When is it OK to ask a RW to change her religion for you

[Blues Fairy]

• Are there any fossilized skeletal remains of shorter necked giraffes?
• Why only the giraffe, were there not other contemporary herbivours who didn't develop longer necks? Wildebeest or rhinoceros for example?

• Would not the process reverse itself in a region where the giraffe population increased to the point that tree leaves were more plentiful on the lower branches?
• Why is it in observations of giraffes on the Serengeti, they feed mostly at or below shoulder level... the only time they are seen feeding from the tops of Acacia trees in during the rainy season when all plants are abundant?

[/list][/list]

Fossil record has gaps of course, as does any other area of science.  But why does God have to fill every single one of them?  Mind you, they become smaller as science progresses, so your Default Filling is in danger.  

As for partucular phenotypes, they survived because in their time and territory, their characteristic features were optimally suited for THEIR environment.  Giraffes - to theirs; rhinos to theirs.  Those species who migrated into different environments, had to evolve or become extinct.  All these mechanisms are very well described; read up on your evolution textbooks.

[SANDRO43]

That's exactly how a religious mind works: it stands back from the cognitive tools and resort to the unwarranted default of God

More generally, the tendency of the human mind for millennia has been:

Unexplainable/Ununderstandable = Divine

We moved gradually from adoring natural events to polytheism to monotheism (a concept still not shared by all believers ).

[Blues Fairy]

I spent my life analyzing risk vs reward.  What is the risk in accepting the existence of God?  What is the downside?  I'll answer.  I find no upside to denying God.  See no downside in accepting God as long as man continues to study and learn. 

The risks are numerous: religious mind is hardly a liberated one.
But let's assume you weigh the risks and still wager for the existense of God as the less risky option.  Then in your afterlife it turns out that Allah is the true God!  Isn't it wiser to save time on worshiping now and find out whatever lies beyond this world when/if you are in a position to do so?

[Eduard]

Wonderful arguments, Blues Fairy

On a lighter note, this past week my daughter and I found a new hobby - collecting aincient fossilised shark's teeth...right on my driveway!!!
here is a photo of what we found this week so far

[Ronnie]

I am enjoying the interchange of thoughts, information and arguments.  I'm more than willing to address points that are raised assuming they are not efforts to misdirect or obfuscate.  The last few posts contain straw man fallacies, false choices and non sequiturs.  Should any reader not want to google "straw man" here are my examples: 

Suppose I argue that legalizing the presence of those who entered a country by illegal means to accept employment by means of deception and fraud would be a mistaken policy the government should not embrace.  Then my opponent argues, you can't deport 12 million people, he is making a straw man argument and presenting a false choice argument.  First, I never argued for deportation, only against legalization. Second, deportation or legalization are not the only choices.  Stricter verification procedures by employers would create an environment where many illegal workers would voluntarily return to the points of origin.

Those who employ the straw man fallacy replace the opponents actual position with other arguments they can defeat.  Another example: you say, "Children should be not allowed to play in the street."  Knowing the point is valid, but unwilling to concede, I argue, "But, you can't keep children locked inside the house all day!"  You didn't argue about keeping children in the house, but I made it look like that was your argument so I can defeat it.

BTW, in our case on behalf of my stepson against the USCIS, the United States Attorney used straw man arguments extensively.  I pointed them out to the Court and won the case.  I don't know if the TA was incompetent or resorted to such tactics because the law was not on her side... I rather suspect the latter.

So, where are the straw men and false choices in the arguments so far presented?

1.  False choice - You must believe either in natural selection or intelligent design.  Really?  It seems to me that natural selection and intelligent design are anything but mutually exclusive.  A really intelligent designer might think to engineer adaptive mechanisms into his creation.  Engineers can now build automobiles that adjust fuel/air mix and ignition timing for ambient conditions..What, God can't?

2.  Straw Man - Blues Fairy refers to the inefficient designs in life as proof God cannot be omnipotent and omniscent.  If I ever argued that God was all powerful or all-knowing, she would win the point. But she misstates my argument.  God need not be perfected in his power or knowledge, indeed, I submit that even God continues to gain knowledge. 

3.  Straw Man -  Blues Fairy writes, Are you saying there are no other options in between Chance and God?  Evolution is not a chance process; it's a long and gradual accumulation of micro-events that are somewhat improbable but not prohibitevely so.    You see how it works?  I never wrote that there are not other options in between Chance and God, but BF feels she can argue against that position so she submits that as my position, then procedes to argue against it.  I'm reminded of the republican debate when the moderator asked all the candidates to raise they hand if they did not believe in "evolution"  Oddly, none of the candidates asked for a clarifications since evolution is so broad and can be defined in so many ways. 

4.  Straw Man - BF again mistates my position when she writes So you agree that to perceive something as extraordinary (= Divine), you have to "stand back from the cognitive microscope".  That's exactly how a religious mind works: it stands back from the cognitive tools and resorts to the unwarranted default of God, failing to explore the true mechanisms of phenomena.  In fact that's exactly the opposite of my point.  I was again using an automotive analogy to point out that we take certain common occurrences for granted...a birth, the starting a running of an automobile engine.  Using the term "microscope" was I though an obvious allegory for not taking in the entirety of the picture.  Clearly I did not intend or infer that extraordinary is equal to "Divine", yet that is precisely the position BF wants to represent as mine because it can be easily defeated.

 I don't want to keep beating on Blues Fairy, she'll think I don't like her, so I'll take a break and work on Shadow's post awhile:

Shadow writes,
Supposed the intelligent design is true, by which God/being was this done ? There are many religions in this world, and many more religions that are no longer followed. There for intelligent design raises the scientific question of exactly which entity is responsible for the design, at which time the design was done, why the design was redone or changed over time....
Hmmm, this is a bit  of hybrid between false choice, straw man and non sequitur.  How does it follow that God fits the definition of a religion or must be as described in a religious book?  I did refer to the Bible but only as a compendium of records witnessing Jesus of Nazareth life and deeds.  Personally, I don't accept as literally accurate the stories contained in the Pentateuch.  They are single sourced and similar to other ancient oral legends.  So it does not follow at all that an intelligent designer or God must be as described by religious people or their holy scriptures.  It's a false choice, doesn't follow and not an accurate presentation of my argument.

I'll go back to Blues Fairy, then address Sandro,

BF writes, That's exactly how a religious mind works: it stands back from the cognitive tools and resort(s) to the unwarranted default of God.  I've already pointed out that my use of the term "cognitive microscope" was a allegory for a lack of broad perspective.. Yet Blues Fairy seizes the opportunity to call the microscope a literal tool.  Okay, my fault, I promise to use better allegories in the future. 
But what my dear is an "unwarranted default of God?"  I have been trying, unsuccessfully it seems, to point out that your apparent basis for atheism is that it follows Occam's Razor to make as few assumptions as possible.  Maybe we misunderstand him? 

My argument is that if you must employ Occam's thesis, then the atheistic explanations of the root of life require far more assumptions than the theistic explanation.  Now, you say the apparent opposite; that because theism is less complex, it is too simple and therefore the product of slow mindedness, ergo, false.  Artifice and inconsistency make our arguments appear weaker than they perhaps ought to be.  You can do better, dear.

Sandro,
Ciao fratello mio! fa' bel tempo li'?  Spero di si.' 
Dunque, where was I?

You picked up on BF's statement about religious minds and cognitive tools, etc., etc.,  and wrote that humankind moved from adoring natural events to polytheism to monotheism.  You didn't say where atheism fits in that continuum.  I assume it must fit at the front or the back.  Oh forgive me, I forgot atheism doesn't belong on the list because it's not a "faith".  Still, just for giggles, where place it?  If it falls at the beginning, wouldn't that make it very primitive?  Primitive thought is hardly the stuff a modern educated "free thinker" wants to be part of, is it? 
Does it fall at the end, then?  That feels better doesn't it?  A product of modern, enlightened thinking!  Hmmm, that's not quite true.  Atheism has been around for millennia, each generation of atheists having their own arguments for it.

It seems to me that at the foundation of atheism is the rejection of organized religion.  I would only ask that a person take care not to throw the baby out with the bath water.  Organized religion is like a barnacle that attaches itself to a pearl and smothers it's beauty and true appearance.  Religion is not the oyster whence the pearl sprang.

Now I've offended everybody!  Hey but I have some good company:

Abraham Lincoln developed a personal religion that rejected, without criticizing, the religions at the time, including what he called "village atheism."  Because he didn't go to church he was asked about his religion and described it thusly,

"When I do good, I feel good. When I do bad, I feel bad. That's my religion." 

I wish I could answer so succinctly. 
 

[Ronnie]

The risks are numerous: religious mind is hardly a liberated one.
But let's assume you weigh the risks and still wager for the existense of God as the less risky option.  Then in your afterlife it turns out that Allah is the true God!  Isn't it wiser to save time on worshiping now and find out whatever lies beyond this world when/if you are in a position to do so?

Holy Moly Blues Fairy,
While I was writing you did it again!  Are you unable or unwilling to unlock God from the prison that man's religions have placed him in?  If I had to choose to believe in such a man-made concept or no god at all, I'm be in your camp.

I also agree that religion, by it's defintion stifles liberated thought.  But so does atheism if you are truly honest about it.

[Blues Fairy]

1.  False choice - You must believe either in natural selection or intelligent design.  Really?  A really intelligent designer might think to engineer adaptive mechanisms into his creation. 

What for?  If He is really intelligent, why not create perfect designs from the beginning and relieve its creations of the painful and often unsightly processes of reproduction, mutation, natural selection?
And some designs are REALLY clumsy (e.g. the famous panda's thumb) - but hey, they work somehow.  At least they help their owners survive and beat competition.

2.  God need not be perfected in his power or knowledge, indeed, I submit that even God continues to gain knowledge.

:hairraising:  And how would you estimate the degree of God's ignorance? And why is such a God necessary?  

3.  I never wrote that there are not other options in between Chance and God

Quote from you:
You said that if you saw a mermaid's skeleton you would believe in mermaids, yet you preclude the option that complex biological engineering may be the result of intelligence.  You find it easier to accept that it resulted from a chance process, not just once but over and over again.  Who is believing in fairy tales?
Weren't you offering me a false choice here?

Using the term "microscope" was I though an obvious allegory for not taking in the entirety of the picture.  Clearly I did not intend or infer that extraordinary is equal to "Divine", yet that is precisely the position BF wants to represent as mine because it can be easily defeated.

Quote from you:
You find the process of birth to be ordinary?  I too find it ordinary that my car starts when I turn the key, but when I stand back away from my cognitive microscope I see the extraodinary engineering that produced what I now may think is ordinary.  Same is true for so many feats of intelligent work.

So OK, you stand back from the mundane physiological process of birth and perceive the entire Nature in its magnificence.  You are awed and shaken by its enormous scale and complexity.  Surely that's reason enough to invoke God.    

But what my dear is an "unwarranted default of God?"  I have been trying, unsuccessfully it seems, to point out that your apparent basis for atheism is that it follows Occam's Razor to make as few assumptions as possible.  Maybe we misunderstand him? 

My argument is that if you must employ Occam's thesis, then the atheistic explanations of the root of life require far more assumptions than the theistic explanation.  Now, you say the apparent opposite; that because theism is less complex, it is too simple and therefore the product of slow mindedness, ergo, false. 

Unwarranted default is that notorious demon in the TV set - the unnecessary entity summoned to fill the apparent gaps in (your) knowledge.  Atheistic view doesn't require more assumptions - it requires sound theories that are supplanted by new theories as new evidence emerges.  It's the normal process of evolving scientific thought.  Theism, on the contrary, is ever satisfied with ONE theory and employs it constantly to describe apparently incomprehensible complexities.  A theory with zero fallibility and zero predictive power.

[Ade]

I also agree that religion, by it's defintion stifles liberated thought.  But so does atheism if you are truly honest about it.

Sorry Ronnie, that is a stretch at best and I'd like to have an explanation on how you can say that an absence of belief in deities "stifles liberated thought"? Or do you perhaps consider blind faith to be liberating?

Blue's and Shadow, excellent arguments and very eloquently written posts.

[DKMM]

I admit not reading through these pages past the first but I decided a long time ago that I would gladly convert to Orthodox if it mattered at all to my lady.  I don't think the versions of Christianity are exclusive and I'd rather have a united family view in that area than be stubborn about it (because I don't give a hoot who thinks they have the correct version anyway). 

I have a feeling this thread turned into a religious vs. non religious discussion like they always do.  Probably a bunch of atheists vs fundamentalists of which I am neither so I won't get into it.

[Ronnie]

What for?  If He is really intelligent, why not create perfect designs from the beginning and relieve its creations of the painful and often unsightly processes of reproduction, mutation, natural selection?
And some designs are REALLY clumsy (e.g. the famous panda's thumb) - but hey, they work somehow.  At least they help their owners survive and beat competition.
 :hairraising:  And how would you estimate the degree of God's ignorance? And why is such a God necessary?  

If man were really intelligent, why must he be ever perfecting his knowledge and adding to the quality of his creations?  I have said that God is progressing in my opinion.  And, I say that only because I personally feel that the inability to progress in knowledge and wisdom would be a vertitable hell and I'm pretty sure that not where God's at.  I have no way of estimating where God is at on a intelligence/ignorance scale.  I have a pretty good idea though that wherever He is, it's gotta be lightyears ahead of our brightest human.  I sorta think that man might be around 10 on an scale of zero to.....a trillion!

Do you really think a panda is deficient because of his thumb?  Which is the "perfect" animal then?  In your ideal world would there be only animals with human thumbs, an eagle's eyesight, a cheetah's speed, a dolphin's intelligence, an oxen's strength... No?  Why not?
In the end, you would have but one species of life - not too interesting IMHO.

You also wrote,
So OK, you stand back from the mundane physiological process of birth and perceive the entire Nature in its magnificence.  You are awed and shaken by its enormous scale and complexity.  Surely that's reason enough to invoke God.   

I'm amazed that you would refer to reproduction/birthgiving as mudane!  We take astonishing events as less than astonishing because whe understand the process physiologically.  That does not diminish the sheer genius behind them, it only dimishes our appreciation of the genius.  That, I think, is where atheism gets it's traction much of the time. 

However, I rather think that the atheist sows the seeds of his belief in a bed of vanity and pride. 

[Ronnie]

Sorry Ronnie, that is a stretch at best and I'd like to have an explanation on how you can say that an absence of belief in deities "stifles liberated thought"? Or do you perhaps consider blind faith to be liberating?

Blue's and Shadow, excellent arguments and very eloquently written posts.

Jaded, your last sentence proves my point.  Fallacious arguments, and I showed you why, become excellent when they agree with your preconceived beliefs.  You can't appreciate that atheism is nothing more and nothing less, than an "ism."

 DKMM,
Do you see a fundamentalist in this thread?  Crikey!  My Southern Baptist aunts would be  if they heard that!

[Ronnie]

Sorry Ronnie, that is a stretch at best and I'd like to have an explanation on how you can say that an absence of belief in deities "stifles liberated thought"? Or do you perhaps consider blind faith to be liberating?

Sorry SJ, I forgot to answer your more serious question.  It's interesting that you define atheism as an absence of belief in deities.  The way you phrase it sounds so, so liberated.  Absence of belief, aaahhh, that's nice and relaxing.  Absence of belief in deity is just another 'round about way of saying I have a belief in an alternative explanation for the complexities that surround me and I am rejecting out of hand an explanation that involves anthing that might fit the description of God. 
As to blind faith, I think I gave my reasons for coming to where I am a few pages ago.  I reject blind faith, no, let me rephrase that..I'm kinda repulsed by it.  How in the world does anyone say that acceptance of intelligent design comes only as an act of blind faith?  That's astonishing to me.

[Ade]

Jaded, your last sentence proves my point.  Fallacious arguments, and I showed you why, become excellent when they agree with your preconceived beliefs.  You can't appreciate that atheism is nothing more and nothing less, than an "ism."

Actually, excellent arguments can be "excellent" regardless of whether I agree with them or not but I don't think your arguments were excellent for every reason the Blues and Shadow have stated.

I can also appreciate that some variations of atheism are very much like theism in their fundamentalist approach and their viewpoint can sometimes be as much faith based as the theism they rail against. However, I don’t see how you can state that the more moderate and realistic atheist viewpoint (which is a lack of faith or a lack of acceptance without evidence)  is “just another ism”.

[BC]

What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world

.

-Albert Einstein

That's all I have to say about that.

-Forrest Gump

[Shadow]

1.  False choice - You must believe either in natural selection or intelligent design.  Really?  It seems to me that natural selection and intelligent design are anything but mutually exclusive.  A really intelligent designer might think to engineer adaptive mechanisms into his creation.  Engineers can now build automobiles that adjust fuel/air mix and ignition timing for ambient conditions..What, God can't?

Fully agreed. That is why I have stated in the exchange with WMGO that the theory of evolution does not handle the origin of life, it is about how life developed after it was originated by whatever source or event you wish to attribute it to.

2.  Straw Man - Blues Fairy refers to the inefficient designs in life as proof God cannot be omnipotent and omniscent.  If I ever argued that God was all powerful or all-knowing, she would win the point. But she misstates my argument.  God need not be perfected in his power or knowledge, indeed, I submit that even God continues to gain knowledge. 

And from where do you get this submitted point ?

3.  Straw Man -  Blues Fairy writes, Are you saying there are no other options in between Chance and God?  Evolution is not a chance process; it's a long and gradual accumulation of micro-events that are somewhat improbable but not prohibitevely so.    You see how it works?  I never wrote that there are not other options in between Chance and God, but BF feels she can argue against that position so she submits that as my position, then procedes to argue against it.  I'm reminded of the republican debate when the moderator asked all the candidates to raise they hand if they did not believe in "evolution"  Oddly, none of the candidates asked for a clarifications since evolution is so broad and can be defined in so many ways. 

The theory of Intelligent Design it usually connected to the belief that the Earth and all its inhabitants were created 6.000 to 10.000 years ago. If this is not your standpoint, then perhaps you would specify exactly your views on this.

4.  Straw Man - BF again mistates my position when she writes So you agree that to perceive something as extraordinary (= Divine), you have to "stand back from the cognitive microscope".  That's exactly how a religious mind works: it stands back from the cognitive tools and resorts to the unwarranted default of God, failing to explore the true mechanisms of phenomena.  In fact that's exactly the opposite of my point.  I was again using an automotive analogy to point out that we take certain common occurrences for granted...a birth, the starting a running of an automobile engine.  Using the term "microscope" was I though an obvious allegory for not taking in the entirety of the picture.  Clearly I did not intend or infer that extraordinary is equal to "Divine", yet that is precisely the position BF wants to represent as mine because it can be easily defeated.

Once again you seem to be avoiding putting forward your precise thought on the subject.

Shadow writes,
Supposed the intelligent design is true, by which God/being was this done ? There are many religions in this world, and many more religions that are no longer followed. There for intelligent design raises the scientific question of exactly which entity is responsible for the design, at which time the design was done, why the design was redone or changed over time....
Hmmm, this is a bit  of hybrid between false choice, straw man and non sequitur.  How does it follow that God fits the definition of a religion or must be as described in a religious book?  I did refer to the Bible but only as a compendium of records witnessing Jesus of Nazareth life and deeds.  Personally, I don't accept as literally accurate the stories contained in the Pentateuch.  They are single sourced and similar to other ancient oral legends.  So it does not follow at all that an intelligent designer or God must be as described by religious people or their holy scriptures.  It's a false choice, doesn't follow and not an accurate presentation of my argument.

The Bible contains a description of creation that is linked to by most defenders of Intelligent Design.
I agree that the theory of evolution and religion as origin of creation are not mutually exclusive. It is possible to believe in God and accept the theory of evolution, just as it is possible to be atheist and believe in intelligent design.

BF writes, That's exactly how a religious mind works: it stands back from the cognitive tools and resort(s) to the unwarranted default of God.  I've already pointed out that my use of the term "cognitive microscope" was a allegory for a lack of broad perspective.. Yet Blues Fairy seizes the opportunity to call the microscope a literal tool.  Okay, my fault, I promise to use better allegories in the future. 
But what my dear is an "unwarranted default of God?"  I have been trying, unsuccessfully it seems, to point out that your apparent basis for atheism is that it follows Occam's Razor to make as few assumptions as possible.  Maybe we misunderstand him? 

My argument is that if you must employ Occam's thesis, then the atheistic explanations of the root of life require far more assumptions than the theistic explanation.  Now, you say the apparent opposite; that because theism is less complex, it is too simple and therefore the product of slow mindedness, ergo, false.  Artifice and inconsistency make our arguments appear weaker than they perhaps ought to be.  You can do better, dear.

Now you are offering a false choice. You are connecting the origin of life to belief in God.
Also you have mentioned Occams Razor and have tried already many times to apply it in a faulty way.
Occams Razor does not tell to take the way of the least assumptions. It tells that when confronted with an improbable explanation and a probable one, a rational person should choose the probable explanation.
For those who are rational and believe in God, the probable explanation of the origin of life is God.
For those who are rational and believe in Buddha, the probable explanation of the origin of life is Buddha
For those who are rational and atheist, the probable explanation of the origin of life in chance.
Different individuals can come to different conclusions using the same method.

I agree with Lincoln 

[Ade]

Sorry SJ, I forgot to answer your more serious question.  It's interesting that you define atheism as an absence of belief in deities.  The way you phrase it sounds so, so liberated.  Absence of belief, aaahhh, that's nice and relaxing.  Absence of belief in deity is just another 'round about way of saying I have a belief in an alternative explanation for the complexities that surround me and I am rejecting out of hand an explanation that involves anthing that might fit the description of God.

Actually, no, it's not. Really, do you want me to reiterate what others have stated about evidence? Belief without evidence to support it is blind faith.
 

As to blind faith, I think I gave my reasons for coming to where I am a few pages ago.  I reject blind faith, no, let me rephrase that..I'm kinda repulsed by it.  How in the world does anyone say that acceptance of intelligent design comes only as an act of blind faith?  That's astonishing to me.

Well, be astonished because acceptance of ID is actually blind faith as there is no evidence to support its validity, absolutely none whatsoever. The only things propping up ID are some fallacious claims as to the (apparent) inadequacy of evolutionary theory, the rest is wishful thinking.

[Blues Fairy]

I have no way of estimating where God is at on a intelligence/ignorance scale.  I have a pretty good idea though that wherever He is, it's gotta be lightyears ahead of our brightest human. 

I'm amazed that you would refer to reproduction/birthgiving as mudane!  We take astonishing events as less than astonishing because whe understand the process physiologically.  That does not diminish the sheer genius behind them

There you go - your key argument is always reduced to the sheer dazzling magnificence of this world and all that's in it.  And all those who are less awed than you must be simply vain and blind.

Do you really think a panda is deficient because of his thumb?

 

Don't twist my words Ronnie - I said panda's thumb was a clumsy design, which it is.  Were pandas to be designed by a moderately skilled engineer, their construction would have been much more efficient for the everyday tasks they face.  Alas, that was not the case.  I refer you to Stephen Jay Gould's excellent essay for more explanation.   

[SANDRO43]

Sandro, Ciao fratello mio! fa' bel tempo li'?  Spero di si.' 

Giornata primaverile, soleggiata, 20°C. E un paio di cosette che sembra tu NON sappia:
1. L'appellativo 'fratello' si usa solo rivolgendosi a fratelli di sangue, colleghi frammassoni, frati & monaci.
2. Fa non ha mai l'accento, né come avverbio né come verbo (IIIa pers. sing. del presente di 'fare').

You picked up on BF's statement about religious minds and cognitive tools, etc., etc.,  and wrote that humankind moved from adoring natural events to polytheism to monotheism. You didn't say where atheism fits in that continuum...Does it fall at the end, then?

Yes, immediately after an unmentioned agnosticism, in a continuum spanning from many to one to maybe to zero, which did not necessarily imply enlightenment (although it does IMO).

Atheism has been around for millennia, each generation of atheists having their own arguments for it.

Not to my knowledge, care to cite some numerically- and/or historically-significant examples of early atheists ? And any atheist missionaries trying to convert people to their non-credo ? Please don't cite Stalin in this connection, whose crusade against religion was motivated, IMO, by political rather than philosophical considerations (the fewer people with different ideas, the better).

Organized religion is like a barnacle that attaches itself to a pearl and smothers its beauty and true appearance. Religion is not the oyster whence the pearl sprang.

Biologically confused: Cirripedia are monovalved molluscs, while oysters are bivalved. And your molluscs display a deplorable tendency to encroach on everybody else's habitat. So I'd rather forfeit the chance of finding your assumed pearl, and be rid of the all-too-invasive pests .

[oldernotwiser]

I like to believe I have a soul.  Yet I have no scientific evidence that support my beliefs.  Perhaps there is a study that is out there that would satisfy the scientific community --that people have souls--. If there is such a study I am not aware of it.  Perhaps it is as discussed before, blind faith, since I can not scientifically prove it.  I like to think that if it was possible to produce an exact biological construct which is identical to me in every detail, it would nevertheless not be me, it would not have my soul.

I do think one can be considered rational, yet not have every one of their beliefs backed up by scientific evidence.  Perhaps that is not logical, who knows?

Back to original question.  I do think communication is important in regards to religion.  For different individuals the importance may vary quite a bit.  I think you have to have a good self examination and decide what is important to you, and what is not.  Then perhaps you can communicate to any potential mate where you stand on issues of religion.  Hopefully you will sense when is the right time to bring up the issue.  I would think this would come somewhere in between "Hello", and "Will you Marry Me".   

[catzenmouse]

Please forgive me for this "on topic" post 

To the OP: How about never? IMO it is never ok to ask someone to change to suit your beliefs. It should only come about IF and WHEN they decided that they wanted to make a change like this. If they don't then it is up to you to decide if you are okay with that or not. If not, time to move along.

Ken

Back to your regularly scheduled program.

[SANDRO43]

Please forgive me for this "on topic" post

No, you're spoiling our fun .

[Ronnie]

I'm feeling a little overwhelmed with the sheer volume of points to respond to.  But I'll do my best:

I think it's important to sort out what is atheism..  Sandro, as to the origins of atheism, you can certainly find an detailed history on wiki. 

Thank you BTW for the information on the accent mark that I used with fa As I told you, it's been a long, long time since I lived in Italy and I'm lucky to have retained what I have, and I'm serious about your correcting me.  As to the appellation fratello, I wanted to be the first to employ it in the way it have been employed in America's hip-hop culture.  They say "bro" so I guess I should have said, fra but since that has a different meaning in Italian, i chose the full word.  Sorry for digressing.

On your biological schooling of me... I guess I will have to stop using allegories  It was fun while it lasted.    I should have been more direct and simply said that religion has tarnished the vision of God and perhaps made him unattractive to many.  Ironically then, the religious and intolerent folks have actually driven people to atheism who might have otherwise be simply agnostic. 

Agnosticism, SJ, is probably what you meant when you defined atheism as an absence of belief in dieties. And I wrongly ignored this conclusion...Sandro is right. Agnosticism being defined as "without - knowledge" (on the subject of God's existence) or ambivalence or no opinion.

Atheism then is not an absence of belief, but a belief in the absence of God (not the absence of a belief in God).  Most atheist have a very strong belief in the ability of science to explain what most (myself included) consider solid evidence of God.

I know that people say, "belief without evidence is blind faith."  This must be where a person's prejudices affect his/her judgment or create a cognitive dissonance such as we saw in the acquittal of OJ Simpson.  For most people, maybe not the enlightened ones (did I mention vanity and hubris already?), the evidence intelligence in nature is everywhere.  It's unavoidable.  The argument seems to be, "why it's not evidence at all!"  With this viewpoint, no evidence can every be convincing enough, referring again to the Simpson criminal trial. 

The expression, "he can't see the forest for the trees" looks rather applicable in this debate.  Especially in BF's casual view of human reproduction.

What we are doing here, and I've allowed myself to participate, is to obfuscate the essential question that shadow raised earlier.  What explains the origin of life?  Can a evolution explain the first instance of life?  And, even it did occur in a random, inexplicable and fortuitous way, how did that first instance of life survive beyond a few seconds.  We know that life needs something to sustain it.  Where did the sustenance come from?

I believe that the reason the debate rages, and will continue to rage, endlessly, is that the world is divided between people who are impressed by evidence of God and those who are unimpressed.  Though the story admitted is from the Bible and Torah, I can't help but be curious as to why Balaam not being impressed with his donkey spoke to him.  Again, it's a story, I'm not mentioning it for it's historical veracity, just the point that (maybe it's the moral of the story) that people can be unimpressed by phenomenon.

I suspect that the ability to be impressed by nature, is suppressed when we are very young (infants would likely be unimpressed by a talking donkey) and as we become more aware and perhaps learn about the complexities in nature we become somewhat awestruck and want to learn more.  But somewhere along the line, in some people, they lose that ability to be awed.  I cannot explain how, exactly this happens, but it likely has to do with an abandonment of humility as knowledge is gained.

Do such things really happen?  Let's see, I will use my own life for example.  When I first viewed the Alfred Hitchcock film "Psycho" I was horrified and repulsed at the shower scene.  It was the first time in my life I had seen a killing (albeit contrived). And though the knife blows were never shown and the film was black and white, it had a shocking effect on me.  I have never gone to a horror show since, though I have witnessed "R" rated movies that depict killings of humans far more graphically.  I'm still shocked and repulsed by graphic depictions of murder but many people today are not at all affected. 

Blues Fairy seems to want to paint those who are awed by nature as someone simpleminded.  I wonder if there was ever a time she was awed.  I suspect so, but I can't say.  What can explain the Simpson jury?  People say the jurors became so skeptical of the police and their repeated bungling they became unimpressed by to the point that simply concluded the evidence could be explained away. 

Is that the process - slow numbing of sensitivity to evidence -that leads one to a verdict of atheism? 

What explains people like myself, a naturally evolved skeptic having no patience for man-made religion (including Darwinism), who views the world and universe as the purposeful creation of some undefined entity or entities with vastly superior knowledge and intelligence that of present-day man? 

[Blues Fairy]

Atheism then is not an absence of belief, but a belief in the absence of God (not the absence of a belief in God).  Most atheist have a very strong belief in the ability of science to explain what most (myself included) consider solid evidence of God.

Again the same nonsense. Atheism is NOT positive belief in the absence of deity.  It's absence of belief.  Why is it so hard to imagine?  As for Solid Evidence of God, please cite at least one - apart from your emotional effusions on the "extraordinary" and "astonishing" acts of nature.   
On the definition of atheism, please, read up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

I know that people say, "belief without evidence is blind faith."  This must be where a person's prejudices affect his/her judgment or create a cognitive dissonance.  The argument seems to be, "why it's not evidence at all!"  With this viewpoint, no evidence can every be convincing enough.  The expression, "he can't see the forest for the trees" looks rather applicable in this debate.  Especially in BF's casual view of human reproduction.

Again, please cite at least one solid evidence of supernatural causality in the process of human reproduction (mind that Bible stories are NOT evidence in the scientific sense of the word). 

Blues Fairy seems to want to paint those who are awed by nature as someone simpleminded.  I wonder if there was ever a time she was awed.  I suspect so, but I can't say. 
Is that the process - slow numbing of sensitivity to evidence -that leads one to a verdict of atheism? 

Oh please, Ronnie.  I never said awe of Nature was simpleminded - but using it as an argument for the existence of God - certainly is.  The theory of Intelligent Design is not testable in any way, therefore it features no solid evidence. 

As for myself, of course I am awed and inspired - I am a songwriter after all.   But in all my never-numbing appreciation of Nature, not once did I perceive a convincing evidence of Divine involvement.  Can you show me one?

What explains people like myself, a naturally evolved skeptic having no patience for man-made religion (including Darwinism), who views the world and universe as the purposeful creation of some undefined entity or entities with vastly superior knowledge and intelligence that of present-day man? 

No comment.   

[SANDRO43]

Sandro, as to the origins of atheism, you can certainly find an detailed history on wiki.

OK, I did and, disregarding some early Indic religions (6th century BC) as marginal to this discussion, what I get is:

Western atheism has its roots in pre-Socratic Greek philosophy, but did not emerge as a distinct world-view until the late Enlightenment. The 5th-century BC Greek philosopher Diagoras is known as the "first atheist", and strongly criticized religion and mysticism. Critias viewed religion as a human invention used to frighten people into following moral order

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Early_Indic_religion
I don't think that Diagoras and Critias can be considered epoch-making thinkers with a substantial number of followers. Incidentally, YOU should provide your own historical references (if any) to corroborate your points, and not ask others to do so in your stead.

On your biological schooling of me... I guess I will have to stop using allegories

Ronnie, your throwing in off-the-cuff, inaccurate references to support your ideas detracts considerably from your debating credibility. Now molluscs were really unimportant, but millennium-old atheism and your earlier reference to Roman history show this worrying tendency of yours to pressapochismo.

I should have been more direct and simply said that religion has tarnished the vision of God and perhaps made him unattractive to many.  Ironically then, the religious and intolerent folks have actually driven people to atheism who might have otherwise be simply agnostic.

Likely, although only a part of the equation. Reaching a 'conclusion' on such a weighty matter is not simply a knee-jerk reaction for most, I'd say. 

Most atheist have a very strong belief in the ability of science to explain what most (myself included) consider solid evidence of God.

Again, only a partial explanation: some may simply be more skeptical of the strength of your evidence, and remain unconvinced on logical rather than scientific grounds.

For most people, maybe not the enlightened ones (did I mention vanity and hubris already?)

No, but veiledly accusing non-believers of arrogance detracts from this discussion.

the evidence OF intelligence in nature is everywhere.  It's unavoidable.

A matter of semantics. Others may call that 'intelligence' structure, and try to investigate its arrangement and workings, leaving still open the fundamental question of "Whence ?"

What we are doing here, and I've allowed myself to participate, is to obfuscate the essential question that shadow raised earlier.  What explains the origin of life?  Can a evolution explain the first instance of life?  And, even it did occur in a random, inexplicable and fortuitous way, how did that first instance of life survive beyond a few seconds. We know that life needs something to sustain it. Where did the sustenance come from?

It depends on what you define as life. A simple organic molecule ? Experiments were conducted many years ago showing it could be created by subjecting a mixture of CO₂, water and nitrogen (atmosphere gases) to heavy electrical discharges (read lightning). A complex organic molecule ? A monocellular organism ? A whale ? Over an estimated 3 billion years, plenty of time to make the weirdest random experiments, and eventually come up with something viable, statistically speaking.

I suspect that the ability to be impressed by nature, is suppressed when we are very young (infants would likely be unimpressed by a talking donkey) and as we become more aware and perhaps learn about the complexities in nature we become somewhat awestruck and want to learn more. But somewhere along the line, in some people, they lose that ability to be awed. I cannot explain how, exactly this happens, but it likely has to do with an abandonment of humility as knowledge is gained.

Not necessarily, it depends on what you're impressed by. I am still awed by the beauty of nature, and of some of its products (FSUW, among others ).

Is that the process - slow numbing of sensitivity to evidence -that leads one to a verdict of atheism?

Hardly, IMO, and attributing atheism to dumbness is rather belittling.

What explains people like myself, a naturally evolved skeptic having no patience for man-made religion (including Darwinism), who views the world and universe as the purposeful creation of some undefined entity or entities with vastly superior knowledge and intelligence that of present-day man?

A different world view, which is your privilege.

[Ronnie]

Blues Fairy,

I apologize if I invoked the term "supernatural".  You know that I am calling nature, therefore, natural events as evidence of intelligence.  You have taken what's been uncovered by man, but created by God long ago, and said "look, we can understand how this works (though we can't actually replicate it ourselves) it's therefore natural and not God's handiwork!"  Talk about nonsense.   

If Child Protective Services, enters a home and finds children, nicely dressed, fully fed and the house in order but no parents about, would CPS then say, "these children are obviously orphans who have so well taken care of themselves without a parent!"?   Obvioulsy not, but it is precisely the logic you are employing here and will no doubt continue to employ. 

Your hero SJ Gould was raised in a Marxist home and attended schools where Darwinism was taught as fact.  I find no surprise in his numbness to the probability of God.  What is taught in the school room today will be the policy of the next generation.  And, so it is.