The Problem of Stupid

OK, right out of the gate: I'd consider myself a weak agnostic implicit atheist secular naturalist. To break that down for the uninitiated; I consider any claims for the existence of a deity as being able to be investigated (assuming they aren't phrased in such a way that they are impossible to define or make no sense... which is kinda the same thing, really. If you say you believe your "god" is unknowable, all you've said is that there does not exist a system where anything that "god" does can be observed, and any effects it might have are indistinguishable from nature. That's literally what it means), and although I won't assert that no gods or supernatural beings exist, I do not believe any of them exist (and there are a few that have been proven NOT to exist. Literal God of the Christian bible, I'm looking at you) and as such I consider most claims about gods and the supernatural to be either ill-informed or warranting further investigation. I'm secular in that I think religion should stay the fuck away from governments and schools. Like, all the way away, as far as possible. Finally, as a naturalist it is my stance that anything that claims to be "supernatural" or is claimed to be can be explained with naturalistic science. The reasoning for this is hardly belief, if something manifests in the natural world, of course it can be explained by the application of science, how else would you explain it?
So that's the breakdown of how I view the world, but to put it even simpler, I can sum it up this way: "Oh yeah? Prove it." Understandably, people will pull out the old chestnut of "but you can't prove anything!!!111!1" and to them I say; shut your ugly face, I'm using prove in the colloquial sense, meaning "provide sufficient evidence such that the claim is plausible and likely." Until you can give me a reason to think anything is true, I'm gonna think it's false. It's called a bullshit filter, and it kicks ass.
Anyway, it kinda follows that when you have such a worldview, you may get Christians/Muslims/Hindus/nondescript spiritual hippie wankers/whatever confronting you with why you don't subscribe to their particular flavour of magical niftiness. My answer is usually along the lines of "I've got no reason to" which really, really pisses people off. Turns out, if you're dismissive of their deeply held beliefs, they'll think it's a slight on them or something. Personally I find such an attitude to be immature, overly sensitive and stupid, but hey, what are you gonna do?
Given that most people become drooling, stuttering mongoloids when you take them off script, I'm gonna try and flesh out an argument against a benevolent creator god that I've been working on. Namely, The Problem of Stupid. Now, you've probably heard of the Problem of Evil, the whole "why would a good god let evil exist, unless he wasn't really that good?" thing, but the problem with said question seems to be that it's been recycled so much, those ad hoc rationalisations have gotten reeeeeeeally streamlined. So, a new approach.
It kinda goes like this; assuming there's a benevolent god who wants us to worship it, who had a hand in creating everything, including every human being, why the disparity in intelligence? I don't mean book learnin', I mean why do some people have more powerful/active/whatever brains? Why do some people have brains that are, by default, more rational, investigative, rebellious and logical? There exists a positive correlation between IQ scores and atheism (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W4M-4TFV93D-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=db2ee09bae0195cc1ecbd026da77245c) and extensive research has been done on the topic of academic achievement and religiousity (http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelligence%20&%20religion.htm), each time showing a negative correlation between results and belief. Why would a benevolent creator god make it so only the most credulous, gullible and retarded are the most devout?
The responses I predict for these are:
1) There are other ways of measuring how smart someone is besides IQ and test scores.
2) The tests were biased against religious people.
3) What about the positive correlation between religiousity and Emotional Intelligence?
4) God works in mysterious ways.
My answers:
1) Well, sure, depending on how broad you want to make your definition of smart. Yeah, IQ tests aren't perfect, and yeah, scores from high school and university may not be an accurate representation of how intelligent you are, but realistically, how else are you gonna measure intelligence? The number of low scoring but otherwise intelligent people (out of laziness, or language barriers, or a myriad of other factors) may be significant, they may not. However, it is undeniable that there is a direct and established correlation between IQ scores and belief, and academic achievement and belief. And both of those things are related to intelligence.
2) To what ends? You stand to make waaaaay more money by producing a study that confirms religious/spiritual people's belief in their own superiority. By pissing in their cornflakes by implying they're dullards, you alienate a large audience, all with disposable income. The only reason you'd ever produce a study that went against what the majority thinks is if you cared whether or not it was true, and the only way it'd ever get published is if the methodology and evidence was too sound to poke holes in. Yeah, just let that one stew for a while.
3) Never mind the fact that religiously leaning people may have a greater ability to identify, assess and control the emotions of themselves and others, because frankly that's what everything from the mildest psuedoscience to full blown fundamentalism is built upon; snagging people emotionally, not intellectually. Never mind the fact that there isn't an established link between theistic belief and EI, or that the results trying to link EI to workplace productivity is patchy at best. Let's just hone in on the fact that the whole concept has "no sound scientific basis" (Eysenck, H.J. (2000). Intelligence: A New Look. ISBN 0765807076). Yeah, that one I like.
4) Assuming such a thing exists. Maybe we should get that one down first.
So yeah, basically: There is a whole spectrum of intelligence from the most cretinous of dimwits to Stephen fuckin' Hawking. Any system for measuring where you sit on said spectrum produces a correlation such that the strongest belief is closer to the nitwit end, while rejections of unfounded silly-talk is up on Stephen's end. As such, this aforementioned benevolent creator is a jerk, a retard or not really playing much of a part in people's intelligence or the evidence pointing to his existence. Nice hand to pick from there.

P.S. Yeah, OK, I know this was just a rehashing of the Problem of Evil, but it was fun to write. Suck it up.