From: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Organization: New Mexico State University
Distribution: world,public
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 01:53:02 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.003534.15314@prime.mdata.fi> iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen) writes:
>In article <1992Dec27.162821.4675@jcnpc.cmhnet.org> mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus) writes:


>>Sorry, I thought this was a rhetorical question related to your sentence 
>>"Proof?" above.
>>Now I will say that, given the context, I don't understand what you are asking.
>>What is the point I'm evading?
>
>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.  

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

>>: >Where is your statistical study of this area of intelligence?
>>:
>>: On my desk.
>>
>>Could you post the results and email a copy to me?
>
>No thanks. Only to a person who does something with them.

Uh-huh.

>>Given that Mr. Doe and I are arguing that your personal experiences are not 
>>significant, pointing to your belief and saying that Xians will suppress 
>>evidence is begging the question.
>
>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.

Do you always get so angry when someone happens to disagree with you?

>>: People tend to believe what they have most proof of. Intelligence is used to
>>: deduce which of the options is the 'most' correct.
>>
>>Intelligence is used to decide which option is most workable.  Utility and 
>>Truth are not necessarily synonymous.
>
>So why on earth are you demanding a definition of intelligence, when you are
>giving one yourself?

*I* am demanding the definition, not Mike.

>>: And the stuff in the Bible is pointless without proper study. Gotcha.
>>
>>I'll also ask the Xians for proof of their assertions.  When the Xians state 
>>that god exists, we in this group ask for corroboration independent of their 
>>holy texts.  When you state that Atheists are more intelligent than Xians, it
>>is reasonable for people to ask you for corroboration independent of your
>>circle of friends.
>
>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.

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?

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.

SD