View Single Post
Old 02-24-2009, 10:28 AM   #46
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker View Post
I'm dismissing your "sources" because they're irrelevant and show nothing. They're red herrings and have nothing to do with the topic at hand. If you truly believe the blog articles and news bits you've linked "show [my] sources to be ... frauds," then there really isn't anything more we can discuss.
They are already being sued for discrimination towards Christians, and you're claiming they aren't biased?


Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
What has this comment to do with anything? Are you actually reading the same thread the rest of us are? Wow.
I haven't looked but isn't one of your sources from there?


Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
Uh... no. You haven't shown where a single one of the individuals I cited were named in a lawsuit. Nor would a lawsuit be relevant to our discussion unless it was directly related to their study. Perhaps I overlooked something... could you please look back at the posts I created and under the "references" headings, which individual(s) are named in which lawsuits?
The University they work at was sued, which puts the people you used as sources in doubt.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
Nope. Wrong again. I have freedom of speech. I can criticize (and even insult) any religion I chose.
Okay, and I have the freedom of speech to point out how you're trying to justify intolerance of people of faith.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
The data are what they are... and just because one doesn't like data doesn't mean you can simply dismiss it out of hand. Doing so would make you an ideologue. What you're creating is an ad hominem argument and a straw man -instead of dealing with the premises of the claim, you're mis-characterizing the argument into something that is aligned with an idea you think most people will find repulsive or disagreeable and, thus, an idea you won't have to process. Unfortunately, in a rational discourse, argumentation doesn't work that way. If you want to refute the claim, you'll either have to educate yourself (the citations are probably accessible via your local library) or simply accept that they might be true.
No, I'm calling it what it is and that is an attempt to justify the atheist ideaology as being superior by saying only stupid people believe in God. And don't even try to to give me the garbage (which I underlined) because I probably know a heck of a lot more about World War II than you do, considering I've studied the topic for a class.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
No problem, simply insert Muslim school into my comment. My argument stands. Your weak attempt to counter it holds water like a fish net -there are few (perhaps none at all) Muslim high schools or universities in the United States attempting to get their creationist poppycock accepted in real institutions of academia. Perhaps they recognize creationist nonsense for what it is: stupid.
Well in case you haven't noticed they aren't holding the same discriminatory behavior on students from Muslim schools, so it is discrimination end of discussion.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
I wouldn't know. I'm not a "liberal." If anything, I'm a conservative since fiscal and resource conservation are things that concern me, but like I said: I detest politics to begin with. Whenever someone starts making political proclamations, their brains open up and all sense of reason and rational thought is lost to personal ideology.
Dude, if you are conservative than Nancy Pelosi would be Ann Coulter. Don't give me that song and dance.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
Yawn... Yes, suffice it to say your an "expert..."
I'm saying I know more about researching than you do, and I know how easy it is to skew results based on ideaology.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
I've no idea what your talking about... but, hey, you're the research expert. Is the underline tag a citation style of APA or MLA? Or something else entirely... ? And you're right, Jesus does exist. He cut my grass just the other day and his wife sells tamales on the weekends in my neighborhood. A real nice guy... doesn't speak much English though.
Referring to Jesus as in around over 2000 years ago.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
Eh.. not so much, no. I'm at least open to the possibility that a god or gods exist. All I need is sufficient evidence or good reason. How about you? Are you open to the possibility that not only is there no god, but that your particular god doesn't exist?
It doesn't sound like it at all from your statements, every other statement you've stated suggests you despise people that believe in God. As far as the idea of there being no God, that wouldn't add up if you look at some of the events that took place in the Bible. Particularly look at the Exodus, also didn't they find a bunch of Egyptian Chariots in the Red Sea?


Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
But you don't even give me the courtesy of inquiry. Hell, you don't give yourself the courtesy of inquiry given the duplicated "sources" that you so vociferously stated were not duplicated! Come on guy! I'm not asking you to give up your beliefs or your politics! I'd be disappointed and hurt if you did. And I have more respect for you than to expect you to do so.
I was in a hurry and should have looked at the links I posted more thoroughly. However you didn't investigate your sources as far as potential for bias either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
One of the reasons I come off so harshly is that sometimes it takes a harsh word to jumpstart someone's thinking. If I put you on the defensive, suddenly you have to look critically at your positions... and you shouldn't be afraid to do this! Yeah, I'm arrogant. I can admit that. But I'm also willing to admit when I'm wrong -but only if I truly am. What you have before you is several decades of constantly revised positions which have continually refined themselves. Had you met me on the net in 1996, you wouldn't believe I was the same person -my beliefs and critical thought was that unrefined. I was about your age, actually.
Well here is the thing, it is impossible to disprove God's existence, nor is it possible to prove he exists. Just because you can't observe God doesn't mean he doesn't exist, and the fact you can't scientifically disprove his existence (and scientists that claim they can aren't being honest quite frankly).


Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
Ah-ah... there you go again with the straw man. While the civil suit may be initiated by those that perceive it as a persecution against Christians, the reality is that this is a learning institution charged with educating its students with knowledge and scientific fact, not the superstitions and mythology of religions. There is no tradition of scientists and science educators picketing or suing churches to get science installed in the Sunday school classroom... why should it be tolerated the other way around. If Christians are able to get their mythology accepted as "truth" and taught as "science," where would the line be drawn? Would not the Zuni with their concept of creation vis a vis the Corn Goddess have to also be taught? What of Muslim ideas of "science?" The education institutions of the United States that are refusing to accept high school credits where creationism is taught are upholding patriotic, American values by not establishing any one religion over another. By not creating a state-sponsored religion. Moreover, students are free to gain acceptance via their SAT scores -if I understand the issue correctly (and its been a while since I reviewed it), SAT scores still take priority in university acceptance.
That explanation would fit except for the fact that they admitted students from Muslim schools but denied entry to students from Christian Schools. Therefore your entire justification doesn't fly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
Have you noticed that none of the suits against the universities have favored the plaintiffs?
That doesn't mean it isn't happening, it used to be that nobody won any Civil Rights lawsuits concerning discrimination based on race.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
It doesn't satisfy the question I asked. You're creating a red herring ... please, one thing at a time. I'm more than willing to look over that 29 page report that doesn't appear to have any punitive judgment (from what I've read so far, kudos are due for the Smithsonian for not tolerating superstition in a place of real science), but first you'll have to address the question that was actually asked: where are the punitive damages awarded by the courts in one of these civil suits you keep bringing up?
Again have you ever heard of reverse discrimination? And as I've pointed out it used to be the same way concerning lawsuits involving race.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
This is a complete and utter straw man. An ignorant and under-educated one to boot. Sorry... I'll spend no more time on such nonsense.
Sorry you find the truth offensive, that was the closest comparison that fit.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
I don't know what this handbook is. Can you link to it or is it in a library? I don't follow (can someone shed light on this?).
Have you been in a coma for the last 10 years? You can see it almost all the time in the media.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
People get "accused" of stuff all the time. Usually by nuts with a "mission" but that's beside the point. To end this post, I'll just recap:
Oh so I suppose in your view the leader of the Weather Underground is a respectable Professor. Anyone deliberately targetting children in my view doesn't deserve respect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
I posted hard, empirical data. You posted "no its all biased, dude!"
If the data is biased it isn't valid data.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
I posted citations to the individuals who conducted studies. You posted, "they're all getting sued, man!"
Any time you have a study that says nonreligious people are more intelligent than religious people, it's a sign that the person conducting the study has an agenda. It's called common sense, study history sometime because there are numerous examples in history of this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
What you haven't posted are rebuttals to the empirical data (hint: I'm willing to email a couple of these to you in PDF form if you'd only ask. "But you gotta ask me nicely" [/Col. Jessup]). You also haven't cited legal decisions from the civil courts which show damages awarded or that the plaintiffs even had a favorable outcome.
So then going by your line of reasoning one could argue black people aren't as intelligent as white based on studies done years ago.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
Garfield, please don't take me the wrong way. I sense you getting worked up and it might benefit you to pause a bit before responding. Thinking some is good to. Like I said, I'm not expecting you to change you mind or your beliefs. But I'd like to think that there exists some common ground out there that we could stand upon and engage in rational discourse. We can't do that if you toss fallacious argument after fallacious argument into the fray.
It's what you consider a fallacious argument, I consider your arguments to be a fallacious argument too, it goes both ways.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism

Last edited by GarfieldJL; 02-25-2009 at 04:05 PM. Reason: Editted for clarity
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,