then god must exist

It's hilarious.

To sum it up, if someone is considered to be that intelligent (using this 195 figure) and he believes in something that has no proof or evidence to validate it's existence, then the guy in as intelligent as he thinks, or wants you to think, he is.

Yeah. It's like that.

What are you referring to the luminiferous aether or supersymmetry?

There is a God!! Now what?

EXACTLY.

Which one?

Nah, Euler and Gauss had some beliefs I disagree with, they were still smart as ****.

There all the same just different parts of the elephant.

What's wrong with this statement? Are you saying 1 billion people never lived in the past or won't live in the future?

Having a high IQ does not automatically make you smart and knowledgeable on every topic... If you read the book then I'm not sure why don't you remember how the author states that even though Langan might be smart none of his work has been verified by others to be anything useful or correct. Man keeps all his little ideas to himself and who knows how many of them are even correct and how many a complete nonsense.

I scored high a long time ago vs the standard. Not as high as you by any means. Some people are born with a natural intelligence others will never have. That doesn't mean they are unbiased, knowledgable of any given subject, or give a **** about a particular subject. Being extremely capable does not in any way make you extremely motivated. Do you think all the best athletes go pro? No some are drug addicts or get in trouble before college and blow it. But the fat kid with no potential can train all he wants and never make varsity while a slightly above average guy busts his ass and gets to be the 8th man someday on an NBA team. Someone with a ridiculously high IQ is going to have a better understanding of a subject he devotes time into understanding imo. I do put some faith in the IQ. I believe there should be a requirement for public office.

You say most of the philosophers say the common religions where way off and I agree. I think when a person is smart enough he questions these religions and says something wrong. That does not have to but often leads to atheism. It's hard for some people to believe anything someone told you is true when your lied to. Most sane people don't believe everything religion tells them in the first place.

I obviously agree with you on the general point that motivation and other similarly psychological traits may trump intelligence. I also, like you, do believe that a general capacity to understand things called intelligence exists. I have my doubts about whether the IQ tests actually measure that general capacity.
I think your idea about making IQ scores a "requirement for public office" is simply very bad.

Cheers

Also, according to the book there is very little difference between intelligence of someone who scores 140 and the other person who scores 200 on the other side there is a big difference between the scores of 100 and 130.... This is also a conclusion in one of the chapters in the book you're referring to...

Ultimately, this boils down to "truth" based on "authority". Damaci mentioned some theists in the past that were "intelligent", but I think anything anyone has written needs to be evaluated in the proper light: e.g., Swedenborg was surely "intelligent", but I doubt that many would agree with some of his religious beliefs. At 2+2, "intelligence" seems to carry some weight for many, but it's not a proxy for "authority". At the other extreme, strong skepticism or never giving more weight to "authority" often leads nowhere.

Has he ever actually done anything for us? I mean, has he solved anything or discovered anything of importance?

I concur.. Someone tell me what he's done and I'll be more influenced by his "god" statements

Christopher Langan? To my knowledge nothing at all...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Langan

edit ... He is not a Christian and he claims that he does not belong to any religious denomination, yet he believes that the biblical account of creation(metaphorical sense) is true, how does he arrive at the conclusion with his HIGH IQ? I GOT NO IDEA...

Langan explains on his website that he believes "since Biblical accounts of the genesis of our world and species are true but metaphorical, our task is to correctly decipher the metaphor in light of scientific evidence also given to us by God".

The 6 day creation is a completely different story when taken metaphorically since we can make up so much bull**** about it that it can sound close to what we currently know... We can do this to any other creation story out there and claim that they are metaphors, turtle through up the universe, egg was cracked, etc... why he insists that the biblical account of the genesis is any better then the other stories out there?

I'm saying they never took IQ tests, and IQ tests aren't standardized according to those populations.

Regardless, a sample of 8 billion can't tell you whether someone is 1 in 8 billion, and when the entire population is smaller than that (the populations IQ tests are standardized for are smaller than the world population anyhow), this makes it impossible (even in theory) to standardize any test up to that level.

And since IQ is a standardized measure, that means no legitimate IQ test goes that high.

The two IQ tests that have been well-researched and are generally used in psychiatric and academic settings are the Stanford-Binet and Wechsler scales. Neither one goes above 160 (and even at that level it's considered pretty unreliable - the predictive power of IQ seems to break up in the 130-140 range).

Because theism isnt an aquired skill. You cant equate the two.

Also numerous studies have shown that theism is inversely proposional to IQ, which is a sensible expectation.

Studies have shown a negative correlation, that's not the same as "inversely proportional." The correlation hasn't been examined in great depth.

Hah, inversely proportional would have been great. Imagine the zeal of jellyfish.

Well Im postulating a - ve, "theistic coefficient", which will one day be discovered.
But yeah I did mean negatively correlated; a slip of the keyboard there. Please to be making concessions for my English, state education!!

edit: Altough I'm gonna stick to my guns and say inversely proportional is still "a sensible expectation".

I wouldn't be surprised at all, until we get down to the super-low IQs where don't have the cognitive capacity to be believers (see also: tame's jellyfish joke).

I expect the curve of atheism is "U-shaped," with the lowest atheism at maybe 80 or something.

I had to take an IQ test before being admitted into a private school at the age of 5 (you had to be 7 yrs old or undergo that "special" test). Score was something like 17x. I took IQ tests later in life and scored between 13x and 17x on different occasions.
So I don't really "believe" in IQ tests.

I've met people with an intellect far beyond mine, who considered themselves normal and have met people who were clearly average, who considered themselves "special". But I guess inheriting wealth doesn't automatically make you smart.

Watch the three-part interview of his on Youtube (Chris Langan) to realize what an airhead he is. He "fell" into the line of work he is in, because of his upbringing (he was "poor").
I guess all of those self-made millionaires or scientists were born into wealth.
How can you be intelligent AND claim that to be the reason why you fail to develop "social networks" and progess in life?

Sorry, he's a wannabe.

I know a guy who scored (repeatedly) in the 180s. He's a genius. I learned a lot from him. You know what he spends his spare time with? Studying the battles between extra-terrestrials that supposedly take place between the moon and the sun.

IQ makes it easier for you to recognize patterns. Nothing more, nothing less. Sometimes these patterns aren't really there.