What we see here is your total inability to produce a cogent argument.
You are clearly not aware that a belief in god is a requirement if one wishes to become a freemason.
Intelligent people are "less likely to believe in god"
- Thread starter Syzygys
- Start date
What we see here is your total inability to produce a cogent argument.
You are clearly not aware that a belief in god is a requirement if one wishes to become a freemason.
You were the one who mentioned Christianity. Would you like to broaden the discussion to include people who do or do not believe in Thor, Wotan and countless other gods ?
Im suggesting that the more braincells available, the more likelihood for higher intelligence.
Sure there are people today that are as dumb as the average stoneage person.
I'm just not sure we know what we mean by intelligence and in what manner the brain functions to produce it.
I think you are wrong on both points. The first may be true for how the human brain is designed but humans are NOT the only organism's with a brain.
The second point is interesting because you equate information with intelligence but an individual with no access to information can have the same capacity to learn as the one with unlimited access. TBH, i think that second point is wrong on so many levels. You can prove this by showing that the human brain has evolved, become more powerful, or changed at all beyond a specific boundary. Meaning the natural limitations inherent in its design. Can humans do things such as changing diet to maximize the capabilities of the brain? Can this change be so widespread as to be believed to be a permanent change?
And then you have to take into account if the information you are putting into your brain is even accurate. So you have all this information processed and stored but what if most of it is wrong, do you lose points for all the wrong things? usually no and the reason is because everyone was wrong or the acceptance that this information was correct but turns out that it was not.
Suppose that evolution (the theory) turned out to be wrong. Would we say or think that the people who believed in it were stupid?
I am not looking to start flame war but since i can be honest and dont really care what people think i can say that for me it can go either way. Now if i had zero knowledge of all cursory information attached to it and there was zero history of this theory and someone came along and told me "well this changed to this and this started in the primordial soup and then these things swam then they started walking then they started flying" TBH i would think that person was insane.
Can i be wrong? YES. In some ways i would rather put this to rest because to me it does not really matter much either way. The fact remains that what people can be made to believe or perceive as normal is really quite amazing. All it takes is time and other people to be a part of it and really they can believe anything.
Bear in mind that i could care less about any of this because it will not do anything to alter my existence.
.
The problem with this statement is the phenomenon known as "the sheeple effect", Asking about very personal and potentially embarrassing details about an individual is always going to yield results that are not or may not be even close to accurate. Many just want to tell people what they want to hear and few have the desire to go against the grain. This is even more true the higher one goes up the social ladder to acquire the information. You can ask a homeless person in the street these questions and every one of them will be honest and really what brought them there but mere circumstance.
Just to clarify and to avoid any confusion i never adhered to any organised belief system and have been an Agnostic from as early as i can remember. That was due to the way i was raised more than any specific choice. I see more to support the possibility of something more but this would be consider circumstantial. Humans have many unique abilities, so much potential and to have that simply cease to exist at as an example 30 years seems to me to be a good enough reason for further examination. And in the end what does all this matter anyway? Because on the other side of the coin is the fact that the only real guarantee is our existence here and now. And that is not circumstantial- in this case i use the term circumstantial in its relationship to evidence.
Last edited:
We are in the state of affairs today as a result of centuries of theist decision-making processes, theist mindsets and theist rule, the same theist mindset you possess today.
Of course, you demonstrate in your post exactly what the OP predicts. Thanks.
