Exhumed religious leader

Hi,

am I the only one regretting the fact that it is not possible to "blacklist" threads in this forum?

No, we are many. But if certain threads are utterly uninteresting, we have the luxury of not reading them.

That only kills your own threads. I guess the ones people are most interested in culling are ones that they didn't start.

Even locking threads would be an improvement, as time would be the slow and steady remover of things from sight.

If you killed that thread, he'd just start spamming another.

Ignoring may be an unreasonable approach, but it's fairly efficient ;-)

@DVD - You say "he" as if there weren't actually 3 of them!

Ignoring's far from unreasonable, in fact I highly recommend it. For lent, I'm not just giving up reading posts by cranks on fora, but I'm also giving up LG for 10 days. (OK, that's nothing to do with lent, it's just that I will be many miles from both Estonia and the nearest WiFi for 10 days.)

I just opened the thread for the first time in a long time to see whom Phil was referring to. It's three accounts, but only two people.

What's the problem with the thread?

In the past it lead to controversy. People with irrational beliefs often feel offended by rational arguments since they cannot apply their otherwise rational minds to their belief system without destroying it. For this reason LG has (somehow) agreed to avoid the subject.

It is also a common platform for one user with two accounts to post rambling, incoherent missives. There is just enough substance to sometimes make it seem worth engagin him, but I don't recommend it.

I also tend to avoid the subject, but I was just wondering, which irrationality you referr to?

Those who mistake there rituals as facts

or those irrational atheist that firmly BELIEVE this whole beatiful mess we life could be merely explained by some random accidental collisions of particles, and even more firmly claim they DO NOT BELIEVE

Hjallti, I should introduce you some rational apatheists that have proof that this whole beatiful mess we live in can be explained by random procedures.

Well, many of my christian friends say that the devil's biggest accomplishment is that he has convinced people of this world that he does not exist by random procedures! If you killed that thread, he'd just start spamming another.

It is also a common platform for one user with two accounts to post rambling, incoherent missives..., , we have the luxury of not reading them. how does that song go , " yes there are two paths you can go on ... there 's still time to change the road your

on.. "

But in the long run , we will all make one choice or the

other. And if you choose to make no choice , you still have made one.

Evangelism and intolerance are annoying, no matter what the topic.

Although I'm an atheist, its not that rare that I found "atheist baptizers" (I don't know the exact English expression for describing these kind of people) just as annoying as religious ones.

@pfafulous - I'm ok with some religious advertising, as long as people are reasonable in respecting them. For instance, if I open a forum thread entitled, I expect to find some passionate religious views. On the other hand, if during (eg) a EWN I send a message to my opponent stating that in his previous move instead of playing d3-c3 he should have played d3xc2 and in reply he says that "Our Lord works mysterious ways", I'm not ok!

@pfafulous - that should have been "... people are reasonable in respecting *my right to ignore* them"

My concern/sadness is rather that those atheist did not understand that they believe. Even if you might be able to proof beyond doubt that it is possible that I am randomly typing at the moment (in the sense that my typing here is merely explainable by random procedures) it is still a believe if you claim that it is a fact that I am randomly typing.

I find it ridiculous that such a people always make fun of people that explitely state they do not believe everything is random.

Creationists have made up this "randomness argument" to ridicule scientists among their simple-minded followers. Even if probability is part of the definition of the most important concepts in science including: information (see both Fisher and Shannon information), energy (see statistical mechanics and the Maxwell daemon) and matter (see the de Dirac formulation of QM and matter is energy anyway). That does not mean, as these preachers claim, that anybody considers self assembly of a molecular machine plausible. It is simply not true. No serious scientist ever claimed that.

It is simply ridiculous that people who have been caught lying so many times, as all explanations promoted by all religions are verifiably false, feel authorized to judge something they were too dumb or lazy to study. In fact, even today prophets don't care about making their religions plausible. They are too ignorant and they understand that scientists will not constitute their target audience anyway.

Today, we have an explanation for the origin of baryonic matter, of all elements in the periodic table, of the elementary molecules creating all the peptides and bases required by living beings as we know them. Also, against what was asserted by supernaturalists, there is no need of supernatural explanations for neither life nor intelligence (in other words, soul does not exist). These are objects studied by science. The origin of life is another issue, as there is no direct way to experiment on it.

For that reason, no scientist has an explanation how life started (not before it was at least the size of a cyanobacteria, which is already an amazingly complex machine) even if we know pretty well how it evolved (and btw that was also "controversial").

I know that adding another lie to a belief system is not a big issue for a prophet, but for a scientist it is simply not an option.

As no one could predict in the past when advances would be made on other subjects, we don't really know when there is going to be advance of this issue, but believe me, it won't be a creationist who cracks the puzzle.

PD. I just violated the "avoid the subject" rule, but this time supernaturalists are asking for more rather than expressing discomfort with the thread.

Facts and evidence are too restricting! You can only prove things that are true with facts!

If science is so smart, why can't it explain stupidly irrational beliefs, and the stupidly irrational believers who believe them? Ya, see, science isn't so smart after all, is it? ;-)

[ BTW, i'm currently wearing this t-shirt: http://store.xkcd.com/xkcd/#StandBackScience

and will be ordering this one: http://xkcd.com/54/ ]

> its not that rare that I found "atheist baptizers" (I don't know the exact English expression for describing these kind of people) just as annoying as religious ones.

The word is "evangelist".

> in reply he says that "Our Lord works mysterious ways", I'm not ok!

Why not? Who cares if the other player is religious? He's not forcing it on you, and if anything that reply could be seen as a tongue-in-cheek joke based on YOUR giving unsolicited advice.

> My concern/sadness is rather that those atheist did not understand that they believe.

Is it really that big of a deal? Many people, especially in parts of the US, were raised in an anti-intellectual pro-religious environment. They grew up in communities where NOT believing in God was reason for shame and ostracism. They get to college, they start learning about the entire world, and suddenly - BAM - the veil of religion is removed from their eyes.

So they go a bit nuts. I was the same at 22 years old. Atheism is one of the first Big Ideas that these kids get their heads around, and it has direct relevance to their ENTIRE LIVES up to that moment. So, whatever, I can be a bit forgiving if they go a little overboard and start preaching about it everywhere.

That's how the pendulum of enlightenment works for many people. Go back and forth between extreme viewpoints, until you eventually settle on a peaceful and balanced middle-ground.

So, y'know, relax about it... from either side. The religious don't need to convince the atheists to convert, and the atheists don't need to convince the religious to convert. But it'll happen, because that's human nature, and we're trying to find our place in the world when we're young. We're pushing the boundaries, figuring it all out.

If everybody cut everybody else a little slack, nobody would have a problem. :)

@Hjallti: Atheist don't have to believe anything, it's been proven that random procedure could explain everything.

There are many sets of rules, simple rules, much simpler than those in our universe, which can bring complexity. Conway's Game of Life Conway's Game of Life is a good exemple.

The best software to play the game of life is probably Golly

If you configure golly to game of life settings and fool around at random for a couple minutes, you'll certainly get a glider.

If you fool around for a billion years, you may get any A.I. (it's been proven that the game of life universe can emulate any computer)

Golly can be used with many different sets of rules, some of witch allows stuff with a kind of DNA to replicate themselves.

Even if you are not convinced that this proves anything, you still might have some fun playing around with Golly. I did.

I don't want to get involved here, but I guess it is my instinct to impose order where I see chaos.

First, let's get our definitions straight:

A theist is someone who has made the "leap of faith" to believe in gods or God or The Goddess or whatever. We are not born as believers; as we grow up we are introduced to various religious ideas and some (most) people believe them. There is no choice or proof involved; by definition, "faith" is beliefe without evidence.

An atheist has not made the leap of faith. They grew up hearing the same Torah/Bible/Koran/Vedic/etc. stories but the extra layers of reality that the theists posit did not lodge themselves in the atheists gut. They are not "rejecting" or "denying" or "choosing" anything, they just... don't believe. They don't make that extra positive affirmation required to be a believer.

Agnosticism is not the midpoint on the theism/atheism spectrum as many people seem to claim. Gnosticism/agnosticism is its own spectrum that relates to your knowledge of the nature of god (as opposed to your belief in god). Fundamentalist Christians are gnostic theists because they believe in god and claim to have a personal relationship with him. Aristotle was an agnostic theist; he believed in a sort of god (the Prime Mover) but did not claim to have any knowledge about its nature. You can also be a gnostic or agnostic atheist.

Many people calling themselves agnostic say that atheists are just as irrational as theists because they are making a claim without any proof. They are confusing their definitions (not to mention that they themselves are atheists as they do not believe in a god). Atheists are not claiming anything, they are not buying into the claims made by the theists. The question "Do you believe in god?" distinguishes theists from atheists. If you answer with anything other than "YES!", you are an atheist. "I don't know" is not a legitimate answer to that question - you either believe or you don't and have full access to your own beliefs. The question "What is god like?" distinguishes gnostics from agnostics. "I don't know" or "people cannot know" *are* appropriate answers here and mean you are agnostic.

Now: There is no reason spirituality and logic/science/rationality cannot peacefully coexist; they are completely disjoint areas of human thought. I am an atheist but know plenty of intelligent, religious scientists and their views internally consistent. Science has no access to what happened before the big bang, what happens to our alleged incorporeal soul after death, or the meaning of life. You only get into problems when religions make claims about things that are properly the domain of science (the universe was created 6000 years ago, man literally descended from Adam and Eve, etc.). The reverse is also true but you don't often hear physicists (qua physicists, I don't know what they say on their own time) saying "Christians are all wrong: after we die, we are reincarnated in the next reality as talking llamas"

Also, stop hijacking Thomas' thread. This is supposed to be about people posting about inappropriate things like religion in the forum. :D

To respond to Thomas, yes, I do wish I could blacklist threads. ;)

(My way of saying that this discussion should at least be happening in an appropriately titled thread so those of us who want to talk about board games know to avoid it!)

Dustin: i thought that was going to be tl;dr, but i'm glad i did read it.

I always thought an agnostic was just a gutless atheist (joke!), but now i see that i was wrong.

Dustin: Interesting read, what is a "gnostic atheist" like?

It seems that the gnoticism spectrum is only interesting if you believe in a god.

I'm less baffled (though still appropriately) by the nature of the universe, not to mention the nature of conciousness, than by the fact that both are there in the first place, and inseparably interlocked it would seem.

If reality started with the big bang, when did conciousness start? And what status would a universe without conciousness have in terms of 'being'?

Don't try to imagine: you think therefore you 'are' - you cannot eliminate yourself as the one imagining such an 'empty universe' (and asking the unimaginable).

Life is sometimes a problem, but always a mystery. Religion is never an answer, but always a question. We're pretty much screwed in that respect, and there's not much one can do about it :)

Science H. Logic! It may be interesting, but certainly a million miles from unassailable absolute truth.

It completely overlooks the fact that after birth we are a tabula rasa, and, because we have 100% dependency upon our care-givers, are trivially brainwashed into believing things with no actual "leap of faith". Children are told fictions presented as facts as concrete as "the coals in the fireplace are very hot" and "you'll get cold if you play outside without your hat on". *Many* atheists are ones who had to consciously chose to take what one might call a leap of rationality to escape the continuous brainwashing that they were given when children. They have to "reject" the falsity, they have to "deny" the lies, and they *most certainly* do do it out of choice.

As a died-again atheist, I'm certainly jealous of those who reach the same place without having to follow the same path that I did. I certainly don't deny they exist, I'm a bit pissed off they deny that I, and those like me, don't exist.

"A great error of the Church has always been its assumption of authority over the souls of men in all matters of faith and dogma; and the natural fruit of dogmatic authority has always been, and always will be, insincerity, hypocrisy, cant, and all their evil brood. Until that yoke is completely broken everywhere in Christendom, its results are bound to appearâ€*

--Professor Levi L. Paine

You are familiar with this torture, as you have seen others before you paraded through your village adorning the horrific device. Only now, it is your turn. You stand before the Spanish Inquisition, tattered and worn. You have been accused of renouncing your Christian faith, and for that crime, you will be forced to endure the painful torture of the Heretics Fork. You repeat [JesusChrist = AntiChrist, Anti-Christ = Jesus Christ], however the horrendous pain of the Heretics Fork does not allow free movement of your neck or jaw, making your ability to speak nearly impossible, and your voice is scarcely audible. You can only abide in horror as the instrument, two prongs at either end, is securely fastened around your neck by a collar, ensuring it will remain in place. One end of the fork is jammed deeply into your sternum bone, causing excruciating pain, while the sharp tines opposite are pressed into the tender, fleshy underside of your chin.The pain is unimaginable, and you feel yourself growing faint as warm blood trickles down your neck onto your chest and shoulders. Again and again it is demanded of you to recant and repent from your crime against Christianity, but alas, you are unable.

The die has been cast, and your fate is now sealed. You are labeled an impenitent heretic. Adorned in a fancy costume and paraded through town, you are led to the stake where you will be burned alive or hanged.

ref: Turkey or chicken?......WOW!

http://www.inquisitionchamber.com/quaestio/fork.htm

erratic quoted: "Also, against what was asserted by supernaturalists, there is no need of supernatural explanations for neither life nor intelligence (in other words, soul does not exist)."

I understand the sentence but don't understand the brackets (unless an implicit definition of "soul", far away from the word I ever learned (granted that word was 'ziel' and even correct translations might change angles of interpretation)

@FatPhil: there are also not-atheists have also been leaped out of a brainwashing atheist enviroment, but I guess most of the humans kept within some broader scope created by there care-givers. (They might have been raised as katholics, and ended up as consider themselfs as Christians without believe the pope is representing God on earth)

@Dustin: you probably completely missed my point and then go on from your own definition of atheist. There are people who riduculize theists (in your definition) with an argument like: "you believe there is a god, science has proven there ain't no god, so you are stupid to believe." For the sake of the argument I will call these class of atheists "skdork's". Well I am only talking about the skdork's. They are those who I get concerned with, since they do believe (that there is no god) and they claim they don't believe.

De ziel / het zieltje are correct translations, but they have a broader meaning than the word soul afaik. I would say it is the part of a human, that doesn't die if the human dies, so scientifically there is no such thing as a soul, it's a religious concept. Another word for soul is the spirit, but it has several meanings too...

Btw you don't have to be an extreme atheist, agnosticism (if there is a god is a higher power like god is unknown or unknowable) and pantheism (the universe/nature and god are the same) are two interesting views too.

Hi,

@all

thanks for your posts so far, it is very interesting to see what can be unleashed by a technical question. (Or is it not by causality but only by conincidence?)

Maybe someday someone greater than me will settle all these discussions. ;-)

@few

Until then please do not try to convince me of your own belief. I already have mine. Thank you.

I think a complete description of the physical universe, were that possible, would be a complete description of everything; there is nothing else.

But I also see that there is more than one valid and useful definition meaning of a person. We are our physical selves, for instance, but we are also models that exist within other people's minds. I have learned who some of my friends are in such a way that I converse with them even when they are not present and in some cases have died. I continue to learn things I don't yet know by using those models (in my mind, conversing with my friends) because I have previously learned some of what my friends, were they physically here, would see in a situation that is new to me.

Although it is possible to express that only in physical terms describing my own brain, it is perhaps more illuminating to conceive of it as aspects of my friends being present in me, just as I am present in friends who are still alive and I will continue to be present in some friends after I have 'died'.

So what is meant by "soul?" As most people use the word, I do not think there is such a thing. But it is not hard to define it in a way that respects its usual meaning but which I also think is real.

@Dvd Avins:

I could not disagree if that was the "canonical" definition of soul. It is precisely my point. Mankind is enriched by extraordinary people like Newton, Mozart, Velazquez or Shakespeare, but also by ordinary people who are just nice to other people, good parents, decent people. If their legacy is what you call "soul", it enriches us all, and there is nothing supernatural about it.

But that is not the definition used by religious people. The word, as religions use it, implies that observable human behavior cannot be explained by the matter, energy, information forming a human. And that is provably wrong. Of course, you can always argue that soul is responsible of non-observable behavior. And that is just childish as it could never be neither proved nor disproved. But, if it is not observable, who cares?

@maraca - If you find pantheism a interesting view you just MUST read Alberto Caeiro (Fernando Pessoa's heteronym).

"Everything in the universe is within you. Ask all from yourself." as Mankind has shown for centuries that we cannot make the correct decisions without Divine help. If the soul is a spirit, it must them be immortal, incapable of death. When the spirit is unified is amazing what can be accomplished! Because by definition a spirit is a simple substance, with no parts, no extension in space. "The wise man's understanding turns him to his right; the fool's understanding turns him to his left." Ecclesiastes 10:2. --

Note: The pope does not represents God on earth, God is one he doesn't needs religious idolatrous fanatism representation on earth or/and the whole universe, to do it. Not less a <>

Definition

char·la·tan[ shrlət'n ]char·la·tans Plural

NOUN

1. false expert: somebody who falsely claims to have special skill or expertise

[ Early 17th century. Via French < Italian ciarlatano < ciarlare "to babble," an imitation of empty talk ]

char·la·tan·ism NOUN

char·la·tan·ry NOUN

Thesaurus

NOUN

Synonyms: impostor, fake, fraud, swindler, quack, counterfeit, pretender, con artist, sham

I have no problem with people believing in God, Buddha, Superman, or the Cookie Monster POPES. It's their belief, their life, and they are entitled to believe whatever they want.

What I really have a problem with is people who tell you that you are stupid because you don't believe in the existence of the fictional pope christ character they believe in.

Why can't we be left alone enjoying our stupidity? [-antichrist = +Christ] false or thue or/and FACTS OR FICTION?????????????????????

@Hjallti - What are you refering to with your "brainwashed atheist environment"? I can imagine a cult-of-political-leader environment that purports to be atheistic, such China or soviet Russia, fitting the bill. The only atheistic environments that I am familiar with are ones where there is freedom to question anything and everything, and subsequent intellectual discovery and sharing is actively encouraged. All that is demanded of you is that you state your postulates, share your facts, and apply valid logic to get from premise to conclusion.

I know many people who have gone from being atheists to theists. Almost all of them have done so during times of great stress (death in family, being dumped, etc.), and at the time the best description of the role of religion was as a crutch for them.

Truefully, christian evangelism and intolerance are annoying, no matter what the topic. "WHY?.. Facts and evidence are too restricting! You can only prove things that are true with facts!

REF:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RjJXduuNlg&fmt=18

http://www.youtube.com/watchv=1vVMSc3aAwo&list=PL8D71CEDB225E5AE0&index=3&feature=plpp_video

http://fulvida.com/ajenos/misioneros/el-falso-nuevo-testamento

@FatPhil: Certainly in the 20th century in Belgium, (but I can't imagine that our surrealistic country would be unique in that respect) there are people that see no option between being catholic or being anti-catholic.

I don't want to go into historical reasons for that, nor I want to attack in any way atheists, or convince people of my ideas. I only want to point out that also between the atheists and certainly the higher educated scientists between them, there are fundamentalists that think there point of view gives them the right to look down at all the others as stupid while they are superior. Or to put it differently: They don't only answer the question 'Is there a God?' with No, but also answer the question 'Can there be another explanation to this world than purely the scientific randomness?' with NO. and fail to see that the latter NO is a believe as unfounded (naive) as to answer the first question with Yes.

I am sure that in my country a lot of people have been raised in a enviroment where that believe was taken for granted and that the 'freedom' of thought that was highly embraced, was restricted by the fact that you could not doubt that very believe.

funny example: The universities (plural: a dutch and french speaking double university) of Brussels is called official the VUB (ULB) where the 'V' is for 'Vrije' (=Free) as if they have some monopoly on thinking freely, in the exact sense you stated. Ironically they are the only universities in Belgium where you have to 'sign' a restriction on how you will conduct science when you want to work there. It is something about accepting for a fact that there can't be dogma's.

another example

I once was talking about socialism in a youth meeting, I was (am) convinced about a lot of left-winged ideas, as was Jesus in my opinion. One of the others there was angry, was calling me names and was in utter disbelief. He was unable to see how I could be Christian and left-winged at the same time, where I couldn't see the opposite (I mean being christian and being right-winged, I still don't understand the latter I am afraid).

@FatPhil: I think we are saying the same thing. Whether religion is "introduced" or people are "brainwashed", faith is something... extra. My point was simply that atheism is not a faith-based claim and is not "just as irrational" as religion. If nobody believed in god(s), there would be no atheists, just people.

Note that when I say faith is irrational, I don't mean that it is contrary to reason; rather, reason has nothing to do with it. I don't think all religious people are crazy.

That is axactly the type of thing I find funny or annoying depending on my general state of mind: implying that only religious faith is irrational which might be brainwashed within our culture or so, and that 'skdork'-atheism is more rational and less brainwashed.

People say stupid stuff all the time. Engaging in an argument only gives validation to the stupidity. Ignore it, and it goes away.

@Hjallti

It is very easy to understand how being a Christian and being right-winged goes together. Christianity is not only a way of life, but primarily a religion, i.e. a big institution focused on power and tradition, not just on the teachings of Jesus Christ. This is quite normal and favors right-wingedness.

On the other hand I agree with you that an upright Christian should prefer certain left-winged meanings, e.g. cooperation with strangers without having an immediate advantage (public welfare).

The "brainwashing" about atheism is laughable. How do you brainwash someone into atheism? I have never seen anyone trying. It is a state of rationality that must be reached personally. It may require a lifetime of studying mathematics and physics to be able to read journals and not being informed via junk-media. And what do you get? Nothing. Afterlife? There is no such thing, the idea is an ill-defined wishful mistake. Money and popularity? Kidding, right? Not as much as a football player or a pop singer who thinks astrology is a science.

Unlike agnostics, who show infinite patience and respect towards false ideas, atheists feel indignation when somebody lies about established facts. Especially, when the lie is organized in the form of a religion. A person with a wrong (established to be wrong) belief can do something about it. Learn the facts, find out what is known and what is not. A religion systematically misinforms people.

If you see someone being scammed by a shell game and tell him/her it is a scam, how is that brainwashing? How can the role of the scammer and the role of the person who informs about the scam be put on the same level?

I know I *should* stay away from this thread, because it is likely to only bring new enemies, but I couldn't resist...

The main thing which annoys me is - for lack of a better term - "false claims"! That means that I am as annoyed by skdorks as by religious fanatics who claim they possess "the only right answer". Part of my intense dislike of any kind of "absolutism" is no doubt due to the fact that I went to university during the 1960-ies and 1970-ies when most of the student bodies were occupied by people who firmly *believed* they had found the ultimate truth and even that it was "objectively proven"! No doubt you can all figure out what "ism" I refer to - the one which about 20 years later collapsed in a heap of dust...

I firmly believe in science, but I equally firmly believe that the statement "God does not exist" cannot be proved scientifically.

Thanks Ragnar, I guess you have a similar annoyance as I have.

@erratic: Is your irony intended? You solidly went from asking a question to answering it in the same paragraph better than I could. You asked "How do you brainwash someone into atheism?" and you putted to down one of the technics in the two lines below with a nice example of a rhetorical question totally valid within the strict compounds of the atheistic irrationality. "Afterlife? There is no such thing, the idea is an ill-defined wishful mistake." is a typical example of such an argument which can't really be countered because it is an ill-defined mistaken wish, rather than a argument.

Woh, lots to reply to!

@Hjallti

- When I was a god-botherer, I always used to say "Christ was a socialist" (If you didn't know in advance where it was from you might guess that "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" was biblical). Now I'm died-again, I would say "If there had been a Christ like the one mentioned in the 4 gospels you chose for today's bible out of the 200+ that you had to chose from, then he would have been a socialist".

- I would feel obliged to give a *qualified* "NO" response to the "'Can there be another explanation to this world than..." question. The qualifications would be that I would want the word "rational" inserted before "explanation", and that I would emphasise that there isn't a single uniform scientific view about the world, so the comparison isn't against some non-existent "perfect science". There is general agreement about most things (about the earth not being 6000 years old, no matter how many Christians say it is), but there are still details where alternatives, all scientific, still compete. As more science is done, some of those branches will be pruned, and the surviving ones, when looked at more closely will be seen to have splayed out and no longer be indivisible. Science only gets progressively less wrong, in the words of Hawking.

- To even engage me in further discussion after my "NO", you'd then have a bootstrapping problem - you could not even define what a "deity" is to me without using terminology that I do not accept in my universe of discourse. And that terminology in turn you could not define without using further terminology I wouldn't accept. Like string theorists, you have made a leap to include things in your universe of discourse that I am not prepared to accept in mine.

In order to help you prepare for defining "deity", please practice by defining what an "invisible pink unicorn" is.

@Ragnar

- see the above paragraph - my claim would be "God does not exist" cannot even be *worded* scientifically, in my view. It's a question of metaphysics, which is a branch of philosophy, not science.

@erratic

- I can actually imagine atheistic brainwashing. I can imagine *anything* being drummed into a mind that had no choice but to accept it.

- And your shell game example is a straw man. Nobody's calling that brainwashing. Nobody's calling the (UK) Salvation Army soup kitchens brainwashing either, it's a charity I will quite happily support, even as a staunch atheist, as the deed that is done is a good one. (I hear in the US they SA are proselytising fundamentalist wackos in comparison, I'd not support them.)

Thanks for the feedback, FatPhil! I mostly agree with your analysis, especially with your Hawking quote "Science only gets progressively less wrong", which is precisely the way I look at science as well.

What *does* annoy me (which is what seems to annoy Hjallti as well) is that skdorks seem to imply that "God does not exist" is not only "wordable" scientifically, but a scientific *fact*!