Religious folks: Ever wonder why you tend to be less intelligent and less educated?

what always puzzles me about many religious folks is how they just blindly follow the teachings of whatever religious faith they were raised in. I mean, I have many family members who are devoutly Catholic and follow the Catholic teachings to a T. They were raised by people who were devoutly Catholic, so they grew up going to mass, making their communions, and going to confession. But have they ever explored any of the other religious teachings? I doubt it. Does Catholicism somehow make more sense to them or offer them something that the other religions don't? If they had been born in Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan or Iran, they would have a different set of beliefs and a diffferent outlook, and they would view Catholicism in a whole new light. And that's what's troubling to me. You are born into a family that practices a set religion and you automatically follow that religion just because you are supposed to. Your parents tell you that is what is right and that is what you should believe, and that is the end of it..At least approach the various religions with an open mind and don't just follow something just because you were raised to. It's that closed-minded, rigid mind set of many religious people that scares me!

 

:thinkThat's some spicy food for contemplation.

We all know that Max Baer and Joe Frazier developed their maturing bodies by hoisting slabs of meat in butcheries. Earnie Shavers strengthened his through lifting bales of hay on an Ohio farm.

Duran built up his muscles by repeatedly trespassing onto Carlos Eleta's property to clamber up his trees and steal coconuts from his eventual benefactor. The results of this boyhood physical activity are evident in Duran's earlier fight footage, which clearly displays the definition of his rhomboids, infraspinatus, supraspinatus and associated scapulohumeral musculature. This must have played a significant role in his ability to punch with leverage, as the performance of such a task would be virtually impossible with the isolated use of the arms alone.

Are there any coconut trees in the Bronx, that are owned by millionare property owners? I do know for a fact that there are many such coconut trees owned by millionares in Beverly Hills, which a street urchin might develop his body by stealing the produce of.

Therefore, my esteemed Stonehands, I do indeed postulate that in order for him to be Duran, Beverly Hills would be a far more suitable place of origin to the Bronx, as the available coconut trees and their wealthy owners replicate the conditions in his native Panama more ideally than what the Bronx provides! (Having served my latest wise-assed reply, I eagerly await your witty rebuttal.:stir)

 

While I agree that God seems to have a different character in the New Testament than in much of the Old Testament (the Old Testament's depiction of God is not really consistent, in my opinion- in some books or at some times, he is vengeful, harsh and merciless, while in other places, he is a forgiving father of infinite love much as is shown in the New Testament), I don't agree that the idea of God being gracious, loving and merciful to the point of being willing to suffer for those weaker and lesser than himself is disgusting or wrong. The idea of God strapped to a cross, being mocked by sinners could look "masochistic" and "inconsistent" from a certain perspective, but I think that, when looked at in its New Testament context, I think there is quite a bit of consistency to it. Consider the beatitudes:
"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be filled.
Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousnes' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."
Matthew 5:2-10

Hence he is saying that God cares for the poor and downtrodden, those who are good, but are persecuted by the world, and that they will ultimately be lifted up and given their just reward. Jesus himself fulfills the conditions he is describing above in the extreme- he is poor, meek (defined in this sense as being someone who keeps his power in check and retains humility), hungers for righteousness, is merciful, pure of heart, a peacemaker, and is persecuted for righteousness' sake- and he is ultimately and vindicated and exalted.
This is further exemplified in the following quotes:
"Then he came to Capernaum. And when he was in the house, he asked them, 'What was it you disputed amongst yourselves on the road?' But they kept silent, for on the road, they had disputed amongst themselves who would be considered the greatest. And he sat down, called the twelve, and said to them, 'If anyone desires to be first, let him make himself last and be servant of all.'
Mark 9:33-35
"But he said to them, ‘The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those in authority over them are called benefactors. But not so with you; rather the greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like one who serves. For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one at the table? But I am among you as one who serves.'"
Luke 22:25-27

He also says that "There are some first who shall be last and last who shall be first" and that "He who exalts himself shall be humbled, and he who humbles himself shall be exalted" in verses I don't feel like looking up the little chapter/verse citations for, and he washes his disciples' feet in the position of the slave at the Last Supper. Notice in all of this depiction, God shows that he is not a hypocrite; he doesn't expect his people to endure all manner of hardship and persecution while he sits loftily above, untouched by it all. He doesn't expect his men to do anything he wouldn't be willing to do himself, so to speak; in fact, he comes down, takes on a lowly mortal form, personally undertakes the stringent, demanding moral code he expects his followers to abide by and literally endures all the hardships they must live with, even being faithful to the point of a gruesome, painful death, and he is subsequently raised up and exalted, presumably to be first in the Kingdom of God, as he says those people who humble themselves and act as servants to all will also be. Unlike what I see in the Old Testament or the Koran, God as he is seen in the New Testament stands out as a compellingly perfect and loving being and as one whose words and actions, teachings and example, are strikingly consistent with one another.

Well, judging by the general bent of his teachings ("Judge not, lest ye be judged. Condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned." "Blessed are they who show mercy, for mercy shall be theirs," etc.), it seems evident that Jesus emphasizes mercy and considers judgment to be reserved for God- God, being an ultimately powerful and intelligent entity with a perfect understanding of right and wrong and the ability to know what is in any man's heart, is in his place to pass judgment on such (and even he is willing to forgive any manner of sinner who sincerely repents and works to mend his ways), but a sinful, limited man condemning another such man constitutes both hypocrisy and self-righteous pride. Jesus does say that "When your brother sins against you, rebuke him," but follows with the instruction that one should be willing to forgive him for offenses "Not seven, but seventy-seven times" after Peter asks him if they should forgive a transgressor as many as seven times- which is another allusion to Genesis chapter four of the Old Testament, in which the warrior Lamech vows to exact "Not seven, but seventy-seven fold" vengeance upon his transgressors. Now, do Jesus' teachings necessarily oppose all forms of civil action, including, say, putting criminals in jail to protect society? I don't think so. But I believe his teachings plainly militate against death penalties and other harsh, vengeful and retributional "eye-for-an-eye" style punishment.

 

At least all Christians can know that what they believe in has never been based upon religion. Of course all those that have no idea regarding what religion actually is will always claim otherwise.

 

Say Duran's father came back and claimed him, and moved to California and got rich, Duran would not have been Duran. He'd have been given his father's name -Samaniego, which, back in the 50s would likely have been anglicized to Saman. "Bob Saman". Can you imagine that? And what about boxing? I doubt there are any gyms in Beverly Hills. Boxing? For what? He'd have more likely to become a homosexual and a foo foo clothier than a boxer.

 

Question: Re: Religious folks: Ever wonder why you tend to be less intelligent and less educated?

My answer: I do not wonder, and the question is inaccurate.

The timing of the question is signifcant. Just Friday The #1 salesman in our company, by a significant margin, is a born again Christian. We aren't selling bibles, but a technical product to millonaires, that requires intelligence and eductaion to achieve sales success.

It's pretty simple. Unintelligent and uneducated people are pretty much lemmings and become religious by default, so the data is skewed downward.

I do not have the answer to the following questions but would like to know:

1) How many non-religious people in the world have an IQ over 150. I'm looking for the actual number , not percentage, 10 million? 20 million?, 100 million?

2) How many religious people in the world have an IQ over 150. Again, I'm looking for the actual number.

Anyone out there know the answer to these two questions?

 

I doubt it as the matter has likely never been researched to any great degree (if at all). What the term "religion" actually means is open for debate.. hell, I doubt there are any concrete answers regarding the overall value of intelligence quotients. Intelligence tests are based upon environment and experience as much as anything else, so the value will naturally be different regarding different cultures, ethnicities etc. when a similar test is used for all.

 

I am aware of at least one study indicating that people in the highest bracket of IQ scores in the United States were statistically less likely than those in the lower ones to have religious beliefs, but, interestingly, that they were also statistically more likely to have attended a religious service in the last week, indicating that people of higher IQs who did hold religious beliefs were more likely to believe and practice them with conviction; hence, it seems to be that people of high IQ (which is correlated with education, as I mentioned in an earlier post) are less likely to simply uncritically accept transmitted beliefs in a nominal fashion; as you say, "It's pretty simple. Unintelligent and uneducated people are pretty much lemmings and become religious by default, so the data is skewed downward," at least in terms of direct religious-to-non-religious ratio figures, though not in other data such as that which I described above.

 

What was it that you read regarding this? I've never read of any study that places much weight on IQ scores, let alone in an obscure area such as this.

 

So I ask again:



1) How many non-religious people in the world have an IQ over 150. I'm looking for the actual number , not percentage, 10 million? 20 million?, 100 million?

2) How many religious people in the world have an IQ over 150. Again, I'm looking for the actual number.

Anyone out there know the answer to these two questions? There must be studies out there that can predict these numbers, perhaps not in the world but how bout in the USA, or any other country for that matter

 

I saw a show on TV a few years ago about a small tribe of people who, I believe lived in the jungles of South America. They were a very primitive people, hunters and gatherers, and they had no religion, no God. Now from the tone of the question asked by the poster, he would probably consider these people certainly less educated than most, and possibly less intelligent.

 

Nice.

:good

 

It also depends a lot on where you do that research. Here at the dutch university, there is a very small percentage that is Christian, an even smaller percentage of other religions and a pretty large part that would say "I believe there is something". In my physics class, which varied between 30 and 40 people, there were no more than two religious people, but as you said, those that were did practice it a lot.

If you'd do the research in India you'd find a completely different distribution of religions.