" It was a joke. I believe you."
Both a joke and an opinion, yes.

"The reference to voting trends has an obvious relevance to the OP."
So now it was relevant to the OP instead. Why reply it to me? The original post was about more people being faithfull, not a correlation between atheists and big gov.

"They could be correlated with other data to perhaps have significance, but they prove nothing by themselves."
Normally, you say the significance of a correlation before you post stats. Not make them up afterwards.

"The increase in the number of big-government supporters is not necessarily because of an increase in that portion of those voters who are faithless."
true. I said as much in almost every reply since you posted your stats. I still don't see the relevance in them whatsoever.

"But you didn't point this out,"
As I said, like almost in every thread since you posted those statistics. But it doesn't matter anyway who pointed it out as long as the argument stands.

I notice almost 3/4 of your threads are pointless insults or personal now. If possible try to calm down and take it less personal. Its becoming rather hard to filter the normal text out of the nonsense.

"..."
I do understand the difference between causation and correlation. I stated my opinion: "there is no prove atheism causes man to hold laws sacred, become big gov or communist". And you replied. It was what yell meant, even if you can read the text differently.

"but it's obvious at this point that you're just embarrassed"
Why would I be? Its an online anonymous forum. If I would get personal involved as you seem to, I would just quit it instead of spamming the forum with failed attempts to insults someone who don't care.

I make a small summary:
LP: You don't need atheism for massacres.
explanation: Those massacres happen in religous sociaties as well. Atheism itself doesn't cause massacres, other things do.
Yell: "atheist societies make human laws sacred or like Chesterton put it, "A man who believes in nothing, will believe anything""
explanation: Atheism causes someone to hold laws sacred. (not in the meaning of holy ofc)
LP: No sharia for me!
explanation: I do not give laws to much value and my opinion is atheism doesn't cause people to hold laws sacred.
Spock: your joke is flawed (and many pointless insults)
Lp: I ment Atheism causes someone to hold laws sacred. (Insults are pointless anything else to say?)
Spock: Here are stats, you may not like them but they are true! (and many pointless insults)
LP: They don't prove anything but a correlation and they are flawed (Insults are pointless anything else to say?)
Spock: You don't undestand math(and many more pointless insults)
LP: Again they don't prove anything but a correlation, even if they aren't flawed, but they are (Insults are pointless anything else to say?)
Spock: I said nothing about causation(and many pointless insults)
LP: Why bring up those numbers? (Insults are pointless anything else to say?)
Spock: They fit in the thread (and many pointless insults)
LP: But you answered to me?(Insults are pointless anything else to say?)
Spock: insult insult insult
Lp: Insults are pointless anything else to say?

You don't have to understand or like the joke, that is fine. But why pointing out this correlation without point? Its pointless spam if you do not have any opinion or reject someone elses point.

Look up the word partly. Can you imagine you are actually debating about humor and the opinion I stated myself? I Bet if you let 10 random people read it, 9 get what I meant, doesn't matter if they disagree or not. Get over it. I clarified my opinion in a sentence you could understand that should suffice.

"Nobody ever said it did."
I don't need the opposite to have my own opinion here do I? But yell meant it.

Those stats are no reply on anything. It was pretty pointless to look them up, even if you were replying to the original post. Back then you didn't knew you would not back up any causation. That is my explanation for why you did so much effort yet not providing a real answer to anything.

You are stating my argument why you cannot mix causation and correlation and why those numbers don't prove causation. This renders those stats virtually meaningless at best. Like stating most prisoners in a jail for man are male. Pointless.

I replied to yell who posted a causation. You can read it in different ways, but that is what he meant.  If you do not disagree, why bother to reply at all? So I presumed you had some point, opinion, or sensible to share if you replied to that post.

Tell me now, why would I bother this correlation or even link it to mine or his post? Its meaningless. You proly won't reply to this question, you didn't do so for the last one.

Again, you said:
"The more faithless (atheistic) someone is, the more likely they are to vote Democrat/Socialist/Communist. This is in line with the argument..etc"
If you don't think atheism itself causes someone to be part of any of these groups, you actually agree with my pov. Else you don't. But you cannot prove it by stating how many people of these groups are atheists.

Even if I assume these polls are not adjusted (and let me do so for arguments sake)
-How many people where asked by pew if they like big gov cause they are atheist? I don't have to look, I know none did.
-These kind of "exit polls" showed Romney stood a chance against Obama before the election.
-People could have lied for various reasons
-Only a small amount of people where asked
They aren't written by God and it isn't science. Its speculation.

Even if people would be asked the question "Are you a fan of big gov because you are atheist?" your answers would be flawed. Because many people don't really know why they are what they are.

Atheism itself doesn't cause people to become communist, or big gov, or hold any laws sacred. A bigger share of communists might be atheist because of many reasons but frankly I don't care.

"Your opinion has no point nor relevance to the topic."
It couldn't be more appropriate. I claim dna potentially plays an important role in whether someone is religious or not.

"....emotionalism..."
I was talking about a certain emotion, not emotionalism. Yes its important, skip your next 3 posts. I used it as a simplistic term for some kind of brain activity to make my point more clear. Some parts of the brain are activated during eg prayer. They are busy studying it for some time now in the field of Neurosurgery.

"While I wish I had better numbers to cite"
You can't. You can only cite numbers that show the correlation between people who claim themselves to be atheist and claim to want big gov at best, and probably from a disputable source with its own interest and in one area. There is a reason for that. Posting blogs won't do that is quit obvious.

Then still you draw conclusion out of your...you know. Its possible big gov people (as you call them) dislike religion, and not religious people disliking big gov or even people liking big gov cause they are atheist. Thats why I said stats prove whatever you want if you look to the in a simplistic way. Not stating these as facts or opinions, but as possible explanations you can't rule out if those imaginary figures are in a magical way correct.

Even then its disputable if a nazi, communist, monarchist, any of the kind you can come up with (and I dislike ) believes in laws to be sacred rather then pragmatic.

"You've already made it perfectly clear I'd be wasting my time digging up these resources."
I just did in this post.

"You made absolutely no point with your Sharia reference."
idd, it was meant ironic. I merely stated my opinion.

"If my statement was over your head, I hope my restatement of the point here has helped."
I think I do understand what you are trying to say here but my remark was still specifically targeted at religion not faith. Let me give you an example. Certain areas of the brain are responsible for certain emotions religious people feel during eg prayer (the so called holy/spiritual feeling). This kind of emotion is developed differently amongst people and mostly dependent on DNA. That of course doesn't mean environment plays a huge role. Good dna might give you the opportunity to become an athlete but that doesn't make you one.

Now these emotions might also occur in the brain of a neo nazi during a speech of Hitler but not during a large debate of different political fractions.

"They tend not to limit laws with moral values like freedom and individual rights"
Many libertarians are atheists. How does that fit in? I'm an atheist and take offense in being put in one large basket with communists. Its a generalization no more. Stats say what you want them to say.

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_fiscal_cliff"

What do you think the result will be if it happens?

lol@flint

@yell
I'm sure Belgium will consider him if he says the french speaking part expelled him.

"atheist societies make human laws sacred"
I don't. No sharia for me.

"or like Chesterton put it, "A man who believes in nothing, will believe anything""
If you are easily influenced by any religious or not is determined by your DNA and environment. Hence someone born in india being hindu has a biger chance to believe in something Christian if he was adopted by US parents from childhood instead.

This is proly one of the reasons why US is so religious still. If a normal person would be threatened by death he would make it seem like he abandons his own religion. But a zealot won't and make for the new world. That DNA is still present today.

lol