From: iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen)
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Organization: Microdata Oy, Helsinki, Finland
Distribution: world,public
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 11:27:47 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.015302.19206@nmsu.edu> sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe) writes:
>>Proof of this 'intelligence' in Luther et al.
>>You must define intelligence for yourself to be able to state this.
>>You are bashing yourself with your own words.
>
>Try reading something they wrote.  *Given* their premises (which I as
>an atheist don't accept) their reasoning from said premises does not
>violate logic.  It's just that we don't need to accept the premises as
>true--there is no good evidence in support of said premises.  This
>says nothing about the quality of reasoning from those premises,
>though.  

Yes, I have read some things they have wrote, and found nothing to indicate
high intelligence.

>
>Why are you so hostile to those who disagree with you?

Dream on. I never attack anybody emotionally. Last time I did that 8 years ago.

>>If you don't find my experiences significant, why don't you have some experien-
>>ces for yourself. This isn't a thesis or anything, just a sincere observation.
>>Anybody saying that my 'thesis' is not substatiated or sounds stupid, can say
>>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.

>
>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.

>>So why on earth are you demanding a definition of intelligence, when you are
>>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.

>>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.

>
>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.

>
>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.

>
>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.

--
 __/|_  ,  ,--------------------------------------------------------------,
/o    \/:--| Iikka Paavolainen / iikkap@mits.mdata.fi, in Espoo, Finland  |
\__~__/\:--| "I won't have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."    |
   `    `  `--------------------------------------------------------------'
Newsgroups: alt.atheism