[blackshoe]

"Elvis isn't dead. He went home." -- Agent K, in Men in Black

As to the moon landing, the people who made that first landing are still alive. Ask them.

[kenberg]

PassedOut, on May 30 2008, 08:50 AM, said:

kenberg, on May 29 2008, 10:50 PM, said:

The Commandments as given by Debra from the Wikipedia seem so much more soft spoken than what I remember as a child. eg The Lord thy God is a jealous God, thou shalt have no other Gods before Me. Also, I had thought the first five, not the first four, dealt with the relationship between man and God, the last five dealt with man's relationships among men. Am I just totally mis-remembering my childhood? Or have the Commandments been set to more modern and softer words?  We are speaking of maybe 1948 to 1953 here. Of course I also recall something about not coveting your neighbor's ass. Boys notice such phrasings even if we understood it referred to a donkey.

Pardon the rather inconsequential issue, but I am curious.

Because the bible actually has fifteen imperatives, different religions parse them differently into the ten commandments. Jews divide them into two groups of five commandments, orthodox and protestant christians into groups of four and six, and roman catholics and lutherans into groups of three and seven.

Here is a link to the wikipedia article: Ten Commandments.

The quote you remember from childhood appears both in Exodus 20:5-6 and Deuteronomy 5:9-10.

Quote

I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.

Yes, this god seems a bit petulant.

Your quote sounds a bit like a non sequitur. What does His jealousy have to do with iniquity of parents? I'm pretty sure (but it has been a long time) that I was taught about the jealousy in connection with the "no gods before me" bit. That makes more sense to me. The God of my childhood was pretty much a take no prisoners kind of guy. The Wikipedia God seems more like a homeroom teacher posting some rules.

[PassedOut]

kenberg, on May 30 2008, 01:45 PM, said:

Your quote sounds a bit like a non sequitur. What does His jealousy have to do with iniquity of parents? I'm pretty sure (but it has been a long time) that I was taught about the jealousy in connection with the "no gods before me" bit. That makes more sense to me. The God of my childhood was pretty much a take no prisoners kind of guy. The Wikipedia God seems more like a homeroom teacher posting some rules.

I pulled the quote out of its context, which is as you remember it.

Exodus 20:2–17 said:

2 I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery;

3 Do not have any other gods before me.

4 You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me,

6 but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.

7 You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.

8 Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy.

9 For six days you shall labour and do all your work.

10 But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns.

11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and consecrated it.

12 Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.

13 You shall not murder.

14 You shall not commit adultery.

15 You shall not steal.

16 You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.

17 You shall not covet your neighbour’s house; you shall not covet your neighbour’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour.

If the parents worship the wrong god, the kids will pay.

[blackshoe]

[quote]Do not have any other gods before me.[/quote]
Is after you okay?

[quote]You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.[/quote]
"Idol" means "image" or "representation". Does that mean no pictures? What about those reassembled skeletons I saw in the Museum of Natural History? Michaelangelo's David? The ceiling of the Sistine Chapel? All those statues of Mary in Catholic Churches? Audobon's bird paintings?

[quote]You shall not bow down to them or worship them[/quote]
No problem. Wasn't even considering it.

[quote]for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.[/quote]
Seems a little harsh. Hm. Does that last part mean that if an ancestor of mine 1000 generations ago loved you and kept your commandments, but intervening generations did not, you will both "steadfastly love" me and punish me? For what they did? Forget harsh, that's insane.

[quote]You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.[/quote]
I'm sorry, what? Could you define "wrongful use", please? Is it written in a contract somewhere? Did I agree to that contract?

[quote]Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy[/quote]
Um, which of the five definitions of "holy" in my dictionary do you mean here?

[quote]For six days you shall labour and do all your work.[/quote]
Yeah, and half my coworkers' too.

[quote]But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns.[/quote]
Slavery is immoral. How come an omniscient being doesn't know that? And how do I tell my cows not to produce milk - for that matter, how is it right for me to ignore their pain when their udders are full? No work? Who's gonna fix dinner? And what business of mine is it what my neighbor does in his own house? Oh, and on behalf of the firemen out there, I have to ask: you gonna stop fires from happening on the Sabbath? Yeah, sure you are.

[quote]For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and consecrated it.
[/quote]
Since when does an all powerful being need to take a rest?

[quote]Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.[/quote]
Well, [a] you ain't given me no land lately - in fact last year you let the friggin' bank take away my land. And you're gonna make me live long? Uh, huh, sure. If so, why do I have cancer? As for honoring my parents, I don't need you to tell me that.

[quote]You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not steal. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.[/quote]
Well, at least you got these right.

[quote]You shall not covet your neighbour’s house; you shall not covet your neighbour’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour.[/quote]
And if I do? Look, whatever is in my mind is my business. So I'll covet all I want, long's I don't act on it, thank you very much.

[quote name='Robert A. Heinlein']The most ridiculous concept ever perpetrated by Homo Sapiens is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of the Universes, wants the sacharrine adoration of his creations, that he can be persuaded by their prayers, and becomes petulant if he does not receive this flattery. Yet this ridiculous notion, without one real shred of evidence to bolster it, has gone on to found one of the oldest, largest and least productive industries in history.[/quote]

[matmat]

PassedOut, on May 30 2008, 02:23 PM, said:

If the parents worship the wrong god, the kids will pay.

does it need to be cash or can i use plastic?

[jtfanclub]

PassedOut, on May 30 2008, 02:23 PM, said:

If the parents worship the wrong god, the kids will pay.

I always interpreted that as...if you become heathens, and therefore your kids are heathens, that your kids will be punished even though they didn't know any better. It's not that if your kids were to convert back, that they'd be punished anyways.

So another way to say it would be "If you don't keep the faith, then four generations later your kids won't have returned to the faith, but if you provide the proper example to your kids, then the faith can be kept that way for a thousand generations".

This is the whole 'sins of the father visited upon the son'. Some people interpret that as God will punish the kid. I read it more as, for example, if you're a drunkard your child will live in poverty.

[luke warm]

matmat, on May 30 2008, 12:37 PM, said:

luke warm, on May 30 2008, 12:19 PM, said:

barmar, on May 30 2008, 11:30 AM, said:

My point is that religion expects you to believe things with virtually NO evidence.

i guess it depends on the evidence and one's presuppostions... Jesus said that even if a man rose from the dead there would be unbelief... so it depends on what one accepts as evidence - was there a moon landing? did elvis die? see what i mean?

no. i don't. is there actual footage of the man rising from the grave? third party accounts written several hundred years post the supposed event would hardly qualify as evidence.

did the romans sack jerusalem in 70 a.d.? did alexander build a causeway to tyre and destroy the city? did john hancock sign the declaration of independence?

how do you know? my point is, you are arbitrarily choosing which "no actual footage" and "third party accounts" to accept (assuming you accept any of antiquity's history as true)

jtfanclub, on May 30 2008, 04:50 PM, said:

I always interpreted that as...if you become heathens, and therefore your kids are heathens, that your kids will be punished even though they didn't know any better.  It's not that if your kids were to convert back, that they'd be punished anyways. 

So another way to say it would be "If you don't keep the faith, then four generations later your kids won't have returned to the faith, but if you provide the proper example to your kids, then the faith can be kept that way for a thousand generations".

This is the whole 'sins of the father visited upon the son'.  Some people interpret that as God will punish the kid.  I read it more as, for example, if you're a drunkard your child will live in poverty.

well said

[matmat]

luke warm, on May 30 2008, 05:20 PM, said:

did the romans sack jerusalem in 70 a.d.? did alexander build a causeway to tyre and destroy the city? did john hancock sign the declaration of independence?

how do you know? my point is, you are arbitrarily choosing which "no actual footage" and "third party accounts" to accept (assuming you accept any of antiquity's history as true)

how about choosing the sources that have no major agenda associated with them, or ones, that don't tout themselves (dubiously enough) to be the "truth."

I have a real problem with writings that claim to be textbooks that don't permit you to question their content.

[luke warm]

i don't care what kind of problem you have, it isn't logical to argue against christianity based on the reason you stated, unless you're willing to distrust similar ancient texts

[kenberg]

I think people do take many ancient accounts, and modern accounts for that matter, with more than a few grains of salt. The adage is that the history books are written by the winners, suggesting that you do well by not taking everything they say at face value. If an account seems to make little sense, there is a good possibility that there is a reason for that. Most Christians I know do not find it a huge threat to their faith to acknowledge there may have been some exaggeration, or metaphor if you like, in some of the stories.

As I understand it, George Washington never chopped down a cherry tree and then confessed this act to his father saying "I cannot tell a lie". (This was a story I was given in school). When Columbus was turned down by the Portuguese for funds to sail West to the Orient, it was not because the Portuguese King thought the world was flat (another story from my childhood) but rather because the King thought Columbus was way off on his estimates of the distance, which he was. If the purpose was to get from Western Europe to India by ship, it was in fact the Portuguese explorer Vasco Da Gama who showed it could be done.

Adults tell children some of the craziest things, and advocates for a cause are frequently shameless. Skepticism is a very useful trait. Absolutely it should be applied in areas beyond religion and it is.

[helene_t]

kenberg, on May 31 2008, 01:47 PM, said:

I think people do take many ancient accounts, and modern accounts for that matter, with more than a few grains of salt. The adage is that the history books are written by the winners, suggesting that you do well by not taking everything they say at face value.

Yes. Also, when the original texts are not available, copying errors and translation errors (if not downright fraud) are huge problems. Something that is easy to underestimate in these days of high-fidelity copying and professional translation.

So to trust an ancient historical document at the very least you need agreement between independent sources. Fortunately, the bigger issues can be addressed by a combination of history, archeology, physical anthropology, linguistics, genetics etc.

[matmat]

luke warm, on May 31 2008, 06:34 AM, said:

i don't care what kind of problem you have, it isn't logical to argue against christianity based on the reason you stated, unless you're willing to distrust similar ancient texts

so why is the christian deity so insecure so as to need to have all of the fables concerning it be either announced as truth or have threats associated with them to make sure people believe?

as to your question about the various other historical happenings? helene somewhat answered that -- because there are independent verifications of them, both written and otherwise. if a single source tried to tell me that alexander the great had a mole under his right arm, or magically danced around on water after a victory, i wouldn't believe that either.

[luke warm]

helene_t, on May 31 2008, 10:08 AM, said:

kenberg, on May 31 2008, 01:47 PM, said:

I think people do take many ancient accounts, and modern accounts for that matter,  with more than a few grains of salt. The adage is that the history books are written by the winners, suggesting that you do well by not taking everything they say at face value.

Yes. Also, when the original texts are not available, copying errors and translation errors (if not downright fraud) are huge problems. Something that is easy to underestimate in these days of high-fidelity copying and professional translation.

So to trust an ancient historical document at the very least you need agreement between independent sources. Fortunately, the bigger issues can be addressed by a combination of history, archeology, physical anthropology, linguistics, genetics etc.

what you and ken say is true, but has nothing to do with what matmat said... he said, " My point is that religion expects you to believe things with virtually NO evidence."

what he, and i suppose you and ken, are lending credence to is the "... virtually NO..." part of his sentence... there is every bit as much, if not more than, historical evidence regarding the new testament as there is regarding other things we accept as true about the ancient world... for him to say what he did is to admit to arbitrarily accepting some more than others, with nothing but presupposition as the reason... now i know we all have those presuppositions, but the intellectually honest amongst us at least acknowledge that

matmat said:

so why is the christian deity so insecure so as to need to have all of the fables concerning it be either announced as truth or have threats associated with them to make sure people believe?

and here is another example of what i'm saying... you and ken can both recognize the indefensible nature of his statement, although from reading his other posts in this thread i'm positive he can't... he's saying insecurity is the reason for God acting in certain ways (these ways themselves being labeled "fables" by him), as if he knows not only the mind of God but also all other possible motives... he makes these kinds of fallacious arguments and i think he should be called on it, and not only by me but by anyone who recognizes it

to me it isn't about personalities or philosophy or even what one believes, it's about what types of argument is acceptable

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on May 31 2008, 09:53 PM, said:

helene_t, on May 31 2008, 10:08 AM, said:

kenberg, on May 31 2008, 01:47 PM, said:

I think people do take many ancient accounts, and modern accounts for that matter,  with more than a few grains of salt. The adage is that the history books are written by the winners, suggesting that you do well by not taking everything they say at face value.

Yes. Also, when the original texts are not available, copying errors and translation errors (if not downright fraud) are huge problems. Something that is easy to underestimate in these days of high-fidelity copying and professional translation.

So to trust an ancient historical document at the very least you need agreement between independent sources. Fortunately, the bigger issues can be addressed by a combination of history, archeology, physical anthropology, linguistics, genetics etc.

what you and ken say is true, but has nothing to do with what matmat said... he said, " My point is that religion expects you to believe things with virtually NO evidence."

what he, and i suppose you and ken, are lending credence to is the "... virtually NO..." part of his sentence... there is every bit as much, if not more than, historical evidence regarding the new testament as there is regarding other things we accept as true about the ancient world... for him to say what he did is to admit to arbitrarily accepting some more than others, with nothing but presupposition as the reason... now i know we all have those presuppositions, but the intellectually honest amongst us at least acknowledge that

matmat said:

so why is the christian deity so insecure so as to need to have all of the fables concerning it be either announced as truth or have threats associated with them to make sure people believe?

and here is another example of what i'm saying... you and ken can both recognize the indefensible nature of his statement, although from reading his other posts in this thread i'm positive he can't... he's saying insecurity is the reason for God acting in certain ways (these ways themselves being labeled "fables" by him), as if he knows not only the mind of God but also all other possible motives... he makes these kinds of fallacious arguments and i think he should be called on it, and not only by me but by anyone who recognizes it

to me it isn't about personalities or philosophy or even what one believes, it's about what types of argument is acceptable

Poppycock

You are completely misrepresenting the core argument

I think most anyone participating in this thread would agree that substantial amounts of the New Testament are based on historical fact.

There is a lot of evidence to suggest that Caesar Augustus reigned in Rome, that Pontius Pilate was governor in Judea. I'd even go so far as to say that Paul of Tarsus wrote some letters to the Corinthians...

Can I be completely sure that all of Corinthians was penned by Paul? Nope... But its a decent working hypothesis. There is a lot of evidence that Christians lived back then. There is a lot of evidence that people wrote letters. While I can't be completely sure that these letters were written by that Christian, it probably doesn't mean that much in the grand scheme of things.

In a similar vein, I suspect that nearly everyone participating in this thread would agree that a whole lot of fanciful tales were told way back when:

Does anyone here believe that Romulus and Remus were suckled by wolves?
That mighty Achilles was the son of the nymph Thetis?
That Odin hung himself from the World Ash?

Simply put, we all apply filters to historical documents. We're willing to accept some information as fairly certain. We give less credence to other accounts. Furthermore, we all different rules of thumb that we use to construct the filters that we use. Personally, one of my favorites is asking myself whether an account that I am reading seems consistent with the way the world seems to work:

If an account seems consistent, I'm willing to give it a bit more credibility. If it seems radically inconsistent (Say, someone claims the Lord God made the Sun stand still so his chosen people had more time to slaughter their enemies...) - I take accounts like that with one hell of a grain of salt.

The reason that the skeptics on this list are blowing you ***** is that you appear completely inconsistent in how you apply your own filters. I suspect that you are every bit as skeptical as I am about , Romulus and Remus, Achilles, and Odin. However, when it come to the Bible you're willing to accept some completely ridiculous claims.

The inconsistency is not that I am reasonably sure that Alexander the Great lived and died, but rather the fact that you insist that one set of myths is true, that all the others are false, and that this can be prove in some manner...

[matmat]

Quote

for him to say what he did is to admit to arbitrarily accepting some more than others, with nothing but presupposition as the reason... now i know we all have those presuppositions, but the intellectually honest amongst us at least acknowledge that

one of the key differences between secular historical knowledge and religious knowledge is emotional detachment. Historians don't care either way whether alexander sacked tyre, or if he ran naked through the streets of troy. Furthermore, there have not been 2000 years of canon that restricted and selectively chose which aspects of the history got destroyed and which were passed on, translated, rewritten or whatever. How many religious writings were destroyed or ignored in antiquity when compiling the bible? why were these other accounts discarded?

Also, the fact that those who try to prove the veracity of biblical stories typically have a religious or anti-religious agenda tends to bias their final results.

I am much more inclined to believe an account about a secular historical figure where the events in question have little or no reason to have been reinterpreted or embellished than a piece of writing where there is a not-so hidden agenda

Quote

and here is another example of what i'm saying... you and ken can both recognize the indefensible nature of his statement, although from reading his other posts in this thread i'm positive he can't...

you're partially right. you're much more read on the subject than I am. I've not looked into religious texts of any kind in quite a while, nor have i read many of the philosophical books on the topic. I have, however, seen enough hypocrisy from people who profess to believe a religion and enough closed mindedness about the world on their part to figure out that religion is a bad bad thing.

[mikeh]

barmar, on May 30 2008, 11:30 AM, said:

Quote

And one last point: Religion "demands major lifestyle changes". That is new to me.

Praying towards Mecca 5 times a day. Attending Mass on Sunday or Synagogue on Saturday.

Dietary restrictions (kosher, fish on Friday, sacred cows).

Clothing requirements.

Language (not taking God's name in vain) and art (no graven images, no depictions of Mohammed).

Lent.

Gender-specific rules.

and so on.

Individually most of these are mere inconveniences (although the sexist rules go beyond that), but taken as a whole they pretty significant requirements on how you live your life if you're going to follow all the tenets of a religion.

Pinker explains the utility of these rules brilliantly: he is summarizing the work of others, to whom he gives full credit. Simply put, these rules are not due to reasons of hygiene (I was taught, as a child, that the Semitic prohibition against pork was for health reasons) but are instead crafted to create a social identity and to build a barrier between 'us' and 'them'. If we had no such arbitrary rules, people would mingle, and groups would dissolve and the leaders would lose their power of control. The creation of special rules served to perpetuate power.... which has long been a major purpose of organized religion.

The literal inability of some religious people (as evidenced by posts here) to recognize these human drives is a large part of why they are so successful. LW and others appear to truly be blind to the arguments made against their faith. If it were not for the pernicious effect of fundamental religion, such blindness should be pitied rather than debated. Telling a blind man how to see is futile, after all.

[Al_U_Card]

Ugh. The need for religion also requires a bulwark of architecture and heirarchy to ensure a false sense of security. Yech.

A real sense of divinity and caring for the essences of others and oneself, on the other hand, is not only beneficial it is also necessary.

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on May 31 2008, 02:40 PM, said:

Poppycock

You are completely misrepresenting the core argument

i don't know how... i ignored his posts completely until the one i responded to, and that was the only subject i was addressing - what about that subject did i misrepresent?

Quote

Simply put, we all apply filters to historical documents.  We're willing to accept some information as fairly certain.  We give less credence to other accounts.

right, we all do that and we do so based on our own presuppositions... surely you don't deny that?

Quote

The inconsistency is not that I am reasonably sure that Alexander the Great lived and died, but rather the fact that you insist that one set of myths is true, that all the others are false, and that this can be prove in some manner...

and this is just another example, richard... because of your own views you call some of the things i believe "myths" (Christ arising, for example)... you're perfectly allowed to hold that view, but you aren't (logically) allowed to objectively dismiss some historical documents and not others simply because of worldview

matmat, on May 31 2008, 02:53 PM, said:

I have, however, seen enough hypocrisy from people who profess to believe a religion and enough closed mindedness about the world on their part to figure out that religion is a bad bad thing.

so have i, and i hate it even more than you do

Quote

If it were not for the pernicious effect of fundamental religion, such blindness should be pitied rather than debated.

what exactly have you 'debated'?

Quote

A real sense of divinity and caring for the essences of others and oneself, on the other hand, is not only beneficial it is also necessary.

i'll buy that

[TimG]

luke warm, on May 31 2008, 09:14 PM, said:

and this is just another example, richard... because of your own views you call some of the things i believe "myths" (Christ arising, for example)... you're perfectly allowed to hold that view, but you aren't (logically) allowed to objectively dismiss some historical documents and not others simply because of worldview

Isn't this what you are doing? You have conveniently left out Richard's reference to:

Quote

Does anyone here believe that Romulus and Remus were suckled by wolves?
That mighty Achilles was the son of the nymph Thetis?
That Odin hung himself from the World Ash?

These legends (if you object to calling them myths) were all retold by generations and/or written about.

What evidence, aside from "the Bible tells me so", do you have that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus? Or, do you believe this is one of those Bible facts that should not be taken literally?

[mikeh]

luke warm, on May 31 2008, 09:14 PM, said:

Quote

The inconsistency is not that I am reasonably sure that Alexander the Great lived and died, but rather the fact that you insist that one set of myths is true, that all the others are false, and that this can be prove in some manner...

and this is just another example, richard... because of your own views you call some of the things i believe "myths" (Christ arising, for example)... you're perfectly allowed to hold that view, but you aren't (logically) allowed to objectively dismiss some historical documents and not others simply because of worldview

Why is it illogical to dismiss, as mythical, statements made hundreds of years after the alleged events when such events are inconsistent with the way in which the universe has been shown to behave?

Virgin birth/immaculate conception

arising from the dead

stopping the motion of the sun

We have compelling evidence (based on several hundred years of actual contemporaneous record and a great deal of scientific study) that these 'events' are probably untrue, if intended literally.

The fact that these 'events' are reported in texts that have undergone significant editing, translation, and censoring by powerful vested interests (which is why we see only some of the known 'gospels' as part of the bible approved by the christian churches) is hardly 'evidence' of anything.

Compare this to such evidence as actual contemporaneous records of historical events. We have Ceasar conquering Gaul.. and we have roman names in what is now France. We have aqueducts. We have inscriptions. We have tombs, we have roads, we have ruins.

If the only evidence of the existence of Julius Ceasar and his death were in a play by Shakespeare, we might well be sceptical that he existed.

We can, I gather, be reasonably sure that a Jesus person existed, but we can know this because there is evidence beyond that found in the bible. But there is NO evidence, beyond that found in the bible, that he was born to a virgin. Nor is there any evidence, beyond the myth-story in the bible, that he rose from the dead. If I am wrong, I am sure LW wil correct me by referring to the medical certificate verifying that Mary's hymen was intact just before Jesus was born.

Maybe Lukewarm can explain, using logic, the difference between the beliefs of the Mormons, the Scientologists, and his particular strain of Christianity.

Why is HIS version logically more compelling than the Mormon belief that their scripture was found engraven on gold plates buried in North America... or the Scientology babble about billions of aliens killed by volcanic eruptions on Earth millions of years ago, with their souls desperately seeking new bodies (ours).

And then he can go on to logically explain why his version of ultimate truth is inherently more reliable than that of the Jews or the Muslims.

For all his pseudo-literate posts, the bottom line is that his entire reasoning is built on 'I believe, therefore it is'.

I once cross-examined a witness on whether she understood the difference between believing something because it fits one's view of the world and knowing something based on actual observed facts. She had published a story accusing a local political figure of corruption... based on the 'fact' that she didn't like his politics. She admitted that the lawsuit had begun to teach her that sometimes what we believe isn't actually so.

But it is very, very difficult to let go of the comfort of absolute faith.

I come from a somewhat religious background.. Sunday School, church services in latin, and so on. My personal view is that letting go of the false comfort of religious faith is actually empowering and opens one up to an astonishing view of the universe. There is true awe and amazement discernable to the atheist, far more emotionally satifying than the mindless numbness of uncritical belief.

The fact that we, a contingent and improbable (yet, in another sense, probably inevitable... somewhere, somehow sentience and consciousness seem likely to develope in this universe, probably millions or billions of times) evolutionary twig on the bush of life, can contemplate the how we got here is itself awesome.

Why fetter that sense of wonder with the creation myths of our ignorant ancestors? Why refuse to THINK? And, despite the clear command of language that Lukewarm possesses, and the apparent 'thinking'... he is not really thinking at all... since he handicaps his entire 'logic' by accepting the literal truth of stories and ideas that are unprovable. Thinking, as I see it (and as I define it here) requires the acceptance of the idea that one's beliefs may be wrong.

I can look at my atheism and accept that I may be wrong. There may be some unimaginable god entity that consciously created the universe that produced both me and Lukewarm. When I pose that as a possibility, I still can see no logical reason why that entity should be any of the various gods that human minds have conjured over the millennia. I see no chain of logic that suggests that the Koran is false and the New Testament reliable, as an example. So I can be a logical atheist and consider religions. But I don't see how I can be a devout Christian and accept that the Muslims may be correct... or vice versa.

There are dozens, if not scores or hundreds of 'true faiths'. Each is clearly correct IF one accepts their underlying premise. No two of them can be both correct.

Atheists can laugh at all of them.. because we can see that all require the suspension of thinking. The believer can ignore the others because he or she replaces thinking with belief. But that requires a fettering of the mind. And, as a particularly asinine US V-P once observed, a mind is a terrible thing to waste.