Intelligent people less likely to believe in God: Study - Page 4 - New England Patriots Forums

Wildo7 · 07-02-2008, 04:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatsFanInVa

Yep, two for two. Ironic to encounter the charge of overly dense discourse, on threads purporting to delve into questions regarding intelligence.

Namecalling is faster, as I have discovered.

Quote:

Wildo you're a snot nosed little supercillious bastard

Conflating density with verbosity are we?

Quote:

Since I've got at least 3 complaints about trying to treat the subject with "gobbledegook," I will take it that any point I was making has been made elsewhere, although it appears nowhere.

I will take it that the content of what I've said has been effectively laid to rest, although nobody here has an argument against it.

And naturally we will all assume that what I said could have been said more briefly... although all I see here are less nuanced, more black-and-white repeats of beloved positions: "You're superstitious." "You can't prove it."

Religion ain't rocket science. It ain't science at all. And it ain't sound-bites.

Well, if that's all we can do, we may as well just say tell it to your church. Or tell it to your atheist buddies. They're the ones who want to hear it. We're just saying we have no interest in the phenomenon we're discussing, i.e., the relationship between religious expression and intelligence.

As far as any of my own contributions, you might want to look into patience if you hope to get through them. It is just possible that if I'm using more words, it's because I'm treating more, or God forbid more complex points of view.

Would "we" be referring to the royal "we" ala, an interruption in the conversation between a certain someones' ego and intellect? If the discussion is too stupid for you, by all means, stoop to "our" level and bless us with your unembellished original perspective. I'm certain your style is much more conducive to the "sound bite" discussion than is my primitive summation of Dawkins and Hitchens but your "complexity" will provoke a vastly superior discussion if spoken in proletariat-speak.

Quote:

It's also possible that it's 100% content-free verbosity for its own sake.

But that would seem such a terrible waste of my time.

PFnV

As in including your online alias at the end of every post when it's expressly clear you posted it?

How about a break from the embarrassingly inflated language and convoluted syntax for a moment: it's not what your point is, it's how you make it. Camoflauging your arguments in ten feet of verbal diarrhea that Shakespeare would have trouble deciphering doesn't mean your thoughts are above the fray, it just means your goal is to stupefy rather than provoke. And this is coming from someone who agrees with you 90% of the time.

PatsFanInVa · 07-02-2008, 07:06 AM

Hey, you ALMOST figured one part out, the bolded part. The "as I have recently discoved" in the namecalling bit, you may note, follows very closely upon my own calling you names! Gee! Think it's possible that's the point of its inclusion?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wildo7

Conflating density with verbosity are we?

Who's "we"?

Quote:

Would "we" be referring to the royal "we" ala, an interruption in the conversation between a certain someones' ego and intellect?

Evidently. Wait, who do you mean again? It's so hard to understand...

Quote:

If the discussion is too stupid for you, by all means, stoop to "our" level and bless us with your unembellished original perspective. I'm certain your style is much more conducive to the "sound bite" discussion than is my primitive summation of Dawkins and Hitchens but your "complexity" will provoke a vastly superior discussion if spoken in proletariat-speak.

Ah the nut of the matter. Let's see.

I am now to understand that you are summarizing Hitchens and Dawkins, and therefore the level of the discussion is fine and dandy as is, because you like said writers.

Two problems: although both are well known names, it is possible that even taken together, their perspectives do not cover the entirety of thought on the subject of intellect and religion; and

You might just plain suck at representing said opinions.

Nonetheless, you extend a condescending invitation to an "unembellished original perspective." Lest bits and pieces of what I am typing here be looked at and fit into one or another preexistent source...

I have read a good deal on the subject from a variety of perspectives, and would like to point out that this idea that I am presenting an "unembellished original perspective" is your notion, not mine. While not writing with a particular book in mind right now, I am sure each argument I've made has been made sometimes during the long history of man. So, consider me inocculated from the particular "gotcha!" of letting your description of my own contribution slide.

Then there's something called "proletariat-speak", which is supposed to improve my style. Huh. Tell you what. Given that I'm a professional writer, and having written for several national publications, I'll just continue to insist you follow said style to the best of your ability. I edit it less here and I worry less about word count. Sue me. Don't have the time.

I will admit it's dense, and you may have fun with the idea that it is verbose and without content. I take a fair amount of time getting my verbosity onto the page, and would take a good deal more to rephrase said verbosity.

Quote:

As in including your online alias at the end of every post when it's expressly clear you posted it?

Yeah been doing that for years. Do I care what you think of it? Nahhh. Do I think it means a damn thing that I sign my posts? Nahhh. Is it your business to dictate what others use to sign posts? Nahhhhh.

Quote:

How about a break from the embarrassingly inflated language and convoluted syntax for a moment: it's not what your point is, it's how you make it. Camoflauging your arguments in ten feet of verbal diarrhea that Shakespeare would have trouble deciphering doesn't mean your thoughts are above the fray, it just means your goal is to stupefy rather than provoke. And this is coming from someone who agrees with you 90% of the time.

See above. My convoluted pools of "ten feet of verbal diarrhea" are simply not the issue. Figure out what's in the "ten feet of verbal diarrhea" or just don't respond. Your wonderful compilation of modifiers aside, what you have in my posts is a lot like what you have in other posts: the draft you write when you know the audience is dozens, tops, and you just want to get across what's on your mind at a particular moment.

I don't have time to re-write/edit bulletin board posts - edited to say: well I do give them the once-over; in fact I'm sure you want to use that as some sort of proof of my overwrought writing. But I do not have time to rewrite them thoroughly.

If they are of no greater depth, or touch on no more information, than you are seeing elsewhere, they are of no value.

If they do, address the points raised.

PFnV