This also has a more accurate, if not more intelligent, headline than Yahoo.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/121890325

(Sorry, I'm a sucker for obvious puns like that. I'll hold you harmless of the double meaning, but plead guilty on my own account.)

or studies, talking about how people who are parents (mothers in particular) and now those of us who have a religious persuasion. are stupid??

EDIT to add.. the other article was specially about mothers are less intelligent..



Gosh, I wonder how in the world I get out of bed in the morning all on my own.



I am not attacking you.. I see you are just posting an article..but it is really demeaning to people of faith to think they all walk in some kind of lockstep denying science or reality..

They deal in statistical averages, and find differences in mean intelligence. One end of that distribution contains people who are MORE intelligent than the group average. The other end contains evangelical xtian conservatives.

Maybe you can get past the paywall.

http://psr.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/08/02/1088868313497266

God is some old guy with a long beard who looks amazingly like depictions of Zeus.. there is a point there.

To deny that energy can neither be created or destroyed is denying reality. Law of thermodynamics. Einsteins theory E=MC2 energy and matter are interchangeable based on that.

To postulate that the synapses in your brain and the electrical charges that go between them and down your spine.. deteriorate into nothingness after death.. is denying reality.

To accept that you are part of a greater force and energy, is just accepting the reality of science.


I cannot see the words flying through the air that are appearing on the screen now.. or the videos or programs that play on TV. They are a part of that unseen force of energy. Likewise a life lived in an being that needs energy in order to survive is also part of that energy force..and the life lived never goes away. It is all there, every thought, every deed.

Just to be fair.. Those who choose not to believe that we are part of a greater energy are not stupid. They embrace a different reality. I embrace the science. I am a part of God aka the greater force of energy. And a Christian to boot

which is the belief that a deity can ond does suspend the laws of physics and the natural laws of the Universe, then yes, I will accept your acknowledgment of my point. Thanks.


And as for the numerous strawmen you just erected then knocked down, it appears you did all the work.

A person just has to be comfortable with their belief system, or non belief system (which is itself a belief system)..a person can not rationally state they have a belief in an all encompassing God and then go .. no wait .. stop.. science.. no not applicable..

Oh they can say it.. but its not rational..

pretty much nothing you have posted has been rational.

Have a nice day. I think were done here.

You are assuming that all belief systems involve religion or belief in God..

Here is a wonderful working definition for Belief Systems

noun

The basis on which beliefs are based. For example a religious belief system is based on faith and dogma whereas a scientific belief system is based on observation and reason.


I am a member of the Democratic Party and we share a set of beliefs.. we have a unique belief system as opposed to Republicans

I am assuming you are an atheist . If you gather with fellow atheists.. and you share your points of view within that community, then that is that communities belief system

I have no idea what we are done with..But if your done your done I guess

Have a nice evening..

My initial reply to you was in response to your assertion that religious people are not in lockstep with denying reality and science, to which I said that to be fair those who believe in the supernatural ARE in fact denying science and reality.

You then board a flight to irrationalville and go off and attack things that I never said.

Not believing in something is not a belief system, and in THIS case, that something is the belief in a god who suspends the laws of physics and the natural laws of the universe when it chooses. Those that DO believe that are denying reality and science.

and discussions are not linear.. they flow and ebb..

I assert that is irrational not to believe in science and I am not sure where you are attacked on that..or is it just hard for you to accept someone who is clearly a Christian..believes in science?

Breathe deep..

it is just a discussion. No one is trying to change your mind about anything.. it is just points of view

I responded directly to an assertion you made with facts. You then ignored that and went off on a tangent that had nothing to do with your original assertion, attacking straw men you created along the way.

nope..

Your post:

To be fair, people who believe in the supernatural are denying reality and science..

my post:

"God is some old guy with a long beard who looks amazingly like depictions of Zeus.. there is a point there

To deny that energy can neither be created or destroyed is denying reality. Law of thermodynamics. Einsteins theory E=MC2 energy and matter are interchangeable based on that.

To postulate that the synapses in your brain and the electrical charges that go between them and down your spine.. deteriorate into nothingness after death.. is denying reality.

To accept that you are part of a greater force and energy, is just accepting the reality of science.


I cannot see the words flying through the air that are appearing on the screen now.. or the videos or programs that play on TV. They are a part of that unseen force of energy. Likewise a life lived in an being that needs energy in order to survive is also part of that energy force..and the life lived never goes away. It is all there, every thought, every deed.

Just to be fair.. Those who choose not to believe that we are part of a greater energy are not stupid. They embrace a different reality. I embrace the science. I am a part of God aka the greater force of energy. And a Christian to boot"

__________________________________________________________________

I responded directly to your post.. with reasons why I as a practicing Christian believe totally in science, evolution.. etc.. nor do I believe that people who believe differently than me are stupid.. we have different beliefs I believe I am part of a greater energy.. science for me proves that.. people can believe they are part of nothing and this moment has passed.. and there is nothing to discredit in that .



I personally do not understand how people can discredit science and scientific theory and claim to believe in an all encompassing spirit..

countryside for a few days before ascending into heaven?

Did others experience him or think they met him and put their fingers where the nails went in.. I have not a clue.

The disciples had a huge investment into Jesus, and his death would have been a heartbreaking experience for them.

The mind can will you to see things.

Personal story on this one.. The day my Dad was buried, I thought I saw him at the window. I just missed him so much, I wanted to see him one more time, and my brain let me have that experience.

Was Jesus resurrected after being killed?

Simple question that requires nothing more than a simple yes or no reply.

and I answered it simply.. I do not communicate in one or two word posts about thoughtful subjects.. Nor do I ask people to "explain" their views in one or two word posts. NOR do I ask another soul to embrace my faith journey or belief system. But I will try again here

"Did others experience him or think they met him and put their fingers where the nails went in.. I have not a clue.

The disciples had a huge investment into Jesus, and his death would have been a heartbreaking experience for them.

The mind can will you to see things.

Personal story on this one.. The day my Dad was buried, I thought I saw him at the window. I just missed him so much, I wanted to see him one more time, and my brain let me have that experience. "

Jesus is with me now as all those who have gone before are with me. If you are looking for a physical body to touch, can't help you there. We are back to the theory of thermodynamics an E=MC2

We are all a part of that massive energy grid.


Edit for spelling errors

Do you believe Jesus rose from the dead?

It doesn't to me

You seem confused and conflicted about this.

His energy is with me.

What if someone stole his body?

Who is to know.

It does not matter to me.

Energy cannot be created of destroyed. He is with me. As is all energy that has gone before.

I am not into magic hocus pocus here.

What if he was not truly dead, and got up and walked away?

It does not matter.

You refuse to answer it because you know that when it comes to your beliefs about your religion, you must deny science and reality to do so.

I could care less what you believe, but when you make asinine statements like you did in your first post about it, I'm gonna call you on it.

Have a nice day.

And we both know why.

Because to believe that is to believe in the supernatural, which is to deny science and reality.

Jesus NEVER ceased to exist. Yes he was crucified. But the energy that was Jesus, continued on. I cannot give you this simple answer you seem to want.

Could he have been physically moved from the grave, well sure. Could he have physically recovered from his wounds and met Paul on the road to Damascus? The one thing we can be sure of is the energy that was in him, continued on.

The best that I can give you, is it does not matter. If a person is raised in a fundamentalist household and the only way they can comprehend the never ending presence is to have it rise from the dead, well if that is what works for them, and that is fine. It just does not matter

ch you are approaching this in such a fundamentalist fashion. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. It goes on. It can move to mass and back.

Science proves God, and God proves Science.

By the way, I have really been enjoying our conversations. I am getting ready for a visit from some relatives, so if you happen by this evening and I don't get back to you right away, I will be sure to check in, in the AM.

And nonsensical assertions that do nothing but rationalize your beliefs for you.

Good luck with that. May your chakras be unclogged.

to show me the error or my ways

But let me leave you with this.. it is something given to my years ago, and it was what led me to where I am now.. and very comfortable with my Christian beliefs and belief in Science which started our conversation. That all things stem from the energy I profess is God..others can call it whatever they choose.

Take care cleanhippie.. will see you somewhere else on the boards I am sure.. on some other discussion.

All things that you would want done for you, Do for others.. Matt. 7:12
Christianity

What is hateful to you, do not to your fellowman...Talmud: Shabbat 31a
Judaism

Hurt not others in ways that you would not find hurtful Udana-Varga 5,18
Buddhism

This is sum of duty, Do naught unto others, which would cause you pain if done to you.. Mahaebharata 5,1517
Brahmanism

Surely it is the maxim of loving kindness: Do not unto others that you would not have them do unto you
Analects 15,23
Confucianism

Regard your neighbors gains as your own gains and your neighbors loss as your own T'ai Shang Kan Yingp P'ien
Taoism

That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto another whatsoever is not good for itself
Dadistan-I-Dinik 94,5
Zoroastrianism

No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother which he desires for himself. Sumnah
Islam

Here, this is probably something you can use.

http://www.wisdomofchopra.com/

Have a nice day, peace train. It's been... Interesting.

That was actually pretty funny

And of course Yahoo went for the much more sexy, but completely inaccurate, headline. But that should be no surprise.

As noted in the other DU thread:

There is a relationship in both directions between IQ and education: people with higher IQs are more likely to become highly educated, and education is likely to increase IQ. Education also of course increases the chance of professional success.

More highly educated people are more likely to be atheists. This does not mean that education directly turns you into an atheist, but it is likely to lead to your meeting and hearing of a wider variety of people, and being exposed to a wider variety of possible belief systems. Most people in the world probably never get much exposure to any religion other than that practiced by their own social group, let alone atheism. Education makes people more familiar with a variety of possibilities.

Thus, I doubt that intelligence causes atheism, or that 'success' reduces the need for religion. Rather, education increases and is increased by IQ, and also makes atheism more of a possibility.

If you have the ability to obtain higher levels of education, you are much less likely to be poor. And if you are not poor, the things that religion offers, both tangible and intangible, may not be valuable to you.

There is also the issue of having the freedom to be more non-conformist, which those who already have privilege have more of.

Lastly, IQ test are generally highly biased towards western caucasians and, I believe, males.

though no doubt it's true that poorer people may depend more on any available social support network, including that of their church/ synagogue/mosque.

I think it's more that people who are more educated/ travel more/ know a wider variety of people - and for various reasons all this tends to mean the relatively rich - are more exposed to the fact that there is not only one belief system. This doesn't mean that they will necessarily reject their religion, still less that they will necessarily become atheists, but it makes it more possible.

be better someday.

I think that slaves embraced religion so strongly because their lives were a living hell, and it made sense for them to believe that there was something that would reward them someday. It may have saved many of them their sanity, if not their lives.

My travels reinforced my feeling that religion can be powerful in many different ways and that all people with religious beliefs deserve respect and freedom, unless they are using their religion to harm or impinge on the rights of others.

You see the same from Muslim masters down the East African coast, and exactly the same thing happened to Greek slaves in Rome.

It's not a bad plan if you're ever taken. The trick is not to let it permanently hold you back after you get loose.

Slave adapted their own religion so that it would be more palatable to their owners, and in doing so, developed something rather unique.

Are you trying to say that the religiosity of the african-american slave community was faked? You would be wrong.

if there's any logic left in the universe.

That didn't happen. Except for the light-footed slaves who lit out for the North or the deep parts of the swamps, they would have heard encouragement to bear their burdens bravely. Perhaps in the secret Voodoo or Obeah services they might have heard a little more courageous advice. Or even from Northern Christians. Southern Christianity was mostly perfectly cozy with slavery.

relatively secretly.

Many slaves saw parallels to their lives of the Jewish slaves in Egypt, and longed for an Exodus of their own. Some achieved that.

Sure, you're a slave now, but you'll be rewarded in heaven later if you're patient and loyal.

Plus in Exodus Yahweh encourages the Jews to steal the valuables of the Egyptians. That wasn't going to be very popular in the South.

There are very differing interpretations of what Paul was saying, which really isn't that clear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_to_Philemon

See how short it can be boiled down?

The Hebrew scriptures of course are far more extensive in their endorsement of slavery. Yahweh in His wisdom consigned a whole tribe of the Jews to slavery, if you remember. Paul had in Philemon his chance to advance, to update the Hebrew scriptures to a more modern setting. He passed. My own belief is that even a very primitive book of morals condemns slavery flat out. Of course, as folk like to point out here, my morals are of a primitive sort.

Paul says take him back, treat him better. Notice how well that fits in with my claim way up-thread, where I say slaves joined churches to get better treatment. It's a stock ploy. Makes no difference what religion, it's a wise play.

the more uncomfortable you are likely to be with things like:

"Sell all that thou hast, and give it to the poor. . .."

"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven."

"Blessed are the poor, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven."

Etc.

in the first century as now:

Absentee owners of agribusiness that destroyed small family farms

Owners of factories for mass production of daily necessities such as ceramic serving and cook ware that put village potters out of work

Tax farmers

Slum landlords

A wealthy religious elite more concerned for their bank accounts than their people

Politicians (who had to own property/have income of at least 1,000,000 sesterces a year to belong to the Senatorial class)

Not much has changed except the gadgets.

because they are greedy or selfish?

Seriously, you're going there? My what a broad brush you wave.

be surprised. The poster did go there and used a very broad brush. Reason seems to evade this one!

that they accuse mean nasty atheists of.

Hint: read the post I replied to. Neither it nor my reply even mentions atheists.

But if it gives you warm fuzzies to think I "went there," feel free.

But you and I both know there aren't ANY Christians that sell everything they own, so it seems pretty silly to criticize those who reject religion as being unwilling to follow that order.

of denial. I hear there are treatments available but one needs to confront their issues head on and that probably won't happen. So sad!!!!

What it shows is that atheists do better on some kinds of tests than believers. And that is not surprising.

duh

For example, to be a researcher, scientist, or worker in many, many industries, one must go with an open mind, go a long way to find out why things are so, rather than equating things they don't understand as acts of a deity (ie, "magic&quot instead of continuing the research and experimentation.

This is not to denigrate anyone, it's simply an approach to life I was taught and ultimately abandoned because when I asked hard questions at church, the answer was usually "Because God."

With that as an answer to anything unknown, there's little reason for many to search beyond that. Especially as in many churches/discussions it's thought of a terribly rude, if not downright sinful, to "question god."

But they tend to be non-fundamentalists, who know that evolution may have been the way god made the universe, that hating others (blacks, gays, Jews, Muslims, etc.) for who or what they are is wrong, etc., and that we've all gotta share a planet.

and atheists don't believe in god(s) the only logical conclusion is atheist don't have brains. Interesting!

and you kind of left yourself open on this one and I am in a rather snarky mood tonight.



on edit: that sure was a fast retort on your part!

in this forum tonight and there are two posters, in particular, that have are driving me up the wall and it isn't you or rug!

I saw your comment through a warped lens and could not resist...sorry about that. I find you to be one of the very few sincere Christians on this forum.

I would say so. I have been on DU since 2001 and my count is not even close to yours!

But to be honest before I did those things I posted. Tonight we had a homophobic person removed and I am overjoyed.

MIR Team (EarlG) banned HiPointDem
Mail Message
Reason:
Homophobe.

http://www.democraticunderground.com?com=profile&uid=282775&sub=trans

Real name:
DU Member for: 1 years, 4 months, 17 days
Posts: 20,729
Recommendations: 4,733
Star member: No

Many scientists are also religious, although the percentages are lower.

Many religious people question and problem solve endlessly. There are religious scholars who do nothing but that.

Equating a belief in a deity as a belief in magic is dismissive and insulting, and, whether you deny it or not, denigrating.

What you were taught is apparently a reflection of fundamentalism. It's not a reflection of what all religious people are taught.

My experience growing up in the church was exactly the opposite, as were many who post here.

of using a large brush.

As for my use of the word "magic," which I put in quotes, what other term would fit, colloquially, to quickly communicate that "something otherworldly or supernatural" must have happened?

Again, you seem ready to join the persecuted martyrs club.

Many religious people question and problem solve endlessly. There are religious scholars who do nothing but that.

If you limited your observations to a sub-group that does exhibit the things you talk of, that would be different

But when you say "christians" or "religious people" without qualifying it, you sweep up people that you apparently aren't talking about.

The persecuted martyrs club? Really? I have no idea what you mean by that.

And in your last paragraph, you do it again. You make a statement about "religious scholars" without any distinction. And the statement doesn't apply to many religious scholars.

is based on things I learned, saw, read, and my childhood growing up in a church.

Your mileage obviously varies, but I believe I have a strong grip on recognizing what's really going on when politicians, etc. throw out some of their code words.

Fred Phelps says a lot of things many so-called "christians" say at the dinner table after church.

to fundamentalist christian groups?

I am aware that Fred Phelps is not alone in what he says. But you must recognize he is an extreme, and doesn't represent most christians.

that most who call themselves "christians" in the USA are more like the opposite, as they ignore Jesus' teachings, standing behind religion to gain money, power, and a license to hate.

My experience with christianity includes living my daily life being told basically that:

"Jesus loves you unconditionally, as long as you do Exactly what he says."

That's just not true.

Your experience is valid and I believe it, but it is narrow and should not be generalized.

I'm sorry you had negative experiences and glad that you saw a way out. That's good.

But that's just you, and you are rather relentlessly bashing christians here. I don't think you would feel very good if people were making the same kinds of blanket statements about atheists.

People are. Daily. In real life. Turn on the teevee. Check what repugs are saying daily, via teevee, print and online.

(I suspect you meant to add "here" to the statement in the subject.)

Atheists are among the most despised minorities in the USA.

I'm used to being denigrated daily just for being gay, even by atheists. When the same broad brush is used over and over, against agnostics, gays, blacks, hispanics, ppl of middle eastern origin, the poor, the hungry, the elderly, the sick, etc., etc., I simply consider the source.

I've read your posts for some time, usually without a problem. However, when you refuse to recognize/acknowledge that "big religion" has become little more than a hateful political machine spreading lies and hurting my country, I see your words in support of this machine as dreadful.

I appreciate that you're not one of the haters, but you are an enabler.

So the fact that others are doing it makes it ok for you to do it, but in reverse?

And I consider the source when people are doing the same things to religious people. But somehow, people find a way to justify their prejudices, even when they vociferously object to prejudices against who they are.

I have lots of criticisms and disdain for the agenda pushed by the religious right. If you have been paying attention, you have never seen me support them or their agenda.

Enabler? Because I support the progressive/liberal religious left? They are in the best position to counter the religious right. To see them swept up with people that have nothing in common with them other than considering themselves religious, I object and object strongly.

Anti-theists are divisive and hurt our party and our shared causes. I will not enable them in their campaign against all things religious.

The whole "Christians are being persecuted!" nonsense.

I believe Rev Sun Myung Moon, a republican and self-proclaimed "new messiah," came up with the strategy, and it's psycho genius, just as is the construct of "the librul media."

I am not anti-theist. I don't care what anyone chooses to believe in— as long as it does not affect me in any way, period. But I do object to them demanding to tell the rest of us how to live and what to do and not do. As I imagine you do.

The religious "left" is constantly drowned out by the christopublican corporeligionist "right."

Anti-theists have a right to their beliefs as well, although I've been (yes, I see it that way) threatened, many times that "freedom of religion" doesn't mean "freedom from religion." Oh, yes it does. Not that freedom-from means anyone wants to shut down religion or spirituality; no one can do that. But it does mean keeping religion out of government matters locally, statewide, regionally, nationally and internationally.

The whole religious persecution claim is nonsense and used for political reasons. It's worked reasonably well for them among the electorate, and I think we need to challenge that.

Secularism is the bedrock of this country and they have eroded it. We have to fight back.

The religious left is on the rise, according to recent studies, and are being heard more loudly. Moral Mondays in North Carolina is a great example of that. But the press still likes the religious right for it's sheer power to sell through it's extremism.

I guess anti-theists have the right to their beliefs, but I find much of what they say intolerant at best and bigoted at worst.

I've enjoyed talking to you and I hope we part tonight as friends. I have to get dinner on the table and prepare to travel tomorrow, but I hope we will meet again soon.

I feel that you imagine yourself to be an umpire or Switzerland between factions on the subject of religion. You try to maintain a neutral position between the two.

That is admirable, but the fact is that you see your side as inherently honest, and the other side, as you seem to have a hint, is cheating, lying, and incapable of following any morals or rule of playing fair. They are out for blood, anyone's, to reach pinnacles of power they believe they are entitled to, because they believe, or want others to believe, they have the "Red Phone" ("Batphone" is, I guess, hurtful to you; maybe "direct line?&quot to god.

work together, if they are willing.

I don't really have a side, but tend to come down in defense of theists more often than not. IRL, they have the advantage. On DU, not so much. I really don't see atheists as the things you describe, but anti-theists really push my buttons.

Anti-theists remind me of religious fundamentalists. Lots of dogma, repeat the same talking points, demonize and denigrate believers and cling to a "one way" philosophy.

But I understand that atheists in general suffer much more abuse in the general population.

Intelligence is just like social norms, extremely objective and unfair.

I think everyone should be free to worship or believe in whatever they want, unless their beliefs hurt others.

I call BS on this "study"

BTW, I'm NOT religious. I'm spiritual. I believe there is more out there than we can possibly comprehend. But that's about it.

in comparative IQ studies than dumb religious people and smart irreligious people

For one thing, how is "intelligence" measured in our technocratic society? Almost all measures of it are highly prejudiced against the artistic, against those whose intelligence is "in their hands" (artisans, farmers, gardeners, fixers of machinery) or their bodies (dancers, athletes), against original scientific thinkers and original thinkers of any kind, and, of course, against the poor as a class (may be very intelligent but poorly educated) and against those with language problems, as well as against rebellious, eccentric, impaired and/or restless people of various kinds.

To me, the most APPARENTLY unintelligent peasant farmer in Peru is way smarter than the assholes who imported ONE VARIETY OF POTATO into Ireland, resulting in the Irish "potato famine," whereas the "dumb peasant" in Peru knew to grow HUNDREDS of varieties of potato, as a hedge against disease--something that our "brilliant" scientific community has only come lately to understand. The Peruvian peasants got their knowledge from their parents, grandparents and ancestors--from maintaining a culture that RESPECTED that knowledge and that revered, and prayed to, and honored Mother Earth. How would those peasants have fared at Oxford?

No, the stupid English or Spanish 1%-ers (I don't know who did it--probably the English) who imported only ONE variety of potato, for the poor Irish to eat when they were pushed off the better farm lands, thought they were so much smarter than those Indians whom they considered to be "barely human"--because their measures of intelligence (and of humanity) were way off--were culturally determined, were based on WRONG assessments of one culture by another culture, and totally wrongful assumptions of superiority.

It's the same now. There are still a lot of people, who know a lot of things, and who are very intelligent, who DON'T FIT into our technocratic society, don't do well above all on standardized tests, and often don't do well in school at all.

So, a) the measure of WHO is more or less intelligent is NOT reliable, and b) a so-called scientific endeavor that, by definition, must presume to know what religion IS, as part of its "study," is, by definition, invalid.

Science CANNOT measure religion, just like it cannot measure poetry. It cannot determine what people mean by "belief" and "non-belief." And it shouldn't be trying to do so.

I have this beef with a lot of "sociology"-type "studies" that attempt to ape scientific procedure. In this case, a TECHNOCRATIC society is putting its prejudiced questions to people about their most mysterious relationship--their relationship to the unseen, to the irrational, poetic aspect of human life--and comparing that to another set of TECHNOCRATIC measurements, those for "intelligence" in a technocratic society!

I'm surprised that none of these so-called scientists questioned those premises. No, I'm not surprised. I've seen it too often.

One more thought: Was Martin Luther King highly intelligent? How would he have fared on their "intelligence" tests? Was Gandhi highly intelligent? He spent many years weaving his own loincloths. He probably would have tested as an idiot at that point. What about Vincent Van Gogh? Or Leonardo da Vinci, for that matter? Da Vinci would have scribbled all over their damned test papers with inventions of warp drive and harnesses for worm holes--and totally flunked on what they consider "intelligence."

All were highly "religious" or, in any case, highly spiritual. They were believers in SOMETHING--in God, in humanity, in the future. Can that be measured? It cannot.

This is a DUMB study, for dumb people to have dumb arguments about.

Then there are the very, very dumb, so-called "intelligent" people in our society--the ones who test well and go to Harvard and end up gainfully destroying our food chain with GMOs and pesticides, or thinking up the next weapons of mass destruction, or the data-mining programs for vast, illegal, unconstitutional domestic spying, or building six nuclear power plants on the most earthquake-prone spot on Planet Earth. Maybe more of them ought to go to church and get schooled in basic ethics and morality (even if they have to wade through the putrid wastes of organized religion to pick up the non-putrid guidelines from brilliant believers like Thomas Merton or Saint Francis of Assissi, or from Buddha or from our Bowdlerized Jesus).

Really, we need to think about what "intelligence' IS.

And we also need to think about what religion is. Recommended: Aldous Huxley's "The Perennial Philosophy." For starters.

Exactly.

Enjoyed reading your post.

I had considered weighing in with a simple post of "Define Intelligence" and leaving it at that. I suspect I would have gotten as many replies from the septics as you, i.e., zero. Art is one of the biggies that usually comes to mind when people assume to define intelligence based on science/maths knowledge and understanding. You gave far more lucid examples of the same failing of this way of thinking for what is "intelligence."

I think I'll bookmark your post and use it as an example every other time this kind of thing comes up. We need to challenge the technocrats and their limited-thought goals at every opportunity.

How do you even begin to control for all the factors that go into believing and into "Intelligence"?

Not buying it. I don't even like talking about intelligence... IQ tests are stupid and knowing you have a high one has ruined many a life. People tell you your IQ is high, you begin to think success and intelligence are not malleable things. You maybe start to forget that success lies in challenging yourself and practicing at what you want to be good at.

Imagine if I had taken seriously the IQ test that told my parents I was mildly retarded. Maybe I would have never believed enough in myself to get a graduate degree in biology. And maybe if I had not taken seriously the belief that I was a genius (what everybody kept telling me growing up), I wouldn't have gone into a degree I didn't like just because it was "suitable for someone of my intellect", and instead done something I loved (or paid more).

I don't think religious people are less intelligent than atheists. Nope, not buying it. I do think that people indoctrinated in religion are ruining their potential (thinking of fundie Muslims and Christians who could be doing amazing things but waste their minds and culture with religious crap).

Nice to see you around again, Evoman. Hope you are doing ok.

It takes thinking to become an atheist. To be religious, all you have to do is sit there and swallow what you're fed.

a fine example of a lack of thinking.

in Camelot, it's "very restful--every now and then."

You don't have to think to be an atheist. There is an atheist ideology industry already in place for those who don't care to come up with their own.