Do you think less of theists intelligence?

Nice context adjustment. Please, don't discuss anything with me ever again, unless we're on a political show =)

 

Not to worry. Reality cannot be threatened, only our illusions about it.

 

At first I agreed with this, but now I'm not so sure.
For one, it sort of implies that becoming atheist is the more intelligent decision to begin with.
But really, many theist question what they are taught, and come up still theist. Just because they agree with what they were raised on doesn't mean they were too stupid to break out of their conditioning, it just means they eventually agree with what they were taught.
And further, you have atheist that don't become atheist because they thought it through, but become so due to some form of rebellion.

 

I can see how someone could take that from it. I would be inclined to agree with that statement, personally - but as an atheist, I'm biased =P
However, that isn't what I was saying. I was merely saying that the transfer of religion requires deeper thought.

But they do have the cushion of what they were raised with, giving them something to lean back upon; making them require less thought overall. Some may think more about it more than others - some people could even obsess about it. But the way human psychology works, the minority are going to take the easier route.

I was thinking about that last time I posted about this, actually. I really don't want to believe that a significant amount of the population are this way -but then I look at the Christianity boards =P

 

Whether we be geniuses or imbeciles, pride and humility are both members of the same vanity.

 

You're an Idiot, I have not mentioned Darwin once in this thread. FAIL.

 

We find those most agreeable whom we agree with.

 

You have no right to restrict my ability to post comments. The Christianity boards are often embarrassing, but I have yet to see anything comparable to this particular thread, which implies disparagement of the intelligence of people you don't like. Let me see. Maybe a Christian counterpart might be: "Do you think less of atheist's morality?"

 

Oh god (er.. Oh atheist god!). I do have no right to restrict your ability to comment - I have also NOT restricted on your ability to comment, I've simply informed you of my lack of care to discuss with you. You have no right to force me to continue discussion....

I was talking about the Christianity boards being embarrassing for atheists, you don't seem to realize that, so I was making sure.

Why do you have this idea I don't like Christians? I was raised Christian. I love my Christian mother. I was taught greatly and love my Christian former-pastor. I am dating and love, and will eventually marry my Christian girlfriend.

Saying that I think Christians are less intelligent in general, is in no way an insult on your or any other individual's Christian's intelligence. That Christian former-pastor I mentioned - I definitely consider way more intelligent than me.
Just like saying women aren't as strong in general, is in no way saying that there aren't women out there that couldn't kick my ass.

That would be a Christian counterpart - yes. One I often hear discussed.

You are the biggest mother fucking drama queen on these forums. Far worse than Skip. Now really, don't bother posting to me, because I typically only give one more response after first warning - and after this you will NOT get a response.

 

Not necessary, now that you've clarified your position. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

Don't apologize, it makes me less angry!

I guess I understand, confusions do happen fairly often on forums. But you were here the whole time I was posting so I kept trying to think you were being maliciously against me.

Although, I do think it's important (maybe for both of us) to remember and really understand that just because people disagree, and sometimes even, don't think the best of each other's populations, doesn't mean they have to have problems personally.

I apologize for the drama queen thing, I was just frustrated, and felt like you were trying to make me look evil for no reason.

We're all likely either to see our own group as most intelligent, or all groups of equal intelligence - makes unbiased discussion quite impossible - and all discussion rather tough.

 

In this life we are called many things, some flattering, some not so, and to those who would make a claim for us, we are indeed those things yet on any given day we are none in particular.

 

You are an egregious imbecile, very typical of general population btw.

I DID mention Darwin all along and was arguing with followers of his religious theory who can't prove it's scientific validity , yet at the same time somehow claim to be atheists [or theists (like Okiefreak) who claim the evolutionary theory to be a scientifically valid theory while unable to show anything but faith in it].

If you have nothing to say about it then what is your argument with me?

Don't tell me it's about professor of logics defining and exploring the meaning (linguistics) of the word valid in some irrelevant to subject matter of my discussion context.

What an imbecile...

 

A classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. Geniuses don't call people names and think it substitutes for an argument. You've said absolutely nothing that would show you're above average in intelligence or that you(as opposed to Spetner) know anything about evolution. Why would an intelligent person butt into a thread entitled "Do you think less of theists' inteligence?" and try continually to change the subject to evolution?" People have called you troll, and you sure look like one to me. Btw, there is now a thread entitled "Evolution is not a valid scientific theory". It's literally made for you. Enjoy!

 

Ahh- I love the smell of napalm in the morning!

 

Not really. I don't think he is wrong merely because he is an imbecile. After all even an imbecile can repeat something said by more intelligent person and just because it is being repeated by an imbecile doesn't make original thought wrong.

I called him imbecile , if you notice, after he kept calling me names ("talking thorugh ass", "idiot" and etc.) while I kept pointing out that ad hominem arguments don't prove his proint and clearly explained why he is erring in his responces.
He doesn't get it, no matter how many times told. That is a clear sign of his imbecility (which now becomes relevant to the continuation of discussion with him, since no reasonable person can seriously continue any sensible discussion with an imbecile, and so it should be said).

Of course not. When did I call anyone a name and assumed it substitutes for an argument?
Isn't it obvious that it is my opponent [in this case] who did in fact substitute namecalling for an argument?
And why you refuse to see it for what it is?
May be because you have a personal recentment and keen desire to show me on the wrong side since I have earlier made it clear to an entire forum that you are just as baseless and unreasonable in your assumption of scientific validity of evolutionary theory as the legion of trolls before and after you were.
But just because you wish so doesn't mean it is so.

And what did YOU say to show that Darwins Theory of Evolution is Scientifically Valid one or that YOU know anything about it !?

Because it is not even clear who is theist and who is not, when you have a legion of zealous followers of Religious Theory of Darwin who somehow at the same time claim to be atheists and then pass on judgement about intelligence of theists. Isn't it absurd?

People can call me all they wish, but just because they call me names or call me a troll doesn't mean they have a valid opinion on any subject matter of discussion.

 

Generalisations of certain type are usually (though not always) misleading.

The only generalisation I can make with absolute certainty so far is that great majority of human beings are egregious imbeciles, regradless of any other characteristics. This much is certain beyond any doubt to me.

As to how much effort and thinking it takes to become atheist as opposed to being a theist in modern America I can say the following:

1) Modern America is not a Medieval Europe.
Most people are not really taught to be theists from birth and religion is hardly a dogma in most families (until late 70's this country was becoming rather very secular, btw). Public schools don't teach Theism as a matter of Constitutional separation of Church and State.
This tells me that so called "Theists by default" definition may not be applicable to most of modern day Americans (though I will not in any way diminish the role and influence of Church in modern lives and thinking of many Americans).

2) Lots of Atheists I encounter don't seem to have arrived to their position as a result of great effort as far as thinking is concerned.

Feelings? Yes,most likely.
But thinking? I doubt (based on my experience and evaluation of what I heard them base their opinions on).

But feelings is what a lot of people base their opinions on anyway and that , to me, hardly is a sign of a greater intelligence.


3) It is actually among what I observe to be people of highest intelligence (note that it's not just my subjective opinion that they are highly intelligent people. I refer to brightest physicists of XXth century , for instance, who were involved in breaking the ceiling and expanding the horizons of human knowledge beyond anything imaginable in past) that you will also encounter an opinion on the matter which is very skeptical and closer to agnosticism or non-theism than extremes of theism or atheism.
So I would disagree with your opinion there that becoming or remaining a non-theist somehow takes less effort and thinking than becoming an atheist.

But as far as your assumptions about atheists as a group being more intelligent than theists in modern America , I will not dispute it as I am not sure whether it is so or not.

 

I disagree. Also, I said most are taught either to be theists or non-theists.

Is completely irrelevant.

 

Don't disagree for the sole sake of disagreement (I don't like doing that because it doesn't make sense).

What are you disagreeing with?

That US Constitution Separates State and Church?

Or that Bible is not being taught in public schools as part of educational curriculum?

What exactly is irrelevant to what?

 

I'm not. I also hate that, and I do understand how you might presume one is doing that on the Internet =P

Oh, sorry, I Italicized what I was disagreeing with, forgetting all quotes get italicized =P
"Most people are not really taught to be theists from birth and religion is hardly a dogma in most families (until late 70's this country was becoming rather very secular, btw)."

The public schoosl part was irrelevant because we are taught by our families, friends, and surroundings far more about this sorta stuff than any primary schooling (and that includes private theological ones!)