Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 5,301-5,350 of 12,463

[Yasmeen]

i would rather die or just live in mars. either life is not a tolerable option for me.

[Hazel]

Dariennefye wrote: "because obviously i chose religion over science..and for me science is just part of religion..(thats my point when i said "so i dont think theres a conflict between religion and science.." "

but it has been demonstrated to you that what you think is not correct. Just because you think something doesn't make it right, there has to be proof to back up what you say, That science is part of religion is demonstrably not true, and that theres no conflict is demonstrably not true. As such, you're basing what you think on untruths, you are not investigating the truth of the matter, nor do you seem willing to pay attention to any point that contradicts what you think. And that last sentence describes exactly why there is conflict between science and religion, and why the two are not the same thing. You won't have your mind changed, an entirely unscientific way of thinking, but very much a religious way of thinking.

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: "Dariennefye wrote: "because obviously i chose religion over science..and for me science is just part of religion..(thats my point when i said "so i dont think theres a conflict between religion and..."

This isn't an argument, by the way ... just reporting. On the 1984 thread, a member of the clergy made a comment along the lines that religion has been an opiate for the masses. I was a bit taken aback by that. A member of the clergy ...? He got into an exchange with another person and started pointing out his knowledge of religion and that he was ordained, etc.... So, I got curious and looked at his profile.

He's ordained through the Church of Spiritual Humanism. I'd never heard of it. Their website stated that their religion is based in reason and that they don't believe in God or gods since the supernatural hasn't been scientifically proven. They only hold with things that are scientifically proven.

Needless to say, I wrote and asked, respectfully, how all of this could be. I thought, in order to be a religion, that one had to believe in God or gods, etc.... What sort of "religious" things can be proven through science? One of the things they listed that they practice is the scientific method. (All I could think about was ... what you, Hazel, ... and Gary and Cerebus and ... would say about this.)

Anyway, he reported back ... that a belief in God isn't necessary, think Buddhism, and that he didn't want to be seen as pushing a religion, so I could contact him by other means ... those were listed. Then, someone gave him crap for pushing his religion, which I felt bad about as I'd asked the question.

I'm not that interested in this particular religion for various reasons, so I don't intend to contact him. In addition, I don't know what people mean when they write in and say religion and science are the same, exactly, unless they give us more information. Some have. But, now, I realize there are some people who actually belong to a "church" that practices the scientific method and is based in "reason" and doesn't believe in God or gods due to the fact that their existence can't be proven ... yet ... they consider themselves to be practicing a religion. Those people, I would imagine, would see religion and science as being one.

I'm confused by it ... but ...

[Hazel]

I had a quick look at the Church of Spiritual Humanism website, it looks a bit pantheistic to me, or more to the point, it looks like "make you own religion". Their rundown of the scientific method is entirely wrong as well.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "Those people, I would imagine, would see religion and science as being one."

I've come across this sort of thing a few times and find it is somewhere between good intentioned re-branding and lack of understanding of either religion or scientific methodology.

I think the mistake is the common conception that to be a scientist, or even just to accept science, you have to believe in it. Some people will even say that they "believe in evolution" or similar, when actually what they are trying to convey is the idea that the evidence has them currently convinced it is the correct model. This does not mean that their conviction will not change if a better model is subsequently created.

For example, I accept Einstein's theory of gravity and also quantum theory, while knowing that both are not completely correct as no one has yet managed to link the two successfully.

There is an equivalence in many people's minds between scientific knowledge and religious knowledge which is completely fallacious. Just as priests take the body of knowledge of scripture, so they assume that scientists look at the body of knowledge of science and expound on it. Yet in reality scientists look at knowledge and data incredibly more vast and complicated than any scripture written and try to find out the underlying principles that are not conveniently written down anywhere.

In a similar manner, theists often believe that atheists "believe in the non-existence of (their) god" which then equivocates their two beliefs in their mind. Yet they never seem to notice that they do not believe in the overwhelming majority of religions and gods that have existed yet do not spend time "believing" in their absence or consciously rejecting "Thor" and his ilk.

Dawkins wrote: "We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."

I think the Church of Secular Humanism is a misguided attempt at a re-branding that many atheists and free-thinkers have felt they need. Indeed in the US the evangelists have successfully equated atheism with communism, thereby tapping into residual hates and fears from the last century. In general too the idea of atheism being a "belief in itself" and its use as a generally pejorative term has caused a lot of problems. Latest US Gallup polls still show "being an atheist" as the least desirable trait in a candidate for office, worse than being black, female or gay.

The problem I find with these parallel churches is that it just reinforces the perception that "all opinions are equally valid", a perception that would be a disaster for scientific or medical progress.

[Travis]

Hazel wrote: "I had a quick look at the Church of Spiritual Humanism website, it looks a bit pantheistic to me, or more to the point, it looks like "make you own religion". Their rundown of the scientific method..."

So, they are about as actually scientific as 'scientology'.

Sounds like the guy is saying 'religion' when he actually means 'cult'.

[Hazel]

I completely misread that l as an n...

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Those people, I would imagine, would see religion and science as being one."

I've come across this sort of thing a few times and find it is somewhere between good intentioned re-br..."

Good points .... Regarding the word "believe" ... well ... I know I never much thought about the word and used it all the time. I'm pretty sure I've said that I believe in evolution, likely on this very thread. I think I also always thought of atheism as a belief, a belief in no God or gods. That's one thing about this thread ... I'm trying to be more aware and am trying not to use the word "belief" when I should another word. I think .... It's my opinion .... Now, I still, personally, believe in a higher power. But, I'm trying to limit my use of the word to that.

The idea behind this particular church still has me shaking my head a bit. It just seems so .... I don't know that I want to put it in words.

I think it's fine if people want to be religious and fine if people don't believe in God or religion. I think it's fine not to hold beliefs at all ... to only acknowledge things that can be scientifically proven.

It seems weird to me, frankly, to attempt to meld the two. To say one's church doesn't believe in God or gods and only accepts things that can be proven scientifically and to list the scientific method as a practice of one's religion, but to say this is a church/religion ... well, it just seems to me to be, almost, pretending to be something you're not, which is so utterly sad, in my opinion. (Now, I know next to nothing about this religion/church, so I might be wrong.)

I did know about that Gallup information. Atheists definitely are misunderstood. Understatement. Treated horribly would be more accurate. I know a lot of people who are quite open, etc.... However, I even have to say that ... if I were to tell my parents or friends that I was dating an atheist, or going to marry an atheist, or was helping an atheist group do a food drive or throw a dinner for the needy, or if there was an atheist scrapbooking group and I was going to the atheist scrapbooking parties (don't scoff), well, I can almost bet that my parents and my friends, people who are pretty open, would have a fit. I can just see it. Maybe not a fit. But, I can see them having questions and problems with it ... especially if it involved someone I was dating. None of this has happened. So, I don't know for sure. However, I'm 90% certain they'd start coming out with some of the misconceptions and just downright horrid things that people say about atheists. Yeah, I can totally see my parents linking atheism with communism, which made me start thinking along these lines. I can see people questioning whether or not the person/people were moral. Sigh .... I can see them thinking I'd be, I don't know, turned to the "dark side" or something.

And, that's just ... sad, depressing, and wrong.

At the same time, what must it be like to hide who you are and not be able to freely express your thoughts and opinions due to being afraid of being labeled and treated horribly? It makes me wish more were being done to clarify misconceptions.

I think, in my country, when many think about atheists, they think about the "war" on Christmas and stuff like that. They think, in my opinion, that atheists want to stop them from believing and practicing their faith. I think that mucks things up. Instead of reaching for understanding, I think people go into shutdown mode, thinking something they value, their faith, is going to be taken from them. I don't know where this comes from. Yes, we can say FOX news, but I think it comes from a far deeper place.

And, when I think about when I first started to take part in this thread ... and when I think about comments people have made, I can see that play out here ... to a certain extent. I know, initially, I was disturbed by the fact that it seemed that people were saying some really mean things about religious folk ... making fun of them, etc.... That's why I really started to get involved. It just wasn't cool with me. Not just because I think religion should be sacred. (I was raised to believe that. In this case, I'm going to use the word. People's beliefs were not to be questioned or spoken of negatively.)

That aside, though, there were times when I felt like people wanted me to change my mind and turn my back on my beliefs. There were times when I thought only certain people were "allowed" to have a voice here. Whether it was the tone and delivery of the questions and comments or the fact that I was feeling uncomfortable and taking time to ask myself some important questions or a combination, I know there were times when .... I can't quite explain it, other than to say ... I started feeling an "us" against "them" thing. This was months ago. I think it's easy, sadly, when dealing with religion and atheism, with all of the misconceptions and emotions, etc..., perhaps even on both sides, to shut down and walk away ... because it's just all so darned uncomfortable sometimes.

The key though, for me, is understanding. I think it's so important to come at it from that perspective. How to foster understanding without putting people on the defensive ...? Or, how do we, as individuals, push through the defensiveness to get to a place of understanding? I think it's really important; I hate to think that there's a group of people who are so poorly thought of and, in some cases, treated.

[[deleted user]]

Okay .... Here I sit, innocently ... innocently, rooting around on the computer, yes, rooting around, looking for cool stuff on a new book I'm going to do next year. So, I'm looking for ideas for lesson plans and whatnot. The book? MacBeth.

And, what did I find?! Have I been living under a rock? SEAN BEAN PLAYED MACBETH????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:o

Sigh....

I can't even, innocently, search and do work for my job without being surrounded by Sean Bean.

(Wonder if there's a poster of Sean Bean playing Macbeth that I could hang on the classroom wall? Or, would that be wrong? Sadly, I'm sure it would be wrong....)

[Shanna]

Personally I think he's stalking YOU, Shannon, he's everywhere you go...
:-P

[Gary]

Travis wrote: "Sounds like the guy is saying 'religion' when he actually means 'cult'. "

Careful, that's a game that some apologists like to play. They define religion as "good" and everything bad as being the fault of a "cult". The only real difference between a religion and a cult tends to be public perception. Ultimately, a lot of the fundamentalists consider all religions but their own as cults.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "And, what did I find?! Have I been living under a rock? SEAN BEAN PLAYED MACBETH????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!."

No "Spoiler Alert"? Now I know Macbeth must die in the end!

[Hazel]

[Ron]

Simply put, if I could rid the world of superstition with a snap of my fingers I would do so forthwith. For those who think religion somehow 'counters' evil, I encourage you to read the 'Reason-Driven Life' written by a man with two doctorates in theology and teaches at a seminary. I could go on, but I'm tired, the discussion is old, and most people have had dogma driven into their skull from the age where they responded on cue. I can only say that the most miserable years of my life were as a 'god-fearing'type, and it was study of the inaccuracies of not only the bible,but of other religions as well which led me to self acceptance. Including, strangely, enough an encounter with a Buddhist monk who practices a sort of agnostic or atheistic Buddhism (he also wrote a superb book whose title I can't recall). His argument is that rebirth happens in this life and this life alone. I'm not about to shave my head and don a sheet, but he left me with a profound impression.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "I'm trying to be more aware and am trying not to use the word "belief" when I should another word."

That's good. I do the same, because belief is a word that means remarkably different things in context which means that if a person has a different context than you their understanding of what you mean can be markedly different.

I tend to refer to my "opinion", "idea" or even "philosophy". The point is that once you invoke belief, you are declaring to 'believers' that your opinion is just as personal, just as intractable and just as unfounded in reason as their beliefs.

A similar problem has been taken advantage of by Creationists and their ilk. The infamous 'only a theory' gambit. However, to a scientist the word "theory" is synonymous with "law" or "fact". It is only because a good scientist does not believe in science that means that such laws retain the moniker of "theory" in acknowledgement of the fact that we may one day replace that theory with a more accurate one.

Unfortunately even that process is taken advantage of by religious apologists who believe that the changing nature of science is a problem rather than a strength and like to imply that whenever their religious dogma is disproved that one day they will be vindicated when science "comes back around". (Despite the fact that most theories build upon previous theories rather than refute them, for obvious reasons.)


Shannon wrote: "The idea behind this particular church still has me shaking my head a bit. It just seems so .... I don't know that I want to put it in words."

I think that I can imagine the words.

Shannon wrote: "To say one's church doesn't believe in God or gods and only accepts things that can be proven scientifically and to list the scientific method as a practice of one's religion, but to say this is a church/religion ... well, it just seems to me to be, almost, pretending to be something you're not, which is so utterly sad, in my opinion."

I generally agree with you there. The main problem with such ideas is that by their nature they lend ammunition to the religious who try to put science and religion on an equal footing, and eventually may become as misleading to their own adherents as any other religion.

In my opinion dressing up science and reason in religious garb just hides the very aspects of science and reason that should be valued.

Shannon wrote: "if I were to tell my parents or friends that I was dating an atheist, or going to marry an atheist, or was helping an atheist group do a food drive or throw a dinner for the needy, or if there was an atheist scrapbooking group and I was going to the atheist scrapbooking parties (don't scoff), well, I can almost bet that my parents and my friends, people who are pretty open, would have a fit."

Yes I am well aware of the hatred and violence that religious people will respond to atheism with, and I can imagine it is ten times worse in the US, where the term "atheism" and "godless" are still used as powerful pejorative terms even by politicians and celebrities. The outright lie that morality and religion are synonymous is repeated often and is part of the common persons basic assumptions that they never even think about.

So powerful is this that it can shake religious folk to the core. I was stopped in town a few weeks ago by two Mormons, who questioned me on my beliefs. The usual concerns about morality came up and they said they wanted to live a good life so when they died Jesus would reward them. They then insinuated that without faith I had no reason not to go around murdering and stealing. I then simply pointed out that in my opinion if their fear of god or desire for his rewards were the only reason they could think of for not killing and stealing then how could they possibly think they were morally superior to someone who doesn't believe and doesn't do that. Moreover, if fear of god or bribery was the only reason that they did good, then they weren't acting morally at all, they were being either afraid or selfish. They left after only 5 minutes of talk, so either they gave me up as intractable or perhaps they actually thought about what I had said. I hope the latter.

Shannon wrote: "At the same time, what must it be like to hide who you are and not be able to freely express your thoughts and opinions due to being afraid of being labeled and treated horribly? It makes me wish more were being done to clarify misconceptions."

This is were the conflict exists that is intrinsic to the nature of monotheistic faith. Now I know that there are many tolerant theists out there, many who believe in egalitarian principles of freedom of belief and practice of religion. The problem is that both things are diametrically opposed to the concept of monotheism.

Even amongst the moderates of the monotheistic faiths there is a general perception that their morality is superior and that ultimately "infidels" (be they a different religion or of no religion) are intrinsically mistaken, misguided or malicious. This may manifest in overt mistrust or persecution or it may manifest in smaller subtler ways. Like when a Anglican Bishop says to scientists that of course it is important to investigate into the early universe, but the moment of creation was holy and should not be disturbed. Monotheism is a practice of marginalisation of any other opinions, no matter how benign. It simply says "we are right, and you poor misguided souls are wrong."

Is this bad? Well the main problem is that moderate Monotheism always contains the seeds of extremism and totalitarianism, because if the majority of your population believes there is only one truth and one way then they will try to coerce others by means fair and eventually foul to submit to that way.

Look at what happened to Muslims between 800-1100, for a time they were moderate and their culture grew scientifically, technologically and culturally faster than anywhere else. Then after certain Muslim preachers started to preach more extremist ideas the Muslim advance collapsed and didn't recover for the next 9 centuries.

(Great video by a famous US physicist on this here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDAT98...)

Shannon wrote: "I think, in my country, when many think about atheists, they think about the "war" on Christmas and stuff like that. They think, in my opinion, that atheists want to stop them from believing and practicing their faith."

The problem here again is equivalence. The whole "War on Christmas" is about the religious right wanting the freedom to promote their belief structure above anyone else. They present the image of oppression when it is they that wish to oppress the 'infidel' at Christmas and to marginalise them and particularly their children to make Christianity all the more attractive.

The same with all the eroding of the first amendment, whether its to sanction prayer in public schools, teach creationism or to retain "under god" in the pledge of allegiance and "in god we trust" on money. It is all about oppressing peoples freedom to think differently all under the guise of "fairness" which is completely disingenuous.

I think many atheists probably do want people of faith to stop practising their religions, when part of that religion is to promote their beliefs over others and even reason, and to indoctrinate people with ideas that have sunk so far into the culture that they seem intrinsic. Ideas that are intolerant and divisive.

Shannon wrote: "I was raised to believe that. In this case, I'm going to use the word. People's beliefs were not to be questioned or spoken of negatively."

You see this is one thing that sounds altruistic but isn't when you think about it. Leaving aside that by simply declaring yourself as religious you are intrinsically questioning the religious beliefs or lack of same in everyone you tell, I think this is potentially a deeply immoral position to hold.

In my opinion a lot of the worst horrors in the world from genocide to slavery, were only possible because too many people stayed silent.

I guess its the scientific training in me. When I see what seems to be an unfounded belief I tend to question it. If people hold beliefs that in my opinion are demonstrably erroneous I critique them, and I would expect people to do the same to me. (Which indeed you have done).

There is nothing sacred about beliefs, when you see the kind of horrors that people have believed in over the years. Respect the person, absolutely, but respect an idea? Only if that idea passes muster.

I will happily say that in my opinion people who believe homosexual acts are evil are wrong. (Based on evidence and ethical intelligence.)

I will happily say that in my opinion people who believe that certain races are inferior to others are wrong. (Based on evidence and ethical intelligence.)

I will happily say that in my opinion people who believe women deserve to be raped if they dress provocatively are wrong. (Based on evidence and ethical intelligence.)

Shannon wrote: "I started feeling an "us" against "them" thing. This was months ago. I think it's easy, sadly, when dealing with religion and atheism, with all of the misconceptions and emotions, etc..."

The trouble is that the "us" against "them" started as soon as one group decided that they knew the "ultimate truth" and that they were right while everyone else is wrong, and anything that appears to support this fact should be freely proclaimed, yet any other evidence or argument to the contrary is viewed as an attack.

Just look at the recent controversy in London when a secular group took out an advert saying "There probably is no god, so stop worrying and enjoy this life" (paraphrasing somewhat). This was viewed as an attack on religious people, yet for years Churches have been posting pro-religious posters in public spaces for years.

In my opinion people are entitled to their opinions, but if they share them with others then they should be prepared to justify said opinion or to let the dissenting opinion stand to their audience.

Shannon wrote: "The key though, for me, is understanding. I think it's so important to come at it from that perspective. How to foster understanding without putting people on the defensive ...? Or, how do we, as individuals, push through the defensiveness to get to a place of understanding? I think it's really important; I hate to think that there's a group of people who are so poorly thought of and, in some cases, treated."

Unfortunately I don't think that there can be a true consensus when one side forms opinions based on dogma and adheres to them "religiously". In my opinion the growing secularisation of western society since the industrial revolution is the only hope for a safe and happy future, yet it seems like the religious extremist is on the rise again.

To paraphrase Neil Degrasse Tyson, when revelation replaces investigation, progress (be it scientific, cultural or ethical) halts or even regresses.

[[deleted user]]

Shanna wrote: "Personally I think he's stalking YOU, Shannon, he's everywhere you go...
:-P"

See .... I hope Travis reads this. He thinks I'm stalking Sean Bean, but it's really the other way around!!!!!!

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "And, what did I find?! Have I been living under a rock? SEAN BEAN PLAYED MACBETH????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!."

No "Spoiler Alert"? Now I know Macbeth must die in the end!"

Ha, ha, ha!

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: ""

Well, Hazel, my computer isn't showing the picture, but I'm sure it's amazing ... an amazing picture of Sean Bean as Macbeth. Maybe it will show up later ....

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "The key though, for me, is understanding. I think it's so important to come at it from that perspective. How to foster understanding without putting people on the defensive ...? Or, how do we, as individuals, push through the defensiveness to get to a place of understanding? I think it's really important; I hate to think that there's a group of people who are so poorly thought of and, in some cases, treated."

Unfortunately I don't think that there can be a true consensus when one side forms opinions based on dogma and adheres to them "religiously". In my opinion the growing secularisation of western society since the industrial revolution is the only hope for a safe and happy future, yet it seems like the religious extremist is on the rise again. "

Mmmm.... I don't know. You may be right. I'm not the "average" person given the fact that my mother raised me to believe in God, yes, but also taught me to question things like the Bible as the word of God and the idea that there is only one true religion, etc.... Dogma ... shmagma, was her thought. How would I think and how would I feel if that had been different ... if she had raised me to believe the Bible was divine, etc...?

I don't know that consensus is possible; however, I'd like to think that understanding is possible. To think otherwise or to act/not act based on that thought would almost be like remaining silent ....

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Shanna wrote: "Personally I think he's stalking YOU, Shannon, he's everywhere you go...
:-P"

See .... I hope Travis reads this. He thinks I'm stalking Sean Bean, but it's really the other way a..."

Nice try, but you aren't fooling anyone.

[Travis]

Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "I'm trying to be more aware and am trying not to use the word "belief" when I should another word."

That's good. I do the same, because belief is a word that means remarkably diff..."


Actually, you might want to stay away from those atheist scrap booking parties. They are evil.

[[deleted user]]

Michael wrote: "I think one with out the other and the one left alone would collapse....

I have faith I do believe in god... but I am not one that goes to church every sunday... or at all... it seems only for a w..."

True dat. Although I guess it depends on how closely you relate a common moral system and religion. If you have a good moral system, then I'd want to live in the world of science. Who wants to relive the Middle Ages, you know? But science is a tool, its use without morals is a potentially scary and destructive thing.

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Shanna wrote: "Personally I think he's stalking YOU, Shannon, he's everywhere you go...
:-P"

See .... I hope Travis reads this. He thinks I'm stalking Sean Bean, but it's really..."

Hee, hee, hee...! And, I was wondering when someone would pick up on the atheist scrapbooking parties line ... you didn't let me down. ;)

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Shanna wrote: "Personally I think he's stalking YOU, Shannon, he's everywhere you go...
:-P"

See .... I hope Travis reads this. He thinks I'm stalking Sean Bean, ..."

well, the trend is that putting 'atheist' in front of any term is shorthand for 'that thing is evil' (Much like Socialist) and we all know scrap booking is evil, so it's obviously evil squared.
or maybe it's evil doubled. Gotta check the conversation chart in my atheist handbook.

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "Shannon wrote: "well, the trend is that putting 'atheist' in front of any term is shorthand for 'that thing is evil' (Much like Socialist) and we all know scrap booking is evil, so it's obviously evil squared.
or maybe it's evil doubled. Gotta check the conversation chart in my atheist handbook. "

Do they sell those, the charts, at Amazon?

(Ahahahahaha!)

Of course, you might not have been the first to point out the dangers of atheist scrapbooking parties. Since I can't see Hazel's picture, I just assumed it was a picture of Sean Bean as Macbeth.

What if .... What if she found a picture of an atheist scrapbooking party?

Whoa ....

If so, I'd have seriously underestimated her powers.

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "Shannon wrote: "well, the trend is that putting 'atheist' in front of any term is shorthand for 'that thing is evil' (Much like Socialist) and we all know scrap booking is evil, so i..."

You can find the atheist handbook on the shelf, next to the 'Gay Agenda'.

You'll notice Hazel tried to post a picture of an atheist scrap book party and it wouldn't load and then Hazel got very quiet...( insert dramatic music here)

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "You'll notice Hazel tried to post a picture of an atheist scrap book party and it wouldn't load and then Hazel got very quiet...( insert dramatic music here) "

Dun, dun ...

Dun, dun ...

(Wouldn't be amazing if she could find a picture of an atheist scrapbooking party! I'll tell you something if you promise to try to behave.

...

I fear this information might be too tempting. I'll give it a go, though. I think one of the first scrapbooking companies to start here, with the catalogs and employees who handled the parties and the parties, was started by a Mormon family. One of my Mormon cousins got into it and started getting family members into it when she was going to BYU back in the early '80's. Yup. I'm sure; however, that this is a meaningless connection. Though, if there aren't atheist scrapbooking parties, I can almost envision atheists thinking scrapbooking parties might be some sort of conspiracy to indoctrinate women into religion ....)

[Hazel]

dun dun duuuun

http://www.atheist-community.org/scra...

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: "dun dun duuuun

http://www.atheist-community.org/scra..."

Whoa ...!

[[deleted user]]

I've got to say that again ...

W-w-w-h-o-a!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "I've got to say that again ...

W-w-w-h-o-a!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"


and you thought it was the zombie apocalypse you had to worry about...

[Asia]

I agree with who says that one without the other would collapse. Indirectly one needs to other to question itself, and give an equilibrium to the world. A bit like yin/yang philosophy. There is a bit of the each in the other. Science is often changing due to the new discoveries, and religion is perceived as "without proof." If I had to choose, I would go with science. Both have their uses, and if too extremist (as already discussed by previous users) it can cause issues. Probably its the human being that must find a balance between the two and respect those that do not believe in the same thing.

[Hazel]

Personally, Asia, I see no reason to respect a belief that is patently absurd. I can respect the people who hold those beliefs, but generally that respect is despite their beliefs. I very much respect Shannon who posts often on this thread, but I still find it weird that she believes in god, and see no reason to respect that belief, because there's no rational reason to believe it. She has her reasons, she accepts she can't prove god, and she doesn't expect anyone else to accept her beliefs at face value, and that I can respect.

As has been discussed before, and you obviously ignored this part, there is nothing good that you can get from religion that you cannot get from purely secular means. But there is no way to get what science gives us from religious means.

[Asia]

Hazel wrote: "

Personally, Asia, I see no reason to respect a belief that is patently absurd. I can respect the people who hold those beliefs, but generally that respect is despite their beliefs. I very much re..."

Hazel I agree when you say that "there is no way to get what science gives us from religious means" in fact as you can read in my response before if i would have to choose I would go with science. Simply with "respect" I meant that because you think its "patently absurd" it doesn't mean that it is necessary to comment it, if not in certain cases of discussion, like this one. I personally think that if you respect a person you respect its believes. Although, of course, it does not mean that you must agree with them. It is possible to discuss about these arguments, but of course you cannot prove faith or religion. In fact the matter of the discussion was in what type of "world" one would choose to live in, not necessarily what offers the best, although I am aware that to answer such question, a person most observe the two "worlds" and choose what makes more sense. For those that are religious - apart from the fact that you can prove that God exists or not - are free to believe in a world without science. Could you blame them? Do you think that maybe those that believe in God, actually cannot understand why it is so hard for you to believe in what for them is simple?

Anyways, I did not ignore any part, because I wasn't discussing what you "get" more from science than religion. I was simply observing the two and with the yin/yan theory I was simply intending that science can "prove" the existence of God, although I believe you'll agree with me, when I say that its something "abstract" to have science prove religion.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "I don't know that consensus is possible; however, I'd like to think that understanding is possible. To think otherwise or to act/not act based on that thought would almost be like remaining silent .... "

It would be a nice world if that could happen, the problem is that understanding without consensus will eventually break down into frustration that one side cannot understand why the other unquestionably believes in dogma while the other cannot understand why the other doesn't just "know" there is a god. I have seen the same frustrations in otherwise understanding and considerate people.

This is why I can only advocate consensus based on a non-egocentric view that is open for debate and question and is based on independent sources of evidence. But then I would say that. But how can a true monotheist be understanding of an atheistic position when they believe in a god that desires and requires worship? Worse if they also believe the proposition that god is the ultimate morality.

Your mother does sound like a good person though, but based on your estimation of her, do you think you know how would she have handled it if your queries had led you to discarding the concept of gods?

[Gary]

Travis wrote: "You can find the atheist handbook on the shelf, next to the 'Gay Agenda'."

Same DDS number as the "Scientific conspiracies: Moon Landing Hoaxes, Climate Science and Evil-ution" and of course "Protocols of the Elders of Zion"?

[Gary]

Asia wrote: "Anyways, I did not ignore any part, because I wasn't discussing what you "get" more from science than religion. I was simply observing the two and with the yin/yan theory I was simply intending that science can "prove" the existence of God, although I believe you'll agree with me, when I say that its something "abstract" to have science prove religion."

The problem with the Yin/Yang philosophy regarding science and religion is that it again tries to equivocate the two. They are not the same. For a start their are (and have been) numerous religions with mutually exclusive models of the cosmology and history of the universe, whereas science as a methodology is mutually supportive slowly closing in on a consensus for the cosmology and history of the universe. (in fact one of the most fascinating things about the study of the early universe is the way you have to combine your knowledge of the largest things in the universe with the smallest.)

The fact that science changes with new knowledge and new ideas while religions do so only slowly and painfully should demonstrate something.

Asia wrote: "Do you think that maybe those that believe in God, actually cannot understand why it is so hard for you to believe in what for them is simple?"

Of course not, I used to be a Christian myself and it was my quest to become the best Christian I could be that led me away from faith.

That said, I can also understand why some people find the thought of homosexual sex disgusting, or why they may assume that women are weaker than men, or why they may assume that other races are inferior. I can understand all those ideas, but while I will still try to respect that person, that will not stop me from refuting such primitive ideas strongly and passionately.

[Asia]

Gary wrote: " I can understand all those ideas, but while I will still try to respect that person, that will not stop me from refuting such primitive ideas strongly and passionately. "

I absolutely agree with you, I find as with concepts you listed such as homosexual sex you could discuss different opinions. Nevertheless, there is no need to "prove" that homosexual sex does exist or that in certain cases women are either stronger or weaker than men. In a religious context of discussing whether God does exist, and therefore answering as for "in a world without science" I believe you have a limit to how much you can argue with a person that is a believer. They believe in God and as it can be said, you cannot prove God's existence, and therefore I think an argument will reach a point where the "non believer" has to comprehend that the "believer" instead does believe in God's existence - with proof or not. And also visa versa. Then the argument could then move to stating which "world" would be the most solid and "better" to live in, although then diverse ideas would still be present because for how much someone can connect them, abstractly the fact that science can prove religion is the only ring that connects the two. Otherwise, I think that those are two arguments that don't need to be set aside.

Gary wrote: " The fact that science changes with new knowledge and new ideas while religions do so only slowly and painfully should demonstrate something."

In this case I may say that I have to agree with you and admit that the Yin/Yang philosophy wasn't exactly the most appropriate example to use, although I thought it was the simplest to use in this context. Especially answering a question for a novel that has placed science in religion, arguing such things such as if science can prove religion. Therefore a bit of each in the other, but largely identified what I wanted to say. I do not think that the two are the same, they are different and somewhat fairly - in this context - "connected", also expressing that each have their own "flaws".

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "I don't know that consensus is possible; however, I'd like to think that understanding is possible. To think otherwise or to act/not act based on that thought would almost be like r..."

How often do we truly have consensus? Truly? Why would we need consensus in this when we don't think we need it with regard to so many other things?

In addition, who said life was going to be easy ... that we wouldn't have frustration ... that we wouldn't have to work at understanding one another? My humanities side says that's something we need to work on ... that and how we deal with our frustration and whether or not we're willing to understand one another. That's the stuff of life. Yeah, I'm sure that's not the scientific definition, but I'm talking humanities here. ;)

Regarding my mother and how she would have reacted if I'd said I didn't believe in God or gods, I don't know. I know, when she forced me to take confirmation classes, long story, she set it up with the pastor that he'd do the United Methodist confirmation classes. But, she took me ... and my classmates ... to other churches, from other faiths, and had guest speakers come to us. She told me I had to do the confirmation classes. She thought it was important, huge battles ensued. However, she also thought it was important to have knowledge of other faiths; she even gave us readings. And, she said, at the end of it, I'd have a choice ... to be confirmed as a United Methodist, to look into another religion, or not to be confirmed and not to continue in a religion. So, that was said ... and meant, I believe. However, I never said that I didn't believe in God, that "person" in the light I saw and experienced when I was little ... which actually just looked like and felt like light. Ultimately, since it didn't happen, I don't know for sure.

[Gary]

Asia wrote: "Nevertheless, there is no need to "prove" that homosexual sex does exist or that in certain cases women are either stronger or weaker than men."

No need to prove perhaps, but look at Iran denying that there are any homosexuals there, or look at the US rolling back equality laws under the guise of restoring 'traditional' roles. Both are beliefs, both are supported by religious doctrine. In the same manner unsupported belief undermines both the development of science and ethics.

Asia wrote: "I believe you have a limit to how much you can argue with a person that is a believer. They believe in God and as it can be said, you cannot prove God's existence, and therefore I think an argument will reach a point where the "non believer" has to comprehend that the "believer" instead does believe in God's existence - with proof or not. And also visa versa."

While it is certainly obvious that some people will never question their own beliefs, nor allow them to be questioned, that doesn't mean that the critique should not be there. Some people may not read the safety guidelines in a powertool manual, it doesn't mean they shouldn't be there.

There is also a fallacy about the idea that the debate comes down to the existence or non-existence of a god. The term "god" is a label that covers some fairly well defined conceptions. This means that the debate is either about the existence of Jehovah/Yaweh/Allah/Aten (and more specifically the particular version that the adherent believes in) or the debate in an ironic parody of the Uncertainty Principle where the theists definition of their god becomes increasingly esoteric and vague the more you try to define its aspects.

(Einstein himself took part in this process in a remarkably self-reductive way in which he eventually saw "god" as a convenient label for the mystery and wonder of the universe and in no way a "being" as the common theist would understand it.

Asia wrote: "abstractly the fact that science can prove religion is the only ring that connects the two."

Surely if science proved religion then religion would no longer be a belief but a theory based on observed evidence, then that particular model would no longer be a religion but be an aspect of science.

Just as any person who refers to the miracles of Jesus or the scripture of the bible is not really using belief or faith but instead is using a crippled form of flawed science to support their imperfect belief.

This of course leads to the conceit of belief, because all beliefs are based on some form of "evidence" whether that evidence is the authority of parents, priests, teachers, scripture or the subconscious reification of cultural imperatives.

Gary wrote: " The fact that science changes with new knowledge and new ideas while religions do so only slowly and painfully should demonstrate something."

Asia wrote: "I do not think that the two are the same, they are different and somewhat fairly - in this context - "connected", also expressing that each have their own "flaws"."

It is my opinion that the only connection between the two is that religion is an imperfect science. Religion takes two of the steps of science, observation and hypothesis, then stops before the stages of critique, testing and theory. I have described religion before as "fossilised science" which is the only connection between the two.

I do not see the mutual flaws that you imply. Certainly science can be used to ill effect, but this is not a flaw within science but within its application by people. Moreover, the science of ethical intelligence is well neglected and perhaps if pursued properly could lead to the undoing of the ethical and moral legacies of religion. Neither is science flawed because our knowledge of the universe is yet incomplete. People tend to confuse "science" with our body of scientific knowledge. Science is a methodology and discipline, whereas knowledge is it's fruit.

Science becomes flawed when people believe in the reality of its models rather than accepting them as the best representation so far. Technically speaking belief in a particular model is the grey area where science calcifies into religion.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "How often do we truly have consensus? Truly? Why would we need consensus in this when we don't think we need it with regard to so many other things?"

Good point, yet I rather wistfully remember a story told by Professor Dawkins (I think) who related how a scientist once stood up and delivered a paper at a conference. At the end of said paper (so the story goes) an elderly scientist stood and thanked the speaker saying "my boy, you have just disproved my life's work, thank you for showing us were I had it wrong", the gathered crowd allegedly clapped their hands raw at the sight of such gallant professionalism.

That story speaks to the core of the issue for me, the idea that when two parties have a disparity of opinions they present their evidence and rationale and then are judged by their peers. Perhaps not a perfect system, but a particularly just and effective system.

Then compare that to the conversation with belief. One side presents evidence or critiques opinions while the other simply cites their right to believe whatever they want, including the right to impose those beliefs (and the consequences of those beliefs) on others.

This would perhaps not be so bad if the issues that these personal and private beliefs thus held didn't effect others so impersonally and publicly.

Shannon wrote: "In addition, who said life was going to be easy ... that we wouldn't have frustration ... that we wouldn't have to work at understanding one another? "

Oh indeed. In fact I remember having a furious debate with a friend at University about two of the rival interpretations of Quantum Theory. Yet in that debate their was a common language, a mutual respect and most importantly a potential for independent arbitration. However, when you have a conversation were one side agrees to abide by ratification outside of their control while the other is willing to use ratification when it advantages them but not when it doesn't. How can one side strive for understanding when belief requires them to assume that others are wrong regardless of what they say or show?

Anyone who places doctrine above reason or evidence can never really respect someone else's opinion unless it converges with their own.

Shannon wrote: "Regarding my mother and how she would have reacted if I'd said I didn't believe in God or gods, I don't know."

Fair answer :-) I was just curious because of the recent conversation we had about "coming out" as an atheist in a US community.

In a strange way we had a similar upbringing. I owe my religious freedom from my parents having conflicting backgrounds (Catholic & Protestant) and they encouraged me to find my own path. Yet of course the irony was that my own path was nothing they had ever intended. Strangely reminiscent of those right wing Christians who claim the First Amendment means "freedom of religion, not freedom from religion".

[Asia]

Gary wrote: "No need to prove perhaps, but look at Iran denying that there are any homosexuals there, or look at the US rolling back equality laws under the guise of restoring 'traditional' roles."

Maybe I did not make myself clear enough as that was exactly what I was saying. It is a matter of opinion and how a person decides to act upon it. In Iran people choose - for reasons that are not necessary to say - to deny homosexuals. They perceive them differently than other countries.

Gary wrote: "The term "god" is a label that covers some fairly well defined conceptions. "

The term "God" of course covers various conceptions. The use that I made of the terms was to define a view of a concept that is scientifically without proof, and simply based on faith or how you may define it: Gary wrote: "..a crippled form of flawed science to support their imperfect belief. " It can be used the same perspective even in science, when a new subject is studied. Even if in religion - as you also stated - you cannot go far, as instead in science.

Gary wrote: "I do not see the mutual flaws that you imply. "

The flaws are regarded as for each, not as them together. As you stated of science being in continue evolution, and therefore being "new knowledge" it does identify that sometimes science can be flawed. Just because there are safety guidelines in a powertool manual it does not mean that they are correct. They are called "guidelines" for a reason, as they guide. Obviously not everyone has knowledge of certain aspects, therefore here comes in the existence of guidelines or research in general. Ironically it could be stated that in terms of trust, that in everyday life science what people "suppose to be correct" is because studied by others that supposably knew that they were doing. Of course, this reasoning has a limit because it could be proved that the guidelines are correct, as science in general for as far as the world is concerned now, without taking in consideration what we still have no idea exists. If science is observed just as "methodology and discipline" don't you think it does adapt and evolve as new types of knowledge are acquired?

Gary wrote: "Technically speaking belief in a particular model is the grey area where science calcifies into religion. "

That was the type of concept I meant with Yin/Yang philosophy. Science does not need to prove religion, but in my opinion as the world nowadays is trying to give a meaning to everything, religion was "questioned", in this I thought to say that they were connected.

[Gary]

Asia wrote: "It is a matter of opinion and how a person decides to act upon it. In Iran people choose - for reasons that are not necessary to say - to deny homosexuals. They perceive them differently than other countries."

Exactly, and that opinion is demonstrably incorrect if we apply science (up to 10% of population) or logic (knowing of Iranians that identify themselves as gay.)

An opinion or belief is not a justification in itself.

Asia wrote: "The term "God" of course covers various conceptions. The use that I made of the terms was to define a view of a concept that is scientifically without proof, and simply based on faith or how you may define it:"

Yet faith does start with 'proof', it is just the validity of these proofs that is subsequently ignored due to the self perpetuating nature of religion.

Asia wrote: "It can be used the same perspective even in science, when a new subject is studied. Even if in religion - as you also stated - you cannot go far, as instead in science. "

Sorry I had difficulty following that, could you elucidate? You seem to be saying that new science follows the same pattern of religion. However, I would say that there is no "new science" just new hypotheses that lead to new theories. Science is a methodology, not a set of dogma.

Asia wrote: "As you stated of science being in continue evolution, and therefore being "new knowledge" it does identify that sometimes science can be flawed."

Again this mistakes "science" for our "current scientific knowledge". Our current knowledge is no doubt incomplete, but it is the scientific methodology that leads to those imperfections being excised a bit at a time, sometimes leading to showing us that the gaps in our knowledge are a lot bigger than previously thought.

So our knowledge may be flawed, but scientific methodology is not.

Asia wrote: "If science is observed just as "methodology and discipline" don't you think it does adapt and evolve as new types of knowledge are acquired?"

Our knowledge does, but the basic methodology doesn't. The same basic process of observation > hypotheses > testing > theory led to the discovery of the theory of gravity hundreds of years ago and the discovery of a Higgs-like particle today.

Asia wrote: "Science does not need to prove religion, but in my opinion as the world nowadays is trying to give a meaning to everything, religion was "questioned", in this I thought to say that they were connected. "

I think people have always tried to find "meaning", but only since the renaissance has the light of enquiry slowly (but ever faster) explored and asked questions. However it seems we may be at a tipping point in certain countries where dogma is fighting back against the intrusion of rationality.

Religion has often claimed to hold exclusivity to "meaning" in life, yet no apologist has ever managed to define that meaning to me beyond either submission and servitude or a hypothetical existence which is a circular answer to the meaning of life for this existence.

Hence my continued position that religion is not necessary, nor is it complimentary to science.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "That story speaks to the core of the issue for me, the idea that when two parties have a disparity of opinions they present their evidence and rationale and then are judged by their peers."

Ah, Gary ....

The thing is ... we're people, not scientists. Some might wish we were all scientists, but we're not. In point of fact, I should say even scientists are people first.

Take religion and science out of the mix. I'm about to go into town for the 4th of July celebration. (Yes, I mentioned hiking a few days ago, but, after not sleeping last night, I'm choosing not to drive, hike, and drive.) Now, I bet they're going to have those nasty but amazing fries. Will I listen to the "evidence" playing in my head and not get them? Or, will I get them ... everything in moderation, after all. And, what about any number of things .... I might go out to eat with a friend this week. Will we make our choice of restaurant based on ... evidence? What restaurant has the healthiest food? Will we look at the Department of Health's page to see how the restaurant is rated? Or, will we go on cravings or price or....? I know my friends LOVE Chinese. I hate it. I'll never be up for Chinese. Now, in my experience, friends are better able to arrive at a consensus in such situations. People who are romantically involved .... Which movie should we go see? Or, hey, should we let the baby wear blue and/or pink, ever ... or should we be the cool "new age" type parents and ban blue and pink forever and always ... stereotypical horror-show that they are, heaven fore fend. Okay. Here's one. A GOOD one. What if I still have feelings for someone I dated a few months ago? Still love him. The evidence tells me he's got issues and is likely all wrong for me. My parents and friends think he is WRONG for me and would question my sanity if they knew I still felt something. No consensus there. Well, actually, I even question my sanity a bit ... but ... the feelings are still there. And, if he called today, I'd talk with him ... despite the fact that my friends and family would have me hang up ... have told me to hang up. Consensus? Nope.)

Yeah, it's great that we sometimes achieve consensus. In fact, I really like your story. But, .... There are going to be times when ....

Truth be told, I'm not even sure I'd want to live in a world where people constantly and forever made choices and held opinions simply based on the evidence. Starting to feel claustrophobic. I don't know if I can breathe ...! Envisioning everyone driving the same car and living in the same house and wearing the same clothing and ... because the evidence says ... and consensus ... and ....

I mean, really.... Here's the rub. While some of you guys would, because that's what lights your fire ... makes your hearts sing ... while many of you would want to live in that sort of world, a world of science and consensus, it just doesn't do it for me ... at least, not all the time.

I'm going to be the person who looks at the thundercloud, hmmm, science, don't fail me ... cumulonimbus cloud ?? ... and say, "Ahhh! Thunderclouds are THE most beautiful clouds ever!!" In fact, I think I've said that about 10,000 times. Now, my grandfather or uncle, who are more mathematical and scientific ... and both were in the military and were pilots ... would shake their heads at me. They'd say something like, "Can clouds truly be beautiful? And, if you were to pick a beautiful cloud, it shouldn't be a cumulonimbus cloud. Do you know how much harm such clouds can cause?" At which point, they'd lecture me on the dangers to planes when flying in or around such clouds, etc..., etc.... Been there. Had those conversations. Multiple times. Informative and accurate, but ... b-o-r-i-n-g.

Now, would they have a point? A very valid point? Yup. But, you know, I sometimes like walking barefoot through wet grass during rainstorms without a coat ... even when I hear thunder in the distance ... because that, despite the evidence, is what lights my fire. Sadly, it could literally light me on fire ... I won't even get into the fact that I used to walk in thunder and lightning storms until 7 Mississippi.

I know, I know. Everyone in the family said I might get struck by lightning. And, I knew, scientifically, that might be true. But, in reality, I still ran headlong out into the storm ... never happier in my life. The only consensus to be had in those situations involved an understanding that I was a bit touched and my mother would have my butt in a sling if I didn't get inside by 7 Mississippi. I know, it should have been 18 Mississippi.

The point ... no one will ever come to a consensus on what makes their hearts sing ... for you ... scientific method ... for me ... running and walking in thunderstorms. And, yes, for some ... science ... for others ... faith. I, for one, am not certain I want to change that. When I'm in a leadership role or part of a team, oh, yeah, I'm all about consensus and building consensus. Don't get me wrong. But ....

[[deleted user]]

On a somewhat separate note, you guys must be ticked about all of this talk of a "God" particle. Right? I keep hearing snatches on the news but keep turning the channel to country music or the food network or the history channel ... and ... scrapbooking-ish. Hee, hee. I did; however, look it up on the net and the Washington Post at least had an article, an opinion piece, actually, about how people should not call it the "God" particle.

I have to say ... I'm envisioning all of you shaking your heads.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Regarding my mother and how she would have reacted if I'd said I didn't believe in God or gods, I don't know."

Fair answer :-) I was just curious because of the recent conversation we had about "coming out" as an atheist in a US community. "

I'm extremely empathetic, unless I'm in a protective and bloodthirsty frame of mind. I hate to see people hurt ... and hurt for no reason.

I know .... Given that, consensus might be the way to go, right? I don't think so. I think we should work through the fact that differences make us uncomfortable and accept them ... unless they're illegal or end with someone being killed, maimed or assaulted.

Must go drool over fries and play a fair game that, evidence tells me, I'm destined to lose at. ;)

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Gary wrote: "That story speaks to the core of the issue for me, the idea that when two parties have a disparity of opinions they present their evidence and rationale and then are judged by their pe..."

Why would science mean that we all drive the same car or like the same cloud?
Science, logic, best evidence etc doesn't mean that all personal opinion, imagination or individuality goes out the window.

Not even hardcore scientists do that. In fact it's imagination or going against consensus or questioning that leads to science getting pushed further along.
Science doesn't need consensus to work, as it's there wether we all agree or not.

It's not that there are 'not scientists' out there that is a problem, ( I was a c student) it's that people are trying to say magic and science are equal and we are saying 'No, there aren't'.
The only consenus I'm looking for is for everyone to agree to stop doing that.

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "On a somewhat separate note, you guys must be ticked about all of this talk of a "God" particle. Right? I keep hearing snatches on the news but keep turning the channel to country music or the fo..."

If they find an actual tiny piece of god, then I'll be impressed.

[J.]

There are so many different religions, each claiming to be the one and only true one, each having a different answer. Science has but one true answer to each question. So I choose the latter.

[[deleted user]]

I don't think they're equal. ;) Consensus!

I don't know if basing everything on science and evidence would mean that or not. That's where my mind started going ... as I started having a mini-panic attack while feeling the walls close about me. ;)

Would we drive the same car? Well, I bet we would ... sort of. If we were to go on the evidence and come to a consensus based on the best evidence, I'm guessing all of the SUV's would go away. (No, I don't drive an SUV.) If we were to do things based on evidence, wouldn't we live in the same type of house ... I mean, wouldn't we try to find what house works the best? At the very least, everyone would have solar or something ... which might be good. Wouldn't we do away with some materials? Polyester, for example. I don't wear it. Can't stand it and never could. I'm a cotton woman. But, I know some people who LOVE polyester! Big time. Shudder. I don't know much about polyester, but it's not natural and therefore, I'm guessing, likely has some sort of nasty something in it. I know it makes my skin feel downright weird. There I am, shopping, and I see a cute shirt ... my fingers reach out to touch it and ... ugh ... shudder! Makes me want to wash my hands.

Wouldn't we, if we based every single thing on evidence, lose a very real part of our imaginations and individuality?

I sort of think so .... I might be wrong ....

Likely an idea for another thread.

Dang it. This settles it. Going to the celebration and getting those fries! Now, if only I can see Sean Bean, but, sadly, I doubt he's vacationing here.