The Religion subforum.

[superluminal]

I actually did want you to respond to that really long post I made. Thanks for making it go to waste.

Patience my friend, patience.

 

[Woody]

Of course it's not arbitrary. It's completely culturally deterministic within a tiny tolerance. It is certainly primitive as it has it's roots in the complete lack of understanding and fear of the natural world in our common prehistory. And stupid? No, it's dichotomous, and the reasons for it are probably as varied as the people who subscribe to it. It is however, highly irrational I'm sure you'll agree?

Faith is rationally based on its rule-book, whether it's christian, muslim, jew, etc. Disagree with the rule book all you want to. There's only one of them that I agree with.

Primitive means before the time of written language, doesnt' it? Aren't you exaggerating just a little?

No, it's dichotomous, and the reasons for it are probably as varied as the people who subscribe to it.

Like the majority of the human species believe in the supernatural, maybe you haven't evolved enough.

 

[superluminal]

Faith is rationally based on its rule-book, whether it's christian, muslim, jew, etc. Disagree with the rule book all you want to. There's only one of them that I agree with.

Do you not see the complete hilarity in such a statement? Really? Seriously?

Primitive means before the time of written language, doesnt' it? Aren't you exaggerating just a little?

Not the writing part little woody. The concept part. Here, have a drink and rest your weary head.

Like the majority of the human species believe in the supernatural, maybe you haven't evolved enough.

Maybe. I'd love to think that the beliefs of the majority, regarding objective reality, make them right. But I just can't seem to turn off the part of my brain that says "the majority of the human species also thinks professional sports is the height of human achievement"...

 

[S.A.M.]

"I am quite interested in the psychological phenomenon of religious delusion. Fascinating stuff the mind is made of, fascinating indeed."

Thanks

 

[Woody]

Do you not see the complete hilarity in such a statement? Really? Seriously?

No, that's seriously how our criminal justice system works. The laws are written and we're supposed to obey them so we don't hurt other people, you know things like "don't steal", "don't kill", you know all those worthless rules that Christianity brought to our criminal justice system. Don't you just hate it though?

Not the writing part little woody. The concept part. Here, have a drink and rest your weary head.

Good, I'm glad you clarified that.

Maybe. I'd love to think that the beliefs of the majority, regarding objective reality, make them right.

I didn't say it made them right. I'm saying your arguments that they are all stupid, mentally deluded, etc. is pretty ludicrous.

I can see your point as an atheist that demands physical facts for the proof of a non-physical entity. I came to the same conclusion as Jaster with a totally different logical approach. In simple terms, it's like you and others are trying to use micrometers to measure electricity. Try a voltmeter instead.

OOps, I almost forgot -- your voltmeter doesn't work.

 

[Cris]

Woody,

This man, having been a christian fanatic, did not have even have a " modest ability at logical reasoning" according to our sciforums religion moderator.

You appear not to know much about Newton. Most of his life was spent dabbling in the occult and with alchemy. He wrote far more about magic than he did about science. Even he admitted that the two worlds in which he lived were irreconcilable.

It is indeed curious why someone so brilliant in one specific field could be so duped by the attraction of alchemy that we all now know is nonsense.

So perhaps I should adjust my message - when it comes to religion some of the most intelligent people appear to throw their ability to think out the window.

 

[Cris]

Jaster,

From what I have seen, it's probably because he thinks that people are inherently stupid and believe whatever they are told.

No it’s more that most people don’t think for themselves and prefer to go with the crowd. There are many studies that show that only about 5% of people become leaders and make things happen, the remaining 95% are essentially failures, or just sheeple. If an attractive meme is spread, among such a group but is entirely fantasy, then it becomes very difficult to combat such a virus.

Or, it could be that he believes that people before our own time were stupid and/or "unevolved" (completely ignoring what evolution means), and that old habits have a tendency to die slowly.

Without knowledge people tend to invent their own imaginary explanations which unfortunately over time become mistaken for truths.

Cris, correct me if I'm wrong and you have a more complicated explanation. I really was serious, so don't take offence.

Hey, no problem. Could probably write a few books on this.

 

[Woody]

Woody,

You appear not to know much about Newton. Most of his life was spent dabbling in the occult and with alchemy. He wrote far more about magic than he did about science. Even he admitted that the two worlds in which he lived were irreconcilable.

I've read about Newton's end time prediction from analyzing biblical texts. The man even learned Hebrew. I'm not telling the date -- honest. I want to sell everything and spend it all before I check out of here. I haven't read Newton's magic writings. Maybe some of his will rub off on me.

It is indeed curious why someone so brilliant in one specific field could be so duped by the attraction of alchemy that we all now know is nonsense.

Nuclear physics accomplished Newton's desire to convert elements into others. He just didn't have the tools.

So perhaps I should adjust my message - when it comes to religion some of the most intelligent people appear to throw their ability to think out the window.

Perhaps so. Perhaps they aren't all stupid as you say. Try to remember that next time, it would help a dialogue if you indeed want one.

How about Faraday and Edison? Aren't you an electrical engineer? Are brilliance and superstitious madness synonomous? That would help explain them and several other great men of science.

 

[Jaster Mereel]

I forgive you my son/daughter/indeterminate.

You're so gracious.

No, you didn't. You clearly implied that religion had special dispensation, especially religion...

Fine, you caught me. The fact that it seems intrinsic to the human psyche sort of gives it special dispensation when considering it against, say, UFOs or ESP, or the Lochness Monster, or any number of very recent beliefs, which are not cross cultural. And I mean actually cross cultural, as in it's a shared tendency among completely isolated societies with absolutely no contact with one another.

Why, I had no idea. Thank you.

Only too happy to help.

Then let's all go have some tea and crumpets.

Let's.

*cough* closet theist *cough*

What dizzying intellect. I can't believe I had the nerve to question your judgment on my own beliefs. I must be losing it...

More fucking mind readers. Can you just believe the gall of some people...?

Right? Isn't it maddening?

I understand perfectly well that theists attribute all kinds of actual phenomena to their god(s) without one shred of convincing evidence.

Oh, well, forgive me then. I kind of thought that these claims were based on an interpretation which is dependent upon the axiom that God exists. They hear thunder, and they believe in God. That must have been God sending a message, to them. It has nothing to do with observing something supernatural, the belief is that the supernatural cause (God) had a natural effect (thunder). Religion gives you an interpretation of data, not data itself. Unless you're talking about mythology, of course, in which case there are plenty of theist (as in people who believe in God) who understand that mythology is metaphorical. I know many of them myself.

1) The testimony of individuals is worthless (if you don't believe me, ask a scientist)

Not when you're talking about their own experiences. If I tell you that my favorite color is purple, or that I love my brother, can you disprove my testimony? Of course not. And yes, I am re-using that argument. Go ahead, point it out. I dare you.

2) Stubborn? Pot calling something some non-reflective lack of color?

Something some non-reflective lack of color repeating the hypocrisy which it points out?Impressive. Everyone is stubborn at times, and everyone is a hypocrite. Hooray! You've pointed out my hypocrisy! You get a cookie.

3) I have honest intellectual discussions with theists, but not about the reality of their claims, which are 100% baseless in reality. I am quite interested in the psychological phenomenon of religious delusion. Fascinating stuff the mind is made of, fascinating indeed.

Oh, well aren't you the almighty decider of ultimate reality. I should have known it was you. You don't have a point of view. Your judgment and knowledge is 100% unfiltered by personal experience, and 100% objective. You're omniscient. You must be God. :bugeye:

4) I will, like any honest person, reconsider my position on anything, anytime, given sufficient reason to do so.

Unless, of course, you've made up your mind already:

No. The discussions have been had (for me) over the last 20+ years, and resolved.

Obviously I disagree.

Obviously your wrong.

You should research things a bit more, or be less rash before stating absurdities. Many, many UFO and ESP enthusiasts attribute these phenomena to supernatural entities and forces.

Do you believe that the nut-cases who talk about relativity, or evolution, or neuro-physiology, or aeronautics, or astronomy who have never been educated in any of these fields actually represent science as a community? So, by this reasoning, an astronomy enthusiast who says that the sun is only 10,000 miles from the Earth represents the beliefs of the astronomical community? No, Sir, I have spoken with at least one very serious researcher in Ufology and parapsychology, and the belief that UFOs and ESP are caused by supernatural entities and forces is not what these particular pseudosciences are about. "Experts" in this field actually do claim that the things which they study can be empirically observed. Like it or not, both pseudosciences and religions have people who actually know what the pseudoscience or religion claims, and those who do not. You should research things a bit more, or be less rash before stating absurdities.

As do almost all theists, regarding their living or omnipresent god.

Actually, no. Theists who know what they are talking about explicitly state that God is outside of nature. I've known several theology majors.

They do? Good for them. Tom Cruise is a scientologist.

Clever, but no. Just because the word "scientologist" shares the same root word as "science", it doesn't mean they claim to be the same thing. You know that already.

What?!? Would some serious theist here please enlighten this gentle poster? That your god is real and the evidence of His exsistence is all around us? In the form and beauty of every living and non-living thing?

How does this change what they observe? It doesn't. They see the same stuff that you and I see. They interpret it differently, and that's all. You look at a forest and you see chloroplast and cell walls. They look around and see God's creation. There is no difference in the thing observed, only a difference in interpetation as to it's meaning.

That would be pretty intellectually bankrupt, unless you are proposing treating the theists here like six year olds and humoring them?

In order to actually understand speak the same language as a person you are discussing with, you have to at least hypothetically accept the same axioms which they do. If you do not, all you get is conflict, not discussion. You will never actually understand how they look at things, because the philosophical foundation which you both come from is completely different. That's why it's necessary to consider a person's position in a hypothetical sense at times. It's especially important when you are trying to dissect their point, because you can't knock the base out of a pyramid, you have to take it down from the top. Telling them that their foundational belief is wrong won't do anything. It's like hitting the base of a mountain with a chisel.

Agreed. Hence I very rarely post in the religion forums anymore. It really is utterly useless to argue the issue since resolution of a position based on the the absurd idea that your belief is beyond objective testing by any human means, is clearly impossible.

How is that impossible? This is my point. The axioms which you start from are fundamentally different from the one's which theists start from. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as a scientist your foundational philosophy would be that what you observe is what there is, and that which you cannot observe must not exist. This is different from a theist, obviously, because they do not limit their belief to only those things which can be observed by them and then repeated by others. It's a philosophical difference nothing more.

Which is at the heart of the intellectual depths to which adherents of religion have subjugated themselves. Translation: That's just fucking stupid. Provably so.

How is that stupid? Can you objectively verify your preference for blue? Yes, you can tell that there is a difference, a physical difference, in the wavelength between red and blue, but you can also observe the physical aspect of a religious experience in the brain of the person experiencing it. Does that devalue the experience? Does that make it meaningless, just because it can be understood as a physical process? What about that observation precludes a supernatural force or agent? Nothing. Absolutely nothing about it precludes the supernatural, because your assertion that it's a "mere chemical reaction" is a difference in interpretation which arises from a different philosophical perspective, not in a clearer view of reality.

Which places it squarely in the realm of delusion. I completely agree.

No. I'm afraid that you completely misunderstand science. No where does the scientific method say, "If the scientific method cannot be used, then the assertion is delusional". You, Sir, have deluded yourself into thinking that the scientific method is the only way to gain knowledge, or rather you are so inflamed by my defense of the theists on this forum that you fail to see, or refuse to see, the lack of thought in your own statement. Can you use the tools of science to study and analyze your experience of love for your family members? I'm not talking about the chemical processes in your brain, I am talking about the experience of love, which means that it must be from your perspective. No, you cannot. No one can. There are many things which you "know" which cannot be dissected using the tools of science, because scientific thought is not the end-all-be-all of knowledge. It is not the only source, it never has been and never will be. Subjective experiences do exist, and they are just as real as that which you can verify with the observations of others, made by using the scientific method. Maybe you think that the question of God's existence is irrelevant because of this? Fine. I tend to agree. You can't know, no one can know, whether or not there is a supernatural, and to claim that you can know it's existence or non-existence in any objective way is blatant falsehood. It's a belief that you hold, no more, no less, and the beliefs of other people are no more, or less, valid, intelligent, well thought out, delusional, irrational, or illogical than your own. I'm finished with this argument, because it is exactly the kind of useless run-around that always happens when religion is discussed by people who have a completely different philosophical foundation from one another, and everyone is too caught up in their own beliefs to realize that no one can really know anything objectively, because absolutely everything in all of existence is filtered through your mind, and so has a personal spin given to it by you. We've all had this stupid conversation dozens of times, you and I, superluminal, have had this same discussion dozens of times and we get no where, and it ultimately degenerates into this useless waste of bandwidth as each side spits out their long-winded, berating, disrespectful, bullshit arguments, all the while patting themselves on the back for a job well done, when no one knows a god-damned thing. I'm guilty of it, you are guilty of it, everyone is fucking guilty of it and it's the most mind-numbing, useless bullshit that we could all be doing. I'm not even going to address the rest of your post because I've had it with the degeneration of this thread into a meaningless flamefest, because everyone is too passionate about their own beliefs, and to insecure with them, to actually discuss the topic with any kind of humility or interest in actually understanding what people believe and why people believe what they believe, without any kind of intellectual elitism, snobbery, derision, or condesencion. Why is it so hard for everyone to be philosophical about the topic? Why can't people just shut their traps and actually read and try to understand what people are trying to say, instead of ridiculing them at every turn because you don't understand how they can believe what they believe? I'm done with this thread, and I am probably done with this forum. Maybe I'll cool off and abstain from leaving, maybe not. Frankly, no one around here gives a shit either way.

 

[Cris]

Woody,

I’m not an electrical engineer. I manage an R&D department for HP, primarily software with some hardware.

The issue of famous scientists is a mixed bag. You appear to be wrong about Edison, but no matter. Few seem to be neutral. I notice the further I venture into the past the greater the tendency for more religiosity. I think that is probably due to greater knowledge now about how the universe works as well as things like neuroscience that is very new. I wonder if the great thinkers of the past who tended towards religion would change their minds in the light of all our new knowledge today.

Edison

"Religion is all bunk."

"I cannot believe in the immortality of the soul.... No, all this talk of an existence for us, as individuals, beyond the grave is wrong. It is born of our tenacity of life – our desire to go on living … our dread of coming to an end."

- Thomas Edison, American inventor (1847-1931).

Faraday

Was indeed a Christian (Sandamanian)

 

[S.A.M.]

In order that the conflict in the Religion subforum between those who wish to engage in religious discussion in the context of religion, and those who feel that the discussion of religion in the context of religion has no place on a science message board, be ended, I propose that the Religion subforum be removed from the message board.

I agree. The discussions in the religion sub-forum are pointless and unproductive.

 

[superluminal]

You have made a series of wonderful responses, but I find I can only respond to a limited number of points given the fact that the average human lifespan is only so long. Therefore I will pick the ones that attract me the most (if I neglect something you find important, please let me know).

Oh, well, forgive me then. I kind of thought that these claims were based on an interpretation which is dependent upon the axiom that God exists.

So, we have this axiom. We therefore live within the bounds of this self-evident truth. And we play by the rules implicit in this axiom. Just like we do in mathematics. Fine. If it is your purpose to demonstrate that pointing out the absurdities of the implications of a given axiom by stepping outside the bounds of said axiom is, well, absurd, then you have and I have no argument.

However, the very purpose of debating religion (at least for atheist vs. theist) is the debate of the AXIOM, or it's alternate spelling GOD.

If I sit in on a D&D session and begin snorting at the silliness of a level 3 spell- thwarting shield derived from the master wizards handbook, then who's the silly one, right?

Not when you're talking about their own experiences. If I tell you that my favorite color is purple, or that I love my brother, can you disprove my testimony? Of course not. And yes, I am re-using that argument. Go ahead, point it out. I dare you.

How many times have I used this myself in discussing objective vs. subjective truth in the philosophy forum? Do we have a disagreement here? Of course not.

You get a cookie.

Chocolate chip, please.

Oh, well aren't you the almighty decider of ultimate reality. I should have known it was you. You don't have a point of view. Your judgment and knowledge is 100% unfiltered by personal experience, and 100% objective. You're omniscient. You must be God. :bugeye:

Ho hum.

Obviously your wrong.

Of course! Why didn't I see this earlier? What a waste of posting resources.

You should research things a bit more, or be less rash before stating absurdities.

I'm sooo embarrassed.

Actually, no. Theists who know what they are talking about explicitly state that God is outside of nature. I've known several theology majors.

But His effects are not. Right.

How does this change what they observe? It doesn't. They see the same stuff that you and I see. They interpret it differently, and that's all. You look at a forest and you see chloroplast and cell walls. They look around and see God's creation. There is no difference in the thing observed, only a difference in interpetation as to it's meaning.

Ok, fine. And wiccans interpret it as the incarnation of the nature goddess. I get it.

In order to actually understand speak the same language as a person you are discussing with, you have to at least hypothetically accept the same axioms which they do. If you do not, all you get is conflict, not discussion. You will never actually understand how they look at things, because the philosophical foundation which you both come from is completely different. That's why it's necessary to consider a person's position in a hypothetical sense at times. It's especially important when you are trying to dissect their point, because you can't knock the base out of a pyramid, you have to take it down from the top. Telling them that their foundational belief is wrong won't do anything. It's like hitting the base of a mountain with a chisel.

Brilliant!

You mean like the ten bazillion discussions I've been involved in, where we all accept the god axiom and begin to dissect it based on internal inconsistencies? Wow! We are sooo much alike JM!

How is that impossible? This is my point. The axioms which you start from are fundamentally different from the one's which theists start from. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as a scientist your foundational philosophy would be that what you observe is what there is, and that which you cannot observe must not exist.

Huh? That's not science my friend. What I observe is what there is, and what I cannot observe can be inferred from it's effects on the cosmos, and that which is not observed and has no effects on the cosmos is not to be treated as anything but speculation until evidence arises that indicates a real phenomenon is present.

This is different from a theist, obviously, because they do not limit their belief to only those things which can be observed by them and then repeated by others

.
As do my children. And yes, a "believers" mentality is much like a childs regarding their favorite axiom.

It's a philosophical difference nothing more.

Nothing more? Now this I find disturbing. I'm not sure with whom I am debating any more.

How is that stupid? Can you objectively verify your preference for blue? Yes, you can tell that there is a difference, a physical difference, in the wavelength between red and blue, but you can also observe the physical aspect of a religious experience in the brain of the person experiencing it. Does that devalue the experience? Does that make it meaningless, just because it can be understood as a physical process? What about that observation precludes a supernatural force or agent? Nothing. Absolutely nothing about it precludes the supernatural, because your assertion that it's a "mere chemical reaction" is a difference in interpretation which arises from a different philosophical perspective, not in a clearer view of reality.

Nothing precludes it from being supernatural. But the overwhelming evidence is that it's a "mere" biochemical reaction. Nothing precludes the supernatural, but even less (than nothing?) suggests the supernatural. Certainly you see this?

But of course, within the AXIOM, it is certainly most likely a sure sign of god inducing a mental state as a means of communication.

No. I'm afraid that you completely misunderstand science.

I like this one JM.

No where does the scientific method say, "If the scientific method cannot be used, then the assertion is delusional".

Nice strawman. I expect there will be more. Let me refer you to my response several paragraphs up.

"What I observe is what there is, and what I cannot observe can be inferred from it's effects on the cosmos, and that which is not observed and has no effects on the cosmos is not to be treated as anything but speculation until evidence arises that indicates a real phenomenon is present."

You, Sir, have deluded yourself into thinking that the scientific method is the only way to gain knowledge...

Oh boy. It's the best way we have to gain objective knowledge of the objective universe.

Can you use the tools of science to study and analyze your experience of love for your family members? I'm not talking about the chemical processes in your brain, I am talking about the experience of love, which means that it must be from your perspective. No, you cannot. No one can.

Again with the qualia. I find this completely irrelevant. If all we're arguing about is the fact that religion and the color red and feelings I get from watching nice puffy clouds go by are subjective, then I have some nice hot tea and warm scones waiting on the veranda. Next subject?

There are many things which you "know" which cannot be dissected using the tools of science, because scientific thought is not the end-all-be-all of knowledge.

Subjective things, yes. Scientific thought is the, again, currently the best way we have to assess reality.

It is not the only source, it never has been and never will be.

It is for objective knowledge.

Subjective experiences do exist, and they are just as real as that which you can verify with the observations of others, made by using the scientific method.

I really hate the equating of objective and subjective phenomena.

You can't know, no one can know, whether or not there is a supernatural, and to claim that you can know it's existence or non-existence in any objective way is blatant falsehood. It's a belief that you hold, no more, no less, and the beliefs of other people are no more, or less, valid, intelligent, well thought out, delusional, irrational, or illogical than your own.

So, everyones point of view is equally valid/invalid, rational/irrational, intelligent/stupid, well-thought-out/careless. I thought I felt the stirrings of a hive-mind in my limbic system.

What is it that makes you so unable to seperate the objective from the subjective? We are debating (in the religion forums) the very AXIOM that god exists in the objective world and that it is a fruitful way to understand the universe. I am not debating the supernatural, ethereal, vacuous, metaphorical, nebulous, beyond-nature, philosophical axiom of your "serious" theist friends. That's no better than debating my qualitative experience of the color mauve.

I'm finished with this argument, because it is exactly the kind of useless run-around that always happens when religion is discussed by people who have a completely different philosophical foundation from one another, and everyone is too caught up in their own beliefs to realize that no one can really know anything objectively, because absolutely everything in all of existence is filtered through your mind, and so has a personal spin given to it by you. We've all had this stupid conversation dozens of times, you and I, superluminal, have had this same discussion dozens of times and we get no where, and it ultimately degenerates into this useless waste of bandwidth as each side spits out their long-winded, berating, disrespectful, bullshit arguments, all the while patting themselves on the back for a job well done, when no one knows a god-damned thing. I'm guilty of it, you are guilty of it, everyone is fucking guilty of it and it's the most mind-numbing, useless bullshit that we could all be doing. I'm not even going to address the rest of your post because I've had it with the degeneration of this thread into a meaningless flamefest, because everyone is too passionate about their own beliefs, and to insecure with them, to actually discuss the topic with any kind of humility or interest in actually understanding what people believe and why people believe what they believe, without any kind of intellectual elitism, snobbery, derision, or condesencion. Why is it so hard for everyone to be philosophical about the topic? Why can't people just shut their traps and actually read and try to understand what people are trying to say, instead of ridiculing them at every turn because you don't understand how they can believe what they believe? I'm done with this thread, and I am probably done with this forum. Maybe I'll cool off and abstain from leaving, maybe not. Frankly, no one around here gives a shit either way.

Wish I had read further before posting the previous responses. I completely agree with the essence of this paragraph.

I feel the need to address the bold part though. The problem is that many of us see religion as a political agenda and it terrifies us. I've said this many times. We see it as a way to control sheep. I know you have many intelligent theist friends who would never blindly follow a theocratic agenda. Unfortunately, they are the vast minority. For us, this is not a philosophical exercise. Belief, founded on subjective vapors, and translated into public policy, is something to be feared and crushed wherever it is found. People die for these "philosophical" ruminations.

Now I'm pissed off. Good fucking night.

 

[Giambattista]

Like a guy told me on ex-gay forums: The Lord is just looking for a few good men and women. In the parable of the sower, only a few seeds land on good ground. Seeds sown in sciforums fall by the wayside. Nothing there to cry about.

Maybe it'd help if the sower knew more about what he was doing? If YOU are a sower of seeds, I can see why most of them would fall by the wayside.

 

[The Devil Inside]

get rid of the subforum for a very specific reason:

so many of the unpleasant and blustering personalities that literally NEVER venture out of that subforum would leave. that would make the reading experience a more pleasant one.

 

[Woody]

Woody,

I’m not an electrical engineer. I manage an R&D department for HP, primarily software with some hardware.

The issue of famous scientists is a mixed bag. You appear to be wrong about Edison, but no matter. Few seem to be neutral. I notice the further I venture into the past the greater the tendency for more religiosity. I think that is probably due to greater knowledge now about how the universe works as well as things like neuroscience that is very new. I wonder if the great thinkers of the past who tended towards religion would change their minds in the light of all our new knowledge today.

OK, Faraday was a post-Darwin spiritualist.

Many of today's microbiologists are bucking the trend for abiogenesis, by the way. Darwin's origin of life is losing support.

 

[Woody]

"Why is it so hard for everyone to be philosophical about the topic?"

Now I'm pissed off. Good fucking night.

Well there's the answer. This place should be called emotionforums.

 

[Woody]

Maybe it'd help if the sower knew more about what he was doing? If YOU are a sower of seeds, I can see why most of them would fall by the wayside.

That's right wiseguy, but I'm not the sower.

The sower knows what he's doing and so does the enemy. Even the seeds sown in good ground get tares mixed into them. :m:

 

[Woody]

get rid of the subforum for a very specific reason:

so many of the unpleasant and blustering personalities that literally NEVER venture out of that subforum would leave. that would make the reading experience a more pleasant one.

You don't have to go in there. Is it like a compulsion for atheists?

 

[redarmy11]

Welcome back Woody. I trust you enjoyed your time spent wandering the wilderness?

 

[Woody]

Welcome back Woody. I trust you enjoyed your time spent wandering the wilderness?

Well thanks ra,

I'm not here for a debate, but it just seems to follow me. I'm thinking about checking out. I really AM more interested in data than opinions. Most people are intelligent enough to formulate a conclusion given the right inputs.

Here at sciforums, it seems as though everyone wants to do your thinking for you with some "political spin" applied. I find it tiresome and annoying.