[Winstonm]

Quote

i sincerely don't think that's the case, winston

I have never doubted your belief in your sincerity. And I support 100% your right to believe as you wish. My OWN belief from MY experience is that religious-based cognitive dissonance can mimic sincerity, though - just saying....

[jdonn]

luke warm, on Jan 19 2009, 01:35 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jan 19 2009, 01:24 PM, said:

I love Mike's post, it is a far more thorough way of saying what I was getting at. Your answers are just words that mean nothing the way you use them. Look at number 6, "he is"? That is simply avoiding the question. He is therefore he is therefore he is.... He exists by existing....

if mike or you would at least give your definition of God, maybe i could clear things up (not to either of your satisfaction, i'm sure)... i've already given mine... so answering your question from the framework of my definition, i can imagine a god greater than one who has not always existed, and that would be one who has

How do you expect me to give a definition of something which I don't believe exists? If I tried to come up with a definition, it would be based on the answers to the earlier questions and similar ones. It wouldn't be anything which means "that for which these questions can inherently not be answered by known phenomena" or such. That would be total nonense as far as I'm concerned.

Now your answer to "6. by means of what mechanism does this being sustain itself" is that you can imagine such a being? If that's another way of saying he exists in your imagination only, I agree!

[mikeh]

Winstonm, on Jan 19 2009, 01:39 PM, said:

Quote

cognitive dissonance won't let you think! The irony is that the very condition that afflicts you won't let you even see that you are afflicted... there are none so blind as those who will not see.

Mike,

You speak from a perspective that sounds to me like you have been on both sides of this issue. I know I have been. And if you haven't, then I can substantiate your claims from my personal experience that these questions cannot be tolerated within the believing mind - cognitive dissonance, indeed.

Heck, I run into it almost every day, in one form or another. BBF is a great one for me... I have my ideas about basic bridge theory... others post to the contrary and I have to fight my knee-jerk reaction to the effect that I am right and they are wrong... sometimes, I don't get to that until after I have posted a pig-headed response, reaffirming my bridge view.... and then belatedly realize that maybe I was wrong... or that maybe both views have merit...

And I run into it in my professional life.. where opposing counsel (or the parties they represent) have a profound difference of opinion on basic facts, or the application of the law.

However, in my profession, and at the bridge table, the real world has a habit of imposing the 'correct' outcome on one, regardless of belief. So I am forced to recognize, daily, that ideas contrary to my wished-for reality have value.. must be accommodated in my world-view.

I was brought up going to Sunday School, learning my catechism. The school I attended was affiliated with the local cathedral (it was founded by the cathedral in 1796), and held regular services in the cathedral. We took 'divinity' as a academic topic... altho if memory serves, it focussed on a very select version of divinity.. the god of the high anglican church. But, fortunately, we had a science teacher who was somewhat outspoken about applying scientific reasoning to life, and that struck a chord with me. I think I became an agnostic at about age 12... and an atheist by 15... but my 'reasoning' has become somewhat more refined over the decades, not least because I love reading. While I appreciate that many excellent scientists profess religious belief and that such as Gould suggest that religion addresses different issues than does science, I find such arguments to be disingenuous efforts to be accommodating to the religious majority... i am speaking primarily of the US, when referring to that 'majority'.

religion, as an explicative mechanism for 'us' existing, occupies precisely the areas occupied by evolution, in the cosmic short term, and physics, in the cosmic long term.

religion, as a mechanism for the establishment and maintenance of morality, is essentially a charade.. a scam... as anthropological studies have shown, religion is mostly about power over other people. Further, those who argue that we need religious belief to avoid being callous, cruel existentialists are, to be blunt, idiots. For every cruel atheist, I will show you, in history, scores of misguided religious fanatics who thought it perfectly proper to torture heretics and non-believers to death.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Jan 19 2009, 01:46 PM, said:

Quote

i sincerely don't think that's the case, winston

I have never doubted your belief in your sincerity. And I support 100% your right to believe as you wish. My OWN belief from MY experience is that religious-based cognitive dissonance can mimic sincerity, though - just saying....

can you see how i can think the same about you? can you see how i can believe paul's words that God has given every man evidence of his existence and that man deceives himself (is that the same as cognitive dissonance?)?

jdonn, on Jan 19 2009, 01:56 PM, said:

luke warm, on Jan 19 2009, 01:35 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jan 19 2009, 01:24 PM, said:

I love Mike's post, it is a far more thorough way of saying what I was getting at. Your answers are just words that mean nothing the way you use them. Look at number 6, "he is"? That is simply avoiding the question. He is therefore he is therefore he is.... He exists by existing....

if mike or you would at least give your definition of God, maybe i could clear things up (not to either of your satisfaction, i'm sure)... i've already given mine... so answering your question from the framework of my definition, i can imagine a god greater than one who has not always existed, and that would be one who has

How do you expect me to give a definition of something which I don't believe exists?

then i refer you to codo's response, at the top of page 8 on my monitor

[mikeh]

Codo, on Jan 19 2009, 06:18 AM, said:

Mikeh,

you asked some questions.

But why?

If you belive in a supernatural being, why should you bother to answer these questions?
You can simply accept that the work and "life"  of this being are still beyond your and mine understanding- and will ever be.

If you cannot accept that there are areas which we will never understand (in religion and in science), you have a view, which is quite common but which I do not share. I belive that our knowledge is still very limited. It is increasing with lightning speed, but it is still small.

And if you are an atheist, why do you care about these questions? You don`t belive, so why ask about´something you don`t belive in?

So the questions are quite pointless in my view.

If those of religious persuasion confined the effect of their beliefs to conversations between themselves and their imaginary friend (or friends) then the question of the existence or otherwise of any of the various god entities would indeed not matter.

Unfortunately, this is not the case.

Unfortunately, religion gives power to closed-minded bigots, whether they be popes or mullahs or rabbis.

That is NOT to say that all, or even most, priests, ministers, rabbis, or mullahs are bigots... they virtually have to be close-minded in order to be able to persuade themselves that their imaginary god is real, but many of them profess and some practice tolerance and charity.

But it doesn't matter how many are 'good'. There are enough who are fanatical about their beliefs, and intolerant of non-believers, that the god superstition continues to cause real harm.

Whether it be people who shoot abortion doctors, or bomb synagogues, or blow themselves up for the glory of allah, or declare fatwah on authors or cartoonists, or proclaim that the best post-invasion treatment of Iraq would be to kill all the mullahs and forcibly convert the population to christianity (yes, a prominent right-wing loonie in the US did propose this), or vote against equal rights for homosexuals because homosexuality is a sin.... all of these, and many, many more are examples of the imposition of cruelty and bigotry justified by the beliefs held by the perpetrators.

It is not money that is the root of all evil... it is the belief that revealed truth makes one right in whatever one does.

It is therefore important, if you are desire a more moral and just world, to eliminate the main source of bigotry and hatred.. strangely, elimination of this horrific power structure would NOT mean the end of kindness and charity... I give money to the homeless, I buy food for foodbanks, and so on.. not as often as maybe I should, but I do it. And I don't do it because of any belief that this will get me to heaven.

if, by virtue of anything I or others on this forum write, a single individual starts to actually THINK rather than to BELIEVE, then something good and useful has come out of our posts... and slowly but (I hope) surely, religion will be pushed back into the darkness where it belongs.

[Winstonm]

Quote

It is not money that is the root of all evil... it is the belief that revealed truth makes one right in whatever one does.

This is the most profound truth I have as yet read in these forums.

Quote

if, by virtue of anything I or others on this forum write, a single individual starts to actually THINK rather than to BELIEVE, then something good and useful has come out of our posts... 

From my experience, this is one of the more difficult and fearful things that can be attempted - if your worldview was forced upon you at a young age.

[luke warm]

mikeh, on Jan 19 2009, 02:29 PM, said:

Codo, on Jan 19 2009, 06:18 AM, said:

Mikeh,

you asked some questions.

But why?

If you belive in a supernatural being, why should you bother to answer these questions?
You can simply accept that the work and "life"  of this being are still beyond your and mine understanding- and will ever be.

If you cannot accept that there are areas which we will never understand (in religion and in science), you have a view, which is quite common but which I do not share. I belive that our knowledge is still very limited. It is increasing with lightning speed, but it is still small.

And if you are an atheist, why do you care about these questions? You don`t belive, so why ask about´something you don`t belive in?

So the questions are quite pointless in my view.

If those of religious persuasion confined the effect of their beliefs to conversations between themselves and their imaginary friend (or friends) then the question of the existence or otherwise of any of the various god entities would indeed not matter.

a couple of points here... i don't recall ever starting a conversation with you (or anyone else on this board) of a religious nature... i have responded as well as i can to questions asked, but don't ever recall instigating the conversation

Quote

But it doesn't matter how many are 'good'. There are enough who are fanatical about their beliefs, and intolerant of non-believers, that the god superstition continues to cause real harm.

as someone said somewhere else, fanatics can cause harm regardless of their beliefs (or lack thereof)

Quote

It is therefore important, if you are desire a more moral and just world, to eliminate the main source of bigotry and hatred.. strangely, elimination of this horrific power structure would NOT mean the end of kindness and charity... I give money to the homeless, I buy food for foodbanks, and so on.. not as often as maybe I should, but I do it. And I don't do it because of any belief that this will get me to heaven.

nor would it mean the end of evil, mike... and fwiw, none of the good things you do (which, i am certain, are many) have anything at all to do with heaven - as none of the evil things i do, or say, or think, have... aside from that, you are simply stating your opinion as to the cause of evil (as well as its cure)... i understand that you do so through an open mind, uncluttered by the "god delusion"... maybe that's what makes it so ... intelligent

Quote

if, by virtue of anything I or others on this forum write, a single individual starts to actually THINK rather than to BELIEVE, then something good and useful has come out of our posts... and slowly but (I hope) surely, religion will be pushed back into the darkness where it belongs.

as hard as it might be to believe, many brilliant minds throughout history, and even today, belong to people of faith - although some of them might not be lawyers - and they even occasionally actually think about these things

Winstonm, on Jan 19 2009, 02:45 PM, said:

Quote

It is not money that is the root of all evil... it is the belief that revealed truth makes one right in whatever one does.

This is the most profound truth I have as yet read in these forums.

mmmm... okay

Quote

Quote

if, by virtue of anything I or others on this forum write, a single individual starts to actually THINK rather than to BELIEVE, then something good and useful has come out of our posts... 

From my experience, this is one of the more difficult and fearful things that can be attempted - if your worldview was forced upon you at a young age.

and yet you overcame this fearful, difficult thing... by thinking on profound truths, no doubt

[Winstonm]

Quote

and yet you overcame this fearful, difficult thing... by thinking on profound truths, no doubt

No, by abandoning blind belief.

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on Jan 19 2009, 01:18 PM, said:

in any case you and i read the same thing differently

Apart from your reading of just that one sentence, I'm interested in your opinion of the article as a whole.

Wouldn't you agree that ring species illustrate in a concrete way how a species evolves from a different species by a series of gradual changes?

[jdonn]

luke warm, on Jan 19 2009, 02:13 PM, said:

then i refer you to codo's response, at the top of page 8 on my monitor

What is the point of that post, that it's pointless for someone who doesn't believe in god to even discuss the topic?

[helene_t]

jdonn, on Jan 19 2009, 10:00 PM, said:

that it's pointless for someone who doesn't believe in god to even discuss the topic?

I think it is. I can imagine for two theists it can be interesting to find out what overlap there is between the two gods they believe in. I can imagine for someone who isn't familiar with any "god" concept and gets involved with someone who believes in something he/she calls "God" to find out what it means.

But other than that, who cares?

Oh well, I waste a lot of time discussing non-issues here and elsewhere as well, so I shouldn't be surprised that some like to discuss the existence of God.

[Codo]

mikeh, on Jan 20 2009, 04:29 AM, said:

..
If those of religious persuasion confined the effect of their beliefs to conversations between themselves and their imaginary friend (or friends) then the question of the existence or otherwise of any of the various god entities would indeed not matter.

Unfortunately, this is not the case.

Unfortunately, religion gives power to closed-minded bigots, whether they be popes or mullahs or rabbis.

That is NOT to say that all, or even most, priests, ministers, rabbis, or mullahs are bigots... they virtually have to be close-minded in order to be able to persuade themselves that their imaginary god is real, but many of them profess and some practice tolerance and charity.

But it doesn't matter how many are 'good'. There are enough who are fanatical about their beliefs, and intolerant of non-believers, that the god superstition continues to cause real harm.

Whether it be people who shoot abortion doctors, or bomb synagogues, or blow themselves up for the glory of allah, or declare fatwah on authors or cartoonists, or proclaim that the best post-invasion treatment of Iraq would be to kill all the mullahs and forcibly convert the population to christianity (yes, a prominent right-wing loonie in the US did propose this), or vote against equal rights for homosexuals because homosexuality is a sin.... all of these, and many, many more are examples of the imposition of cruelty and bigotry justified by the beliefs held by the perpetrators.

It is not money that is the root of all evil... it is the belief that revealed truth makes one right in whatever one does.

It is therefore important, if you are desire a more moral and just world, to eliminate the main source of bigotry and hatred.. strangely, elimination of this horrific power structure would NOT mean the end of kindness and charity... I give money to the homeless, I buy food for foodbanks, and so on.. not as often as maybe I should, but I do it. And I don't do it because of any belief that this will get me to heaven.

if, by virtue of anything I or others on this forum write, a single individual starts to actually THINK rather than to BELIEVE, then something good and useful has come out of our posts... and slowly but (I hope) surely, religion will be pushed back into the darkness where it belongs.

Mike,

being open minded is a nice thing.

But how can you claim that theists are more narrow minded then atheists?
The GDR had been an atheist state. Do yo think that they are more open minded then the people from West Germany? I don't.
The USSR tried to be an atheist state. Do you really belive that Russians had been more open minded then you and me? I doubt that this POV is shared by the majority.

To be narrow minded is very common. Everywhere.

You say that religion gives power to closed minded bigots. Okay, this is sad but true.
But is there a place on earth where is no place for closed minded bigots? We have them. Everywhere. At BBF, at the table in our club, in political parties, in our local football club, on the road, at work, between our friends and relatives, everywhere. Soemtimes, on some issues we are this way.
Do you know one, just one enviroment, where they are forbidden, or where are just open minded people?

The churches should be better then the average, there should be fewer closed minded bigots. I do not know whether there are more or less. But I agree that between the loud voices, there are more people who seem to be closed minded then the other way round.

Religion should not be abused for political issues, nor for murder or war in the name of God. But religion had been abused for this and it will be abused in the future.

But, when you want to stop bigotery, hatred and narrow minded people, you have just one solution. Kill anybody. All these problems are made by man. Religion should be (and is for a large silent majority) a way to handle this problems. It is not the way you put it. There are theists who are full of hate. This is true. But was does this profe besides the point that the members of each church are human?

Do you really believe that Atheism will stop brutality and hate? No way, ask people who lived there. It is getting worse, not better. There are more and harder crimes in the countries of the former USSR then in Western Europe. Do you now any country which had been atheists and had been "better" then a christian country? China? Any country of the Warzaw pact? North corea?

Sorry, in the books I read, crime and hate is even worse there then here. (I believe that this is not because they are atheists, there is more to this issue, but being atheists did not help them.)

It is a small minority who abuse religion for there bad goals. Or do you believe that most of the muslims do support al Quaida? And do you really belive that the christian church or more then 0,0001 % of their members support bombing synagogues?
But these minorities make it into the news.

I know, it is hard for you to accept, but it is entire possible to think and believe.
You always claim that this is an either or. But it is not. You can and should have both.

SO I hope that religion will be pushed back into the light where it belongs.

[Winstonm]

Does anyone else find it amazing that so far 5 voted for "evolution false"? This is 2009, is it not?

[mikeh]

Winstonm, on Jan 19 2009, 07:22 PM, said:

Does anyone else find it amazing that so far 5 voted for "evolution false"? This is 2009, is it not?

Maybe Jimmy voted 5 times?

[mikeh]

Roland

I suspect that you are a good person. I suspect that I would find your set of values to match mine, and where they don't, yours are probably more admirable than mine..... so long as we leave out the god bit

Neither atheists nor believers have any monopoly on unpleasant human characteristics. Nothing I write here is intended to suggest that being an atheist in some way makes that person a better person than any given believer.

As for your examples... the GDR, or the USSR.. please... the people who established those regimes were as guilty of fanatical belief as were those who carried out the Inquisition. They believed in Marxism, in one form or another. They believed in the malleability of the human psyche... establish the appropriate conditions and eventually the state would wither away, since mankind would have become of a single, communist mind and state coercion would be unnecessary. Such idealists were no match for a psychopath such as Stalin, and many of the more prominent true believers were killed by him, but the party still preached this deluded gospel even as the leaders imposed dictatorships.

Of course, it is easy, altho erroneous, to assert that a belief in atheism is a belief just as much as is a belief in god... in other words, to argue that we are intellectually equivalent.

It is erroneous because atheism is not a positive belief in revealed truths.. it is a state of mind, not of belief, that has been arrived at by rejecting the idea that something is so because some person or peoples in authority have said it is so.

It is a state of mind based on not accepting revealed wisdom (always revealed to someone else, mind you.. and usually by someone to whose advantage it is). It is based on critical thinking... on being prepared to change one's opinion when the evidence changed. As Richard wrote earlier... if someone comes up with a strong proof that evolution via natural selection was false, I would stop accepting that Darwin got it right.

I was recently at a funeral where the priest quoted Jesus and described his statements as 'profound'. They were not profound... a profound statement is something that makes you realize a truth.. it is the content of the statement, not the identity of the speaker, that makes something profound.

I don't recall the exact quote, but it was to the effect that the way to heaven lay through me... (ie Jesus)

Now, imagine you walking down the street and seeing a well-dressed woman on the street corner proclaiming that the way to eternal salvation was to unconditionally believe that she was the daughter of god... that the only hope for your salvation was to believe in her.

Well, if she persisted in this, she might well end up heavily medicated and restrained. More likely, she'd become an object of ridicule..

Yet place those words in the mouth of a cult leader, at a time of many cults, and let his cult attain critical mass, and somehow this egomanical babble becomes 'profound'. And I am sure that I have gravely offended a number of believers who can't see how funny it is that they accept these claims... indeed, that they even accept that these claims were ever made! After all, the only 'evidence' we have of what Jesus actually said comes from words written in an ancient language put down in hardcopy several hundred years after his death!

It's as if someone purported to write down, today, details of conversations Shakespeare had with his wife, or some of the actors in this plays... and we are to base our entire mode of living on the accuracy of this record! Heck, that's a bad analogy if only because at least Shakespeare spoke English!

But it is critical to the maintenance of the religious power apparatus that people be conditioned NOT to ask questions, such as: just how the heck did people, living 400 years after the death of Christ, reconstruct the tales of what happened? That was an era in which relatively few people even knew how to write.. and what materials were available did not normally last long or stay in circulation.

The only way to be a religious person is to accept that you are going to have faith.. and faith is the antithesis of thought. But I don't blame you for not seeing this... cognitive dissonance won't let you. Too bad.. i suspect you'd make a nice atheist

[Codo]

Mike,

I guess you are a strong believer, so you would make a nice theist too.

We all here agree that ethics or lack of ethics is not only with one side. There is good and bad everywhere.

And I made my examples of the USSR and the GDR to show that fanatical beliefs are not a part of religion, but a part of human nature. The fanaticals are everywhere. This is sad, but it is true.
You can influence the masses with promisses of eternity, or with promisses for bread, freedom and equality for everybody.
But the sad truth is, that manyleaders try to abuse great ideals for their own advantage. People tried to stop this in various ways, but it did not work. But again, this is no problem of religion, but of mankind.

Actually, I do believe that atheists are strong believers. I don't know how you define believers. My definition would be around: I have a strong opinion about something I do not know. And if this is the definition for a believer, then you and all atheists are as much believers as Luke, Gonzalo and me. After all, do you know that God does not exist? Obviously not, how could you?

You say, the difference is, that we believe in what somebody else said, who says so, because it is for his own interesst. I won't talk for others, but I read my part of Nitsche, Adorno and others and I had my experinences with different churches. So I claim for me to make a lot of own thinking and own experience in this area.

Of course I was influenced by the thoughts of others. But who is not? You claimed to have read a lot about this, so the thoughts of the writer surely had influenced you. Others have quite often made statements about Dawkins. They believe what he wrote. Did they check it? Did they made some experiments to proofe his thesises? I honestly doubt this.
So to call the atheism

Quote

  a state of mind, not of belief, that has been arrived at by rejecting the idea that something is so because some person or peoples in authority have said it is so.

can be true for you, but I really doubt that this is true for the bigger part of the atheists. Most of them simply do not believe.

You claim that religions like mine must be wrong, because the holy book has obviously many stupid remarks in it. I agree with you that you cannot take this book word for word. Whoever does so, has not read it properly- or was a victim to cognitive disonance. But I like the ideas behind this book, which are much stronger then some simple words.

You still claim that the difference is between thought and faith. Can't you see, that I thought a lot, but still have faith?

So the difference is between faith and knowledge. As long as there is no knowledge, there is faith. Faith in God or in his non-existence. Lets hope, that all of us are lucky in their own faith.

[jdonn]

Codo, on Jan 20 2009, 03:31 AM, said:

Actually, I do believe that atheists are strong believers. I don't know how you define believers. My definition would be around: I have a strong opinion about something I do not know. And if this is the definition for a believer, then you and all atheists are as much believers as Luke, Gonzalo and me. After all, do you know that God does not exist? Obviously not, how could you?

I once asked lukewarm how he knows a tiny invisible elephant isn't floating over all of our heads all the time, and his answer was pretty much "that's ridiculous". That's how I feel about god. I guess technically I don't know that he doesn't exist, but in the same sense that I don't know anything else for which there is no real evidence and that wouldn't even occur to me were it not mentioned by someone else doesn't exist. I find the notion so absurd that it's not even a question worth considering. I think I feel the same when someone asks me whether god exists as they would feel if I asked them whether the little invisible elephants exist.

This all brings me back so something Mike said earlier:

Quote

Of course, it is easy, altho erroneous, to assert that a belief in atheism is a belief just as much as is a belief in god... in other words, to argue that we are intellectually equivalent.

It is erroneous because atheism is not a positive belief in revealed truths.. it is a state of mind, not of belief, that has been arrived at by rejecting the idea that something is so because some person or peoples in authority have said it is so.

Even though I don't believe in god, I really dislike being called an atheist even if it's technically true by definition (for background, I was raised Jewish, had a bar mitzvah, and probably stopped believing in god around age 16). That is because I don't consider 'us' a group in the sense a religion is because 'our group' is defined by a negative. It would be like calling me a non-ballet dancer. I suppose it's true since I don't dance ballet, but I don't feel there is any real association between me and other such people.

I am just a person who believes that which the evidence convinces me. I have never seen any evidence of god at all, merely read and been told that he exists. To me he is more of a lame excuse used to answer questions which we would otherwise be unable to answer. I don't believe such unanswered questions are evidence of a god at all, but merely that such questions perhaps have no answer (why are we here?), perhaps we don't yet or may never know the answer (how large is the universe?), or perhaps our brains are incapable of comprehending any answer (when was the beginning of time?). I am happy to leave any question unanswered until the day comes along that it can be answered, but I feel no need to create an artificial paradox to answer it. And if it never can be answered, that is only evidence of our own limitations.

Quite honestly, I expect history to judge our god(s) quite foolishly, sort of in the sense that ancient Greek and Roman gods are looked at now. Those were creations to explain things they couldn't understand, such as the sea and feelings like love, and people who don't realize that that's exactly what all gods are are simply blinded by their own faith.

My final point, and probably my greatest difference with Mike on this topic, is I don't feel any particular disdain toward anyone for believing differently. People will generally believe what they were brought up to believe, that's just how the human brain works. If someone is brought up to believe in god, and it becomes such a long lasting and strongly ingrained belief that it can never go away, fine. I think nothing less of the person, despite how foolish their belief seems to me from an outside perspective.

[Gerben42]

I think that was a great answer by Josh, because it reflects very well how I feel about religion.

And I never knew he was a fellow non-ballet dancer

[mikeh]

Josh, I don't feel disdain for someone because they believe in a god, whether that be a christain god or otherwise. I do feel disdain for certain types of believer.. but those would be in the minority. Show me a televangelist, or a preacher of hate and I will disdain that person and those who follow him. But Roland, as only one example.. no... . The fact that I write strongly should not lead you to think that I disdain all those with whom I disagree. Jimmy Carter is a strong believer, and I respect him and how he lives his life, to give an example of a well-known Christian.

If all believers lived as he does...then theism would be a charming and often beneficial eccentricity (viewed from the perspective of a non-believer), much like being a bridge player (but with more upside). And, I suspect, from reading his posts, the same could be said of believers like Codo. But believers like Jimmy are anti-science... he does not accept evolution as valid... well, it does no harm for one person to hold those views, but when a large number do, then we get travesties such as banning the teaching of accurate science in schools or requiring the teaching of religion as science... which injures and threatens to intellectually cripple children at a time when the best hope of the world and of the individual children is for as many as possible to get an education that reflects the real world, rather than their parents' superstitions. If you reject evolution, there is (it seems) a good chance that you will reject man's influence on global warming, or (if you are catholic) the need to limit the growth of our species. In other words, some brands of believers are actually dangerous. Those I disdain.

[luke warm]

jdonn, on Jan 20 2009, 03:55 AM, said:

I once asked lukewarm how he knows a tiny invisible elephant isn't floating over all of our heads all the time, and his answer was pretty much "that's ridiculous"

that isn't quite correct, but you might have the gist of it... the problem is, i'm not qualified to even summarize plantina's work in epistemology, much less argue in his stead