Glasgow West End: Pat's Guide: Discussion Forum

*sigh*

You can go and look up the Gallup and Mori stuff if you don't like the CBS surveys.

Whatever the polling methods, and sample sizes the ratio remains more or less that same over every survey I've seen covering a period of about twenty years with some minor annual fluctuations. With such a huge split even a several percent variation wouldn't stop the majority being significant.

If you know of some published evidence that these figures are badly out lets see it.

Further facts on religious belief in the US.

http://www.pollingreport.com/science.htm

Three polls conducted in three consecutive years indicate that the majority of Americans are so ignorant that they reject proven scientific fact in favour of unprovable creationist mythology.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/...ain657083.shtml 2004

http://www.physorg.com/news7500.html 2005

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/11669 2006

There are other surveys by Gallup and MORI which return the same general results.

One post, I'm busy.

In breaking news....



http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=08...;show_article=1




http://www.sptimes.com/2008/02/15/State/Pu...h_trumps_.shtml



______________________________________


"Atheists in foxholes": Derived from the nonsensical claim put about by ignorant christians that "there are no atheists in foxholes" - when atheists' lives are in danger they will turn to god.

As an atheist who has stared death in the face a number of times I can categorically state that this is not the case.

KC's description of atheists concealing their disbelief from families as being "in a foxhole" while appropriate, isn't the common usage of the analogy, however it is appropriate.


_______________________________________


Right, I'm off again.

Absolutely and if someone says something that is irrelevant to a discussion, and has the appearance of being deliberately inflamatory then posters have a perfect right to ask why.

I'm sorry I can't continue with this as I have some interesting guests to entertain. at home. You've all been very amusing again.

I'll drop by some other time.

I'm unfamiliar with the expression "firstfit" but I'm sure you you mean it in a complimentary way. I'm also sure this is a dead end as you seem to be completely unable to identify the very obvious difference between what was being said in the dialogue between Pat, Rolo, and KC, and the irrelevant interjection from weekie about genuflecting. I have no wish to suffer your poor understanding of language any longer.

I think I've made my point.

Oh come off it. You're playing disingenous games here. Have you actually read what went on? The thread had shifted to another angle of discussion petween Pat, KC and Rolo but had remained serious and to the point. Weekie came in from leftfield and planted that completely irrelevant nonsense about genuflecting. What was that about eh? You're trying to make this look like the pot calling the kettle black, when anybody looking in as I've just done can see that's a total misrepresentation of what actually happened. Nobody watching this with half a brain's going to be fooled by that.

[quote="Hingmie"][quote=Hingmie][quote]There is no way to absolutely disprove the existence of a god. [/quote]
[quote]What we can say with certainty is that the god hypothesis is so unlikely that it can be safely disregarded as an explanation for the universe[/quote].

mmm....[/quote
Alex who are the "we" you mention ? Are you part of a sect/ group ? Care to disclose who they are ? I have only ever voiced my personal position with regard to the creed I chose to follow and I know I have never asked nor expected any one on this forum to emulate my lifetyle.[/quote]

Sorry, I know I was going, but I can't let this one pass.

The "we" is humanity.

You me and the whole shooting match. The only certain knowlege we as a species can have about the god hypothesis is that it's highly unlikely to be true. In the complete and absolute absence of evidence for a god, and the logical absurdity of its proposed existence, we can be pretty certain it doesn't exist.

Anyway.

It's 1.40 and I'm off to bed.

You've all been very entertaining, both to me and the people watching.

I've lots of other places to be over the next month so I doubt if I'll be back for a while.

Keep up the good work.

Alex.

No you're wrong.

The people I've mentioned may disgree with me on many subjects.

Religious belief requires, as Hingmie has already indicated, a willingness to believe in the face of contradictory evidence and logic. It requires a suspension of the thought processes which tell you the concept is absurd.

My impression of every believer I've ever met is that they've not thought things through enough to see just how wrong they are. Hence the term "thinking" people to describe those who can see past the nonsense.

(edited to include the quote)


Me for a start, and anybody else with the thinking skills to see that the religious emperor has no clothes.

As for examples I can mention famous names like Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, etc, and on this forum I see Peony, KK, Rdt2(sp?) and Westender and a few others.

Enough examples?

No I don't have that proof.

Have a wee look back though my posts here. You'll find I've been very careful not to state that there categorically is no god because I was anticipating that you might try to catch me out with your clever question.

Atheists don't need to prove there is no god. Atheism is absence of belief.

The onus of proof is upon the claimant, the believer.

There is no way to absolutely disprove the existence of a god. There are however many ways to reduce the claim that there is one to an absurdity.

For example, the argument from design begs the question "Who designed the designer?" in a series of infinite regressions.

What we can say with certainty is that the god hypothesis is so unlikely that it can be safely disregarded as an explanation for the universe.

Been there. Had a look. They all agree with one another and they're all atheists. I like places like this where I can get a discussion. Who would I disagree with on that site?

Rolo Tomassi:






Lets put it in context shall we.




Do two rights make a wrong?




Religious belief is based upon ignorance. It is a mechanism whereby people explain their world because they are ignorant of the truth.



Religious belief requires an absence of rational thought. People who actually think don't believe in impossible claims.



You may believe that. It doesn't make their views right or immune to criticism.

There is no chance. You're looking at two systems which cannot be reconciled. One is rooted in reality, and the other in fantasy.

The problem is that the fantasy claims equal validity with the reality, which is of course not the case.

Despite what science fiction writers and pseudo-philosophers may claim, for practical purposes there is only one reality. There are however many different competing fantasies.

There is a well meaning but mistaken belief that all of the fantasies and the reality should be considered as equally valid.

This is the kind of thinking which threatens to make the teaching of biology in your country the laughing stock of the world if the ID liars get their way. (I realise this would have to be over a few dead bodies of decent men but you'll admit it's a possibility you have to fight tooth and nail against.)

The real problem is not the fanatics but the moderates who legitimise them by lending a mass credence to the same scriptures from which the extremists take their literalist beliefs.

If you believe a man died and came back to life because a particular book says so, then why can't you believe the earth is 6,000 years old and homosexuals should be put to death? Same book. Word of the same god. The difference is only one of degree. Moderate religious people who claim "these bad guys aren't proper christians/muslims" are in fact lending support to the extremists by claiming that the scriptures from which they both take their instructions are true.

If, for example, the bible is the word of god, then how come modern christians ignore the nasty bits and concentrate on the good bits?

Is it an admission that the bits they don't like are a pack of lies?

If that's the case what makes the bits they do like true?

Please explain why you think these are three examples of lack of respect?

Please explain why religious belief merits respect.

I think believing in something in spite of the utter lack of evidence for it, and in the face of overwhelming logical arguments against it, is simply denial, or a result of conditioning which you can't let go of regardless of how ludicrous the premise.

You are denying a great wonder, which is the discovery of the universe without the ready made explanations of superstition. Is there no argument that would sway you from this denial of reality?

(See now Holowhorn here's the actual attempt to seed reason. It didn't happen before. You imagined that bit)

I didn't think so.

Perhaps you would suggest some examples of me not treating anybody with "respect and dignity".

Perhaps you would suggest some examples of my "rancour" towards others.

If everyone's views are valid then mine are also. Are you trying to censor what I've said because you disagree with it?

If someone wishes to post a constructive argument against anything I've said then I'm open to discussion.

Why is it hyperbole?

Explain please.

Hullo again Hollowhorn.

I see you're playing a clever game of cat and mouse with my wee question.

What's the problem? Have you no examples of fanatics trying to convert anybody?

Continuing to attack the questioner does not provide an answer. It simply looks as if you're avoiding the issue.

This is true.

It is also the right of those of us who see those beliefs as nothing but ignorant superstition to say so.

When it comes to the pervasive and demonstrably harmful effects that religion has upon our society, it is incumbent upon thinking people to challenge it whenever it raises its head.

Do you perhaps have a rational counter argument?

It's a common but unpersuasive when clumsily handled tactic that when confronted with questions they cannot answer about things they said, people often try to avoid embarrassment by attacking the questioner.

I think that's what we're seeing here.

Who is browbeating anybody?

Please give me an example.

It seems more like "dodge the question, dodge the question, dodge the question"