AJ PHILIPS,
"You didn't bother to look at them, did you?" I read them they did not prove anything. America is a diverse culture not a totally committed Christian Nation. If you claim the statistics prove that committed Christians are responsible for these behaviours then the researchers are intending bias against people of faith

Josephus,

Well, they don't *prove* anything as such...

<<I read them they did not prove anything.>>

But as I mentioned to Rhian once before (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11631#198785), it puts to rest the arrogant and asinine assertion by christians that societies are crumbling and families falling apart (oh yes, I forgot to mention the fact that divorce rates rise with religiosity) because people are abandoning God.

<<America is a diverse culture not a totally committed Christian Nation.>>

Exactly! And that's why it makes such a good test case for religion and societal health.

What on Earth did you think you would achieve by pointing this out?

You obviously didn't do anything more than skim those links I provided. 

David wrote:"I suppose you realise that your posts are very adversarial and spit venom more than needed. I personally don't mind but you should consider how other perceive you. It's not a good look."

This from a man whole also wrote "Semel fatuo, semper morionem".... hypocrisy or grand self-delusion?

I'm doing you the courtesy of assuming that you are intelligent enough to understand my point about the theists I mentioned and that you are obfuscating because the answer is uncomfortable for you. So I'll try once again.

I agree fully and have never disputed that the numbers of people who believe proves nothing. If the entire planet believed in Yahweh it wouldn't prove its existence. (Although I note with some amusement that you constantly quote the 'fact' that 93% of some scientific grouping are atheists - the numbers mean nothing unless they agree with you, heh?).

So in mentioning those prominent theists, I'm NOT, repeat NOT, trying to prove the deity. Instead....

You and the AFA maintain that theism is irrational and infantile. The basic attitude seems to be that theists have been unthinkingly indoctrinated into their belief without having given due weight to the evidence. Atheists, on the other hand, in your view, have made the only adult decision having looked at the evidence. That, in a nutshell is the activist atheist case.

So (and let's simplify it by just taking about Obama), if theism is irrational, unthinking, the result of indoctrination, infantile, does that mean that Obama's beliefs are irrational, infantile, the product of indoctrination? And if not, then how do you continue to assert that theism is those things and that theists are those things. Would you not have to concede that it is possible that a portion of theists have looked at the same evidence as you and in an adult, rational way, reached a different conclusion?

I look forward to seeing what device you use to avoid answering the question this time.

David asked...."Another question as I don’t think you have volunteered the information, to which particular sect of Christianity do you ascribe?"

I have previously said, on several occasions, that I am agnostic. I was, in my youth, involved in Anglicanism, but moved on in my late teens. So I don't belong to a Christian sect or any other religious group. While agnostic on the deity, I'm pretty sure that Jesus was just a man, as was Mohammed. Each were lucky to have had dedicated and intelligent successors to carry on and distort their work.

Although agnostic, I think, on the balance of probabilities that a creator of sorts exists. But that creator is remote and doesn't deserve or require worship or devotion. Pick any examples you want but I'll mention the holocaust and the 2004 tsunami. If there is a deity one of three possibilities exist:
* it doesn't care about the suffering
* it doesn't have the ability to stop the suffering
* it organised the suffering

Either way, it is to be ignore and/or despised.

(I know the theists would say that we can't know the motivation and must just accept the deity's greater purpose...but I think that's just trying to square the circle).

Nonetheless, I accept that others can and have looked at theses sufferings and come to other conclusions about the deity. And I accept that those conclusions are just as valid and heartfelt as my own.

When I came to this thread, following a link from AJP on another thread, I saw you blandly and pompously asserting that those who formed a view different from yours were infantile, unthinking,uneducated, victims of indoctrination. So I set out to disabuse you of that fallacy (mission accomplished) or at least put an alternate view.

I now think its about time to move on although your response might cause me to hang around.

mhaze.

Now read this and see if it clarifies your mind. Theism is believed on the emotional level as there is no peer reviewed empirical evidence supporting anything supernatural. Now, that’s okay, if folk want to believe emotionally that a god exists etc.

Atheists, on the other hand expect the religious to supply peer reviewed empirical evidence before they will accept the god hypothesis on ‘faith’.

The religious wish to impose their emotionally held beliefs on others and some of those are damaging to others.

Atheists do not wish to impose anything on others. They wish to give others a fair chance at developing to their full potential without supernatural coercion.

What is your problem with this? You bring frustration onto yourself by playing infantile mind-games concerning these matters.

Thanks for the explanation of your stance, I was unaware of it but it doesn't alter anything especially as you are protesting too much. That could be your pride at work.

“When I came to this thread, following a link from AJP on another thread, I saw you blandly and pompously asserting that those who formed a view different from yours were infantile, unthinking, uneducated, victims of indoctrination.”

Now here is a good example of infantile mind-games. You list a number of attributes supposedly said by me “blandly and pompously” in this thread and add at the end, “...victims of indoctrination”, which I do state as being actually the reason for most religious belief coupled with the fear of annihilation. It has its roots in evolution. And where have I said those who form a view different to mine were such and such…

I'm going to call you on this and expect a response even though you are intending to give it away.

Supply the direct quotes from this thread where I state, “…those who formed a view different from yours were infantile, unthinking, uneducated, victims of indoctrination.”

You are making stuff up and taking it out of context and it’s not good enough. Get cracking with a response. Quote mining will not be accepted.

David

David wrote: "Now read this and see if it clarifies your mind. Theism is believed on the emotional level as there is no peer reviewed empirical evidence supporting anything supernatural."

Well, since that was the very point I made in my first day on this thread, I don't think my mind needs clarifying. But its nice to see you caught up.

"The religious wish to impose their emotionally held beliefs on others... "

Well some do and most want to evangelise. Of course the ones that want to impose their beliefs on others generally don't follow Christmas and you've already indicated you're too scared to take your case to that group.

"Atheists do not wish to impose anything on others."
Well most anyway. Others, no names mind you, just want to rig the system so that we make the 'right' choices.

Now let me get this straight. Are you now denying that you think belief in the supernatural is infantile as your website asserts? Or do you now deny thinking that "a healthy education about science inoculates humans against" belief? Or that people accept their indoctrination without giving it proper thought?

Or are you just trying to avoid answering my Obama question?