From: martinharran@gmail.com
On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 08:29:34 -0800, Mark Isaak
wrote:
>On 1/27/26 4:48 PM, 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?
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>>>>>> 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, 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.
>
>You are correct about that, but I don't think religious belief is stable
>by adolescence. It certainly was not in my case.
Perhaps you would be kind enough to also confirm that results from a
survey of adolescents cannot be applied to the general population.
Vincent is rather reluctant to accept it from me.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
