• 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.

The Perils of religion [W:1129]

Again...as provided to you...and something you still have not been able to refute with anything more than opinion, intelligence CANNOT BE SUSPENDED. It is always present. It is cumulative. It is not void if one person holds one specific belief.

This is more dogma from the anti theist side trying DESPERATELY to soothe a damaged ego.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LOL. Ego's are something needed and heeded by the intellectually and emotionally insecure. Again, if one is intelligent and still believes in sky fairies, then one is suspending one's intelligence in-so-far as that baseless belief is concerned. Doing so goes against intelligence. That you as an individual refuse to understand that is not my problem.
 
LOL. Ego's are something needed and heeded by the intellectually and emotionally insecure.

Lol. My point stands. Even if I reworded it.

Again, if one is intelligent and still believes in sky fairies, then one is suspending one's intelligence in-so-far as that baseless belief is concerned. Doing so goes against intelligence. That you as an individual refuse to understand that is not my problem.

That is your own opinion. You can have your own opinion. You can't have your own facts. You claimed religious people are unintelligent. Would you care to reword your statement?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I'm not a fan of "iq tests." I had these 2 classes on education and BOTH had come to similar conclusions on the matter. One was an educational psychology class, and the other a tests and measures class. Both stated that an iq test has one major limiting factor: They only establish if someone knows the information on the test.

Thus...it is heavily influenced by the test MAKER, and is very limited on what it is going to establish as far as "intelligence" is concerned. And there you delve into what someone SHOULD know, and what is unimportant. I mean I would consider it important to know the finer points of how evolution works, where someone who is mathematician or programmer or journalist...may only need a rudimentary understanding (high school).

At the end of the day...intelligence is only a measure of what one knows. Not why one acts a certain way. Perhaps you can grasp that. I know that others cannot.

I do grasp that. Maybe they should have a test of one's emotional vulnerability verses their potential for emotional stability. That might indicate a religious connection better than IQ ever has.

Honestly, I don't think they will ever discover a religion gene or whatever because it's standard equipment in humans. By the time we're old enough to be able to question what kind of information we're taking in, we're too old to change the previous programming. That's my complaint with the idea of proselytizing to children. They are naturally endowed with a credulity that makes them easy victims for adults, religious or otherwise. The indoctrination of children is something that sticks with them. Admittedly, I and a number of other atheists I know, who grew up in religious environments, still have flashbacks and visions of a Hell that they can rationally ignore but are emotionally scarred by.

Few theists are willing to admit that they deliberately inflict this trauma on children. They salve themselves with platitudes about "saving" the child. Let that child be indoctrinated by another adult, however, with a conflicting god and see how quickly that saving becomes an assault. This is actually something I believe you understand but many believers choose not to look at this dark side of religion that authorizes parents to inflict their own torture dogma on the innocent and gullible. The net result is a lifetime of unnecessary nightmares.



I blame the person. Any time a person is an asshole...I blame them. Not their lack of faith. Not the presence of faith.

I'm glad you feel that way. I fear it's not the norm, though. Too many of the faithful are willing to declare me irreparably immoral for doubting that gods exist. Too many would punish me, without the slightest hesitation, for divorcing myself from the concerns of the divine.
 
I do grasp that. Maybe they should have a test of one's emotional vulnerability verses their potential for emotional stability. That might indicate a religious connection better than IQ ever has.

Honestly, I don't think they will ever discover a religion gene or whatever because it's standard equipment in humans. By the time we're old enough to be able to question what kind of information we're taking in, we're too old to change the previous programming. That's my complaint with the idea of proselytizing to children. They are naturally endowed with a credulity that makes them easy victims for adults, religious or otherwise. The indoctrination of children is something that sticks with them. Admittedly, I and a number of other atheists I know, who grew up in religious environments, still have flashbacks and visions of a Hell that they can rationally ignore but are emotionally scarred by.

Few theists are willing to admit that they deliberately inflict this trauma on children. They salve themselves with platitudes about "saving" the child. Let that child be indoctrinated by another adult, however, with a conflicting god and see how quickly that saving becomes an assault. This is actually something I believe you understand but many believers choose not to look at this dark side of religion that authorizes parents to inflict their own torture dogma on the innocent and gullible. The net result is a lifetime of unnecessary nightmares.

There is no religion gene. And I doubt there would even be a test about emotional vulnerability (one might consider that emotional IQ lol). Not one that is going to show who is and is not a religious person. I went to a fairly liberal college and I took my classes on religion getting my history degree. There were plenty of emotionally unstable atheists. Just like the opposite. There are just a lot of emotionally unstable people.

So for the "preaching to kids," that is your view. That is fine. Raise your kids how you want. Just don't "condemn them" if they find "religion" I guess? At least to avoid the hypocrisy. There was someone I worked with whose family actually disowned them for that. She was fortunate in that it was her AND her parents who were shunned for finding religion. That is rare, I am sure. But it DOES happen. Especially when one finds views that the others disapprove of (like being a liberal in a conservative family or vice versa).

As someone who grew up Christian...I was never threatened with hell. I don't really know many who were. But you are also talking to a Presbyterian. And the type of "saving" you are talking even makes ME feel uncomfortable. That is mainly a Baptist/Pentecostal thing. Anyway. Short version...those feelings of hate? It all depends on where you are at.


I'm glad you feel that way. I fear it's not the norm, though. Too many of the faithful are willing to declare me irreparably immoral for doubting that gods exist. Too many would punish me, without the slightest hesitation, for divorcing myself from the concerns of the divine.

Well...to be fair to those people (in a sarcastic manner)...they obviously (if they are Christians), don't grasp the overall message. That always bothered me about some people. I just don't like bullies. So naturally I don't fall in line with them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I'm not a fan of "iq tests." I had these 2 classes on education and BOTH had come to similar conclusions on the matter. One was an educational psychology class, and the other a tests and measures class. Both stated that an iq test has one major limiting factor: They only establish if someone knows the information on the test.

Thus...it is heavily influenced by the test MAKER, and is very limited on what it is going to establish as far as "intelligence" is concerned. And there you delve into what someone SHOULD know, and what is unimportant. I mean I would consider it important to know the finer points of how evolution works, where someone who is mathematician or programmer or journalist...may only need a rudimentary understanding (high school).

At the end of the day...intelligence is only a measure of what one knows. Not why one acts a certain way. Perhaps you can grasp that. I know that others cannot.



I blame the person. Any time a person is an asshole...I blame them. Not their lack of faith. Not the presence of faith.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

IQ tests are among the most reliable and valid instruments in all of psychology. IQ is predictive of: success in school, occupational success, income, and even physical health.

https://aeon.co/ideas/how-clever-is-it-to-dismiss-iq-tests

Blackjack50 said:
At the end of the day...intelligence is only a measure of what one knows.

Not at all. IQ tests don't ask any knowledge related questions. They test ability to reason, they don't test Knowledge.
 
Last edited:
IQ tests are among the most reliable and valid instruments in all of psychology. IQ is predictive of: success in school, occupational success, income, and even physical health.

https://aeon.co/ideas/how-clever-is-it-to-dismiss-iq-tests


Yes and no. I don't disagree with the use or construction of IQ tests. Nor do I doubt that some are valid. Like I said...they have 1 limiting factor that makes me uncomfortable about using them for any kind of measure of a person. Basically:

There are many different types of intelligence tests and they all do not measure the same abilities. Although the tests often have aspects that are related with each other, one should not expect that scores from one intelligence test, that measures a single factor, will be similar to scores on another intelligence test, that measures a variety of factors. Also, when determining whether or not to use an intelligence test, a person should make sure that the test has been adequately developed and has solid research to show its reliability and validity. Additionally, psychometric testing requires a clinically trained examiner. Therefore, the test should only be administered and interpreted by a trained professional.

Read more: Intelligence tests - children, functioning, person, people, used, score, skills, Definition, Purpose

It matters who wrote the test, how much is on the test, what the test is testing, what questions it asks, and who is reading the results. I'm not saying that the iq is worthless. I'm saying that the proper use is VERY important to understand.


Not at all. IQ tests don't ask any knowledge related questions. They test ability to reason, they don't test Knowledge.

You got me. I was over simplifying. But I didn't say an "iq test." I said "intelligence." There is a difference. Would you agree that those are different?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
It matters who wrote the test, how much is on the test, what the test is testing, what questions it asks, and who is reading the results. I'm not saying that the iq is worthless. I'm saying that the proper use is VERY important to understand.

You are completely changing your position. Your original assertion was:
blackjack50 said:
Both stated that an iq test has one major limiting factor: They only establish if someone knows the information on the test.

Thus...it is heavily influenced by the test MAKER, and is very limited on what it is going to establish as far as "intelligence" is concerned. And there you delve into what someone SHOULD know, and what is unimportant. I mean I would consider it important to know the finer points of how evolution works, where someone who is mathematician or programmer or journalist...may only need a rudimentary understanding (high school).

You were asserting that IQ tests measure knowledge about things that some consider important. You were wrong. IQ tests do not measure knowledge. Now you've completely changed your assertion.

blackjack50 said:
It matters who wrote the test, how much is on the test, what the test is testing, what questions it asks, and who is reading the results. I'm not saying that the iq is worthless. I'm saying that the proper use is VERY important to understand.

You are saying that now. It is not your original argument. Your original argument was built on the fantasy that IQ tests attempt to gauge what you know about certain topics which the test makers felt were important. This was completely wrong and provably false as you now seem to recognize.

blackjack50 said:
You got me. I was over simplifying. But I didn't say an "iq test." I said "intelligence." There is a difference. Would you agree that those are different?

IQ tests measure intelligence. Intelligence is not a measure of what you know; yet another thing you were wrong about here:
blackjack50 said:
At the end of the day...intelligence is only a measure of what one knows.

Intelligence is a measure of your mental capacity. It is not a measure of what things you have learned; but rather of your capacity to reason and learn.

You don't seem to know what IQ tests are, what they measure, how they work, or even what the word intelligence actually means. Perhaps you aren't entitled to an opinion on this topic. I don't have an opinion on the rotors vs pistons debate because I don't know about engines. Maybe you shouldn't have an opinion on this.
 
Last edited:
Yes and no. I don't disagree with the use or construction of IQ tests. Nor do I doubt that some are valid. Like I said...they have 1 limiting factor that makes me uncomfortable about using them for any kind of measure of a person. Basically:



It matters who wrote the test, how much is on the test, what the test is testing, what questions it asks, and who is reading the results. I'm not saying that the iq is worthless. I'm saying that the proper use is VERY important to understand.




You got me. I was over simplifying. But I didn't say an "iq test." I said "intelligence." There is a difference. Would you agree that those are different?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

When I enlisted in the Air Force in 1950, a combination IQ and Vocational Aptitude test was part of the enlistment process. Your score went on your permanent record and helpedd determine what Tech Schools you were eligible for, and what job assignments. I went to radio school and then volunteered as an Aircrew Radio Operator. It was the best time of my life.

Later, when I applied for a civilian job as a computer programmer trainee, I was given a whole battery of tests, ranging from IQ tests to Pxychological Profile tests, which took three days to complete. I was accepted and worked for 30 years as a programmer. I suppose they wanted to make sure I was wierd enough to be a programmer. That was required back in those days.
 
The thing about intelligence, testable or otherwise, where it relates to religion is that there used to be no real alternative to superstition to explain our existence. That didn't mean that everyone alive two hundred years ago was dumb, as they would certainly all fit somewhere on the modern intelligence spectrum, it means that religion dominated the discussion. There are still places today where that is true.

The founding fathers were part Christian and part deist, which would have been the closest thing to an atheist that the time allowed. I don't think the citizens of the time were any kinder to atheists than they are today and, certainly, politicians could not have made any definitive statements of doubt without serious repercussions, just as they must pander to theists today.

My point is, theism seems to be relative to something other than just intelligence, even today. The head of the human genome project was a theist but he was not dumb. If we are to identify some human component that is lacking in believers in superstition, it is more likely to be in their childhood credulity than their adult intellect. Those who never internalize the myths that they are taught by their parents are much less likely to have faith as an adult. I think it's also fair to consider the social, financial and emotional benefits that faith affords. If belief brings with it membership in a community that offers real dividends to its adherents, the rewards may ultimately "prove" god's favor.

Unfortunately, as with the Pentecostals I knew as a child, there are other benefits that aren't as nice but still serve the meme. For instance, knowing that you, above all your friends and neighbors, will be safe in god's bosom upon death, rather than cast into eternal fire and torture, even the painful sacrifices of faith, including ignoring the empirically true things that contradict religion, are considered to be spiritual investments and are "good".

So, faith has a cost and a reward, just like atheism. I guess what determines what you end up believing is the question, what do you need? If you need community more than you need to explain your existence without invoking magic, atheism is not for you. I am encouraged, though, at the atheist community that is being created in the US and elsewhere. Organizing around atheism, though, is hard to do without making it just another human division and no more useful, right or not, in the end game of unity.
 
You are completely changing your position. Your original assertion was:


You were asserting that IQ tests measure knowledge about things that some consider important. You were wrong. IQ tests do not measure knowledge. Now you've completely changed your assertion.



You are saying that now. It is not your original argument. Your original argument was built on the fantasy that IQ tests attempt to gauge what you know about certain topics which the test makers felt were important. This was completely wrong and provably false as you now seem to recognize.



IQ tests measure intelligence. Intelligence is not a measure of what you know; yet another thing you were wrong about here:


Intelligence is a measure of your mental capacity. It is not a measure of what things you have learned; but rather of your capacity to reason and learn.

You don't seem to know what IQ tests are, what they measure, how they work, or even what the word intelligence actually means. Perhaps you aren't entitled to an opinion on this topic. I don't have an opinion on the rotors vs pistons debate because I don't know about engines. Maybe you shouldn't have an opinion on this.

Sorry. Didn't see this till now.

I will just boil this down to the basics here.

You don't like how I phrased my oversimplification. That is fine. I don't care. I never asserted that they are about knowledge. Your words. Not mine. I made it clear:

They are a limited test, with a limited function, that are best used by professionals.

They are limited because they can only test what is on the test. They may test your "logic and reasoning skills," but they are really only going to be an accurate judge IF they are a multifaceted test created by PROFESSIONALS. There are many tests out there that are of low quality, or incredibly limited in their scope.

Further. You can claim I don't understand the definition, but you are the one who has misquoted me, replaced "iq test" for "intelligence," and generally shown that you have no interest in coming at this issue with anything more than a childish desire to correct someone.

Now. As for my quote? They test what you know. They test if you know how to apply different types of reasoning and logic. Spare me the whole "I don't deserve an opinion" schtick. I may not "know" the reason you jumped in, but I can hazard a guess that it has something to do with your desire to define religious people as unintelligent. ;)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
When I enlisted in the Air Force in 1950, a combination IQ and Vocational Aptitude test was part of the enlistment process. Your score went on your permanent record and helpedd determine what Tech Schools you were eligible for, and what job assignments. I went to radio school and then volunteered as an Aircrew Radio Operator. It was the best time of my life.

Later, when I applied for a civilian job as a computer programmer trainee, I was given a whole battery of tests, ranging from IQ tests to Pxychological Profile tests, which took three days to complete. I was accepted and worked for 30 years as a programmer. I suppose they wanted to make sure I was wierd enough to be a programmer. That was required back in those days.

IQ tests have their place. But their results? Best determined by a professional. How would you feel if someone was basing your intelligence on your religious beliefs? Does that sound like someone who should be determining intelligence?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
The thing about intelligence, testable or otherwise, where it relates to religion is that there used to be no real alternative to superstition to explain our existence. That didn't mean that everyone alive two hundred years ago was dumb, as they would certainly all fit somewhere on the modern intelligence spectrum, it means that religion dominated the discussion. There are still places today where that is true.

The founding fathers were part Christian and part deist, which would have been the closest thing to an atheist that the time allowed. I don't think the citizens of the time were any kinder to atheists than they are today and, certainly, politicians could not have made any definitive statements of doubt without serious repercussions, just as they must pander to theists today.

My point is, theism seems to be relative to something other than just intelligence, even today. The head of the human genome project was a theist but he was not dumb. If we are to identify some human component that is lacking in believers in superstition, it is more likely to be in their childhood credulity than their adult intellect. Those who never internalize the myths that they are taught by their parents are much less likely to have faith as an adult. I think it's also fair to consider the social, financial and emotional benefits that faith affords. If belief brings with it membership in a community that offers real dividends to its adherents, the rewards may ultimately "prove" god's favor.

Unfortunately, as with the Pentecostals I knew as a child, there are other benefits that aren't as nice but still serve the meme. For instance, knowing that you, above all your friends and neighbors, will be safe in god's bosom upon death, rather than cast into eternal fire and torture, even the painful sacrifices of faith, including ignoring the empirically true things that contradict religion, are considered to be spiritual investments and are "good".

So, faith has a cost and a reward, just like atheism. I guess what determines what you end up believing is the question, what do you need? If you need community more than you need to explain your existence without invoking magic, atheism is not for you. I am encouraged, though, at the atheist community that is being created in the US and elsewhere. Organizing around atheism, though, is hard to do without making it just another human division and no more useful, right or not, in the end game of unity.

I would like to caution you on one point: please do not assume you know why someone is religious. That is a dangerous thing to delve into. It is not something YOU can know with any certainty. It may have nothing to do with need. It may just be a want. Or like me? I just know. It is a gut feeling. I've had a lot to be thankful for.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
IQ tests have their place. But their results? Best determined by a professional. How would you feel if someone was basing your intelligence on your religious beliefs? Does that sound like someone who should be determining intelligence?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Tests should be judged by their purpose. I was given an IQ test early in grade school, back when such tests were common. I don't remember anything about the test, but it allowed me to skip two grades in school.

I once took a test for membership in MENSA. The test consisted of two different IQ tests, each carefully monitored and timed. I missed it by 2 points, but was told I did well enough to try again later. But I was satisfied the results were accurate. I could answer most of the questions, but was too slow to complete the test in the time allowed. That was important.

When I first moved to California, I visited several employment agencies as part of my job search. The applications included a simple 50-quesstion test. I was told I would be given a 2-point "handicap" because of my age (38). I easily answered all 50 questions correctly, but when I asked for my 2-point handicap, the clerk was confused and said 50 points was the maximum score allowed. I then commented that I didn't see how anyone could fail such a simple test. The ;clerk rolled her eyes, nodded toward the door where another applicant had just left, and said "Would you believe a score of 4? She then explained that many applicants were required to apply for jobs because they were drawing unemployment or welfare, and deliberately failed the test to avoid getting a job. Incidentally, the other applicant was black.
 
Aside for the obvious falsehoods, outright lies, plagiarizations and determined denials wielded by the faithful over the centuries, slowly many people are seeing through the smoke and smashing the mirrors.

"As I explored this, I realised why there is so much hypocrisy amongst the so-called body of Christ. Christians have little to no motivation to try to be good because they already believe they are good in spite of what they may do simply because of what they believe. This explains why Christians (including the many that barge on into this site) are so pompous, insensitive and full of themselves. Their beliefs give them a false sense of entitlement and superiority where they believe they have a right to say what they want to whomever they want as long as the gospel is being preached. Some will even go as far as to actually tell lies to get their point across. With regard to the issue of faith over works, it is patently obvious why so many Christians fall on the side of faith; it offers the path of least resistance and allows them to indulge their worst traits, safe in the knowledge that unlike the rest of us “sinners”, they are not perfect, but forgiven."


From: 14 Problems with Christianity

Perhaps in time you will develop some tolerance for those who don't believe as you do.
 
Back
Top Bottom