View Single Post
Old 03-01-2009, 10:10 PM   #123
Status: Banned
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,001
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
Thing is, we don't know if the research is genuine due to his history. That's the thing about trust, I can argue you all accept it because it's what you want to believe as atheists.
Oh, so you can't think up a good argument so you ad hominem attack us for our "atheism."

Nice try. Care to dig yourself a deeper hole? I'm sure there are more baseless arguments you can throw at us.

And yet AGAIN your make another baseless accusation without even bothering to research. Here, I'll post it again to give you the chance to read it:

"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." -Skinwalker

Now, if we wanted to believe this just because we are "atheists", then doesn't that contradict your argument? Atheists are 3rd, and agnostics are 4th. If "atheists" are so intent on being #1, then why are we "atheists" apparently content with research that says they are #3?

Again, please do some research and actually read posts.

And, for the record, I do not consider myself an atheist.

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
When there is a history of discrimination of people of religion in academia as I've illustrated, the question becomes also how many people answered the survey honestly?
Wow. You really have no argument at all if you are going to nit-pick speculation that low. If you are going to go as far as to say the participants lied, then you may as well no longer believe in anything as your argument basically states that nobody tells the truth.

And you call us determined to believe this?

Also, what academia have you illustrated? All you have done is blanket state "academia" and call them out for something you have yet to provide proof for beyond 2 isolated cases.

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
@ True_Avery

I didn't just use wikipedia, I used the news link from the University where he worked. That is more relevant than a random link you are posting where I have no idea where it is from.
If you had used or even read news links, you would have known that the University put out a report on his work, of which I posted above.

If you had bothered to read my link or do any research on the report you are using for he basis of your argument, you would know that. If you had even bothered actually read the wiki article you would know that.

And who was it by? The Dean of Social Sciences of the University, the Chairman of the same, and 2 professors from Gothenburg and Copenhagen University.

So, again, instead of looking at the link and then dismissing my entire argument, why don't you actually do some research with those skills you keep talking on about on the person you are trying to discredit: from jyllands-poste, Denmark's main newspaper.
True_Avery is offline   you may: