You really lack reading comprehension.
Cool. What you did in school doesn't matter anymore than what I or anyone else did in school. You just have to live your life. Test scores don't make you smart, and they don't help you in the real world past the first level.
First, I didn't use Freud to dismiss anyone's motives. I brought up his argument for atheism as an example of an argument that isn't dependent of atheism having superior reasoning. Brought up Marx for the same reason. I have no idea why you thought that was part of a rebuttal, since I wasn't even having a debate when I said it.
Second, you obviously haven't read Freud, or at least if you have, you've retained as much from him as you have from reading my posts. Freud was a pretty whack psychologist almost completely because he was a philosopher who tried to make his views fit psychology. That lead to his "psychobabble". His philosophical work is pretty solid, though it's relatively standard for German philosophy at the time. In that same way, Marx' philosophy is fine, but his socio-political arguments were out of whack.
Third, evolutionary psychology is psychobabble. It is psuedoscience in its purest form. It just attempts to make blanket assertions about the connection between evolution and human behavior. It doesn't back any of its claims up with actual science, just assumptions. The same is true for most retroactive explanations for adaptations. But evolutionary psychology is worse because human behavior is controlled by memetics, which are obviously not subject to primate evolution.
Finally, the reason why I criticized the article on those grounds is because that's where most of the impact phrases come in. They aren't from the data itself, but from the researcher's world-view (including saying that atheism does indeed make intellectuals feel better about themselves). If you haven't read the article (the link in the OP, not the quoted next), then do so before coloring my evaluation of it. A huge chunk of the article is about fidelity and how smart men are monogamous while smart women aren't any more monogamous than less-intelligent women. It's really just all over the place, and the study the article is based on isn't much better.
I had a thread full of defending my rationale. Sorry that you want another thread's worth of defense for yourself. It's not like I've deleted the posts. If you had a specific question about what I said, that would be one thing. But you just want me to go through the whole spiel again.
Yes, I told Uriel that his arguments are basic and that they did not convey the level of intellectual complexity they were assuming they did. He wasn't levying them at me, so they weren't mine to refute. The actual point-by-point wasn't the basis of my critique of him. It was very obvious in my responses to him that I wasn't taking issue with his contention. I had already given my response to that early in the thread, as you note later on the this post.
Thanks. Been working on that one for years now. Glad it went off without a hitch.
Um... Your reading comprehension is abysmal. I know I keep saying that, but wow. I didn't volunteer my "credentials" until Uriel asked about them. If anything, I spent most of the latter half of this thread refuting the idea that any of us is more qualified to speak on this than anyone else. Of course I made a joke about how I was bitter about losing out of having the highest score, but that was me poking fun at myself. Uriel brought up the SAT first.
What does he do? More importantly, why should I care what he does?