackass DJs with you.

>> ^futsin:
Wow...I made it to the sift! No more Scarlet "P"! Whoot!
Thanks for the upvotes. I love this song and I'm going to miss 103.1!


I was heartbroken when I started up my car and mariachi music was playing. The sound of mariachi is the death rattle of radio. It was inevitable, but still, every time 103.1 or 107.1 -- every time a good indy radio station goes off the air, I die a little inside. Jonesy, Full Metal Jackie, Henry Rollins and Joe Escalante all on one radio station. I cry.

At least we still have Jim Ladd and Free Form Rock n' Roll on 95.5.

Wow...I made it to the sift! No more Scarlet "P"! Whoot!

Thanks for the upvotes. I love this song and I'm going to miss 103.1!

man, i remember when kdl went off air and i was disappointed. but then it was replaced with independent radio and i rejoiced. it was altered slightly to indie 103, and i again suffered through minor discomfort until realizing the great station it had become. now another injustice... maybe an even better station will follow, as seems to be the trend?

sniffle...I'm going to miss Jonesy and hearing Rollins and the others live. No more DJs, which some I hated some I loved. Still playing god damn kings of leon on the internet channel! Argh!

I don't like scientology, but I'll miss Feel my heat...I still play "So Lonely" on Monday nights. Sounds like it is about that time now...sniffle again.

Just put this up, to remember the good times...
http://www.videosift.com/video/Indie-103-1-off-the-airwaves-The-Police-So-Lonely

>> ^Krupo:
http://www.indie1031.com/4045_Listen_Live.php?id=27 will live on at least? All is not totally lost - unless you wanted to listen in the car, that sucks.


Agreed at work will be fine since that was the listening method of choice but the damn LA commutes will be a little less joyful.