Enemies of the Enlightenment

Interesting link Deep. Saw a term which I was not familiar with neo-Darwinian. What's that?

A darwinian in a long, black coat and sunglasses.

Tig,

I think it's meant to be a denigrating term used by idiots Creationists to demean sane people who understand science.

It's typical of the low simmer that passes for mentality in that crowd, since "neo" means "new", and for these 150 years, science has steadily built upon and improved the system Darwin discovered. It's not like Darwin was forgotten and rediscovered.

I would suggest you go to the Discovery Institute's website and ask them, but they'd rather lie when the truth is easier.

So, in truth, I don't know what "neo-Darwinist" means. Nor will I worry about it much, considering the source.

Regards,

DF

I think I wouldn't have a problem with schools teaching any and all religious Creationism as long as it is in Lit class.

As a substitute for the Sciences? Not in a million....

I loved the part where the Curmudgeon posited that every tyranny held that it was original and failed to see those same Millenia old ideas have failed time and time again.

One reckons we be a right curious and autonomous yet gregarious species of ape, we Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

We must note that the Culmination of the Continental Enlightenment, Kant, proclaimed the motto of the Enlightenment was "Aude sapere!" -- Dare to know!

Ah, yes,

Since the Enlightenment has played havoc with France and much of Europe for hundreds of years -- you believe it is time to drag America into your chosen primordial swamp of ideas.

Good luck! Somehow, I do believe God has different ideas. But, you just keep swimming in your swamp -- and who knows what might happen.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

DF, stop reading that blasphemous drivel and come on to Jesus!

WIP,

Jesus is dead, and ... never mind.

DF

"Allons enfants de la Patrie, le jour de gloire est arrive!"


Happy Bastille Day, Bill! Niko Sarkozy loves you, and Mme. Royal is praying for you, even though you are already blessed.

quote:

Originally posted by DeepFat:
I would be remiss if I did not pass this along.

Link

Those of you who come around here will recognize several of the points made in the link from this forum.

This quote form the article struck a chord with me: "The Discoveroids are literally challenging the scientific method itself. Their explicit goal is to introduce a supernatural worldview into science — which means nothing less than the death of science.

It sums up the entire mission of the Discovery Institute and the fundamentalist movement represented here by our own Bloviator.

Right you are, Cookey.

That is why we fight. It's important, to the point of survival.

Next time someone asks us why we care, we can point them here.


DF

Nurse Jill talks about "Enemas of Enlightenment", enjoy.

quote:

Originally posted by DeepFat:
Right you are, Cookey. That is why we fight. It's important, to the point of survival. Next time someone asks us why we care, we can point them here. DF

Hi Deep,

Then, in your mind, you have already lost -- for you believe that this very brief, very short life is all there is -- and then, oblivion. Where is the survival in that?

We Christian believers know we will live eternally; therefore, this brief life is only the staging area for a life of eternal bliss.

You atheists keep your heads in the sand, denying your eternal existence -- and one day you will wake up where you do not want to be -- eternally.

By the way, Skeptik, thank you for the compliment.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Originally posted by Bill Gray:

quote:

You atheists keep your heads in the sand, denying your eternal existence -- and one day you will wake up where you do not want to be -- eternally.

Once again, Bill, you are really being very hard on your God. He couldn't possibly be as cruel, vindictive and irrational as you portray him with this statement. I really doubt that your loving, all-merciful, forgiving God will be instrumental in my waking up where I do not want to be--for nothing more serious than questioning his existence.

I really don't believe he cares if I give a hoot about him or his son. He has never given a good reason to believe in him or accept his son as lord and savior. Apparently, believing in him is not important enough to explain why I should. It must just be an ego thing. If he gave me a good reason to believe, I just might believe. "He doesn't have to justify anything to you." Thanks. In that case I certainly will not be worshipping a cruel dictator in the mold of Hitler or Stalin.

Given that he is omnipotent, he can easily will for me to believe, if he really cares. Does he just enjoy seeing me suffer for all eternity? I guess that is similar to his barbaric slaughter of his only begotten son. He easily could have taken care of humankind’s sins without this savage act.

You are about to tell me that it is MY choice to go to a place I won't like. Once again, God must not be too serious about my fate. He will not even take the trouble himself to see that I enter Hell. And Bill, in spite of what you say, I will not choose to go; and I will fight extradition to Hell with all my power--which from all indications is greater than God's. Somebody with considerable strength will have to force me there. Will God send his flunkies after me. We continually see that they are no match for me. For example, we will have proof the minute you respond to this.

quote:

Originally posted by davidnmiles:
If he gave me a good reason to believe, I just might believe.

David,

I'm afraid you're going to have to force yourself to believe because even though God knows that evidence will make a believer out of both of us, He still witholds the evidence (or hides it in a 3 thousand year old book of myths and parables.

Stubborn old feller, ain't he?

So, believe or else, friend. Or else.

Stubborn old feller, ain't he?
or just a horse's derriere!

Not that there was any doubt, but our Resident Lunatic has shown his true colors. He congratulated Cookey for recognizing the goal of fundamentalist religion of eliminating science. And he did it on a computer. This is spooky.

The Enlightenment, and the Age of Reason, are responsible for a few minor things. Like democracy, science, human rights, and capitalism. I guess the fundies have problems with all those things.

And you wonder why I fight.

DF

I am continually admonished for writing letters to the editor exposing Christian intolerance, distortions of science and history, biblical absurdities and cruelties, etc.
By exercising my right to respond to letters that I find offensive (with good reason) I am declared a “hater of God and Christians.”

These people declare that since I don’t believe in religion’s tenets and deities, I have no business worrying about them.

If we who do critique religion and especially Christianity sat back and were silent, we would soon be living in the mindless Dark Ages controlled by superstition and theocratic dogma. Science and real education would be non-existent as they were in the past absolute Christian theocracy.

I have almost never initiated a condemnation of Christianity; but when I see statements such as the following, I respond.

"Atheists stay in bed all morning and stay up late at night reading a salacious bestseller."

"As for the secularists, they should simply be ignored."

"To allow atheists in public offices is a mighty dangerous thing."

"Without God we cannot know right from wrong, as God is the ultimate source of right and wrong. We would do anything that suits our fancy."

"Since they removed the Ten Commandments I guess criminal activity is OK."

"The Founding Fathers, relying on divine guidance, created this country as a Christian nation."

"I believe the entire Bill of Rights came into being because of the knowledge our forefathers had of the Bible and their belief in it."

"Our country was founded for the glory of God as stated in the Mayflower Compact signed in 1620."

"Many scientists dispute evolution."

"There is a wealth of scientific evidence to support creationism, as well as evidence discrediting the theory of evolution."

"I'll pray for you so that you will open your heart to God and accept Christ as your lord and savior."

"If life doesn't begin at conception, at what moment does it begin?"

"Maybe if the Bible was brought back into our schools, there would be no need for sex education, drug programs and paid police walking the halls of our schools."

I don't wonder. From this perspective, the whole fundamentalist thing looks a bit surreal. And we're both looking at heading back to the southeast someday, Deep?

Zip,

California has become unlivable, and I require a warm climate.

Not only that, but I have work to do there. There are souls to save, don't you know.


DF

Hopefully, I'll follow you shortly. I'll have my hands full keeping you out of trouble.

quote:

Originally posted by DeepFat:
He congratulated Cookey for recognizing the goal of fundamentalist religion of eliminating science. And he did it on a computer. This is spooky.

And blindingly ironical!

quote:

Originally posted by zippadeedoodah:
A darwinian in a long, black coat and sunglasses.

:snicker:

Finally.

ALERT! ALERT!

Do you think these guys are enemies of the Enlightenment?

http://atheistnexus.org/group/atheistmorality

DF

Hi Deep,

This is your Atheist First Team? They have been around how long -- and only have 197 members. What's wrong? Not enough atheists to put together a strong coalition?

By the way, is this a lesson in defining an oxymoron? I have seen "military intelligence" and "slow speed" -- but, now you are introducing "atheist morality." Good try.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

If you think that morality is not a function of humanity, and you get yours from that horrible, nasty book, then I pity you.

I really do.

You would be about 700 years behind the times if that is your belief.


DF

quote:

Originally posted by DeepFat:
If you think that morality is not a function of humanity, and you get yours from that horrible, nasty book, then I pity you. I really do. You would be about 700 years behind the times if that is your belief. DF

Hi all,

Just to be sure we are all on the same page -- that "horrible, nasty book" Deep refers to is none other than the Christian Bible.

Yep, Deep, you are on the fast track to being on the same level as our Atheist/Secularist Friend who calls God gross names. But, somehow, I cannot see that as a major goal for anyone in this life. But, hey, you get to pick your own team mates.

Good luck!

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

quote:

that "horrible, nasty book" Deep refers to is none other than the Christian Bible.

that "horrible, nasty book" Deep refers to is none other than the Christian Bible.

Deep is being too nice.

Morality is a function of the culture in which you live. David, Deep, Bill: You all have to realize that our culture is rooted, at least partially, in biblical example. Some of them are acceptable to everyone (don't murder people for fun); some not so much (it's okay to hate homosexuals). But morality is the sum total of the rules you need to abide by to live in this culture. Debate rather than bloodshed. Sticking your finger at someone who cuts you off in traffic can be dangerous. Respect other's privacy. Fight fairly in an environment such as this.

So, Bill, at least IMHO, saying the bible is the sole source of morality is altogether wrong. Our culture is made of many elements. Many, like my ancestors, lived and died without ever knowing that Jesus existed. Even so, our culture is pervasive with Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Judaism, Wiccan, Atheist, and probably even Mithraist elements. David, Deep, et. al.: You need to accept that religiosity is part and parcel with American culture. It's not an "official" part of our government, but as long as you have people who are religious in postions of power, you will always find a religious influence. Hopefully, the best type. Religion is in our national DNA.

I would daresay all of you would find a religious person in the woodpile of people who contributed to who you are today, even in a small fashion. Again, perhaps good and perhaps bad. And even Bill probably was influenced by an atheist in some fashion. Personally, I was influenced by Jesuits who taught me to ask hard questions of myself.

Quite right, zip. That's what I am saying.

Morality is a complicated mixture of common sense, empathy, and cultural expectations.

It is not, and must not be, taken as "revealed" and rigidly interpreted and enforced as times change. To do so retards all aspects of human progress.

DF

quote:

You need to accept that religiosity is part and parcel with American culture.

Zip, I acknowledge that religiosity is ingrained in American culture, but I do not approve of much of the religion that influences America, and I want it changed.

Religion is the one major influence upon the human condition that has not changed--and religion prides itself on its steadfast refusal to change. Christian conservatives scorn moral relativism. In their eyes, what was "God's word" in Moses' time is right today.

Religious dogma does not change from within. It changes only when forced by outside influences (maybe the influence of atheist letter writers). If science and a judicious legal system had not usurped ecclesiastical authority, we would still be on a circular domed plain at the center of the universe with heretics burning at the stake and slaves working the fields.

The intransigence of certain of America’s religions has served to perpetuate intolerance--intolerance of gender, sexual preference, other religions’ beliefs, ideas and practices and before civil rights, race.

If religion would only make a concerted effort to improve itself, we might eliminate the ignorance, superstition, bigotry and violence that adversely affects American life. Instead, religious Americans (primarily evangelicals) spin tales, point fingers of condemnation, pass the plate and rarely do anything to improve the quality of life.

I believe that religion, like just about everything else, is evolving. I agree with you that if it does not evolve, it will eventually become outmoded. As society changes, so must religion. That's shown simply: The church stopped burning witches a few hundred years ago. No more "white only" churches. I'm certain there are others...

In particular, how religion applies to your life will be redefined. It's a fact that our society and culture have changed. How religion relates to this fundamental change will define how it will either thrive or perish. There is room in society's drivers' seat for two drivers...science and rationality; and religion and philosophy. If they cooperate the ride will be smoother.

Signs of change from WITHIN:

In Denmark, the Rev. Thorkild Grosboel, a Lutheran minister, declared from his pulpit, "There is no heavenly God, there is no eternal life, there is no resurrection." Of course, it is a rare instance for a clergyman to place the onus for world order squarely on human shoulders-- with reason rather than the promise of a heavenly reward guiding behavior. Will he keep his job? Considering that only five percent of Denmark's law abiding and ethical population regularly attend church, an existentialistic rather than dogmatic message from the pulpit may be a necessity, or the Danish pulpit will cease to exist in progressive Denmark.

Even in this country where conservatism has become a dominate religious influence, there may be a glimmer of change on the ecclesiastical horizon. The retired Episcopal Bishop of Newark in New Jersey, John Shelby Spong authored a book in 1998, "Why Christianity Must Change or Die," calling for a creed based on critical thought.

Spong opposes using heaven and hell as control mechanism and advocates that churches stop using guilt to influence behavior. He maintains that biologically, Christ’s divinity is impossible. He calls the notion that Christ was sacrificed on a cross for our sins “barbaric.” Unlike his conservative counterparts, he is a strong proponent of feminism and gay rights.

quote:

Originally posted by zippadeedoodah:
Personally, I was influenced by Jesuits ...

That explains so much!

We do tend to be much more intellectually honest than some of our ecclesiastical brethren. Or maybe we just have sticks up our asses. Who knows? I'd check, as self-examination is crucial...

Hi Zip,

You tell us, "Morality is a function of the culture in which you live. David, Deep, Bill: You all have to realize that our culture is rooted, at least partially, in biblical example. Some of them are acceptable to everyone (don't murder people for fun); some not so much (it's okay to hate homosexuals)."

I do not believe you will find anywhere in the Bible that we should "hate homosexuals." Yes, the Bible does say that God hates the homosexual lifestyle -- but, it tells us that He loves the homosexual; just as He loves all of His creation -- and that we, too, should love all people. Love the people; not the lifestyle.

Then, you say, "So, Bill, at least IMHO, saying the bible is the sole source of morality is altogether wrong. Our culture is made of many elements. Many, like my ancestors, lived and died without ever knowing that Jesus existed. Even so, our culture is pervasive with Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Judaism, Wiccan, Atheist, and probably even Mithraist elements."

Does anyone else notice the very obvious omission of Protestant Christianity from Zip's list? Zip, my Friend, aren't you being just a wee bit biased? I would say that Christianity, all denominations, per se, has been the greatest contributor toward the morality of our American society.

This is exemplified by the fact that our founding fathers chose to fund the purchase of 20,000 Bible from Europe for distribution throughout the thirteen colonies -- for all the people, even those with little or no Christian faith. Why? Because of the Christian morality defined and taught in this book. They knew that the American people and the American society would be much better if they followed the teachings and morality of this book, the Bible.

And, I give Judaism credit also for our morality. However, I will have to withhold praise for morality taught by the world religions you list.

Regarding people who live and die without knowing of Jesus; God has made provision for them. If you will read Romans 2:14-16, you will find that we are told, ". . .the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness, and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them."

In the book "Eternity In Their Hearts," the author, Don Richardson, writes of tribes and peoples on islands and in countries, in many geographical locations, with one belief in common: that a light-skinned stranger would appear among them, with "the book" that tells the secrets of the supreme being.

In Burma, He was called by the tribal people who had never heard of God nor Jesus, Y'Wa. This has a familiar sound to it, doesn't it? In other geographical locations, in other countries, He had a different name -- but, always it was the white brother who was going to come, bringing the book. Yes, God does indeed write into people's hearts His message. And, our lives, our morality, our society -- depends upon how we respond to what He has written -- both in our hearts and in His Book.

Next, you tell us, "David, Deep, et. al.: You need to accept that religiosity is part and parcel with American culture. It's not an "official" part of our government, but as long as you have people who are religious in positions of power, you will always find a religious influence. Hopefully, the best type. Religion is in our national DNA."

By golly, Zip, you and I are on the same page! All I can add to this comment is: Amen! Amen! Amen!

Finally, you tell us, "I would daresay all of you would find a religious person in the woodpile of people who contributed to who you are today, even in a small fashion. Again, perhaps good and perhaps bad. And even Bill probably was influenced by an atheist in some fashion. Personally, I was influenced by Jesuits who taught me to ask hard questions of myself."

I will agree with you that we are all influenced greatly, especially when we are young, by the folks around us. And, this is why Christian believers want to see our children taught Christian ethics and morality; not secular, evolutionist rhetoric and false religions.

Although most of my life I have known of atheists -- all flavors, including secularists, humanists, etc.; I cannot recall ever meeting one personally, in person or in writing, until I joined the TimesDaily Forum.

I have spent a large part of my life around non-believers. But, these folks were, for the most part, just like me -- running from a God I knew existed, but did not want to acknowledge, because I did not want Him to be in charge of my life. I wanted Bill Gray to be in charge of my life -- and for fifty years that was the case. And, I can show you the failures and scars of that "Bill In Charge" period of my life -- reflected in me and in people associated with me.

Yes, I lived among and ran with many other lost souls until I was fifty; but, none that I knew to be actually atheists. Even though my friends were pagans and sinners like me; they, like me, were smart enough to know that God is real. We just did not want Him to be in charge. And, Zip, I truly believe that a great number of declared atheists believe the same -- but, just will not admit it. It is much easier to deny God when you can stick your head in the sand and not see Him. Maybe we should rename the atheist religion and call it the "ostrich religion." Just a thought.

Zip, you have made some good points -- and, I believe we should all give them more consideration.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

quote:

Does anyone else notice the very obvious omission of Protestant Christianity from Zip's list? Zip, my Friend, aren't you being just a wee bit biased? I would say that Christianity, all denominations, per se, has been the greatest contributor toward the morality of our American society.

Not an intentional omission. My intent was to list the non-protestant influences that supplemented protestant christianity. At least, while I was framing my thought it was.

No, the bible does not say "hate homosexuals". I'll beg that off as a verbal shortcut. It's more of a "homosexuality is an abomination before God" and "bring [homosexuals] and stone them" sort of thing.

quote:

Originally posted by zippadeedoodah:
No, the bible does not say "hate homosexuals". I'll beg that off as a verbal shortcut. It's more of a "homosexuality is an abomination before God" and "bring [homosexuals] and stone them" sort of thing.

Hi Zip,

So, what is your suggestion? Should we trash the Bible? Should we pull a "Jefferson" and take scissors and cut out all the Scripture verses where we disagree with God?

Which books, which parts of the Bible do you believe we should trash?

And, doing this, what should we call it -- Today's Modern World Bible?

Even though it might appear this way; Zip, I am not being facetious. I sincerely want to know what you would do to make the Bible more acceptable to YOU.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

I come with a different paradigm than you, Bill, as I don't accept the bible completely as the inspired, inerrant word of God. I think it's a pretty good guidebook if you look at it to understand the example Jesus was trying to set, in the context of the time in which He lived. Lepers had to wander about shouting "unclean". Harlotry, homosexuality, adultery, and a host of other things were punished by stoning the offending party to death. In fact, if you are truly honest, Jesus didn't even preach to those who were not ethnic Jews...members of the tribes of Israel. He didn't want to preach to gentiles. So, if you take that to its logical conclusion, not a single utterance Jesus made in the bible was meant for you. Me either, for that matter.

Jesus' example...healing the blind, lame, and leprous; feeding the hungry; driving the moneylenders from the temple; even sticking that guy's ear back on after Peter whacked it off in the Garden...demonstrate an unselfish, sacrificial, and unconditional love for those around Him. Maybe this is best exemplified by an honest answer to the question, "What would Jesus do?" but ask it in the context of our time, not the context of a long-dead society. Maybe it is to treat the people around us without judgment or condemnation, and try to exemplify that love. There are a couple different ways to interpret that "no one goes to the Father unless it is through me" sentiment.

Hi Zip,

To avoid walking in the clutter and to open our dialogue to folks who might not venture back here -- I have jumped ship and begun a new discussion to give you an answer. You will find it in "Can A Liberal Theology Interpretation Of The Bible Be Valid?"

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

That figures.

quote:

That figures.

God. Really.

It's called a "thread" for a reason. A topic is loosely bound by a thread that is sometimes quite thin but related to the original topic nonethless.

It's not necessary to start a new topic every time you have a brain fart.

We cannot believe in a god who makes knowledge an obstacle to belief.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3M21xFVwL8c


DF

quote:

Originally posted by Dawkins7:

quote:

That figures.

Really.

It's called a "thread" for a reason. A topic is loosely bound by a thread that is sometimes quite thin but related to the original topic nonethless.

It's not necessary to start a new topic every time you have a brain fart.

SPOKEN WITH THE ELEGANCE AND INTELLIGENCE OF A TRUE ATHEIST!

quote:

Originally posted by DeepFat:
We cannot believe in a god who makes knowledge an obstacle to belief.DF

Hi Deep,

Have you ever learned anything that was not posted on YouTube?

How did you make it through college BEFORE YouTube existed? Oh, I forgot -- you went to Auburn. No explanations required!

Y'all come back now, ya heah?

Bill

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Gray:

quote:

Originally posted by DeepFat:
We cannot believe in a god who makes knowledge an obstacle to belief.DF

Hi Deep,

Have you ever learned anything that was not posted on YouTube?

How did you make it through college BEFORE YouTube existed? Oh, I forgot -- you went to Auburn. No explanations required!

Y'all come back now, ya heah?

Bill

Bill, I thought you'd like this....

"The success of any MBA Program is defined by the contributions of its students to the professional workforce. Auburn University strives to build successful relationships with the business community to further enhance the benefits to all organizations involved. Since 1961, the MBA Program at Auburn has been producing results. Ranked No. 1 in the Southeast along with Duke University and the University of Virginia for the most CEOs in Fortune 500 companies, Auburn is a leader among established institutions in supplying the workforce with qualified, hardworking graduates."

Now where was it you went to school?

8,

It's true, I went to Auburn. I displayed a profound lack of drive and interest, and washed out.

Quite a few years later, I graduated Valedictorian from a fine little college out here in California. I must admit I'm quite proud of that.

Even if it took me way too long. As they say, to each at his own pace.

I am confident that I have normal human intelligence. That is why Bill cannot insult me. One must give permission to be insulted. I do so rarely, and to smarter people than he.

DF

Does anyone know from what college the Bloviator graduated?

Anyone?

Maybe...

http://www.cluonline.com/docto...ty_degree_online.htm

Who knows? Bill's not talking.

quote:

Originally posted by Dawkins7:
Does anyone know from what college the Bloviator graduated?

For what audience was the bible written? the Koran?

To what audience does it appeal now?


DF

To what beneficial end is the belief in non-reason in human affairs?

DF

There is always value, in human society, of the belief in being a part of something bigger than you are.

There are many things bigger than I.

They are not outside the realm of reason, however.

The IRS is bigger than all of us. Is it valuable to appreciate this? Or simply irritating?

No one who has seen the photographs from the Hubble telescope can admit to being the Crown of Creation. It would be laughably insane, on the face of it.

The trick is not to find what is bigger than us, that is facile. The real magic is finding something smaller than us.

Bacteria are better adapted to their environments than we are.

Frogs. OK, we're about as well adapted to Earth as they are. OK, not really, but sort of.


Bigger things than I? OMB, almost everything is bigger than I. If you really see them. When you know that we children of the universe are transients in it, dependent on its gifts, you begin to understand.

DF

We're social creatures. We crave the companionship of our own kind. Like thinkers tend to congregate. Some in churches. I was in the military. I was part of something that will transcend me...something that will ensure that part of "me" will continue long after my ashes are flushed down the toilet in a cleaning frenzy.

quote:

Originally posted by DeepFat:
There are many things bigger than I.

They are not outside the realm of reason, however.

The IRS is bigger than all of us.

I must put forth the idea that the IRS IS bigger than I, and IS exceedingly far outside the realm of reason.

No one lives forever, even in the thoughts of our progeny.

How many know the glories of the ancient King of Assyria now, he who was most glorious of his time?


DF

quote:

Originally posted by DeepFat:
No one lives forever, even in the thoughts of our progeny.

How many know the glories of the ancient King of Assyria now, he who was most glorious of his time?


DF

Are you referring to King Mausolus?

The thing I just can't get around is this idea that one must be an atheist, or at least that most despicable of positions, an agnostic, to be "enlightened".

Another thing, if you under the impression that a college degree automatically means anything other than some one spent a lot of time and money, then you might just want to reconsider that demostrably false notion.

quote:

The thing I just can't get around is this idea that one must be an atheist, or at least that most despicable of positions, an agnostic, to be "enlightened".

Mark, there's light, and there's light. One accept a given light, or one can build a lamp. One can come to the realization that L. Ron Hubbard had it right all along, or one can investigate for one's self.

No one here says that one must be an atheist to be enlightened after any fashion. We all know perfectly intelligent theists and stupid atheists.

I will repeat this, though. To be a sincere Creationist, one must be staggeringly ignorant or crazy. To be a typical Creationist, one must be a liar.

I certainly agree with you about the college degree. I got mine for personal reasons. Lost time, missed potential, stuff like that. Mostly a matter of unfinished business.

There are perfectly happy and successful people out there without college degrees. Most people don't have one. I must admit I did learn useful things at college. Ordered, critical thinking was one. An organized and clear method of collating and recording that thinking was another.

Still, we agree.

DF

quote:

Originally posted by DeepFat:

quote:

The thing I just can't get around is this idea that one must be an atheist, or at least that most despicable of positions, an agnostic, to be "enlightened".

Mark, there's light, and there's light. One accept a given light, or one can build a lamp. One can come to the realization that L. Ron Hubbard had it right all along, or one can investigate for one's self.

No one here says that one must be an atheist to be enlightened after any fashion. We all know perfectly intelligent theists and stupid atheists.

I will repeat this, though. To be a sincere Creationist, one must be staggeringly ignorant or crazy. To be a typical Creationist, one must be a liar.

I certainly agree with you about the college degree. I got mine for personal reasons. Lost time, missed potential, stuff like that. Mostly a matter of unfinished business.

There are perfectly happy and successful people out there without college degrees. Most people don't have one. I must admit I did learn useful things at college. Ordered, critical thinking was one. An organized and clear method of collating and recording that thinking was another.

Still, we agree.

DF

The thing is, I really don't care about creation so much. Yet, when I hear the other evidence for the "big bang" THEORY, it kind of makes me chuckle, and I work at NASA.

The following is a recap and condensation of conversations I have had over the years with "big bangers"...

Banger:"You see there was this one tiny infinitesimal piece of super, super compressed proto-matter smaller than a pinpoint before there was anything else, and then it exploded and became the universe".

Me:"So there was nothing, I mean nothing other than the tiny proto-matter the instant before the 'big bang'? And then the matter.."

Banger:"Proto-matter"

Me:"Okay, okay, the proto-matter exploded without action from any outside force after having been stable up until the point of the 'big bang'? Is that right?"

Banger:"Yes."

Me:"So... the proto-matter... spontaneously exploded and became our expanding universe...just because?"

Banger:"Yes, essentially."

Me:"Interesting belief you have there, hope it works out for you."

Banger:"Belief? It's a fact!"

Me:" Ummm sure... we're done here. You might want to consider that what you call a fact is widely referred to as the "big bang THEORY", but good luck with that."(I am walking away at this point.)

Banger: (faintly in the increasing distance)"I don't need luck!"

I just smiled and kept walking...

quote:

Me:"Interesting belief you have there, hope it works out for you."

Banger:"Belief? It's a fact!"

Mike, this was an argument between TWO ignorant people. Not "ignorant" in a bad way but simply not cognizant of the current thinking.

There are many conflicting hypotheses supported by quite a few facts but the bottom line is that WE DON'T KNOW how it all began. All we know is that it did begin. We know this because every object in the sky has been observed to be moving away from each other at incredible speeds. Reverse the process and you can only come to one conclusion: That there was a Beginning.

There have been many other major discoveries that prove quite conclusively that the Big Bang did, in fact, happen. We just don't know HOW it may have happened. Yet.

There are some leading scientists that think we are on the verge of actually answering this question. Check out a recent fervor of activity on the subject here: http://www.space.com/scienceas...before-big-bang.html

Bu I tell ya what, you may want to read up on the basics if the BB theory first. Here is a decent site that explains it fairly well: http://www.big-bang-theory.com/ It will take you all of three minutes to scan the page so you won't appear so ignorant next time you are forced to discuss it.

Not trying to convince you either way but at a NASA employee should not be as un-knowledgeable as you seem to be on such a fundamental (and easily understood) concept.

That just gotta be a sin.

Let there be light - the real way.

Scientists have observed certain facts about the current universe including size, density, temperature and rate of expansion. From this data, they can determine where the universe is headed in terms of future size, density, temperature, etc. They can run the film in reverse so to speak. This gives them a picture of the universe at the very beginning of the film (universe) when everything was incredibly small, dense and hot--a singularity in Stephen Hawking's terms. What does not appear at the beginning of this film depicting the origin of the universe is a god dressed in a white robe waving a magic wand demanding, “Let there be light.”

The Big Bang theory is widely accepted because it matches empirical evidence--cosmic background radiation, nucleosynthesis and the expansion of the universe.

A modification of the big bang theory known as "inflationary cosmology," which theorizes there was an enormous burst of spatial expansion in the early universe, begins to unravel the mystery of the origin of the mass/energy making up the universe. This enormous expansionary process began with little energy but created its own energy as expansion took place. The energy then became mass. Scientists have calculated that a nugget weighing a mere 20 pounds would acquire enough energy through expansion to explain the mass/energy of the entire universe that we know today.

Where did the original 20 pounds come from? Did it always exist? Did the creator of God create it? Nobody yet knows. However, the answer will be based on demonstrable evidence and not on a faith-based myth.

Did God created the original matter that went “bang." Then who made God? If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If a cause is not always required, then the original substance that went "bang" may not have been caused. In fact, there is no reason that this original mass-energy could not have always existed.

Narrow mindedness leads to the rejection of science when it contradicts personal beliefs. Modern physics often conflicts with our everyday experiences, common sense and religious beliefs. However, scientists support the hypothesis they offer to explain natural phenomena with evidence and mathematics. These scientific explanations are continually being questioned, tested and reformulated--bringing an ever-increasing certainty of their factuality. Only in the Bible is it written that God created the universe.

quote:

You might want to consider that what you call a fact is widely referred to as the "big bang THEORY"

That's it? That was the withering logic you felt was sufficient to put a swagger into your walk?

DF

quote:

Originally posted by DeepFat:

quote:

You might want to consider that what you call a fact is widely referred to as the "big bang THEORY"

That's it? That was the withering logic you felt was sufficient to put a swagger into your walk?

DF

No, I am just constantly amazed, and amused, by the other side. You guys seem bound and determined to convert everyone to your dogma. Why? Especially when so many atheists have as little depth of knowledge pertaining to science as most poeple who believe in G-D. Don't believe me, that's your choice, but it has been my experience, my empirical evidence if you will.

Why is it so important that you come to the "religion forum" and bash believers? Does it make you feel superior to the ones you consider to be "stupid, ignorant believers"? Why not see about getting a "philosophy forum" and bash to your heart's content there?

Belief in G-D is not equatable with ignorance, or stupidity.

Originally posted by marksw59:

quote:

Belief in G-D is not equatable with ignorance, or stupidity.

With what does it equate? Knowing right from wrong? Being more moral? Being more patriotic?
Being a more qualified voter? Being a better member of the school board? Knowing that atheists and homosexuals are an abomination? Having a high regard for science and education?

Clue me in on the other side of the equation.

quote:

Originally posted by Dawkins7:

quote:

Me:"Interesting belief you have there, hope it works out for you."

Banger:"Belief? It's a fact!"

Mike, this was an argument between TWO ignorant people. Not "ignorant" in a bad way but simply not cognizant of the current thinking.

There are many conflicting hypotheses supported by quite a few facts but the bottom line is that WE DON'T KNOW how it all began. All we know is that it did begin. We know this because every object in the sky has been observed to be moving away from each other at incredible speeds. Reverse the process and you can only come to one conclusion: That there was a Beginning.

There have been many other major discoveries that prove quite conclusively that the Big Bang did, in fact, happen. We just don't know HOW it may have happened. Yet.

There are some leading scientists that think we are on the verge of actually answering this question. Check out a recent fervor of activity on the subject here: http://www.space.com/scienceas...before-big-bang.html

Bu I tell ya what, you may want to read up on the basics if the BB theory first. Here is a decent site that explains it fairly well: http://www.big-bang-theory.com/ It will take you all of three minutes to scan the page so you won't appear so ignorant next time you are forced to discuss it.

Not trying to convince you either way but at a NASA employee should not be as un-knowledgeable as you seem to be on such a fundamental (and easily understood) concept.

That just gotta be a sin.

First the name is Mark. Second, the conversation was between me and a coworker whose own grasp of the subject was shall we say, dogmatic, and I was being snarky with him. I understand the theory quite well thank you very much, and I am definitely not in need of your "help". I do find that complete acceptance of the BB theory takes a leap of faith, because if you don't know and what you have to guide you is prior evidence, then you are proceeding on what seculars refer to as "informed conjecture". Yet it is treated as fact.


I'll just take my obviously inferior level of knowledge (implied by you) and keep my ignorance (again implied by you) to my self and you can self delude in to thinking you converted me. Happy now?

Everybody's happy...

quote:

Originally posted by davidnmiles:
Originally posted by marksw59:

quote:

Belief in G-D is not equatable with ignorance, or stupidity.

With what does it equate? Knowing right from wrong? Being more moral? Being more patriotic?
Being a more qualified voter? Being a better member of the school board? Knowing that atheists and homosexuals are an abomination? Having a high regard for science and education?

Clue me in on the other side of the equation.

Look, why don't you just come on out and insult me? Your implication is that belief in G-D DOES equate with stupidity and ignorance and I have not insulted you, yet you feel compelled to insult me at the very least by implication. I tell you what, just put me on ignore and you won't feel the need to insult me any more, I get enough of that crap in the politics forum.

Here's the other side of the equation, you are an (deleted expletive).

quote:

Originally posted by davidnmiles:
Let there be light - the real way.

Scientists have observed certain facts about the current universe including size, density, temperature and rate of expansion. From this data, they can determine where the universe is headed in terms of future size, density, temperature, etc. They can run the film in reverse so to speak. This gives them a picture of the universe at the very beginning of the film (universe) when everything was incredibly small, dense and hot--a singularity in Stephen Hawking's terms. What does not appear at the beginning of this film depicting the origin of the universe is a god dressed in a white robe waving a magic wand demanding, “Let there be light.”

The Big Bang theory is widely accepted because it matches empirical evidence--cosmic background radiation, nucleosynthesis and the expansion of the universe.

A modification of the big bang theory known as "inflationary cosmology," which theorizes there was an enormous burst of spatial expansion in the early universe, begins to unravel the mystery of the origin of the mass/energy making up the universe. This enormous expansionary process began with little energy but created its own energy as expansion took place. The energy then became mass. Scientists have calculated that a nugget weighing a mere 20 pounds would acquire enough energy through expansion to explain the mass/energy of the entire universe that we know today.

Where did the original 20 pounds come from? Did it always exist? Did the creator of God create it? Nobody yet knows. However, the answer will be based on demonstrable evidence and not on a faith-based myth.

Did God created the original matter that went “bang." Then who made God? If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If a cause is not always required, then the original substance that went "bang" may not have been caused. In fact, there is no reason that this original mass-energy could not have always existed.

Narrow mindedness leads to the rejection of science when it contradicts personal beliefs. Modern physics often conflicts with our everyday experiences, common sense and religious beliefs. However, scientists support the hypothesis they offer to explain natural phenomena with evidence and mathematics. These scientific explanations are continually being questioned, tested and reformulated--bringing an ever-increasing certainty of their factuality. Only in the Bible is it written that God created the universe.

20lbs? Yeah... THAT takes no faith what so ever...

quote:

20lbs? Yeah... THAT takes no faith what so ever...

It has nothing to do with faith. It takes a hypothesis and then a search for the empirical evidencde to prove or disprove the hypothesis.
Why don't you just come right out and say that anyone who doesn't accept your religious beliefs is abiding by a false belief system. If you are allergic to facts, I suggest that you put me on ignore.

quote:

Originally posted by davidnmiles:

quote:

20lbs? Yeah... THAT takes no faith what so ever...

It has nothing to do with faith. It takes a hypothesis and then a search for the empirical evidencde to prove or disprove the hypothesis.
Why don't you just come right out and say that anyone who doesn't accept your religious beliefs is abiding by a false belief system. If you are allergic to facts, I suggest that you put me on ignore.

you made me chuckle. thanks.

quote:

Originally posted by marksw59:

quote:

Originally posted by DeepFat:

quote:

You might want to consider that what you call a fact is widely referred to as the "big bang THEORY"

That's it? That was the withering logic you felt was sufficient to put a swagger into your walk?

DF

No, I am just constantly amazed, and amused, by the other side. You guys seem bound and determined to convert everyone to your dogma. Why? Especially when so many atheists have as little depth of knowledge pertaining to science as most poeple who believe in G-D. Don't believe me, that's your choice, but it has been my experience, my empirical evidence if you will.

Why is it so important that you come to the "religion forum" and bash believers? Does it make you feel superior to the ones you consider to be "stupid, ignorant believers"? Why not see about getting a "philosophy forum" and bash to your heart's content there?

Belief in G-D is not equatable with ignorance, or stupidity.

Mark, you're a walking non sequitur. I already told you belief does not make you stupid.

Why did you think that mentioning that evolution is a "theory" was somehow significant? Do you know what a scientific theory is?


DF

We've been through this "theory" thing before. Just because they call it "The Theory of Evolution" does not make it a "theory". Evolution, creationism, panspermia, intelligent design, and all the others are "theoretical frameworks". A theoretical framework is a context you use to evaluate empirical evidence...how you string the evidence together. If you take the evidence at its face value, the fossil record, for example, tends to make sense when contextualized using the evolutionary framework. There are inconsistencies, sure, but they abound regardless of the theoretical framework applied. That's what makes this science so exciting.

If it's your belief that the world was created in six twenty-four hour segments, well, that's your belief and be happy with it. Just don't expect a scientist to agree that it's a viable course of action. That has to fall within the realm of the supernatural, and you are simply going to find no empirical evidence whatsoever to support it. It's only supported by the "the bible says it, so that's all the evidence I need" philosophy.

quote:

Originally posted by marksw59:


Why is it so important that you come to the "religion forum" and bash believers? Does it make you feel superior to the ones you consider to be "stupid, ignorant believers"? Why not see about getting a "philosophy forum" and bash to your heart's content there?

Who is this G-D, anyway?

You are obviously new here, or you would understand why the religious discussions are conducted in the religious forum.

My dear Zip,

Panspermia and ID hardly fall into the scientific "theory" category simply because there is no evidence for them.

They might be hypotheses, worthy of further study, but they do not merit the status of "theory" which is a systematic explanation of a natural phenomenon supported by data and demonstrable experimentation.

There is no experimentation possible with ID because it is not science. There is no hypothetical framework in which to perform experiments that would support or discourage ID.

In other words, it's bunk.

Calling you now.


DF

Mark,

Dig this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...T8&feature=rec-HM-r2

Now, if you have any reason to tell me you are the Crown of Creation, I'm all ears.


DF

I wanted to simply avoid the inevitable, "well what about..." responses. Those things are simply science fiction.

quote:

Originally posted by marksw59:
First the name is Mark. Second, the conversation was between me and a coworker whose own grasp of the subject was shall we say, dogmatic, and I was being snarky with him. I understand the theory quite well thank you very much,

NO you don't. When you state, "Me:"So there was nothing, I mean nothing other than the tiny proto-matter the instant before the 'big bang'? And then the matter.." that illustrates a very ignorant graps of the theory. I know of no hypothesis that suggest there was anything resembling "matter" or "proto-matter" before the BB.

quote:

and I am definitely not in need of your "help". I do find that complete acceptance of the BB theory takes a leap of faith, because if you don't know and what you have to guide you is prior evidence, then you are proceeding on what seculars refer to as "informed conjecture". Yet it is treated as fact.

The Big Bang IS fact, Mike. The fact that it happened is simply not debatable. The evidence for it is far too overwhelming. But, hey, if you wanna look like a doofus at your next c0cktail party, OK by me. But please tell me you work in the mail room at NASA and not in any areas where science is involved? Please?

But look at the other side of this story: By your rejection of one of the most widely accepted theories in science, you are instead asserting that you find it much more plausible that a Great Invisible Man poofed everything into existence yet offer not one shred of evidence other than the mad ramblings of sheep herders and ancient philosophers.

From a NASA employee!

quote:

I'll just take my obviously inferior level of knowledge (implied by you) and keep my ignorance (again implied by you) to my self and you can self delude in to thinking you converted me. Happy now?

I didn't mean to imply. I thought I was "stating outright."

No, I'll never be happy knowing that there are people at the pinnacle of scientific achievement who will deny reality and supplant it with a comfortable lie. But I will grin and bear it.

quote:

Originally posted by CrustyMac:
Who is this G-D, anyway?

I've always wondered why some folks will not write "God" but instead leave out a letter. Perhaps if they write the full name of GOD they are afraid they will receive His wrath?

I've always found that interesting.

Seriously, Mike, why you do that?

With it's roots in orthodox Judaism, writing of the name of God makes something sacred. Israel printed up several thousand postage stamps (as was related to me) with the Hebrew "Y-H-W-H" printed on it (Jehovah). Orthodoxy got ready to burn down the nation for the blasphemy. As the stamps now bore the name of God, they couldn't be used for a lesser purpose (like mailing letters) and they couldn't be destroyed. It was necessary to sanctify a storage facility where they will remain for all time. This is typically extended to the honorific "G-D" rather than writing "God"; simply to not profane His name.

On theories: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...ture=player_embedded

DF

THO-AS JEFF-ERSON

quote:

This is typically extended to the honorific "G-D" rather than writing "God"; simply to not profane His name.

Interesting, Zip. Thanks.

quote:

Originally posted by Dawkins7:

quote:

Originally posted by marksw59:
First the name is Mark. Second, the conversation was between me and a coworker whose own grasp of the subject was shall we say, dogmatic, and I was being snarky with him. I understand the theory quite well thank you very much,

NO you don't. When you state, "Me:"So there was nothing, I mean nothing other than the tiny proto-matter the instant before the 'big bang'? And then the matter.." that illustrates a very ignorant graps of the theory. I know of no hypothesis that suggest there was anything resembling "matter" or "proto-matter" before the BB.

quote:

and I am definitely not in need of your "help". I do find that complete acceptance of the BB theory takes a leap of faith, because if you don't know and what you have to guide you is prior evidence, then you are proceeding on what seculars refer to as "informed conjecture". Yet it is treated as fact.

The Big Bang IS fact, Mike. The fact that it happened is simply not debatable. The evidence for it is far too overwhelming. But, hey, if you wanna look like a doofus at your next c0cktail party, OK by me. But please tell me you work in the mail room at NASA and not in any areas where science is involved? Please?

But look at the other side of this story: By your rejection of one of the most widely accepted theories in science, you are instead asserting that you find it much more plausible that a Great Invisible Man poofed everything into existence yet offer not one shred of evidence other than the mad ramblings of sheep herders and ancient philosophers.

AGAIN, the name is Mark. I do not recall that I stated ANYWHERE that I refuted the "most widely accepted theories in science". Not once. That is a complete assumption on your part. There is no mailroom where I work , and no I'm not a janitor. I am someone that has worked very hard to get where I am.

quote:

Originally posted by Dawkins7:

quote:

Originally posted by marksw59: I'll just take my obviously inferior level of knowledge (implied by you) and keep my ignorance (again implied by you) to my self and you can self delude in to thinking you converted me. Happy now?

I didn't mean to imply. I thought I was "stating outright."

No, I'll never be happy knowing that there are people at the pinnacle of scientific achievement who will deny reality and supplant it with a comfortable lie. But I will grin and bear it.

Well thanks for being "up front" with your serious disdain. The thing is you have only made assumptions, incorrect ones, but that's okay, we're done.

quote:

Originally posted by Dawkins7:

quote:

Originally posted by CrustyMac:
Who is this G-D, anyway?

I've always wondered why some folks will not write "God" but instead leave out a letter. Perhaps if they write the full name of GOD they are afraid they will receive His wrath?

I've always found that interesting.

Seriously, Mike, why you do that?

For the absolute last time, the name is Mark. As for why, you mean you don't know? Knock me over with a feather...

quote:

Originally posted by DeepFat:

quote:

Originally posted by marksw59:

quote:

Originally posted by DeepFat:

quote:

You might want to consider that what you call a fact is widely referred to as the "big bang THEORY"

That's it? That was the withering logic you felt was sufficient to put a swagger into your walk?

DF

No, I am just constantly amazed, and amused, by the other side. You guys seem bound and determined to convert everyone to your dogma. Why? Especially when so many atheists have as little depth of knowledge pertaining to science as most poeple who believe in G-D. Don't believe me, that's your choice, but it has been my experience, my empirical evidence if you will.

Why is it so important that you come to the "religion forum" and bash believers? Does it make you feel superior to the ones you consider to be "stupid, ignorant believers"? Why not see about getting a "philosophy forum" and bash to your heart's content there?

Belief in G-D is not equatable with ignorance, or stupidity.

Mark, you're a walking non sequitur. I already told you belief does not make you stupid.

Why did you think that mentioning that evolution is a "theory" was somehow significant? Do you know what a scientific theory is?


DF

Sorry about that, you were the unfortunate recipient of "aggravation fallout" from 'listening' to the dissonant cacophony from that new singing duo, 'Dawkins & Miles'. My apologies...

You must tell me about this "Dawkins and Miles".


DF

quote:

Originally posted by DeepFat:
You must tell me about this "Dawkins and Miles".


DF

It's all there in the previous posts...

Mark,

Don't go all Nash on me.

Give me a link.


DF

quote:

For the absolute last time, the name is Mark. As for why, you mean you don't know? Knock me over with a feather...

No, I don't. I really don't. In fact, what I don't know far exceeds what I do.

My friend Zip offered one possible explanation but I'd like to hear yours; Why do you not spell out the word "God"? I am presuming it is out of fear that He will read your post and take offense and perhaps smite you?

quote:

Originally posted by Dawkins7:

quote:

For the absolute last time, the name is Mark. As for why, you mean you don't know? Knock me over with a feather...

No, I don't. I really don't. In fact, what I don't know far exceeds what I do.

Indeed.

quote:

Originally posted by Dawkins7:
My friend Zip offered one possible explanation but I'd like to hear yours; Why do you not spell out the word "God"? I am presuming it is out of fear that He will read your post and take offense and perhaps smite you?

Your friend Zip was correct on the origin. For me it is out of respect, not unfounded fear as you suggest.

quote:

Originally posted by DeepFat:
Mark,

Don't go all Nash on me.

Give me a link.


DF

For starters, their (Dawkins7 and davidnmiles) replies to me in this thread and in this thread. There is no discussion, simply a bludgeoning by attitude. That's fine, I don't need them on any level.

Actually, you might need them more than you know. Nothing is more dangerous than a comfortable, unquestioned assumption.

Now, when it comes to attitude, you give as good as you get.

It requires a thick skin and a sense of humor to engage on this forum. You'll notice only the most moronic of last weekend's hijackers try, and they Fail.

I think you're up to it, if you want to continue. Just be ready to defend, with facts, your position. And if you have no facts, be ready to defend faith, but I warn you, that is difficult and no one is under any responsibility whatever to respect any unfounded faith.

If you feel up to the challenge, I can assure you, you will be treated with the same respect you show your debate opponents.

Best,

DF

quote:

Originally posted by DeepFat:
Actually, you might need them more than you know. Nothing is more dangerous than a comfortable, unquestioned assumption.

Now, when it comes to attitude, you give as good as you get.

It requires a thick skin and a sense of humor to engage on this forum. You'll notice only the most moronic of last weekend's hijackers try, and they Fail.

I think you're up to it, if you want to continue. Just be ready to defend, with facts, your position. And if you have no facts, be ready to defend faith, but I warn you, that is difficult and no one is under any responsibility whatever to respect any unfounded faith.

If you feel up to the challenge, I can assure you, you will be treated with the same respect you show your debate opponents.

Best,

DF

I disagree.

Very good! *Applause*.

Care to elaborate on that?


DF

Okay. I disagree with your statement, "Now, when it comes to attitude, you give as good as you get." I basically stepped onto the"stage" here and was immediately pommeled by the aforementioned parties. Hardly tit for tat situation in my opinion.

I also disagree with the idea that I need the kind of presentation of "enlightenment" offered by those same parties. I read science articles EVERYDAY, and if I wanted to subject myself to righteous arrogance I can find that in unlimited supply in any sector of society, so no, I don't need THEM.

For the record I have an EXTRAORDINARY sense of humor, very broad, very self deprecating, and very, very sharp when need be.

While you, nor anyone else for that matter, is under any responsibility to respect someone's faith, you really should be careful not to disrespect the individual.

I think I will limit any participation be myself in this forum... I was too tempted to sink to levels and use language I would rather not.

Finally you said, "If you feel up to the challenge, I can assure you, you will be treated with the same respect you show your debate opponents." While you can assure me that you will follow that dictum, I don't really think you can speak for anyone else.

Mark,
If you expect us to accept your superstitions without challanging them, and if you want us to pat you on the head and say "good thinking" when your comments may be void of logic, I believe that you have come to the wrong place.

Mark,

If you've been around here very long, you'll notice that I have certain friends who are honest in their assertions, yet with whom I disagree.

They do not insult me, nor do I insult them. We disagree, strenuously, but I would go fishing with any of them. I owe one of them a cup of coffee and a donut, which I anticipate paying for.

We have an intellectual respect for each other, even though we disagree.

Sure, there are others who are too stupid or hidebound or obstinate or close minded with whom to engage in discussion.

Which will you be? A strong, joyful, truthful defender of your position, yet with an open mind, sensitive to challenge, or a christian drone whose mind is the property of others long dead?

I see in you the capacity for intellect and the willingness to bleed in the fight for the truth. It's up to you.

Let me suggest you defend the institution of christian cannibalism for a start. Why is the sacrament, not to mention transubstantiation, a virtue? Why is it not a horribly primitive perversion rooted in the worst traditions of our species?


DF