View Single Post
Old 02-24-2009, 01:57 PM   #47
SkinWalker's Avatar
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
They are already being sued for discrimination towards Christians, and you're claiming they aren't biased?

I haven't looked but isn't one of your sources from there?

The University they work at was sued, which puts the people you used as sources in doubt.

However you didn't investigate your sources as far as potential for bias either.

If the data is biased it isn't valid data.
These are fallacious examples and it doesn't follow that because one group or individual files civil suit against a university that the data resulting from research conducted by individuals within that university are therefore suspect. None of the individuals I've indicated as references for data are named in any legal action. Nor have you shown their data to be obtained via poor methodology. You simply assert, ignorantly I might add, that "they're biased so they can't be trusted."

This is completely and utterly illogical, especially from someone who dares to talk one's self up so boldly with statements that amount to "I'm a better researcher than you!" Many would view this as a childish mentality. Luckily, I think better of you than that.

But, more to the point, all scientific research is subject to bias. Researchers are aware of this and design their studies, surveys, and research to eliminate bias as much as possible. Indeed, most good researchers will field their result to colleagues, asking them to be brutally critical so that they can get all points of view. In the end, this is where the methodology section of a good research write up comes in, making the biases transparent and outlining what the researchers did to overcome bias.

And I haven't even shown the tip of the iceberg on one of the studies. Their research, which shows the negative correlation of intellect with conservative ideology is startling. But their methods are sound and their results clear. The authors are also very clear that they make no speculation as to the causation and that they're only looking at the correlation.

But, hey. That's what we're starting to expect from you... whenever data doesn't support your conclusion, you can't accept it. When it does, it must, therefore, be good data. That, in itself, is fallacious reasoning (a.k.a. circular reasoning).

Okay, and I have the freedom of speech to point out how you're trying to justify intolerance of people of faith.
Absolutely. I'll even help you: people of faith should not be tolerated when they impose their superstitions on the rest of society. Regardless of their faith. Be they Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Navajo, whatever.... once they start demanding that the rest of society adhere to superstitions specific to their particular brand of religion these people of faith have no reason to be tolerated. Of course, if they keep to themselves, I can tolerate them just fine.

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.
Cool. You took a class.

I'm saying I know more about researching than you do, and I know how easy it is to skew results based on ideaology.
Your kewl resurch skillz rock.

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.
You couldn't be farther from the truth. But I'll admit, its hard to see the other side of me when I'm forced to provide rational and reasoned arguments. I'm sorry. I don't get all wishy-washy and namby-pamby just because I'm afraid reason and rational thought will offend someone. If you assert it publicly and use a religious reason to support an argument, I'm going to throw your superstitions back in your face every time.

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?
It would add up if you read biblical literature and mythology with an objective eye and not that of someone with an a priori belief. And, no, "they" didn't find "a bunch of Egyptian Chariots in the Red Sea." I'm an archaeologist, so if you want to discuss this topic, I ask that you start another thread since I'll probably make a few posts that are longer than the short ones I've made in this thread lately.

Well here is the thing, it is impossible to disprove God's existence, nor is it possible to prove he exists.
Why would anyone care to?

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).
This sentence wasn't structured to well, so I hope I've inferred your meaning correctly. There are many, many things that cannot be "scientifically proved" when it comes to "existence." Zeus, Apollo, Gilgamesh, Marduk, and the were-jaguars of ancient Mesoamerica cannot be scientifically disproved. Yet there are no good reason to accept any of them to be true. I'm more than willing to revise my beliefs about your god (or anyone else's) once I'm presented with good reason. Can you say the same? Can you admit here that you would be willing to give up belief in a god if good reason were shown to you?

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.
Which one of those Muslim schools did not have a science curriculum that teaches evolution in the science class?

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.
Again, we don't seem to be participating in the same thread. I can only assume that this is some sort of straw man argument and a gross mis-characterization of what I originally said. Such a mis-characterization affords you a cop-out rather than actually address the point at hand. This, my friend, is a fallacious argument and has no bearing on the original statement. I ask you to please stay on topic.

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.
It could also be that there is someone who noticed a trend and is looking for answers. The data are the data and they still stand, mocking you with scientific methodology while you go about creating straw men, knocking down windmills, and hoping people will chase your red herrings. In the end, your very words are confirming the data I cited. This is fascinating to an anthropologist like me, I must say.

So then going by your reasoning black people aren't as intelligent as White based on studies done years ago.
Mod Note:You'll need to quote the place I stated this, publicly retract this racist accusation, or receive an infraction. Being a fair person and a lenient moderator, I'll allow you the opportunity of 24 hours to PM me, edit your post, or retract your accusation unless you are able to quote, word-for-word where I've implied that the people of one ancestry are more or less intelligent than another. Hopefully, if an infraction is applied, you don't have enough points to auto-ban.

It's what you consider a fallacious argument, I consider your arguments to be a fallacious argument too, it goes both ways.
Sorry, but you don't get to just make a baseless accusation of fallacy. You'll actually have to demonstrate it. If you'll look through your various posts and notice the appeals to authority, arguments from ignorance, and the straw man and red herring arguments you've presented, you can see examples of fallacious argumentation. Just because you disagree or don't want what I'm saying to be true doesn't give you reason to say "it goes both ways," because it doesn't. If, however, you can specify which of my arguments and assertions were fallacious, cite the type of fallacy and why you think a fallacy exists, then I'll need to revise my position or change it. Or, counter argue why the reasoning is sound. None of this, by the way, have you done as your fallacies have been pointed out. This is indicative of poor reasoning or at least a refusal to acknowledge reason and evidence of the assertion that there is a negative correlation between cognitive ability and conservative beliefs.

A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: