100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Atheists, agnostics, score highest on religion test | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Something reminded me of this: atheist and agnostics tend to be smarter as well...heh...I wonder why that is? Hummmm.
"According to this article by Professor Richard Lynn, emeritus professor of psychology at Ulster University, the smarter a person is, the less likely they are to believe in a god" Makes perfect sense! http://www.davehitt.com/blog2/are-atheists-smarter-than-religous-people/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sounds the same as people who are book smart but yet have no common sense. Do you look under a microscope each time before you wash your hands or do you act on faith that they may be covered in germs? Do you really put them under a microscope to confirm that the germs are in fact truley there?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Something reminded me of this: atheist and agnostics tend to be smarter as well...heh...I wonder why that is? Hummmm. "According to this article by Professor Richard Lynn, emeritus professor of psychology at Ulster University, the smarter a person is, the less likely they are to believe in a god" Makes perfect sense! that's because the smarter the person is and/or the move advance the technology or wealth and/or strenght the person has the more the person becomes God a need to believe in God arises out of fear and not due to a wealth of knowledge because a belief can only substain itself due to a lack of knowledge pertaining to the belief ...which is why any one that claim they are religious or spiritual is in reality actually agnostic because they have no proof to actually "know" that God exist...they can only have faith or hope that he does |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Something reminded me of this: atheist and agnostics tend to be smarter as well...heh...I wonder why that is? Hummmm. "According to this article by Professor Richard Lynn, emeritus professor of psychology at Ulster University, the smarter a person is, the less likely they are to believe in a god" Makes perfect sense! http://www.davehitt.com/blog2/are-atheists-smarter-than-religous-people/ There you go again, allowing someone else to form your opinion... I suppose you didn't actually read it as any intelligent Atheist would be concerned about this statement: "Lynn makes quite a few assumptions in his paper, which compares belief among academics to the general population. The idea that academics are smarter than the general population isn’t necessarily valid – not only are some academics completely incompetent, some who are brilliant in their field are complete dunces outside a classroom. A proper study would include a large sample size and carefully adjust for counfounders like as age, income level, and religious upbringing." Here you have Mr. Hitt dismissing the validity of the research and basically calling the study "improper" yet you somehow think that it supports your bigoted view? He then makes a fool of himself by using ad-hominems, generalizations and incorrect facts, something which you believe shows intelligence I imagine. Then, we goto the actual "link" and find these gems: "But the conclusions - in a paper for the academic journal Intelligence - have been branded "simplistic" by critics. Professor Lynn, who has provoked controversy in the past with research linking intelligence to race and sex, said university academics were less likely to believe in God than almost anyone else. " So you believe a bigotted racist? Then we come to this: "But Professor Gordon Lynch, director of the Centre for Religion and Contemporary Society at Birkbeck College, London, said it failed to take account of a complex range of social, economic and historical factors. "Linking religious belief and intelligence in this way could reflect a dangerous trend, developing a simplistic characterisation of religion as primitive, which - while we are trying to deal with very complex issues of religious and cultural pluralism - is perhaps not the most helpful response," he said. Dr Alistair McFadyen, senior lecturer in Christian theology at Leeds University, said the conclusion had "a slight tinge of Western cultural imperialism as well as an anti-religious sentiment". " Really, you keep grasping at straws. You seem to be willing to hold onto anything that you think supports your views whether it does or not. So, yet another EPIC FAIL!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
MiddleEarthling
on
Thu 10/07/10 09:12 AM
|
|
"There you go again, allowing someone else to form your opinion... "
No, I posted that to support my opinion...oh and I did see all the flailing responses to the professor's paper. The Thumpers always have some propaganda to fight the truth that the dumber a person is the more likely they are to be gullible to fairytales...that's obvious really. Common sense. People can get help here... http://www.recoveringreligionists.com/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You continually refer to me as an "atheist".  You're constantly judging my relationship with God. You refuse to recognize that I acknowledge God in all Her splendor. You're so hung up on judging everyone based on what the ancient Hebrews had to say, that you can't even begin to imagine a better picture of God. But better pictures definitely exist.  I personally choose the best picture I can possibly find for God. Why insult Her by choosing anything less?  Romans 1:16-26a Gospel Exalted 16, For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. 17, For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. 18, For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19, Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20, For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21, Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22, Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24, Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25, Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26, For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: Bravo, you can quote scripture. Now, can you think and say stuff in your own words, with your own viewpoints? I have a parrot, and it mimics what I've taught it. Personally, I know it can also say things out of context of how I taught it, so I do know that she thinks. I see plenty of parroting going on, with your biblical quotes... You think a parrot can think??? You think a parrot can talk??? By your own logic, so can CeriseRose, so what's your problem??? Proverbs 23:9 Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words. So..by your own logic, aren't you breaking that rule? In fact, since none the religionists on here have convinced the nonrelgionists of much of anything having to do w/ your godthing, wouldn't that make us all fools, by your standards, and all the religionists rule breakers? So, what's the penalty for "speaking" in the ears of fools anyway? Do you have to hit yourself with a stick or something?   I don't understand your connection to "my logic". I will however, explain "her" logic and how I applied it. CeriseRose quoted scripture and got "berated" for it... "Bravo, you can quote scripture. Now, can you think and say stuff in your own words, with your own viewpoints?" then she compares CeriseRose to a parrot: "I have a parrot, and it mimics what I've taught it. Personally, I know it can also say things out of context of how I taught it, so I do know that she thinks." So, a parrot, which "most" humans know cannot "talk", let alone reason, is "known" to think because it can mimmic sounds it was taught out of context??? And a human "who can read, reason, and apply what he/she has read (quote, repeat, whatever term you want to use...), is somehow less than a parrot? As for my quoted scripture, I loathe quoting scripture except to counter improperly quoted scripture. I did however quote that verse as I knew quoting scripture pizzes her off a bit and I was fairly sure noone would touch that one else be labeled a "fool". The "penalty" for speaking in the ears of a fool is that they would despise my words, not really a penalty if you ask me. And it wasn't a "rule" by any means. oh darn. I was so hoping you believed you had to hit yourself w/ a stick.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sounds the same as people who are book smart but yet have no common sense. Do you look under a microscope each time before you wash your hands or do you act on faith that they may be covered in germs? Do you really put them under a microscope to confirm that the germs are in fact truley there? What I don't understand is how someone who could seriously ask this kind of question managed to reach adulthood. sheesh. A perfect example of why we should take all the warning labels off of everything and let the chips fall where they may, so to speak. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You continually refer to me as an "atheist". You're constantly judging my relationship with God. You refuse to recognize that I acknowledge God in all Her splendor. You're so hung up on judging everyone based on what the ancient Hebrews had to say, that you can't even begin to imagine a better picture of God. But better pictures definitely exist. I personally choose the best picture I can possibly find for God. Why insult Her by choosing anything less? Romans 1:16-26a Gospel Exalted 16, For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. 17, For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. 18, For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19, Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20, For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21, Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22, Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24, Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25, Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26, For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: Bravo, you can quote scripture. Now, can you think and say stuff in your own words, with your own viewpoints? I have a parrot, and it mimics what I've taught it. Personally, I know it can also say things out of context of how I taught it, so I do know that she thinks. I see plenty of parroting going on, with your biblical quotes... You think a parrot can think??? You think a parrot can talk??? By your own logic, so can CeriseRose, so what's your problem??? Proverbs 23:9 Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words. So..by your own logic, aren't you breaking that rule? In fact, since none the religionists on here have convinced the nonrelgionists of much of anything having to do w/ your godthing, wouldn't that make us all fools, by your standards, and all the religionists rule breakers? So, what's the penalty for "speaking" in the ears of fools anyway? Do you have to hit yourself with a stick or something? I don't understand your connection to "my logic". I will however, explain "her" logic and how I applied it. CeriseRose quoted scripture and got "berated" for it... "Bravo, you can quote scripture. Now, can you think and say stuff in your own words, with your own viewpoints?" then she compares CeriseRose to a parrot: "I have a parrot, and it mimics what I've taught it. Personally, I know it can also say things out of context of how I taught it, so I do know that she thinks." So, a parrot, which "most" humans know cannot "talk", let alone reason, is "known" to think because it can mimmic sounds it was taught out of context??? And a human "who can read, reason, and apply what he/she has read (quote, repeat, whatever term you want to use...), is somehow less than a parrot? As for my quoted scripture, I loathe quoting scripture except to counter improperly quoted scripture. I did however quote that verse as I knew quoting scripture pizzes her off a bit and I was fairly sure noone would touch that one else be labeled a "fool". The "penalty" for speaking in the ears of a fool is that they would despise my words, not really a penalty if you ask me. And it wasn't a "rule" by any means. oh darn. I was so hoping you believed you had to hit yourself w/ a stick. And I really didn't expect you to respond to my post, but you did... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"There you go again, allowing someone else to form your opinion... " No, I posted that to support my opinion...oh and I did see all the flailing responses to the professor's paper. The Thumpers always have some propaganda to fight the truth that the dumber a person is the more likely they are to be gullible to fairytales...that's obvious really. Common sense. People can get help here... http://www.recoveringreligionists.com/ Who's gullible? I suppose you ignored this statement from Mr. Hitt??? "Lynn makes quite a few assumptions in his paper, which compares belief among academics to the general population. The idea that academics are smarter than the general population isn’t necessarily valid – not only are some academics completely incompetent, some who are brilliant in their field are complete dunces outside a classroom. A proper study would include a large sample size and carefully adjust for counfounders like as age, income level, and religious upbringing." So you are calling Dave Hitt a "Thumper"? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Something reminded me of this: atheist and agnostics tend to be smarter as well...heh...I wonder why that is? Hummmm. "According to this article by Professor Richard Lynn, emeritus professor of psychology at Ulster University, the smarter a person is, the less likely they are to believe in a god" Makes perfect sense! http://www.davehitt.com/blog2/are-atheists-smarter-than-religous-people/ Having "smarts" is often the opposite of having wisdom. Your opinions may very well be the disassemling of America. Chipping away at the very foundations that have been the strength of our nation. You're probably too blind to see the results of all those "smarts" you and Richard Lynn have. Perhaps you should find more urgent things to focus on. For instance, how to get our nation more stablized and morally sound. Why play the devils advocate, so to speak. What do you stand to gain from a broken-down America? Who fooled you into thinking utopia follows your reasonings? You should cash in the "smarts" and get some wisdom. "Talk to the hand"  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"There you go again, allowing someone else to form your opinion... " No, I posted that to support my opinion...oh and I did see all the flailing responses to the professor's paper. The Thumpers always have some propaganda to fight the truth that the dumber a person is the more likely they are to be gullible to fairytales...that's obvious really. Common sense. People can get help here... http://www.recoveringreligionists.com/ Who's gullible? I suppose you ignored this statement from Mr. Hitt??? "Lynn makes quite a few assumptions in his paper, which compares belief among academics to the general population. The idea that academics are smarter than the general population isn’t necessarily valid – not only are some academics completely incompetent, some who are brilliant in their field are complete dunces outside a classroom. A proper study would include a large sample size and carefully adjust for counfounders like as age, income level, and religious upbringing." So you are calling Dave Hitt a "Thumper"? YES I AM, found this nugget written by Dave Hitt, unless you provide a credible bio of the individual I assume you knew nothing about him when you quoted him. ">In article <33b32fd5.17509211@news.capital.net>, Boy.do.I@Hate.spammers >(Dave Hitt) wrote: > >[snipped my explanation of religion, in my case: Jesus Christ's teachings] > >> And many of these time tested basic rules include killing anyone who >> disagrees. > >Christ told His apostles to go and spread His word, and those who disagree >to leave their city in protest but without engaging in violence." ~~~~ So yes it appears he is indeed a Thumper. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"There you go again, allowing someone else to form your opinion... " No, I posted that to support my opinion...oh and I did see all the flailing responses to the professor's paper. The Thumpers always have some propaganda to fight the truth that the dumber a person is the more likely they are to be gullible to fairytales...that's obvious really. Common sense. People can get help here... http://www.recoveringreligionists.com/ Who's gullible? I suppose you ignored this statement from Mr. Hitt??? "Lynn makes quite a few assumptions in his paper, which compares belief among academics to the general population. The idea that academics are smarter than the general population isn’t necessarily valid – not only are some academics completely incompetent, some who are brilliant in their field are complete dunces outside a classroom. A proper study would include a large sample size and carefully adjust for counfounders like as age, income level, and religious upbringing." So you are calling Dave Hitt a "Thumper"? YES I AM, found this nugget written by Dave Hitt, unless you provide a credible bio of the individual I assume you knew nothing about him when you quoted him. ">In article <33b32fd5.17509211@news.capital.net>, Boy.do.I@Hate.spammers >(Dave Hitt) wrote: > >[snipped my explanation of religion, in my case: Jesus Christ's teachings] > >> And many of these time tested basic rules include killing anyone who >> disagrees. > >Christ told His apostles to go and spread His word, and those who disagree >to leave their city in protest but without engaging in violence." ~~~~ So yes it appears he is indeed a Thumper. Absolutely astounding!!! You reference Mr Hitt to "support" your opinion, then call him a Thumper? Thanks for the confession!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"There you go again, allowing someone else to form your opinion... " No, I posted that to support my opinion...oh and I did see all the flailing responses to the professor's paper. The Thumpers always have some propaganda to fight the truth that the dumber a person is the more likely they are to be gullible to fairytales...that's obvious really. Common sense. People can get help here... http://www.recoveringreligionists.com/ Who's gullible? I suppose you ignored this statement from Mr. Hitt??? "Lynn makes quite a few assumptions in his paper, which compares belief among academics to the general population. The idea that academics are smarter than the general population isn’t necessarily valid – not only are some academics completely incompetent, some who are brilliant in their field are complete dunces outside a classroom. A proper study would include a large sample size and carefully adjust for counfounders like as age, income level, and religious upbringing." So you are calling Dave Hitt a "Thumper"? YES I AM, found this nugget written by Dave Hitt, unless you provide a credible bio of the individual I assume you knew nothing about him when you quoted him. ">In article <33b32fd5.17509211@news.capital.net>, Boy.do.I@Hate.spammers >(Dave Hitt) wrote: > >[snipped my explanation of religion, in my case: Jesus Christ's teachings] > >> And many of these time tested basic rules include killing anyone who >> disagrees. > >Christ told His apostles to go and spread His word, and those who disagree >to leave their city in protest but without engaging in violence." ~~~~ So yes it appears he is indeed a Thumper. Absolutely astounding!!! You reference Mr Hitt to "support" your opinion, then call him a Thumper? Thanks for the confession!!! Nooo, I quoted Professor Richard Lynn not Dave Hitt...YOU quoted Hitt who attacked the study. What bizarro chit...It's no wonder tho~ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"There you go again, allowing someone else to form your opinion... " No, I posted that to support my opinion...oh and I did see all the flailing responses to the professor's paper. The Thumpers always have some propaganda to fight the truth that the dumber a person is the more likely they are to be gullible to fairytales...that's obvious really. Common sense. People can get help here... http://www.recoveringreligionists.com/ Who's gullible? I suppose you ignored this statement from Mr. Hitt??? "Lynn makes quite a few assumptions in his paper, which compares belief among academics to the general population. The idea that academics are smarter than the general population isn’t necessarily valid – not only are some academics completely incompetent, some who are brilliant in their field are complete dunces outside a classroom. A proper study would include a large sample size and carefully adjust for counfounders like as age, income level, and religious upbringing." So you are calling Dave Hitt a "Thumper"? YES I AM, found this nugget written by Dave Hitt, unless you provide a credible bio of the individual I assume you knew nothing about him when you quoted him. ">In article <33b32fd5.17509211@news.capital.net>, Boy.do.I@Hate.spammers >(Dave Hitt) wrote: > >[snipped my explanation of religion, in my case: Jesus Christ's teachings] > >> And many of these time tested basic rules include killing anyone who >> disagrees. > >Christ told His apostles to go and spread His word, and those who disagree >to leave their city in protest but without engaging in violence." ~~~~ So yes it appears he is indeed a Thumper. Absolutely astounding!!! You reference Mr Hitt to "support" your opinion, then call him a Thumper? Thanks for the confession!!! Nooo, I quoted Professor Richard Lynn not Dave Hitt...YOU quoted Hitt who attacked the study. What bizarro chit...It's no wonder tho~ Really, you are giving Atheists a bad name. Not only are you views biggoted, but you are a piss-poor liar too. So you deny posting this: (look at the top of page 5 before you show everyone what kind of biggot and liar you really are) Something reminded me of this: atheist and agnostics tend to be smarter as well...heh...I wonder why that is? Hummmm. "According to this article by Professor Richard Lynn, emeritus professor of psychology at Ulster University, the smarter a person is, the less likely they are to believe in a god" Makes perfect sense! http://www.davehitt.com/blog2/are-atheists-smarter-than-religous-people/ All that you have done is prove the opposite of what you claim. So what kind of drugs are you on that you forget so quickly? You are the epitome of gullible... You lie to yourself and then believe it with all your mind. (all does not equal alot I'm guessing) Is it just plain lack of intelligence? Anything else you wanna say to prove to the world how intelligent you are?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You continually refer to me as an "atheist". You're constantly judging my relationship with God. You refuse to recognize that I acknowledge God in all Her splendor. You're so hung up on judging everyone based on what the ancient Hebrews had to say, that you can't even begin to imagine a better picture of God. But better pictures definitely exist. I personally choose the best picture I can possibly find for God. Why insult Her by choosing anything less? Romans 1:16-26a Gospel Exalted 16, For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. 17, For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. 18, For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19, Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20, For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21, Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22, Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24, Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25, Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26, For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: Bravo, you can quote scripture. Now, can you think and say stuff in your own words, with your own viewpoints? I have a parrot, and it mimics what I've taught it. Personally, I know it can also say things out of context of how I taught it, so I do know that she thinks. I see plenty of parroting going on, with your biblical quotes... You think a parrot can think??? You think a parrot can talk??? By your own logic, so can CeriseRose, so what's your problem??? Proverbs 23:9 Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words. So..by your own logic, aren't you breaking that rule? In fact, since none the religionists on here have convinced the nonrelgionists of much of anything having to do w/ your godthing, wouldn't that make us all fools, by your standards, and all the religionists rule breakers? So, what's the penalty for "speaking" in the ears of fools anyway? Do you have to hit yourself with a stick or something? I don't understand your connection to "my logic". I will however, explain "her" logic and how I applied it. CeriseRose quoted scripture and got "berated" for it... "Bravo, you can quote scripture. Now, can you think and say stuff in your own words, with your own viewpoints?" then she compares CeriseRose to a parrot: "I have a parrot, and it mimics what I've taught it. Personally, I know it can also say things out of context of how I taught it, so I do know that she thinks." So, a parrot, which "most" humans know cannot "talk", let alone reason, is "known" to think because it can mimmic sounds it was taught out of context??? And a human "who can read, reason, and apply what he/she has read (quote, repeat, whatever term you want to use...), is somehow less than a parrot? As for my quoted scripture, I loathe quoting scripture except to counter improperly quoted scripture. I did however quote that verse as I knew quoting scripture pizzes her off a bit and I was fairly sure noone would touch that one else be labeled a "fool". The "penalty" for speaking in the ears of a fool is that they would despise my words, not really a penalty if you ask me. And it wasn't a "rule" by any means. oh darn. I was so hoping you believed you had to hit yourself w/ a stick. And I really didn't expect you to respond to my post, but you did... Well hey, thanks for the compliment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Something reminded me of this: atheist and agnostics tend to be smarter as well...heh...I wonder why that is? Hummmm. "According to this article by Professor Richard Lynn, emeritus professor of psychology at Ulster University, the smarter a person is, the less likely they are to believe in a god" Makes perfect sense! http://www.davehitt.com/blog2/are-atheists-smarter-than-religous-people/ Having "smarts" is often the opposite of having wisdom. Your opinions may very well be the disassemling of America. Chipping away at the very foundations that have been the strength of our nation. You're probably too blind to see the results of all those "smarts" you and Richard Lynn have. Perhaps you should find more urgent things to focus on. For instance, how to get our nation more stablized and morally sound. Why play the devils advocate, so to speak. What do you stand to gain from a broken-down America? Who fooled you into thinking utopia follows your reasonings? You should cash in the "smarts" and get some wisdom. "Talk to the hand" I'm thinking only someone w/o any "smarts" would think it is "often the opposite of having wisdom". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Something reminded me of this: atheist and agnostics tend to be smarter as well...heh...I wonder why that is? Hummmm. "According to this article by Professor Richard Lynn, emeritus professor of psychology at Ulster University, the smarter a person is, the less likely they are to believe in a god" Makes perfect sense! http://www.davehitt.com/blog2/are-atheists-smarter-than-religous-people/ Having "smarts" is often the opposite of having wisdom. Your opinions may very well be the disassemling of America. Chipping away at the very foundations that have been the strength of our nation. You're probably too blind to see the results of all those "smarts" you and Richard Lynn have. Perhaps you should find more urgent things to focus on. For instance, how to get our nation more stablized and morally sound. Why play the devils advocate, so to speak. What do you stand to gain from a broken-down America? Who fooled you into thinking utopia follows your reasonings? You should cash in the "smarts" and get some wisdom. "Talk to the hand" I'm thinking only someone w/o any "smarts" would think it is "often the opposite of having wisdom". Up is down and down is up right? How can people live their lives so blind? Even drunk... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Something reminded me of this: atheist and agnostics tend to be smarter as well...heh...I wonder why that is? Hummmm. "According to this article by Professor Richard Lynn, emeritus professor of psychology at Ulster University, the smarter a person is, the less likely they are to believe in a god" Makes perfect sense! http://www.davehitt.com/blog2/are-atheists-smarter-than-religous-people/ Having "smarts" is often the opposite of having wisdom. Your opinions may very well be the disassemling of America. Chipping away at the very foundations that have been the strength of our nation. You're probably too blind to see the results of all those "smarts" you and Richard Lynn have. Perhaps you should find more urgent things to focus on. For instance, how to get our nation more stablized and morally sound. Why play the devils advocate, so to speak. What do you stand to gain from a broken-down America? Who fooled you into thinking utopia follows your reasonings? You should cash in the "smarts" and get some wisdom. "Talk to the hand" I'm thinking only someone w/o any "smarts" would think it is "often the opposite of having wisdom". Up is down and down is up right? How can people live their lives so blind? Even drunk... How dare you come back to this thread without even an acknowledgemnt of your wrongdoing. Most of those who lie and slander slink away when provided with evidence of their err, but you come back here and post a phrase like that?!?!?! Be a man and take responsibility for your bigotry and hatred, any "moral" person would.... So please, look at the top of page 5 and answer if you still contend that it was I who referenced Mr. Witt.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the brain is as smart as what it has to figure out on it's own?
thus, creating logical deducting ability? if anything "follow", a "guideline", such as "religion" promotes, then naturally, it does not use it own logical deducting ability as much, so therefore decreased "self deduction", so less retained "knowing of self". thus, less "knowing" something, because self hath "hit wall, felt pain"... if it is believed "guideline", say hit not wall, then some for a time will not hit wall... so, it could been accessed in reality, that "none religious" have more "self experienced knowing", than one that would follow any guidline for self behaviour... but, this can be a very decpetive "conclusion" to hold as accurate for more than A SECOND IN TIME? why? number one, the study is "biased", IF IT DOES NOT DEFINE WHAT "CREATE INTELLIGENCE", WHAT INTELLIGENCE IS, for is intelligence knowing HOW TO REPEAT INFORMATION? the study was based upon "asking question's", and those who knew the answer were deemed smarter? the "questions" asked, are based upon the premise that KNOWING THE ANSWER CREATE "SMART"? THAT ABOUT AS DUMB AS DUMB GETS? and then, all the "rest of the information", the study did not even consider? one would have to look at humanity as a whole.... there are people becoming "religious people" each second, and people becoming none-religious people each second of the day... so, what and who are the "religious people"? the one's "leaving religion" each nano second of each day, or the one's "entering religion", or the one's in the "middle of being in religion"... one can automatically tell, how the report is worded, that the "author" is none religious, or all such factor's would be factored in, for the eye of none biased see differently, accessing all factor's, and leaving out none? indeed, there is truth, that those that are more quick to do what they are "told", and to "believe" what they hear, especially if told "god said so", will not THINK AS MUCH FOR THEMSELF, and so this would have to have a sever effect on the "self learned knowing", BUT, an declared athiest will fall into the same category, AS ATHIESM GROWS? as the "athiest", will believe what it hear from the "athiest", and be more apt to "follow" the guideline of the athiest? so indeed, decreasing the self deducting ability here as well... no dount, the effect of such at this SECOND in time, could be lopsided, since CHRISTIANITY has been a larger belief in society than ATHIESM... it seems the greatest way to weed thru the "bias" of all words, from all biased sources, or coming from a source that seeks with all intent but to prove itself as BETTER, is to actually know what create "intelligence"? the study states nothing of this, so then the very intelligence of the study and examiners of the data comes into question? brain? data into brain? self get smarter? well, is it data "retained" that be intelligence? is it "memorization" of outside data? the power's that be, whether science or academia, have never even given a deinition of "intelligence"? so, how can the study declare, "smart", lest smarter be defined? they cant even define smart, nor what actually create's it, let alone come up with accurate data as to "who is smarter", within an entire belief. seems no one would be so gullible themself, lest their own haste to prove themself as smarter was the motive? if ya wanna talk about, what smart actually is, then there might actually be more learned, lol... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the brain is as smart as what it has to figure out on it's own? thus, creating logical deducting ability? if anything "follow", a "guideline", such as "religion" promotes, then naturally, it does not use it own logical deducting ability as much, so therefore decreased "self deduction", so less retained "knowing of self". thus, less "knowing" something, because self hath "hit wall, felt pain"... if it is believed "guideline", say hit not wall, then some for a time will not hit wall... so, it could been accessed in reality, that "none religious" have more "self experienced knowing", than one that would follow any guidline for self behaviour... but, this can be a very decpetive "conclusion" to hold as accurate for more than A SECOND IN TIME? why? number one, the study is "biased", IF IT DOES NOT DEFINE WHAT "CREATE INTELLIGENCE", WHAT INTELLIGENCE IS, for is intelligence knowing HOW TO REPEAT INFORMATION? the study was based upon "asking question's", and those who knew the answer were deemed smarter? the "questions" asked, are based upon the premise that KNOWING THE ANSWER CREATE "SMART"? THAT ABOUT AS DUMB AS DUMB GETS? and then, all the "rest of the information", the study did not even consider? one would have to look at humanity as a whole.... there are people becoming "religious people" each second, and people becoming none-religious people each second of the day... so, what and who are the "religious people"? the one's "leaving religion" each nano second of each day, or the one's "entering religion", or the one's in the "middle of being in religion"... one can automatically tell, how the report is worded, that the "author" is none religious, or all such factor's would be factored in, for the eye of none biased see differently, accessing all factor's, and leaving out none? indeed, there is truth, that those that are more quick to do what they are "told", and to "believe" what they hear, especially if told "god said so", will not THINK AS MUCH FOR THEMSELF, and so this would have to have a sever effect on the "self learned knowing", BUT, an declared athiest will fall into the same category, AS ATHIESM GROWS? as the "athiest", will believe what it hear from the "athiest", and be more apt to "follow" the guideline of the athiest? so indeed, decreasing the self deducting ability here as well... no dount, the effect of such at this SECOND in time, could be lopsided, since CHRISTIANITY has been a larger belief in society than ATHIESM... it seems the greatest way to weed thru the "bias" of all words, from all biased sources, or coming from a source that seeks with all intent but to prove itself as BETTER, is to actually know what create "intelligence"? the study states nothing of this, so then the very intelligence of the study and examiners of the data comes into question? brain? data into brain? self get smarter? well, is it data "retained" that be intelligence? is it "memorization" of outside data? the power's that be, whether science or academia, have never even given a deinition of "intelligence"? so, how can the study declare, "smart", lest smarter be defined? they cant even define smart, nor what actually create's it, let alone come up with accurate data as to "who is smarter", within an entire belief. seems no one would be so gullible themself, lest their own haste to prove themself as smarter was the motive? if ya wanna talk about, what smart actually is, then there might actually be more learned, lol... ==================================== if anything "follow", a "guideline", such as "religion" promotes, then naturally, it does not use it own logical deducting ability as much, so therefore decreased "self deduction", so less retained "knowing of self". ===================================== Not going through your entire post, right now any ways, i will if needed. Yes logical deducting ability still is required. It is need for logical deducting on if the person should do this or that. Say i see a CD i want, i would then do logical deducting to decide if i do or not. And inside of that thought process i would take into count that it is a sin. Therefore i would just walk on and not take the CD. So in that case logical deducting is still needed. Just using different knowing to do the duducting part, and it would only be logical to listen to our father in hopes to receive the gift of heaven. |
|
|
|
|
