• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

IQ vs. Religiosity

Logicman said:
That's what people say when they can't address and refute the argument.
Click to expand...

About Godly Wisdom and a lake of fire? You're a hoot, pal.

image.jpg
 
I do feel a bit smarter when I take the time to ponder a parable of Jesus Christ, as opposed to say, merely watching tv.
 
Dibbler said:
I do feel a bit smarter when I take the time to ponder a parable of Jesus Christ, as opposed to say, merely watching tv.
Click to expand...
But obviously that wouldn't make you smarter, just more doctrinaire.
But if you were watching documentary or Nature/Science TV, you might indeed get more facts, if not smarter.
One really doesn't get 'smarter', but more knowledgeable/wiser.
And I'm shocked to here you bash TV, since it seems (please correct me if I'm wrong) 95% of your string starts are youtubes.
 
Last edited:
So you think that looking at aggregate data for a group has meaning for individuals within that aggregate? Wouldn't it be better to look at those individuals who answered yes or no to the question about religion and tested their IQ?
Odd that Jews have won 22% of the Nobel Prizes despite having 0.2% of the world population. (Just looking at aggregates.)
 
Eric7216 said:
So you think that looking at aggregate data for a group has meaning for individuals within that aggregate? Wouldn't it be better to look at those individuals who answered yes or no to the question about religion and tested their IQ?
Click to expand...
No, it's ridiculous and impractical to test everyone.
Ever heard of polling/sampling?
Does each and every day have to be sunny to use the true generalization 'Southern California is sunny'?

Eric7216 said:
Odd that Jews have won 22% of the Nobel Prizes despite having 0.2% of the world population. (Just looking at aggregates.)
Click to expand...
Why is that odd?
It's true, but has less to do with Religion than Genetics.
Jews are an Ethno-religious group, not just a religion.
So just saying [the religion] "Jews" won them is misleading. Worse for your try is that it's Ashkenazi/Euro Jews, who have the Nobel's and IQs a standard deviation above Euros and non-Ashkenazi Jews (Sephardics, etc)
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...n-warming-call-me-crazy-7.html#post1059739730
or
https://www.google.com/search?q=Use...ceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=Ashkenazi+intelligence

And Jews are about the most Secular, non-religious, of the major religions, which is consistent with the OP take, Not yours.
 
Last edited:
mbig said:
No, it's ridiculous and impractical to test everyone.
Ever heard of polling/sampling?
And Jews are about the most Secular, non-religious, of the major religions, which is consistent with the OP take, Not yours.
Click to expand...

A sample that show 60% of evangelicals voting for candidate A and 60% of Blacks voting for candidate A tells us nothing about the number of Black evangelicals who voted for Candidate A. A sample that measures the religiosity AND IQ of that sample would tell us something.

I would argue that there is a fairly strong consensus on what religions are and what constitutes religiosity and I believe this study misses it. Contrary to a common misperception among lay people, a belief in a deity or "talking" to god is not the only definition of religiosity. To call Jews who go through Jewish rituals, holidays, weekly gatherings secular is a little bizarre, as is calling most Koreans and Japanese non-religious.
 
Logicman said:
Flush.
Click to expand...


Perhaps that picture confused you:

"The Bible is the word of God"
"How can you be sure it's the word of God?"
"Because the Bible tells us so"
"Why believe the Bible?
"The Bible is infallible"
"How do you know it's infallible?"
(return to top)
 
domer76 said:
Perhaps that picture confused you:

"The Bible is the word of God"
"How can you be sure it's the word of God?"
"Because the Bible tells us so"
"Why believe the Bible?
"The Bible is infallible"
"How do you know it's infallible?"
(return to top)
Click to expand...

God is infallible. Though the bible is of man, which is fallible.
 
grip said:
God is infallible. Though the bible is of man, which is fallible.
Click to expand...

Is your god:

Omniscient?
Omnibenevolent?
Omnipotent?
 
grip said:
Beyond all concept. The goodness coming your way is immeasurable.
Click to expand...

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent.
Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent.
Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him God?
 
domer76 said:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent.
Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent.
Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him God?
Click to expand...


Evil is only the lack of knowledge. He allowed ignorance, so there could be choice and variability. If all were knowledgeable and perfect there would be no difference.
 
grip said:
Evil is only the lack of knowledge. He allowed ignorance, so there could be choice and variability. If all were knowledgeable and perfect there would be no difference.
Click to expand...

Ah, the free will argument. So, cross off omniscient from your list.

Lack of knowledge? What does that even mean? How does that describe a dying newborn in Africca?
 
domer76 said:
Ah, the free will argument. So, cross off omniscient from your list.

Lack of knowledge? What does that even mean? How does that describe a dying newborn in Africca?
Click to expand...

No, still omniscient but reliant on and action/ reaction system of causation. It has to be this way for awhile, until it ca be fixed.
 
domer76 said:
Is your god:

Omniscient?
Omnibenevolent?
Omnipotent?
Click to expand...

o-SPIRITUAL-facebook-794x397.jpg

Yeah, although I guess I didn't think about it in those exact terms, so thanks for sharing.
 
Marquez said:
It also says, "EQ research has retreated from claims that EQ reflects an intelligence to claims that it reflects a trait, constellation of personality factors or preferred style of thought." So it appears to be a valid, researchable set of traits, just not a strict kind of intelligence.
Click to expand...

Right. Which is exactly what I said.
 
domer76 said:
Why do innocents die?
Click to expand...

This is a loaded question. I've already formed my opinion and I don't understand how it related to my quote or the thread.
 
Celebrity said:
This is a loaded question. I've already formed my opinion and I don't understand how it related to my quote or the thread.
Click to expand...

Translation = "I guess we can forego the Omnibenevolent aspect"
 
domer76 said:
Since you can't engage?
Click to expand...

Hey, if you feel like it makes you free to let go of certain attachments, God love you for that. Just exercising my legal right to believe over here.

the_dude_abides-1079842.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom