From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: world,public
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 02:03:03 GMT

Iikka Paavolainen (iikkap@mits.mdata.fi) wrote:

[hey Iikka, notice that I put something here to indicate that lines have been 
cut, useful technique, no?]

: >>If you don't find my experiences significant, why don't you have some exper
ien-
: >>ces for yourself. This isn't a thesis or anything, just a sincere observati
on.
: >>Anybody saying that my 'thesis' is not substatiated or sounds stupid, can s
ay
: >>what they want, because I don't have a thesis.
: >>So what if you prove that intelligence has no effect on atheism? Easy?
: >
: >Well, my experiences happen not to match yours, which is what caused
: >me to question this position.
:
: You are evading the question again.

No, last time I evaded the question.  But again, what is the question?

:
: >
: >Do you always get so angry when someone happens to disagree with you?
:
: I never get angry. Seems you must be losing some sleep because of this matter
.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

We're talking to Mr. Spock!!!  Granted, a brain damaged Mr. Spock, but Mr. 
Spock none-the-less.

:
: >>So why on earth are you demanding a definition of intelligence, when you ar
e
: >>giving one yourself?
: >
: >*I* am demanding the definition, not Mike.
:
: That doesn't change the point. Why don't you bash Mike because he doesn't
: happen to agree with you in everything.

Because I haven't said anything patently stupid yet.

:
: >>And? How true have you found the christians beliefs to be? Did you not use
: >>intelligence to deduce your conclusion?
: >>I am just getting more and more support for the original idea.
: >
: >I don't think they are true at all.
: >
: >I am getting more support from you for *my* original idea, which is
: >that this supposed correlation between intelligence and lack of
: >religious belief boils down to an ad hominem attack on those you
: >disagree with.  I wouldn't stand for it from a Christian, and I won't
: >stand for it from you.
:
: Have you just learnt the words 'ad hominem' or why are you using it so vainly
?
: You seem to have a very hard time answering the questions.

Your questions are designed to deflect discussion from your original thesis, 
which you claim to be able to substantiate and which you can't.  We stay 
focused on the original question.

:
: >
: >In my original post, I merely voiced concern over the potential ad
: >hominem nature this argument can take.  For this I get flamed by you?
:
: Tell me how I flamed you, first. BS describes your replies.
                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Another example of a logical, non-emotional, non-inflamatory response.

:
: >
: >I think you are confusing criticism of your *conclusions* with
: >criticism of your *methodology*.  Please, if you are going to make
: >such sweeping generalizations in the future, make sure you don't
: >use such sloppy methodology.
:
: I'm sorry, but I won't let people like you stop rational conversation.

No, you do just fine all by yourself.

:
: >
: >SD
:
: Look up at the post, and see what you wrote. Consider the starting point of
: this thread and look where this has degenerated. You seem to have slight
: attitude problems. Everybody would be better off if you didn't post anymore.
: If you do, trim the messages.

And everyone would be better off ignoring your waste of bandwidth.  Please
don't "trim" the meat of the messages.

:
-- 
Mike McAngus 			 | As if I needed Another time consuming hobby.
(mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org)		 | 
The Truth is still the Truth	 | This Post exploits illiterates.
Even if you choose to ignore it. | 
Newsgroups: alt.atheism