Top 5 low IQ religions.
Religions are not all equal. Some cultures are superior to others. It doesn’t get any more racist and xenophobic to state these objective facts in 2024. But it is necessary to call out nonsense religions because what you believe dictates your behavior. And we can all agree that there are good and bad ways of conduct. Every single human is religious despite what secularists like to say smugly, atheism is just the absence of theism, yet they cannot help themselves but impose their way of life on others.
The following five religions are ordered based on history, theology, epistemology, and last, the fruits. With that said, let’s get into the top 5 lowest IQ religions of human history.
Founded in 7th century Arabia, Medina by Muhammad claims to be the true continuation of Abraham’s religion. Its strongest claims are personal divine revelations from God to Archangel Gabriel and finally to Muhammad which are miraculously preserved in the Quran. The reason for God to ‘reset’ Abraham’s religion is due to the corrupted texts of the Torah and Gospel. Islam’s Allah was not able to preserve the truth for 600 years after Christ.
Muslims claim to be monotheists and believe in the prophets of the Old Testament. Quite a bold claim but it is one of the few, if not the only other religion than Christianity to say that. So let’s dissect their claim of monotheism first. Allah is truly one, there is nothing like him in creation. He is fully transcendent and unchanged. It sounds good on paper, but this poses serious problems. First, Allah is a loving God according to Muslims. Love is a deep affection for someone. Allah existed before creation, and he is one person, so who exactly did love if he was eternally lonesome? Allah had to change if he could love, but that would not make him a god. Trinitarians do not have this problem because the three persons of the Christian godhead loved each other for eternity. They did not need creation for attributes to be ascribed to them.
Secondly, the Quran is the word of Allah and divine, yet it is a creation. It is separate from Allah. The essence of the Quran is different and it is also eternal. This is the definition of polytheism. Christians believe the Trinity is one essence, three persons. Muslims do not make this distinction so they believe in two gods. Not to mention, the spirit of Allah which is also separate from Allah. Again, there is no essence/person distinction. Muslims worship three gods according to their theology and philosophy.
The fact that this goes over their heads is proof that Islam is a low-IQ religion. Besides, Muslims made a culture out of not questioning theological topics because ‘how’ it came to be is answered by saying: bila kayf, It’s just how it is. Debating and philosophical culture is very new to Muslims because the Islamic world lived relatively isolated from Western influences.
Deists believe in a god that created everything but is uninvolved with human affairs. Or creation at all. Deism is the result of taking human reason to its extremes which is how rationalist Christians usually end up deistic, consequently agnostic or atheist. Rationality becomes de facto god. Deism denies holy scripture and its revelations, next to rejecting the historical evidence for Christ’s miracles. In many ways, deism is atheistic except for the fact that a god had to set creation into motion. They do believe a transcendent existed before the Big Bang to create ex nihilo (out of nothing).
But to make deism work, you must throw out historical science and fulfilled prophecies of the Bible. If you do that, then we cannot know anything about history, we cannot be certain if Caesar, Charlemagne, or Napoleon existed. A deistic god could technically be the standard for morality but chooses not to because he did not provide revelations such as scripture, personal intervention, Ten Commandments, etc. Morality thus comes from human reason or observance of nature which are both bad ‘standards’ because neither is eternal. Animals rape and slaughter other animals. In 2024, human ‘reason’ resulted in pregnant men and transgender children. Deism is a dead end. It is a little dumber than Islam because it has a worse account of morality.
Paganism is not ancient. The contemporary understanding of paganism has its roots in modern occultists and Satanists such as Aleistar Crowley who invented Wicca. It’s hard to specifically pinpoint who or what caused the dawn of neopaganism. But you have to see it as a gradual twisting of historical paganism which ironically Christian monks preserved. Neopaganism in 2024 is largely a Hollywood fantasy. Most of its adherents are overweight consumers who are easily drawn by pretty aesthetics such as Viking tattoos, runes, and depictions of Odin. The 1950s-70s New Age gave birth to ‘Nordic paganism’, imported from India. Yogi gurus pioneered pagan alternatives to lukewarm, or otherwise undiscerning, Protestants and Catholics by presenting yoga or transcendental meditation as compatible with Christianity. From there on, New Agers invented various forms of paganism.
Neopaganism is easily refuted if we look at its moral and metaphysical claims. Just as we did with Islam, we are going to dissect what the pagan community largely claims. First, might is right. Those with strength and wealth have the ultimate say and thus hold the truth. Or just look at nature, and do what feels natural, which is a fallacy, but we will get back to the strength claim. Second, the pantheon of the gods. Let’s just take the Viking myths for brevity’s sake.
Norse theology begins with a void that separates a land of fire and the other of ice. These lands came in contact and consequently created giants who begot children. One of them is known as Odin, the main god. So it seems creation is eternal according to Norse paganism. Where did the lands of fire and ice come from? How did the void get there? The creation story is basically: shit happened. Also, it goes against the evidence of the Big Bang. Even atheists agree with theists that time, space, and creation came into being. The universe is not eternal. Besides, Odin cannot act as the supreme moral arbiter because he was born at some point (different from Christ’s eternal begetting of the Father), but pagans do not believe that Odin is a moral standard. That opens another can of worms. Morality in paganism is thus relative so they have no ground to stand on when debating morals. Islam, for example, does not have this problem.
‘‘Might makes right’’. By this logic, we should not question Elon Musk, Larry Fink, or Bill Gates’ morality. Nor any powerful institution. No matter how vile or corrupt they are.
Granted, neopagans are a little smarter than Hindus because most of the former are ex-Protestants frustrated with weak Christians. They retain much of Christian morals and culture without being aware of it. None of them are openly sacrificing humans or raiding seaside villages of East-England. ‘White pagans’ inherited Christian culture which is why they ‘‘naturally’’ reject the immorality of ancient pagans. And in general, are more pleasant to deal with than Hindus.
The mother religion of the New Age. But instead of a few dozen gods, Hindus worship millions and even live animals such as cows and rats. Again like neopaganism, Hindus do not have an absolute moral arbiter like the Trinitarian God.
Hinduism does not have a canonical explanation of creation, unlike the Christians. Different Hindu sects believe in different stories, but it all boils down to a creation myth I wrote about the Norse. However, it’s fair to assume that the most popular belief is about the god Brahma who created the universe. Time isn’t linear in Hinduism. Universes are eternally created and destroyed together with Brahma’s coworker gods Shiva and Vishnu. It logically follows that death and evil are not inherently bad because Hindus do not teach the doctrine of the fall. Besides, these gods are omnipotent and all came into being at one point except for Vishnu. Gods cannot eternally create and destroy if they were created nor does it make sense for multiple beings to possess omnipotence without the distinction of essence and person.
It’s impossible to know good and evil if multiple gods share the same powers. Vishnu, the uncreated god struggles with the same problems as Allah regarding his attributes. Hinduism does not try to be coherent and so incoherence spills over into the morals and behavior of Hindus which is why they are notorious for polluting the environment with feces. And rape. And Dunning-Kruger.
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. - Psalm 14:1
I mean, where do I even start? Atheists completely discard metaphysics to make their worldview and paradigm work. Not to mention, give an account for morality, which is impossible if you are strictly a materialist. Atheism thus regresses into sense data to judge whether something is good or bad. Don’t they know that masochists exist? And pedophiles who derive pleasure from molesting small children? It feels good to them, so who is an atheist to say that a pedophile cannot do as he pleases?
The atheist who does believe in metaphysics cannot objectively give an account for morals. There is no transcendent arbiter to be the standard for good conduct in atheism which is why atheists automatically fall into relativism. Thus any moral claim is merely an opinion that is utterly useless in the real world.
How many times have you heard that atheism liberates you from religious constraints because there is no ‘‘mean sky-daddy’’ judging you BUT don’t you dare be a racist? Ultimately, atheist morality is decided by those in charge, not what is objectively true. Godless doctrines hinge on the tyranny of the many and powerful.
This is how atheism is dead in its tracks. We can go on 24/7 refuting Darwinism, morals, or creation if we do not address the atheist’s epistemology first. Like the pagans, they will go on a rant about how monkeys turned into humans without empirical evidence. The theory of evolution is a subset of Hindu mythology which is how pagan and atheist rhetoric sounds so similar. Engaging in any of that is a waste of time because they are unable to give an epistemological account for their claims.
He who denies the existence of God, has some reason for wishing that God did not exist. - St. Augustine