In my latest article on atheist watch I show that the same organization that started the Jesus Project also started and runs skeptical Inquirer magazine. I think this is a good indictment of the biases of that project.
how stupid can you get? that applys to the logic of an argument, not to organizations. would you really say if, let's say, I pointed that studies showing the inferiority of Jews were done by Nazis?
would you not expect a study to be biased if it the results were per determined by a group with a vested interest in those findings?
I work closely with the pharmaceutical industry, who regularly conduct studies in which they have a vested interest. But despite their perceived bias, if they use good methodology, the data and conclusions are accepted by the scientific community and their drug is approved for use.
I think it is not only fallacious, but poor form to criticize the results of a project before it has even been completed, unless you have personal knowledge that those conducting the project are engaging in bad methodology.
An analysis of the Jesus Project's methodology would be much more appropriate and relevant than a discourse on the philosophical orientation of the Center for Inquiry.
I work closely with the pharmaceutical industry, who regularly conduct studies in which they have a vested interest. But despite their perceived bias, if they use good methodology, the data and conclusions are accepted by the scientific community and their drug is approved for use.
actually a lot of studies have shown that medical research sux. One finding was that only about 12% of medical studies are worth anything scientifically. Pharmaceutical companies lie about medications on a regular basis. But they don't exist to combat the beliefs of a group they hate.
skeptical inquirer exists for one reason only, destroy Christianity. It has never had anyting of a neutral or unbiased nature in it. everything single article in it is a propaganda piece.
they are selling an ideology. they are ideologues. It's stupid to think they would put a dog and pony show to reflect their views then it wouldn't be biased or propagandist.
I think it is not only fallacious, but poor form to criticize the results of a project before it has even been completed, unless you have personal knowledge that those conducting the project are engaging in bad methodology.
thats;' silly.If you know it's a put up job to begin with you don't have to wait for the biased results. we know what they will be anyway.
you can see from their actions already that they are not above board. They put the names of everyone at the skeptical conference on their board and then only took off the ones who wrote and said they didn't want to be on it. that's not the way academics work.
An analysis of the Jesus Project's methodology would be much more appropriate and relevant than a discourse on the philosophical orientation of the Center for Inquiry.
Metacrock, you wrote: skeptical inquirer exists for one reason only, destroy Christianity. It has never had anyting of a neutral or unbiased nature in it. everything single article in it is a propaganda piece.
they are selling an ideology. they are ideologues. It's stupid to think they would put a dog and pony show to reflect their views then it wouldn't be biased or propagandist.
Will you PLEASE go to the Skeptical Inquirer's home page and read some SI articles there?
You will find out that the SI people have many other things on their mind besides "destroying Christianity".
Metacrock, would you like it if someone claimed that you blog about the size and shape of God's beard? Because you are doing much the same thing with the Skeptical Inquirer. And you know what a certain one of your beloved Ten Commandments says about "bearing false witness".
Metacrock, you wrote: skeptical inquirer exists for one reason only, destroy Christianity. It has never had anyting of a neutral or unbiased nature in it. everything single article in it is a propaganda piece.
they are selling an ideology. they are ideologues. It's stupid to think they would put a dog and pony show to reflect their views then it wouldn't be biased or propagandist.
Will you PLEASE go to the Skeptical Inquirer's home page and read some SI articles there?
You will find out that the SI people have many other things on their mind besides "destroying Christianity".
Yes that's right. They want to also destroy everyone worth believing in or living for.
Metacrock, would you like it if someone claimed that you blog about the size and shape of God's beard? Because you are doing much the same thing with the Skeptical Inquirer. And you know what a certain one of your beloved Ten Commandments says about "bearing false witness". 10:15 PM
I've seen their mag in the hard copy and I've read many articles. I also looked at their statement of purpose and the origination that started it. They are clearly and obviously hawking an ideology of total reductionism, mindless materialism that reduces humans to the level of sacks of chemicals and imposes a stark scientific fascistic that is usually knows as "scientism."
6 comments:
Genetic fallacy, Joe.
how stupid can you get? that applys to the logic of an argument, not to organizations. would you really say if, let's say, I pointed that studies showing the inferiority of Jews were done by Nazis?
would you not expect a study to be biased if it the results were per determined by a group with a vested interest in those findings?
I work closely with the pharmaceutical industry, who regularly conduct studies in which they have a vested interest. But despite their perceived bias, if they use good methodology, the data and conclusions are accepted by the scientific community and their drug is approved for use.
I think it is not only fallacious, but poor form to criticize the results of a project before it has even been completed, unless you have personal knowledge that those conducting the project are engaging in bad methodology.
An analysis of the Jesus Project's methodology would be much more appropriate and relevant than a discourse on the philosophical orientation of the Center for Inquiry.
I work closely with the pharmaceutical industry, who regularly conduct studies in which they have a vested interest. But despite their perceived bias, if they use good methodology, the data and conclusions are accepted by the scientific community and their drug is approved for use.
actually a lot of studies have shown that medical research sux. One finding was that only about 12% of medical studies are worth anything scientifically. Pharmaceutical companies lie about medications on a regular basis. But they don't exist to combat the beliefs of a group they hate.
skeptical inquirer exists for one reason only, destroy Christianity. It has never had anyting of a neutral or unbiased nature in it. everything single article in it is a propaganda piece.
they are selling an ideology. they are ideologues. It's stupid to think they would put a dog and pony show to reflect their views then it wouldn't be biased or propagandist.
I think it is not only fallacious, but poor form to criticize the results of a project before it has even been completed, unless you have personal knowledge that those conducting the project are engaging in bad methodology.
thats;' silly.If you know it's a put up job to begin with you don't have to wait for the biased results. we know what they will be anyway.
you can see from their actions already that they are not above board. They put the names of everyone at the skeptical conference on their board and then only took off the ones who wrote and said they didn't want to be on it. that's not the way academics work.
An analysis of the Jesus Project's methodology would be much more appropriate and relevant than a discourse on the philosophical orientation of the Center for Inquiry.
that's coming
Metacrock, you wrote:
skeptical inquirer exists for one reason only, destroy Christianity. It has never had anyting of a neutral or unbiased nature in it. everything single article in it is a propaganda piece.
they are selling an ideology. they are ideologues. It's stupid to think they would put a dog and pony show to reflect their views then it wouldn't be biased or propagandist.
Will you PLEASE go to the Skeptical Inquirer's home page and read some SI articles there?
You will find out that the SI people have many other things on their mind besides "destroying Christianity".
Metacrock, would you like it if someone claimed that you blog about the size and shape of God's beard? Because you are doing much the same thing with the Skeptical Inquirer. And you know what a certain one of your beloved Ten Commandments says about "bearing false witness".
Loren said...
Metacrock, you wrote:
skeptical inquirer exists for one reason only, destroy Christianity. It has never had anyting of a neutral or unbiased nature in it. everything single article in it is a propaganda piece.
they are selling an ideology. they are ideologues. It's stupid to think they would put a dog and pony show to reflect their views then it wouldn't be biased or propagandist.
Will you PLEASE go to the Skeptical Inquirer's home page and read some SI articles there?
You will find out that the SI people have many other things on their mind besides "destroying Christianity".
Yes that's right. They want to also destroy everyone worth believing in or living for.
Metacrock, would you like it if someone claimed that you blog about the size and shape of God's beard? Because you are doing much the same thing with the Skeptical Inquirer. And you know what a certain one of your beloved Ten Commandments says about "bearing false witness".
10:15 PM
I've seen their mag in the hard copy and I've read many articles. I also looked at their statement of purpose and the origination that started it. They are clearly and obviously hawking an ideology of total reductionism, mindless materialism that reduces humans to the level of sacks of chemicals and imposes a stark scientific fascistic that is usually knows as "scientism."
Post a Comment