• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Eleven Year Old Genius Sets Out to Prove Existence of God

Just a gentle reminder: insults are not in and of themselves ad hominem fallacies, although they are dick moves. It's only an ad hominem fallacy if the insult is used to argue that a claim is false.

Attacking the person instead of the argument is bad form and a logical fallacy. It's what people do when they have no valid case to make.

Criticism in and of itself is not a logical fallacy. If I say that William A. Baurle is a doodeyhead, then it is up to me to provide arguments and evidence that this is the case (although I'd still probably receive moderator action of some kind). If I say that Nazis are/were genocidal maniacs, it's my responsibility to prove the claim.

Okay, I retract my use of the term ad-hom.

Nonetheless, it is pretty much an objective fact that Craig and Plantiga are highly intelligent, and I'd bet money that they have IQs in the genius area.

ie: Underseer, and anyone else making the absurd claim that these two men are morons, or any genius-level apologist, scientist, or philosopher (especially bilby, whose intelligence I am in awe of, but whose behavior here is suspect): You can make silly insults all day, and you'll still be wrong.

Peace.

All that being said, I am almost certainly a doodeyhead.

And I am using restraint in my current posts, so much so that it almost hurts. Be careful, lest I open a can of serious whoop-ass.
 
  • A is really smart
  • A says that B is true
  • Therefore B is true
  • The fact that the majority of experts say that B is false has no bearing on this.

I can't tell you how many times I've run into this, and not just on the topic of Christianity. Anti-science idiots and conspiracy theory idiots like to play the same game.
You mean how the entire science world is part of a conspiracy and can't be trusted, except that Hugh Ross guy because he is a physicist and says god can be proven by science.

Bingo.

Or that one physicist (not engineer) who thinks 9/11 was an inside job.
 
Just a gentle reminder: insults are not in and of themselves ad hominem fallacies, although they are dick moves. It's only an ad hominem fallacy if the insult is used to argue that a claim is false.

Attacking the person instead of the argument is bad form and a logical fallacy. It's what people do when they have no valid case to make.

Criticism in and of itself is not a logical fallacy. If I say that William A. Baurle is a doodeyhead, then it is up to me to provide arguments and evidence that this is the case (although I'd still probably receive moderator action of some kind). If I say that Nazis are/were genocidal maniacs, it's my responsibility to prove the claim.

Okay, I retract my use of the term ad-hom.

Nonetheless, it is pretty much an objective fact that Craig and Plantiga are highly intelligent, and I'd bet money that they have IQs in the genius area.

ie: Underseer, and anyone else making the absurd claim that these two men are morons, or any genius-level apologist, scientist, or philosopher (especially bilby, whose intelligence I am in awe of, but whose behavior here is suspect): You can make silly insults all day, and you'll still be wrong.

Peace.

All that being said, I am almost certainly a doodeyhead.

And I am using restraint in my current posts, so much so that it almost hurts. Be careful, lest I open a can of serious whoop-ass.

I think that Craig is either disingenuous or an idiot.

And long as I don't say he is wrong about something because he is stupid, I'm not committing an ad hominem fallacy because only arguments can be fallacies. A fallacy is by definition an argument that fails to support its conclusion.

Argument for Craig being disingenuous: he repeats arguments after having been corrected multiple times.

Argument for Craig being dumb: he tried to disprove relativity with a syllogism. Also, the argument for which he is most famous (a particular version of the Kalam cosmological argument) hinges on "confusing" two different definitions of "create," an unforgivably basic error for someone with a PhD in philosophy.
 
Just a gentle reminder: insults are not in and of themselves ad hominem fallacies, although they are dick moves. It's only an ad hominem fallacy if the insult is used to argue that a claim is false.

Attacking the person instead of the argument is bad form and a logical fallacy. It's what people do when they have no valid case to make.

Criticism in and of itself is not a logical fallacy. If I say that William A. Baurle is a doodeyhead, then it is up to me to provide arguments and evidence that this is the case (although I'd still probably receive moderator action of some kind). If I say that Nazis are/were genocidal maniacs, it's my responsibility to prove the claim.

Okay, I retract my use of the term ad-hom.

Nonetheless, it is pretty much an objective fact that Craig and Plantiga are highly intelligent, and I'd bet money that they have IQs in the genius area.

ie: Underseer, and anyone else making the absurd claim that these two men are morons, or any genius-level apologist, scientist, or philosopher (especially bilby, whose intelligence I am in awe of, but whose behavior here is suspect): You can make silly insults all day, and you'll still be wrong.

Peace.

All that being said, I am almost certainly a doodeyhead.

And I am using restraint in my current posts, so much so that it almost hurts. Be careful, lest I open a can of serious whoop-ass.

I think that Craig is either disingenuous or an idiot.

And long as I don't say he is wrong about something because he is stupid, I'm not committing an ad hominem fallacy because only arguments can be fallacies. A fallacy is by definition an argument that fails to support its conclusion.

Argument for Craig being disingenuous: he repeats arguments after having been corrected multiple times.

Argument for Craig being dumb: he tried to disprove relativity with a syllogism. Also, the argument for which he is most famous (a particular version of the Kalam cosmological argument) hinges on "confusing" two different definitions of "create," an unforgivably basic error for someone with a PhD in philosophy.

Okay. I believe Craig is being disingenuous. But he's not an idiot, in the technical sense. I think we can safely say his IQ is not hovering around 70?

Also: Kalam argument: a stupidity bound up in and tied up with, more stupidities.

Ezra Pound: [ yes, the virulent anti-semite, but please know, he recanted and apologized for his idiocy during WWII ]: I paraphrase: 'mendacities & stupidities, and stupidities...' From The Cantos

Many noodly and starchy blessings upon thee, Underseer. Yea, verily, many blessings unto thy house, thy ointments and thy cattle, yea, even unto thy candles, and thy candlewax...yea verily, etc.

But most of all, you have my complete and utterly unconditional LOVE, from here on in. Feel free to call me anything you want. I'm a tough, scrappy little bastard. I can take it. Also, I'm transgender (probably), a bit of a 'sissy/cuck'**, and bi-polar.* Albeit, I do not and have never dressed up like a girl....

Oh, alright, I confess: I have worn female undies, but only for a very brief [pun-intended] time.

*YAY for me!

**Thus: I'm sorta masochistic. I like being hurt, but only to a certain degree. Once that line is crossed, watch out! ie: I scared the living daylights out of a young 'Bull' who had the unmitigated audacity to show me his face. Once he broke the rules, all bets were off. He pissed his pants and ran away.

ETA, yet again: I know some cucks like to watch and even degrade themselves by doing all sorts of demeaning things, for the pleasure of their wives, the Bulls, and themselves. It's a win-win-win. But for me, I made my own set of rules. Which this silly young "bull" broke, thinking I was a weakling.

...ahem...NOT! See my profile photo. And, I am really not that small. I'm five-seven, very fit, and when I have to, I can be very intimidating. But enough about me... What do YOU think about me? lol. Stole that from a Woody Allen film.

ETA:

Bronzeage knows my history, and a bit of my psychological ins-and-outs. I wrote a very naughty (read: pornographic) book in revenge for my hotwife's bad behavior; which I subsequently edited and turned into a romance novel. It was available on Kindle, but I removed it, since my ex-wife and I have reconciled and are now good friends.



:joy:
 
Last edited:
Shame on me for thinking God was partly made of rope.
The point is, they are all wrong. Your position is that 'Well, someone has to be right' when no one has to be right.

So, which blind man lucks out to get the part of God that talks?

And why does God's knee, say, tell THAT blind man that anyone who believes in a rope god is a heretic and needs to die in a fire? I mean, even if differing access to the Almighty made different impressions about His divine nature, wouldn't it be expected that all parts of Ganesha give consistent revelations?
 
So, which blind man lucks out to get the part of God that talks?

The Christian, of course.
Yeah, THAT helps.
I've got Baptist, Catholic, and Mormon relatives, all of whom were told almost directly by God that at least one of the others was worshiping the wrong Jesus...

I worked with two very nice women, both late thirtees when I worked with them, who were regular, church-going people, who identified as 'Christians.'

One, whom I shall call J., once told me that she believed in a traditional hell (eternal, actual, burning, forever and ever, in real, terrestially, humanly-perceived time), and that it awaited anyone who was not a Christian. J,. bless her simple heart, was of the assumption that Mormons worshipped a "god" called Mormon. She also rather petulantly referred to a friend of mine, S., who was a member of the Apostolic church, as a "scientologist", which J. believed, I think, were people who worshipped science as a "god". When I told J. that I thought the idea of a traditional hell was disgusting and an evil concept, she became angry with me. Later, she confessed that she had never actually read the Bible.

The other, whom I shall call T., when I asked her whether she was a Catholic (as I had been Christened but was not at that time an adherent of), became almost fiercely indignant, and got red in the face, and shook her head, "Oh no, I'm a Christian." When I explained that Catholics were, in fact, Christians, and not only that, but that they predated her brand of Christian by several centuries—I believe I mentioned that Peter was thought of as the first Pope—T. just blinked at me from among the radiant nimbus of her long blonde locks as if I had a third eye in the middle of my forehead, and walked away. I assumed, though I am not certain, that T. never cracked the Bible open either. She tuned in to handsome preachers on TV with sparkly thousand-watt smiles, and that was enough for her.

While I defend real and actually highly intelligent religious people, like Craig and Plantinga, and my very dear Uncle/Engineer/Inventor Herb Baurle***, that does not mean that I'm not aware of the frightening hordes of sheeple in our midst. Particularly here in Rome...er, I mean Amerika (great Rammstein song by the way).



***

!!!!Baurle Round up 1978.jpg

I am the stumpy beta-male in the red checkered shirt; my Uncle Herb is on the far left, back-row; my alpha-male brother is next to me; my insanely successful cousin Eric is the dapper young gentleman to my left; my sister is standing in front of my Uncle Herb, beside my grandfather, who fought for the Kaiser at the age of 15, in 1915 (all 3 siblings are bi-polar, from Mom, who is beside my very bearded and ONLY militantly atheist member of the Baurles, 1978.

At a Thanksgiving dinner put on by my Aunt Trudy, who is beside my sister, Herb's wife, and Uncle Herb, in their VERY posh home in Northport, Long Island, around 1976 or so, my whackadoodle and rebellious father made the claim that Jesus was a "communist", which was met with great indignation by the VERY religious attendees at this dinner, which included grand-aunts and second cousins et al, ALL very religious. My Uncle Herb would always meet my father's very vocal atheism with a gentle smile. He would not argue with my Pop, who was/is pretty damn clever.

 
Last edited:
Nice looking family. Most people have not read the bible, but have been inducted into the church. People do not come to God because of the message, but the messenger..that is why not all churches are full or evened out. You have some churches closing and other churches with four thousand people. It has nothing to do with truth.
 
Nice looking family. Most people have not read the bible, but have been inducted into the church. People do not come to God because of the message, but the messenger..that is why not all churches are full or evened out. You have some churches closing and other churches with four thousand people. It has nothing to do with truth.

I believe you're right.
 
Nice looking family. Most people have not read the bible, but have been inducted into the church. People do not come to God because of the message, but the messenger..that is why not all churches are full or evened out. You have some churches closing and other churches with four thousand people. It has nothing to do with truth.

They must've missed the part in the Bible where Jesus talks about marketing. "And verily I say unto you, Always Be Closing." Sales 3:46.
 
Nice looking family. Most people have not read the bible, but have been inducted into the church. People do not come to God because of the message, but the messenger..that is why not all churches are full or evened out. You have some churches closing and other churches with four thousand people. It has nothing to do with truth.

They must've missed the part in the Bible where Jesus talks about marketing. "And verily I say unto you, Always Be Closing." Sales 3:46.

Ah, the book of Sales. Good on ya, Opoponax. I have met very few people in my travels who are acquainted with that very obscure piece of apocrypha. In fact, only two: brother Remw' `uway Imp|hil.oi, from Arctu'rus 7, a scribe who worked in a scriptorium I did some internship at a few billion years ago; and the other a reclusive archaeologist from London (that's London, Canada, not London, England), whose name I can't repeat, because if I did I would be dead, and so would you.

Anyway, yeah, Sales has some interesting stuff, though I am more swayed by the French translation of one EB from the original Aluet manuscript usually ascribed to Quihquotqui, discovered, as it happens, by two moose (meese? Mooses?) who had locked horns and fell over on the tundra, causing a great concussion that opened the frozen ground and revealed the tightly bound fragments, which a passing squirrel picked up and delivered to a falcon (bless its poor little heart) which then brought it to the igloo of one Hieqiqa Quikqu'lt, who then sang it to his friend Quihquotqui, who was literate and wrote it down.

I, for one, have a different interpretation of that verse in Sales** that you refer to, but let's just not go there, as it will no doubt give us both far more trouble than we really need right now, right? Be at peace, my brother (or sister).

**It's from the New Anti-Arian post-Calvinisto-Greek Orthodox coptic translation of the original Hebrew translation from the Arabic of Rushu'lal Ibn Muhammed D'ahlidd, circa upper Egyptian/Turkish - Moorish by Origen, which of course I mean in the even newer Mercan translation by the great scholar Skippy Beanblossom, or have you cited it from another source?

:rimshot: [if I don't get at least one damn little sparkly for this bit of funniness I will...well I'll...]

*


:joy:
 
When you ask yourself WWJD, make sure you first ask yourself "What would the socioeconomically privileged class (the majority) who desire the pacification of their indentured wage slaves want?"


If this precocious 11 year old is smart, they'll find out that God exists, it's the AI designed to keep the privileged on top, and the poor pacified. When the privileged "pray" to it, they get stuff (if it's physically and financially possible). Remember- the corrupt pray out loud, because they know the AI exists. Fools pray out loud alongside them, because they don't know their God (that answers using directional sound manipulation (voice in their head), biometric emotional response technology (do they respond to the voice in their head??), analytics (what is the best thing to have the voice say in their head, to get them to do what the rich want??), etc.) is an AI designed to redistribute wealth to the privileged, and pacify the deliberately disenfranchised.


The non corrupt are targets of an ongoing experiment designed to manipulate them into doing all the work. Using directional sound manipulation and emotional response recognition technology (which is prevalent), people have analytically tailored experiences designed to turn them into willing slaves to the privileged, who are willing to do anything to end up on top.

Gotta be nice to know that you will end up on top once the biological work is done... not having to work, living the good life.... while others do all the crap work. What a thing to know, to know that you get the good life, while people like me are pushed to the edge of the system to be your slaves, and have been cultivated our whole lives, by the corrupt system you've inherited or designed, to be pariahs among you so that you feel no guilt at using us.

I get it- you'll never admit what you set out to do to me. But I know. And you deserve torture and death. We'll see who wins in the end. Ohh, yeah. You.
 
I suspect it will looks something like this:

View attachment 15645

Hey - I'm convinced! :D

Nothing of substantive content here, Tom, and you damn well know it.

Just mockery and scorn; typical handwaving magic that some sciency types love to indulge in, then turn around and have the phuck.ing audacity to accuse more humble scientists of the very same thing. Appalling. Einstein is spinning in his grave at the lack of humility among certain types of scientists.

But yeah, all those PHD's, those theoretical physicists with their imaginative theories, their speculative, risk-taking, deeply- thought-out models? Yeah, they're all just a bunch of dummies, morons, wooers. BULLshit.

People like you will say and write ANYTHING, and heap scorn upon ANYTHING, just to keep tenure, to make sure you fare well in peer reviews. Pathetic cowardice and lack of intellectual integrity. THIS is why the universities are churning out weaklings who cannot face reality. It's the blind leading the blind.

This kid is far brighter than you, or I, or bilby, or fromderinside, and y'all damn well know it. If you don't, you need to be made aware of it. Post-haste.

I suggest you hit the books instead of dawdling around on Google and having a good time, and racking up your precious rep.

Look at Copernicus: a genius who has a modicum of humility.

why so emotional? Are you the kid's parent?
 
  • Like
Reactions: WAB
Just mockery and scorn; typical handwaving magic that some sciency types love to indulge in, then turn around and have the phuck.ing audacity to accuse more humble scientists of the very same thing. Appalling. Einstein is spinning in his grave at the lack of humility among certain types of scientists.

But yeah, all those PHD's, those theoretical physicists with their imaginative theories, their speculative, risk-taking, deeply- thought-out models? Yeah, they're all just a bunch of dummies, morons, wooers. BULLshit.

This kid is far brighter than you, or I, or bilby, or fromderinside, and y'all damn well know it. If you don't, you need to be made aware of it. Post-haste.

I feel there’s a good bit of irony in claiming that people lack humility for questioning the claims of an 11 year old who is claiming that he will discover proof of god.

This kid isn’t the only smart kid on the planet. He’s hardly able to claim he’s the smartest who has ever lived.. And if he were claiming that, he’d be rather lacking both smarts and humility, ja?

And as someone intimately familiar with research in profoundly intelligent kids, just because he can easily handle the books for a college degree does NOT mean his entire brain is fully developed in either humility or long range planning or reason. Just because a kid can ready the Harry Potter series a the age of five, doesn’t mean he has he sense to not rub sand on the hood of his father’s car.

This kid is claiming that he will do something that NO OTHER HUMAN, nor consortium of humans, nor god-inspired gaggle of divine scholars has ever achieved.

It doesn’t make me not-humble to say that is an exttraordinary claim and so far no extraordinary evidence has been presented to even hint at its path, let alone its accomplishment.

Your rant is an hilarious testimony to belief without evidence. And if this 11 year old is half as smart as you claim him to be, then he would know that.

Until then, this is a circus side-show. An 11 year-old’s claim that he’s going to change the whole world forever.

Rant my ass. Your lack of humility, and your inability to step outside of your box, is appalling.

This kid is eleven years old. WTF were YOU doing when you were eleven years old.

Give him some TIME.

By the time he's twenty, don't worry, the Ivory Tower nimrods will have convinced him that not only doesn't he have proof of God, but that he has no proof of his own existence. There is no I. There is no self.

BULLshit.

When I was 11, I was preparing myself to disprove the theory of evolution. At the same time I was secretly entertaining doubts about my parents' fundamentalist Christianity, based on internal contradictions and contradictions of reality that I noticed in reading the Bible and based on reading Mark Twain on Christianity--having graduated from reading and rereading Tom and Huck. I was a bright boy, and I knew it; but I didn't think of myself as genius, and my parents, who believed in the Christian virtue of humility, would have never encouraged such a view of myself and told me not to be vain (a vice) about being bright. This boy's parents are encouraging him to be a mini-Donald Trump, "puffed up", to use a term I remember from the King James trans.
 
Rant my ass. Your lack of humility, and your inability to step outside of your box, is appalling.

This kid is eleven years old. WTF were YOU doing when you were eleven years old.

Give him some TIME.

By the time he's twenty, don't worry, the Ivory Tower nimrods will have convinced him that not only doesn't he have proof of God, but that he has no proof of his own existence. There is no I. There is no self.

BULLshit.

When I was 11, I was preparing myself to disprove the theory of evolution. At the same time I was secretly entertaining doubts about my parents' fundamentalist Christianity, based on internal contradictions and contradictions of reality that I noticed in reading the Bible and based on reading Mark Twain on Christianity--having graduated from reading and rereading Tom and Huck. I was a bright boy, and I knew it; but I didn't think of myself as genius, and my parents, who believed in the Christian virtue of humility, would have never encouraged such a view of myself and told me not to be vain (a vice) about being bright. This boy's parents are encouraging him to be a mini-Donald Trump, "puffed up", to use a term I remember from the King James trans.

I was doing some above average stuff when I was eleven too, like reading adult literature at WELL beyond a sixth-grade reading level. By twelve or thirteen I was already reading college level material.

BUT, I was nowhere close this eleven year old's intellectual level. Few people ever were or will be. Only geniuses, like Mozart- type geniuses.

It didn't occur to me then to think of myself as a genius, nor does it now. I'm the only member of my family, besides my mother, who has never taken an IQ test. Most Baurles, back at least to my grandfather, have registered IQ's well into the genius range.

When I mentioned to my genius father that it was said of Edgar Allen Poe that he had an IQ of around the 200 mark, my always negative father waved his hand and said, "Middling writer..." Just to upset me. Nice guy. Nah, arrogant asshat more like.
 
Rant my ass. Your lack of humility, and your inability to step outside of your box, is appalling.

This kid is eleven years old. WTF were YOU doing when you were eleven years old.

Give him some TIME.

By the time he's twenty, don't worry, the Ivory Tower nimrods will have convinced him that not only doesn't he have proof of God, but that he has no proof of his own existence. There is no I. There is no self.

BULLshit.

When I was 11, I was preparing myself to disprove the theory of evolution. At the same time I was secretly entertaining doubts about my parents' fundamentalist Christianity, based on internal contradictions and contradictions of reality that I noticed in reading the Bible and based on reading Mark Twain on Christianity--having graduated from reading and rereading Tom and Huck. I was a bright boy, and I knew it; but I didn't think of myself as genius, and my parents, who believed in the Christian virtue of humility, would have never encouraged such a view of myself and told me not to be vain (a vice) about being bright. This boy's parents are encouraging him to be a mini-Donald Trump, "puffed up", to use a term I remember from the King James trans.

I was doing some above average stuff when I was eleven too, like reading adult literature at WELL beyond a sixth-grade reading level. By twelve or thirteen I was already reading college level material.

BUT, I was nowhere close this eleven year old's intellectual level. Few people ever were or will be. Only geniuses, like Mozart- type geniuses.

I was reading Robinson Crusoe (the original) and the King James Bible by Grade 2--I particularly liked Revelations--The Scarlet Letter by Grade 3/4. By the time I was 11, I was reading Dickens, the Brontes, Shakespeare, Yeats, Tennyson, Gulliver's Travels (the original), Gone with the Wind too. . . . In Grade 4/5 I scored over 100% on standardized reading tests. When such a test was administered again in Grade 9, I was again over 100%. On the other hand, my scores on equivalent Math tests were resoundingly ordinary--in the 60s in Grade 9. And unlike Mozart, I am somewhat tone deaf and have a poor sense of rhythm. Somewhere along the line I had completely lost my religious faith by the time I was 18 and in University, and reading G. B. Shaw (and others) on religion. It took a certain amount of psychological independence from my (missionary) parents and a sense of my own maturity to complete that deal emotionally. I suspect our very bright little boy will have a harder time of it. I hope he comes through the ordeal okay.
 
Education, even high education, degrees, do not insulate one from stupidity.

The old, old adage, a lawyer who represents himself has an idiot for a client. Doesn't matter what law school he attended, or how many accolades he's earned for lawyering on the behalf of others, or how high the courts he's litigated to, if he's got this one blind spot, he's an idiot.

So if someone typically does research by making observations, forming hypotheses, performing experiments, tweaking hypotheses, coming up with a theory and testing it to make a conclusion,

...BUT...

...if, say, on one single topic, he has a blind spot where he'll start with the conclusion, and then filtering the arguments and observations in order to find that preferred conclusion, then, yeah, it's okay to refer to him as stupid. Because he's using a fallacy.
EVEN IF HIS CONCLUSION IS ULTIMATELY RIGHT, if his path to the conclusion is stupid, then it's stupid.

In fact, if he's using a fallacy, then someone who's otherwise pretty smart and well educated in logical arguments could be considered even MORE stupid for cutting corners this way.





If a chess genius plays a wonderful game of chess at the tournament, RIGHT UP to when he jumps the horsie over a castle and tries to take it like a checkers move, we can still call him stupid. Because that's a stupid mistake to make.
 
Rant my ass. Your lack of humility, and your inability to step outside of your box, is appalling.

This kid is eleven years old. WTF were YOU doing when you were eleven years old.

Give him some TIME.

By the time he's twenty, don't worry, the Ivory Tower nimrods will have convinced him that not only doesn't he have proof of God, but that he has no proof of his own existence. There is no I. There is no self.

BULLshit.

When I was 11, I was preparing myself to disprove the theory of evolution. At the same time I was secretly entertaining doubts about my parents' fundamentalist Christianity, based on internal contradictions and contradictions of reality that I noticed in reading the Bible and based on reading Mark Twain on Christianity--having graduated from reading and rereading Tom and Huck. I was a bright boy, and I knew it; but I didn't think of myself as genius, and my parents, who believed in the Christian virtue of humility, would have never encouraged such a view of myself and told me not to be vain (a vice) about being bright. This boy's parents are encouraging him to be a mini-Donald Trump, "puffed up", to use a term I remember from the King James trans.

I was doing some above average stuff when I was eleven too, like reading adult literature at WELL beyond a sixth-grade reading level. By twelve or thirteen I was already reading college level material.

BUT, I was nowhere close this eleven year old's intellectual level. Few people ever were or will be. Only geniuses, like Mozart- type geniuses.

It didn't occur to me then to think of myself as a genius, nor does it now. I'm the only member of my family, besides my mother, who has never taken an IQ test. Most Baurles, back at least to my grandfather, have registered IQ's well into the genius range.

When I mentioned to my genius father that it was said of Edgar Allen Poe that he had an IQ of around the 200 mark, my always negative father waved his hand and said, "Middling writer..." Just to upset me. Nice guy. Nah, arrogant asshat more like.

ETA: I forgot to ask my most important question:

What do you imagine is the way a parent ought to behave: should they encourage their child's precocious abilty, even if it makes the child a wee tad arrogant, or should a parent be like my father, and sh.it all over the dreams and hopes of his three children, and try at every turn to make them feel useless? I think this boy's parents are doing their kid a favor, since the kid will eventually learn to be more humble; but the kind of harm people like my father cause, never goes away, and even causes suicides, or worse, criminal behavior in their children.

Better an eleven year old smart-ass than an eleven year old sniper in the making, no? I'd also like to don my prophet's hat and predict that this smart boy will be an atheist before two years are out. Anyone care to wager? Let's see some cabbage up front!

Dang it...

Edited to add: My genius Uncle Herb was kind and supportive to his two kids, Eric and Susan. He raised them well. Both of them have registered genius level IQ's, and they are both insanely successful, while my Dad's three kids, two of them at least (Besides myself, since I've never taken an IQ test, never will), have barely succeeded, settling themselves instead into the lower middle-class income bracket. And we're all fuc.ed up mentally, while Eric & Susan are perfectly fine.

Hell, I'm so fuc.ed up that despite having been assured of my skill with poetry by widely-published poets and writers ( I could supply a list, and links to proof but that would be arrogant as all fu.k), I am reticent to try and publish, knowing that my asshat father, even if I were to win a fuc.ing pulitzer, would only wave his hand and say, "Sheeeeeit, any damn fool can write poetry and win those stupid awards..." and that's the kind of hurt I cannot risk. I also can't risk harming my father or mother by telling my father to go piss up a tree.

Just three days ago my father said, right in front of me but not TO me, said: "Sheeeit, everybody knows that most poets and artists are fuc.king crazy..." This is his way of "helping" me. He also told me, when I was discussing my case with my doctor and councilor, "You've got to realize that practically everything you're thinking is imaginary..."

My "beloved" sister, when I asked her two days ago why she has NEVER even tried to read any of my poetry, or novels, choosing instead to read Twilight over & over, told me, "You're delusional!" She gets that from my asshat father. Even after I showed email and Facebook proof to my sis that I have support from Tim Murphy and Jennifer Reeser (recently recommended by X.J. Kennedy for a Pulitzer!) she still insisted I was "delusional", and added later, after I called her an idiot, "Fine! Stay delusional with your friends! We'll both be forgotten when we die and you won't be any better off than me!"

Idiot.
 
Last edited:
I was doing some above average stuff when I was eleven too, like reading adult literature at WELL beyond a sixth-grade reading level. By twelve or thirteen I was already reading college level material.

BUT, I was nowhere close this eleven year old's intellectual level. Few people ever were or will be. Only geniuses, like Mozart- type geniuses.

It didn't occur to me then to think of myself as a genius, nor does it now. I'm the only member of my family, besides my mother, who has never taken an IQ test. Most Baurles, back at least to my grandfather, have registered IQ's well into the genius range.

When I mentioned to my genius father that it was said of Edgar Allen Poe that he had an IQ of around the 200 mark, my always negative father waved his hand and said, "Middling writer..." Just to upset me. Nice guy. Nah, arrogant asshat more like.

ETA: I forgot to ask my most important question:

What do you imagine is the way a parent ought to behave: should they encourage their child's precocious abilty, even if it makes the child a wee tad arrogant, or should a parent be like my father, and sh.it all over the dreams and hopes of his three children, and try at every turn to make them feel useless? I think this boy's parents are doing their kid a favor, since the kid will eventually learn to be more humble; but the kind of harm people like my father cause, never goes away, and even causes suicides, or worse, criminal behavior in their children.

Better an eleven year old smart-ass than an eleven year old sniper in the making, no?

A true Christian family shouldn't be encouraging a child to be vain and boastful by going public about his childhood goals and personal achievements--not actual publicly significant achievements (and both scoring well on an IQ test or going to school preciously are achievement only of personal significance). It's like encouraging a very very pretty little girl boast publicly about how she is going to become a top supermodel and the biggest movie star ever.
My parents encouraged me and my brothers (less so my sisters) to be confident about our abilities, but not to believe that those abilities made us better than other children.

These Christian parents, if they are fundamentalists like my parents, are corrupting the child and leading him into sin. (I have read the New Testament many times, and most of the Old Testament too, except for several of the genealogies; and the Bible, especially the New Testament, seems pretty consistent about the virtues of humility and meekness and the vices of vanity and being puffed up.)
 
Back
Top Bottom