Philosophy Now Forum

chaz wyman wrote:Salman Rushdie lives where he likes. He likes New York because there is less freedom for people who want to practice the Islamic Faith.

He lives in NYC because in America you can write or say whatever you want without getting arrested, which is a lot more than you can say for that hell hole called Europe, and don't try to say you have freedom of speech because you sure as hell don't. And just one more thing, the stupid British government is actually trying to put that ex-tabloid editor in jail for life for "conspiring to hide evidence." Holy shit, you could probably murder a crowd of people in England and not get life! What a poor excuse for a country. They should just cut it off from the rest of the continent and let it sink into the ocean to become the lost country of Atlantis!

bobevenson wrote:Please cite your source. The term "bulk" is a nebulous quantity. A legitimate source would specify a percentage. A 1995 survey by Encyclopædia Britannica indicates that the non-religious are about 14.7% of the world's population, and atheists around 3.8%.

I stand corrected.

Whats a "non-religious" person as opposed to an atheist?
p.s.
I take it that this is a wiki source quoting the EB?

Eitther way we appear to be a substantial minority and wonder why we should have to watch our words with the godbotherers ridiculous beliefs.

Arising_uk wrote:

bobevenson wrote:Please cite your source. The term "bulk" is a nebulous quantity. A legitimate source would specify a percentage. A 1995 survey by Encyclopædia Britannica indicates that the non-religious are about 14.7% of the world's population, and atheists around 3.8%.

I stand corrected.

Whats a "non-religious" person as opposed to an atheist?
p.s.
I take it that this is a wiki source quoting the EB?

Eitther way we appear to be a substantial minority and wonder why we should have to watch our words with the godbotherers ridiculous beliefs.

First of all, Wikipedia has virtually put Encyclopaedia Britannica out of business, and experts have conceded that even on technical articles, Wikipedia does an excellent job, so there! And who the hell are you to call anybody's beliefs ridiculous, like you're some kind of authority on the subject?

Kayla wrote:i tried reading the satanic verses my god i have never tried reading anything more boring

salman rushdie is a talentless hack threw in some offensive stuff just to get noticed

which i suppose is his right but he is still a talentless hack

Pearls before swine.
I did not think much of it myself, but I recognise a good writer when I see one.

bobevenson wrote:

Arising_uk wrote:

bobevenson wrote:Please cite your source. The term "bulk" is a nebulous quantity. A legitimate source would specify a percentage. A 1995 survey by Encyclopædia Britannica indicates that the non-religious are about 14.7% of the world's population, and atheists around 3.8%.

I stand corrected.

Whats a "non-religious" person as opposed to an atheist?
p.s.
I take it that this is a wiki source quoting the EB?

Eitther way we appear to be a substantial minority and wonder why we should have to watch our words with the godbotherers ridiculous beliefs.

First of all, Wikipedia has virtually put Encyclopaedia Britannica out of business, and experts have conceded that even on technical articles, Wikipedia does an excellent job, so there! And who the hell are you to call anybody's beliefs ridiculous, like you're some kind of authority on the subject?

The stats are obviously bullshit. No one really knows how many are 'non-religious', nor what they really means.
Atheists can be measured more or less accurately from census figures. But only Western countries trend to do detailed censae based on specific questions.
But even these are faulty. My family that never once went to church (except ONE xmas, when my absent auntie took one or two of us to midnight mass (at the age of 6 I refused on principal)) - we always puzzled over the religion question on the census and always put "Church of England", there was no entry for "Atheist" and "Other" seemed inappropriate as atheism is not another religion.
China is 20% of the world's pop and is officially not religious. So how does that work with the figures?

chaz wyman wrote:The stats are obviously bullshit. No one really knows how many are 'non-religious', nor what they really means.

You can say the stats are bullshit, but so are most world statistics. For instance, world health statistics show figures for every fucking country on Earth, when the vast majority of people can't even read or write, much less compile accurate health statistics. But I do think it is possible to infer that most religions are gigantic scams, supported by vast numbers of people who are responsible for most of the problems on this planet and those in other solar systems in this and other galaxies.

bobevenson wrote:First of all, Wikipedia has virtually put Encyclopaedia Britannica out of business, and experts have conceded that even on technical articles, Wikipedia does an excellent job, so there! ...

"So there!"

And yet you quote the EB in your post?

From your reaction I presume it was a wiki quote, why did you not cite it?

And who the hell are you to call anybody's beliefs ridiculous, like you're some kind of authority on the subject?

I'm an authority upon what I think about and I find the godbotherers beliefs patently ridiculous but I extend this license to them to find fault with mine. Funnily enough they never appear willing to discuss them. Take you for example, you always dodge the question about what you actually believe this 'God' of yours is and whether 'it' actually exists as this great being in the 'sky'?

Arising_uk wrote:

bobevenson wrote:First of all, Wikipedia has virtually put Encyclopaedia Britannica out of business, and experts have conceded that even on technical articles, Wikipedia does an excellent job, so there! ...

"So there!"

And yet you quote the EB in your post?

From your reaction I presume it was a wiki quote, why did you not cite it?

And who the hell are you to call anybody's beliefs ridiculous, like you're some kind of authority on the subject?

I'm an authority upon what I think about and I find the godbotherers beliefs patently ridiculous but I extend this license to them to find fault with mine. Funnily enough they never appear willing to discuss them. Take you for example, you always dodge the question about what you actually believe this 'God' of yours is and whether 'it' actually exists as this great being in the 'sky'?

If you're so damn interested in the authenticty of figures, check with the source, don't rely on me. I guess my point was that you just throw out some stupid idea like atheism is in the majority when it's obviously not factually based.

bobevenson wrote:If you're so damn interested in the authenticty of figures, check with the source, don't rely on me. I guess my point was that you just throw out some stupid idea like atheism is in the majority when it's obviously not factually based.

But you didn't say what the source was so how could I have checked it?

Note how I admitted my error, its called philosophy, you think you'll ever do such a thing?

Note how you dodge my question about your beliefs once again. I think its because you are just here as a self-publicist and have no interest in philosophy nor any inclination to examine your ridiculous beliefs and it would take your comfort blanket away from you.

Arising_uk wrote:

bobevenson wrote:If you're so damn interested in the authenticty of figures, check with the source, don't rely on me. I guess my point was that you just throw out some stupid idea like atheism is in the majority when it's obviously not factually based.

But you didn't say what the source was so how could I have checked it?

Note how I admitted my error, its called philosophy, you think you'll ever do such a thing?

Note how you dodge my question about your beliefs once again. I think its because you are just here as a self-publicist and have no interest in philosophy nor any inclination to examine your ridiculous beliefs and it would take your comfort blanket away from you.

First of all, where is it written that admitting errors is "philosophy"? If that were the case, the word would surely have to be redefined based on my infallability. Secondly, get off your fat ass if you're looking for sources to check out. What am I, your goddamn mentor?

Note the boozo's selective answering, you'd think he was ashamed or had something to hide about his beliefs in the great sky father?

Arising_uk wrote:Note the boozo's selective answering, you'd think he was ashamed or had something to hide about his beliefs in the great sky father?

He is definitely the weakest link in the Forum.

Arising_uk wrote:Note the boozo's selective answering, you'd think he was ashamed or had something to hide about his beliefs in the great sky father?

Listen, Mr. or Ms. he/she, I have expressed the divinely-inspired truth in "The Ouzo Prophecy," which you have been unable to understand and unwilling to learn. I recommend you stick to your pusillanimous "philosophy" !

chaz wyman wrote:

Arising_uk wrote:Note the boozo's selective answering, you'd think he was ashamed or had something to hide about his beliefs in the great sky father?

He is definitely the weakest link in the Forum.

What a pathetic duo, you and Arising_uk. At long last, have you absolutely no sense of embarrassment or shame???

The longer he bangs on about the 'ouzo prophecy' the more ridiculous he seems.

The fact is he could not prophesy his way out of a paper bag.- a wet paper bag in a storm.