ET Warrior Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 saying people aren't as intelligent because they believe in God is in my view Religious Discrimination. And that is what I'm referring to.Well then it sure is a good thing I haven't seen anyone make that claim in the Senate or I probably would have to step in and remove such blatantly ad hominem remarks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 Someone posted a study saying Atheist have higher IQ than people of Faith. I saw nothing that stated an individual Christian was less intelligent that and individual Atheist. Since the data was empirical I also found no argument with the study’s conclusion. I am a Christian and I found nothing offensive about the study or other members’ remarks. @below - I read that the first ten times you wrote that, I also read skinwalker reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted March 11, 2009 Author Share Posted March 11, 2009 Someone posted a study saying Atheist have higher IQ than people of Faith. I saw nothing that stated an individual Christian was less intelligent that and individual Atheist. Since the data was empirical I also found no argument with the study’s conclusion. I am a Christian and I found nothing offensive about the study or other members’ remarks. Well the added problem is that the study was conducted by a man whom had been suspended for tampering with research data in an experiment that was similar to the one you are referring to (If i remember correctly it was research to determine that one gender was more intelligent than the other). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Agreed, actually I would argue that people that believe in God are discriminated against here. Here as in LF? Disagree. I know there are a bunch of us Christians wandering around here, and I've never been discriminated against. Of course, I've never brought religion into a debate thread, so... I take offense to comments like people not being as intelligent as someone else based on beliefs .... saying people aren't as intelligent because they believe in God is in my view Religious Discrimination. And that is what I'm referring to. Luckily it was a normative claim based off of objective evidenced and thoroughly backed in a research study Someone posted a study saying Atheist have higher IQ than people of Faith. I saw nothing that stated an individual Christian was less intelligent that and individual Atheist. Since the data was empirical I also found no argument with the study’s conclusion. I am a Christian and I found nothing offensive about the study or other members’ remarks. @below - I read that the first ten times you wrote that, I also read skinwalker reply. QFEEEEEEE. _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted March 12, 2009 Author Share Posted March 12, 2009 Luckily it was a normative claim based off of objective evidenced and thoroughly backed in a research study So a normal research study has the head researcher with a reputation for compromising the integrity of the research data. That soooo inspires my confidence in the research community... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SW01 Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 So a normal research study has the head researcher with a reputation for compromising the integrity of the research data. That soooo inspires my confidence in the research community...[/Quote] You plaster an entire community because of one person's actions? You'll forgive me if I say that seems more than a little arbitrary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted March 12, 2009 Author Share Posted March 12, 2009 You plaster an entire community because of one person's actions? You'll forgive me if I say that seems more than a little arbitrary. Well people seem to be considering that study to be as good as gold when the researcher is known for tampering with the experiment's results, that doesn't sound very encouraging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 So a normal research study has the head researcher with a reputation for compromising the integrity of the research data. That soooo inspires my confidence in the research community... Unfortunately for you this does not affect the other sources Skin provided. Also, one incident does not count as a "reputation." This is a major logical fallacy that causes your entire argument to go out the window See: "Poisoning the Well". Sorry When you can come up with an argument that goes against the evidence Skin provided, (without a logically fallacious argument, of course) please let me know. Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted March 12, 2009 Author Share Posted March 12, 2009 No, it does sum it up, because if it had been an accident that would be one thing but the key word is deliberately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SW01 Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Well people seem to be considering that study to be as good as gold when the researcher is known for tampering with the experiment's results, that doesn't sound very encouraging. Well then it may be fairer to say that the legitimacy and veracity of that individual piece of research is questionable. Making blanket statements does little to help a position, in my opinion. I personally think very little of tests of intelligence between sub-sets of people. Simply for the reason that I have met fools from all walks of life, and have found my own intelligence severly lacking in the presence of others from the same groups! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. No, it does sum it up What the hell? because if it had been an accident that would be one thing but the key word is deliberately. Repeating yourself is getting boring so I'm afraid I'll have to excuse myself Sorry. _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted March 12, 2009 Author Share Posted March 12, 2009 Oh I get it, so you think because it's a source that promotes atheism it's legimate no matter what, if this had been a study with a researcher that said people whom believe in god are smarter with the same reputation you saying you'd believe that? I'm getting the impression you wouldn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SW01 Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Oh I get it, so you think because it's a source that promotes atheism it's legimate no matter what, if this had been a study with a researcher that said people whom believe in god are smarter with the same reputation you saying you'd believe that? I'm getting the impression you wouldn't. Actually, I'd put them both in the same waste-paper basket marked 'Victorian Throwback Research', along with all those that tried to predict criminality by the shape of a person's skull. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted March 12, 2009 Author Share Posted March 12, 2009 Actually, I'd put them both in the same waste-paper basket marked 'Victorian Throwback Research', along with all those that tried to predict criminality by the shape of a person's skull. Which is why I considered the research SkinWalker was using to be complete and total garbage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Which is why I considered the research SkinWalker was using to be complete and total garbage. I don't think this to be the case. I think -and this is just my opinion- that you ignored the research I cited because it threatens your preconceived notion of the way things must be. I think (again, just my opinion) that you exemplify the conclusions of studies that link conservatism, extreme religiosity, and cognitive function. I base this opinion on the fact that my synopses of the various research demonstrated how even if you fallaciously conclude that one of the researchers had issues of negligence with a totally different study that the data stand on their own merit and are available independently from the statistical analyses conducted by said researcher. Moreover, the statistical methods are clearly outlined as are the data (which are from an independent source). It, therefore, follows that refusing to acknowledge or to even critically analyze the data and the conclusions (including a careful scrutiny of the methodology) is indicative of either limitations in cognitive function or deliberate ignorance. Or both. I add, also, that I only point this out since you've yet to offer any rational evaluation of the data but, rather, choose to engage in argumentum ad hominem regarding the character of the researcher. I wouldn't make the accusation here, since we aren't expected to adhere to professional academic standards, but at an academic conference this would earn you an accusation of intellectual cowardice: too afraid of the data and it's conclusions to deal with it directly resorting instead to straw man arguments that are easier to tear down and ad hominem attacks on the researcher to cloud the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted March 12, 2009 Author Share Posted March 12, 2009 I don't think this to be the case. I think -and this is just my opinion- that you ignored the research I cited because it threatens your preconceived notion of the way things must be. I think (again, just my opinion) that you exemplify the conclusions of studies that link conservatism, extreme religiosity, and cognitive function. I base this opinion on the fact that my synopses of the various research demonstrated how even if you fallaciously conclude that one of the researchers had issues of negligence with a totally different study that the data stand on their own merit and are available independently from the statistical analyses conducted by said researcher. Seriously, you expect me to believe a study where the head researcher is known for committing fraud? If this were the reverse you'd be questioning the veracity of the research as well. Moreover, the statistical methods are clearly outlined as are the data (which are from an independent source). It, therefore, follows that refusing to acknowledge or to even critically analyze the data and the conclusions (including a careful scrutiny of the methodology) is indicative of either limitations in cognitive function or deliberate ignorance. Or both. As I pointed out before, this is extremely similar to the studies that were made to justify the views of racist bigots. Also there is a perfect quote for this: "There are three types of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics."--Samuel Langhorne Clemens I add, also, that I only point this out since you've yet to offer any rational evaluation of the data but, rather, choose to engage in argumentum ad hominem regarding the character of the researcher. I wouldn't make the accusation here, since we aren't expected to adhere to professional academic standards, but at an academic conference this would earn you an accusation of intellectual cowardice: too afraid of the data and it's conclusions to deal with it directly resorting instead to straw man arguments that are easier to tear down and ad hominem attacks on the researcher to cloud the issue. Actually I have provided a rational evaluation, you just want to believe these studies to add credibility to your discriminatory views that atheists are superior to people that believe in God. http://www.un.org/Pubs/chronicle/2007/issue3/0307p18.html Anyways, you've used questionable sources, sources with a research style which is very similar to what the Nazis used to justify their attempt to justify the Holocaust, and you honestly think I'm going to be dumb enough to consider these studies to be remotely credible. In my opinion you're just turning to this garbage to try to justify your own beliefs, by trying to come up with the idea that you're superior because you don't believe in God. Basic common sense would tell anyone with half a brain the research studies you used aren't credible. Quite frankly they are as credible as the studies to justify racism, in other words they have no credibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Oh I get it, so you think because it's a source that promotes atheism it's legimate no matter what, if this had been a study with a researcher that said people whom believe in god are smarter with the same reputation you saying you'd believe that? I'm getting the impression you wouldn't. I actually would - because, as I've said, I'm not an atheist! I'm a Lutheran that believes that Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior! Whoops, guess you messed up there Have any more witty responses? However, my personal beliefs really don't have any place in this issue, and as such, I choose not to cite them while I engage in logical discourse. _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted March 12, 2009 Author Share Posted March 12, 2009 I actually would - because, as I've said, I'm not an atheist! I'm a Lutheran that believes that Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior! Whoops, guess you messed up there Have any more witty responses? However, my personal beliefs really don't have any place in this issue, and as such, I choose not to cite them while I engage in logical discourse. I wasn't addressing SkinWalker, not you Ender... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Well, considering Skin hadn't posted in a while and I was the post directly before you, perhaps in the future you should use some forum etiquette and quote what you're answering. Or address someone. Otherwise, everyone assumes you're talking either to the OP or the person who posted directly before you. _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted March 12, 2009 Author Share Posted March 12, 2009 Ender check the post again because I did quote him http://www.lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2600799&postcount=41 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 The post you just gave me was written after the post I quoted. Thanks, but a retcon does not make you any less sgkljajw. Skin actually hadn't even posted in this thread when you wrote the post in question. _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted March 12, 2009 Author Share Posted March 12, 2009 See page 1: http://www.lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2600709&postcount=40 You were replying to post 41 Anyways going through the blogs and doing a search shows that there probably is a persecution of Christians in the United States. It's practically a right down the middle in the blogs, the left wing ones call the Christians a bunch of whiners then turn around and bash them. The Right wing blogs say it's an out an out war on religion. I'm not willing to say that it's quite that far, but I do think it's subconscious on the part of some to bash people of faith because they are uncomfortable in their atheism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 You were replying to post 41No, he was replying to post #37. Which was made before Skinwalker even entered the thread, which was clearly directed at Ender. Nice try though. Anyways going through the blogs and doing a search shows that there probably is a persecution of Christians in the United States. Wow, you managed to search all of the blogs on the interwebs and come to this impressive conclusion? I find your assertion ridiculous in the extreme. You are of the opine that somehow a vast minority in the United States is actively persecuting the overwhelming majority? The majority which holds (nearly) every single office of power in the country? Riiiiiight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 It's incredibly callous to brush off the troubles of others groups like atheists while sitting there like a martyr trying to paint your own little tempest in a teapot as 'persecution'. You are of the opine that somehow a vast minority in the United States is actively persecuting the overwhelming majority? When 'persecution' in Garfield Newspeak means what it does, everyone is persecuted. If Christians are persecuted because they're having their beliefs questioned and are allegedly facing widespread discrimination, what does that make the atheists, people with dark skin, women, gypsies, Arabs, illegal immigrants, elderly, and the handicapped? Not to mention all the other groups facing discrimination of some sort in the US ? My, that's a lot of persecution going on, someone should plead with the UN members nations to send in at least a battalion each of peacekeepers. Rwanda is nothing compared to this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 See page 1: http://www.lucasforums.com/showpost....9&postcount=40 You were replying to post 41 Wow, it's pretty bad when you don't even understand your own posts. If you look at the post I refer to, it is post 37, which came directly after I posted. I expect some sort of acknowledgment that you made a mistake by calling me an atheist, or even just an acknowledgment that you were talking to me. No, he was replying to post #37. Which was made before Skinwalker even entered the thread, which was clearly directed at Ender. Nice try though. Thanks ET. _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.