David,

It wasn't my intention to upset you quite to the extent as you appear to be.

You have to admit that you are pretty "in your face" with your anti religious rhetoric. I thought it was fairly provocative to begin this thread - although you are right that people don't have to participate if they don't wish to. I assumed that as you appear to relish "debate" in this sphere that you could take a bit of ribbing regarding the organised flavour of the AFA and its affiliates.

I was obviously mistaken, and criticism of that kind is definitely not on your agenda.

To label someone a stalker who has merely commented on a few of your threads and criticised certain aspects of organised atheism, in my opinion, is an hysterical overreaction.

Again you are correct that it is easy for me to keep away from your threads - something I fully intend to do.

Poirot,

We are at one then.

To show my goodwill for the season, I won't respond to your comments.

David

Poirot, please hold to that.

You must have realised by now he likes to have the last word.

Please indulge him, and then he'll happily stop - hopefully.

Hey, nearly there, so Merry Christmas to you and yours.

AJ Philips “it was a pretty glaring inconsistency in your bizarre attack on atheism.”

Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses, a specific cult, and “religion/divinity in general” are not the same issue.
There's no inconsistency.
The witnesses hurt me very much, but I don't generalise that experience into a vengeance against *all* belief.

You, on the other hand let your kids believe in Santa.
Then why can't you let them (or anyone else) believe in Jesus, Thor, Shiva, Osiris?

<<Aren't atheists the ones always going on about facts, evidence, reason?>>

“Not necessarily. You're thinking of rationalists and sceptics.”

Exsqueeze me?
That's just pathetic.
Atheism is supposedly “rational” and “sceptical”, yes?
Why are you compartmentalising as if these are unrelated?

“Atheism only addresses whether or not one holds a belief in god(s)”

And it does so by arguing there's no “evidence” or “facts” to justify faith, so therefore “reasoning skills” (your words) would dictate one be atheist.
Sheesh!

“that doesn't mean that 50% of people are atheists”

No, that would be empirical *frequency* not probability. Which you seem to confuse.
Each person has a “probability of being atheist” of 50%.

<Aren't you going to be consistent in your child-rearing>>

“I let my children believe in Santa.. because the reasoning skills they may acquire in discovering that he doesn't really exist could prove useful when confronted with religious claims later in life.”

They may also conclude their parents were big fat lying hypocrites who couldn't decide how to parent!

“As for your understanding of percentages and probabilities...”

Probabilities are expressed as a percentage, yes? Because probability is a mathematical concept.
In areas where the outcome is *unknowable* (Will an embryo form twins? Does any God exist?) the best you can say is 50%. It either is or isn't.

worldwatcher,

What a kind gesture and wishes to Poirot.

Here for you and everyone is a music video which would ring true for many,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uey6VktC5ms

>>Each person has a “probability of being atheist” of 50%.<<

If I take a standard six-sided dice and paint over every number except the 1 with a smiley face I will have a dice that only produces two possible outcomes when rolled: it either is a smiley face or it isn't.

What is the probability of rolling a smiley face on this dice? What is the probability of rolling a 1 on this dice? What is the probability of rolling a 1 on a normal dice?

>>Probabilities are expressed as a percentage, yes? Because probability is a mathematical concept.<<

No. Not to the last bit: probability is a branch of maths albeit one that you don't seem to have understood very well. But probabilities are usually expressed as a number between 0 and 1. There's nothing wrong with expressing them as a percentage - 0.42 is the same as 42% - but it's generally not the done thing.

>>In areas where the outcome is *unknowable*<<

When is the outcome ever 'knowable' before an event has taken place? If you have some method of predicting with complete accuracy whether the dice will come up 1 or smiley face then I know a lot of people who would like to talk to you. And I would like to borrow your time machine.

Cheers,

Tony