From: specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net   
      
   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.   
      
   --   
   Mark Isaak   
   "Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That   
   doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)