BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 07:31 AM

Ah ........ poor little Keith, folk picking on him again. Run off and tell Mummy about the nasty people on Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 07:27 AM

If you really want to play the strength-by-numbers thing,

None of you accused Musket of that when he claimed atheists were the majority!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 07:01 AM

If you really want to play the strength-by-numbers thing,

I do not and have not.
I merely refute Musket's assertion that atheists are now a majority anywhere.

That I have done.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 06:24 AM

"15% women and 30% men are atheist."
The figures are based on beliefs of there being "something there after death" - ie a superstition.
This arises largely from the fact that religion has been taught in schools as a fact up to relatively recently - that this is no longer the case will obviously contribute to a continuing decline, and the behaviour of certain churches will accelerate that, as it has in the Catholic Church, which, certainly in 'Holy Ireland' is in somewhat of a crisis.
Those who believe in or adhere to a specific religion are in the minority and the number of people who actually practice any religion in any form is minuscule.
The most devout of any religion in Britain is Muslim - the mainline religions are in the minority.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 05:58 AM

As for the numbers game that seems to have taken over, I'd just say that, were I the only atheist left on the planet, living among oceans of believers, it would not undermine one jot my opinion that every single one of them was harbouring a delusion. If you really want to play the strength-by-numbers thing, let's give it up for everyone in that crowd who voted Barabbas. They were in the majority so they must have been right. And kindly don't give me any hindsight Christian bullshit on that one!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 05:53 AM

So, Keith

You people have no evidence for your assertions whatsoever.
As with history, you just know you are right and mock and ridicule anyone who disagrees.

Even when we rub your silly faces in the evidence that proves you wrong.

Who are 'you people', Keith? Am I included in that? If so, what assertions am I making that you have proved wrong? Or is it just a question of when you know you are wrong you just use the shotgun approach and hope that no-one will notice? Is saving face really that important to you?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 05:47 AM

Not a scintilla of doubt is present in the Lord's Prayer, Keith, nor in most other prayers, hymns or liturgies. We may well all harbour doubt, but the teachings of religions are predicated on certainties, and in some cases we are to accept those certainties under pain of repercussion. That, and the brainwashing of children, are my biggest issues with religion.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 05:32 AM

I have made no claims about any of that Raggy.
I merely refute Musket's assertion that atheists are now a majority anywhere.
And that I have done.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 05:14 AM

I do not think anyone has a problem with you being a committed Christian Professor, that's entirely your choice.

The problem lies in the inference that we are:

1. a Christian country

and

2. the influence that religion has on the day to day functioning of our country.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 05:02 AM

Raggy, I count myself a Christian, but there are no certainties.
We all experience doubt.
Beware any who say they do not.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 04:59 AM

Another extract from the same article:

"At the other end of the spectrum, 15 per cent of women said they were sure of the existence of a deity and compared with only nine per cent of men"

Everyone can play with figures. These would suggest that fewer people are convinced of the existence of a god that those who are convinced there is not.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 04:39 AM

Jim's link.
15% women and 30% men are atheist.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 04:35 AM

And here's another quote about 'belief' from the latest edition of 'New Scientist' (this time from the editorial):

"Religious faith has long been considered a special category of belief ... But the more we learn about how beliefs work, the less exceptional religion looks It turns out that almost all of our beliefs are built on intuition, biases and gut instinct: yet another facet of our mental lives over which we possess less conscious control than we like to think.

Science is not exempt. The scientific method is based on verifiable evidence, and is thus NOT A BELIEF SYSTEM [my emphasis], despite frequent claims to the contrary. But scientists, as humans, are influenced by their own beliefs about what is important, what they might find and what their findings mean. YET IT IS STILL THE BEST WAY TO DISTINGUISH WHAT WE BELIEVE FROM WHAT WE KNOW (my emphasis)."

But you don't want to know any of that, do you pete? So you'll probably ignore it!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 04:31 AM

Musket, you stated,

"The most telling poll was the one I gave a link to which asked two questions. Are you a Christian and do you believe in God? Most who said yes to being a Christian said they didn't believe in God."

That was completely untrue.
You did make it up.
Sorry to point that out.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 04:14 AM

Just don't make false claims for it eh?
BELIEVERS, NON BELIEVERS AND CAN'T- MAKE-UP-THEIR-MINDERS
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 03:33 AM

I feel honoured. Apparently serious study into the demise of superstition are things I made up!

I wonder how much money I got selling my lied to ONS, The BBC, national newspapers, The Secular Society, Church of England and all the others using the data I referred to.

Meanwhile, this just in. Churches, mosques, temples etc don't need to be sold for development after all. Keith has just found 55,000,000 more God botherers than we thought exist!

Delusion is fascinating. Reminds me of a throwaway line from a Monty Python sketch. "Dinsdale was a loony. But he was a happy loony. Lucky bugger."

Enjoy your hobby Keith. Just don't make false claims for it eh? It's alright. Nobody is saying you can't believe in it. You don't have to assert bollocks. Just enjoy it while it lasts.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 03:23 AM

Well, pete, I had a bit of a read up on Louis Pasteur and here's a passage about him from an essay entitled "Louis Pasteur: A Religious Man?" by Brendon Barnett (2011):

"More than anything Pasteur believed in experimental science. As he said himself, "Experimental science is essentially positivist in the sense that in its conceptions it never conerns itself with the essence of things, the origin of the world or its final destiny." Pasteur of course was a product of 19th century Europe and unmistakeably was effected by the beliefs of the Enlightenment. However, unlike many others, Pasteur asserted the preeminence of hypotheses over religious or metaphysical prejudices and always seemed willing to abandon theories that were outdated or useless in practicality. Pasteur often saw religion as a hinderance to scientific progress. In 1874, presiding over the award ceremony at the Collège of Arbois, he clearly stated his position:

"I know that the word free thinker is written somewhere within our walls as a challenge and an affront. Do you know what most of the free thinkers want? Some want the freedom not to think at all and to be fettered by ignorance; others want the freedom to think badly; and others still, the freedom to be dominated by what is suggested to them by instinct and to despise all authority and all tradition. Freedom of thought in the Cartesian sense, freedom to work hard, freedom to pursue research, the right to arrive at such truth as is accessible to evidence and to conform one's conduct to these exigencies--oh! let us vow a cult to this freedom; for this is what has created modern society in its highest and most fruitful aspects."

Pasteur had great respect for the unknown and the infinite, but did not allow himself to become a victim of superstition and fanatical religious explanations."

Now I know that you're going to dwell exclusively on Pasteur's thoughts on experimentation and tell us for the umpteenth time that you can't perform experiments on evolution, blah, blah, blah ... But, of course, you know that, in reality, you're being selective because experimentation is not the only tool in the scientist's toolbox. But the bits that you should really focus on, and reflect on, are Pasteur's view that religion can be a hinderance to scientific progress and that last sentence. You, of course, are a "victim of superstition and fanatical religious explanations" and Pasteur would probably not have approved of you!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Apr 15 - 07:27 PM

Well, Shimrod, I think we ought to know what theology pete knows and where he got it from. This is a very interesting topic, as I understand that atheists can be theologians too. We may find that our friend's scholarship in the field of theology is just as shaky as is his scholarship in science. We've heard a good deal of what sounds like serious bullshit from this fellow. So let's get him to show his credentials. So, pete, what theology do you know?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 07 Apr 15 - 06:47 PM

"If you can't demonstrate it, it is just a belief."

I can't demonstrate anything, pete, because I don't work in the field of evolutionary biology. Nevertheless, thousands of very competent scientists do, and all you have to do is to read up on their findings. Don't expect me to summarise those findings, and to do the work for you, only for you to bleat, "I don't believe it!" and quote waffle at me from some redneck website.

"And just because you know more biology than I proves nothing, anymore than if I know more theology than you."

How does knowing more theology than someone have any bearing on a debate about science?

"And yes I have produced evidence that evolution is impossible, or rather scientists have."

So, let's be clear, have you produced this "evidence" or have "scientists" produced it? And if you've produced the evidence, why not publish it, as Stu suggests?

"As far back as Louis Pasteur it has been demonstrated that life only comes from life, ..."

In which of his works did Louis Pasteur state that "life only comes from life"? Where can I read about 'Pasteur's Law of Nature'? I'm not sure of Pasteur's dates, but can I remind you that an awful lot of science has been done since his day - so some of his conclusions are bound to have been modified, or even over-turned, by now.

"Being as you cannot demonstrate the evolutionary story, it seems to me it is more logical to throw it out."

Far be it from me to arrogantly reject at least 150 years of scientific research (only a fool and complete pillock would do that, pete!)may I remind you, though, that, if tomorrow, the model built on all of that 150 years worth of labour was found to be completely wrong, it still would not mean that your precious bronze-age, middle eastern goat herders' myths and legends are true!

You know, pete, I keep getting this image of you as a stiff-necked, short-sighted pygmy frenziedly attacking a lump of granite with a teaspoon - little realising that the lump of granite is only part of the base a vast mountain (the vast mountain of modern science - just in case you weren't able to figure out the analogy for yourself)! Give it up, pete, modern science has reduced your silly superstitions and baseless beliefs to total irrelevance!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Apr 15 - 06:15 PM

Neither the Romans nor anyone else outside your own bunch of proselytisers ever mentioned Jesus around the time he was supposed to have lived. That doesn't trouble me, but it should trouble you. I'm just saying.

What theology do you know, pete, and where dld you get it from?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 07 Apr 15 - 05:11 PM

So shimrod, there is a mountain of evidence out there for it is there. Ok, give us a shovelful at a time, show us some evolution !?. You won't though will you. You just take it on faith. If you can't demonstrate it, it is just a belief.               And just because you know more biology than I proves nothing, anymore than if I know more theology than you.       And yes I have produced evidence that evolution is impossible, or rather scientists have. As far back as Louis Pasteur it has been demonstrated that life only comes from life, so darwins evolution could never get started.......I believe that is called a law of nature !.   You assert something as evidenced that is contrary to such laws. And of course, the preservation of various soft tissue that is said to be multimillion yr old is only now accepted as possible, because to hold to experimental science that measures decay rates, would damage the Darwinist paradigm. Or how about trees through strata supposed to be millennia laid down. It should have rotted away and left nothing beyond the very bottom surely.    These and more are evidence against evolutionism. So what do you do if you don't have an answer ? You just resort to saying answers have not been found yet but as evolution is true there must be an answer ?.   Being as you cannot demonstrate the evolutionary story, it seems to me it is more logical to throw it out. Of course if you can demonstrate that it is true........             And stu, do you suppose Galileo would pass peer review at the time ?   How about some arguments, other than appeal to authority. You did make a bit of an effort with the geologic record, which you claimed was so finely graded as to be a problem to creationism.   But not as much as you assumed !.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 07 Apr 15 - 04:33 PM

Well Steve, we can look back and say, why did the Romans not write about Christ ( if they did,nt that is ), and there could be any number of reasons for this, including their not recording every Jew or other nationality that caused a problem for a roman governor. I,m sure Pilate would like to have forgotten it.   Having no extant record from the exact time is hardly a strong argument again him, especially as it is only a matter of decades after that there is record of him and his followers.   But, granted, not a bad shot, for an argument from silence, or as you insist, a lack of evidence, exactly contemporary with Jesus,

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Apr 15 - 12:29 PM

Keith. There is no evidence that over half the population believe in God, none whatsoever.

Yes there is.
The National Census, and every opinion poll except the small online poll conducted for an atheist organisation.
If you read your link to the end you will read that the Office of National Statistics dismiss that survey and say the census is correct.

Look at the 2004 YouGov poll.
Unequivocal.
Atheists are a minority.

The most telling poll was the one I gave a link to which asked two questions. Are you a Christian and do you believe in God? Most who said yes to being a Christian said they didn't believe in God.

No they did not.
You made that up Musket.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stu
Date: 07 Apr 15 - 12:19 PM

Guest at 07 Apr 15 - 10:27 AM was me. Not sure what happened there.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 07 Apr 15 - 11:04 AM

The ONS data on census is challenged through loaded questions, suggested by the Lords spiritual during the Lords debate on census data.

Read my link.

Keith. There is no evidence that over half the population believe in God, none whatsoever. I personally have bought four churches and converted them in useful homes over the last few years. Thousands more emptied over recent years. Mosques get less people than ten years ago too for that matter. Younger people are more polarised. They either don't give a flying Fuck or get involved to a fundamental level, mainly.

A couple of surveys of a few hundred people and a census with loaded questions does not make facts. (Either way, as more polls suggest something nearer the truth.) The most telling poll was the one I gave a link to which asked two questions. Are you a Christian and do you believe in God? Most who said yes to being a Christian said they didn't believe in God.

So.. Do you believe the evidence, like Keith A Hole of Hertford says he does or do you believe Keith A Hole of Hertford when he said all Christians believe in God.

😹😹😹

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Apr 15 - 10:27 AM

"since I have produced evidence that evolution is against the laws of nature."

Then pete old chap, get it written up and peer reviewed and we can all see your data, methodologies, discussions and conclusion. If you can produce evidence that evolution is against the laws of nature (whatever they are) then you will be a world famous scientist.

Go on my son!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 07 Apr 15 - 10:15 AM

The UK 'Office for National Statistics'

I put that there in the event anyone wants to be first on the block to inject some facts into the thread.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Apr 15 - 09:57 AM

The majority of people in The UK are not religious. Full stop.
Agree.

Non believers are not in the minority. Full stop.

Yes they are.
That is the finding of the census and the the polls and surveys.
I choose to believe them, even over you Musket.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 07 Apr 15 - 06:24 AM

Non believers are not in the minority. Full stop.

Interestingly, if you, as the secular society has done, add up all the known polls carried out by accredited pollsters, there are more that relate something closer to the true secular state of The UK than say otherwise, despite the successful attempts by The House of Bishops, when scrutinising the appropriate legislation, to have loaded questions in the census to boost their propaganda.

Hence the explanations in the link I gave.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 07 Apr 15 - 06:05 AM

The majority of people in The UK are not religious. Full stop.

Fool.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 07 Apr 15 - 05:49 AM

Of course saving face is important to him, that's why he has two of them.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Apr 15 - 05:32 AM

You people have no evidence for your assertions whatsoever.
As with history, you just know you are right and mock and ridicule anyone who disagrees.

Even when we rub your silly faces in the evidence that proves you wrong.

Who are 'you people', Keith? Am I included in that? If so, what assertions am I making that you have proved wrong? Or is it just a question of when you know you are wrong you just use the shotgun approach and hope that no-one will notice? Is saving face really that important to you?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Apr 15 - 04:23 AM

Well, pete, I'm to wait for the archaeologist's "spade" now, am I? You appear to think I'm making an argument from silence. Well it's sheer lack of evidence that I'm politely pointing out to you. In spite of Jesus's getting on the nerves of those literate Romans, and even being executed by them, there's not a single contemporary mention of him anywhere outside religious sources. That's not me making an argument - that's me pointing out a fact. The only comment I need to make about that is that it's a bit odd. As with all those millennia spent waiting for God to show his hand, your archaeologists do seem to be dragging their feet somewhat. However, I'm a patient chap and I'll probably be long in the tomb before I get to reach a final conclusion. As for Dawkins being a cultural Christian, he'd tell you that atheists and Christians alike share many of the same moral values. The question is who usurped the values of whom. I don't recall hearing that all those ancient pre-Christian civilisations got by by eating each other's babies, rescued only when the Saviour showed up. Christian values are a bit like Christmas - nicked from someone else.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Apr 15 - 03:57 AM

The evidence for the numbers of believers and non believers is the census, and surveys and polls.
They all say that non believers are a minority.
That is the hard evidence.

You people have no evidence for your assertions whatsoever.
As with history, you just know you are right and mock and ridicule anyone who disagrees.

Even when we rub your silly faces in the evidence that proves you wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 07 Apr 15 - 02:31 AM

"There are more believers than non believers "

You ought to try visiting The UK then Keith.

Steve makes a good point. I too am neither a believer nor non believer. You can only really consider yourself a non believer if you have considered and rejected superstition. I have never felt vulnerable nor delusional enough to have considered it in the first place.

Just like the vast majority.

Same as athiest. It means having taken a stance on theism. Most people take a stance on X Factor and Knobenders characters if the newspapers are anything to go by.

Pity we haven't got a thread all about Jeremy Clarkson. I like his comment. "irreligious. That means I don't have a stance so get off my doorstep and take your delusion with you."

In a strange way, pete makes a point. Cultural Christian. You can't alter the factors that make up your society and yes, Christianity certainly helped shape our society in the past. Executing people for worshipping the right God in the wrong place does have an effect.

But even Cameron when wooing the irrational vote over the weekend clarified to The BBC that he meant "culturally and historically."

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 07 Apr 15 - 02:10 AM

" ... you cannot defend what you say is true ..."

No, I can't because I don't have any 'beliefs' about evolution. The evolutionary model is only as good as the evidence for it. But there is a whole mountain of evidence out there - which you refuse to engage with.

"And you think that because you can reel off more plant names that this makes your evolutionist beliefs more credible ?"

Please don't put 'beliefs' into my head! I merely told you about my botanical interest to illustrate to you that I know more about biology than you would appear to do.

" ... since I have produced evidence that evolution is against the laws of nature."

You have produced no evidence whatsoever!! You have merely told us, over and over again, what you are prepared to believe based on your incredibly limited understanding of the "laws of nature"!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 06 Apr 15 - 05:30 PM

So shimrod, you can follow a scientific argument, but you cannot defend what you say is true !. And you think that because you can reel off more plant names that this makes your evolutionist beliefs more credible ?, that must be some sort of fallacy !. Fact is, if you can not produce the evidence for what you claim is true, it is simply a belief.   

in fact stubborn belief, since I have produced evidence that evolution is against the laws of nature.                               Steve, as far as arguments from silence go, you done well.   But, chances are that like other arguments from silence levelled against the bible in the past, yours too will eventually be covered with dirt from the spade of the archaeologist.    In the meantime, what we do have, is closer to the event than many other records recognised as historically valid.                                                                  Personally, I don't want to make any argument about polls, but it is interesting that even Dawkins has described himself as a cultural Christian !. Even atheists can recognise a Christian heritage it seems.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Apr 15 - 02:16 PM

Dave, I can see why a believer would not lay bare his beliefs to someone who thinks such people are all deluded fools.
I do not see why they would lie on a census return or a survey.
I am sure some do but not significant numbers I think.

You have not answered my question. Do you believe that my friends lie to me but would not do so on a survey? I have not suggested that people lie on a census survey, I have named two reasons why they would tick christian when they are not. Habit and superstition. There are probably those who lie but we have no idea how many of any class there are. I have never claimed significant numbers. I have never argued about minorities. You are, once again, putting words in my mouth and creating straw men not of my construction for you to attack. Why keep doing it when everyone can see what you are doing? It is things like that that strengthen my belief that you are an idiot.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 06 Apr 15 - 01:10 PM

I saw it written down and therefore it is truth.

I wonder how much has been written down over the centuries and accepted as truth by a myriad of people who do not question the things they read.

The professor and his ilk do not question. They do not ask why has this been written and for what purpose and perhaps most importantly by whom.

Anything that challenges their preconceived ideas is dismissed as propaganda even though they are victims of propaganda themselves.

I know it's an old saying but you cannot educate pork.

Say your prayers Professor, I have a feeling that, if there is a god, you will need them more than I.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Apr 15 - 12:21 PM

Raggy, your case is that the census and independent polls are all wrong.
Fine.
I, like the government, industry and commerce regard them as strong evidence.
You have no evidence at all.

Dave, I can see why a believer would not lay bare his beliefs to someone who thinks such people are all deluded fools.
I do not see why they would lie on a census return or a survey.
I am sure some do but not significant numbers I think.

Certainly the Office For National Statistics stand by the findings, as is reported in the article Musket linked to.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stu
Date: 06 Apr 15 - 11:20 AM

I'm a non believer. I don't believe Clarkson has much in the way of talent at all.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 06 Apr 15 - 11:17 AM

There's an article in the latest edition of 'New Scientist' (04.04.2015)
about the psychology of belief. The article, by Graham Lawton, is entitled 'Beyond Belief'. I've not had chance to study it in great detail yet, but a couple of quotes caught my eye:

"This potent combination of hypersensitive "agenticity" and "patternicity" has produced a human brain that is primed to see agency and purpose everywhere. And agency and purpose are two of religion's most important features - particularly the idea of an omnipotent but invisible agent that makes things happen and gives meaning to otherwise random events."

and

" ... our personal guidebook of beliefs is built on sand and also highly resistant to change. "If you hear a new thing, you try to fit it in with your current beliefs," says Halligan [Prof of Psychology, Cardiff Uni.]. That often means going to great lengths to reject something that contradicts your position, or seeking out further information to confirm what you already believe."

Does that last bit sound familiar? I wonder who it could apply to?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Apr 15 - 10:32 AM

What about me then? I'm neither a believer nor a non-believer. I feel horribly left out.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Apr 15 - 10:23 AM

Oh, and

Non-believers like you people are a minority.

I really could not give a rat's arse whether I am in a minority or not. I have never said anything about minorities or majorities. You are arguing a point I have never made.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Apr 15 - 10:19 AM

Dave, anyone who does not believe in God is not a Christian.

I simply pointed out that not all people who say they are christians are christians. I gave examples of why they may say it. I have done so since. You still refuse to accept the simple truth that people say things they do not mean, for many reasons.

On the subject of people concealing their true belief, people who believe may choose to keep quiet with people who regard believers as deluded fools.
Bear that in mind when considering what your friends tell you Dave.

So, if I understand this correctly, people may lie when they are talking to me but always tell the truth when responding to questions on a survey. Or do they only tell the truth when it fits in with what you say? I suppose those people who said they were jedi were all telling the truth too? Still, makes about as much sense as some of the bollocks on here...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 06 Apr 15 - 10:06 AM

"I also know, from the census and survey results, that more people believe than disbelieve"

No you don't. You only KNOW that many people put down they are Christians on a census form. You do not and cannot know anything further.

As for wriggling you do it constantly on this and other threads. You are a liar, you are deceitful, and the only person who is being fooled is yourself. Yet you claim to be a Christian, I don't know you can sleep at night after you've said your prayers. You are a hypocrite of the first order.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Apr 15 - 09:51 AM

Dave,
what you mean by christian I believe and if that includes following the christian tenet of attending church on Sunday

It does not, and anyway I was considering believers in god(s), not just Christians.

Non-believers like you people are a minority.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Apr 15 - 09:46 AM

Dave, anyone who does not believe in God is not a Christian.

Raggy, I know very well that church attendance is low and falling.
I also know, from the census and survey results, that more people believe than disbelieve.
I do not wriggle.
I have made that claim and no other, and I have stuck with it.

On the subject of people concealing their true belief, people who believe may choose to keep quiet with people who regard believers as deluded fools.
Bear that in mind when considering what your friends tell you Dave.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 06 Apr 15 - 09:10 AM

Poor Keith.

The discussion has gone beyond how many people believe in God nonsense, and his claim that rational people are in the minority is good for a chuckle.

So why does he continue to embarrass himself? Could it be that there is a glimmer of intelligence there and he needs the assertion that believing is the normal state of affairs because without strength in numbers, (a million lemmings can't be wrong) irrational notions that insult intelligence make you look a fool?

By the way, the companies who do surveys of people choose them at random. Keith's assertion that you choose your view of polls based on who commissioned them is just another sign of the desperate end of delusion.

Carry on Keith. No problem with your faith. None whatsoever. No problem with the faith of our friends who are Muslim, Sikh etc for that matter. Mrs Musket's brother is a vicar so your hobby pays his mortgage. Well done.

But to claim normal rational people who see religion as someone else's fantasy as being in the minority?

It says more about your instability than any claim worth considering.

🙊🙉🙈

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Apr 15 - 08:27 AM

You are also ignoring people who say they are religious on a 'just in case' basis. 'Well, I don't really know but it does no harm...' It is like a superstition and it is so deeply embedded in our society it is little wonder that people say they are religious when all they really are is afraid of not being. I don't walk under ladders (although that one is quite sensible!) and say 'bless you' when someone sneezes. Doesn't mean I believe in such nonsense. Touch wood...