They might be controversial but they measure intelligence in the way we define it.
Well, one of the ways that "we" define intelligence is, "the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills." But the ability to acquire knowledge depends very much on one's culture and environment. How would you compare the intelligence of an illiterate tribesman in Ethiopia with the intelligence of a person in suburban USA?
They compare intelligence - measured in various ways - with religiosity and find a negative correlation.
That doesn't answer the question. If all of the "various ways" assume that they can measure intelligence, why wouldn't they all agree?
What intelligence tests actually measure is the ability to take tests. That may be useful in choosing candidates for employment or further education, but I don't see how it's useful in determining whether one group is "smarter" than another.
Who is more intelligent, an artist or an academic? The academic is likely to do better on tests because that's what his background is. Similarly, a white guy from the suburbs is likely to do better than a black guy from the inner city because that's what his background is.
These tests are used across the Western world to obtain entry into higher education and jobs...
That's what I said.
... you can throw them away as useless if you wish, but they appear to have value in practice.
I'm not throwing anything away. I have acknowledged their usefulness. You quoted me . What I'm saying is that their usefulness has limits. The fact that a shovel is useful for digging holes doesn't mean you can stand on it to touch the sky.
Here you job is to show why IQ is not negatively related to religiosity - if that is your claim.
"Not negatively related"? That kind of contortion should set off your own alarm bells.
You're the one making the claim. It's right there in your topic title: "Atheists are more intelligent than Religious people". I'm just questioning your claim. You're the one who's making the extrapolation from "better at tests" to "more intelligent". The onus is on you to justify that extrapolation.
I dunno, seems likely but the paper and the thread deals with intelligence and religiosity. Perhaps you could address that?
It's your point. Perhaps you should address it yourself. You claimed that "more intelligent" means higher paid jobs. Unless you can back that up, it seems that "more intelligent" is meaningless rhetoric.