Do you think less of theists intelligence?

It's true of the economy, but I hope that that's where the similarity between God and the economy ends!

 

It is notable to mention also that, while a lot of people go from believing in God to not believing in God or vice versa, IQ should not (if properly measured) change substantially throughout a person's life. I know this is true in my case - mine's been 133 give or take the odd point since I was 8 - and if it's true, it would seem to indicate that IQ and belief would not be as closely linked as people think it is.

It's also been my experience that, once people know that they're intelligent, they often become extremely credulous. IQ can't really do anything about that.

 

Market fundamentalism and scorched earth policies: Yes you will see the world burn. well not entirely just many of the vulnerable parts.

 

Absolutely not.

I've met many dumb theists and many dumb atheists.

Plus, lumping "theists" into one giant category isn't fair. Belief in the magical creator purple elephant and belief in a creator aren't quite the same.

Theism and Atheism can both be profoundly complex. Believing in God "jus cuz" and believe in no God "Cuz there's no evidence" is just as dumb IMO.

 

I'm guessing Deists are smarter than Biblical literalists, but then, it takes a special kind of intelligence to argue in favour of things like Creationism. Maybe skill is a better word for it.

 

Actually the capitalist economy works very well allot of the time at least if you look at it from the rather narrow perspective of GDP growth levels attained . In any case a businessman or corporate exec will more than likely be successful as many of them are if he or she bases there decisions on sound judgment, evidence and experience. Of course instinct, luck and birth do sometimes have there sway. Those that do not which is by far the majority go broke and do something else or take the lift to the top floor or if the organization is big enough go and suckle on the public purse.

 

Capitalism has the advantage of durability. It can survive on pretty nominal amounts of "good will" from the people, i.e. it doesn't rely on people being nice to each other or agreeing with the ideals behind the system in order to work in the long term. A lot of ideologies - anarchism, socialism, etc. - work very well on a small scale if the will is there to help them along, but fall apart if that support wanes.

 

Yes many forms of naive economism assume that the invisible hand will reconcile the vices of man for the common good. However haggling in the market is one thing maintaining social order over time is another. Naturally the later will always require the flexible application of a mix of carrots and sticks within a framework of inherited cultures and institutions, the centralized and bureaucratic state being a prime example.
As for mainstream religions in the West i think there back was broken some time ago.

 

I've come to terms with the idea that not every christian (or similarly religious person) is an absolute moron. They're definitely not always retarded. It seems like belief runs a totally different wavelength aside from IQ and intelligence. There's stupid atheists out there, too.

Sort of unrelated, but I've been coming to terms with the idea of seeing ghosts and paranormal shit being not 100% schizophrenia related. There's too many people out there who see them, and these people usually turn out to be perfectly normal in the head.

 

Overwhelming majority of people are too stupid either way.
Atheists or theists, what difference does it make?
Stupid is stupid

 

Just had a massive conversation about this today with an old friend. He was raised Catholic, and then became atheist/agnostic (I know some may consider that somewhat of a paradox, but there's been/is much more to "it" aka his beliefs than that). Now he reconsiders himself part of the Catholic church, but doesn't feel is limiting his minds in regards to "possibilities" as we call them. ( the many possible scenarios of "truth"/ "reality"). Anyways, long story short...I felt as though in claiming to believe that there is one "truth" and that is Catholic teaching (dogma)....they even state it in the Nicene Creed every Sunday (I will attach it below). So it seemed rather hypocritical almost because he claims to be open to all scenarios yet also claims that one is the sole truth. I wanted to think that he had become less "intelligent" in that general spectrum of thought (the human/cosmic reality of things), however I'm just sort of confused about it all.....so anyways...I see and yet don't see where you are coming from.


The Nicene Creed:

"We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is seen and unseen.


We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man.


For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered, died, and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in fulfillment of the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come. Amen."

 

An interesting case in point is Philip Johnson, founder of Intelligent Design and its temple, The Discovery Institute. Johnson is not anybody's idea of dumb. A Berkeley professor, he has advanced a series of ingenious arguments casting Darwin and anybody who believes in him as hopelessly befuddled. As you say, "maybe skill is a better word". Johnson is not a scientist. He's a law professor and lawyer, and he uses every trick in the trial lawyer's book to raise reasonable doubt about evolution. Johnson is also a True Believer, who recently retired from the Discovery Institute because he had a stroke. What is particularly interesting is that he believes his stroke was literally God's way of telling him to slow down, to spend more time with his wife and kids. I personally find it extremely odd that an intelligent man would believe God is giving people strokes to send that kind of a message. I personally think it's more likely God was smiting him for dissing Darwin. I think the whole concept of "intelligence" needs to be reconsidered in that light.

 

Darwin's theory of evolution is not a scientifically valid theory.
It is a myth.

That it is not a scientifically valid theory is a matter of fact which is independent of whomever states it or what else those who state it state.

Elephants can't fly. It's a matter of fact.

If the most notoriously incoherent man on planet Earth stated that elephants can't fly, would his general lack of coherence make the "theory" of those who claim elephants can fly scientifically valid ?

I don't think so.

 

Darwin's theory of evolution, in modified form, is still the best scientific theory of human origins available. It meets the test of refutability (no rabbits in the Cambrian), and has been supported empirically by evidence from a wide variety of sources and fields of science. On what grounds do you consider it a "myth"? Your statement and accompanying analogy are assertions. Unless you can back them up with something more concrete, why should we take you seriously?

 

http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=376886&page=9

 

You refer me to your postings in the Mindfucks forum. So is that what this is? Another mind fuck. Good job!

 

Where I posted it doesn't change the fact that Darwin's so called theory of evolution is a myth and has no scientifically valid grounds.

 

No.
It all depends on the person.

I do think less of theists' courage, inner strength, and self honesty. I find at least 50% of atheists are as lacking as theists in these departments.

 

Majority of people lack those qualities, regardless of religious affiliation.

Lack of intelligence is the most notable of all.

 

If you really think about, believing in ANYTHING at a deep enough level makes no sense.

The whole of our existence is an illusion, and the way I see it pretty much everything is possible within the context of it.

Atheism seems very closed minded and ultimately boring as hell to me.