religious or atheist

[Daggers]

I dislike religion with a passion.

Organised, baseless mumbo-jumbo.

[stez]

Stat. on the Wright Stuff, in a argument as to whether only stupid people believe in God! I.e. the more intelligent you are the less likely it is you are to believe in God/follow religion. Combine that with religion, especially fundamentalism only really occurs in very poor/poorly educated countries!

Out of 700 Nobel prize winning Scientists asked if they believe in God? How many do you think said yes!?

1, that's right one!!

P.s. I'm becoming more of an atheist the older I get!

i guess that means the views of the wright stuff are the most religious people in the country?

[Flynny]

The trend is obviously that 'more educated' people all secretly think they're God.

Yes clearly that makes much more sense. That and a sky-man who's his own father letting mankind to suffer to prove a point.

I'd have thought that people exposed to and interested in science and related academia from a relatively young age don't see the need for religion, causing that kind of statistic. I'm not particularly trying to be snobby here, but there'll be strong correlations between:

People interested in science and intelligent people.

People interested in science and those who are unreligious,

and thus a correlation between intelligent people and the unreligious. Simple pimple.

[Guest]

I often see the 'clever people are atheists' point, to be honest I think it's a horrible and very disrespectful argument. It seems to me like people copying the clever kid in an exam. Dawkins uses it a lot in his book, not a book I would recommend reading.

Scientists tend to be more analytical in nature, and so it would make sense for them to be atheists. An intelligent person who was religious, if you ask me, is more likely to be creative.

[Phube]

i guess that means the views of the wright stuff are the most religious people in the country?

Hey I had a funeral today!!!

[Daggers]

I often see the 'clever people are atheists' point, to be honest I think it's a horrible and very disrespectful argument. It seems to me like people copying the clever kid in an exam. Dawkins uses it a lot in his book, not a book I would recommend reading.

Why?

[Flynny]

I often see the 'clever people are atheists' point, to be honest I think it's a horrible and very disrespectful argument.

What bollocks. It's true but it's hurtful so don't use it?

I've read that book. It had good bits and some deep flaws. What didn't you like about it?

[AoWW]

Atheist. Just coz.

[Phube]

Atheist. Just coz.

It's the way God made you!

[Number 6]

Why?

I find it very repetitive. He makes some good points but I don't think he makes them well. If people want a book that will help them understand atheism they should read the bible.

What bollocks. It's true but it's hurtful so don't use it?

I've read that book. It had good bits and some deep flaws. What didn't you like about it?

I don't mind the fact that it's hurtful. If people question me about why I think their beliefs are wrong I have a number of points none of which will make them feel good about themselves. Correlation between two factors can be found almost anywhere. You may be able to show that people with bigger toes are more likely to commit murder for example. Obviously there is no causation in this, and the link between the two would be non-existent. As pointed out above (by other people) there may be other reasons for this link between intelligence and atheism, and people shouldn't just take the stats at face value.

As for the book, see above.

[davieG]

Taoism

Shit happens.

Buddhism

If shit happens, it's not really shit.

Islam

If shit happens, it's the will of Allah.

Protestantism

Shit happens because you don't work hard enough.

Judaism

Why does this shit always happen to us?

Hinduism

This shit happened before.

Catholicism

Shit happens because you're bad.

Hare Krishna

Shit happens rama rama.

T.V. Evangelism

Send more shit.

Atheism

No shit.

Jehova's Witness

Knock knock, shit happens.

Hedonism

There's nothing like a good shit happening.

Christian Science

Shit happens in your mind.

Agnosticism

Maybe shit happens, maybe it doesn't.

Rastafarianism

Let's smoke this shit.

Existentialism

What is shit anyway?

Stoicism

This shit doesn't bother me.

[stez]

Hey I had a funeral today!!!

it's ok, i listen to victoria derbyshire in the morning, it's practically the same.

apparently, i'm only mildly agnostic

pah! you click on the link 'mild agnostic' and it comes up as weak agnostic, as if to mock one.

Weak agnosticism, is the belief that the existence or nonexistence of deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable and therefore one should withhold judgment until/if more evidence is available.

^ sounds about right

[Head Honcho]

This thread reminds me of a joke!

Here goes:

Have you ever heard of the agnostic dyslexic insomniac?

He stopped up all night wondering if there really is a dog.

...........I'll get me coat

[Asha]

This thread reminds me of a joke!

Here goes:

Have you ever heard of the agnostic dyslexic insomniac?

He stopped up all night wondering if there really is a dog.

...........I'll get me coat

I'm an insomniac. True story.

[Wycombe Fox]

Taoism

Shit happens.

Buddhism

If shit happens, it's not really shit.

Islam

If shit happens, it's the will of Allah.

Protestantism

Shit happens because you don't work hard enough.

Judaism

Why does this shit always happen to us?

Hinduism

This shit happened before.

Catholicism

Shit happens because you're bad.

Hare Krishna

Shit happens rama rama.

T.V. Evangelism

Send more shit.

Atheism

No shit.

Jehova's Witness

Knock knock, shit happens.

Hedonism

There's nothing like a good shit happening.

Christian Science

Shit happens in your mind.

Agnosticism

Maybe shit happens, maybe it doesn't.

Rastafarianism

Let's smoke this shit.

Existentialism

What is shit anyway?

Stoicism

This shit doesn't bother me.

davieG you made me laugh out loud! I thank you kind sir!

I'm atheist!

[Daggers]

I find it very repetitive. He makes some good points but I don't think he makes them well. If people want a book that will help them understand atheism they should read the bible.

I don't mind the fact that it's hurtful. If people question me about why I think their beliefs are wrong I have a number of points none of which will make them feel good about themselves. Correlation between two factors can be found almost anywhere. You may be able to show that people with bigger toes are more likely to commit murder for example. Obviously there is no causation in this, and the link between the two would be non-existent. As pointed out above (by other people) there may be other reasons for this link between intelligence and atheism, and people shouldn't just take the stats at face value.

As for the book, see above.

I can not agree for one second with that.

The book in question is lucid and frequently references itself in order to highlight the commonality in arguments. The single reason for not advocating it comes down to the limited ability of the reader to comprehend it - to recommend that someone should read the Bible instead in order to prove the non-existence of "God" displays a religious bias and fails to offer an argument to counter the justification for religion. Does this argument therefore suggest that reading the Koran would have a similar effect of convincing a person no god exists?

There are a number of primary literary exponents providing ample evidence and argument that the probability of a god is so small that no justification can be held in a belief - Luke, Mark, John and the other one do not number among them in my book.

If there is a statistic linking big-toed people with murder then I would like to see it - until the time that becomes a substantiated stat it carries all the gravitas of the good book.

[Flynny]

I don't mind the fact that it's hurtful. If people question me about why I think their beliefs are wrong I have a number of points none of which will make them feel good about themselves. Correlation between two factors can be found almost anywhere. You may be able to show that people with bigger toes are more likely to commit murder for example. Obviously there is no causation in this, and the link between the two would be non-existent.

Thats actually bollocks. Really. The lot of it.

Do you understand correlation at all? If you take a big enough sample, any two things that should be unrelated will have no correlation at all or such a tiny, tiny weak trend (i.e. 50.01% of murders will fall in the top 50% of shoe sizes) that people know it isn't one and it wouldn't be reported.

The fact that not only is it a clear correlation, but that it makes sense to most people does indeed demonstate a link.

[Head Honcho]

I dislike religion with a passion.

Organised, baseless mumbo-jumbo.

According to the Concise Oxford Dictionary:

Mumbo Jumbo is a noun and is the name of a grotesque idol said to have been worshipped by some tribes. In its figurative sense, Mumbo Jumbo is an object of senseless veneration or a meaningless ritual.

................Well I found it funny!

[Webbo]

This thread reminds me of a joke!

Here goes:

Have you ever heard of the agnostic dyslexic insomniac?

He stopped up all night wondering if there really is a dog.

...........I'll get me coat

Very similar to the dyslexic devil worshipper.

He sold his soul to santa.

...........Pass us my coat while you're getting yours

[Head Honcho]

Very similar to the dyslexic devil worshipper.

He sold his soul to santa.

...........Pass us my coat while you're getting yours

No that's funnier

[Number 6]

I can not agree for one second with that.

The book in question is lucid and frequently references itself in order to highlight the commonality in arguments. The single reason for not advocating it comes down to the limited ability of the reader to comprehend it - to recommend that someone should read the Bible instead in order to prove the non-existence of "God" displays a religious bias and fails to offer an argument to counter the justification for religion. Does this argument therefore suggest that reading the Koran would have a similar effect of convincing a person no god exists?

There are a number of primary literary exponents providing ample evidence and argument that the probability of a god is so small that no justification can be held in a belief - Luke, Mark, John and the other one do not number among them in my book.

If there is a statistic linking big-toed people with murder then I would like to see it - until the time that becomes a substantiated stat it carries all the gravitas of the good book.

HRT: good for the heart!

The comment about the bible was intended to be tongue in cheek. I got quickly bored of Dawkins and his tales of people using religion to get around the law (for example people wearing offensive t-shirts and being allowed to because of their religious beliefs). I really wanted to like the book, I just feel that Dawkins seems more intent on religious people then religion itself. He makes some good points throughout the book, but I just didn't think it was well written at all.

[Number 6]

Thats actually bollocks. Really. The lot of it.

Do you understand correlation at all? If you take a big enough sample, any two things that should be unrelated will have no correlation at all or such a tiny, tiny weak trend (i.e. 50.01% of murders will fall in the top 50% of shoe sizes) that people know it isn't one and it wouldn't be reported.

The fact that not only is it a clear correlation, but that it makes sense to most people does indeed demonstate a link.

maths degree

[Daggers]

HRT: good for the heart!

The comment about the bible was intended to be tongue in cheek. I got quickly bored of Dawkins and his tales of people using religion to get around the law (for example people wearing offensive t-shirts and being allowed to because of their religious beliefs). I really wanted to like the book, I just feel that Dawkins seems more intent on religious people then religion itself. He makes some good points throughout the book, but I just didn't think it was well written at all.

Sorry - I don't recognise Wikipedia as a reference source as part of an argument.

"Feel" is an emotion, feeling that he is more occupied with the religious than the religion is not an argument because it is simply an emotive declarative statement. I can't counter that this isn't the case if that is what you "feel". I can state that the book deals with the existence or otherwise of a god, it argues in a logical fashion and uses a scientific process to justify the arguments.

It doesn't get dominated by minutiae such as T-shirt wearing but I have no desire to rewrite or interpret his (or Michael Shermer's) words here - I believe them to be leading (and eloquent) protagonists in the arguments against those who willingly embrace ignorance and superstition.

Like the book, don't like it - the choice is yours. I thought it lucid, coherent and well put

[Libertine]

Agnostic.

[Number 6]

Sorry - I don't recognise Wikipedia as a reference source as part of an argument.

"Feel" is an emotion, feeling that he is more occupied with the religious than the religion is not an argument because it is simply an emotive declarative statement. I can't counter that this isn't the case if that is what you "feel". I can state that the book deals with the existence or otherwise of a god, it argues in a logical fashion and uses a scientific process to justify the arguments.

It doesn't get dominated by minutiae such as T-shirt wearing but I have no desire to rewrite or interpret his (or Michael Shermer's) words here - I believe them to be leading (and eloquent) protagonists in the arguments against those who willingly embrace ignorance and superstition.

Like the book, don't like it - the choice is yours. I thought it lucid, coherent and well put

Cum Hoc

There are plenty of examples.

Surely every book, even factual ones, are emotive. That's why some people like them and some hate them, each to their own.