View Single Post
Old 03-01-2009, 09:01 PM   #118
True_Avery
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,002
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
Actually that is relevent, whether or not you choose to admit it is your problem.
The burden of proof is on your shoulders, and you've yet to prove this information has been manipulated. You are going on a personal hunch, and that is not fact.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL
Oh so let me get this straight it was a study geared to justify religious persecution.
So, you didn't actually read the study or Skinwalker's post. That makes your posts easier to understand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL
Saying that people aren't as intelligent because they believe in God reeks with bias, as would a study that says people that are atheists aren't as intelligent as those that believe in God.
Since you didn't bother reading his post or the study and have instead opted to make yourself look stupid, re-read this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skinwalker
Interestingly enough, and for those that might think so, I'm not asserting atheists are "smartest" nor is Nyborg. Indeed, the data are clear on this: The Episcopal/Angelican group scored the highest IQ at 113.43 with the Jewish denomination a close second at 112.43. Atheists actually placed 3rd and Agnostics 4th with an average IQ of 109.13.
How is closing your eyes and ears and yelling loudly working out for you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL
No, I'm saying you're only saying that it isn't relevant because of the fact if you had to admit that that incident I'm referring to was relevent it would completely invalidate your evidence to justify your beliefs. If the situation were reversed you'd be saying the same thing I was about the legitimacy of the study being questionable, and unlike you I would actually acknowledge that point.
I could also assume that from the mistakes Fox News may have done with a News story that all of their stories from that point on are invalid. I could assume that since one study managed to screw up, and every study ever made after that is also invalid.

The thing is, you have given good reason as to why it -may- be skewed, but you've yet to give proof that it has been. Give us something that says it has been. Give us outrage over a skewed fact. Give us something other than your own speculation and the speculation of the research you never did.
True_Avery is offline   you may: quote & reply,