NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/atheism/24574

Text File | 1992-12-30 | 5.5 KB | 154 lines

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!fuug!prime!mits!iikkap
From: [e-mail] (Iikka Paavolainen)
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Organization: Microdata Oy, Helsinki, Finland
Distribution: world,public
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 12:35:24 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Usenet poster)
Nntp-Posting-Host: mits.mdata.fi
Lines: 140

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Stephen Doe) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Iikka Paavolainen) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Stephen Doe) writes:
>>>I have a hard time believing you don't have an emotional attachment to
>>>your thesi--I mean, "sincere observation."  Does the fact that it is
>>
>>You really are bitching as much as you can. I'm glad I don't have such an
>>attitude.
>
>You're the man who began the flame fest.  Live with it.

IMHO, you really sound like a child.

>
>>>only a sincere observation mean you don't need to back it up?  Does
>>>that mean we are assholes for pointing out that your pre-conceptions
>>>*might* have an effect on your observations.
>>
>>And when did I call you an asshole? And why can't your pre-conceptions work
>>on your opinions?
>
>Obviously they can.  Unlike you, I am aware of it and attempt to
>correct for it.

Doesn't seem to work?

>
>>>
>>>My opinion, Iikka, is that 1) IQ is probably not as good a measurement
>>
>>"The greatest thing psychologists have ever made."
>
>Why?  Because it's an ego boost for you?

Notice the quotes. It was quoted from Dr. Howard Gardner, a known name in the
field of psychology.

>
>>>as you think 2) you have a huge emotional attachment to your position,
>>
>>Sorry, but you haven't given me any proof/evidence to think otherwise,
>>that's why my current stand is what it is. Nothing to do with emotion.
>
>The proof is your flames in response to my original post, in which
>you evince great hostility when I question how you reach your
>conclusions.

With proof to the subject, I meant, not this naive bickering.

>
>>>blinding you to the possibility that even people as intelligent as
>>>yourself may arrive at a different belief--I think you need this
>>>notion of atheistic superiority to bolster your self image, hence the
>>>hostility to those of us who pointed out any weaknesses in your
>>>position.
>>
>>I can't help it if the facts are hard. "Hostility"? You think I am hostile
>>if I am not you in every opinion?
>
>*Your* anecdotal evidence wasn't hard!  Jim Tims did a much better
>job, when he posted that list of studies in support of this
>correlation.

No, my 'anecdotal' evidence *wasn't* hard, and I came here fo the hard facts.

>
>Is it possible you *still* don't see the weakness of using anecdotal
>evidence?

It should be obvious, everything taken into consideration.

>
>You were hostile when you dismissed my concerns on the potential of ad
>hominem dismissal of the religious position.  Go back and read your
>response, and tell me it didn't sound snide and condescending.

So you're on of those people who you can't say anything that would be even
a little negative, concerning them or their personality, without them attacking
back. No matter how true it may be. Try to be a little more humble and see, if
it would apply to you. That kind of attitude creates egoism. You're the subject
of your lecturings.

>
>>>
>>>You could have saved yourself from getting flamed, if instead of going
>>>on about my "emotional attachment" to Christianity, and other absurd
>>
>>I still find it ridiculous, even humorous, for you to take that statement
>>as an insult. Maybe a weak excuse to start insulting me?
>
>It was an insult because you used it to dismiss my concerns on this
>matter, instead of rationally discussing the topic.

It was a good possibility, the emotional attachment being important.

>
>
>>>and insulting statements that anyone interested can see for themselves
>>>in your previous posts, you had answered my posts rationally.  I think
>>
>>And how would've I had to respond if I wanted to respond rationally?
>
>Gee, let's see how rational these responses are:
>
>"This is not a bedtime story, and you are not (hopefully) a child."
>
>"Must you have everything handed to you on a dish?"
>
>"Try using your brain for a change."
>
>Etc., etc.

And what's so irrational about them? You aren't perfect, nor is anybody else.

>
>>>most of us can see that your anecdotal evidence is a load of crap, and
>>>that your criticism of my saying so has just been one long ad hominem
>>>attack.  You've done a lot to show that atheists can be just as
>>>irrational when it comes to deeply held beliefs as any theists.
>>
>>Does it give you a good feeling when you bash someone? You aren't doing
>>much more.
>
>Don't project your shortcomings onto me.  It probably gave you a
>sneaky tittilating rush to start this flame fest.

You are the festleader, it seems. I don't have to defend anything, I don't
need any info from you, nor is this conversation even discussing the topic.
Thus, I'm not getting anything from it. Maybe I'll end it here, as I can
conclude you won't be any help.

>
>SD


--
 __/|_  ,  ,--------------------------------------------------------------,
/o    \/:--| Iikka Paavolainen / [e-mail], in Espoo, Finland  |
\__~__/\:--| "I won't have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."    |
   `    `  `--------------------------------------------------------------'