Is the story of Ma Joecks's family true?

Really, but Mayoux himself is not an atheist expert, but an early American Dutch immigrant. His family was studied by American geneticists because of its high crime rate.

***********************************************

The trick is as follows

1. Said that Jonathan Edwards, the ancestor of Edwards, was "Christian Edwards". Edwards believes in Christianity, but Edwards has many other attributes. He is an outstanding intellectual and thinker, just like Benjamin Franklin:

Before this century, only two Americans have established a considerable and permanent reputation in European ideological circles-Benjamin Franklin and Jonathan Edwards.

His family background is good. His father graduated from Harvard and he graduated from Yale. He has a sound personality, lofty aspirations, good habits and excellent family style. There may be excellent genes. ....

I studied in Locke as a teenager and received a good humanistic education. . .

Then in this post, he was identified as "the Edwards of Christianity", suggesting that his achievements and those of hundreds of people in his family were all due to Christianity. This is an obvious wrong attribution and psychological suggestion.

2. "The other is the famous atheist Mark Jocks". This is a naked distortion of the facts. Max Jewkes's name may even have been coined by researchers. This man is unknown and a master of defecation. Just an early Dutch immigrant, a loser and a freak.

3. Abnormal sampling. These two subjects are wonderful works, which have attracted attention and research. There is no statistical significance.

4. Wrong association. Every family is a loser, and this family belongs to ungodly. Does this mean that people in ungodly will be losers? On the one hand, this family may also have poor genes, poor physique, low social level, low education level, no good family traditions, and poor mutual influence, and so on. On the other hand, in the United States, statistically speaking, the higher the income and education, the less religious people are, and the liberals in big cities and people in agricultural areas in the south-central and western regions are very religious. That doesn't mean anything.

According to this logic, I can also pick out an elite Confucian family in modern China, which is full of giants, and then go to South America to find a Catholic drug trafficking family (and those who don't believe in Catholicism? ), so that I can prove that "Confucianism leads to promotion and wealth, and Christianity leads to crime"?