‹ First  < 46 47 48

Letter to an Atheist by Michael Patrick Leahy

Total Posts:  142
Joined  11-04-2013
10 May 2013 19:17
Michael Patrick Leahy - 11 April 2007 02:20 PM


I've just written another response to Letter to a Christian Nation.

In it, I document your intellectual dishonesty, starting with the following big lie you keep telling:

“ Half of the American population believes that the universe is 6,000 years old.”

The evidence suggests that, at a maximum, only 18% of Americans, not 50% as Harris recklessly claims, might arguably be said to believe the universe is only 6,000 years old. And even that 18% might not completely agree with the 6,000 year figure. ...

For the entire article which demonstrates how you completely misrepresent the Gallup Polling information, as well as the percentage of Americans who are "young creationists" , you can go to http://www.lettertoanatheist.com/biglie.html

For the entire book you may go to http://www.lettertoanatheist.com

I hereby challenge you to a debate. When and where ?

18% is still way to high ...what is your point!

Total Posts:  6
Joined  07-12-2015
07 December 2015 22:17

I submit this post fully in the knowledge that it has been 2 years since the last entry.

But if you bear with me it might prove a point.

I have a view that libraries should only contain books of fiction.


As our understanding of the world is a continuous process, taking a snapshot and making a book of reference seems on reflection fraught with error.

For example as a child I was taught in science that the atom was the smallest unit of matter. Science today would have moved perhaps 2 if not 3 iterations of resolution beyond that point.

Ergo my point of reference and knowledge contained in a book 30 plus years ago needs to evolve or I’m just plain ignorant to the world today in relation to atomic science.

How we gather our imperical facts must be treated as a continuum. Anchoring them to a source document be it a religious or science book or whatever has its pitfalls.

Data analysis and statistics cannot be treated as a static entity, nor can “facts” in a 30 year old science book.

I’ve appended this post 2 years later to ask those involved to review their facts and ask themselves a few questions.

Could an individual’s data have been correct at the time of writing?
Do we accept the concept that in a continuum we can only be factually right for that moment subject to good data mining?
Should reference books become history books after a pre requisit time?
What is the difference between reading a book/paragraph/text and understanding a book/paragraph/text?

‹ First  < 46 47 48