Willie Wonka: How did you fit so much rubbish in such a short space? So what about the water vapor in the cooling model that is just as likely to be from a natural source as it is human activity? Where did I say water vapor in the atmosphere wasn't from a natural source? If you were half as clever as you think you are you would have understood that Dr. T made a ridiculous claim (that there is no evidence greenhouse gases cause global warming) that the scientific evidence flatly contradicts - I merey pointed out that naturally occurring water vapor is a greenhouse gas - it absorbs something like 70% of incoming sunlight and is also responsible for 60% of the atmospheric absorption of thermal radiation from the Earth. Try looking at a spectral signature graph and you can see this very clearly in many cases. The problem is that extra carbon dioxide in the air warms the atmosphere allowing it to hold more water vapor. Even you must be able to see where that is going. Right? Atheists amuse me in how they are just as dogmatic as the theistic crowd, with exactly the same amount of evidence... What the hell does being an atheist have to do with climatology and physics? Atheism = lack of belief in gods. Climatology and physics = science. Oh wait nevermind, I got it - you know sod all about any of them so threw them in together to try and sound clever. Oh well. Better luck next time. But go on - explain how apparently knowing more about the electromagnetic spectrum than you or the illustrious Dr. T constitutes dogma. We can wait. Just like we've been waiting for Dr. T to explain how water vapor isn't a greenhouse gas and doesn't contribute to global warming. Is it me or is the Dunning-Kruger effect becoming a more common phenomenon?

Dunc: Why do I suspect I may as well be talking to the wall? Because you suspect that the wall wouldn't try and justify it's stance on climate change science and physics with reference to its chemistry and pathology background as well as its entirely relevant participation in medical journal review boards? On the off chance that some graffiti on the wall might actually include citations to back up its claims? On the off chance that the wall actually knows some modern physics? I can think of a lot of reasons why you might think talking to the wall might be more productive in this case....

I'm a chemist and a clinical pathologist, so I've got a solid science background. ... In fact, there is no evidence that any of the greenhouse warming gases cause planetary warming So, I take it they never covered the electro-magnetic spectrum and water absorption bands in your chemistry or pathology classes? Does your solid science background include any modern physics? Or do you still believe in the luminiferous ether? I suggest you go and do some research and then come back and worm your way out of this one. We can wait.

There's so much to respond to in Seaweed13's posts that this response is probably going to jump around a bit so bear with it. On tolerance, really my response is very simple: Why should we tolerate any belief? It has been said already by others but it is worth repeating - why do we have to tolerate religious belief? Seaweed13 says: Perhaps I should be clearer: Tolerance is not enough. I want some kind of respect. So you demand respect, but you give no good reason for why you deserve it. Simply because you hold beliefs which you think should be tolerated? Why? Religious beliefs are no more deserving of tolerance than any other belief - but you demand that and respect. Why? Atheism does not equal intelligence and decency any more than being religious equates to being moral. But the way some atheists talk you wouldn't know that. Who says that? Who are these 'some atheists' you speak of? Certainly no one here speaks that way because we know that isn't the case. Religion=always bad, never good. Atheism=always good, never bad. That's a strawman. But I, unlike some, actually know that not all atheists think alike just as not all religious people think alike either. Which begs the question - why do you treat atheists in your posts like we are one homogenous block with one set of arguments and ideas? You know how I interpret the Bible? I interpret it as what it is: a historical document. What, precisely, does this mean? How do you interpret the Bible? What rules or guidance do you use for interpreting the Bible? How do your interpretations differ from mainstream christian interpretations? When you look at the Bible through historical lenses it makes a hell of lot more sense and you can clearly see where the bias of the authors are present. So, how do you know which bits are the authors biases and which aren't? What basis is there for determining this consistently? Hint: that means I do not think it was written perfectly by God. Shocker! Written perfectly by, or written at all by? Do you think some of it is written by God? Which bits? How do you determine this consistently? Honest to frick, people, do you really believe that many Christians are fine and dandy with torture because god said so? I don't know why many christians believe torture is ok in some circumstances - but they do. That is what the survey results clearly show if you bother to look at and understand the results. Just to throw this out: Most Christians Say Non-Christian Faiths Can Lead to Salvation I'm sorry, you must be looking at a different page than the one you linked to if you think this makes a crushing point in regards to christian toleration. The page states: A majority of all American Christians (52%) think that at least some non-Christian faiths can lead to eternal life. My emphasis. Just over half think that some faiths can lead to salvation - which means that most christians (the 52% and the rest) still think no faith and many other faiths still go to the great heretic roast underground for all eternity. Hardly the picture of moderate christian tolerance you seem to think it is. Indeed, the results show that 30% still think that ones faith is the only way to salvation. A quarter still say only their faith can lead to salvation. The figures also show that the number of people who say other faiths can lead to salvation is dropping. It shows that the higher the rate of religious observance, the more likely a person is to think their faith exclusively is open to eternal life. It would be nice for just once to come across an atheist that actually sees the good that can come from religion and not have a holier-than-thou attitude. Some good can come from religion. There you go. Religion is not the cause of the world's problems. Sorry, that needs correcting. Religion is not the cause of all of the world's problems. Then on the point of religious intolerance you do appear to contradict yourself: No, you may not be killing anyone or advocating for violence but you don't have to be violent to be considered intolerant. Then: I never, ever said criticism is intolerance. Since all we are doing is criticising, then you do appear to be saying criticism is intolerance. For the record, I do consider myself intolerant of religious belief, and I am glad that I am. No belief is automatically worthy of tolerance. Just as religious people should stop considering atheists as immoral, atheists need to stop judging people based on their preconceived notions of what they think a person's religion is about. Why do you assume that our arguments and criticisms are based on prejudices and not actual knowledge or experience? Do you think we live in an isolated bubble of pure atheism? I for one was raised as a catholic for 18 years and attended catholic schools for 14. My mother is a practising catholic, my in-laws are very religious, my wife's grandfather was a preacher - I understand religious beliefs very well. Do I know yours? No. But then you haven't mentioned what they are. The people we usually argue with very clearly state what they believe. I have been forever in search of a Skeptical Science blog that doesn't lump all religious people with the crazies like Creationists. This is the part of all of your posts that annoyed me the most. You seem to be of the belief that the things we find most offensive, irrational or absurd about religion are the beliefs held only by the 'crazies'. Well, you are wrong. The endemic child abuse in Ireland was not just the crazies - it was carried out by moderates and it was covered up by moderates and it is still being excused by moderates. Opposition to gay marriage is not a position held only by the crazies, it is the default moderate position (and even the position of some liberal religious people). The belief that homosexuality is a sin is not one held only by the crazies. Opposition to abortion is the default position of moderate christians. Belief in creation over evolution and Big Bang theory is so widespread you would have to argue that most christians in America are crazies. Support for torture is widespread amongst religious people who attend services at least once a week - are they crazies? Amongst the christians I know, belief that women are subordinate to men is common - they aren't crazies. Abstinence only sex education is not a belief held only by the crazies. Or do you just define 'the crazies' as people who don't hold your set of religious beliefs? Now who is being intolerant? The simple fact is that the beliefs we oppose and ridicule are in fact, held by crazy, moderate and liberal religious people. You might like to pretend that 'the crazies' don't represent the mainstream, but they do. If you don't like it then stop bloody complaining about those who point it out and do something about it. And whilst I'm complaining about mainstream christians please indulge this little anecdotal aside. I work in retail in Highlands Ranch, Colorado. It's a very affluent area and its inhabitants are not shy about proclaiming their mainstream religious affiliation - there are a lot of churches and a lot of religious symbols on display. The worst customers to deal with - the rudest, most ignorant, most unreasonable and most demanding - are those who have obviously just been to church service on a Sunday (well dressed, show up just after the church services finish and have the whole family in tow). In fact, I got so sick of these people that I switched my day off to Sunday so I wouldn't have to deal with them. In the catering industry servers call them 'Sunday Tippers' - they don't tip very well. I know someone who was told that they were going to get a less than 10% tip because the customer didn't 'Want to give you more than I tithe to God.' One young and religious colleague of mine told me that he hated the fact that these people represented his religion. They were not 'the crazies'. If you don't like these people representing your religion then do something about it. Complaining that we don't tolerate their beliefs or respect them is not going to cut it. Simply stated: You are not better or smarter than me because I'm religious and you are atheist. You are not better or worse than me. You are not smarter or dumber than me. Quite right. But whether you like it or not I am more rational than you. Belief in something for which there is no evidence is faith. Belief in something for which there is no evidence is irrational. Please stop pretending otherwise. Criticism of specific dangerous ideas is totally fine. Why just dangerous ideas? What is wrong with criticising any ideas? More importantly - why is criticising beliefs intolerant? Why should we respect beliefs? Why should we respect believers? What I said was I was tired of people being critical of me for merely having any kind of religious belief. Tough. Welcome to the grown up world, where beliefs are fair game for questions, ridicule and criticism. Denigrating other individuals' or other groups' religious beliefs" is what I dislike. Don't do it then. Bury your head in the sand and pretend that all beliefs are equal, all ideas are worthy and all individuals fair, responsible, intelligent, tolerant and capable. Whether you like it or not, some beliefs and individuals are worthy of ridicule, criticism and scorn. Is it okay for atheists to say that because I am Christian that I am a child-abuser, supporter of torture, genocide and racism, that I am irrational, illogical and stupid even though they really know nothing about me and they are basing their assumptions on what they define faith and religion as? I wouldn't say any of the above other than that you are irrational, and I'd take a guess that you may very well be illogical depending on what your beliefs actually are and how you justify them. You say people of religion are of unquestioning faith? Really? If that's true one wonders how the hell the world has so many different religions that have reformed and splintered again and again and again. Here you miss the point completely. Taking just christianity, there have been schisms not on what was worshipped, but how it was worshipped. Protestants still unquestioningly believe in God just like Catholics. They just do it differently. Theology changes, but the target of the belief doesn't. If people of faith never asked questions then explain why so many of them have changed religions or even become atheists? Exposure to new ideas or they weren't believers of unquestioning faith. And anyway, who said religious people were all believers of unquestioning faith? I am not irrational. I am not illogical. Yes, you are. Stop trying to pretend that faith is anything but. Do you have faith? Do you believe in anything that has no evidence for it? If you do, then you are certainly irrational and probably illogical in at least these beliefs. I never said I was certain god existed. There is no evidence for or against god. Which is why it is faith. And faith is irrational. Faith doesn't mean you can't be questioning. If people of faith throughout history had always said 'God did it' then you have to wonder how Newton came up with his Laws of Motion. If people of faith never asked questions I guess Galileo got lucky then? What the hell does unquestioning religious faith have to do with the discovery of calculus, gravity and heliocentrism? Here you conflate wildly different things in an attempt to try and portray that faith in God isn't unquestioning. Newton's religious faith didn't preclude his scientific and mathematic discoveries. And boy was Galileo a bad example for you. His religious faith had nothing (as far as I know) to do with his scientific discoveries. On the other hand, religious faith had everything to do with the reaction to his scientific discoveries. You are being disingenuous to link the religious faith of scientists with their scientific discoveries. You can have unquestioning, irrational and illogical religious beliefs and still make scientific discoveries because the two aren't in any way related. More importantly though I have to ask - who said that people of faith have always said 'God did it'? But religion is a very powerful thing. For many people it is the very core of their being and their life. It impacts every thing they do. Just like crystal meth. Should we tolerate cystal meth use and respect its users? But like I said, I agree we certainly can unite around secular causes. So why do we need religion? How do you tolerate something you wish were gone? I don't. I absolutely wish with all my heart that religion were gone. You just don't seem able to understand that this doesn't mean I wish religious people went with it. That's kind of like religious people saying they tolerate gay people but then they go out and try to 'convert' or 'fix' them. That's not very tolerant. It's really not, for the reason Skeptico pointed out. You choose what you believe, you do not choose to be gay. Now, that's how I feel when I'm called irrational and illogical for merely having a religion. But you are. Faith is irrational, belief in something for which there is no evidence is irrational. Stop pretending otherwise. For merely wondering about the possibility of a god or afterlife I am mocked? For just wondering and coming to the conclusion that I feel like there might be some kind of god or afterlife? Well, yes. Perhaps I have misrepresented myself here. Perhaps I should really say I lean toward Agnostic, although not 100%. Well, actually it's hard to say how you represented yourself because it really isn't clear. But if you feel there might be a god then you aren't agnostic. What exactly do you believe Seaweed13, and what makes you think any of that is rational or logical?

Steve: "I believe that we as Christians answer to a higher more moral, more ethical, more holy authority than the Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights or the laws passed by the leaders of this country especially when obviously morally corrupt." Really? Because with a short time spent on Google we could find copious examples of the most morally repugnant behaviour perpertrated and (more importantly perhaps) excused by christians. How would you explain that? Have you read any of the details of the Irish abuse report? Did you see Bill Donohues response? Did you see the reports of the remarks that archbishop Nichols made concerning atheists but not one mention of what his church in Ireland did to children? If that's your higher moral and ethical authority you can keep it. "Atheists are neither evil nor ignorant--they, are however, classically insane for who but the insane battle against something that does not exist. " And you miss the point completely. If religious people kept their opinions to themselves, if they didn't use their religion to enact laws that affected me, if they didn't constantly proclaim their superiority to me because of their superstitions, then I wouldn't waste my time on them. However, religious people are constantly doing those things, which means I am constantly having to answer them. See if you can really try to understand why christians get so much attention from atheists whilst Buddhists get hardly any. "Who but the insane are compelled to rant and rave and expend exorbitant amounts of time, energy and thought in attempts to disprove what does not exist." Who but the insane would speak to someone who isn't there, who they think listens to them, and who they think responds? Talking to someone who isn't there but believing they are is the very definition of insane. We institutionalise people because they think they hear voices who talk to them - they talk to people who aren't there. If they say its Napoleon we think they have a mental illness, if they say it's God we say they are devout. Please do try and explain the difference. Either God exists or God does not exist--if he does not exist--then I submit that there are better ways to use your time. If it was as simple as gods existing or not then you might have a point, but it isn't. So you don't.

Well Winston, if it is a case of who has the best quotes that wins an argument then this will be fun: "Skepticism is a virtue in history as well as in philosophy." -Napoleon Bonaparte "The natural cause of the human mind is certainly from credulity to skepticism." -Thomas Jefferson "Skepticism is the first step on the road to philosophy." -Denis Diderot "Skepticism: the mark and even the pose of the educated mind." -John Dewey "The path of sound credence is through the thick forest of skepticism." -George Jean Nathan "Skepticism, like chastity, should not be relinquished too readily." -George Santayana "The only new ideas that are not subject to our skepticism or suspicion are our own." -Cullen Hightower (see if you can figure out why I included this one Winston). "The key to wisdom is this -- constant and frequent questioning ... for by doubting we are led to question and by questioning we arrive at the truth." -Peter Abelard "There are in fact four very significant stumblingblocks in the way of grasping the truth, which hinder every man however learned, and scarcely allow anyone to win a clear title to wisdom, namely, the example of weak and unworthy authority, longstanding custom, the feeling of the ignorant crowd, and the hiding of our own ignorance while making a display of our apparent knowledge." -Roger Bacon "Weary the path that does not challenge. Doubt is an incentive to truth and patient inquiry leadeth the way." -Hosea Ballou "By doubting we all come at truth." -Marcus Tullius Cicero "I see men ordinarily more eager to discover a reason for things than to find out whether things are so." -Michel De Montaigne "There are all kinds of devices invented for the protection and preservation of countries: defensive barriers, forts, trenches, and the like... But prudent minds have as a natural gift one safeguard which is the common possession of all, and this applies especially to the dealings of democracies. What is this safeguard? Skepticism. This you must preserve. This you must retain. If you can keep this, you need fear no harm." -Demosthenes "The important thing is never to stop questioning." -Albert Einstein "The civilized man has a moral obligation to be skeptical, to demand the credentials of all statements that claim to be facts." -Bergen Evans "Freedom of speech and freedom of action [is meaningless] without freedom to think. And there is no freedom of thought without doubt." -Bergen Evans "It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." -Mahatma Mohandas K. Gandhi "Advances are made by answering questions. Discoveries are made by questioning answers." -Bernhard Haisch "What are the moral convictions most fondly held by barbarous and semi-barbarous people? They are the convictions that authority is the soundest basis of belief; that merit attaches to readiness to believe; that the doubting disposition is a bad one, and skepticism is a sin." -Thomas Henry Huxley "Curiosity is one of the permanent and certain characteristics of a vigorous intelligence" -Dr. Samuel Johnson "The skeptic does not mean him who doubts, but him who investigates or researches, as opposed to him who asserts and thinks he has found." -Miguel Deunamuno Y Jugo "There must be no barriers for freedom of inquiry. There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors." -J. Robert Oppenheimer "The believer is happy, the doubter is wise." -Hungarian Proverb "In all affairs it’s a healthy thing now and then to hang a question mark on the things you have long taken for granted." -Bertrand Russell "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." -Bertrand Russell "At the heart of science is an essential tension between two seemingly contradictory attitudes -- an openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre or counterintuitive they may be, and the most ruthless skeptical scrutiny of all ideas, old and new. This is how deep truths are winnowed from deep nonsense." -Carl Sagan "The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact than a drunken man is happier than a sober one." -George Bernard Shaw "I know that most men -- not only those considered clever, but even those who are very clever and capable of understanding most difficult scientific, mathematical, or philosophic, problems -- can seldom discern even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as obliges them to admit the falsity of conclusions they have formed, perhaps with much difficulty -- conclusions of which they are proud, which they have taught to others, and on which they have built their lives." -Leo Nikolaevich Tolstoi (ouch, that's gotta hurt Winston.) "I am aware that when even the brightest mind in our world has been trained up from childhood in a superstition of any kind, it will never be possible for that mind, in its maturity, to examine sincerely, dispassionately, and conscientiously any evidence or any circumstance which shall seem to cast a doubt upon the validity of that superstition..." -Mark Twain "Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd." -Voltaire "To believe is very dull. To doubt is intensely engrossing. To be on the alert is to live, to be lulled into security is to die." -Oscar Wilde "Nothing is too wonderful to be true if it be consistent with the laws of nature." -Michael Faraday "The high-minded man must care more for the truth than for what people think." -Aristotle "A witty saying proves nothing" -Voltaire We win. And boy, the arrogance that goes with a "Everyone is closeminded but me." declaration is quite staggering. Informative of the sort of person who would proclaim it though. Very informative.

I think it may also have something to do with how MSN explorer is loading the pages for me, the first time I loaded this page this morning your first test comment had no tags in and the second one did, and my bold comments from last night were not bolded. I refreshed the page and they were all working, and when the page refreshed after I clicked reply all the tags had stopped working again!

Woah, looks like html tags are back. Wierd. I posted on the torture thread and my italics disappeared in the post but were visible in the preview so I thought I'd try them here just in case and it worked. You should get the hamster that runs the server checked out.

You're really not very good at this are you? "So this religion of "Science" as you call it" You know, this is repeated by woos and religious nutters so often I think I might just have to state it for a third time in as many posts: WE (meaning skeptics) don't call science a religion, YOU (meaning idiots) do. "with your pious little "Science Priests" in their little white lab coats (men of the white cloth?)" Not science priests, scientists. Dear oh dear. Did you get all your information from creationist/woo soundbites and B movies made in the 1950s? "they sure know the truth, don't they?!" No. And they don't claim to either. The ones who do claim that are people like you (idiots). "It's in their Holey Scriptures, the Journals of Science!" Oh what a devastating play on words. Oscar Wilde look out. Of course a simple Google search shows it wasn't your idea. Wilde can rest easy. "Where's the empirical evidence?" Of what? "There is none." There is none of what? But who dares blaspheme against the Holey Church of Science!?. Me. All churches suck whale nuts and sleep with donkeys. Good enough? "So how about YOU hang with your little religious sect and stop bashing people that have a different faith than you do?" Sorry, don't have one. And I'll stop bashing them as soon as they stop interfering or trying to interfere with my life. "Interesting thought, eh?" Er.No. No it isn't. "Your intense hatred for this lady is pretty disturbing." Oh now your pulling my plonker. A mild blog entry criticising blatantly silly arguments is intense hatred? No numb nuts, intense hatred is protestants and catholics burning each other at the stake or killing each other with car bombs. Intense hatred is pogroms against Jewish people. Intense hatred is Islamic terrorists blowing themselves up in Israeli Pizza Huts. Can you spot a connection? "I don't think I've seen a stronger example of bias, intolerance and hypocrisy in years. " Oh well, since you are such an expert in these areas you will have no problem highlighting one instance of each of these in the original blog post. Just one of each will be fine. Take your time. There's no rush.

OK, since the html tags don't seem to be working I'll put Jimmy_Blu's comments in quotation marks. How does that saying about imitation and flattery go? "You're funny Jimmy." Thanks. "Circular logic is always funny very entertaining." Not so much funny or entertaining as annoying, irritating and indicative of other failings. "You're good at it!" Really? Well you'll have no problem quoting the relevant parts of my post and explaining why those quotes amount to circular logic then. Right? You're not just going to slink off and never return because you've got no answer are you? I mean, you aren't just someone who thinks they know what circular logic is and dropped that in without actually having a clue, are you? Right? "Thanks." Don't mention it. Giving you the opportunity to make a twat of yourself was my pleasure entirely.

Tech I appreciate that, and apologise to Helena for coming off a bit harsh, but her hypothetical still seems to imply she thinks torture is effective at extracting useful and time sensitive information, and from what I know that just isn't the case. I think that may very well be the case with people who think torture is justified - they think it is more effective than it is. But I did come across as a dick, so I apologise.

What I found particularly funny/ridiculous about Helena's hypothetical was the idea that al-Qaeda announce their plans. Really? They told us about the embassy bombings in Africa? The bombing of the USS Cole? The attacks on 9/11/01? The Bali bombing? The bombings on 7/7/05 in London? Oh wait, but if we don't know it's coming we don't know we have to torture someone and Helena has to think of some other form of mental gymnastics to justify torture. Let's just ignore the fact that these are, unfortunately, terrorists who are very intelligent, determined and capable and they don't broadcast their plans. Let's ignore the fact that they are religious fanatics who would be more than capable of resisting torture for at least long enough that any information learned would be too late. Let's ignore the fact that we train our own servicemen and women to resist torture and for some reason assume they don't. Let's ignore the fact that we train our servicemen and women to resist just long enough to make it seem realistic and then give out false information that looks realistic. Let's ignore the fact that people will say anything to end pain, including lying. Let's ignore the diversion of resources from finding this hypothetical bomb by means that might actually work to follow up leads given to us by someone trying to end extreme pain who hates our very existence and who is happily prepared to die to end it anyway. Torture doesn't work Helena - that's why professional interrogators don't use it. That's why it was authorised by people who didn't know anything about it. If it worked, why were so many people tortured for little if any useful gain? Hell, we had in custody people high up in al-Qaeda and they were subjected to torture and yet here we are 8 years later still trying to find Bin Laden and still suffering terrorist attacks around the world. Why, if torture is as effective as you think?

No. Next question please.

I think this post needs the title "Christians Justify Torture". In all except one of those bar graphs the percent of people who say torture can sometimes be justified is bigger than the percent who say it can rarely be justified. Looking at the rest of the results I think you're cherry picking because you don't like the tentative conclusions that can be drawn from this data. See what happens when you only pick and choose the bits of data you want and ignore the rest? Taken as a whole the data clearly suggests the following: A majority of the US population supports torture in at least some cicurmstances. Guess what religion most of the US population identifies as. Amongst evangelical protestants support for torture in at least some circumstances is considerably higher than the general US population. Guess what religion Protestants are. Amongst white non-hispanic Catholics support for torture in at least some circumstances is higher than the general US population. Guess what religion Catholics are. Amongst white mainline Protestants support for torture in at least some circumstances is slightly lower than the general US population (and this is the only religious group that has a greater majority that disapproves of torture overall). Did you guess what religion Protestants are yet? Then we have the unaffiliated - which could be religious groups, which could include the non-religious, it isn't clear. The data shows that they don't support torture in at least some circumstances as much as the general US population does. Do we remember how the US population generally identifies its religious affiliations? But it gets even clearer still with the data in the final three graphs. Those who attend religious services at least once a week support torture in at least some circumstances more than the general US population. It doesn't state specifically that this means Christian religious services, but I think we can take a guess can't we? Those who attend religious services either monthly or a few times a year still support torture in at least some circumstances more than the general US population. So they might not be good Christians, but they still identify as Christians and occassionally practise. So what about those who seldom or never attend religious services? Why they support torture in at least some circumstances less than the general US population does. Indeed, this group is the only group of these three that thinks torture can never or only rarely ever be justified in greater proportion than it thinks torture can be justified. Would you call people who never attend a religious service Christian? And so, what groups do we think can be shown to think torture can be justified? And which group's holy book speaks very highly and frequently of the use of torture? And whose deity seems to have no compunctions about the use of torture? Epic fail Matt.