If there were no ad hominem attacks there would be far far fewer posts in this forum. Think of the bladespace that could be saved if not the improvement in the quality of discussion. ; )

I can be a hypocrite sometimes, but usually I treat people the way they treat me.

Had it occurred to your supposedly rational self to ask Splendour what she means by "spiritual intelligence" before deciding you should make public commentary about something you obviously don't understand? Splendour may disagree or have something else in mind, but "spiritual intelligence" as I use it means that some people are possessed of a trait that allows them more easily to perceive spiritual realities. If you are speaking of your much-vaunted IQ, you don't "base it off" anything at all. It's just a trait, like eye color or earlobe attachment. Now, even if the first part of the sentence made any sense, how is this a logical construct? You have some sort of study to refer to that t the rest of us never heard of that says persons with active spiritual lives have somehow reduced their IQ? Then you are neither logical nor rational. Unless you have some personal definition of "smart" that includes "has no spiritual like or beliefs."

What's really interesting is that you seem to think it matters to anyone whether you consider them "smart."

GPAs 4ROLLZ!!

Lol @ ever getting a concise idea from Splendour.

Spiritual and reality is somewhat of an oxymoron.

So one's intelligence can be described like someone's eye color? You don't think one's intelligence grows and evolves?

Logically, if the belief in a god is irrational, then someone who believes in god is less intelligent for believing in this irrationality.

Let's not kid ourselves here Prax.

Except there is no way to test whether not anyone is perceiving any sort of "reality" at all, which is why it's a nonsense term.

How can it be "somewhat" of an oxymoron? You've either defined the spiritual to be complete non-reality, in which case you're established a definitional tautology, or the spiritual is reality, in which case there is no oxymoron.

It is impossible to assess this statement unless you either provide a definition of "intelligence" or at you propose how one should measure. Without this, your claim that "logically" something follows is empty.

Spirituality is clever. It's like playing poker and having a card you don't need to show, only declare.

Really? Only science among other things has proved human's have spiritual components so its not like it doesn't exist.

What if intuition was impossible without our spiritual component? Interesting thought. We probably wouldn't have a lot of the higher level theoretical thinking that owes a lot of its existence to intuition if such is the case. Its certainly a plausible idea since the whole brain is so inter networked and interdependent that I doubt a single function is possible without multiple abilities or processing power types inside the brain coming into play.

Among other things? Like? I'll ignore the part about science proving this (lolz)

No, it's not. You don't even know what our "spiritual component" entails, but we actually do have a decent understanding of intuition, so you should probably stop digging this hole before someone with a grasp on the subject hops in and you're forced to go on a tangent about something irrelevant.

Is intelligence relevant when discussing theism vs non/atheism. Exceptionally intelligent people as well as those of below average intelligence fall into both categories. In no way is a dumb atheist more intelligent than a brilliant theist. The same would hold true for a dumb theist versus a brilliant atheist.

You're the one who doesn't know what it entails.

You've never even mounted an argument with any details yet but claim to debate. Its bogus. Without details you're just posting to be posting.

There are plenty of books out on the spiritual brain even Alper's book "The God Part of the Brain" by a reductionist.

Or The God Gene Book by Hamer an M.D. geneticist and a major research leader at a major governmental research agency.

I have yet to meet an atheist that outright denies the big bang or evolution. Jusssssssayin

I have met theists that do not deny they big bang and evolution.

No, no one does, because it's not a measurable, verifiable thing. It's a concept that has been made up. Even the sources you cite for it don't define it.

I don't mount serious arguments with you because you are incapable of serious argument. Most people here agree with this. You can go ahead and play this off in one of two ways - you're being dismissed because you're a theist, or you're being ignored because your arguments contain certain qualities that cause people to ignore them, whether it be because they are so mindblowingly strong that no one can contend with them, or so weak and irrelevant that they aren't worth contending with (or somewhere in between). Since plenty of theists here get engaged with and are relatively well-respected, we can rule the first one out. So what do you think it is, honestly?

You posted a lot about the God Gene and mostly got embarrassed by people who knew the topics at hand, which is to be expected when you're engaging in debates on topics you know next to nothing about.

But go ahead and get into it - how would one go about measuring one's spiritual component?

Me too... but I have also met theists who deny both. Have yet to encounter an atheist that denies EITHER. You kinda missed the point.

Nope.

Cloninger HAS MEASURED SELF TRANSCENDENCE and even developed the TCI test for it. It is a measurement used to gage spiritual experiences.

You have never mounted arguments against any poster to my knowledge. Instead you quip and try to control questioning so you can imbue every thread with sarcasm yet you display no knowledge on any subject.

As for the God Gene Book I only recall one RGT poster stating he'd read it well after my initial thread (which was derailed intentionally by certain posters for their own personal amusement).

When I ran the initial God Gene Book thread no one in SMP had read it, still none have read it they just used what they could get from wiki to post objections.

The God Gene Thread:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/47...d-gene-143283/

Re: God Gene - if the reviews I read are even close to an indicator, what you deduced from that book is ridiculous considering the content. It's also irrelevant to the discussion at hand, so let's close the book for a moment, shall we?

Measuring spiritual experiences is great. It would be even better if there were something quantifiable to measure.

I must have missed the point. What was it?

lol that God Gene thread is such a joke. You derail yourself by:

1. Starting a thread before even reading the book.
2. Ignoring anything that is in opposition to what you believe the book says.
3. Attempting to challenge vhawk to some sort of poker prop bet
4. Adding some story about how you survived another minor car accident. (which is funny because the other people survived just fine to, and you were in the least dangerous position).

but anyways, agreed 100% with autocratic, but whatever, its been told to you for years and you aren't really making any attempt to change, so whatever. The day where you dont post a reply that is in the format:

<random sentence that has nothing to do with what you are responding to>
Here's a snippet from something I just read:
<copy and paste 4+ paragraphs of something unrelated to the topic>

then maybe people will take you seriously. Its pretty clear that you lack the ability to generate your own beliefs and arguments so you must rely on things that you read and other peoples thoughts to try to make your own (and you are quick to believe the first thing you read without making any effort to check the validity of your sources). This leads to the mass amount of non-sequiturs as you try to twist and fit someone else's thoughts into the discussion at hand.

There were no reviews. No one has read it.

That's why the TCI was developed to quantify. Self transcendence is one of the domains of character that interact with personality.

See the TCI here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloninger

Because the concepts are more interdependent and fluid doesn't mean people aren't working to quantify.

lol?

You can just say that you are out of your depth discussing such things, no one would think less of you (perhaps considerably more).

LOL....

I can't take you seriously any more. Read Goleman on EQ maybe you can pop that ego before it gets any bigger.

People didn't read it but they had to control freak the posting. Just admit it.

If you haven't read something you find out thoughtfully about it before diatribing. That is the act of a rationally intelligent or wise person.

There should have been an exchange of ideas. Not a debate. I said upfront it wasn't a debate thread but none of the atheist could respect that.

Uh, what? I was referencing reviews of the book. As in, from sources outside of 2p2. Several religious sources thought the book would do damage to religion by implying that it stems from hardwired tendencies.

I think the fact that I consulted outside sources from both sides when you originally posted the thread (which I barely participated in if I recall) would give some credence to my defense of my character in this regard.

Any good exchange of ideas involves some debate. You just don't want debate on things you don't want to change your mind on.

your delusion grows greater by the day, this has nothing to do with my ego, and my post wasn't even about me at all. its clear your self esteem and self worth are so low that you can't take criticism without becoming defensive and completely missing the point of a persons post.

But again, id love to challenge you to a test of IQ, EQ, SQ, whatever you want, and make it clear once and for all what a intellectual, emotional, spiritual buffoon you are.