'Think about those reasons next time you board an aeroplane, get a prescription, or buy a car. Would those reasons suffice then?'

ok irRationalRazor,. Next time you board a plane or get a prescription realise that it involved engineers and designers. drr! Oh no it just appeared.

Dear Spencer,

Secularism is not a religion because it does not help its practitioners to come closer to God.

AJ Philips,

>>the fact that you … have appealed to the authority of those at Oxford<<

Well, “if appealing to the authority of those at Oxford”, rather than your authority/expertise on these matters you call “insisting that you must be mistaken” then you are right.

>>This statement makes no sense to me whatsoever. When was it that I mentioned your god?<<

My fault, you are right, and I must apologise. I misread your sentence:

“for example, someone like your good self comes out in support of a misleading and derogatory use …”
as
“for example, someone like your god comes out in support of a misleading and derogatory use …”

>>The fact of the matter is that many theists refer to atheism … as a religion in order to vilify it.<<

I can see that you will disagree with such a theist, also that some ardent anti-theists might feel vilified by it, but I cannot see how it could be the theist’s INTENTION to vilify since he is happy to have it applied to himself. Well, I am now repeating myself.

Dear Yuyutsu,

>> It is in the perceived interest of secularists to pay the churches in order to make them docile, so they do not bite the hand that feeds them. In time, their teachings are diluted until eventually they forget God and become a social club. <<

This might be the case, therefore the religion/churches part must be very careful what kind of contract they enter into, “read the small print”, and be ready to get out of it, even at the price of financial loss, as soon as the demands (pressure) get beyond what was originally agreed upon.

>> Though encrypted, it will remain available, be published in 100 years time and if not by future Erdogan-like rulers <<

As I said, you can refuse to answer the question about religion or any other that you think might be used against you. The availability of reliable statistical data is of benefit to all of us, not only to authorities, be they democratic or not.

Yes, George, that’s why I labelled your insistence that I am mistaken as fallacious.

<<Well, “if appealing to the authority of those at Oxford”, rather than your authority/expertise on these matters you call “insisting that you must be mistaken” then you are right.>>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Because you haven't actually addressed my reasoning.

<<I can see that you will disagree with such a theist, also that some ardent anti-theists might feel vilified by it, but I cannot see how it could be the theist’s INTENTION to vilify since he is happy to have it applied to himself.>>

I know what you mean. Which is why I said, “You would think so, wouldn’t you”. However, it does happen, and continuously too. Why, runner has even been so kind as to grace us with an example of precisely what I’m talking about, on this very thread:

“One should have the option to tick the box as a man made gw alarmist (sorry believer).” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18387#326272)

Please don’t play dumb with me, George. I don't treat you as an idiot on these forums, so I'd appreciate if you would return the favour. You know this happens all the time. I have fun pointing out the irony of this insult on an almost-weekly basis.

By the way, one would not need to be an “ardent anti-theist” in order to feel vilified by such a claim either. The claim is so utterly wrong that it is downright offensive regardless of the strength on one’s non-theistic position.

AJ Philips,

>>Please don’t play dumb with me, George.<<

I don't remember I did but if you think so, OK, I won't carry on with trying to understand you.

George,

You are welcome to continue trying to understand me. Indeed you are a rare breed of human on this forum that actually possesses a brain (just check out some of my recent posts).

Furthermore, I find you to be one of OLO's more fascinating personalities. The calibre of debate here is quite low, as I'm sure you'd agree. Just don't mistake me for one of those who contribute to this sub-par degree of debate.

I think both of us have earned better treatment from each other than that.