There must be a god

Originally posted by whodey
My favorite are the sky burials where people are taken to the top of buildings and fed to vultures.

FFTFFTFFT, mmm, mmm, good!!!

This practice is followed by the Zoroastrians. These people came to India after the persian muslim rulers went after them for following a different religion. This indian community forms the majority of the zoroastrians( aka the Parsees ) worldwide.

Originally posted by ale1552
Their religion prevents them from eating meat. So they have a temple to rats and make sure that they have plenty of milk to drink...never mind about the starving babies. I believe there are temples to cobras, too. Then there are the sacred cows wandering in the streets.

As someone else pointed out Hindus can't eat beef (the cow is considered sacred) but all other meat is fine, some states have a majority of catholic, obviously they can eat all meats and in the north there's a high Muslim contingency who don't eat port but eat everything else. India has the most amount of vegetarians in the world, not because of religious beliefs but because of poverty, most vegetarians just can't afford to eat meat.

India is a fascinating place, it can make your head spin out of frustration and marvel at its beauty all within minutes of each other. I'll be back someday for sure.

Originally posted by trev33
As someone else pointed out Hindus can't eat beef (the cow is considered sacred) but all other meat is fine, some states have a majority of catholic, obviously they can eat all meats and in the north there's a high Muslim contingency who don't eat port but eat everything else. India has the most amount of vegetarians in the world, not because of religious bel ...[text shortened]... n and marvel at its beauty all within minutes of each other. I'll be back someday for sure.

When I was growing up, I knew Roman Catholics that belived the only
kind of meat they could eat on Friday's was fish.

Originally posted by googlefudge
And again, you can make idiotic decisions without being an idiot.
Neither the OP nor myself called theists idiots... we called Theism Idiotic.
There is a difference.

Not much of one...I'd hate to defend myself against namecalling by hiding behind semantics.

Originally posted by googlefudge
First you can be wrong without being an idiot.
There are both really smart and really stupid people in both the theist and atheist camps.

second, I wonder about your numbers, apart from ignoring a whole host of religions...
do the figures of number of religious people include children?
Most religions try to inflate their numbers and so almost certa ...[text shortened]... n gets close to 100%.
This didn't make them right then, and it doesn't make them right now.

It was just adults in those figures otherwise the total population would be closer to 7 billion.

Originally posted by tomtom232
It was just adults in those figures otherwise the total population would be closer to 7 billion.

Yes, exactly. I was telling him this again and again. He ignored or did not understand.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Yes, exactly. I was telling him this again and again. He ignored or did not understand.

Actually I did neither. I both paid attention and understood.
What I possibly didn't do was agree.

What I suspected, and was trying to confirm, was whether your figures for number
of theists included minors, while the adult population numbers didn't.
Ie whether you were comparing like with like.

You say that you weren't, ok fine I will take your word for it, but the numbers have so
many possible points of inaccuracy I still think they are pretty meaningless.

However as I stated and you didn't respond to, Neither the OP or I said that believing
in something stupid/idiotic/whatever made the person doing the believing stupid or idiotic.

Everyone makes mistakes.
There is a difference in how many, and whether you learn from them or not, but nobody
is immune from being wrong, or thinking or doing things that are stupid.

Also the number of people who believe something has absolutely no bearing on its truth.

So on both counts the numbers are irrelevant.
Which is why I moved on, and didn't pursue the point further.
I am sorry if you thought this meant I was ignoring your post.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
Not much of one...I'd hate to defend myself against namecalling by hiding behind semantics.

It isn't semantics.
Newton believed in (or at least practised) Astrology. Which is a bloody stupid idea.

But Newton was a genius, and was certainly no idiot.

It is perfectly possible to call an idea stupid while not calling the people who hold it so.
Although they might be.

I know plenty of otherwise very smart, one might even say wise, people who smoke.
And I think smoking is totally idiotic. I don't think they are.

And I myself have held views/done things that were pretty stupid, and I would suggest that
anyone who tells you they haven't, is either lying or to stupid to have realised they have.


If I 'name-call' you know about it, and I either stand by it, or, if shown wrong, apologise.
I don't hide behind anything.

Originally posted by googlefudge
It isn't semantics.
Newton believed in (or at least practised) Astrology. Which is a bloody stupid idea.

But Newton was a genius, and was certainly no idiot.

It is perfectly possible to call an idea stupid while not calling the people who hold it so.
Although they might be.

I know plenty of otherwise very smart, one might even say wise, people ...[text shortened]... t, and I either stand by it, or, if shown wrong, apologise.
I don't hide behind anything.

Yeah, like the idea of evolution.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Yeah, like the idea of evolution.

What? Evolution doesn't hide behind anything?

Originally posted by karoly aczel
What? Evolution doesn't hide behind anything?

I was referring to his statement, "that you can call an idea stupid while not
calling the people who hold it so."

Originally posted by RJHinds
Yeah, like the idea of evolution.

Evolution isn't an idea it's factual.

Originally posted by Trev33
Evolution isn't an idea it's factual.

Actually it's an idea that is factual, but yes, it is certainly not idiotic.

RJHinds however is never ever going to admit, or accept this as he is too far gone indoctrinated to believe otherwise.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Actually it's an idea that is factual, but yes, it is certainly not idiotic.

RJHinds however is never ever going to admit, or accept this as he is too far gone indoctrinated to believe otherwise.

It obviously started off as an idea, whether you can call something with so much evidence to support it as still being 'an idea' I'm not so sure. Doesn't really matter though.

Originally posted by Trev33
It obviously started off as an idea, whether you can call something with so much evidence to support it as still being 'an idea' I'm not so sure. Doesn't really matter though.

It is still called a theory. It is not called the Law of Evolution is it?
So that means it is not fact in my book.

P.S. We have a Law of Gravity -- that is fact
We also have a theory of gravity -- that means it is not a proven fact