Oh, I thought you meant in context. Now I realize you want a vague and contextless definition. In that case, I point you to the dictionary, which you can look it up yourself. I am using the one that’s in the dictionary.
Personally, I think I’m smarter than people who think they can get a rise out of me.
I’m not really trying to get a rise out of you. Just pointing out the repetitions of common tropes. Whether or not that elicits an emotional response is immaterial. I just think it’s funny how often those who are the more ‘rational’ cohort need for history to be different to validate their beliefs.
Whether or not that irony upsets you doesn’t really matter to me.
I admit, I’m mildly curious how much time Darwin wasted on religion, though I admit the possibility that it might have come in handy if he met other scientists through whatever denomination he practiced and they discussed matters of biology or natural history.
In which case you failed, since I said “sometimes I think” and then went on to disparage my own intelligence by saying I’m weak at math and don’t have a good job. However, if you believe in pseudo-science claptrap, I have no doubt I’m smarter than you.
It is strange sometimes though, to be confronted with people like Tomndeb that are obviously smarter than me, but still hold a view on religion that I find self-obviously false. When you get into Holocaust deniers, 9/11 truthers, and birthers, then you don’t get a pass.
Sorry, my dictionary doesn’t have a “why mswas equates absence of superstition with presence of trivia” entry. I guess the one in Woo-Woo Land does.
A superiority complex would be a character flaw and I have none.
Seriously, though, I don’t consider myself “superior” to other people because that implies that they are “inferior” and worthy of my disdain. I might be better read, more experienced or more open to learning and discovering new things than some people but that doesn’t make me “superior”. I do :rolleyes: to people I run into who can tell me with a straight face:
a) that the world was only created 6000 years ago (dinosaurs be damned),
b) that AGW must be true because they saw the Al Gore movie (that is their only reason),
c) they will always vote Republican/Democrat/Libertarian/Socialist/Green/etc no matter who is running because that is how their family has always voted,
d) that they don’t need to check other news sources because MSNBC/CNN/ABC/Fox/CBS/CNS/WSJ/New York Times/etc. would never give inaccurate/biased/distorted/slanted information.
e) or that the Cubs are better than the White Sox. 
d&r
In other words, I have little patience for people who are not only close-minded but are damn proud of it. I don’t think that makes me “superior”, only frustrated. If they can open their minds just a little and at least be willing to debate their reasoning, I would be more than glad to do it. But I refuse to waste my time arguing with a wall.
So you think the idea that a substance can be diluted to the point that one or two molecules may be left might cure you, or that the positions of the stars and planets can affect our lives is “unimportant, inconsequential, or nonessential”? If you could show proof for either of those you’d win a Nobel prize and change out entire understanding of physics and chemistry. I’d like to see what you consider important.
That would be a classic straw man. I assume atheists have a wide range of rationales for their stances. You are the one suggesting that it’s exclusively because of an echo chamber.
Believing in fantasy isn’t something intelligent, but intelligent people do it.
If someone believes in fantasy why wouldn’t a rationalist wonder what went wrong in their upbringing to make them embrace beliefs that have no factual basis? Believing things for rational reasons is better than believing them for fanciful reasons. That’s about the only axiom I personally lay down.
Yes, but it might make you feel *superior *to the person you just called dumb. This is what the thread is about after all.
Yeah, but think how much more he could have gotten done if he freed up his Sundays.
Well at least you understand what I mean by trivia, so you show a particular coherence, evidence that your intelligence approaches mine. You might be smarter than me, you might not be. I cannot say.
The second paragraph is exactly what I mean. Your adherence to particular bits of trivia being one of your criteria for intelligence. I don’t know if Tomndebb is smarter than you. Tomndebb is widely knowledgeable but that’s not the same thing as intelligence. But again, you are using retention of facts as evidence of intelligence. This just shows that Tomndebb is more DILLIGENT than you. It doesn’t show that he is smarter than you.
Adherence to a belief rightly or wrongly is a poor indicator of intelligence, as everyone has cognitive biases. I don’t see why belief in God is any different from any of the other cognitive biases. IE, that you are likely to believe someone is smarter by virtue of being an atheist. In otherwords you think that the cohort of people who most closely resemble you are de facto smarter. Though you obviously find this incogruous or you wouldn’t have brought up the example of Tomndebb.
I don’t think adherence to group identity is evidence of intelligence. I think it’s uncontroversial to say that on average atheists are more intelligent than theists, but theists are always working with a much much vaster population. If you start at the pinnacle of theists and pared down the number of theists to be on par with the number of atheists it’s likely that theists on average are smarter than atheists, because your sample size as such is skewed by the fact that you are only looking at the top of the pyramid. Just as if you did it toward the bottom and whittled down your sample size, they would be far dumber than the cohort of atheists.
The bottom line is that the truly dumb don’t give it a whole lot of thought either way. A retarded child raised in atheist family is not likely to have religious belief, but it doesn’t in any way elevate the level of his intellect.
No, I do not believe in homeopathy. What Lobohan likes to make fun of is that I believe in ‘Qi’ as a term of art in relation to Shiatsu as an artform in lieu of a better explanation as to why Shiatsu is such an effective form of massage therapy when it doesn’t manipulate the musculature actively in the way even related ‘Qi based’ therapies like Tui Na do. He says I believe in ‘pseudoscience’ which is actually false because I do not believe that Qi is an adequate scientific explanation. It is part of the jargon of an art that I know how to perform. I maintain and have always maintained that I believe in it as an artform and not as a science. Belief in Qi is actually irrelevant to the rest of everything, it simply doesn’t matter as I do not take it into account as a factor when studying science.
Except I never claimed it was an exclusive echo-chamber. I guess I’m not the only one bailing straw in the classical style here. 
My point is merely that adherence to particular beliefs, whether or not they are right or wrong is not evidence of intelligence. It is the capacity to judge the merit of those beliefs that determines intelligence. Or more specifically, it’s how efficiently you can judge those things. For the most part anyone can have it explained why homeopathy is bunk, given enough time and education. It’s how QUICKLY they can come to that understanding that is important.
Sure.
Sure, that’s a valid question. An interesting one in fact, but the mere fact of asking the question doesn’t tell us whether or not the asker is more or less intelligent than the subject of their inquiry.
Sure, I can reasonably speculate that everyone posting in this thread is smarter than someone in the world.
Then he would have burned out and had a nervous breakdown and never completed his work. ;p
Some things I’m much better at than average, some I am the median and some I am horrible at compared to others.
Like earning money. I suck at that. I can have intelligent, insightful discussions on dozens of different topics, but I can’t find a job or earn a living to save my life.
Either way, if you truly do have deep seated feelings of superiority chances are decent they are an attempt to compensate for deep feelings and fears of defectiveness, rejection or shame. So you’re better off addressing those instead.
I think the fact that we’re all on a message board asking and answering random questions and increasing our knowledge daily is proof that on average, we all are above average.
So you think the average is generally incurious? Is being curious a byproduct of intelligence? Can one be intelligent without being curious?
I’m saying the average person doesn’t care enough about random knowledge enough to go out and seek it for the most part. Being curious, in my opinion, is fundamental to being intelligent because part of intelligence is self-motivation (not just being force-fed whatever you were required to learn to graduate high school). So to answer your last question, I don’t think intelligence exists without curiosity (otherwise how did they get that intelligence in the first place?).
I’d answer the OP but I find this thread beneath me.
Having skimmed through this thread, it is clear to me the answer for a lot of people is “yes”.
The problem is that intelligence, education or curiosity are just a handful of traits out there which are considered desirable.
I believe many people on SD are above average when it comes to intelligence, education or curiosity. But I don’t know why that’d necessarily make one superior or give a person a superiority complex. I’m sure there are tons of people here who are terrible cooks, who have terrible marriages, stuck in crappy jobs, few friends, terrible health, terrible athletes, etc. Most people are great at some things and terrible at others.
The real question is why would intelligence, curiosity, insightfulness or education (which people on SD seem to generally have more of than the average person) necessarily translate into generalized superiority? Do people on message boards full of cooks have a superiority complex because they are better at cooking than most people? If not, why would a board devoted to creativity, debate and curiosity (which ends up attracting creative, curious, educated and intelligent people) do that? I don’t really seem to notice that on this board, but I’m not sure why it would have that effect anyways.
And again, true narcissistic personality disorders and superiority complexes are in some/many cases an attempt to compensate for feelings of shame, weakness or rejection in other areas.
Heh, well, I could buy that the time he spent in social bonding with his family or others in religious ritual may have helped him relax and unwind. Of course, this is entirely seperate from what kind of ritual was being practiced - he could have been relaxing while spending his Sundays golfing or playing horseshoes or whatnot.
And since there’s no way to tell which religion is true by any objective standard, I figure they’re all interchangable. I don’t know what Darwin personally believed, but I’m glad neither he nor Einstein were beholden to theocratic patrons, as Galileo was, to his detriment.