"You are stating my argument why you cannot mix causation and correlation and why those numbers don't prove causation. "

This statement is incoherent. The numbers are measures of correlation. They neither claim nor imply causation. That this is beyond you is your problem, a result of your inadequacy, and your fault.

"This renders those stats virtually meaningless at best."

Your ignorance means nothing to the numbers.

"I replied to yell who posted a causation. You can read it in different ways, but that is what he meant."

Again, nope. You just embarrassed yourself not only by making a pointless reference to Sharia, but additionally by trying to pretend you had a point. At this point I've offered you and even asked you for explanations repeatedly, and you have failed to offer any whatsoever. You were rambling off-point because you missed the point.

"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."

I find incoherent rambling offensive and detrimental to discourse on this forum. I did not presume you were rambling; I asked if you had a point and, if so, what you intended it to be numerous times. It was I who presumed you had some point, which is why I asked for clarification of what you intended it to be, because your post lacked any point, statement, insight, or argument whatsoever. I was mistaken.

"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."

Not only did I link you pew exit poll numbers (I'm sure that I can find many more of those, now that I've refined my search parameters), but I referenced a study I read some months ago. I don't know why you're crying about this correlation--You refuse to tell us.

Einstein claimed "faith ain't dying soon." I pointed out that the faithless vote for candidates who are getting more votes than ever of late. It's very directly on-topic.

This ain't complicated stuff. You seem very, very confused.

"Have someone explain the verbal irony to yourself then, where one partly says the exact opposite of what man means."

This is not what you were doing. You said "I don't. No sharia for me." So you do support laws based on Sharia? That wasn't even what he meant by sacred; your reference had no point, and now you're repeatedly pretending it was intended as anything but the misses-the-point response that it was.

"More important, you did -again- not answer the question of why you bring up those numbers in reply to my post to yell. "

The numbers are in response to the OP. I am capable both of being amazed at your inability to comprehend mathematics and commenting on the thread's topic.

"So my opinion still stands, there is no prove atheism causes man to hold laws sacred, become big gov or communist."

Nobody ever said it did. Hahahahahaha!

Faith in God or Faith in the Charity of the Church? Buying or retaining souls with food packages and fundraisers works like a charm during a depression in a nation with (relative) low amount of social security...

Little Paul,

I provided a link to a wikipedia page very simply explaining that correlation is not causation. Your illiteracy is neither my fault nor failing. It would be pointless to ask who claimed causation because it's painfully obvious that you don't know what that is and how it differs from correlation. Simply put, you are unequipped for this conversation and literally don't know what I'm talking about.

I would continue to correct you regarding your missing The Yell's point entirely, but it's obvious at this point that you're just embarrassed, and it would be mockery to continue.

BiefstukFriet,

I don't take the hard line view of religion that many seem to hold, judging by this thread. Many seem to believe all of religion is nothing but ignorance and child-like naivety. While I don't believe that the Bible, for instance, is a historical account of the supernatural, I'd be pained to find any atheist philosophy with a fraction of its richness in wisdom and moral philosophy. Its refutations are entirely of the ignorant and dated social norms of the lands and times of its authorship, not of its messages.

As the only intelligent creatures we're aware of, and social ones at that, I think moral philosophy should be given significantly more attention than it is. That we enslave each other through oppressive governments, even democratically elected (it doesn't just happen in Egypt, folks!), leads me to conclude that moral philosophy must be as important as any other--despite the fact that, as Justinian I would be quick to point out, its basis is not nearly as formal and mathematic as most other disciplines of philosophy.

We give more attention to football games than we do to the philosophy of how we live our lives, and how we live together in society. Some religious texts have a lot of insight and wisdom to offer us on these topics. I try not to let the fact that churches are businesses detract from what the texts have to offer, discounting the corrupt human elements which have built themselves up around them.

Does anyone really think our societies' skewed focuses on trivial entertainment over things of paramount importance to the future of our race is coincidence? We're being lorded over by men with money and power seeking more money and power, as men in power have done for thousands of years throughout recorded history, and surely before as well. The only difference is that transportation is easier than ever and now on a global scale. There's a Christian commandment about thievery. I'll wager it'd do us a lot of good today if anybody still gave a damn about it.

I think the Bible is a valuable book, viewed as a figurative philosophy text about how we ought to conduct ourselves in order to better society over time and enjoy life. It's all about looking inward and improving ourselves, and about being compassionate and generous to those in need. Imagine if its message of love and generosity was embraced by all, who drank alcohol, and burned Marijuana as incense as the Hebews did! I wouldn't think that to be such a bad society at all, let alone ignorant and naive.

But our churches are businesses. And our people are too busy voting for handouts to think and consider moral philosophy. So many abandon faith that we can make the world a better place and humanity a more civilized creature. But I don't think faith in love and compassion are inherently stupid, and I hope that they, at least, don't die soon.

No Sharia for you? What a funny joke! I get it now! You were aware that it made no point whatsoever, it was stated purely for its humor value! Silly me! It was gosh darn clever. The humor was just lost on me because it wasn't funny in any way, and it would have been the sort of thing you'd have said seriously in response if you had missed the point. But I'm sure it wasn't that. It was a joke. I believe you.

You made it explicitly clear that you don't know the difference between causation and correlation. Repeatedly.

I see. Now it was YOU who pointed out that they only showed a correlation, not causation! Because I'd totally been arguing that they showed causation, and it was you who pointed out that they're only evidence of correlation!

You obviously take this forum too seriously if you're this persistent in your psychotic recounting of this discourse. I'm done encouraging your dysfunction.

The reference to voting trends has an obvious relevance to the OP. At this point, a repeated explanation would obviously be pointless. If you had any idea what I'd said, you'd point out that those numbers do not, in fact, necessarily mean a rise in the numbers of faithless. They could be correlated with other data to perhaps have significance, but they prove nothing by themselves. 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.

But you didn't point this out, because you have literally no idea what they mean. But damn do you like commenting on them! You have a lot of faith, posting repeatedly on things you know nothing about. You just incorrectly thought I claimed that faithlessness causes communistic tendencies and played offended, even though you didn't understand what I stated nor why.

@east
I still have that picture...

Hey. What about me? - God

First are sex and money for sure

"The proportion of respondents with no stated religion continues to grow, from 8.2% in 1990, to 14.1% in 2001, to 15.0% in 2008."
(http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_religion_increasing_or_decreasing_in_the_United_States)

This stuff is common knowledge and I can find plenty more sources to cite if you object to the Trinity College American Religious Identification Survey 2008.

The portion of the population which is faithless is growing. Einstein's citation had a garbage method and it's been refuted as not showing what he contended to any extent whatsoever. The topic rationally shifted to the growth of faithlessness in America and general thoughts on the subject. I mused about a correlation that I find fascinating. The faithless vote disproportionately big government. (You don't understand what this means) Everything I said is true. You're very confused. Please stop spamming.

I've called you nothing. I've explained why I've described your nonsense, spam-filled posts as illogical, irrational, and idiotic. I've quoted you being completely factually inaccurate. I've pointed out that you don't understand that correlation and causation are different things and linked you a page explaining the difference. Rather than click a link and learn anything, you've just spammed dishonestly as if you were saying something else entirely than what you said all along! Please stop accusing me of insulting you. It's you insulting me and the whole forum with this spam.

Saying that atheists don't support Sharia is not being ironic. That's a fact, not an opinion. Saying that you understood the difference between correlation and causation when it came up in this thread (because you couldn't tell them apart) is a lie. That's a fact, not an opinion. Claiming that I've called you names for pointing out that you're lying is a false claim. Again, that's a fact, not an opinion.

More specificity, please. And less spam.

Unless you're going to disagree with a word I said or otherwise find fault with it, I'm not going to entertain your nonsensical ramblings further.

You're lying about what you posted. I'm not going to assume anyone else here is so illiterate as to need repeated quotation of how this is obviously true. The only person you're trying to convince is yourself.

Unless you have a reason to suspect that new faithless do not share the voting trends of longer-term faithless, my stated statistic which fascinates me relates directly to the OP. Rambling as if this is not true is just more spam. You're just lying and equivocating in a feeble attempt to mask the embarrassing posts where you demonstrated that you could not discriminate between correlation and causation.

"I thought you don't need to be smart to get the irony. My bad. But again, I explained it afterwards, both the irony and my opinion, that should suffice."

You obviously don't know what the word "irony" means.

Irony. Noun. "The expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect."

You see, by stating that atheists do not support Sharia-based laws, you're stating a true fact. It literally is not and cannot be "ironic." This is just a matter of you not knowing what the word means. It's a fact. Yet, you persist in your ramblings. You explained nothing except that you don't know what various words mean and will ramble at length to deny this.

It's obvious that you misinterpreted The Yell's point that many atheists elevate law to ultimate, or "sacred," authority. It's obvious that you referred to atheists' universal rejection of Sharia-based law as a refutation of this point. That was not the sort of "sacred" which The Yell was referring to.

You missed the point. Your response demonstrated this. Nobody cares. There's no need to be embarrassed and spam in denial. It's alright. Learn and move on.

How do "No sharia for me." and "Atheist don't need to give a law to much value." have "sharply different" meaning? They don't. Your rambling is incoherent and nonsensical.

When you're this confused, maybe just don't respond? You're not going to help your embarrassment by compounding it.

There's nothing personal in my desire for your spam to be deleted from the forum and for you to stop posting it. You have no idea what The Yell's point was, though it's been restated for your convenience. (You're just making that more clear with your rambling. You've never responded to his point in any way.) You had no idea what my reference to voting statistics meant--it was evidence to his point, but you didn't understand it.

Nothing personal, but I just want your spam deleted. And you, if necessary. It's you who's upset because you embarrassed yourself.