1401. The Blasphemy Challenge

Comment #13235 by Logicel on December 16, 2006 at 10:16 am

gosh, this one is great, very positive, creative, friendly, smart:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EK5y3unSgvY&NR

1402. The Blasphemy Challenge

Comment #13234 by Logicel on December 16, 2006 at 10:04 am

a very thoughtful blasphemy vid:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyiwqEuCLwc&NR

1403. The Blasphemy Challenge

Comment #13225 by Logicel on December 16, 2006 at 9:29 am

Tomcat, your adjectives are all clever, my fave is phlegmatose, probably because I am weird! But also because some older humans do seem to have thick mucous running through their arteries instead of rich, oxygenated blood.

1404. The Blasphemy Challenge

Comment #13221 by Logicel on December 16, 2006 at 9:17 am

Jared, Kergillian, and others, perhaps you will appreciate this blasphemy vid--covered some of the issues about which you expressed concern in your posts on this thread:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiaHilTlpCM&mode=related&search=

Many of the vids contain descriptions of the many other religious and secular superstitions which are being denied along with the holy spirit.

1405. The Blasphemy Challenge

Comment #13220 by Logicel on December 16, 2006 at 9:04 am

Another simply lovely and charming blasphemy vid:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECbmcR_Hk-k&mode=related&search=

1406. The Blasphemy Challenge

Comment #13214 by Logicel on December 16, 2006 at 8:27 am

Here is a sample of the potent quality of these blasphemy videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5ksHukRBQM&feature=PlayList&p=7D6338FA4A19B4C3&index=4

1407. The Blasphemy Challenge

Comment #13207 by Logicel on December 16, 2006 at 7:49 am

Yorker said, "The vast majority of us here do nothing but talk..."
________

Talk in itself does not necessarily need be 'cheap.' Dawkins is basically talking in his book, in interviews, on guest panels, on comedy shows, at science seminars, etc. His fame allows him that opportunity.

Talking in various web forums, like this one, can contribute strongly to changing what needs to be changed. Many of us are improving our logical debating skills, finding a sense of community to give us courage, finding out knowledge that we did not previously know about, etc. All of these aspects will help us in the real world when we need to act against religious superstitions.

That is why I describe atheists that comment here and make material available for us to discuss as 'hardworking'--they are spending time and energy, and that in my book, is hard working. So kudos are in order because we are generating high-quality user content that others can use in the future. And I suspect that is what Dawkins wants to encourage.

1408. The Blasphemy Challenge

Comment #13198 by Logicel on December 16, 2006 at 5:29 am

Kismettena said, "To Yorker and others who support said immature adolescents, thank you."
________

You are very welcome. Speaking of gratitude, I think the 'petrifiedish' folks should realize that you 'childish' ones will foot the bill either entirely or in part for their retirement.

Kismettena, I encourage you to develop confidence and trust in your ability to discern what is fitting and proper for you to do. You are a fully fledged human being gifted with a gorgeous human brain able to do all kinds of wonderful things--you got all what you need right there. Us humans that have put in a few more earth years than you are not any more human than you, and please don't ever forget that truth.

1409. The Blasphemy Challenge

Comment #13181 by Logicel on December 16, 2006 at 4:22 am

Laurence Boyce quotes from Sam Harris: "and the real Klan's mumbo jumbo was put out all over the airwaves for people to laugh at."
________

The young's airwaves can be found on the World Wide Web. The young take to the web like fishes in water.

Posters often mention on this site, that there is a tidal change in the fight against religious superstitions which they have noticed in recent years. Though several authors have written best-selling books on this topic, it is the availability of being able to read (listed articles, comments, blog entries), see (videos, cartoons, cariatures), and hear (audio) so much related material on the Web, therefore pushing the tide of rationality to new and potent heights.

Us 'petrifiedish' folks need to encourage the 'childish' ones in meeting the challenge of religious superstitions to use with what they are familiar--the world wide web.

1410. The Blasphemy Challenge

Comment #13175 by Logicel on December 16, 2006 at 3:50 am

Yorker said, "And brave is the word, did any of you actually look at some of these videos? Several of them have had to hide their faces for obvious reasons."
_______

Yes, the young are brave--they are the ones that courageously fight and die on the 'mature' ones' battlefields.

1411. The Blasphemy Challenge

Comment #13174 by Logicel on December 16, 2006 at 3:31 am

c6c6dog said, "However, and this a very key objection, some of the renunciations were from mere adolesants. I know there are some people, who's comments I cherish dearly on this forum, that champion youth's rights. But a main contention against the indocrination of children in religious superstition is that some--perhaps many--children lack the mental prowess to treat the subject critically."
________

The stultifying environment of a Fundamental Christian household, coupled with that household being situated in a Fundamental Christian neighborhood, results in adolescents having no access to do anything except to toe the line or to endure crushing internal conflict, that is, to oppose the status quo within, while pretending to follow the 'norm.' In addition, these adolescents are either home schooled or sent to Fundamental Christian schools. That is what indocrination is, to me, anyway.

On the other hand, the web exposes the adolescent to a collection of varying viewpoints. If they have the access to partake in the Rational Response, The Blasphemy Challenge, they also have access to the opposing views.

1412. The Blasphemy Challenge

Comment #13170 by Logicel on December 16, 2006 at 3:07 am

The word 'childish' needs to be countered with a descriptive term for 'un-childish' (to borrow an odd literary expression from Richard Kirk who wrote An Exercise in Contempt which is listed at this site and was duly commented upon by many posters--Kirk labels Dawkins as the un-Whitehead, Whitehead being a fave philosopher of Kirk's).
http://richarddawkins.net/article,405,An-Exercise-in-Contempt,Richard-Kirk

I am still working on this demanding linguistic endeavor, and have only come up with, "petrifiedish", the root being petrified, which conveniently captures both the petrification of older humans in the sense of pertrified wood, and also in the sense of their being consumed by the fear of letting go comfy and well worn attitudes.

I welcome any of the 'childish' posters to contribute to my quest of finding an adequate adjective.

1413. The Blasphemy Challenge

Comment #13169 by Logicel on December 16, 2006 at 2:54 am

I have a confession to make--I am married to a child. Though I thought I married a man, many adults keep insisting on calling him a child and taking him to task on his consistently childish behavior.

When he cuts through political, convoluted nonsense, with his sharp rationality, he is called a child.

When he slices through the French social service bureaucracy with his brilliant grasp of practical simplicity, he is called a child.

When he refuses to give up his privacy under the guise of combatting world terrorism, and fight inroads into his, he is called a child.

Such wonderful activities this 'child' engages in. Since I want to be a child like him, I spend time and energy watching and learning from his childish activities. And you know what? It is not easy to be like that. I got a long way to go in this direction, but the resident child chez nous is a very patient one. So there is hope for me yet.

Yorker said, "They're just a bunch of young kids so I don't really blame them for this typically youthful reaction,..." And just as apparently there is just a bunch of oldsters at this site, so I don't really blame them for their typically 'mature' reaction.

And then Yorker said, "So I guess I'll hang my faded old hat on their stand, go for it guys." And that is why so many here respect the guy. Because when he is faced with something new, he tries it out, and then decides for himself. He has this awful atheistic habit of learning from his mistakes.

1414. An Exercise in Contempt

Comment #13113 by Logicel on December 15, 2006 at 2:54 pm

"He is the un-Whitehead,..."
____

Oh come on, Kirk, say what you really what to say which is that Dawkins is the ANTI-WHITEHEAD.

1415. Grandparents linked with church-going

Comment #13107 by Logicel on December 15, 2006 at 1:09 pm

Laurence Boyce, I also challenge the notion that one must be loyal to one's family.

I remember reading that actually it is not our parents that have the greatest emotional/psychological influence on how we develop, but the bigger world outside the family. Therefore, parents only indirectly influence our development, by providing us shelter in a particular physical environment and education in a particular manner.

The family is considered 'natural'. Well, we do not choose our families, and they may be a very poor fit for certain members. And there is a much larger family of humanity outside our tiny, accidental family.

I strongly support youth rights. The subjugation of an individual--just because that individual happens to be a young, inexperienced human--to the family group never appealed to me when I was growing up.

1416. The A to Z Guide to Political Interference in Science (US)

Comment #13086 by Logicel on December 15, 2006 at 10:00 am

That is standard practice here in France.

I remember reading Nick Leeson--the roque trader that bought down a British bank--and his wife exchanging tee shirts in which they heavily sweated so they could wear each other's and smell each other while he was waiting for trial in Asia.

1417. The A to Z Guide to Political Interference in Science (US)

Comment #13081 by Logicel on December 15, 2006 at 9:45 am

Yorker, yes, my husband and I did the book sniffing with success.

Also as kids, my siblings and I did something similar even before I knew of Feynman's existence.

I enjoy so much that my cats know where we are in our home because they smell our footprints on the floor, and follow them to where we are.

Smelling is one of many human senses, I adore using them all.

1418. Blaming 'The God Delusion'

Comment #13059 by Logicel on December 15, 2006 at 8:06 am

Sancus, I hear you, you made my week also when I saw your youth rights comment! Yes, recognizing the importance of youth rights is rare-- you are the first that I have encountered in my life that understands that young humans are treated like crapola.

1419. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #13057 by Logicel on December 15, 2006 at 8:00 am

"An atheist already has faith. Faith is based upon the evidence that we have and involves trust."
______

David A Robertson, Thanks for your reply. If I already have faith, then what is it that I need to do to believe in God?

Have a nice weekend!

1420. The A to Z Guide to Political Interference in Science (US)

Comment #13055 by Logicel on December 15, 2006 at 7:53 am

Yorker, ah sniffing, yes I do sniff every chance I get, I like living here in France because everybody else is sniffing the fresh produce along with me!

1421. Intelligent design: The God Lab

Comment #13043 by Logicel on December 15, 2006 at 6:37 am

Congo, cute cartoon!

1422. In case you didn't know I'm a fool, here's an article to prove it.

Comment #13042 by Logicel on December 15, 2006 at 6:35 am

NoLongerHaveBelief, I am fond of saying that to Xians, who say that I was made in God's image--no, God was made in man's image.

1423. Religion's Real Child Abuse

Comment #13039 by Logicel on December 15, 2006 at 6:25 am

Kwirth said, "If you knew the Black Plague was killing people just 10 miles down the road, would you take the time to explain to everyone you met what this disease does, no matter how awful it was, if doing so would cause many to flee and thus save their lives? In fact, wouldn't you make SURE everyone understood what the consequences of staying put would be before you told them about the quickest and surest road to safety?"
_______

The important word here is 'surest'. Many of the above testimonials on this thread emphasized that their mental and emotional torture was because they could never be SURE what they had to do to escape Hell.

I remember my mother saying to me when I was around 12, that her parish prient advised her to read the Bible to help her deal with a serious problem she was having with my father. She told me that the biblical passages that he recommended made no sense, and was not applicable to her particular problem, and that they actually appeared immoral to her. And she had no intention of following the suggestion. So of course she had to worry that she would wind up in hell.


This insightful and generous post by NoLongerHaveBelief on another discussion thread here echos my point very well:

"I remember as a kid, reading that Gideon Bible claptrap I was given from school. At the front, it had passages to turn to, when in times of trouble/ anger/ loneliness etc., Try and understand it! PURE contradictory and confusing text. The Bible makes as much sense to myself as does a chocolate teapot! Infact, a chocolate teapot would be MORE use than the Bible. Certainly would be entertaining... :-)"

1424. Blaming 'The God Delusion'

Comment #13033 by Logicel on December 15, 2006 at 6:00 am

Sancus, thanks for the HTML info.

Decades ago, when I first found out about the Libertarian party, I ran in the opposite direction--they seemed wacko. I also never appreciated their diva, A. Rand.

After becoming a Wikipedian editor, I found out that Jimmy Wales who was essential in its founding is a member of the Libertarian party. I admire Wales immensely, not only because I can access so much worthwhile knowledge for free, but because I can freely edit it, discuss the editions with anyone, oh well, it is just a perfect pleasure for someone like me. So all of a sudden the Libertarian party became credible in my eyes. I think new 'guys' like Wales will make that party a bit more appealing, but I am still cautious because if you are a Libertarian how can you even be identified with a political party? A true Libertarian is apolitical in my book.

1425. Blaming 'The God Delusion'

Comment #13027 by Logicel on December 15, 2006 at 5:17 am

Jared and Sancus, how do you bold face our names in your comments? I think it is very useful and want to do it also.

1426. Blaming 'The God Delusion'

Comment #13025 by Logicel on December 15, 2006 at 5:10 am

"Atheists have difficulty bridging ourselves with society. I think we are correct in thinking it's because those of us who are out of the closet are so few. The believers think it's because we're helpless and lonely without God. The socialist left appears to agree that we're helpless and has bought wholesale into the notion that government can act as our bridge between individual and society. Marxists look to government to take the place of religion."
________

Insightful post, Sancus (as usual!)

Could you please give us your opinion on the existing Libertarian party?

1427. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #13020 by Logicel on December 15, 2006 at 4:43 am

David A Robertson,

Faith is crucial in order to accept the existence of God. How does an atheist develop faith?

1428. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #13013 by Logicel on December 15, 2006 at 4:21 am

"Maybe "Breaking the Spell" was too mild - that the "The God Delusion" was really what broke the spell? ;-)"
______

Ole, again I have only recently started to read this discussion and only briefly browsed through the pages of previous discussion, but I do see a lot of critical thinking here. Passionately blunt language does not preclude critical thinking.

Critical thinking is very important, and we all can improve our doing it. Some do not even know what it is, and equate it with the random passing of thoughts which contain assumptions, preferences, opinions, etc, and then they conclude that those aspects of thinking is the process of critical thinking. Critical thinking is a mental skill that takes time to develop and hone.

1429. The A to Z Guide to Political Interference in Science (US)

Comment #13011 by Logicel on December 15, 2006 at 3:59 am

Yorker, Feynman was certainly not isolated from people, he was extroverted, and he had many passionate interests outside of science, like drumming, cracking safes, and drawing portraits. He was adored as an univeristy teacher. And I have no problem with his selfishness, as I am very supportive of enlightened self interest.
But I do think that he compartmentalized his scientific work from the possible deleterious effects of science on the world.

1430. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #13008 by Logicel on December 15, 2006 at 3:39 am

Maybe "Breaking the Spell" was too mild - that the "The God Delusion" was really what broke the spell? ;-)
_____

When someone is in shock, or hysterical, sometimes times they are shook or slapped, to get them out of that state. Harsh language is similar, and unlike a hysterical person who may be pleased that someone has taken the effort to cut short the hysteria, supporters of religious superstitions take umbrage.

Hysterical people have a lot to gain from ending their hysteria, supporters of religious superstitions do not--they are similar to any group of humans whose occupation went out the window, like makers of horse harnesses at the turn of the previous century--they have alot to lose, especially if they cannot adapt, no matter how painfully, to the changing human tide.

I remember reading regarding the American film director, Brian De Palma films as being too graphically violent, his response was that violence is the most strongest color on the cinematic canvas. It makes you take attention, and harsh language used in this way, let's say, how Billy Sands uses it, is similar. The blunt language in itself cuts through the inertia and blandness of average discussions, and opens a welcome door to some valuable and serious content.

1431. Atheists' bleak alternative

Comment #13003 by Logicel on December 15, 2006 at 2:48 am

No. 35 comment: "That is: Perhaps the problem is not in this or that system, or this or that belief, but in Human Consciousness itself.."
________

I am assuming that this poster is godismyshoddy, and who has just been resurrected by opening up another account using a different user id and electronic mail box--very easy to do, I have zillions of electronic mail boxes myself.

On the risk of feeding this gifted troll (check out the troll comment discussion thread under the Kenny episode--53 comments of pure triteness and uselessness), I would like to elaborate on the quote I have selected from his/her comment.

As it has been mentioned that these kinds of posts can be used for fodder as discussion, and I welcome any comments from the wonderfully lucid cadre of posters at this site.

Human consciousness is what we have since we are humans. It is a byproduct from evolution and it is amazing--we are learning about it more and more via the fields of cognitive neuroscience, evolutionary psychology, epigenetics, biogenetics, and brain fitness. The advances have been significant and are continuing.

Human consciouness is what we have, so that is what we work with to understand the world--it has evolved from our interaction with our physical environment, the middle world. Our human consciouness can be expanded by using technology, to see and find information that would otherwise escape us. It is a profound virtuous circle.

We are highly successful evolved apes, and I am, for one, very happy to be one--to accept that, work within those limits, recognize those limits, and creatively entend those limits by the use of science and technology.

Brain fitness exercises can exercise each lobe of our fantastic brains--the physical connection to our mental HUMAN consciousness. Use it or lose it. I want to use my human consciousness every chance I get so that not only will I not lose it but hone it also.

I have no need or desire to be connected to some consciousness that is not human. I have never seen the appeal of that, which is the supposedly appealing aspect of eastern and new age religion.

I suspect that such religions are appealing because we are not encouraged to have self ownership, we are not encouraged to bask in our highly evolved apeness, but instead to feel somehow we are lacking, that we are fallen angels, that we have lost in our evolution, and not that we have gained a most beautiful and potent gift.

1432. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #12996 by Logicel on December 15, 2006 at 1:55 am

Ole, well said. I have just started to read this thread, and as it consists of 14 pages at this point, I am largely ignorant of the discussion that has been taking place, though I have briefly browsed through the pages.

However, if one is going to be harsh, I rather have it to be the style that has been expressed here, honest, no beating around the bush, and quite wittingly expressed!

Atheists who have been brought up as ones by their parents, also, can feel anger. In fact, just about anyone can feel anger at their parents.

1433. The A to Z Guide to Political Interference in Science (US)

Comment #12994 by Logicel on December 15, 2006 at 1:25 am

K1mgy: Corporate mission statements seldom have an ethical aspect to them--they are just verbal mush for the most part. It would be very satisfying if potential employees who are critical thinkers refuse an offer of employment based on this. Imagine this conversation: We, here, at the Mind-Numbing and Sloppy, Lazy Thinking, Inc are happy to offer you a position. And the critical thinker applying for the job says, no thanks, your mission statement SUCKS.

I really appreciate your comment. Thanks.

1434. The A to Z Guide to Political Interference in Science (US)

Comment #12978 by Logicel on December 14, 2006 at 6:42 pm

Yorker: your suggestion for a Scientist's oath is a very interesting idea.

Scientists, unlike medical doctors, work long hours by themselves, or with a small cadre of other scientists. Unless they lecture science, they have very little contact with non scientists. On the other hand, medical doctors come into contact with people of all different kinds of occupations, representing a much more varied mix of humanity. Hence, the medical oath is confirming their vocation, their contact with the many.

Scientists, on the other hand, can be viewed being separate from the many, almost segregated from the rest of us, in specialized laboratories that often offer either no or limited access by the public. However, the results of their work influence all in a modern society. But, because of their segregated and solitary nature of their work, they, themselves, seem very distant from the rest of us, and perhaps they feel so also?

In a way the medical oath is wasted on the doctors who are in immediate contact with people, who are constantly faced with human contact. The doctors should let the scientists have their oath. They have more need of it!

Richard Feynman, though a very loved and admired scientist, stated in one of his popular non-science books that he knew from a very early age that he could not solve the world's problems, and therefore would not focus on that angle. He also professed no regret on working on the Los Alamos atomic bomb project.

I witnessed Teller get cream-pied by a Yippie in NYC in the late eighties. The aging yippie was protesting Teller's involvement with Reagan's star wars project. Teller was almost impassive, just wiping the cream stuff off his face, while the host of the lecture said that this action was fascist, and that Teller had escaped fascism years ago, only to have to endure it yet again. But the yippie was not fascist, he was not stopping Teller from speaking, or was difficult to remove from the auditorium. The yippie was just saying that the use of science for destruction deserved at the very least, a pie in the face, to show how incongruous it was for a scientist to work for the destruction of humanity.

Anyway, I have no suggestion for a scientist's oath, but would love to hear any from other posters.

1435. Blaming 'The God Delusion'

Comment #12968 by Logicel on December 14, 2006 at 5:13 pm

"Besides, The God Delusion quickly drops its sour tack and becomes a most impassioned, endearing, articulate and heartening secular-humanist call to arms. Call it the book's evolution. Despite the clumsy burka metaphor with which he wraps up his essay, Dawkins is humane, logical and erudite."
_________


Eloquently put and reflects my sentiments.

Chapters 8 through 10 in TGD are lucidly written with intense compassion. When I encounter critics of Dawkins describing him as a cold-hearted man embracing uncaring and dogmatic science that he insists on cramming down our throats, I think of these last chapters and realize these critics have not read TGD from cover to cover.

I regard this review as the adequately competent review for which we were all waiting. However, it is from the progressive side and directed towards that side. Will we ever encounter the equivalent in terms of an adequate review from the god botherers?

The author writes well and clearly, and it was a very enjoyable read.

1436. Atheists' bleak alternative

Comment #12962 by Logicel on December 14, 2006 at 4:39 pm

TearTheRootOffTheSucker, thanks for the insightful post--I really enjoyed it.

1437. In case you didn't know I'm a fool, here's an article to prove it.

Comment #12946 by Logicel on December 14, 2006 at 2:42 pm

T Larson, Thanks for the clarification.

1438. Intelligent design: The God Lab

Comment #12937 by Logicel on December 14, 2006 at 1:39 pm

Jcosta, submit the original article (http://www.cspo.org/home/perspectives/index.htm) to this site for possible listing as an article for discussion. This way many more posters can analyse it.

1439. The Panel with Richard Dawkins

Comment #12856 by Logicel on December 14, 2006 at 4:45 am

29. Comment #12785 by Sancus on December 13, 2006 at 9:02 pm/Youths are segregated from society and held captive by various institutions, including the family. They do not need to be gullible to accept religion when it is forced onto them.
_______

Thanks for the link. This is a topic I have always been interested in? Why? Because I will never forget how I as a child was regarded as semi-human, and being female, more like one quarter human.

1440. Science Weekly for December 11: Creationism special

Comment #12846 by Logicel on December 14, 2006 at 3:12 am

The discussion regarding if teachers actually know what evolution truly is and Wolpert's comment concerning that evolution is a very complex topic to teach well was very unsatisfying.

It is my opinion that many teachers do not understand evolution correctly, and that it is not a complex topic at all to teach.

1441. Science Weekly for December 11: Creationism special

Comment #12845 by Logicel on December 14, 2006 at 3:08 am

Nell Boase's query as to if ID is just nonsense why discuss it all was refuted well by Wolpert when he said because supporters of the ID nonsense have gotten it taught as science in some schools which is why the silly topic has to be discussed and why we have to be vigilant in ensuring that ID is not being taught as science. She also tried to inject philosophy into the teaching of science, and Wolpert crisply said that there is no role for philosophy in science. This is the first time I have heard Boase discuss science, and she sounds like a bit of a god apologist.

Wolpert's saying that the bacterial flagellum evolved independantly more than once was a very interesting item of knowledge.

Also there were three scientiest against ID and just one for ID. Though it seemed unfair, perhaps the reason why is that there are not many scientists that do support ID.

1442. The A to Z Guide to Political Interference in Science (US)

Comment #12837 by Logicel on December 14, 2006 at 1:52 am

I cried seeing this list.

Pol Pot is one dogmatic monster that I particularily detested. He and his minions killed you if you happened to wear eyeglasses because that showed that you were an intellectual (totally illogical of course).

I cried because the wonderfully gifted human beings including scientists that have won the Nobel Prize now feel that they must band together in order to practice science, an activity not long ago which their government had enthusiastically encouraged and supported.

I also bookmarked their site.

1443. Atheists' bleak alternative

Comment #12833 by Logicel on December 14, 2006 at 1:36 am

Thanks so much for all your comments! You atheists are just too clever.

My household celebrates good will each and every day, and by the time Christmas comes around, I give myself an one day break, and I just go into vegetative mode. If some atheists want to go full hog on that day, that's fine with me. Christmas of course does have pagan foundations, and pagans sure knew how to have a pleasant time enjoying themselves.

1444. In case you didn't know I'm a fool, here's an article to prove it.

Comment #12829 by Logicel on December 14, 2006 at 1:17 am

Who do you mean by you, and what do these 'yous' claim to be a priori illogical 'evidence' and therefore not subject to support from observations. What kind of observations?

1445. In case you didn't know I'm a fool, here's an article to prove it.

Comment #12827 by Logicel on December 14, 2006 at 1:15 am

"What one can discuss is the improbability claim. But you don't do that, you claim a priori that it is "illogical' and not subject to support from observations. Well, that is illogical."
_____

You lost me. Please elaborate.

1446. In case you didn't know I'm a fool, here's an article to prove it.

Comment #12825 by Logicel on December 14, 2006 at 1:04 am

Yes, and that is why I regard John's point as being clever, because it can be used effectively in debating with the huge number of theists that doubt their faith. Of course, they doubt their faith! They are equipped with a wonderful object, the human brain.

1447. In case you didn't know I'm a fool, here's an article to prove it.

Comment #12824 by Logicel on December 14, 2006 at 1:02 am

On page 50 of TGD you will find a scale from 1 to 7 rating the intensity of belief and non belief. Only 1 and 7 represent unwavering stances, 1 for theists, and 7 for atheists, while 2 through 6 represents varying degrees of belief and lack of belief.

1448. In case you didn't know I'm a fool, here's an article to prove it.

Comment #12821 by Logicel on December 14, 2006 at 12:56 am

I hear you, aidanjt, and it is an important endeavor to do.

1449. In case you didn't know I'm a fool, here's an article to prove it.

Comment #12820 by Logicel on December 14, 2006 at 12:55 am

Just how common is this 100% faith? Many faithers admit to entertaining doubts about the existence of god all throughout their lives.

1450. In case you didn't know I'm a fool, here's an article to prove it.

Comment #12817 by Logicel on December 14, 2006 at 12:49 am

And that is the super clever point of John's