Do you think less of theists intelligence?

No worries, errors happen. You are not me after all

You are free to disagree, but I still think that modern America is not a medieval Europe, that religion is hardly a dogma in most families in US and that until late 70's this country was becoming rather very secular (hence the Evangelical movement from 1980 on).
And I don't think what is taught in schools is irrelevant to upbringing of a child as opposed to what is taught in family ,by friends and surroundings.

 

Again, I said theist and nontheist. You seem to be focusing on the theist.
Most theists in America are non-practicing (except holidays!) and closer to nontheists, anyways =P

I think whether or not primary schooling teaches religion is irrelevant to this question. As, if the kid is going to a theistic school, it's most likely because their guardians are theistic; if a kid is going to a public school, it's not like it's atheist teaching - it's nontheistic.

 

Non-theist (my interpretation of it at least) is someone who is neither theist nor atheist. More like agnostic than anything else, and it takes awful a lot of thinking to arrive to such position, as opposed to becoming an atheist or theist as I pointed out earlier.

Note: A lot of terminology, btw, is very misleading as far as religious attitudes and beliefs are concerned, and the range of interpretation of a word such as God, for instance, varies greatly from one who imagines it as a tall beared guy named Jesus to someone like Einstein who uses the same word to describe something totally non-anthropomorphic and "limitlessly intelligent" ,to use his term, in the order of things in the Universe.

To me non-theist is not the same as non-practicing theist.

Non-practicing theist generally acknowledges the tenets of the religion but simply does not practice it.

Non-theist or agnostic (again, per my interpretation of those words) does not acknowledge any known human projection or idea of God or Gods and considers religious teachings to be human interpretation of the Universal Order (or Chaos, whatever it is), while also acknowledging that human mind is too primitive and knowledge acquired so far too limited to assert anything beyond.

Why is it irrelevant? Are kids particularly immune to what they hear from their teachers or what they are being taught in school as opposed to what they hear and learn from their family and surroundings?

And why is it that the same kid must make a greater effort to become an atheist as opposed to becoming a theist , if upbringing and schooling is neither theistic nor strictly atheistic?

I try to understand the logic of your argument, not that I am interested in arguing this passage (as I noted earlier 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.).

 

To be practiced at critical thinking may not be the same as being intelligent. The teaching and learning of culture, or indoctrination into the cult, is re-enforced at all levels of society.

 

You are talking about politics there. I am not.

 

politics?

 

Of course.

 

You are now talking about toast

 

I am grateful for the clarification. All human systems are devised as pathways to salvation, whether it be to increase our profits or find eternal life, my thrust is philosophical, toward the truth, not to win an argument.

 

The existence of a continuum of consciousness throughout the life forms on this planet leads conscious beings to infer the existence of other consciousness higher than their own. That is the functional definition of "intelligence." To put it in old-school terms: "Fear of the Lord is the begining of wisdom."

 

Einstein, the rigid rationalist, spoke of "limitless intelligence" in observable order of things in Universe (compared to such intelligence he considered himself a complete dimwit, incapable of comprehending it).
Same Einstein ridiculed fear of Lord as primitive feeling, since, he believed, there was no interference from "God" in affairs of world , which was merely working like once perfectly preset mechanism. Stephen Hawking has the similar view. David Bohm was probably most idealistic of all, while Neils Bohr was most practical, empirically oriented and brilliant. Real titans of thinking minds !

Now Einstein was a mere human being, just like others, and I don't subscribe to their views, but it just goes to show where the height of human thought is as far as inferences concerned.

You people are not qualified to discuss these matters.

 

Its generally not a good idea to throw stones in glass houses.

 

That's right.

But it's a good idea to throw stones in stone houses.

 

Thank you for the advise.
My house is stick built actually. By what authority do you claim authority over others? Your mind is a kingdom that you alone can rule. It matters not who is blowing the horn, the question is can you hear the music? It might be helpful to distinguish form from content. Is there some point being shared that you find without merit?

 

I do claim authority by virtue of being smarter than those who argue with me yet lack the same level of intelligence to argue with me in the first place.

Simple as that.

 

We are all left to our own measure. The metric you present for levels of intelligence lacks the necessary calibration of common voice. Do you have the knowledge to discuss anything with me? Again, how do I offend thee?

 

Critical is a grave condition. In throwing stones in stone houses you could find yourself entombed.

 

Only a god can worship a god.

 

Lack of the sense of humor is even more grave condition.

 

jumbuli said:
"Now Einstein was a mere human being, just like others, and I don't subscribe to their views..."

Jumbuli has obviously prejudged the whole matter and also therefore is prepared to consider anyone who posts contrary to his preformed opinion to be be inferior, I guess, because we are "mere" humans.

By fear of the lord I mean awe of this universe and, by way of contrast, your personal tiny insignificant, temporal place in it. What you consider to be your personal superior intellect will die with the rest of your body. That is why the deepest thinkers across the span of time have always taken to considering what part of them/us there may be that might persist beyond the decay and dissolution of our temporal existence. The very ability to ponder such a matter, seated as it is inside an otherwise animal brain, is in my opinion, sufficient justification to infer the existence of higher, more universal consciousness. Maybe the consciousness of the universe itself. Is that god?

Not entirely. If the universe is conscious or unconscious, or both, who/what conceived it? That "who/what" is God.

I agree with you that people who presume to know the mind of God or who claim to have the last word on the nature of God are foolish, but you are also foolish and stubborn if you dismiss the idea entirely.

:cheers2: