Tut tut, mere dodge (poorly done too!). However, I won't give up just yet. Try and answer: Why do you think the authors have been successful in empirically testing the validity of the secularisation hypothesis and, following that, do you have any evidence from any other empirical source that disputes their conclusions?
I already answered that question, and now you accuse me of telling a lie and dodging the prior identical question. Moderators do need to take notice of your uncalled for actions within these last few postings of yours. You have launched unprovoked attacks on me for no rational reason.
Assumptions can of course be made. I can assume that you do not know how the authors have been successful in supporting the secularisation hypothesis. I can also assume that you do not have any evidence from any other empirical source that disputes their conclusions.
Exactly what point are you attempting to make. When I entered that portion of your discussion, I made no mention of disputing those data provided to you. Yes, you can assume a lot of things, but as you should well know, assumptions are not indicative of a valid truth. There is also the matter that when you first posed the question to me, I stated that I did not have the knowledge of 'how' their tasks were conducted or made successful. So Assume away.
Cheers, will do! What's less clear is if anyone else will be able to dismiss the secularisation hypothesis with empirical evidence. Its of course jolly that, if they do so, they'll be tacitly supporting the religious rationality stance
And your point is what? Be aware that with your "Cheers, will do!", all of your comments will be under scrutiny for your 'assumptions'.
Reasonably obvious one would think! Whilst you might try a more imaginative exercise into spamming, the secularisation hypothesis can still be attacked or defended (which itself will open up further analysis into the importance of rational choice theory)
Not spamming... just stating a FACT. BTW : Use a "z" and you won't get any more spelling errors in the name of this "hypothesis" that you are working on... SECULARIZATION.
More spam I'm afraid. We've already agreed that you won't make any relevant remark over the secularisation hypothesis. Move on dear chap!
No! That is a creature that exists only in your mind. I have made no such agreement... in fact,,, I made a relevant comment to the subject and you REJECTED that relevant comment by issuing demeaning words and suggestions relating to my character.
Better men than we, my friend, have spent their lives making this case. No less a man than St. Thomas Aquinas spent his life trying to find logic in the maze. He himself felt he had failed! [Generations of others have triedÂ…and failedÂ…to make the case that he was correct.] His Theologica stands as a monument to futility. Forget your mission. Choose happiness instead. Religion and Logic [what we call Science] are two unrelated views on Reality. YOU MIX THEM AT THE PERIL OF YOUR HAPPINESS. Be warned.
Not quite! Summing up, simple 'wait and see if someone can refer to the secularisation hypothesis' whilst being bored with spam and dodge
Oh I am certain that 'someone' will attempt to put you back on topic and stop you from continuously posting things that cannot be supported by evidence and have no relevance to the topic of your thread. Gee.. I think I mentioned that in my last posting. Did you take a hint? No! So here you are again, posting stuff that is not relevant to your own thread.
I'm an atheist but I don't let that hinder my pursuit of knowledge Forgive me for making it sound like homework, but I'll set you a task. Read this paper and let me know where you think its offering wonky argument
Curious and sincere question Reiver. The URL you provide above... Is that the first time on this thread that you have offered that material? I have looked all the way back and could not find a previous posting (of course I might have overlooked such posting). I am asking, because having opened that link and having briefly scanned through some of the document, I find that your proposal deserves a second round of discussion with more relevance than before. Without the aid of the material that you have just provided, I was at a disadvantage in not knowing (as I admitted before) what it was all about. Due to a distress in our mutual yet individual choice of language, there was provided ample room for conflict. Please allow me to more thoroughly review that set of information and then I can respond more appropriately. Thank you for posting that URL.
What evidence of God? Show the evidence! Let's go. Show us the evidence. What is your evidence, a feeling, a sensation, a belief? Sorry that isn't evidence. The bible? The bible is a metaphor, you must interpret that. That isn't real. So let's see which one is real? Religion is irrational. It isn't a thinking, is a fact. The base of the religion is clear: Faith. It means: - Giving for true things without the basis, without evidence. Accept things without critic thinking. That is all the contrary o reason. What faith atheist use? Atheist just say a logic think: - There aren't evidence of the existence of God, furthermore there isn't any God. It is the logic used, and it is reasonable. You've never answered the next reasonement: - Why isn't considered as madness the acceptance of the magical being, called God by no evidence, but the existence of Harry Potter is directly supposed as fiction, no real? Because one is older than the other is more valid? That's absurd. Christianism for example was created basically only to control people.
Oh, so you sk for evidence and then make a superfluous bit a stupidity as evidence? I, and indeed others, have laid out the case for God on umerous occassions. We fully acknowledge that it is not conclsuive, but that is what faith is for. It is YOU that are running around slandering people like you come from a position of intellectual strength? You aren't. Unfortuantely, most atheists, so lost in their insults and tirades, apparently lack the wherewithall to notice it. After all, when something is inconclusive, why is faith in doubt better than faith in something? Why does you faith in doubt, not skepticism (that requires a logic investigation that leads to skepticism), denial actually, a valid faith? Why is it MORE valid than any other faith? You have ZERO evidence for there not being a God, but are utterly convinced, and when asked for it, you like evey other miseducated atheist out there will scream to the high hills that YOU have no burden of proof, and then get lost in your own circular logic - and then pointedly ignore repeatedly logical proofs that you can prove a negative, that you do have a buren of proof, etc. But this is never about proof. THis is about people who derive righteousness not through action, but through criticism (not matter how petulant or invalid) and finger pointing. Prove me wrong. Wait, you can't prove a negative .... so. Pathetic. A reminder, this is not atheism - its nihilism.
Can you show a scientific study that links religious demand to ignorance, stupidity and childish fear? Given the secularisation thesis has only limited empirical support, you're going to struggle to be convincing!
The notion that religion is an inferior good is easily rejected. Integrating religion within a rational choice context is then a straight forward task
How do you integrate and nonexistent supernatural being, and stupid thousand year old moral values with rationality?
Its actually difficult to understand religious phenomena without reference to rationality. We've already seen that with the rejection of religion as an inferior good. In terms of religious demand, its a straight forward proposition to model it in terms of both lifetime utility and after-life utility. Then there are specific analysis which are understood within a rational choice framework: from fundamentalism and the methods required to eliminate the 'free rider' to the positive spillovers from religion via its effects on consumption of 'sin goods'
