Can you train a man to be better at IQ test? And score higer after multiple attempts? I wonder if there is any scientific research done on the subject. Far as I know, the IQ stays same, and goes lower after time passes. But how can you even train one cognitive skills?

He smart as Daniel Dennet, and Rickhard Dawkins.

Technology has some religious aspects on it, such as rituals, as checking your mail every morning. that may be any function, or action. Myths are also big part of technology, such as "technology will destroy the world", or any conspiracy theories related to technology, and it causes. Internet works like totem, where people gather around, and spent time together. Also technology fills the conception of holy, and profane, for many technology gives amazing feelings, when one example gets newest brand of latest products.

Its very obvious to define "technology" as religion, when every aspect fits the major "theories" of religion.

Lot of philosophers with degrees, get very cringe after mentioning empirical philosophy, and they think it shouldn't even be part of the philosophy at all.

God would be ashamed to exist in this world, after how shitty work he did with humans.

Why does a son of a God, need to hide himself in dumb clothing, is God ashamed of its creation, and thinks one need to be hiding? Well one thing i can say, God did pretty shit job with creating us. Would anyways be better for human specie in general to be naked, it would make mating faster, and easier.

I think only omnipotent being, like God can only achieve conception of "free will", omnipotence, is only truly free will, that can do literally anything, but not saying anything if one exist or not. Human do have limited mind, and perhaps our mind is constructed off brain-cells, and their functions.

But for human beings, free will is truly impossible to achieve. We do not have the whole control of our actions, mainly because our acts are related to our brain capacity, and how the brain function. If you got brain damage, your mind will change. But in general any brain dis-functions.

I don't have free will, cant fix my back-pain, or addictions with it anyways.

Haven't found meaning yet, or what even is "meaning" of a meaning.

Going to prove that theism is false, with my back-pain analysis.

If, God is all-loving, omnipotent, all-powerful being.

Then the reason i have back-pain, must be, God isn't all-loving, omnipotent, or all-powerful being. He doesn't love me, what makes him not all-loving, secondly God doesn't have power/will to fix my back, what eliminates his rational mind, and omnipotence. If God truly exist, and had power to fix my back, I wouldn't have back-pain.

Atheism is true, because I do have back-pain, and if there was "God" with such features, he would have already fixed my back-problems.

I would believe God, if he actually did solve every problem that mankind ever had.

God loves to see people suffer.

Only good idea Luther ever said, was "faith by alone", what means for most Christians, that you don't have to attend church or christian rituals at all, and leads people to situation, where they simply don't need Church anymore, because just faith is enough. I'm glad his ideas have secularized Church much as they have done, also made people live's easier.

Luther was mean, and polemic person, against minorities. Such as Jews, and perhaps one key figures behind the antisemitic holocaust. Perhaps even inspired Hitler, and other Nazis with his work that he dedicated to Jews. He was an author behind "On the Jews and their lies.". And Hitler mentioned in Mein Kampf that Luther was his inspiration. Also Nazis did commit the horrors, literally in many ways as mentioned in his book. Luther is nowadays kinda famous among Neo-Nazis.

Maybe religion was result of evolution, to protect people from "sin", crimes, and abortion, just to guarantee the success of human specie. More religious people are the more children they get.

Most things that have been "proven", tend to be false. There seem to be infinite states of levels on "proofs", and the maximal proof, we never can achieve. As time goes on, human intuition, science, and methods will change in general. But "proof" seems to be most reasonable belief in point of time.

In sciences, proof in general is if you use generally accepted methodologies in your field, and your results are generally accepted in a specific field, then it is "proven". Until someone disproves it, but I cant see any proofs as eternal, because of always chance to fallibility.

There is always place for theists, on subjects related that physics, or in general any natural sciences can not explain. Theistic method is simple, just apply transcendent explanations to "Black holes of science", but far as we have seen, natural sciences progress, and we actually can explain every year more things than previous. But mankind always seeks "mystical" explanations for things they can not understand, and create argument, based on their religious beliefs, or scripture. Theologians have had over 2000 years time to prove existence of god, or any religious entities, with no progress at all. Leap of faith, just leads to irrational action, and never gets us forward. Also people seek simplified explanations for things that doesn't have one.

Conception of God is used as epistemological tool, like Joker, as idea applied when u run out of explanations, or just too lazy to find answer, that can empirically be verified, or testable. But there are many cases where transcendental beings, such as "Gods", actually have been reduced into something empirical, like "Gods" of cargo cult in pacific ocean, actually happened to be airplanes that gave them humanitarian help. Of-course the cult members never believed it tho, and still keep worshiping them as "Gods".

Culture can indicate crime, like using drugs as "ritual", witch can cause unwanted behavior and increase of crime. Also example there are countries where people have child-marriages, or perhaps some kind of "kidnapping" of person to marry them. But conception of "crime" seems to be relative based on culture. In some countries u can get fine for not wearing reflector in dark, and worst scenario, ending up in prison. And in western countries child-marriage, or in western words "pedophilia" is considered to be crime, but in eastern/Arabic it might be "normal" for them. What makes the conception subjective, based on culture.

Culture itself sets norms and virtues, that can be different from another system. To inspect one culture by your own (probably western conceptions of right/wrong) isn't applying to other cultures.

Culture, and religion is basis of one forming its morals, and conception of "right/wrong". Also i seems that every culture got aspects in that are considered someone outsider by "crime"

But yes, to be honest, someone else would have replaced Hitler from the Nazi-party, and same things would still have happen, as they previously did. And we would still be in same situation. Probably would have needed to wipe out whole ideology, and that would have had led to slaughter of whole Nazi-Germany, and afterwards his acts would have been recognized way worse than Hitlers was. Still that man had some pretty horrible idea, and probably lacked moral.

Why would have he killed the baby tho? Just he could have taken/adopt the baby Hitler, and would have raised him to be good. Perhaps he could have raised him with liberal,green,feminist ideologue, and the result would be something like he would march in LGBT parades, support capitalism, and welfare.

Idea of "God" isn't even omnipotent, because it only creates paradoxes, and paradoxes are just meaningless arguments.

God can not be omnipotence, because apparently he cant create another powerful being as himself, or even more powerful. If "God" Was truly omnipotence, he would understand our pain and suffering, and would fix the world, cure poverty, suffer, and every problem in this world, not in afterlife! Perhaps he cant do it in this life, because he isn't omnipotent. Honestly i think God doesn't even know that Africa exists.

God seems to be less omnipotent than human being, or even rock, i mean rock has least one feature "existing", but if we investigate "God" we find literally nothing, no features or even existence. What seems like really primitive "Being" if you can even call "God" as being.

-Never forget how "God" himself kinda failed creating perfect "human being", and created sin baits, what ended up baiting Adam and Eve into sinning, and then poisoned whole humankind with original sin, that every human being suffers from. Honestly i cant call that Good, or omnipotent being, because there are obvious errors.

Every being has it limits.

Perhaps after we stop existing, we turn into energy or something physical. I think unconsciousness is just a change of mode, also if consciousness happened once it probably will happen again,we got unlimited time, and possibilities, and i think the process will repeat it infinite amount of times.

I would like eternal life, so perhaps I wish I could turn into God, or some powerful being.

If you investigate philosophy closer, we always end up to naive questions that every child wonders, and when we grow old and if still question those, perhaps we are philosophers then.

For me those questions seem to be unanswerable, and are paradoxical. Like who created God, etc.

Those questions weren't made to be philosophized about, and yet there is impossible to find rational arguments, that would make any sense. It is mainly questions that relate religions are unanswerable, perhaps because those are irrational, and asked wrong.

Inspecting those questions always lead to disappointment, because no rational argument can go against someones dogmatic theological argument. So even if you proved in best rational to prove they are wrong, they just simply ignore you because of faith and religion. What only makes them want to seek meaningful argument that fits their religious agenda.

from mothers womb.

Pessimistic people would just accept the things as they are, and do literally nothing.

Idk i been reading James King - Holy Bible, for 13years.

Trump is representation of American dream, such as wealth, power, and success.

Best american philosopher i know is Donald Trump

- God bless america, and us all.

Hell is important tool in religions. It is a way to make people fear and make them act as belief system says. Fear of hell is only thing that keeps people going back to churches and its way to motivate people, even yourself to do ethical acts.

Fear of hell is good thing, if it can make you stop bad habits. Like smoking, drinking etc. But weather if hell exist, or not is not important question at all, its the functions that belie. It is useful if it can stop wars, poverty, suffering. Least the belief in hell make people act.

Physicalism would say, mind is located somewhere in your brain, perhaps in thalamus, brain-cells, or in neurons. And its pretty easy to calculate the mass of brain.

The wisdom is to learn.

Philosophy is in general interesting thing, by it definition it is to "love knowledge" least it aims to (every philosopher has different definition). Philosophy for me is to improve your argumentation skills, and find and discover different ways of thinking.

Philosophy will reform and change your thinking constantly, when you find out that there is other/or better ways of thinking about things. It might change your thinking/life completely. It can change your fundamental thinking. If you focus too long into one view, what might happen is you might change your worldviews and "radicalize", and turn into extremist.

It can be dangerous for varieties of philosophical thougs, like "democracy", "human rights", "values", that might change completely after reading works, like there is high chance you will turn into communist after reading lot of Marx works, or to Christian after reading christian philosophy.

No absolute free will can exist, perhaps it is coded in our DNA to perform our actions, like main ones are survival, love, sex etc. What all are basic human needs. And it doesn't seem like they are related to "free will". I see human, or all living species as Locke did "tabula rasa", what means blank painting, and our actions will draw it, when you example are born in to "higher class", then you background, makes you act by what your class is supposed to. And in general we seem to learn our morals off society, parents, and people we are with.

Free will is problematic, with neurosis such as mental problems, and diseases, like Alzheimer, depression, addiction, etc. Our "free will" seems to be determined by our state of health. And in neurosciences, everything is detected to actions of our brains, and brain cells. And perhaps in daily lives to our cognitive-skills, such as, knowledge/experience, what determine our thoughts.

Philosophy of religion got bad reputation mainly because it tries to find one explanation to prove one religion/belief system right, and others wrong. But the main problem relies on by having to give arguments against other religions, including Islam,Jewish, Buddhist, etc. What can be seen as "racist", or antisemitic, and no university/science field want to get involved with that.

It is dangerous topic, like genetics, and human experiments. What can cause lots of untentional harm to believers, and in many countries is even against the law to give arguments against religious beliefs, and existence of God, gods, or in general transcendental beings.

Philosophy of religion has bed reputation in many of western secular universities, including in study of religion, because the field may seriously offend some people (mainly people with religious beliefs), and in general philosophy of religion is lot of "apologetic" witch is basically systematical defending Christianity with philosophical arguments.

Lot of people kinda feel it is threat to religious freedom, and mainly is against scientific "empirical" evidence. Some christian private universities still study the field tho. And the field is seen "dangerous", and mainly sciences try not to ask the question "weather if God exist, or not".

But for theologians it might be very interesting, because "you can not do good theology without knowing the philosophy", and we got many brilliant minds in field of philosophy of religion, mainly Thomas Aquinas, but his 5 ways (proofs of god), are taken nowadays as some kind of jokes that u tell people in bar when u are getting drunk. But also William Lane Craig, and Alvin Plantinga, have done some serious work on field of philosophy of religion.

In everyday life, people dont need to prove their faith to believe into something, like Alvin Plantinga's conception of "warranted christian belief" what means that you do not need to give any rational explanations for your belief to be true, and claims that all religious beliefs are true, just because of private individual emotional/experience. So it seems, like there is nothing to argue.

Anti-authoritarianism would destroy all concepts of "politics", and "government". Without authority no government, or society can be built. Authority is must to create society where we want to have "rights", without authority, everyone would have different conception of "rights", that lead to chaos and war.

Only thing that held societies together, is their authority, like politicians, army, police etc.

I think evolution prefers small beings, because more small you are the less resources you need to be able to perform your nature at best.

Knowledge of our universe is related to how powerful/big our telescopes are, to gather evidence.

There is no empirical on existence of aliens. But life on other planets might exist, or will start to exist, after we send water-bears, or in general bacteria that can survive in planets that has solid water in mars. Current tools we have are very bad at exploring other planets, only planet that we have decent access with our technology is Mars.

More interesting question would be, can we start any form of life in other planet, and make it self-sustainable?

Size seem to be relative, one prefers big, other small.

It seems so that gifted individuals find best jobs, and many of them tend to be pictured as "psychopaths", "sociopaths". But being gifted has nothing to do with choosing right or wrong in all ethical acts, ethical "goodness" only applies to the skill-set that requires you to complete your job task.

You might have "good work" -ethics, but bad in other categories of ethics.

Karma is interesting concept, and same idea can be found in various religions, like in Christianity as form of "golden rule" (Matt. 7:12). Also in major philosophical theories, such as Kant's conception of categorical imperative.

Bad sides about karma belief is that, in Hinduism/Buddhism it evolves conception of past,current, and future lives. Lots people in Asia are being marginalized, because they are believed to collect bad karma in previous lives, and as result to born human. In general human is very low position to be in rebirth system, what means you gathered up lot bad karma in your previous lives, and did various of bad things, and resulted you born into human form. Unless you were born as rich man, prince, or big leader, that indicates you lived good life in past, what will get you lots respect, including Gurus, Bodhisattva's. But if you are being born into marginalized group, like poor, disable, that indicates you have lived bad previous lives. And people make conception of you based on social group you are in, and assume that you gathered bad karma to be born in low class, what can be used as a tool to marginalization, and mainly lower classes suffers from this.

So karma thinking can lead into dangerous ideas.

High IQ doesn't have anything to do with behavior, such as nazi-Germany leaders, scored very high on iq tests, and allthoug their ethical decisions making wasn't the best, but in other fields, like math, war strategies, architecture they were at its best, and completed their work at the best they could, and were very successful in what they did related to work skills.

In general most notorious leaders tend to have high IQ. But iq fails to measure social, economical, and ethical skills.

To be perfectly "good" and "bad", both seem to require high IQ to complete the act at its best.

All communists believe in objectivity of moral.

Your premises are correct, but it doesn't change any religious person view, even if you are clearly right, and they wrong. But we can say religious beliefs are stronger than any philosophical arguments, for most religious people that are blinded by emotional forces. There is no way to change their worldview with rational arguments. Its like parasite planted in their head, that allow them to give non-rational explanations for themselves, and most religious people think that "explanations" are useless anyways, because only transcendental beings can understand them. Call them Dog, Dogmatics.