Vorkosigan

Let's see....Godbert makes evenhanded and entirely correct assertion. Godbert does not whine or insult or indulge in sarcasm when doing so. Participants immediately get all huffy and indignant, and attempt to deploy insults, sarcasm and moral indignation instead of rational thought....Godbert whips out stats and utterly destroys the visceral response crowd....

Uh-huh. There certainly was a point demonstrated here.....

Vorkosigan

Haran

So it's completely "evenhanded and correct" of him to assert that he is more intelligent than close to 100% of theists? I'd sure like to know what "close to" means in this statement, because I know quite a few theists who never would have made such a bold and arrogant statement.

By the way, I have never proudly spouted out my IQ as some like to do around here. I find that in itself to be arrogant and even somewhat self-doubting in the sense that one obviously feels the need to bring it up in order to show everyone how smart they perceive themselves to be.

I disagree.

Stats without backing. As I have stated before elsewhere, stats can be made to say just about anything depending on the way in which they are collected and presented.

Roland98

If Godbert's IQ is in the 140s, then that makes it higher than "close to 100%" of the entire population--which would include theists. So though I'm also not a fan of parading around IQ numbers, he indeed is correct. Of course, he also could have said he was more intelligent than "close to 100%" of atheists, while a theist with a similar IQ could likewise say he was more intelligent than "close to 100%" of atheists. It's just a numbers game, as was pointed out earlier.

livius drusus

It's quite simple, really. Haran's OP was not an attempt to justify the quote. It was not about who's more intelligent than whom. The place to contest the veracity of that comment would have been the original thread in which he made it.

Here, it was simply an example of a darndest thing and therefore the analysis of its statistical accuracy was entirely off-topic. I remind all participants, including you Haran, who really should know better, that this thread is about WinAce's Fundies Say the Darndest Things page: what is on it, what belongs or doesn't, whether it's naughty or nice.

Let's stick to it please, as there is nothing worth splitting here and I am loathe to lock it just because some people apparently find this topic so hard to follow.

Thank you,
livius drusus
Moderator, GRD

Haran

I'd also just like to point out that I would not agree with theist sites similar to WinAce's site.

For instance, I do not agree with the tone of much of JP Holding's site (Rogue's Gallery, etc...). It is humor at other people's expense and seems over the top by anyone.

Calzaer

Well, yeah, they're called STATISTICS. Maybe you should take a class or two.

ANYWAY...

Then what's your problem? If you don't regret saying them, why do you dislike the idea that they're suddenly avaliable to a wider audience? In context or "out of context", this particular post of yours is the same damn thing; a broad brush of arrogance akin to or even arguably surpassing the arrogance possesed by the atheists you attempt to harpoon.

Futhermore, I probably only speak for myself for this, but who the hell do you think you are? Why should WinAce, I, or anyone care what you think of some stupid personal website? What do you expect to accomplish by saying "Waa waa waa, WinAce is a big meany because he thinks I say stupid stuff!"? WTF do you expect him to do about it? Cease his entire hobby just because you (and LD, to a point) are offended by it? Isn't that an even BIGGER display of arrogance on your part, that you're somehow so important you DEMAND to be taken seriously even when you say things you're ashamed of (but claim you'll stand by, even as you lobby to have them erased from the public eye)?

It's his basement; if you don't like his rules, don't play there. Simple as that.

And in the process displayed an even greater strain of arrogance, as well as a complete lack of any basic grasp of statistical analysis. Congratulations. <insult deleted - liv>

You bet your ass. I have no sympathy for people who say stupid shit then whine about how they don't want anyone to know they say stupid shit.

livius drusus

When did I say I was offended by WinAce's page? I'm not at all, as it turns out. I have no problem with people's public posts being satirized on a website. I just don't think Haran's comment comes close to the darndest thing standard.

Haran

I've had more than two, thank ya very much. And I've seen them applied in real life. People make statistics say anything they want.

If you truly feel this way, then you shouldn't have a problem with my post either. So, what's your deal?

Frankly, I didn't expect WinAce to do anything about it, much less reply to this thread. What I ran across in a global google search yielded his website, it annoyed me, so I posted about it.

Who is blowing this out of proportion? I never asked WinAce to remove his site. I was simply commenting that I found it rude and annoying just like many here complain about parts JP Holding's website and some other theists.

I don't play there. I didn't ask to be quoted there. I stumbled across it and posted it as an example of the type of atheistic arrogance I have mentioned many times before.

If you don't like my posts, then don't read them...

And I have no sympathy for those who whine right back at me for posting many opinions that happen to be the opposite of many here. Have I touched a sensitive spot or something? Why all the vulgarity (not that you don't have a right to it, of course )?

Oh well. Sorry, Livius. I don't want it to get any more inflammatory than this. I think I'll take my leave. I've stated my grievances. Some will get it, some will not.

Godbert

[QUOTE]Originally posted by livius drusus
It's quite simple, really. Haran's OP was not an attempt to justify the quote.

Yet he chose to carefully rephrase it into an arguably more ridiculous quote.



It was not about who's more intelligent than whom.

Neither was my reply. In fact my whole argument was made using equal average IQs for theists and atheists.


The place to contest the veracity of that comment would have been the original thread in which he made it.

I bow to your wisdom LD. Surely I should have had the common sense to address Haran's statement
"I rather think that some, perhaps even many atheists believe themselves to be more intelligent than theists."
in the thread he originally made it in.
It's not like some moderator would be all sad an hurt because I was addressing a statement in the thread-starting post which he found to be off topic for that thread.

Apparently, I could start a thread on white vs. red grapefruit and offhandedly mention that everyone whose name starts with an "E" is an idiot and as long as LD moderates that thread noone could comment on the idiot remark since that would be off topic in a grapefruit context.


Let's stick to it please, as there is nothing worth splitting here and I am loathe to lock it just because some people apparently find this topic so hard to follow.


Ok, here is my take on Winaces list: I find it hilarious and can only congratulate him and thank him for all the work in putting it together.
I don't see why Haran is peeing himself over this, especially since his statement seems to have been presented correctly by Winace.
My post has been ridiculed and misrepresented enough in this very thread but if any theists feel the need to quote some of my hilariously wacky remarks they are welcome.
But to call those quote lists typical atheist arrogance is a little silly. Similar collections are to be found on many other topics and people who are caught spouting nonsense tend to take it with a laugh unless they are bitter, humorless theists who feel disturbed in their ongoing attempt to keep believing religious bullshit.

Haran

Some quick responses before I go...

Read my previous response to you about this. The quote is correct, less of a generalization, and works in context.

It is easy to find something hilarious when it is not meant to attack you or your beliefs.

"Peeing himself"... Surely this is...never mind.

Look, I found the site in a google search and found it annoying that I had been quoted without my knowledge under a title obviously meant to belittle those quoted. Excuse me for being a little annoyed. In a miffed state, I posted about it. As usually happens when one posts, one tries to explain and defend their point of view to others. That is what I have done. I didn't wet myself, honest.

I do not feel that I was "spouting nonsense" in every quote. A couple of them maybe. In one of the quotes I had simply responded back to an atheist by rewording what I thought were his own silly ideas. So, IMHO, that person's post should have made it before mine, except that he was an atheist and someone apparently didn't understand my post.

As far as the "bitter, humorless" rhetorical fluff, I get miffed sometimes. I have bad days sometimes. When I do, I don't always have the nicest attitude when I post or I want to make a point about some way that I feel I've been treated by others. So, yeah, like most people, sometimes things hack me off... Still, I don't like jokes about other people (or their comments) that take place behind their back (so to speak).

I feel like I've said most of this before, but from your post, I don't think you understood it. At least you didn't respond. So, this is about as clear as it gets and I think I've said all I can say about it.