I think Pletho dealt with the rest pretty well.

I would not have said that this site is representative of the world population. Would you?

If its not, then the world population says nothing about the percentage of atheists on this site. Don't you agree?

You don't think it's worth pondering WHY most here are atheists? Or why most scientists are atheists? Or why most mathematicians are atheists? Or why most post-graduates are atheists? Etc., etc.

I don't even see it as much of a derailment. If you are a Christian who still believes the list in the OP is true, you need to ask yourself why, and also why most members of other groups consider them riduculous.

I completely agree that this site is not representative of the world population. So the question is, exactly what population does this site represent? I say that for the most part, 2p2 represents an intellectual segment. With a few exceptions, most of the 2p2 population are educated and perhaps aided by their interest in winning poker play, more inclined to approach problems in a reasoned and logical manner.

So no. I do not think the 2p2 community is representative of the world population. That was kind of my point.

Your assuming posts like this are for believers who dont accept these things when i would guess more often its the other way around. A lot of atheists bring things like this up to get people who believe the earth is 6000 years old to question that belief (or to ridicule believers).

Being a scientist correlates with atheism due to the socialization that often follows from having certain abilities and consequently being indoctrinated by the competing priesthood of the academic institutions.

That's it for me for today. Maybe I will stop laughing by tomorrow.

When you get done and wipe the tears from your eyes, you might want to read through some of the more serious forums like SMP or strategy for instance. Then tell me how many 'average' Americans, Afghanis, or people anywhere could carry on those levels of discussions.

I'm not saying this is Mensa, but the overall IQ of the typical 2p2'er is definitely well above average. In fact, I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is. Are you, Mr. LMAO?

Uh, I think it's just cuz it's a field where skepticism is a requirement.

As for being indoctrinated... That's for the gullible (hence, the religious). Scientists are the OPPOSITE of gullible.

What I get confused about is this:
I thought this whole thing was about trying to find out what christians believe, now it has just become a "I'm right and you are clearly ******ed", with no point or resolution. I don't see why every discussion about religion ends like this.
VPIP if you are so sure that the people who believe these things are wrong, why do you feel the need to attack it? I gave some pretty reasonable answers to your questions (imo), but i feel like this wasnt the point of this exercise for you.

There is no point argueing beliefs like what is happening now, no one learns anything and it becomes about how much you can tune the other person. I have a lot of friends who strongly disagree with what I believe, and voice it, but at the end of the day I respect their beliefs, as they respect mine, and we learn from each others beliefs. Whether or not you think any belief system is correct or not, there is still a lot to learn from every one, and NO REASON to ever disrespect another persons beliefs.

Thats my two cents.

2Ti 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Why is it that people think that the standard I.Q. test is such a big deal.

Is that what you rest your self worth on, your I.Q.

Wiki
I tend to agree with the below observation about the I.Q. test much more than the link above.
Uncyclopedia

I think that most two plus two'rs THINK they are smarter than they really are, thats the honest truth......

I think they worship themselves and their own intellect........especially most of them on this forum that are atheists.

Pleth,

Trust me... I definitely don't consider myself among the smarter of 2+2 members. In fact, I'm downright dumb compared to many of them.

I agree that IQ isn't necessarily a meaningful measure of all encompassing intelligence. But pick any and whatever test(s) you like. SAT scores perhaps?

You and RLK are missing the point. I said 2+2'ers are smarter than the "average" person. I'll stand behind that with money if you or RLK want to take me up on it. We'll pick 50 random people off the street to 50 randomly chosen 2+2 members. You can choose any measurement of intelligence you like. My money is on the 2+2 members.

When atheists claim that the only way to honestly interpret the Bible is by assuming some form of literal interpretation, they are agreeing with the fundamentalist argument against religious moderates. Furthermore, it seems more likely that you'll be able to convince a religious fundamentalist to become more pluralistic than to completely reject her religion, so you should deploy not just atheistic arguments, but also arguments that lead to a more open view of religion as well.

Christians do believe all of those things are true. It is either you believe all or nothing. You cannot pick and chose what portions of the Bible to believe in. If you believe one portion of the Bible is just a fairy tale then any other portion could be just as untrue.

Slippery slope arguments are usually poor arguments. This case is no different.

You're creating a false dilemma here. A Christian can reasonably believe that a part of the Bible should be taken literally and other parts do not necessarily need to be. A book of poetry (say, Psalms for example) does not necessarily have to be taken just as literally as a book recording history (ex. Joshua, 1 King, 2 King, etc.).

This is a slippery slope argument. You make a claim that if A is true, then B must follow, but provide no further reasoning.

[X] presents arguments of interest
[X] contains multiple logical fallacies.

I doubt if you can back this up given the posts that precede this. You need to be more careful before you make accusations.

No you didn't. At least that is not the comment to which I reacted. What you said was:

That was the comment that had me laughing. Then as a response to my reaction you wrote:

which is again different from the second quote above.

Now you have just claimed "above average" by any amount and are challenging a bet. You must think I am stupid.

First, my laughter was based on RGT. I really do not spend much time on the other sites except for SMP and if you watch the discussion around some of the science issues there, your opinion of the quality of education on this site is not improved. There are a few bright bulbs but there is a lot more heat than light in general.

Now concerning your bet, first I would limit it to RGT since that is the area that prompted my response and that is where our interaction occurred. Second, we would have to define "well above average". One sigma for intelligence is about 115 based on a quick scan on the net. But we would have to normalize for the computer effect, ie. simply being able to communicate on a computer requires some intelligence so that a segment of the population would be excluded. Put differently, I would expect the average IQ on any internet forum regardless of content to tend to be above average. So, do you really believe that RGT is say 12 points of IQ above the average internet forum? I might take that bet.

By the way:

You may be dumb compared to some, but I would take this bet if "many" required a 2/3 majority, for example.

It must be me... I've been misunderstood by no less than 3 people in my last 6 posts. So it has to be me, but I'm not sure why I'm having such a hard time communicating. As I said before, maybe I'm over stressed and delusional to what I'm saying. What I meant was simply this (and I'm going to be careful so as not to be misunderstood again)....

I think the 2p2 population is smarter than the average population in general. Did I word that right? So if you randomly picked a 2p2 forum member and randomly picked a John Doe from Anytown USA (or in the world as I originally stated), the odds are that the 2p2 forum member is smarter and better educated.

So randomly scoop up a handful of people in Afghanistan, Zimbabwe, Turkey, or the good ole USA, and I'm saying that they will NOT be smarter on average, than a comparable sample size of 2p2 forum members.

I don't know how else to explain it.

I don't recall average internet forums ever being mentioned. I'm too lazy and don't have time to go back and look up exactly what was said, but I thought we were talking about average population in general, not not internet forums. Did I misunderstand? I'll look go back and look it up later. If I did, I apologize, but there was a reason I said what I said.

Which posters do you think have low IQs? I mean there aren't that many regular RGT posters ... 20 or so. Please, name some names so they can defend themselves.

A literal interpretation isn't as black and white as you make it out to be. You could take something like salvation and have three or more different littoral interpretation. If i say the universalists have the correct littoral interpretation of salvation i wouldn't be agreeing with many fundamentalists or moderates. Say i think according to a littoral reading of the bible adultery should be punished by death and slaves are fine as long as you treat them according to the biblical rules, almost no fundamentalists or moderates would agree with those interpretations.

And really im just reading a book. If i think the bible says people who have premarital sex should be put to death im not saying it to agree with one side or another. Im saying it because i think that's what the bible says.


Moving some to a more pluralistic belief would be a good enough imo.

I dont really have any atheists arguments or interpretations that i know of. I just read the bible and say what i think it says.

Sorry for bringing down the curve.

Whatever the IQ, the attention spans are certainly short.

This is the comment to which I reacted:

All the rest was a reaction to Lestat's bringing average IQ into the question. The subject was average IQ versus a general population, all relating to the predominance of atheists on this forum.

Concerning your question, the individuals are irrelevant. It is the position of the mean. Whatever the mean, roughly half the people on here are below it (not exactly I realize). Who they are should be easy to detect, especially if you are above it. If you cannot detect them, then you also have your answer.

Lol, I'll play this game - I cannot detect this "roughly half of atheist posters" here that have lower than average IQ.

Combine this with RLK calling me an idiot several times before, and I must've been getting extremely lucky on all of the IQ tests I've taken. I think I'll play the lottery today.

I did appreciate your answers, and I thanked you. I also took the time to post two free spell checking solutions after you apologized for your spelling. I thought that you had something useful to add to the discussion.

My intentions were good when I started this thread. I wanted to get some idea of what Christians believed is literally true versus allegorical (I avoided using terms such lies or fiction). I included some things that I assumed that almost all Christians believe, as well as some things that I thought there would be different opinions on.

I thanked people when they actually answered the questions.

I initially refrained from criticizing the responses. I wanted a more complete spectrum of replies.

I asked others to "refrain from criticizing", but I realized that I did not have that right. Forum users have a right to criticize anytime they want to. They should not have to wait for an OK from someone else. This is an internet forum.

I did not challenge the responses such as:

• Yes .. but how long was a "day"
• we cant know if a day is 24hours like it is now
• i dont know the story too well :P
• unsure, dont know the story 100%
• dont know the story
• dont know the story
• dont know the story
• yes, but kinda unsure personally
• If you know what the word serpent means, YES, if you think its a snake, NO!
• Nope, was dead in the fishes belly for 3 days and 3 nights

But I observed that Christians wanted to assert that the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God, but that they had not taken the time to read the most outlandish parts, or they had never heard of it, or that a day was not a day and a serpent was not a serpent.

I continued to ask for more responses.

One Christian advised others not to answer.

I eventually moved all in. Zany antics rapidly ensued.

Welcome to the internet. Skeptical people now can question things that would have resulted in them being ruined by retaliation not too many years ago. Questions can now be asked. Inconsistencies can now be pointed out.

What is now known as the Holy Bible contains some bizarre claims. Some Christians state that it is all literally true. Some Christians state that some parts are not literally true, but are allegories.

My intention was to have a discussion of those beliefs. The thread has now "evolved" into a discussion of our IQs.

I have not given up. I have another method available.

I thought I had refrained from using that word after DS asked me very politely not to. Are you sure?

Be that as it may, one thing I would accuse you of is using falsehoods to try to win a point. Do you deny that? If you are willing to use falsehoods to win arguments, is the bolded statement true?