Jump to content

Religion And Intelligence


Recommended Posts

Some computers have dictionaries at your disposal so that you don't need to wait for someone to explain what words mean.
Wow, thanks for the tip.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 152
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I do think it is fun to watch the idea be branded about that you guys are actually comfortable to consider yourselves in the upper regions of the smart level when comparing yourself to a Being who created all matter and energy with a spoken word.
No, we just are comfortable considering ourselves smarter than the vast majority of religious people. Nobody said anything about comparing ourselves to your mythical Creator.
Link to post
Share on other sites

For some reason this thread reminded me of an old far side cartoon, the caption was God on jeopardy.There was God in the middle with 2000000 points, and one f the other players had 10 points.This actually annoyed some people, cause in order for the guy to have 10 points, he woulda had to beat God to the buzzer at least oncehttp://s56.photobucket.com/albums/g162/lmc...amp;mobile=true So they redid it .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do any studies like this account for socio-economic factors? We all know that [poor = low IQ = religious], but there's no definitive causation in there. Personally, I think that low intelligence would lead to low economic status and therefore increased hardship, which leads to a greater likelihood of strong religious beliefs. In that case, it's more of a cascade than stupid=religious. I'd like to see a study of people in their respective tax brackets with IQ vs religiosity.

Link to post
Share on other sites
if god knows how many hairs are on my head, he's weird.
Cause being all-knowing should mean He should know certain things?
He should have better things to focus on.
I realize this is very, very far from being serious, but this is a pet peeve of mine. It's like we try to find ways to make "God" seem unbelievable, but it just doesn't make any sense when your starting point is "God knows everything."
Link to post
Share on other sites
I realize this is very, very far from being serious, but this is a pet peeve of mine. It's like we try to find ways to make "God" seem unbelievable, but it just doesn't make any sense when your starting point is "God knows everything."
Here's the best book I have ever read on the subject:ToSmall.jpg
Link to post
Share on other sites
I realize this is very, very far from being serious, but this is a pet peeve of mine. It's like we try to find ways to make "God" seem unbelievable, but it just doesn't make any sense when your starting point is "God knows everything."
I can't figure out what you mean - could you restate this?
Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't figure out what you mean - could you restate this?
People who want to 'logically prove' God is not real, by using arguments that require God to be nothing but a big one of us, are confusing JJJ.Once you give Him the title God, you kind of ruin any argument that begins with : "God couldn't do this..." or "Why would God think..."I have also presented this argument by pointing out the fallacy of people alive for a couple decades on a small planet that they really haven't even seen very much of should maybe consider the possibility that their knowledge of the entire universe might not be great enough to make a statement implying that there is no God.But I understand the need to shrink the concept of God in order to continue with your illogical conclusions.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't figure out what you mean - could you restate this?
Well, in this specific example, just the idea that an omniscient being would need to focus at all. Or prioritize. Seems like nonsense to me. If you knew absolutely everything, is there anything you need to spend more time on?It's like asking you to solve two math problems in 30 seconds. The first is 1 + 1 = ? and the second is 2 * 1 = ? Would we expect that you would need to focus on one over the other or would we just assume that you know them both immediately?Edit: I think this explains it well.
Once you give Him the title God, you kind of ruin any argument that begins with: God couldn't do this..." or "Why would God think..."
Link to post
Share on other sites

Or in Hippy-speak;Dude, like, if you had some good weed and like some dude was all "Let's smoke it now" and you were all "Dude' then he would be like trying to bogart your weed.So then if that dude then tried to like say you didn't have any weed, you would be like "Dude" and everyone would be you know, like, "Whatever dude".So like, don't be "Whatever" man.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, in this specific example, just the idea that an omniscient being would need to focus at all. Or prioritize. Seems like nonsense to me. If you knew absolutely everything, is there anything you need to spend more time on?It's like asking you to solve two math problems in 30 seconds. The first is 1 + 1 = ? and the second is 2 * 1 = ? Would we expect that you would need to focus on one over the other or would we just assume that you know them both immediately?Edit: I think this explains it well.
I don't get it.
Or in Hippy-speak;Dude, like, if you had some good weed and like some dude was all "Let's smoke it now" and you were all "Dude' then he would be like trying to bogart your weed.So then if that dude then tried to like say you didn't have any weed, you would be like "Dude" and everyone would be you know, like, "Whatever dude".So like, don't be "Whatever" man.
Noooow I get it. I agree though, if the premise is that he can do anything, and he doesn't have to make sense, arguments of the form "god wouldn't do x" aren't going to make a dent. Which is why we don't start with such silly premises.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Which is why we don't start with such silly premises.
Like knowing how many hairs are on someone's head? I think that was part of my point.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Which is why we don't start with such silly premises.
silly premise = definition of the word????Cause God with the capital G pretty much isn't open to your dumbed down version just so you can try legalieeeze or logic twists to make your atheism less foolish.
Link to post
Share on other sites
silly premise = definition of the word????Cause God with the capital G pretty much isn't open to your dumbed down version just so you can try legalieeeze or logic twists to make your atheism zoroastrianism less foolish.
FMP
Link to post
Share on other sites
Like knowing how many hairs are on someone's head? I think that was part of my point.
Actually the Bible verse is very deep in it's pointLuke7 :6Are not five sparrows sold for two penniesa? Yet not one of them is forgotten by God. 7Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows. The implications being that nothing misses the eyes of God, He knows everything that is going on all around us.The picture is of a child in a public place, who suddenly is afraid, yet looking around he sees his father and the fear leaves him because he knows he is safe.The idea that God is limited in what He can know, or remember only points to a misunderstanding of what and who God is.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Like knowing how many hairs are on someone's head? I think that was part of my point.
I meant premises that can't be falsified. If we start with the assumption of an omnipotent, omniscient being, then yes, everything that could possibly happen is without question consistent with that (pseudo)-theory and it can never be shown to be wrong.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I meant premises that can't be falsified. If we start with the assumption of an omnipotent, omniscient being, then yes, everything that could possibly happen is without question consistent with that (pseudo)-theory and it can never be shown to be wrong.
Which means that it's silly to say something like "God has better things to focus on," right?Are we agreeing or disagreeing?The usual example I give is the sports fan who complains about the player who gives credit to God because "God doesn't care about sports." It's a pointless argument to make because if the player has the starting point of there being a God, then you can't tell him God can't do something.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Which means that it's silly to say something like "God has better things to focus on," right?Are we agreeing or disagreeing?The usual example I give is the sports fan who complains about the player who gives credit to God because "God doesn't care about sports." It's a pointless argument to make because if the player has the starting point of there being a God, then you can't tell him God can't do something.
but you CAN tell him that when he loses it's because God hates him.
Link to post
Share on other sites
but you CAN tell him that when he loses it's because God hates him.
Not possible.Case in point: Olympic hockey game yesterdayEveryone knows God is an American
Link to post
Share on other sites
Not possible.Case in point: Olympic hockey game yesterdayEveryone knows God is an American
Yeah, christian leaders can't even blame this one on homosexuality like 9/11. Canadians like the gays even more than us sinners.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, christian leaders can't even blame this one on homosexuality like 9/11. Canadians like the gays even more than us sinners.
Maybe it's just that God, like the rest of the country, doesn't care enough about hockey to even get involved?
Link to post
Share on other sites

99% of athletes thank God for giving them the ability to perform or whatever, not for winning the game for them. The 'Why-don't-you-blame-Jesus-when-you-lose-fallacy' is mildly humorous but is actually not a fallacy at all, as I just explained. Remember how the Saints' kicker pointed to the sky after he missed a field goal (I think he was on the Saints)? And it wasn't an accusatory point towards the sky like 'Dammit Jesus, that one's on you.' He apparently thanks God after every kick, just for blessing him with ability and health and whatever else. Regarding the 'God can do anything' discussion - the reason it sometimes strikes me as odd is because Christians often do anthropomorphize God in very specific ways, giving Him human emotions like anger and describing him as a very distinct, humanistic entity. If He is so all-knowing and all-powerful and all-encompassing, why is He plagued by the same emotional frailties that us, His children are?

Link to post
Share on other sites
If He is so all-knowing and all-powerful and all-encompassing, why is He plagued by the same emotional frailties that us, His children are?
I think I've brought this up before concerning creation. Since God is, by definition, all-powerful and all-knowing, what's the point of creation? He knows he can do it and everything that will follow and it's not like he would have a sense of accomplishment from doing it, so that leaves us where? I cannot imagine an ominpotent, omniscient being having any reason to do anything.I think Balloony had an answer for this, but I don't remember it.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Which means that it's silly to say something like "God has better things to focus on," right?Are we agreeing or disagreeing?The usual example I give is the sports fan who complains about the player who gives credit to God because "God doesn't care about sports." It's a pointless argument to make because if the player has the starting point of there being a God, then you can't tell him God can't do something.
Oh yeah, we agree on that point, I was jumping off from that to make the point that religion is an unfalsifiable theory.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...