What Heaven is Like

[Epimethean]

"I love how refuting them basically boils down to "nuh uh theres no way that can be right! they must be wrong!" Yep, thats sure how science works alright. Don't shoot the messenger, get mad at some 21% of self-identified atheists for believing in God."

Are you that much of a slave to statistics? If so, why do you argue against the compelling evidence that Catholicism is in decline in developed countries, and the very real significance that has for your cult? It seems most of your refutations begin with a claim to not having heard the point made or not being aware of such a thing after all. If a study is flawed, it is flawed. Perhaps your indoctrination has removed your ability to be skeptical, Aiza.

Pew has come under scrutiny for being too superficial in the past.

http://www.gvma.net/i4a/headlines/headli...&archive=1

https://www.mosers.org/MOSERS-News-Archi...lawed.aspx

http://www.ncpers.org/Files/2011_04_26_p...flawed.pdf

http://www.ada.org/sections/advocacy/pdf...report.pdf

There are others, but perhaps this will point you at the possibility that the data collection was done in a skewed fashion which we cannot see based on a happy little graph.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

I also love how GodsBrat writes what are obviously his OWN thoughts into his sig line, and then attributes them to his Imaginary Big Friend, as if this would make them any less silly and pretentious. It is quite obvious here, just who has fashioned whom in his own image.

[Aiza]

Are you that much of a slave to statistics? If so, why do you argue against the compelling evidence that Catholicism is in decline in developed countries, and the very real significance that has for your cult? It seems most of your refutations begin with a claim to not having heard the point made or not being aware of such a thing after all. If a study is flawed, it is flawed. Perhaps your indoctrination has removed your ability to be skeptical, Aiza.

Hmm....? I argued no such thing, I just thought it was very funny that they would then try to say that the Catholic religion is in its "death throes". I know the significance it has probably moreso than anyone here. I live it.

If you think the study is flawed, go ahead and state what was wrong with their methodology of gathering data. Saying "it's wrong because nuh-uh this is stupid!" is just goofy. Saying something like "atheism is too vague of a term which means different things to different people, the researchers should have been more precise", is probably legitimate, though I'd still say asking someone straight out "what are you?" can yield interesting results about the actual beliefs of the so-called "atheists" in the US.

[Thor]

lol you people. Too funny.

Actually, what's really funny is believing in a talking snake.

I love how refuting them basically boils down to "nuh uh theres no way that can be right! they must be wrong!"

Something is obviously wrong when you have a survey that identifies an atheist as believing in god. Either the survey questions are worded poorly or the person being polled doesn't understand what an atheist is.

Yep, thats sure how science works alright.

If the process is flawed, the results will be as well. That's how science works.

Don't shoot the messenger, get mad at some 21% of self-identified atheists for believing in God.

If they believe in a god.... THEY ARE NOT ATHEISTS! Good grief! Why is this simple concept so difficult for you to grasp? Someone could tell you they're a woman, but if they have male genitalia... guess what?.... they're not a woman!

[Ace Otana]

I love how refuting them basically boils down to "nuh uh theres no way that can be right! they must be wrong!" Yep, thats sure how science works alright. Don't shoot the messenger, get mad at some 21% of self-identified atheists for believing in God.

If you believe in a god, you're NOT an atheist. If those 21% believe in a god, then they are not atheists. It can't be any simpler.

Having a belief in god and calling yourself an atheist is like saying you're single and in a relationship. Or saying that you're married and that you are a bachelor.

Do you even know what atheism is?

[Cyberman]

I'll take "No" for 500, Alex.

[Epimethean]

Are you that much of a slave to statistics? If so, why do you argue against the compelling evidence that Catholicism is in decline in developed countries, and the very real significance that has for your cult? It seems most of your refutations begin with a claim to not having heard the point made or not being aware of such a thing after all. If a study is flawed, it is flawed. Perhaps your indoctrination has removed your ability to be skeptical, Aiza.

Hmm....? I argued no such thing, I just thought it was very funny that they would then try to say that the Catholic religion is in its "death throes". I know the significance it has probably moreso than anyone here. I live it.

If you think the study is flawed, go ahead and state what was wrong with their methodology of gathering data. Saying "it's wrong because nuh-uh this is stupid!" is just goofy. Saying something like "atheism is too vague of a term which means different things to different people, the researchers should have been more precise", is probably legitimate, though I'd still say asking someone straight out "what are you?" can yield interesting results about the actual beliefs of the so-called "atheists" in the US.

Seek and ye shall find, sister. I gave you some links to consider regarding Pew's religious polls. Just look for 'em.

By the by, asking an idiot who does not know what being an atheist is to define his beliefs is a bit like asking a five year-old to explain how a gantt chart works. You'll get an answer, but it's damned unlikely to be based on any valid criterion.

[Adjusted Sanity]

I think this whole argument is really fucking stupid.

[Epimethean]

That's why we have a Catholic along.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

lol you people. Too funny.

Pew Research Center is a very large non-partisan, non-religiously affiliated think tank. Remember that poll that said "atheists know more about religion than Christians?" that came from the Pew Research Center:
http://www.pewforum.org/

It doesn't matter what PRC "is", the survey is nonetheless flawed when it can be shown, as has been here, that its results are demonstrably false.

I love how refuting them basically boils down to "nuh uh theres no way that can be right! they must be wrong!" Yep, thats sure how science works alright. Don't shoot the messenger, get mad at some 21% of self-identified atheists for believing in God.

Actually, if you knew anything about logic and reason, you would know that this is EXACTLY how bad conclusions are thrown out. What is demonstrably false cannot be taken on assumption, ever.

It's one of many, as I already pointed out. And all your rambling doesn't change change the fact that it is bleeding out its membership.

Yes it does, because it isn't "bleeding out its membership", its losing a bunch of cultural Catholics whereas traditional Catholicism is undergoing a pretty strong growth and Catholicism itself is growing worldwide.

And the "cultural catholics" are the vast majority. And they are leaving in droves. Too bad for you.

And eh, yeah there is a priest shortage sure? They can get new clergy, just they need more.

And that is why the K of C is BEGGING people to go into the clergy -- and openly talking about the "clergy crisis" in their magazine -- with no results. I saw one stat that said only 6 clergy were ordained in England in a recent year. They freely admit they are desperate for more ordinations. But don't let facts get in your way.

That doesn't mean its in its "death throes" or whatever you are on about.

Yes, it all adds up to the catholic church being in its death throes. Too bad for you.

And higher worldwide estimates of its membership = attempts to exert influence by appeal to the Herd -- which is exactly what you are trying to do here.

Hmm? I never heard anyone "appeal to the herd" at all. You're obviously not a part of the Church.

If you knew anything about fallacies your posts wouldn't be filled with them.

try "Bandwagon Fallacy". Herp Derp.

It says "God". It doesn't say "pantheon of lesser beings that resemble gods but are pitied for their indulgent natures, which how the Buddha portrayed extant beliefs of gods as he was shuffling them out the door.

Yep, it just says "God" and not "creator god" or "patheon of lesser beings" or whatever else you are on about.

And you admit that it's so vague as to mean anything -- meaning the survey is badly flawed. QED.

Also, re: Dhammapada:
>The Dhammapada is a versified Buddhist scripture traditionally ascribed to the Buddha himself. It is one of the best-known texts from the Theravada canon.[2]

You believe everything you read on WIKIpedia? You certainly didn't read the whole article, either. Dhammapada is a compilation of short verses, some of which can be traced to things the Buddha has said in his discourses, but many of which are not to be found in the discourses at all. And if you knew anything about Buddhism -- which you don't -- you would know that the Buddha himself said that if it is not to be found in his discourses, it is not his teaching. The dhammapada was a dumbed-down version of some of his teachings and some of the principles behind his teachings, but the Buddha never uttered the Dhammapada and the vast majority of it of it are not to be found in the Suttas and are not his words.

---

Are you that much of a slave to statistics? If so, why do you argue against the compelling evidence that Catholicism is in decline in developed countries, and the very real significance that has for your cult? It seems most of your refutations begin with a claim to not having heard the point made or not being aware of such a thing after all. If a study is flawed, it is flawed. Perhaps your indoctrination has removed your ability to be skeptical, Aiza.

Hmm....? I argued no such thing, I just thought it was very funny that they would then try to say that the Catholic religion is in its "death throes". I know the significance it has probably moreso than anyone here. I live it.

If you think the study is flawed, go ahead and state what was wrong with their methodology of gathering data. Saying "it's wrong because nuh-uh this is stupid!" is just goofy. Saying something like "atheism is too vague of a term which means different things to different people, the researchers should have been more precise", is probably legitimate, though I'd still say asking someone straight out "what are you?" can yield interesting results about the actual beliefs of the so-called "atheists" in the US.

We have already pointed out several glaring flaws. That doesn't seem to make any difference to you.