Current Poll (Religion)

[mhuzzell]

Quoting Haunted from 11:47, 11th Aug 2007

Quoting mhuzzell from 00:30, 11th Aug 2007
But that's exactly my point: there is as much difference between Agnostics and Atheists as there is between Agnostics and religious people.

No I am disagreeing with this. You either beleive or you don't. Find me an agnostic that believes.

I think I might fit that category, at least to a point. I used to believe in God very strongly, without doubt. Then I got older, started questioning my beliefs, and now have some doubt as to whether or not there is a God. I still believe in God, but not anything like I did before. I accept the possibility that God may or may not exist, and am therefore Agnostic. But I still believe in God, kind of.

There is a world of difference between Truly Believing in God, and accepting the possibility of God's existence.

There is also a world of difference between accepting the possibility of God's non-existence, and actively denying God's existence.

Also, why can I find numerous atheist/agnostic groups or forums but no christian/agnostic ones?

I suspect that this is a demographical phenomenon more than anything else. When having their own forums, atheists and agnostics may tend to define themselves in opposition to the religious, but that doesn't mean that they are the same.

"# It is often said, mainly by the 'no-contests', that although there is no positive evidence for the existence of God, nor is there evidence against his existence. So it is best to keep an open mind and be agnostic. At first sight that seems an unassailable position, at least in the weak sense of Pascal's wager. But on second thoughts it seems a cop-out, because the same could be said of Father Christmas and tooth fairies. There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden. There is no evidence for it, but you can't prove that there aren't any, so shouldn't we be agnostic with respect to fairies?"

-Richard Dawkins,

"People will then often say, 'But surely it's better to remain an Agnostic just in case?' This, to me, suggests such a level of silliness and muddle that I usually edge out of the conversation rather than get sucked into it. (If it turns out that I've been wrong all along, and there is in fact a god, and if it further turned out that this kind of legalistic, cross-your-fingers-behind-your-back, Clintonian hair-splitting impressed him, then I think I would choose not to worship him anyway.)"

-Douglas Adams

See, to me these quotes seem to support, rather than refute, my assertion that Atheism is an entirely different position to Agnosticism.

[hr]

I FOUND JESUS... he was behind the couch the whole time!

[Haunted]

Quoting Arashi from 21:31, 13th Aug 2007
After reading this thread, what has struck me is that no one seems willing to entertain the concept that scientific thought and religious beliefs can coexist. Afterall, it was the Catholic Church which had a major part in the formulation of the Big Bang theory. I cite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang in the History section, just to show I'm not making it up.

This is the same catholic church that put tried Galileo for heresy after he suggested that the Earth goes round the sun and not the other way round?
Incidentally, the church got its geocentric evidence from scripture:

Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and Chronicles 16:30 state that "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved." Psalm 104:5 says, "[the LORD] set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "the sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises."

Funny how that's now taken as metaphorical, but when there was nothing to go against it, it was fact.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[Haunted]

Quoting Frank from 20:58, 13th Aug 2007
I'd like to hear folks thoughts on the Documentary...I missed it.

Well it was just him going around and exposing pyschics, tarot readers and thos water-finding-with-sticks people as frauds.

A good bit was when he put the water people through a proper double blind test to see whether they could actually detect water. Some of their excuses for it not working were quite inventive.

Derren Brown had a nice little section on cold readers.

Not perhaps as controversial (and thus, entertaining) as his other stuff which does the same thing (except to the more popular supernatural followings) but still worth a look. Especially when it turns out 25% of people actually believe in horoscopes (his figures), which is more then anyone believes in any one god in this country.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[Haunted]

Quoting mhuzzell from 01:39, 14th Aug 2007
I think I might fit that category, at least to a point. I used to believe in God very strongly, without doubt. Then I got older, started questioning my beliefs, and now have some doubt as to whether or not there is a God. I still believe in God, but not anything like I did before. I accept the possibility that God may or may not exist, and am therefore Agnostic. But I still believe in God, kind of.

I suppose this is yet another matter of semantics. Can you believe in something which you actively doubt can exist? Or is that just wishful thinking as opposed to belief?

There is also a world of difference between accepting the possibility of God's non-existence, and actively denying

As I've said I define Atheism as lack of belief in the supernatural. Atheism and agnosticism are very similar in this sense. Yes you do find some atheists that actively deny absolutely 100% even the possibility of there being anything supernatural, but I find that a difficult position to justify satisfactorily.

I suspect that this is a demographical phenomenon more than anything else. When having their own forums, atheists and agnostics may tend to define themselves in opposition to the religious, but that doesn't mean that they are the same.

I think this is because there can be no such thing as an agnostic christian. You can have doubt but still tend towards the possiblity of there being a god, but this is not belief in a god (which I would argue is a prerequisite for being part of religious denomination be it christian, muslim etc) and so the term christian cannot be compatible with agnostic.

See, to me these quotes seem to support, rather than refute, my assertion that Atheism is an entirely different position to Agnosticism.

To me they illustrate how a true agnostic is just an atheist that is afraid to call themself such.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[Gubbins]

Quoting Haunted from 11:28, 14th Aug 2007
...and thos water-finding-with-sticks people as frauds.

A good bit was when he put the water people through a proper double blind test to see whether they could actually detect water. Some of their excuses for it not working were quite inventive.

Don't be too quick to ridicule water divining. Speaking as an physicist and as someone who has successfully got it to work in a blind test, I have to say there is something in it. It may all be subconscious visual signals, but it does work. I've managed to repeatedly identify the location of a 40-year-old field drain in a 10-acre field to an accuracy of about a foot.

[hr]

...then again, that is only my opinion.

[oddly familiar]

Quoting Frank from 23:44, 13th Aug 2007
That is: Science, at present, seems to have alot more going for it than alot of other stuff. Perhaps this is extreme selfishness?

Well, science only has something over religion if you say that they are both attempting to explain what the world is like. As Novium said earlier, creationists have built their case on a foundation of sand, because they try and use religion to describe the universe, something which science is much better at. Science describes, religion explains. Unfortunately current religion (well, Abrahamic religions at least, I don't know enough about most of the other religions to comment) are up a creek because they have made assertions as to the state of the universe, statements which can be shown to be false.

Religion also claims involvement of god in the running of day-to-day affairs (e.g. Jesus, Moses, Mohammed), claims which cannot be verified or even believed based on scientific knowledge. Unfortunately that negates almost everything current religion has to say, so if one really feels the need to be religious, I suppose a new religion is needed, one which does not make erroneous, supernatural or incorrect claims, but which does attempt to fulfil religion’s other functions. Current religions are almost totally incompatible with this and any attempts to change them, or ignore the parts that don’t make sense (which is what many modern Christians have to do) takes so much away from them that really it would be more sensible to start again from scratch.


[hr]

saru mo ki kara ochiru

[Haunted]

Quoting Gubbins from 12:52, 14th Aug 2007
Don't be too quick to ridicule water divining. Speaking as an physicist and as someone who has successfully got it to work in a blind test, I have to say there is something in it. It may all be subconscious visual signals, but it does work. I've managed to repeatedly identify the location of a 40-year-old field drain in a 10-acre field to an accuracy of about a foot.

So you've managed to repeatedly find the same drain in the same field?

Incidentally, Dawkins was on Richard and Judy and they showed the clip about the water people viewable here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j---hozZpw4

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[mhuzzell]

Quoting Haunted from 11:41, 14th Aug 2007

Quoting mhuzzell from 01:39, 14th Aug 2007
I think I might fit that category, at least to a point. I used to believe in God very strongly, without doubt. Then I got older, started questioning my beliefs, and now have some doubt as to whether or not there is a God. I still believe in God, but not anything like I did before. I accept the possibility that God may or may not exist, and am therefore Agnostic. But I still believe in God, kind of.

I suppose this is yet another matter of semantics. Can you believe in something which you actively doubt can exist? Or is that just wishful thinking as opposed to belief?

Sorry, it was late and I was a bit unclear. But yes, this was a semantic issue to begin with.

What I mean is that I am an Agnostic who believes it is more likely than not that there is some sort of deity--a very, very different position from Atheism, or even the sort of Agnostic position that there might be a God, but it's likely that there isn't.

Even when I Truly Believed, though, I was more deist than religious.

See, to me these quotes seem to support, rather than refute, my assertion that Atheism is an entirely different position to Agnosticism.

To me they illustrate how a true agnostic is just an atheist that is afraid to call themself such.

You appear to have simply re-defined Agnosticism to fit your own argument. Indeed, your whole purpose in this thread (though I'll admit to skimming a lot of the science vs. religion stuff) seems to be to promote Atheism. There's nothing wrong with that, but you'll never win any arguments by willfully re-defining terms and attacking straw men.

[hr]

I FOUND JESUS... he was behind the couch the whole time!

[Haunted]

Quoting mhuzzell from 14:01, 14th Aug 2007
What I mean is that I am an Agnostic who believes it is more likely than not that there is some sort of deity--a very, very different position from Atheism, or even the sort of Agnostic position that there might be a God, but it's likely that there isn't.

Even when I Truly Believed, though, I was more deist than religious.

You believed in 'a' god as opposed to any god in particular?

Deism is a bit of a strange position as well. whats the point in believing in a god that can't do anything and just exists as the philosophical construct of the 'first' cause?
There's no afterlife for you there.

Ok. Your agnosticism is not very, very different to atheism. Do you or do you not believe in the supernatural?
You doubt that there is a god but tend towards one anyway, why so?

You appear to have simply re-defined Agnosticism to fit your own argument.

Not at all. Why are people agnostic? Do they not want to risk condemning themselves to hell? Do you think a god would be impressed by such fence sitting? And if he was would you consider him worthy of your worship?
Being an agnostic as a way of remaining 'safe' (pascals wager) is just silly.
You either believe in the supernatural, or you don't, that much is black and white. You can't argue they both might be right nor can you say that the evidence favours them equally.

Indeed, your whole purpose in this thread (though I'll admit to skimming a lot of the science vs. religion stuff) seems to be to promote Atheism. There's nothing wrong with that, but you'll never win any arguments by willfully re-defining terms and attacking straw men.

I have not redefined any terms, you can check this by going through some of my earlier posts about A, A and NR. I have not, as far as I am aware, done any straw manning (point them out if I have though).

My main point, that I've tried to consistently make, is that atheism is the logical default position to have. To believe in the supernatural with any degree of integrity one must have undeniable proof of it.
[hr]

I FOUND JESUS... he was behind the couch the whole time![/quote]

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[novium]

Oh, there is plenty of religion out there that is not built on foundations of sand, on things that are easily disprovable. That are more about spirituality and philosophy...you only run into this problem with literalism/fundamentalism. Christianity, for example, has some denominations that take very very abstract views of things, and place everything in its historical context...as well as those that take a hardline on things, either interpreting everything extremely literally, or sticking to the dogma. Heck, some denominations themselves have both within themselves... the Catholic Church, for example.

Quoting oddly familiar from 13:14, 14th Aug 2007
As Novium said earlier, creationists have built their case on a foundation of sand, because they try and use religion to describe the universe, something which science is much better at. Science describes, religion explains. Unfortunately current religion (well, Abrahamic religions at least, I don't know enough about most of the other religions to comment) are up a creek because they have made assertions as to the state of the universe, statements which can be shown to be false.

Religion also claims involvement of god in the running of day-to-day affairs (e.g. Jesus, Moses, Mohammed), claims which cannot be verified or even believed based on scientific knowledge. Unfortunately that negates almost everything current religion has to say, so if one really feels the need to be religious, I suppose a new religion is needed, one which does not make erroneous, supernatural or incorrect claims, but which does attempt to fulfil religion’s other functions. Current religions are almost totally incompatible with this and any attempts to change them, or ignore the parts that don’t make sense (which is what many modern Christians have to do) takes so much away from them that really it would be more sensible to start again from scratch.


[hr]

saru mo ki kara ochiru

[hr]

quem neque periculi tempestas neque honoris aura potuit umquaum du suo cursu aut spe aut metu demovere.

[novium]

You just did a straw man- attacking pascals wager. You attacked strawmen in our argument too. But that's besides the point.

If I understand them right, mhuzzell is arguing that agnosticism is the more skeptical position- the most belief-free position- so in no way can it be construed as being the position of cowards.

Quoting Haunted from 14:26, 14th Aug 2007
Not at all. Why are people agnostic? Do they not want to risk condemning themselves to hell? Do you think a god would be impressed by such fence sitting? And if he was would you consider him worthy of your worship?
Being an agnostic as a way of remaining 'safe' (pascals wager) is just silly.
You either believe in the supernatural, or you don't, that much is black and white. You can't argue they both might be right nor can you say that the evidence favours them equally.

[hr]

quem neque periculi tempestas neque honoris aura potuit umquaum du suo cursu aut spe aut metu demovere.

[novium]

:eye roll:
If you would stop basking in your own superiority, you'd see that you're making an ass out of yourself.

Do you seriously believe IQ can be a reliable measure of intelligence? If you do, you obviously know nothing about all the controversies surrounding it. And if it was IQ, can you not recognize the absolute myriad of flaws in using it in the statistic calculations? For one, it is going to be biased towards those who have had IQ tests...which i imagine is mostly going to take place in the first world. There are also all the education and cultural biases in IQ tests. If we take what you have said as a given- that correlation IS causation, and that stupidity makes people religious- and apply it, we could infer that Europeans are more intelligent than Hispanics, Africans, Asians, Arabs, etc etc...as those regions are all much more religious than Europe. Can you see the biases now?
As to the religiosity thing...no, you can't just trust what people will self-report. One, people lie and exaggerate- often along the lines of what they expect the "right" answer to be. It doesn't seem logical, but they do. Two, the way things are phrased will affect how they answer. Three. They, themselves are going to have different understandings of what, say "very religious" means. Four, the people presenting the test are going to have different understandings of what "very religious" means.

And, last but not least, you can say "there's a negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity" until you're blue in the face, but it's going to be meaningless unless you can dredge up some scholarly proof to back it up. ("because dawkins says so!" won't cut it with me) Your alien remark makes absolutely no sense. I can at least claim to have seen the numbers and run the numbers for the ice cream/crime correlation. You can't even do that much for yours.

And no, crimes committed is quantifiable. You don't have to worry about "how many robberies does two murders equal?" What, it didn't occur to you that it was a simple matter of saying X crimes committed? My little statistic said nothing about the types of crimes, or how it broke down, or how bad the crimes were.

And yes, you did offer a connection. And your connection is an idiotic conclusion, based on all the problems mentioned above. Which is why I felt the need to remind you that correlation is not causation.

Quoting munchingfoo from 00:30, 14th Aug 2007

Quoting novium from 21:48, 13th Aug 2007
you've missed the pointhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_is_not_causation

Oh yes - I didn't get that!

Myself
(in that they were both examples of correlations without direct causation)

Are you hard of seeing?

And yet you've totally ignored the even more important problem here: the problem of quantifying intelligence (and, religiosity).

I didn't mention intellect - I said IQ. IQ is quantifiable by its very nature.

My ice cream example was meant to cast doubt on the other correlation. One, because i've not yet seen any actual numbers

Theres a link to some figures and a correlation graph

...and I have for the ice cream thing...

I've seen aliens - FACT

and two, because the ice cream one is actually more sensible, as it involves things that can be quantified, and not only that, quantified in such a way that's not going to bring up murky bias issues.

As above - IQ by its definition can be quantified. Also - the people in the questionaire were all asked the same question , and they replied using their own opinions (we trust) - so where would the bias come about?

P.S - how do you quantify crime? 4 DUIs equals one murder and two stabbings?

Third, there's a relatively simple connecting factor with the ice cream thing: heat.
And my guess is, if the whole intelligence/religiosity thing ever took place, even in the least credible fashion, the factor that ties them together is also going to be fairly obvious- that is, cultural bias, with a geographical component.

I offered one simple connection.



[hr]

Tired Freudian references aside - your mother played my mighty skin flute like a surf crowned sea nymph trying to rouse Poseidon from his watery slumber!

[hr]

quem neque periculi tempestas neque honoris aura potuit umquaum du suo cursu aut spe aut metu demovere.

[Gubbins]

Haunted: Water divining: it wasn't only one drain in one field - that was just an example. Add to that list artesian wells in Australia and water mains in Scotland. I've seen it done a lot. I can't explain why it works, I don't think it has anything to do with psychic energy or anything supernatural. I'd like to get the chance to do some more scientific tests, but I do know there's something in it.

Not at all. Why are people agnostic? Do they not want to risk condemning themselves to hell? Do you think a god would be impressed by such fence sitting? And if he was would you consider him worthy of your worship?
Being an agnostic as a way of remaining 'safe' (pascals wager) is just silly.
You either believe in the supernatural, or you don't, that much is black and white. You can't argue they both might be right nor can you say that the evidence favours them equally.

I suspect most agnostics are not so because of the 'risk'; nor is it about remaining 'safe'.

If, by "believing in the supernatural", you mean does one believe in something outside the realms of science, then I suspect most people do. I do, because I know science hasn't discovered anything yet. If you mean specifically a believe in God and/or life after death, etc., then the evidence is unclear (we've established that much here already), so one is forced to make one's own conclusions, based on that evidence.

As we have no evidence for God's existence, merely a set of data where a God or gods are not necessary, the default view should surely be agnosticism until evidence comes through to the contrary. One can choose to express one's bias in terms of weight of evidence in either direction, but that is all.

Novium: the problem with aliteralism, or interpreting scriptures as metaphorical, is the line you draw in accepting what is metaphor and what is fact. If one considers the creation of the world in seven days to be a metaphor, why should one accept that God created the Earth to be fact, or indeed the fact that God exists?

This would reduce the Bible (or relevant other scripture) to a combination of historical account and set of moral guidelines, and render one atheist, so where should one draw the line, and why?

[hr]

...then again, that is only my opinion.

[Gubbins]

Quoting novium from 18:11, 14th Aug 2007
And, last but not least, you can say "there's a negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity" until you're blue in the face, but it's going to be meaningless unless you can dredge up some scholarly proof to back it up. ("because dawkins says so!" won't cut it with me)

Wikipedia has a good article on this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosit ... telligence
The references it uses aren't entirely scholarly, but they should point you in the right direction. This is a relatively well-known correlation.

Personally, I suspect it is due to the decline in religious beliefs being predominantly among the more intelligent social circles with the growth of multiculturalism and international communications. Thus, the less intelligent are left adopting the previous historical default of being religious.

And no, crimes committed is quantifiable.

Obviously, this also runs into difficulties of crimes committed being derived from crimes reported, which could be independently correlated with temperature. You are, however, correct in saying that there is no evidence for a causatory link in the IQ/religosity correlation, but the fact that the correlation is present is suggestive.

[hr]

...then again, that is only my opinion.

[Haunted]

Quoting novium from 17:55, 14th Aug 2007
You just did a straw man- attacking pascals wager.

On second glance it appears so. Though Pascals wager is so often used as a 'good reason' to believe.

Quoting Gubbins from 18:33, 14th Aug 2007
Haunted: Water divining: it wasn't only one drain in one field - that was just an example. Add to that list artesian wells in Australia and water mains in Scotland. I've seen it done a lot. I can't explain why it works, I don't think it has anything to do with psychic energy or anything supernatural. I'd like to get the chance to do some more scientific tests, but I do know there's something in it.

Why do all the studies prove conclusively that there is nothing (apart from chance) in it?
The movement of the rods is nothing more than the ideomotor effect, and I'd wager they'll point towards where the user 'expects' to find water (perhaps there are geographical or topological signs of water, but this is not divination)

If, by "believing in the supernatural", you mean does one believe in something outside the realms of science, then I suspect most people do. I do, because I know science hasn't discovered anything yet.

I would not define 'supernatural' as that which has yet to be discovered. More like that which is above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena. As in something that just couldn't be explained scientifically.

the default view should surely be agnosticism until evidence comes through to the contrary

Then we must be agnostic with respect anything we can conjour with our minds. FSM, fairies, santa claus, easter bunny, cthulhu, odin, bacchus, etc etc. Are you agnostic towards them?
If we had no data, as you say, then we would have to be agnostic. However, everything we have points universally to there being no god (and no santa clause, odin, etc) and so we must waiver over towards atheism (or A-odinism, A-easterbunnyism, etc). The more evidence we have that shows no god nor no need for one (read: all the data humans have ever), the more we swing.

For the intelligence vs religiousity issue I found this:
http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelli ... ligion.htm
Which includes a summary of all the 43 studies that have been done into it. Of which only 4 did NOT find a negative colleration.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[Gubbins]

Quoting Haunted from 19:23, 14th Aug 2007
I would [...] define 'supernatural' as [...] that which is above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena. As in something that just couldn't be explained scientifically.

The problem with that approach is that there are many things that previously were attributed to "acts of God" as they couldn't be explained by more rudimentary science in the past. Plagues and comets, to name but two.

Then we must be agnostic with respect anything we can conjour with our minds. FSM, fairies, santa claus, easter bunny, cthulhu, odin, bacchus, etc etc. Are you agnostic towards them?

Now this is a slightly separate issue. There is a difference between the existence of a god and a specific god or gods.

The key point here is evidence. You're wrong to say that all the data humans ever have points against a God. If that were so then no-one would ever have believed in one. There are numerable historical accounts - including the various scriptures - that point to acts of God and so forth throughout most cultures in the world. These should be considered as data too.

We can dismiss the idea of an Easter Bunny, Santa Claus or FSM as the history and creation of these concepts are well-documented. The history of the Bible before Roman times is not well-documented, thus we do not know how the concept or knowledge of God came into being.

I can, however, see no good reason in believing in the Judeo-Christian God as opposed to, say, Odin, Aten, Bacchus, or any other god(s). I can only say that historical literary evidence points to a god's existence and the creation of the world, whereas archological, paleological and other scientific data are against a divine creation and are mute on the existence of God(s).

[hr]

...then again, that is only my opinion.

[munchingfoo]

Quoting novium from 18:11, 14th Aug 2007
:eye roll:
If you would stop basking in your own superiority, you'd see that you're making an ass out of yourself.

Lets make a deal - I'll stop basking when you stop making me look so good.

Do you seriously believe IQ can be a reliable measure of intelligence? If you do, you obviously know nothing about all the controversies surrounding it.

No I don't believe IQ is a reliable measure of intelligence (I'm guessing you have a high IQ), and infact I know its not.

And if it was IQ, can you not recognize the absolute myriad of flaws in using it in the statistic calculations? For one, it is going to be biased towards those who have had IQ tests...which i imagine is mostly going to take place in the first world.

Everyone in that survey was given an IQ test, not biased. It would be biased if only people who had previously had an IQ test were allowed to answer the religious question.

There are also all the education and cultural biases in IQ tests.

This a reason why IQ is unreliable, not why the correlation between IQ and religion is biased.

If we take what you have said as a given-

Lets see where this goes.

that correlation IS causation

which I didn't (I explicitly said the opposite), but lets see where you are going...

, and that stupidity makes people religious-

which I didn't, but lets see the conclusion...

and apply it, we could infer that Europeans are more intelligent

You are the only one who mentioned intellect.

than Hispanics, Africans, Asians, Arabs, etc etc...as those regions are all much more religious than Europe.

Funnily enough the Japanese have the highest IQ in that data.

Can you see the biases now?

Yes, yes I can. If I look at the issue you have devised in your own mind then you are absolutly 100% correct.

Now LOOK at my actual point.

Refuting the IQ vs religiosity argument by using the icecream vs crime example was shit

Thats it, and you have, in your enlightened mind, made up this entire argument that doesn't exist.

As to the religiosity thing...no, you can't just trust what people will self-report. One, people lie and exaggerate- often along the lines of what they expect the "right" answer to be. It doesn't seem logical, but they do. Two, the way things are phrased will affect how they answer. Three. They, themselves are going to have different understandings of what, say "very religious" means. Four, the people presenting the test are going to have different understandings of what "very religious" means.

Fair enough - but my argument was -
Refuting the IQ vs religiosity argument by using the icecream vs crime example was shit

And, last but not least, you can say "there's a negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity"

I could, but how many times do I have to tell you, I didn't.

until you're blue in the face

Perhaps I should say, "I didn't mention intellect" until I'm blue in the face.

but it's going to be meaningless unless you can dredge up some scholarly proof to back it up. ("because dawkins says so!" won't cut it with me)

I haven't mentioned dawkins. (except just there)

Your alien remark makes absolutely no sense.

It does, you're just too thick to get it.

I can at least claim to have seen the numbers and run the numbers for the ice cream/crime correlation. You can't even do that much for yours.

Did you even read my post before you made up your counter argument? Like I said, the figures and the graph are in the link supplied by haunted. But since it is not my argument, that being that
Refuting the IQ vs religiosity argument by using the icecream vs crime example was shit, no, I can't provide that type of figures for my argument (you have been right quite a few times now, by default).

And no, crimes committed is quantifiable. You don't have to worry about "how many robberies does two murders equal?" What, it didn't occur to you that it was a simple matter of saying X crimes committed? My little statistic said nothing about the types of crimes, or how it broke down, or how bad the crimes were.

Fair enough - but it was a P.S. - it doesn't detract from my argument -
Refuting the IQ vs religiosity argument by using the icecream vs crime example was shit

I haven't once said I believe that low intellect leads to higher religion rates, but if you continue to argue in this manner you might just swing it for me.

(premptive defence: yes, I said that it was logical but, note the quite.)


[hr]

Tired Freudian references aside - your mother played my mighty skin flute like a surf crowned sea nymph trying to rouse Poseidon from his watery slumber!

[Gubbins]

Quoting Haunted from 19:23, 14th Aug 2007
Why do all the studies prove conclusively that there is nothing (apart from chance) in it?
The movement of the rods is nothing more than the ideomotor effect, and I'd wager they'll point towards where the user 'expects' to find water (perhaps there are geographical or topological signs of water, but this is not divination)

To the studies: I can only imagine that the studies have not dealt with the correct setup. I have never succeeded in finding a closed bucket of water, for instance. Perhaps the water needs to be flowing, or has to have materials in suspension or have a specific pH or any number of things.

Alternatively, what you say about the 'expection' of water may also be true: I suspect subconsciously one knows where the water is and the divination process is merely a tool to help in that realisation. I do not believe in divination in the strict sense of the term, but I am convinced it has useful methods which can be used to find water.

[hr]

...then again, that is only my opinion.

[Haunted]

Quoting Gubbins from 19:44, 14th Aug 2007
The problem with that approach is that there are many things that previously were attributed to "acts of God" as they couldn't be explained by more rudimentary science in the past. Plagues and comets, to name but two.

I high-lighted the word 'couldn't' for this reason.

The key point here is evidence. You're wrong to say that all the data humans ever have points against a God. If that were so then no-one would ever have believed in one.

I disagree with this. It's most likely that people invented the idea of a god to explain things (and to comfort them into thinking that they could survive their own death), not becuase they had evidence for it.

There are numerable historical accounts - including the various scriptures - that point to acts of God and so forth throughout most cultures in the world. These should be considered as data too.

Name one that could not be attributed to natural law. The data is fine, but their interpretation is flawed.

I can only say that historical literary evidence points to a god's existence and the creation of the world, whereas archological, paleological and other scientific data are against a divine creation and are mute on the existence of God(s).

I'm glad you italicised those words. Such 'evidence' is hardly comparable to actual physical evidence. If I had written that the FSM had appeared to me in vision and told me how the universe was created, would you consider that as equally valid evidence?

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[Haunted]

Quoting Gubbins from 19:52, 14th Aug 2007

Quoting Haunted from 19:23, 14th Aug 2007
Why do all the studies prove conclusively that there is nothing (apart from chance) in it?
The movement of the rods is nothing more than the ideomotor effect, and I'd wager they'll point towards where the user 'expects' to find water (perhaps there are geographical or topological signs of water, but this is not divination)

To the studies: I can only imagine that the studies have not dealt with the correct setup. I have never succeeded in finding a closed bucket of water, for instance. Perhaps the water needs to be flowing, or has to have materials in suspension or have a specific pH or any number of things.

Alternatively, what you say about the 'expection' of water may also be true: I suspect subconsciously one knows where the water is and the divination process is merely a tool to help in that realisation. I do not believe in divination in the strict sense of the term, but I am convinced it has useful methods which can be used to find water.

One study did involve flowing water and it also showed no statistical success beyong chance.

If it is a pyshcological thing (we may have evolved to see certain signs alerting us to water, sounds plausible to me) then it should be sold as such. It is simply wrong to declare it as anything else.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn