A Must Read!

[denuseri]

Exploring, perhaps. But they have not yet found any such evidence. And much depends upon what kind of scientists.

Quantum Mechanics 101

I don't know, myself. I have seen many "scientists" claim many things which seem to support a religious viewpoint, only to discover that: a) they are not really scientists, their degrees coming from diploma mills or theological colleges; b) they are scientists, but their fields of expertise are in areas different from that which they are claiming; or c) they are simply lying. An interesting example is the reported "discovery" of Noah's Ark on Mt. Ararat. The same "scientists" who discount use of carbon dating to show that the world is older than their 6000 year Creationist dogma, now claim that carbon dating puts the remains found at the proper age for the Biblical Ark. You can't have it both ways, though. Either carbon dating works or it doesn't. It cannot work only when you agree with the results.

Looks like your faith in having no faith is intact then, you quite capable of twisting your reality anyway you wish and ignoring anything contrary to your belief system.


Sorry, I don't see it. I see the natural world, nothing supernatural about it. I certainly don't see any evidence for an afterlife.

If you actually had studdied any of what I presented you with above you would realize that when discussing God supernaturalism doesnt even have to be one of the factors for his/she/its existance.


Not true, actually. There have been many experiments done to try and show that there is, in fact, some form of a god. ALL of them have failed. That is why I say that there is no evidence for a god, and therefore no rational reason to believe in one.

I would love to see one just one such experiment?


They also know where the god myths were drawn from, but believers don't like to be told that their religion is a myth.

Just as atheists dont like to be told that their own religion (the religion of disbelief) is a religion.


Calling a story a story is not derogatory.

It sure as hell was the way you were doing earlier. And your attacks dont just target the Muslims, Chatholics , and Jews eaither...they target every single religion thats ever existed and all of their adhereants.

It's telling the truth.

No, its telling your belief.

The Judeo/Christian?islamic belief systems are based upon stories, originally told through word or mouth around the campfires of desert nomads. They were made up in an effort to explain things these nomads did not understand. It's no different than someone making up stories about Harry Potter. They're descriptive, they're fun and they might even have a moral. That still doesn't make them real.

You simpley do not know if that is how their theologies came into being. For all you know they happened exactly the way those people say they happened so long ago.


Oh, I can accept their conviction. But that's not evidence! It's not proof. It's a personal feeling.

Apparently reason and logic cant be accepted eaither.


Is it irrational for us to demand tangible evidence? Is it unreasonable to want verifiable proof? And who are we hurting by not accepting your "feelings" as proof? I'm not saying you must not believe something without proof. I'm only saying it is wrong of theists to force their beliefs upon others.

Again, I don't see anyone forcing anyone. At least not any where that I have lived (and I am fairly well travelled btw). As for whats happeneing in other parts of the world, you just might to reserve your judgements until you have actually walked among those people you wish to tar and feather and live amongst them yourself for a while, instead of clinging to media talking points.


Again, sticking to the J/C/I religions, since those are the ones I am most familiar with: What is the original sin, the one which condemned all of mankind to misery and death for eternity?

Go ask them. I have little care for examining any single religion in any detail, its pointless anyway for the purposes of this discussion, you attack all religions with your statement, so I am defending all religions with mine. And Ive even brought in the knowledge you say your lacking in so we can discuss it on a somewhat equal level of knowledge, though I guess that wasnt what you wanted at all, a rational discussion; was it?

When I was growing up they tried to tell me it was the sin of disobedience, but what kind of god punishes all of mankind because one or two creatures disobeyed? No, it was the sin of gaining KNOWLEDGE which condemned Adam and Eve, and all of their descendants, to torment and death. And the Christian religions, in particular, have a long reputation for suppressing and destroying any knowledge which contradicts their own preconceived dogma.

Just like they also have long reputation for preserving and protecting knowledge, even if it did seem to contradict their own belief systems dogma.


Most of that knowledge was only lost to Western Europe because the Catholic Church ordered it destroyed.

Absolutely wrong in every way. Any history book will tell you otherwise.

Yes, Muslims saved some, (more than you think, but so too did the chatholics) but other areas of the world had also developed their own sciences and maths, (and religions, and omg who would have thunk, even though these religions ans sciences are independently developed they shared the same basic qualities and foundations, I wonder who directed that into being ) such as the Chinese, the Indians, the Mayans and the Incas. It was the suppression of science and learning in general which plunged the Christian world into the Dark Ages.

Again, please do read a history book sometimes, the fall of the roman empire had allmost nothing to do with christianity and everything to do with resource aquisition dificulties and economic stangnation. And...has nothing to do with the topic at hand.


I would love to see where religious leaders have embraced evidence which contradicts dogma without having to be forced into it by circumstances beyond their control.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2009/11...ns-alien-life/ here ya go.


So which heaven, and which hell exist? Yours? Islam's? Mayan, perhaps? Which one is right? Or is it a matter of numbers? The religion with the most believers gets its version of paradise and hell for eternity?
And I have yet to see any proof of ghosts, either. I see a lot of people running around TRYING to prove ghosts. I don't see any proof, yet.

I believe its one place one spirit for all, and that the different religions simpley interpet what they see differently. And the fellows on the history channell sure seem to disagree with you about the proof of ghosts part.


But the ancient descriptions and explanations which confirm your beliefs were factual and valid? How can we tell the difference? You must know it in your heart.

As I've explained, I tend to focus on the J/C/I versions because that is my background. I am more familiar with Christian, particularly Catholic, faiths than others. And yet you attack all relgions and faiths and beliefs outside of your own.

So you want to claim that, as an atheist, I cannot be a moral person? I dont know are you?

That if I refuse to believe in a god I am a threat to society?

I dont know are you?

And just whose morals and god am I supposed to adhere to?

The ones that we as a society as a whole agree to adhere and abide by I supose.

Yours? Someone else's?

If you wish.

Is it immoral to eat bacon?

That depends on the traditions of one's culture more so than the faith of someones heart.

Some religions say so. Is it wrong to kill my enemies? Some religions say it's not. How about enslaving my enemies? Some religions go along with that, too. Which set of morals must I abide by? Please, I want to know! Again, your missing the forest for a single tree.


Probably because you theists always claim we have no morals.

I don't know if you do or not, thats between you and your own belief system.


Sorry, but religion is already doing that. After all, it's only love between a man and a woman (and only one of each) that is valid in the sight of the Lord!

According to? One small faction of a religion, wait a sec, thats right, this issue crossess religions faiths and cultures as well, and hence, isnt jermaine to any argument about the existance of or lack therof or dis-belief in a surpreme entity.


These same feelings have been documented in drug users, people suffering from hypoxia and many other disorders. There have even been studies done showing which parts of the brain are responsible for these visions and sensations. In fact, it's quite possible (though I know of no way to prove it) that the earliest forays into religion were by shamans experimenting with mind-altering drugs.

That is correct, they have also been measured and reported by astronuants and a number of other noetic scientists during several experiments. Its what people tend to see when they are dieing and its quite possible that its tied to our biology, which I do not find surprising in the least since so many other things conserning human spirituality are also directly tied to the natural world.


There can be many "explanations". Not all of them, or even any of them, are necessarily right. And it is precisely because we are creatures of emotion that we must guard against letting our emotions determine what is true and what is not.

Why, what are you affriad of?


I don't know about honest, but his knowledge of religion is far superior to mine.

Like I said, it doesnt appear to be from his little rant.

His presentation tends to be more strident than mine, though. But part of that comes from years of dealing with strident theists who condemn him for his statements without providing any valid evidence that he's wrong.

Maby thats becuase he isnt providing any evidence that he is right.



Would you consider the story of Santa Claus, as recounted in the US, (again, a personal bias based upon my own limited knowledge) to be a fairy tale or a belief system? I think most theists would agree that it is a fairy tale, at least the adults will. And how does that story differ from the J/C God? Santa is a bearded old gnome who lives at the North Pole, though we can't see his home, with elves to help him, though we can't see them, either, and who knows everything about us: who's been good, who's been bad. God (again, as depicted in the Western Christian faiths) is a bearded old man who lives in heaven, which we cannot see, with angels to help him, though we can't see them, either, and who knows everything we are doing, bad or good. So which is the fairy tale?

Again, I do not understand why you insist on being derogatory too all faiths.


Look at the Texas School Board, attempting to force the teaching of Creationism, an unproven belief system, while denying evolution, a proven scientific theory.

Yes odd how they lined up and put gun's to the heads of the teachers and students? Oh wait, they simpley wished to correct an oversite made with earlier laws by introducing a new one. And I am sorry honey child...nothing has been proven about the "theory" of evolution as of yet. Its a theory not a law.

Look at the Christian (primarily) leaders who want us to believe that women cannot have control of their own bodies, or that two men cannot love one another. Look at the bilious crap that the Vatican promotes regarding condom use in Africa, denying the effectiveness of condoms in combating the spread of Aids despite the savage death toll of that disease. Look at the women in Islamic countries who suffer inhumane punishments simply for being women! You don't call that bile?

Look at the aethists saying we are all stupid and imoral for our faith! Do not complaign of the splinter in your neighbors eye when there is a log in your own to begin with.


So you admit that religion is not necessary for someone to have a purpose?

See, I believe you have your own little religion,,, atheism despite your claims to the otherwise that you have filled the void in your heart with.


Exactly! A LACK of belief (or disbelief) in God, NOT a belief in NO God.

"Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities."

True. It's not the drop, it's the sudden stop. The laws of momentum. Science rules.


You're right, I don't know. But are you saying that ONLY those who somehow survive are the ones who prayed? I would be willing to bet that the majority of those who jumped from the WTC prayed before the jumped. Why didn't their prayers do any good? Why is the prayer of a mother for her malformed child not answered, while the child of a drug-addicted prostitute is born normally? Which prayers are necessary to ensure an outcome that is good for me? On the other hand, aren't such prayers an attempt to deflect God's will? How does that jibe with faith that God's will is for the best?

You will like the rest of us, have to ask the surpreme diety that for yourself someday.


Evidence, my friend! Evidence! Looking at the universe and "feeling" it must have a creator is not evidence!

Looking at it and seeing that nothing else but God could have made it is more than enough evidence for me.


I have already admitted that I cannot provide evidence to prove that something does not exist. I can only provide evidence that shows that something PROBABLY does not exist. It would only take one piece of evidence, one verifiable data point, to prove me wrong.

So in effect you admit to having no evidence.

If you have all the evidence you need, then your faith is strong. That's great, for you. It's not enough for me, however. Yet throughout history, people like me have been forced to toe the religious line or suffer the consequences.

Not my fault.

Now that we have decided to fight back and renounce those beliefs, we are accused of trying to destroy faith, to destroy religion.

Fortunately there are not enough of you to actually pull it off yet, it will be a very sad day if that happens.

Yes, it's my opinion that the world would be a better place without religion. That doesn't mean I could, or would want to, destroy Faith.

Then why do you try so hard to do just that I wonder?

I just don't want to have to live by the arbitrary codes of ethics of those faiths when I can see the damage that they do to people. And in this modern world it's been agreed among most free-thinking people that I don't have to.

No one is forcing you too.


I only claim that those who deny the truth are the liars. Like Catholic leaders who blame children for the pedophilia their priest commit. Or misogynistic religions leaders all over the globe who preach that women are morally inferior to men. Or smarmy televangelists who claim to know the mind of their god, and that god wants YOUR money, right now!

Or like aethists that say their is no god?


And once more I must insist. Atheists do NOT promote a belief system! They promote the idea of critically examining belief systems and testing those systems against reality.

If it walks like a duck...


The vast majority of the world's population once believed that the gods lived in caves on mountains, or that magical incantations could protect them from wild animals, or that sailing out of sight of land would cause one to sail off the edge of the world. It was real to them. It's laughable to us now.

To you perhaps it is.


Sorry, but atheism is far from a "new" hypothesis. Once again, it is not a belief system, but a LACK of belief. And it is not atheists who are making extraordinary claims of supernatural beings arranging for a supernatural paradise in an unprovable afterlife. If you want to make the claims as if they were truth you have to provide evidence. Otherwise it is only a belief, a matter of faith, and your faith, which may feel right to you, is no better or worse than any other person's faith, which feels right to them.

"The first individuals to identify themselves as "atheist" appeared in the 18th century.[7] "

Yep still waiting for your evidence, I presented mine and you casually glanced over it and rejected it piecmeal without even really looking at it.


And from that link:

Which is what I've been saying all along!

And from the very same link:

"Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities."

[Thorne]

[B][COLOR="pink"]Quantum Mechanics 101

I don't claim to understand anything about quantum mechanics. There are scientists who are studying quantum mechanics who don't know all that much about it. It's confusing, seemingly contradictory and exceedingly difficult to work with in the first place. What I do know is that anyone who claims that quantum mechanics "explains" anything about their belief system knows even less about it than I do. There's enough information about it that they can pick and choose bits and pieces of different hypotheses and claim almost anything they want, even if those hypotheses have not yet been tested or have even been discarded as unworkable.

Looks like your faith in having no faith is intact then, you quite capable of twisting your reality anyway you wish and ignoring anything contrary to your belief system.

See, this is where we have a problem. Anything I can say which contradicts what you want to believe is automatically wrong in your mind, while anything you say which attempts to explain your beliefs does not have the evidence which I think is necessary. We're running around in circles here.

If you actually had studdied any of what I presented you with above you would realize that when discussing God supernaturalism doesnt even have to be one of the factors for his/she/its existance.

We're basically talking about a being who is outside of the universe, is all-knowing and all-powerful, are we not? By definition, that is supernatural, or above natural. If god is actually a part of the natural world, then he is subject to natural laws, making him no more of a god than I am.

I would love to see one just one such experiment?

How about an experiment involving prayer? Would that qualify?
According to this study, which I understand is one of the best designed studies of its type, "Not only did prayer not help the patients, those that were told they were being prayed for experienced more complications."

Just as atheists dont like to be told that their own religion (the religion of disbelief) is a religion.

According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:
atheism is a disbelief in the existence of deity, or the doctrine that there is no deity.
religion is a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices.
Since atheism does not involve attitudes, beliefs or practices of any kind, much less religious, I fail to see why you insist on calling it a religion. Something else we are going in circles on. We must agree to disagree.

It sure as hell was the way you were doing earlier. And your attacks dont just target the Muslims, Chatholics , and Jews eaither...they target every single religion thats ever existed and all of their adhereants.

I'm not trying to attack anyone. I'm merely pointing out that any system of beliefs, religious or not, which is derived from stories and parables which defy natural law and which have no evidence for their veracity, is hardly different from a belief in fairy tales.

You simpley do not know if that is how their theologies came into being. For all you know they happened exactly the way those people say they happened so long ago.

Unless evidence can be provided to show that such things could happen, in defiance of the laws of nature as we understand them, there is no rational reason to believe they are anything but stories.

Again, I don't see anyone forcing anyone. At least not any where that I have lived (and I am fairly well travelled btw). As for whats happeneing in other parts of the world, you just might to reserve your judgements until you have actually walked among those people you wish to tar and feather and live amongst them yourself for a while, instead of clinging to media talking points.

One of the reasons I rely so heavily on references to the Judeo/Christian religions is because I have NOT lived among people of those other religions or nationalities. But if you cannot see the religious suppression and infiltration going on all around the world then perhaps you should pay more attention to the media. Public schools in Australia are required to have religious classes, which apparently can be taught by anyone, whether qualified to teach or not. I've already mentioned Texas. I haven't the stomach to do so again. The lawyer defending that woman condemned to stoning in Iran had to flee the country in the hopes of getting his wife released from prison, where she was being held to force him to cave in to the religious courts. All over the world such religious atrocities are occurring, every day. It's the religions of the world who are doing the persecuting, not the atheists. We only wish to keep religion OUT of public life, and keep it in the churches, temples, mosques or whatever.

I believe its one place one spirit for all, and that the different religions simpley interpet what they see differently.

But who is actually seeing this? What evidence do we have that anyone has actually seen anything like the afterlife?

And the fellows on the history channell sure seem to disagree with you about the proof of ghosts part.

The owners of the history channel are putting forth shows which will sell advertising. Guys running around with infrared cameras and EMF detectors and running EVP tests don't prove anything. They can't even explain why ghosts should even register on IR or EMF, or show that what they are recording is actually ghosts and not something else. Have any of them actually come right out and said, "HERE is proof of the existence of ghosts"? Not to my knowledge! They hedge and say that such and such is a good indicator of ghostly phenomenon, which is not saying anything.

But the ancient descriptions and explanations which confirm your beliefs were factual and valid? How can we tell the difference? You must know it in your heart.

Which is why it's called faith! Belief without evidence.

And just whose morals and god am I supposed to adhere to?
The ones that we as a society as a whole agree to adhere and abide by I supose.

So you agree that society is the ultimate arbiter of morality, then. That's a step in the right direction, I suppose.

That is correct, they have also been measured and reported by astronuants and a number of other noetic scientists during several experiments. Its what people tend to see when they are dieing and its quite possible that its tied to our biology, which I do not find surprising in the least since so many other things conserning human spirituality are also directly tied to the natural world.

Well here, at least, is something we can agree on, though I'm still up in the air about Noetics. I'm not sure just what that's all about.

Again, I do not understand why you insist on being derogatory too all faiths.

And again, I don't see how I'm being derogatory.

And I am sorry honey child...nothing has been proven about the "theory" of evolution as of yet. Its a theory not a law.

Which shows your misunderstanding of the word 'Theory'. A scientific theory is one which has passed the test of demonstration and prediction. In science, a theory is as close as you can get to fact. Evolution HAS been proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt. The mechanisms of evolution are still being argued, but the results can not be logically or factually disputed.

"Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities."

Exactly what I said. the rejection of belief, not a belief itself.

You will like the rest of us, have to ask the surpreme diety that for yourself someday.

LOL! That's not going to happen! If I'm right, he isn't there, so no one to ask. If you're right, there's no way I'll be getting close to him. After all, I don't think he's the greatest.

Looking at it and seeing that nothing else but God could have made it is more than enough evidence for me.

Nothing else that you can think of but God, perhaps. Still an appeal to emotion, though, not evidence.

Not my fault.

I'm not blaming you. I blame the institutions of religion. ALL of them.

Fortunately there are not enough of you to actually pull it off yet, it will be a very sad day if that happens.

Even if there were enough, we are rational enough to understand that everyone is entitle to their own beliefs. They are not entitled to force them on others. Keep religion in the churches and out of the government. And keep the government out of the churches.

Then why do you try so hard to do just that I wonder?

Is that what you think I'm doing, trying to destroy your faith? Is your faith that weak that I could have the slightest chance of doing such a thing?

I just don't want to have to live by the arbitrary codes of ethics of those faiths when I can see the damage that they do to people. And in this modern world it's been agreed among most free-thinking people that I don't have to.
No one is forcing you too.

Not yet. Plenty are trying, though.

[leo9]

I don't claim to understand anything about quantum mechanics. There are scientists who are studying quantum mechanics who don't know all that much about it. It's confusing, seemingly contradictory and exceedingly difficult to work with in the first place. What I do know is that anyone who claims that quantum mechanics "explains" anything about their belief system knows even less about it than I do. There's enough information about it that they can pick and choose bits and pieces of different hypotheses and claim almost anything they want, even if those hypotheses have not yet been tested or have even been discarded as unworkable.

I'm with you here. Quantum physics is the buzz-word now, as "vibrations" were to the Theosophists, because it sounds scientific without actually committing you to any testable facts. The most one can honestly say is that, for example, the theory of quantum entanglement might provide a physical mechanism for action at a distance without a known carrier. That's a long way from proving it happens.

We're basically talking about a being who is outside of the universe, is all-knowing and all-powerful, are we not? By definition, that is supernatural, or above natural. If god is actually a part of the natural world, then he is subject to natural laws, making him no more of a god than I am.

There's a grey area here. People have built what amounts to a religion out of Lovelock's Gaia theory, that the Earth is an organism, and speak of Her as worshippers do of their god. But I agree that gods as I and most people think of them are by definition outside physical laws; if "supernatural" sounds too like "superstitious" then let's say "spiritual".

How about an experiment involving prayer? Would that qualify?
According to this study, which I understand is one of the best designed studies of its type, "Not only did prayer not help the patients, those that were told they were being prayed for experienced more complications."

I can see a flaw in the design right there: if I were told I was being prayed for, I'd take it as meaning that my condition must be really bad, with consequent ill effects on my clinical outcome. They should have randomised which were told they were being prayed for, and which actually were. The better designed studies have been double-blind, and some have found positive results. Let's just say that more research is needed.

Since atheism does not involve attitudes, beliefs or practices of any kind, much less religious, I fail to see why you insist on calling it a religion.

I agree that's stretching the term. Let's just call it a belief system.

One of the reasons I rely so heavily on references to the Judeo/Christian religions is because I have NOT lived among people of those other religions or nationalities. But if you cannot see the religious suppression and infiltration going on all around the world then perhaps you should pay more attention to the media. Public schools in Australia are required to have religious classes, which apparently can be taught by anyone, whether qualified to teach or not. I've already mentioned Texas. I haven't the stomach to do so again. The lawyer defending that woman condemned to stoning in Iran had to flee the country in the hopes of getting his wife released from prison, where she was being held to force him to cave in to the religious courts. All over the world such religious atrocities are occurring, every day. It's the religions of the world who are doing the persecuting, not the atheists. We only wish to keep religion OUT of public life, and keep it in the churches, temples, mosques or whatever.

And I agree. But if that's all, why the vehement attacks, the reiteration that anyone who believes in an afterlife or a divinity must be motivated either by cowardice or venality?

But who is actually seeing this? What evidence do we have that anyone has actually seen anything like the afterlife?

There is an entire school of painters who insist that they can see all the colours of the spectrum in, for example, a blue sky: and they paint it to prove it. But it's only their perception, and the fact that their paintings look real to many other people isn't evidence, because that's only subjective too. So shall we call them all liars, as well?

If I'm right, he isn't there, so no one to ask. If you're right, there's no way I'll be getting close to him. After all, I don't think he's the greatest.

But maybe he doesn't mind?

Bertrand Russell was asked what he would say if he found himself in the presence of God, and replied "Lord, you did not give us enough evidence."

But I recall another story of a Zen master whose new student complained that he had not taught him anything. They were walking among lilacs, and the Master said "Can you smell it? There, you see, I haven't kept anything from you!"

To those who feel it, the world - and the glorious simplicity of science - are all the evidence we need for divinity. To those who are tone-deaf in that range, there is no music, and nobody can prove there is.

Still an appeal to emotion, though, not evidence.

You say that like it's a bad thing

[Thorne]

There's a grey area here. People have built what amounts to a religion out of Lovelock's Gaia theory, that the Earth is an organism, and speak of Her as worshippers do of their god. But I agree that gods as I and most people think of them are by definition outside physical laws; if "supernatural" sounds too like "superstitious" then let's say "spiritual".

I don't particularly have a problem with the word "superstitious". I personally don't see the difference between believing that knocking on wood will deflect evil or believing that praying will deflect evil. What we call superstition now was once a part of someone's religion. What we call religion now will someday likely be part of someone else's superstition.

I can see a flaw in the design right there: if I were told I was being prayed for, I'd take it as meaning that my condition must be really bad, with consequent ill effects on my clinical outcome. They should have randomised which were told they were being prayed for, and which actually were. The better designed studies have been double-blind, and some have found positive results. Let's just say that more research is needed.

I think I see your point. There should have been a fourth group. Those told they would be prayed for (and who were NOT.) I didn't catch that, sorry.

But I believe part of their explanation for the results in the third group was the same as your conclusion. The patients became stressed because they thought they were worse off than they really were. And they (and I) also agreed that more study is needed.

I agree that's stretching the term. Let's just call it a belief system.

How can you call an attitude that denies beliefs a belief system! Or is it just that believers can't seem to overcome the idea that everybody has to believe in something?

But if that's all, why the vehement attacks, the reiteration that anyone who believes in an afterlife or a divinity must be motivated either by cowardice or venality?

Maybe I'm seeing this from the wrong perspective, since both you and denuseri have claimed these "vehement attacks". I'm not attacking anyone for their beliefs. I'm attacking those who put forth their beliefs as truth, and especially those who attempt to force others to accept those beliefs.

There is an entire school of painters who insist that they can see all the colours of the spectrum in, for example, a blue sky: and they paint it to prove it. But it's only their perception, and the fact that their paintings look real to many other people isn't evidence, because that's only subjective too. So shall we call them all liars, as well?But maybe he doesn't mind?

I've seen people who see and talk with invisible fairies and who hear voices coming from the sky. Are we to accept their pronouncements as valid perceptions? Or are they just crazy. My signature line explains my position on this.

To those who feel it, the world - and the glorious simplicity of science - are all the evidence we need for divinity. To those who are tone-deaf in that range, there is no music, and nobody can prove there is.

Yet even someone who is deaf can feel the vibrations of the music, or see the effects of the sounds in an oscilloscope. Where are the vibrations of your divinity? Which instruments can we use to see the results of his (or her) efforts?

You say that like it's a bad thing

Unless you happen to be studying emotions, allowing emotions to affect your experiments IS a bad thing.

Just as a little test, take a look through that Pharyngula blog. I'm sure you won't agree with what he has to say, more often than not, but see how often he provides links to the religious blogs he's castigating. See how often commenters deny his claims and try to refute them. While he will ban people from commenting when they get too over the top, he has a list which explains the reasons for their banning.

Now go to some of those religious sites. They seldom provide links to sites which argue against their claims, and they even more seldom allow commenters to attack their claims. They almost universally tend to edit the comments out before they can appear on the site. I understand that some of this is to eliminate vulgarity, which is sadly all to prominent among some of the more adamant atheist commenters. But I myself have attempted to make comments which are not vulgar and which are, I believe, rational and reasoned, but which refute the religious claims being made. I have seldom seen any of these comments get past moderation.

For my part, I'm more inclined to trust someone who allows you to see the "enemy's" blogs and listen to the "enemy" comments, than I am someone who is afraid to even print the opposition's name!

Which would you trust more?