From: martinharran@gmail.com   
      
   On Tue, 27 Jan 2026 16:48:44 -0800, Vincent Maycock   
    wrote:   
      
   >On Tue, 27 Jan 2026 16:30:51 +0000, Martin Harran   
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >>On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 09:39:59 -0800, Vincent Maycock   
   >> wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 14:34:11 +0000, Martin Harran   
   >>> wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>>On Fri, 23 Jan 2026 09:13:12 -0800, Vincent Maycock   
   >>>> wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>On Fri, 23 Jan 2026 13:26:17 +0000, Martin Harran   
   >>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>On Thu, 22 Jan 2026 22:34:44 -0500, Chris Thompson   
   >>>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>[...]   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>>It seems to me that your remarks would be better pointed to Vincent   
   >>>>>>who doesn't seem to regard perspiration as particularly necessary.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>Where did you get that from?   
   >>>>   
   >>>>===================================   
   >>>>Me:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>On the other side of the coin (no pun intended), as part of my own   
   >>>>>study of science versus religion, I have read both Dawkins and Coyne's   
   >>>>>books on why religious beliefs is a load of bunkum, and I thought both   
   >>>>>books were totally unconvincing.   
   >>>>[..]   
   >>>>>Or take Intelligent Design which I have regularly dismissed here,   
   >>>>>again I did my homework reading people like Denyse O'Leary and Stephen   
   >>>>>Meyer and again found their arguments totally unconvincing.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>So let me kick that back to you. What books or other writings arguing   
   >>>>>for religious belief have you studied to reach the conclusion that   
   >>>>>religious belief is a load of bunkum?   
   >>>>   
   >>>>You:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>I've read the Bible, and I'm not impressed.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>===========================================   
   >>>   
   >>>And reading the Bible is less perspiration than reading Dawkins and   
   >>>Coyne?   
   >>   
   >>Apparently you don't grasp the difference between reading a book and   
   >>understanding the subject that the book is addressing.   
   >   
   >What makes you think I don't understand the Bible?  Because I don't   
   >insist that it be read non-literally all the time?   
      
   Because I asked you what effort you had put into understanding   
   religious belief and reading the Bible was all you offered.   
      
   Do you think if someone read Darwin's 'Origin of the Species' and   
   nothing else about evolution that they would be well qualified to   
   challenge an ID'er?   
      
   >   
   >> Sorry but don't think I can do anything else to help you with that.   
   >   
   >What a coincidence!  It turns out I don't need your help with any of   
   >that.   
      
   There is something of a difference between 'wanting' and 'needing'.   
   >   
   >>>>>>Questions have been asked about the existence of God for thousands of   
   >>>>>>years and millions of words have been published - Aquinas wrote about   
   >>>>>>1.8 million in Summa Theologica alone. Vincent reckons that can all be   
   >>>>>>just ignored,   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>So how many angels *can* dance on the head of a pin?   Or is Thomas   
   >>>>>Aquinas better than that because he wrote oh so much?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>However, I will give you the opportunity to post your favorite *Summa   
   >>>>>Theologica* argument, and I'll debunk it for you.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>Sorry, based on your 'debunking' performance to date, I'll give that a   
   >>>>miss.   
   >>>   
   >>>Cite?   
   >>   
   >>Right through your posts above e.g. your very poor understanding of   
   >>statistical surveys.   
   >   
   >You claimed adolescents were not a representative sample of the   
   >population at large,   
      
   They are not, I don't know why you try to hang onto that idea.   
      
   >and I said IQ scores tend to be stable by   
   >adolescence, and that therefore the methods in the study being   
   >discussed were a valid use of statistical sampling.   
      
   Do you even bother to read stuff before you cite it or are you   
   inclined towards quote mining? You cited this study from a wiki   
   article [1] but only quoted the first sentence. Here is the full   
   section about that study:   
      
      
   Researchers Helmuth Nyborg and Richard Lynn compared belief in God and   
   IQs.[6] Using data from a U.S. study of 6,825 adolescents, the authors   
   found that the average IQ of atheists was 6 points higher than the   
   average IQ of non-atheists. The authors also investigated the link   
   between belief in a god and average national IQs in 137 countries. The   
   authors reported a correlation of 0.60 between atheism rates and level   
   of intelligence, which was determined to be "highly statistically   
   significant".[6] ('Belief in a god' is not identical to 'religiosity.'   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)