View Single Post
Old 03-12-2009, 08:53 AM   #41
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Originally Posted by SkinWalker View Post
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.

Originally Posted by SkinWalker
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

Originally Posted by SkinWalker
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.

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.
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: