If faith works how every religion says it works......

[The Omnissiunt One]

When you arbtrarily claim non-Christians are smarter, it's special pleading or a similar fallacy

In 2008, intelligence researcher Helmuth Nyborg examined whether IQ relates to denomination and income, using representative data from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth, which includes intelligence tests on a representative selection of American youth, where they have also replied to questions about religious belief. His results, published in the scientific journal Intelligence demonstrated that on average, Atheists scored 1.95 IQ points higher than Agnostics, 3.82 points higher than Liberal persuasions, and 5.89 IQ points higher than Dogmatic persuasions. [4] "I'm not saying that believing in God makes you dumber. My hypothesis is that people with a low intelligence are more easily drawn toward religions, which give answers that are certain, while people with a high intelligence are more skeptical," says the professor.[5]

The relationship between countries' belief in a god and average Intelligence Quotient, measured by Lynn, Harvey & Nyborg.[6]Nyborg also co-authored a study with Richard Lynn, emeritus professor of psychology at the University of Ulster, which compared religious belief and average national IQs in 137 countries. [6] The study analysed the issue from several viewpoints. Firstly, using data from a U.S. study of 6,825 adolescents, the authors found that atheists scored 6 g-IQ points higher than those adhering to a religion.

Secondly, the authors investigated the link between religiosity and intelligence on a country level. Among the sample of 137 countries, only 23 (17%) had more than 20% of atheists, which constituted “virtually all the higher IQ countries.” The authors reported a correlation of 0.60 between atheism rates and level of intelligence, which is “highly statistically significant.” This portion of the study uses the same data set as Lynn's work IQ and the Wealth of Nations.

I'm afraid atheists have a history that appears to include a consistent end-justifies-the-means philosophy.

The end does justify the means. No other ethical system makes sense. That's not to say that Stalin and Mao were justified in doing what they did, though. You have yet to show that they did what they did purely because they were atheists.

You could, if atheists had a leader with specific moral standards we could compare their behavior with. You don't, so you have a false analogy or premise.

I repeat: 'I'd argue that they weren't true secular humanists or rationalists, as they adhered to an irrational pseudo-scientific theory (Marxism) and followed it blindly, without evaluating it rationally.' So, they weren't true atheists in the sense of being humanists or rationalists. They did, of course, lack belief in a god, which made them atheists in the strictest sense, but Buddhists are atheist in this sense.

40 million innocent dead vs a couple abortion doctors? That's not a very convincing argument to get rid of Jesus hoping the world will become more civilized. That would be a rather vain hope, no?

I was never comparing the religious death toll to the atheist one. Now that you mention it, though, we have to factor in the deaths from the crusades, from every religious conflict, inquisition, witch burning, etc. throughout history. This would certainly change the scores dramatically.

Well I don't claim to explain the apparent contradictions in the old and new Testaments. I don't think any Christian can do that. i also have serious doubts about the flood and any assertion that Genesis disproves evolution. Adams said the Jews civilized the ancient world, for intelligent reasons.

It's not just contradictions. All of the Bible, even the NT, is morally dubious at best, morally reprehensible at worst. If we followed it literally, the world be a much worse place.

Very few, and generally way behind the Christians.

The most prominent ones were, as I've said.

And he argued for what that Fox, who spent more time in jail,had not already?

That Fox did so before Mill is irrelevant. Mill still did so, thus women's rights are not an exclusively religious idea (in fact, they have little scriptural basis). You can't deny, either, that women's rights, civil rights for other races, gay rights and animal rights are, by and large, products of a more secular post-Enlightenment world. Certainly that is the case here in Britain.

So then if it was Christians, that's only because virtually everybody was a Christian. No, my argumet is that it only matters who did it first. The rest can be called copycats, regardless of who did it. Right?

No, because Mill was influenced by utilitarian philosophy, not the Bible.

Is it possible some Christians reading the New Testament for the first time decided to actually follow Jesus' mission statement in Luke 4?

Certainly, but it appears that rather fewer than you might think have done so.

Also I don't see where you answered the question about who Jefferson called the most enlightened of all? Th enumber of coincidences you have faith in keep piling up here, don't you think?

Jefferson admired Jesus greatly. Of this I have no doubt. But so what?

Which means you haven't read Luke 4. He's all about liberty and ending oppression, and that is his mission statement, no less. No if you want to argue he didn't give a hoot for political solutions, you can. His approach was that the carnal followed the spiritual change, and so it has. There is a fine book out on how George Whitefield and the Great Awakening produced the Democratic spirit because the lowly were given a voice for the first time in forever.

You put great emphasis on the good bits of the Bible, and ignore the negative bits. The Golden Rule existed years before Jesus was around. Confucius came up with it. So, by your logic, Jesus was a copycat.

I am merely saying that without these "theories" like string theory and parallel universes, you can't really explain anything, and you can't make any scientific sense out of all the phemomena you do observe. Is that a fair statement?

String theory is a theory of everything, to reconcile quantum and classical physics. Its failure doesn't render all science useless.

The Nazi's were Pagans, clearly

Leading Nazis endorsed paganism, but most weren't pagans, as members of the public made up most of the party's leadership.

BTW for those of you who want to get rid of religion by non-violent means, know that I will be of considerable help.

I don't want to get rid of religion. I merely wish to see it reduced to the equivalent of a knitting club: a social activity which gives comfort, but makes no moral and metaphysical claims that others are supposed to follow or believe in.