Belief v. Non-Belief

[JoltinJoe]

Again, I hope you're right, but neuroscientists are leaning towards the so-called soul being part of the brain and not something that exists separately from the brain.

There's no "leaning towards" it. It's practically taken as a given and is dogma to the point that you would be publicly ridiculed if you were a neuroscientist if you suggested there was any metaphysical workings of the brain. On some level there's nothing wrong with that as you cannot produce anything useful if you throw up your hands and just explain something as being supernatural or metaphysical. The convenient thing about physicalism, though, is that no matter how many times you fail to explain something physically you can always fall back on "we'll figure it out eventually, people once thought volcanic eruptions were acts of god".

That's not really convincing to me, though. As I was telling Chizz in my AI thread, the puzzle of explaining consciousness is not just a scienctific puzzle, it's also a mathematical puzzle involving information theory and other branches of math most people don't even know exists. Roger Penrose really first suggested you needed to look at the quantum level to have any hope of explaining the workings of the brain, and gradually more mathematicians are coming around to the idea that replicating cognition with computer hardware and classical algorithms isn't possible. And if that is possible at the bare minimum you have to come up with a new physical model of how the brain works.

Quite simply, it is possible there are things that will continue to defy any attempted physical explanation no matter how much effort is put into it because they have no physical explanation. If you don't think that is possible you are not a true free-thinker.

Yes, it puzzles me that neuroscientists are so dogmatic on this point.

I've spoken to a few neuroscientists about their collective certainty on this point, and asked, "Doesn't the mere fact we have metaphysical ideas and concepts prove that there is something metaphysical about the human experience?"

I have never really received a convincing answer. The best that they come up with is that our metaphysical concepts are themselves simply biological impulses of our brain function.

In other words, we are really no different that any other animal. We're just the most intellectually superior animal.

And, in their opinion (it seems), we are the most deluded of the animals.

I've tried to follow up by asking, "So then, as a neuroscientist, you are saying that we should ignore the abstract philosophical concepts of our higher brain function?" A number of them have danced around the question, but my favorite response was from the guy honest enough to say, "Yes."

[Chizzang]

I don't know who it was back there that salvaged this thread... but thank you
I like where we're going

So anyway... Joe and Pwns
You would both agree that science has dramatically reduced the reliance on "volcano god is angry" and "Aids is god taking revenge on fags"

No..?

[JoltinJoe]

I don't know who it was back there that salvaged this thread... but thank you
I like where we're going

So anyway... Joe and Pwns
You would both agree that science has dramatically reduced the reliance on "volcano god is angry" and "Aids is god taking revenge on fags"

No..?

Not science alone. Philosophy and Theology too.

For example, the book of Job concerns the question of why do bad things happen to good people. And, the Gospel of Luke's "Tower of Siloam" passage also addresses that same question. Jesus refutes the idea that a natural or man-made calamity befalls someone as a result of God's anger toward the victims.

Moreover, I think the Old Testament itself presents an evolving understanding of the relationship between God and Man. As the text progresses, the depiction of God becomes more like our modern understanding, while in the earlier texts God is more frequently depicted in ways similar to many of the warrior/vengeful gods of the other groups. I sat through a class once in the history of the OT, the objective of which was to correlate the texts of the OT to the historical condition of the Jewish people at the time to which the text belongs. It was really a fascinating study.

But I don't want to stray too far from the topic. As a believer, I think that anyone who thinks they can "speak for God" and tell us why some calamity happened, pretends too much.

And while natural disasters happen, to the extent they have calamitous results, those results are often caused by inequity tolerated by man. For example, an earthquake kills more people in Kathmandu than San Francisco because of imbalances in wealth allow for shakier dwellings and buildings in Kathmandu. But man permits those economic imbalances to exist.

EDIT: I actually found that the class is still on-line. If I remember right, the lectures go about 40-45 minutes. Perfect for a light cross-training machine session twice a week. You'll be done in 12 weeks.

http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-145" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Skjellyfetti]

Depends on what you mean by "belief"

"Belief" didn't always have the same primary meaning as our scientifically rigid "acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists."

In the Biblical sense it meant something closer to loyalty, following, etc. -- "I give my heart"

When the New Testament was translated from Greek into Latin by Saint Jerome (c. 342-420) pistis became fides (“loyalty”). Fides had no verbal form, so for pisteuo Jerome used the Latin verb credo, a word that derived from cor do, “I give my heart.” He did not think of using opinor (“I hold an opinion.”) When the Bible was translated into English, credo and pisteuo became “I believe” in the King James version (1611). But the word “belief” has since changed its meaning. In Middle English, bileven meant “to praise; to value; to hold dear.” It was related to the German belieben (“to love), liebe (“beloved”), and the Latin libido. So “belief” originally meant “loyalty to a person to whom one is bound in promise or duty.” …During the late seventeenth century, however, as our concept of knowledge became more theoretical, the word “belief” started to be used to describe an intellectual assent to a hypothetical–and often dubious–proposition. Scientists and philosophers were the first to use it in this sense, but in religious contexts the Latin credere and the English “belief” both retained their original connotations well into the 19th century.

I consider myself to be a Christian - but, I read the Bible largely metaphorically. I don't see a problem with that. They certainly were comfortable working with metaphor... Jesus preached primarily through metaphor.

We have trouble grasping the fact that metaphor and myth can be True while not being necessarily true. And, that's why religious debates here and elsewhere are primarily between religious fundamentalists like JoltinJoe and SeattleGriz and fundamentalist New Atheists like D1B and Cleets.

[Pwns]

Not science alone. Philosophy and Theology too.

For example, the book of Job concerns the question of why do bad things happen to good people. And, the Gospel of Luke's "Tower of Siloam" passage also addresses that same question. Jesus refutes the idea that a natural or man-made calamity befalls someone as a result of God's anger toward the victims.

Moreover, I think the Old Testament itself presents an evolving understanding of the relationship between God and Man. As the text progresses, the depiction of God becomes more like our modern understanding, while in the earlier texts God is more frequently depicted in ways similar to many of the warrior/vengeful gods of the other groups. I sat through a class once in the history of the OT, the objective of which was to correlate the texts of the OT to the historical condition of the Jewish people at the time to which the text belongs. It was really a fascinating study.

But I don't want to stray too far from the topic. As a believer, I think that anyone who thinks they can "speak for God" and tell us why some calamity happened, pretends too much.

And while natural disasters happen, to the extent they have calamitous results, those results are often caused by inequity tolerated by man. For example, an earthquake kills more people in Kathmandu than San Francisco because of imbalances in wealth allow for shakier dwellings and buildings in Kathmandu. But man permits those economic imbalances to exist.

EDIT: I actually found that the class is still on-line. If I remember right, the lectures go about 40-45 minutes. Perfect for a light cross-training machine session twice a week. You'll be done in 12 weeks.

http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-145" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

When I get the "why does bad stuff happen" question from areligious types, I usually ask them this question…

Suppose that you could go back 1000 years and save a child (who would grow up make the lives of people he or she would be around better) from drowning, but in doing so you cause a butterfly effect over time and it would mean the world in our time would be much worse off than it is now?

Obviously that is not going to be comforting to anyone who has lost a child, but it will at least get someone to not approach the question of why bad stuff happens in such a simplistic way. The irony is that areligious types will not contemplate the question any further than some ardent religious types who give silly and poorly thought-out answers.

As for Chizzaing's question, of course the advancement of science and elimination of some kinds of superstition has made life better. If there's a possible way for science to make life better through brain science I'm for it. I think implants that could make people smarter and less impulsive might be the greatest scientific innovation of all time bar none. I'm just not convinced that science will answer all things.

[ASUG8]

I'm certainly no religious scholar, nor an expert on the bible, but here are a few random thoughts I have about religion and belief:

* People, unlike most animals, have an understanding of death and a fear of it. Having beliefs in something that could be an extension of our lives in some form gives us comfort when facing our eventual death.

* I believe the Bible to be a series of stories based somewhat in fact but told over and over so embellishments and changes were made to the stories. It's not what we would call a true historical document, but there are certainly some documented truths verified by archeology and science.

* I think there was a man named Jesus who was remarkably charismatic and likely had a profound impact on many people with which he came into contact. To reiterate my point above, I believe that his deeds were likely broadened over time to make him a prophet. The fact that he is mentioned in similar terms historically in the Koran and Bible are evidence to me that he did in fact exist and heavily influenced the people he met.

* Whether you believe in burning bushes that talk, giants that were killed by a kid with a slingshot, or 40 day worldwide floods is your business. What I take from the bible are the commandments and golden rule, which are really not bad suggestions for a structured society to follow and avoid complete chaos.

* The parables and stories are metaphorical, and very open to interpretation. I've often said that if you put 50 clergy in a room and asked them to dissect a section of scripture you'd get 50 different answers.

* If you can get away from taking the bible and scripture in general as anything other than completely cast in stone and treat it as a living document that changes with the times, there are a lot of tenets there which are beneficial when not taken to the furthest extent of being literal, i.e. atheism and fundamentalists.

Given all this, I'm not sure exactly where it places me on the belief/non-belief spectrum. The logical side of me says that much of the bible is unlikely, but to completely abandon any faith doesn't seem correct either. I'd love to see some physical evidence or something that would satisfy my need to have this proven, but I think that's unlikely.

[Grizalltheway]

I'm certainly no religious scholar, nor an expert on the bible, but here are a few random thoughts I have about religion and belief:

* People, unlike most animals, have an understanding of death and a fear of it. Having beliefs in something that could be an extension of our lives in some form gives us comfort when facing our eventual death.

* I believe the Bible to be a series of stories based somewhat in fact but told over and over so embellishments and changes were made to the stories. It's not what we would call a true historical document, but there are certainly some documented truths verified by archeology and science.

* I think there was a man named Jesus who was remarkably charismatic and likely had a profound impact on many people with which he came into contact. To reiterate my point above, I believe that his deeds were likely broadened over time to make him a prophet. The fact that he is mentioned in similar terms historically in the Koran and Bible are evidence to me that he did in fact exist and heavily influenced the people he met.

* Whether you believe in burning bushes that talk, giants that were killed by a kid with a slingshot, or 40 day worldwide floods is your business. What I take from the bible are the commandments and golden rule, which are really not bad suggestions for a structured society to follow and avoid complete chaos.

* The parables and stories are metaphorical, and very open to interpretation. I've often said that if you put 50 clergy in a room and asked them to dissect a section of scripture you'd get 50 different answers.

* If you can get away from taking the bible and scripture in general as anything other than completely cast in stone and treat it as a living document that changes with the times, there are a lot of tenets there which are beneficial when not taken to the furthest extent of being literal, i.e. atheism and fundamentalists.

Given all this, I'm not sure exactly where it places me on the belief/non-belief spectrum. The logical side of me says that much of the bible is unlikely, but to completely abandon any faith doesn't seem correct either. I'd love to see some physical evidence or something that would satisfy my need to have this proven, but I think that's unlikely.

Hmmm...

[SeattleGriz]

When I read the Bible and the lessons in there, I couldn't help but feel there was some universal moral truths we do not understand.

For example....

The one thing that really stands out to me is the almost universal requirement that sin be paid for through blood payment, whether it was the best of animals or Jesus. A life for a life pretty much.

Oh, and looking at my previous statement, you could throw out the word moral - universal truths is closer.

[D1B]

I don't know who it was back there that salvaged this thread... but thank you
I like where we're going

So anyway... Joe and Pwns
You would both agree that science has dramatically reduced the reliance on "volcano god is angry" and "Aids is god taking revenge on fags"

No..?

Not science alone. Philosophy and Theology too.

For example, the book of Job concerns the question of why do bad things happen to good people. And, the Gospel of Luke's "Tower of Siloam" passage also addresses that same question. Jesus refutes the idea that a natural or man-made calamity befalls someone as a result of God's anger toward the victims.

Moreover, I think the Old Testament itself presents an evolving understanding of the relationship between God and Man. As the text progresses, the depiction of God becomes more like our modern understanding, while in the earlier texts God is more frequently depicted in ways similar to many of the warrior/vengeful gods of the other groups. I sat through a class once in the history of the OT, the objective of which was to correlate the texts of the OT to the historical condition of the Jewish people at the time to which the text belongs. It was really a fascinating study.

But I don't want to stray too far from the topic. As a believer, I think that anyone who thinks they can "speak for God" and tell us why some calamity happened, pretends too much.

And while natural disasters happen, to the extent they have calamitous results, those results are often caused by inequity tolerated by man. For example, an earthquake kills more people in Kathmandu than San Francisco because of imbalances in wealth allow for shakier dwellings and buildings in Kathmandu. But man permits those economic imbalances to exist.

EDIT: I actually found that the class is still on-line. If I remember right, the lectures go about 40-45 minutes. Perfect for a light cross-training machine session twice a week. You'll be done in 12 weeks.

http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-145" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Old Testament presents an evolving.." = the Old Testament is categorically immoral, inhuman, and mythical, so it's important to make excuses to cover up this fact.

[CID1990]

Not science alone. Philosophy and Theology too.

For example, the book of Job concerns the question of why do bad things happen to good people. And, the Gospel of Luke's "Tower of Siloam" passage also addresses that same question. Jesus refutes the idea that a natural or man-made calamity befalls someone as a result of God's anger toward the victims.

Moreover, I think the Old Testament itself presents an evolving understanding of the relationship between God and Man. As the text progresses, the depiction of God becomes more like our modern understanding, while in the earlier texts God is more frequently depicted in ways similar to many of the warrior/vengeful gods of the other groups. I sat through a class once in the history of the OT, the objective of which was to correlate the texts of the OT to the historical condition of the Jewish people at the time to which the text belongs. It was really a fascinating study.

But I don't want to stray too far from the topic. As a believer, I think that anyone who thinks they can "speak for God" and tell us why some calamity happened, pretends too much.

And while natural disasters happen, to the extent they have calamitous results, those results are often caused by inequity tolerated by man. For example, an earthquake kills more people in Kathmandu than San Francisco because of imbalances in wealth allow for shakier dwellings and buildings in Kathmandu. But man permits those economic imbalances to exist.

EDIT: I actually found that the class is still on-line. If I remember right, the lectures go about 40-45 minutes. Perfect for a light cross-training machine session twice a week. You'll be done in 12 weeks.

http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-145" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Old Testament presents an evolving.." = the Old Testament is categorically immoral, inhuman, and mythical, so it's important to make excuses to cover up this fact.

I'd love to be around 6000 years from now to see what people think about the most "moral" among us today.

[JoltinJoe]

We have trouble grasping the fact that metaphor and myth can be True while not being necessarily true. And, that's why religious debates here and elsewhere are primarily between religious fundamentalists like JoltinJoe and SeattleGriz and fundamentalist New Atheists like D1B and Cleets.

Oh, spare me.

If you think I'm a "religious fundamentalist," you haven't been paying attention or you just don't understand things.

Or most likely, a combination of the two.

[kalm]

"Old Testament presents an evolving.." = the Old Testament is categorically immoral, inhuman, and mythical, so it's important to make excuses to cover up this fact.

I'd love to be around 6000 years from now to see what people think about the most "moral" among us today.

I've had the pleasure of meeting several devout Christians and true hippies who are the most caring, non-judgemental, nature and people loving humans around. They would neither impose their beliefs on your lifestyle or intentionally harm anyone one in any way.

I'm guessing there are more of each group than one might think, and I believe they'd be viewed positively.

[JoltinJoe]

"Old Testament presents an evolving.." = the Old Testament is categorically immoral, inhuman, and mythical, so it's important to make excuses to cover up this fact.

I'd love to be around 6000 years from now to see what people think about the most "moral" among us today.

Precisely. The understanding of moral truth MUST evolve and grow over time. Just as our understanding of science, math, philosophy, etc., grows and expands over time.

We are evolving species: physically, mentally, spiritually.

The Bible is an important statement documenting man's relationship with that single God "who is." It contains propositions of objective and eternal truth. The key, though, is to understand what is intended to be the "Law of God" and what is man-made civil law.

The most frequent mistake made with the Bible is confusing the Law of God with the civil law of Moses. Truth is, the vast majority of Jews, even observant Jews, do not follow the law of Moses -- and, in fact, no Jew alive today literally follows every tenet of the law of Moses. For example, the civil law of Moses stated that homosexual activities were "detestable" and those engaging in such acts should be put to death. But no Jew today argues that homosexuals should be put to death.

As an aside, the law of Moses and the reasons why certain activities were outlawed, often under penalty of death, cannot be understood without understanding the social context in which that law was formulated. Without belaboring the discussion, Moses' law often outlawed a practice for societal reasons, in the interest of preserving the existence of the fledgling Jewish people -- always at risk at being overtaken and assimilated by their pagan neighbors.

[Ibanez]

Has D1b been converted yet? Has he been signed up for RCIA classes?

[CID1990]

I'd love to be around 6000 years from now to see what people think about the most "moral" among us today.

I've had the pleasure of meeting several devout Christians and true hippies who are the most caring, non-judgemental, nature and people loving humans around. They would neither impose their beliefs on your lifestyle or intentionally harm anyone one in any way.

I'm guessing there are more of each group than one might think, and I believe they'd be viewed positively.

do they eat meat?

do they drive cars that use gasoline?

do they believe democracy is the best form of government?

How can you predict what the prevailing morality will be?

Its only been 150 years and Confederate soldiers have gone from mostly yeomen farmers fighting out of a sense of duty to their home states to being firebreathing Nazis who personally killed or raped every black person they could get their hands on

in 6000 years we will all be villains

[SeattleGriz]

We have trouble grasping the fact that metaphor and myth can be True while not being necessarily true. And, that's why religious debates here and elsewhere are primarily between religious fundamentalists like JoltinJoe and SeattleGriz and fundamentalist New Atheists like D1B and Cleets.

Oh, spare me.

If you think I'm a "religious fundamentalist," you haven't been paying attention or you just don't understand things.

Or most likely, a combination of the two.

I'm flattered!

[Wedgebuster]

[Chizzang]

Oh, spare me.

If you think I'm a "religious fundamentalist," you haven't been paying attention or you just don't understand things.

Or most likely, a combination of the two.

I'm flattered!

So apparently I'm now an Atheist
but not just any old Atheist - I'm a "New Atheist"

[SeattleGriz]

I'm flattered!

So apparently I'm now an Atheist
but not just any old Atheist - I'm a "New Atheist"

New and Improved!

[D1B]

There's no "leaning towards" it. It's practically taken as a given and is dogma to the point that you would be publicly ridiculed if you were a neuroscientist if you suggested there was any metaphysical workings of the brain. On some level there's nothing wrong with that as you cannot produce anything useful if you throw up your hands and just explain something as being supernatural or metaphysical. The convenient thing about physicalism, though, is that no matter how many times you fail to explain something physically you can always fall back on "we'll figure it out eventually, people once thought volcanic eruptions were acts of god".

That's not really convincing to me, though. As I was telling Chizz in my AI thread, the puzzle of explaining consciousness is not just a scienctific puzzle, it's also a mathematical puzzle involving information theory and other branches of math most people don't even know exists. Roger Penrose really first suggested you needed to look at the quantum level to have any hope of explaining the workings of the brain, and gradually more mathematicians are coming around to the idea that replicating cognition with computer hardware and classical algorithms isn't possible. And if that is possible at the bare minimum you have to come up with a new physical model of how the brain works.

Quite simply, it is possible there are things that will continue to defy any attempted physical explanation no matter how much effort is put into it because they have no physical explanation. If you don't think that is possible you are not a true free-thinker.

Yes, it puzzles me that neuroscientists are so dogmatic on this point.

I've spoken to a few neuroscientists about their collective certainty on this point, and asked, "Doesn't the mere fact we have metaphysical ideas and concepts prove that there is something metaphysical about the human experience?"

I have never really received a convincing answer. The best that they come up with is that our metaphysical concepts are themselves simply biological impulses of our brain function.

In other words, we are really no different that any other animal. We're just the most intellectually superior animal.

And, in their opinion (it seems), we are the most deluded of the animals.

I've tried to follow up by asking, "So then, as a neuroscientist, you are saying that we should ignore the abstract philosophical concepts of our higher brain function?" A number of them have danced around the question, but my favorite response was from the guy honest enough to say, "Yes."

We're animals with big, powerful brains.

Now that you're done making ass out of yourself with your neuroscientist friends, check what your anthropologist, primatologist and biologist friends have to say.

[D1B]

We have trouble grasping the fact that metaphor and myth can be True while not being necessarily true. And, that's why religious debates here and elsewhere are primarily between religious fundamentalists like JoltinJoe and SeattleGriz and fundamentalist New Atheists like D1B and Cleets.

Oh, spare me.

If you think I'm a "religious fundamentalist," you haven't been paying attention or you just don't understand things.

Or most likely, a combination of the two.

You're a fundamentalist. You have a decade of defending the atrocities and absurdities of your religion as proof.

[JoltinJoe]

Yes, it puzzles me that neuroscientists are so dogmatic on this point.

I've spoken to a few neuroscientists about their collective certainty on this point, and asked, "Doesn't the mere fact we have metaphysical ideas and concepts prove that there is something metaphysical about the human experience?"

I have never really received a convincing answer. The best that they come up with is that our metaphysical concepts are themselves simply biological impulses of our brain function.

In other words, we are really no different that any other animal. We're just the most intellectually superior animal.

And, in their opinion (it seems), we are the most deluded of the animals.

I've tried to follow up by asking, "So then, as a neuroscientist, you are saying that we should ignore the abstract philosophical concepts of our higher brain function?" A number of them have danced around the question, but my favorite response was from the guy honest enough to say, "Yes."

We're animals with big, powerful brains.

Now that you're done making ass out of yourself with your neuroscientist friends, check what your anthropologist, primatologist and biologist friends have to say.

The problem with many neuroscientists, like most scientists today, is that they are under-educated, except in their field.

So they fall into the trap of defining all truth through the limited prism of their extensive knowledge in a single field. That's why guys like Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow can write a book saying physics explains all -- and then Mlodinow gets schooled by Robert Spitzer, a Jesuit on national TV to the point that he Mlodinow agrees that the premise of their book is just an idea.

Trust me, watching these neuroscientists strain to explain why it is reasonable that man should ignore the abstract reasoning of their "big, powerful brains" -- how it is rational that we should ignore higher reasoning of our higher reasoning brains? -- is priceless. They get to the point that Mlodinow gets in the exchange starting at 5:30 of this clip -- after getting dressed down by Spitzer, Mlodinow moves from the claim that there is no God, to saying, "All we are saying is there is no proof of God."

That's all you're saying. You don't need to be physics instructor at CalTech to say something like that. Even a General Studies major from UNI can say that.

https://youtu.be/tIttENo2eOM" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[kalm]

I've had the pleasure of meeting several devout Christians and true hippies who are the most caring, non-judgemental, nature and people loving humans around. They would neither impose their beliefs on your lifestyle or intentionally harm anyone one in any way.

I'm guessing there are more of each group than one might think, and I believe they'd be viewed positively.

do they eat meat?

do they drive cars that use gasoline?

do they believe democracy is the best form of government?

How can you predict what the prevailing morality will be?

Its only been 150 years and Confederate soldiers have gone from mostly yeomen farmers fighting out of a sense of duty to their home states to being firebreathing Nazis who personally killed or raped every black person they could get their hands on

in 6000 years we will all be villains

And bike riding, vegetarian, Democrats will have the moral high ground.

[D1B]

We're animals with big, powerful brains.

Now that you're done making ass out of yourself with your neuroscientist friends, check what your anthropologist, primatologist and biologist friends have to say.

The problem with many neuroscientists, like most scientists today, is that they are under-educated, except in their field.

So they fall into the trap of defining all truth through the limited prism of their extensive knowledge in a single field. That's why guys like Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow can write a book saying physics explains all -- and then Mlodinow gets schooled by Robert Spitzer, a Jesuit on national TV to the point that he Mlodinow agrees that the premise of their book is just an idea.

Trust me, watching these neuroscientists strain to explain why it is reasonable that man should ignore the abstract reasoning of their "big, powerful brains" -- how it is rational that we should ignore higher reasoning of our higher reasoning brains? -- is priceless. They get to the point that Mlodinow gets in the exchange starting at 5:30 of this clip -- after getting dressed down by Spitzer, Mlodinow moves from the claim that there is no God, to saying, "All we are saying is there is no proof of God."

That's all you're saying. You don't need to be physics instructor at CalTech to say something like that. Even a General Studies major from UNI can say that.

https://youtu.be/tIttENo2eOM" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Joe, I and my UNI degree already destroyed you here a while back. Your belief v nonbelief posts are really moot here. Practically everyone here believes, me included. The difference between you and the rationalists is you believe in an absurd myth surrounding god - the catholic church. You're deluded and arrogant and fundamentalist in this belief.

God is much greater than the benchwarmer who you believe in.

Yeah, scientists are undereducated - actually everyone is undereducated except for you. We get this is your goto response when you're knee deep in it. Yawn.

So, can we move on and accept we're all believers, some more reasonable than others?

[CAA Flagship]

do they eat meat?

do they drive cars that use gasoline?

do they believe democracy is the best form of government?

How can you predict what the prevailing morality will be?

Its only been 150 years and Confederate soldiers have gone from mostly yeomen farmers fighting out of a sense of duty to their home states to being firebreathing Nazis who personally killed or raped every black person they could get their hands on

in 6000 years we will all be villains

And bike riding, vegetarian, Democrats will have the moral high ground.

Gotta huge population of these douchebags in STL. Especially the ones wearing logos as if they are representing sponsors in some big event.



Edit for 89Hen: Don't do it. I know you want to post that picture. Please, no.