The world is relatively stupid and does not do enough thinking.

Nothing? You are backing away from claiming the value of IQ now?

And me what? I'm not the one who is attempting to insinuate political ideology with IQ.

 

So, you think that three out of four agreeing make what they think right? 500 years ago 99.9% of the worlds population knew the world was flat 500 years ago, the earth revolved around the sun, and we had no idea that the universe had billions of galaxies, trillions of stars, and nobody knows how many planets that have life. At the time the gods and books you accept were created, we knew even less- but we knew for example that lighting was an expression of the displeasure of the gods. Seems logical when you are ignorant of all the elements behind it... and we are still ignorant. Seems like we continue to learn, slowly- that we know only a tiny fraction of what we think we do, and that in many areas the "majority" are the ones who are wrong. The majority holding false beliefs is not the exception- it is the rule, historically.

Your anecdote assumes there is a "God"- a supernatural being with millions of believers but no actual proof whatsoever. A being that allows us to communicate with a master of the universe... despite the fact that as knowledge grows, we discover that we are less than a spec of dust on the big picture. Most who are not religious acknowledge as I do, that there is a higher power- a force that drives the dynamics of life and the universe....and makes the rules. However, not a god that you can ask favors of, or that thinks human beings are his personal and finest work, that controls everything- or gives a damn about our survival or happiness. The higher power is indeed both totally prove itself and is visible to all of us all the time. Except those who fail to see or care, because that power does not do any favors or grant superiority to "worshipers". You can't believe that, because you need the ability to call on a power greater than you that will trade you eternal life for worship. If your "god" were real- why would he need his ego fed in order to be who he is, and why would this kind just "god" condemn any who failed to suck up to an eternity in hell? That is the psychology of a narcissistic lunatic, not any rational, loving, benevolent power.

Given all the time that we have had millions of people believing in around 2,000 gods that were going to nurture and prioritize the human existence... how is it that we have a world that is full of miserable people, wars, massive injustices, evils, defects.... that allows the innocent to be so utterly tortured and terrified, that allows the best of us to be murdered by the worst of us- and so much more of a horror story that is the human species.... and there being no differential between believers and non-believers, except that believers have a greater feeling of authority to destroy those who displease or disagree with them, in order to make the world more "perfect". Religion of your kind has brought us things like the crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, and ISIS.

Exactly what kind of "score" do we give to these gods that fail so miserably? Do we share the blame among all the historic 2000 of them, or is all this horror the work of the one and only god you worship?

The higher power IS in control- but frankly doesn't give a damn about your survival, or your faith, or your worship. It does make the rules of life, and those rules determine if you will be successful within yourself as well as within the world- if you will leave the world a better place than you found it, or just screw it up further and millions before you have done by failing to take the responsibility for life that is an inherent for all living things.... including the human race, which is without doubt the greatest curse on the planet that ever existed, and very likely the only species that will become extinct as a direct result of it's own choices... . The power is something we know as Mother Nature.

 

How does that definition vary from the one you'd provide for 'agnostic'?

Remember, I'm asking this in the context of your decision to characterize yourself as an atheist, and not an agnostic.

 

I see your point, by standard definition an atheist does not believe in God, where an agnostic is ''a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God''.

I am not sure now you pointed that out to me, all I can ''say'' is that it is ok to believe in a ''god'' but you can not try to interpret ''God'' because that would be subjective. So maybe a bit of both, I do not think God is some form of superior being, so I do not believe in God in that sense.

Maybe I am agnostic , sorry good question.

 

Is faith an appropriate vehicle or tool to use to determine decisions? When is faith no longer faith, but statistical odds?

 

I stated a fact: half the population has an IQ of less than 100. That in no way indicates a valuation of IQ. And no, I am not backing away from such a factual claim.

 

All humans do the above to varying degrees. Limiting the above claim to liberals is biased.

 

Kumbaya, Kumbaya!!!

 

You do not ask for much do you? One miserable life of 70 years. What joy.

I, myself, do not think of you as stupid. I think of you as blind.
And you do not want enough to see.

The creation of inconceivable life itself is enough to know there exists a higher intelligence.

 

ALL knowledge and belief are based on assumed premises, and absolute verification of truth is impossible. . . . Your belief that God doesn't exist is no more factual than my belief that He does. . . . According to your logic, leaders need to be totally devoid of opinion in order to be truly objective. . . . Maybe autistic???

. . . . And your OP title: "The world is relatively stupid". . . . Relative to WHAT???

 

Yes, I am aware of what you said. What was your purpose in saying it?

Strawman. I am not asking you to 'back away from such a factual claim'. I'm asking you why you felt it necessary to generalize in that way.

 

Equality?

 

Apparently, based on the next part of your reply, you wouldn't be able to track it and grasp it if I answered.

I didn't say you asked me to back away from my claim, but your words were precisely "You are backing away from claiming the value of IQ now?" And if you review the sequence of posts, you will see that there is no strawman. I simply responded to your question that I just quoted right here in this paragraph two sentences back if you can find it.

 

For someone who values IQ, you certainly don't seem to utilize it in your command of BBCode.



How about you fix that mess, and then I'll answer it appropriately. You're like a tagger who gets busted and then thinks they can get away if they paint enough camouflage.

 

Faith alone is not enough to make any decision and any decision based on faith should be avoided.

 

Apparently attack is valued in your world more than decency and integrity.

 

Verification of truth is not impossible that is why we have axioms. Statements that so obviously the truth they are statements of the utmost highest logic. If you have read correctly you will have observed I ''said'', it alright to believe in a God but you can not try to interpret God because that would be subjective.

 

That was only addressing a portion of my question. Can you handle the rest?

 

That's an interesting complaint when you lobbed an ad hominem regarding my intelligence. If you wish to compare IQ, we can arrange that. Put up or shut up, Kode.

 

Faith is always faith and I have no idea what you mean (but statistical odds) unless you just mean the numbers are dropping in believers?

Sorry your question did not make a lot of sense to me.

 

I'm going to opt for "shut up" if you allow me, since you have a way of twisting everything to provide yourself an opportunity to attack and I'm a bit weary of it. I never "lobbed an ad hominem regarding (your) intelligence". That's one of your spins.

Oh, and if you want to compare IQs, let's do it. Apparently we are both members of Mensa only you like to advertise it.

 

Thank you for fixing that abortion of a response. Now I'll answer.

You have attempted to change your characterization of IQ in the context of this topic. You initially mentioned it as a pejorative: an attempt to belittle 'half of the world', and - specifically - you did it to disparage the other posters who read his post and ostensibly wouldn't be able to understand it.

Deny it.

Then - when I called you out on that, saying that you must value IQ in order to point out that IQ is necessary in order to possess sufficient understanding; to adequately comprehend what the OP wrote - you claimed that my characterization was 'an assumption based upon nothing, really'.

It obviously wasn't based upon nothing, Kode. It was based upon your choice to use IQ as a bludgeon to grant your opinion more weight than anyone whose IQ you'd consider inferior.

That's why I then asked you how you reconcile someone with a very high IQ disagreeing with you on nearly everything.

You are trying to claim that I am accusing you of backing away from making a factual statement, and I'm not. I'm getting you to back away from your purpose in making such a statement; a purpose for which you doubled down by attempting it with me: insinuating that your IQ is higher than your debate opponent. You claimed that I would have an inability to 'track and grasp' your explanation.

We all know that is patently untrue, Kode. You are not smarter than I am.

You attempted to do with me what you just attempted to do with 'half of the posters in this forum'. Or are you going to lie to us and claim that your cite of "half of the population has an IQ below 100" doesn't at all apply to forum readers, and you meant it as no slight at all to anyone?

Sure. Tell us all about it, Kode.

 

Ok, I'll put it into an anecdote.

Is it possible that the food you eat during any given meal is contaminated with deadly bacteria?

 

It's a spin to interpret your claim that

Isn't an ad hominem directed at me?

Huh! You're a member of MENSA, Kode? You just advertised it by saying so, didn't you?

I am curious: how well did you score in the entrance exam?

 

Yes it could be possible that the food I was about to eat contained a deadly bacteria such as salmonella or something similar, however high temperatures kill most bacteria but not all bacteria. I am sorry but your anecdote seems to also have a no answer, if I was to test my food before consumption I would know then never eat it.
Is it possible the food I was about to eat have bacteria? yes
Is it possible I would not eat this food because I knew before hand and I am aware of food hygiene? yes

I am sorry I cant relate your anecdote, maybe try something different that I can only give one answer too.