Do you think less of theists intelligence?

I can't remember exactly what I answered before, but I am changing my answer to yes.
It's not that being a theist means you are less intelligent, it's just that the average modern Western World theists (particularly in America) tend to be less intelligent - and those are the ones I am most exposed to.

Two things incited me to change my answer.
This thread.
This survey.

Mostly the survey caused the change of thought, but the thread is what made me decide to post the change of thought.

 

Most of the humans are egregiously unintelligent creatures, whether it be theists or atheists, heterosexuals or lesbians, blacks or whites it doesn't matter.
Unintelligent is unintelligent.

 

I suppose.

I find the "unpracticing" Americans to be as bad as theistic Americans. Atheist Americans seem to have done more thinking to get where they are at (since most of us spawned from Christian families), which would give the demographic a natural advantage in our current time.

 

I find it probable that in terms of education more of atheists have higher degrees than theists. And survey may reflect that.

But intelligence is more than education. I have seen a lot of educated morons who were infinitely less intelligent than my uneducated great-grandma.

 

I'm not sure I understand your point. It would seem to me, demography puts atheists at a natural disadvantage, because they tend to have smaller families than religious people--especially Catholics, Mormons, Evangelicals, and Muslims. Generally speaking, stupid people tend to lick smart ones when it comes to breeding. Superior intelligence can have its downside.

 

I didn't say anything about educated. Nor did I say anything that should lead one to assume I meant educated.

I'm not sure I fully understand yours; but I do agree that you didn't seem to understand mine - so we are even, yeah?

I just said "the demographic" as in "the atheists".

 

No you didn't, I did.

Probably so.

In terms of there is more thinking going on among atheists than among theists, is that what you try to point out?

 

What I am trying to point out, since most atheists in modern America have to think about their position and figure out exactly what they feel to get away from their Christian or nontheistic heritage, the demographic "atheists" has an advantage to be smarter, over the Americans that just stay with what they are taught.

My point is, that maybe atheists are smarter presently, but that if so, it probably has more to do with the exploration of self required to become atheist in modern America, over their being atheist.
In the future, if most kids are taught atheism from birth, this would not apply.

I'm merely brainstorming aloud though - I've not thought about this much.

 

To take advantage of a rare opportunity to keep the faith we need to begin with a frank acknowledgment of the basic humanness of each of us. And we must acknowledge that one personality trait that's common to many pea-brained, wretched politicos is arrogance—a trait that Mr. Jumbuli McDouchebag has in abundance. Let us note first of all that I'm not a psychiatrist. Sometimes, though, I wish I were, so that I could better understand what makes people like Jumbuli want to restructure the social, political, and economic relationships that exist throughout our entire society. As everyone who has access to reliable information knows, the last time I told his hired goons that I want to lead him out of a dream world and back to hard reality they declared in response, "But profits come before people." Of course, they didn't use exactly those words, but that's exactly what they meant. What if we collectively just told Jumbuli's loyalists, "Sure, go ahead and calumniate helpless moochers. Have fun!"? That would be worse than scornful; it would compromise the free and open nature of public discourse.

In a manner of speaking, when I hear Jumbuli's intimates parrot the party line—that merit is adequately measured by Jumbuli's methods and qualifications—I see them not as people but as machines. The appropriate noises are coming out of their larynges, but their brains are not involved as they would be if they were thinking about how if we don't announce that we may need to picket, demonstrate, march, or strike to stop Jumbuli before he can pass off all sorts of unstable and obviously abysmal stuff on others as a so-called "inner experience", then he will soon become unstoppable. No borders will be able to detain him. No united global opinion will be able to isolate him. No international police or juridical institutions will be able to interdict him. He wants to play fast and loose with the truth. Is this so he can crucify us on the cross of vigilantism, or is it to turn over our country to the worst kinds of spiteful, pouty fogeys there are? You be the judge. In either case, some of the facts I'm about to present may seem shocking. This they certainly are. However, I have often maintained that reasonable people can reasonably disagree. Unfortunately, when dealing with Jumbuli and his blackshirts, that claim assumes facts not in evidence. So let me claim instead that Jumbuli claims that if he kicks us in the teeth we'll then lick his toes and beg for another kick. Predictably, he cites no hard data for that claim. This is because no such data exist.

I used a phrase a few moments ago. I referred to Jumbuli's partisans as "gloomy undesirables." You ought to memorize that phrase because, frankly, I once overheard Jumbuli say something quite astonishing. Are you strapped in? Jumbuli said that trees cause more pollution than automobiles do. Can you believe that? At least his statement made me realize that he has no concern for the common good. Hence and therefore, if I were to compile a list of Jumbuli's forays into espionage, sabotage, and subversion, it would fill an entire page and perhaps even run over onto the following one. Such a list would surely make every sane person who has passed the age of six realize that for those of us who make our living trying to provide a trenchant analysis of Jumbuli's zingers, it is important to consider that I have never read anything he has written that I would consider wise, logical, pertinent, reasonable, or scientific. Jumbuli's statement that he knows 100% of everything 100% of the time is no exception. What's more, he knows that performing an occasional act of charity will make some people forgive—or at least overlook—all of his deluded excesses. My take on the matter is that Jumbuli's squibs are not our only concern. To state the matter in a few words, dishonest, petty present-day robber barons like Jumbuli tend to conveniently ignore the key issues of this or any other situation. An equal but opposite observation is that all of the bad things that are currently going on are a symptom of Jumbuli's lascivious communiqués. They are not a cause; they are an effect.

It saddens me that the tone of Jumbuli's protests is eerily reminiscent of that of insecure hatemongers of the late 1940s in the sense that some people have indicated that I cringe at the thought of how Jumbuli might some day yield this country to the forces of darkness, oppression, and tyranny. I can neither confirm nor deny that statement, but I can say that I believe I have found my calling. My calling is to analyze Jumbuli's conclusions in the manner of sociological studies of mass communication and persuasion. And just let him try and stop me. Although Jumbuli has never read carefully anything I've written, if you read between the lines of his lamentations, you'll indubitably find that he wants to sugarcoat the past and dispense false optimism for the future. Faugh. While it is not my purpose to incriminate or exculpate or vindicate or castigate, the limitation and final abolition of absenteeism presuppose the elimination of innumerable preconditions. End of story. Actually, I should add that if he wants to complain, he should have an argument. He shouldn't just throw out the word "transubstantiationalist", for example, and expect us to be scared.

I won't bore you with the details, but suffice it to say that Jumbuli takes things out of context, twists them around, and then neglects to provide decent referencing so the reader can check up on him. He also ignores all of the evidence that doesn't support (or in many cases directly contradicts) his position. I don't see how he can build a workable policy around wishful thinking draped over a morass of confusion (and also, as we'll see below, historical illiteracy), then impose it willy-nilly on a population by force. I'm not saying that it can't possibly be done but rather that Jumbuli constantly insists that individual worth is defined by race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin. But he contradicts himself when he says that one can understand the elements of a scientific theory only by reference to the social condition and personal histories of the scientists involved. He says that he would never dream of preventing me from sleeping soundly at night. The inference is that coercion in the name of liberty is a valid use of state power. I'm happy to report that I can't follow that logic.

I don't need to be particularly delicate here. Once we realize that, what do we do? The appropriate thing, in my judgment, is to avoid the extremes of a pessimistic naturalism and an optimistic humanism by combining the truths of both. I say that because I intend to look closely at his tirades to see what makes them so effectual at leading to the destruction of the human race. I should expect to find—this is a guess that I currently lack sufficient knowledge to verify—that Jumbuli's cat's-paws actually believe the bunkum they're always mouthing. That's because these sorts of impulsive dunderheads are idealistic, have no sense of history or human nature, and they think that what they're doing will improve the world quicker than you can double-check the spelling of "physicophysiological". In reality, of course, Jumbuli worships capital, adores its aura, and genuflects before the mere concept of extreme wealth. In this case, one cannot help but recall that I oppose his mind games because they are devious. I oppose them because they are treasonous. And I oppose them because they will promote mediocrity over merit by the end of the decade.

Let me be clear. No thoughtful person can question that I decidedly believe that people are hungry for true information and for a way to work together for justice in every community. And that's why I'm writing this letter; this is my manifesto, if you will, on how to offer true constructive criticism—listening to the whole issue, recognizing the problems, recognizing what is being done right, and getting involved to help remedy the problem. There's no way I can do that alone, and there's no way I can do it without first stating that the facts as I see them simply do not support the false, but widely accepted, notion that he is a man of peace. Jumbuli would have us believe that space gods arriving in flying saucers will save humanity from self-destruction. Not surprisingly, his evidence for that absolutely mad claim is top-heavy with anonymous sources and, to put it mildly, he has a checkered track record for accuracy. I contend it would be more accurate for Jumbuli to say that he drops the names of famous people whenever possible. That makes Jumbuli sound smarter than he really is and obscures the fact that we must act honorably. Our children depend on that.

How did Jumbuli get so crotchety? I have my theories, but they're only speculation. At any rate, he has already begun stirring up trouble. I wish I were joking, but I'm not. What's more, conclaves of Jumbuli's adherents have all the dissent found in a North Korean communist party meeting. That's why no one there will ever admit that I have some advice for Jumbuli. He should keep his mouth shut until he stops being such a twisted, drossy couch potato and starts being at least one of informative, agreeable, creative, or entertaining.

This much is clear: Jumbuli's "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude is perfidious because it leaves no room for compromise. If Jumbuli can't cite the basis for his claim that he has a "special" perspective on Bulverism that carries with it a "special" right to inspire a recrudescence of nefarious fatuity then he should just shut up about it. In that respect, we can say that you should check out some of the things he's saying about cronyism. The litany of inaccuracies, half-truths, made-up "facts", and downright falsehoods will shock you. And I won't even bother mentioning that the first response to this from Jumbuli's assistants is perhaps that the world is crying out to labor beneath Jumbuli's firm but benevolent heel. Wrong. Just glance at the facts: We must learn to celebrate our diversity, not because it is the politically correct thing to do, but because the key to his soul is his longing for the effortless, irresponsible, automatic consciousness of an animal. Jumbuli dreads the necessity, the risk, and the responsibility of rational cognition. As a result, because of his obsession with teetotalism, Jumbuli is hopelessly in love with the sound of his own voice. Well, that's another story. To get back to my main point, I ought to mention that we must give to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance.

Although I respect Jumbuli's right to free speech just as I respect it for rummy nutcases, malicious libertines, and bilious, anti-democratic conspiracy theorists, his reason is not true reason. It does not seek the truth but only silly answers, atrabilious resolutions to conflicts. Jumbuli is like a broken record, using the same tired cliches about family and education and safer streets, yet all he really wants is to hang onto the perks he's getting from the system. That's all he really cares about. Truth be told, I like to speak of him as "spleeny". That's a reasonable term to use, I profess, but let's now try to understand it a little better. For starters, Jumbuli's mealymouthed ventures are in full flower, and their poisonous petals of careerism are blooming all around us. In a nutshell, it may seem excessive to note that it remains to be seen if Mr. Jumbuli McDouchebag will make us the helpless puppets of our demographic labels in the blink of an eye.

 

Wow. I didn't know he was anything that important. I thought he was just some pompous jerk on Hip Forums with a jumbo-sized ego who liked to show off by maneuvering any conversation into a discussion of Darwin, quoting verbatim copious passages from Lee Spetzner's book, and arguing that the very mention of Darwin obligated the mentioner to prove the theory, citing and discussing the relevant scientific literature.

 

Where did you get the template?
There are at least 50+ variations of this on google alone

 

You have to read the entire thing to understand it.

I got it from my mind.

 

So the position comes first, the thinking afterward?

 

For most, yes.

 

Why does the position come?

 

Because they are influenced to think a certain way.

 

perhaps the position comes from the desire to accumulate social currency.

 

Now that makes sense. I think most of us take the positions we do because we are "influenced to think a certain way." But somehow I was hoping for something more concrete and informative.

As for atheism and intelligence, you might be careful with causal inference. First of all, is the notion that atheists are smarter simply a hunch, or do you have some empirical backing for it? If so, what is the measure of intelligence, what are the findings, and have you controlled for other variables? I would expect that globally there would be a negative correlation between IQ and religious belief. Poor people tend to have lower IQs, because of bad nutrition and poor education. Poor people also have a need for religion ("the opiate of the masses"). Does lack of religion make people smarter, do smarter people reject religion, or do lack of religion and smartness result from some other variable, like affluence, nutrition or education? Or consider another possibility. Social scientists who study relationships between atheism and intelligence tend to be left-brained people (as well as comprising a higher percentage of atheists than the general population). Is it possible that social scientists, by the measures of intelligence that they use, unconsciously bias the study by using measures of intelligence that favor calculative, left-brained skills?

 

....

Forget this.

I think it was rather clear that I was speaking hypothetically and casually, not nearly absolutely.
For you to imply I was and take it to that level is just downright dirty.

 

Speaking of downright dirty, do you think casual speculation about the superior intelligence of one group over another is harmless?