How do you reconcile point 1 with the fact that atheists on average have higher IQ's than non-atheists?

> How do you reconcile point 1 with the fact that atheists on average have higher IQ's than non-atheists?

2b point answers your question.

I don't think it does. Being an atheist, you display your fine intellect for all other readers to see. 2b is a logical outcome for me, and if you think sth is wrong with it, you are implying that an atheist reads scientific works that he does not understand! ...

that explains the fairy tales called big Bang, Natural Selection, and other assorted amusements.

If you atheists were indeed smart you would not have felt so hurt and downvote my original comment. Also, IQ tests are rubbish (and you didn't know that--which shows your intelligence level).

Among us, we look down on any work that is written by an atheist. It is the ultimate mark of low intelligence.

would we?

it is the WE that does not care for the works of an atheist because of the fundamental intelligence flaw. If YOU do, then by all means, sate your thirst for second-rate knowledge. I'd rather stand with the likes of Descartes and Leibnitz, minds vastly greater than any modern atheist's.

anyone who does not have and practice a standard code of morality does not earn my respect, and should not feel hurt if I don't read their books... I am free in my choice as are atheists. I simply said I don't read their books because they are not clever. They are welcome to say to same about me.

and I couldn't care less about the downvotes.

For 1, how does intelligence correlate with the types you mentioned? Seems pretty subjective.

anyone in that original list of mine has deficient intelligence levels. you need an elementary analysis to see that it is so--there is nothing subjective about logic.

Did Turing have deficient intelligence levels? We are after all having this conversation in large part thanks to him.

are we? Your history of computing begins with Turing????? Turing--with generous help from the British military--merely followed up and finished (in effect stole and took credit for) what Babbage started and conceived but could not finish due to no financial or governmental support in his time (btw Babbage was no atheist). Turing was merely a functionally normal.

There is a difference between a functionally normal atheist (like Turing) and a genius theist like Descartes. When I say deficient--it is in this relative term. The atheist is merely functionally normal but in objective terms, still deficient. It is not atheism that leads to that, but the underlying low level of intelligence that leads to atheism. Fortunately, there's hope: the underlying low level is ARTIFICIALLY-induced. In other words, the human brain is capable of achieving higher intelligence levels even if it has been stuck in low levels for a long time.

Functional normality is being just intelligent enough to pull off the type of tasks that given training, both computers and chimpanzees could do--the functionally normal person is somewhere in between. The difference being, as I stated in my second paragraph, that with humans, you can go beyond and remove the artificial barrier to higher level of intelligence.

Ask any former atheist and they will be glad to tell you how they fully self-actualized and became smarter beyond their wildest dreams.

What sort of religion should I believe in to unlock this extra intelligence?

I’m probably being facetious but I’m guessing whatever his religion is.

Based on his other comments, he’s not worth a discussion with. To dismiss someone’s ideas based on someone’s belief system is the sign of closed-mindedness. And I say that for both religious and atheistic people.