NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/atheism/24602

Text File | 1992-12-30 | 5.8 KB | 147 lines

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Path: sparky!uunet!news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!lynx!nmsu.edu!charon!sdoe
From: [e-mail] (Stephen Doe)
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: New Mexico State University
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: world,public
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 18:53:45 GMT
Lines: 134

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Iikka Paavolainen) writes:
>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:

>>>>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?

Usually it works pretty well.


>>>>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.

Yeah, I saw the quotes.  Try giving an attribution the first time
around--for all I knew, you could have been quoting Grandma.


>>>>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.

Very good.  You did come sounding as though you were already convinced
though.  Maybe I misread you.

>>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.

Iikka, next time try debating the facts, instead of trying to make
half-assed and irrelevant guesses at someone's personality.  That's
all I have to say on the matter.


>>>>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.

So you think my objections were a rationaliztion, an excuse for
rejecting your opinion?  I was merely questioning how you arrived at
your opinion, that's all.  Surely that's a rational thing to do, and
dragging in the notion of "emotional attachment" is irrelevant *until*
said correlation is established.  You yourself admitted that for you,
it hadn't been definitely established at the time of your first post
on the matter.

>>
>>
>>>>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.

Irrelevant.  We were discussing your correlation, and any evidence for
them, not my personality.  Your ham-handed debating style did little
to further the discussion.

>>
>>>>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.

Yes, you keep saying you won't respond anymore, but you keep coming
back for more.

If you wanted to discuss the topic, why drag in all the irrelevancies
that you have.  I am quite prepared to discuss the topic rationally,
it is you who have accused your opponents of having a defective
personality or something.

SD