Old is out New is in?

What is it about the old testament that makes it so desirable for people to want to write off the content as if it doesn't matter anymore. So, someone says, "but that's the old testament". What is it that Christians really saying? Well, maybe recognizing that there's a difference between the old testament and new testament. But, that's not about differences, perhaps "exceptions" what God's like in each of the two sections of your holy book. But, if you are recognizing the problems and drawing the line and trying to argue that one of these is no longer relevant or should be dismissed. My question that comes to my mind is.

1.  Why should there be a problem at all? When the view is that this is something that God has revealed to humanity that the old testament includes important messages or included messages that were important to people for thousands and thousands of years, what is it that change?
2.  What is it that is new and relevant?
3.  Why does it supersede or after what came before?
4.  Did God's character change in between two testaments?
5.  Did the rules change?
6.  Did morality change?
7.  Did our understanding of the universe change?
8.  What exactly is it that Christians trying to describe and quite often there is no explanation except self-interpretation or it seems more of a kind of cherry-picking? Oh yes, that verse seems uncomfortable and so I will just dismiss it as this is the old testament and Jesus came along better and later made everything better and new.
9.  What reasons do they give for these disparities exists? Well, perhaps flawed nature of human beings where God's communicating a message but maybe we write it down wrong. Or Christians don't understand it correctly. But, if that's the case the wouldn't this also be true for all the new testament.
10. If the problem is having difficulty communicating with his creation, how do you know that he's not still having to communicate with his creation?
11. Why do you get to disregard the old testament?
12. How do you know that the new testament is any less flawed? What your other interpretations to resolve this problem to fit every Christian. An introduction and there are two theological responses for the need. One is covenant theology and the other is dispensationalism. Most Christians I know are fit in the second theological responses.

Yes, I'm pointing out the problems, issues, and contradictions. What I am understanding from your views that it comes from God.

WHY ATHEISTS HAVE HIGHER IQs

Atheists score higher on IQ tests than religious people according to some research. Does this mean that people accept religious beliefs because they are dimwitted? Not necessarily.

Atheists are probably more intelligent than religious people because they benefit from many social conditions that happen to be correlated with loss of religious belief. When one looks at this phenomenon from the point of view of comparisons between countries, it is not hard to figure out possible reasons that more intelligent countries have more atheists and that more intelligent states in the U.S. also have more nonbelievers. Here are some. Highly religious countries:
1. Are poorer.
2. Are less urbanized.
3. Have lower levels of education.
4. Have less exposure to electronic media that increase intelligence.
5. Experience a heavier load of infectious diseases that impair brain function.
6. Suffer more from low birth weights.
7. Have worse child nutrition.
8. Do a poor job of controlling environmental pollutants such as lead that reduce IQ.

Given that each of these factors is recognized causes of low IQ scores, there is little mystery about why religious countries score lower on IQ tests. Of course, the same phenomena are relevant to comparisons within a country, although within-country differences in these factors are generally smaller. Even so, the wealthier individuals in a country experience life differently than the poorer ones, developing higher IQ scores and greater religious skepticism.

Recent research concluded that part of the reason that people in less religious U.S. states have higher IQs is that they are better educated. According to the authors: “Education enhances rational thinking and provides people with rational, non-mystical mechanisms for understanding the world. In short, education provides people with the opportunity to seek a rational alternative to religious dogma.”
This argument is reasonable but it is seriously incomplete. There are a lot more atheists in Europe than in the U.S. and this is not because Europeans are smarter or better educated.
As to the more inflammatory explanations, I doubt that religion causes stupidity if only because of some of the most brilliant people of history, such as Isaac Newton, were highly religious like most of their contemporaries.

Whether intelligence causes people to reject religious belief is more complex. It is certainly plausible that highly intelligent people would have a problem accepting some of the more improbable beliefs required by their church. Moreover, modern science offers explanations for phenomena that were previously explained exclusively in terms of religion and intelligent people may prefer the scientific account.

In short, discussing correlations between IQ and religiosity without a grasp of the relevant underlying factors is something of a parlor game. It recalls the long and tiresome debate about the correlation between IQ scores and skin color that got a lot of people very excited but proved a scientific dead end.
The really interesting question buried in all of this is why atheism is sparked uniquely by contemporary conditions in developed countries. I addressed this issue in an earlier post that hurtled around the Internet. The gist of it is that religion helps people confront the terror of uncertainty in their lives. In modern states, people get more complacent so that there is less of a market for religion. The inevitable consequence of all this is that religion will decline as human prosperity improves.

By: Nigel Barber - Biopsychologist; blogger, Psychology Today’s ‘The Human Beast’

SOURCES:
10.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/…/Intelligent-people-less-likely…
11.http://www.scribd.com/…/Average-intelligence-predicts-athei…
12.http://www.psychologytoday.com/…/why-atheism-will-replace-r…

The Argument Design based on St. Thomas Aquinas's the fifth way.

Whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end. Unless it is directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence.  As the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore, some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call, God.

So Aquinas's argument is essentially here being a bunch of things that are unthinking and they are evidently moving toward a goal or purpose and unthinking things cannot move toward a goal or purpose. This is the purview of thinking agents and therefore there must be some thinking agent that’s causing these unthinking things to move towards their goal or purpose.

There are a number of problems with what Aquinas says, he begins his ideas about the governance of the world. Which as far as I can tell automatically smuggles in the idea of the governor. But, it’s worse than that because Aquinas doesn’t give us specific examples. He speaks only in the abstract and he also uses weasel language saying it’s “evident” that these unthinking things are moving toward a goal or purpose. Then, he says that it’s plain that unthinking things can’t do this and only thinking things can, therefore, a thinking thing is doing it on behalf of the unthinking things.

This is a bit of equivocation here. It’s a bit of a cheat because while it’s probably fair to say that it’s plain that unthinking things cannot move towards a goal or their own that thinking things can. It is not evident as he claims that they are in fact moving towards a goal. He offers no evidence; he offers no argument that these unthinking things are moving toward a goal or a purpose. He uses the easiest term of it’s just “evident”. He watches them get to the goal of purpose and then concludes that this is where they were intended to arrive at every corner he is smuggling in “intent” in order to make his argument that there must, in fact, be a designer. When an agreement backs up its claim with the statements like, isn’t it obvious, or it’s plain, or it’s evident, or clearly. We need to be extra diligent about analyzing those claims to see if they are in fact, obvious, evident, clear, and plain. How did Aquinas determine that there was the intent, that there was a goal, that there was a purpose, that these unthinking things were moving towards a goal?

He doesn’t even give specific examples. He speaks merely in the abstract, obscure, or complicated and asserts that it’s obvious that they are moving towards a goal. Is it obvious? How do we go about recognizing design? One of the features of an intentionally designed object or system that allow us to recognize that it is in fact design. So, how do we recognize design? How do we tell what’s the design and what isn’t? When you listen to people talk about this, when apologists engage they sometimes want to step right over this critical aspect of how we determine what is and isn’t design. They want to exploit the intuitions and inferences we make. We make a building requires a builder, a painter requires a painter, a creation requires a creator. With all the points, the question is how did you determine that it was, in fact, a building? How did you determine that it was, in fact, a painting? How did you determine that it was, in fact, a creator? When we are talking about the universe labeling it created in order to claim that there is a creator is dishonest apologetic. It is a circular argument where you are injecting the very thing you’re trying to prove in right at the beginning. The truth is we recognize design by contrasting it with that which naturally occurs.

When someone says this had to have been designed or this must have been designed or this is almost certainly being designed. What they are saying, it is not possible or not probable for this particular set of circumstances to come about by natural means. The first question we have to ask is, how did you determine that? When we evaluate these things it’s not just a matter of saying, “this thing is clearly designed and we have evidence for it. Design needs to be demonstrated. You can’t just argue from analogy. 

Credits to Matt Dillahunty for a concise explanation of the Fith Way.