From: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Organization: New Mexico State University
Distribution: world,public
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 19:11:17 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.112747.22088@prime.mdata.fi> iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen) writes:
>In article <1992Dec28.015302.19206@nmsu.edu> sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe) writes:

>>
>>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.

More like 8 minutes ago.  Go back and read some of your replies to me.

>>>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.

How?  By questioning your methodology?  What is so wrong with that?

>>
>>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.

No, you just speak of their "emotional attchment" to the contrary
position and dismiss them.

>>>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.

Because unlike you, he is capable of rationally discussing this issue.
i have yet to se him use statements like "Use your brain for a
change," insults which your posts give us superabundant examples of.

>>>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.

Ad hominem seems to be your principal tool of debate, which is why
I've been pointing it out so much.

>>
>>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.

BS seems to describe your thesis.  Oh I'm sorry, sincere observations.

>>
>>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.

I'd like to see you start one. For a change.

>>
>>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.

*I* have a slight attitude problem?  Who was the first to speak of his
oppponent's "emotional attachment?"  My first post was a very
reasonable comment on the potential ad hominem nature of this whole
thread, which you responded to with hostility and condescension.  It
seems to me that your replies have become somewhat less than rational.

SD
Newsgroups: alt.atheism