faust

FWTW, I thought it deserved a mention in FSTD not because it's so absurd, but because it's such a non-statement. *Everyone* thinks they're smarter than the vast majority of everyone else (this of course does not apply to me because i actaully *am* smarter ) Reminds me of drivers. They all rate themselves above average.

And don't go moan about "and then twist the knife a little more by appealing to "fair use laws" as if to stick your tongue out and say "Sorry, but you can't do a thing about it."" You should know that isn't directed personally at you. You also ought to realize that there *will* be some nutjob fundy enraged at WinAce's collection who will automatically threaten copyright infringement. I mean you just gotta realize that's gonna happen sooner or later or often. WinAce realized that and headed off the deluge with his notice.

Methinks you're taking it a bit personally, which is ok, i understand, but maybe just let it go. Besides... It could be worse, you could actually be *proud* to have made it on the list, as so many from RR often say.

WinAce

For the record, this was quoted in the September issue. While that statement alone could legitimately be defended, some of the relevant context from the discussion might help clarify why I included it. Suffice it to say that it did not occur in a vacuum.

A note first. The topic, a classic bit of trollage, was started by Haran and titled "North Korea - Atheist Ideology at work?".

While it was originally meant as a tongue-in-cheek parody of nonbelievers attacking Christian theocracies, it quickly degenerated (as could be expected) into assertions about the monolithic "atheist ideology" and all that it entailed, well-poisoning, broad-brushing, character assassination, and so on...

All of the following statements were made by Haran in the thread.

So, after calling the views atheists supposedly hold 'scary and anarchic', implying atheists should strive to ban religion, using the old morality = god canard, etc. Haran (quite ironically, given what he was implying earlier about their ethics) notes how atheists "believe themselves to be very much above theists" and (erroneously) implies they, as a group, consider religion worthy of systematic extermination.

That's the reason it was included, not the mere assertion that atheists considered themselves superior (which is a generalization in itself, but one common enough that, barring other considerations, I would ignore). Saying that "atheists" believe religion should be knocked off at the first opportunity amounts to a bit of clever slander.

Haran's initial post implied otherwise. Ironically, by selectively quoting himself, he misrepresented my website!

Imagine, if you will, that someone complains that I quoted their statement: "There are many children born in the world... with no record of their birth..." On the face of it, it's a rather innocuous statement. What must I have been drinking to think that funny? Surely, some places have lack of record keeping and governments, so it's a perfectly legitimate statement. But now analyze the rest of their post:

"There are many children born in the world for no other reason than to be scrificed to Saten as soon as they're born.. It is like a breeding program Satenists have..these babies are concieved and born with no record of their birth for no other reason than to be killed.."

Suddenly, the whole situation isn't as cut-and-dried again.

Sure, Haran's post was a bit more subtle than the "atheistic humanistic communist nazis" rhetoric common at CF and other sites, but not by much...

WinAce

And yes, I only added the exposition on US copyright law when a fundie from RR threatened me with legal action for quoting his statements about depressed people needing Jesus instead of antidepressants.

I suppose I could remove them though, if you're going to pull an argumentum ad temper tantrum... I've removed posts before, so it's not like it would be unprecedented or something. I didn't start the site to harrass people or anything, and since I see you're bothered by it, I'll take them down shortly.

Godbert

Ok, since we have theists on the board I guess I'll have to elaborate where I EVER got my wild assumption:
At least 10% of people in the US are atheists - >28 million
The average IQ of atheists of at least 100.
This corresponds to sligthly above 2% having an IQ>130
2.15% of 28million are about 600000.

Also please let your handler read you the post again and you will notice I did not say I am smarter than all theists. My words were "more intelligent than close to 100% of theists" and I got that assumption from the fact that my IQ is in the 140s or so while the average theist IQ is definitely not higher than 100.
Your post tells me you are not really helping the average.


Could you be more self-centered and arrogant?


I even said that this works the other way as well - meaning for the US several million theists with IQs above 130.


I only mentioned those statistic facts to show the pointlessness of Harans statement.

Godbert

I've got other things to do than annoy myself by reading the content-free posts provided by Gurdur there and you here.
There were enough clear statistics linked in those threads.

Maybe next time you can at least refer to a specific mistake in my post (which in contrast to yours actually addressed the topic) before you whine about my posting habits.

southernhybrid

We're not only smarter. We're prettier too.

livius drusus

WinAce, I couldn't find where you quoted Haran anywhere in the September issue. In any case, the other passages you quoted from the NK thread strike me as far sillier than even the full version of the atheist supremacy line. The generalization is what makes it foolish because if he had qualified it even it just a tad, it would be an entirely accurate description of many a poster's position, particularly here in GRD.

livius drusus

Then you should have no problem adding your clear statistics and the True Interpretation thereof to the extant threads. Any further attempts to address your theories here will be split and merged into the most recent one.

In my judgement, a discussion of atheist v theist intelligence is not relevant to Haran's OP except insofar as it provides evidence for the contention WinAce quoted. As it turns out, my judgement (in conjunction with my colleagues' judgements and the split and merge functions) is pretty much the determining factor of thread direction.

If this in unacceptable to you, please feel free to lodge a complaint with the other GRD moderators or admins privately via PM/email, or publically by starting a Bugs thread.

Thank you,
livius drusus
Moderator, GRD

Haran

Common' WinAce... You put peoples' comments on a website as an example of "Fundies Say the Darndest Things", proceed to tell them there's nothing they can do about it because of fair use laws, and expect that they not feel harrassed?? Please...

You can think of it as whining if you like. I personally think of it as trying to help someone think about what they are doing to other real people that could be considered quite unthoughtful and even mean.

Jamie_L

All these statements about IQs and statistics aside (without even going into a discussion of what constitutes "intelligence" vs. what is measured by IQ tests), there's a simple fact about religious debates:

People making an arguement for their case believe in the truth of their case. By virtue of that, they believe that those who argue the opposite believe in the truth of a false proposition.

Most people think that intelligent people are more likely to believe true things are true and less likely to believe false things are true. Thus, there is an incentive to think less of the intelligence of those you think believe in the truth of false claims.

Thus, it seems obvious that BOTH sides in this debate are likely to believe themselves "smarter" than the other side, especially considering that the "truth" in question is of such great magnitude. Perhaps one of the most important truths to get a handle on.

That says nothing about which side is actually smarter, but I don't think most people who act arrogant in these debates are really acting from a reasoned conclusion about relative IQs. Most are just opperating from the natural (though likely flawed) assumption that those who believe the false claim are not as smart.

I think this attitude is plenty thick on both sides of the debate.

Jamie