Why so down on bio-chemical reactions Wraith?

Their modus operandi has proven remarkably adroit up to now.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wraith:
....but recognition that there is a world, beyond the boundaries of physics.....

---

Uhhhhh, have you checked in with physics lately? I haven't really, but what little of it that's filtered through seems to indicate that some things previously thought to be "supernatural" might actually be explained by quantum mechanics and such.

Regarding empathy, if it is as biologically hardwired as you suggest, Wraith, how do you explain all the humans out there (and there are a lot of them) without the ability?

Huh. Funny that "Faith" should come up today. Superstation was running "Contact", and I caught most of it, especially the bit at the end about faith, and it made me think of this place. Of course, I'm a geek, so that's no surprise.

Great Barker quote, BTW. Where's it from?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marhsdrifter:
Damn. When are people going to figure out that
sustainability is the best thing for the
indigenous people.

---

Um. When the welfare state is abolished and all social workers are strung up and shot for the oppression and repression they visit on the peoples of this world, in a perverted mockery of what is Good and Right and True?

(Just a thought.)

quote:

---

I dunno. I think our descendants will be just like us only with slightly different technology and political structure.

---

Ah-ha! Which disproves the "our ancestors the idiots" theory. But really, where's the fun in thinking that? After all, we as a civilization have managed to change ourselves so radically within the space of a hundred years that, if we keep going at the same rate, ten thousand years down the line we'll be just as out of place (if not more) as Wells' time traveller was among the Morlocks and Eloi.

quote:

---

A lot of the details haven't quite been worked out
(what songs did they sing?), but we can make a
fair guess what life was like, through
archaeological evidence and ethnographic analogy.
We're still working things out (thankfully, I like
having a job).

---

Another question, if you don't mind: Was there any validation for the theory that prehistoric humans might have utilized primitive gestural systems before they developed speech?

quote:

---

Yeah, shouldn't there be a statement about
religion somewhere around here?

---

See above.

quote:

---

I wouldn't use the term technology. But often what
was seen as magic and perhaps miracles followed
the scientific principles (whether biological,
chemical, or physical) that weren't at that time
recognized.

---

Yes, that's a theory that holds water for me, too.

quote:

---

It's not the miracles that matter, it's what you get out of it.

---

Hm. That's interesting. So, if you see a miracle and say "Ah-ha! That is a miracles!" theoretically you are deriving some form of benefit to yourself/your view of the world that would be unavailable to someone like me, who would say "Ah-ha! What an interesting coincidence!"

Or am I misreading your point?

Yelena

[This message was edited by Yelena Virago on August 10, 2003 at 04:21 PM.]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yelena Virago:
Hm. That's interesting. So, if you see a miracle and say "Ah-ha! That is a miracles!" theoretically you are deriving some form of benefit to yourself/your view of the world that would be unavailable to someone like me, who would say "Ah-ha! What an interesting coincidence!"

---

Which leads me to the question: Does belief in "miracles" (which IMO is completely apart from belief in religion for the purposes of this question) have a positive benefit or effect on people that non-belief in miracles, or at least an apathy towards deciding either way, might have?

Yelena
(BTW, Bravus, at 1120 pages, I don't know how long I could hold my attention span. My life flashes past me faster than ever these days, and any free time I may have has a tendency to rapidly dwindle.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yelena Virago:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marhsdrifter:
Damn. When are people going to figure out that
sustainability is the best thing for the
indigenous people.

---

Um. When the welfare state is abolished and all social workers are strung up and shot for the oppression and repression they visit on the peoples of this world, in a perverted mockery of what is Good and Right and True?

(Just a thought.)

---

Hey look! Another tangent! I think welfare can be
a fine thing, but all too often we're ready to
donate items to poorer peoples (and nations) when
they don't have the resources or infrastructure
for upkeep.

Read this (it's shorter than the book, which is also good).

quote:

---

quote:

---

I dunno. I think our descendants will be just like us only with slightly different technology and political structure.

---

Ah-ha! Which disproves the "our ancestors the idiots" theory. But really, where's the fun in thinking that? After all, we as a civilization have managed to change ourselves so radically within the space of a hundred years that, if we keep going at the same rate, ten thousand years down the line we'll be just as out of place (if not more) as Wells' time traveller was among the Morlocks and Eloi.

---

I've always felt that once they got over the
certain level of awe, most (or at least some)
people will quickly adapt to the new ways,
languages and technology.

Yum... Eloi... I can't think of that book without
thinking of Neal Stephenson's In the Beginning was
the Command Line.

quote:

---

Another question, if you don't mind: Was there any validation for the theory that prehistoric humans might have utilized primitive gestural systems before they developed speech?

---

Good question and I really can't answer it. Keep
in mind that, when evolutionary development issues
are involved, there are always at least 5
competing theories, but news articles and tv shows
usually only bother to cover one (time
constraints, I assume).

Gesturing is something that would be hard to test
for, methinks.

And now I have my choice of:

quote:

---

Hm. That's interesting. So, if you see a miracle and say "Ah-ha! That is a miracles!" theoretically you are deriving some form of benefit to yourself/your view of the world that would be unavailable to someone like me, who would say "Ah-ha! What an interesting coincidence!"

Or am I misreading your point?

---

or...

quote:

---

Which leads me to the question: Does belief in "miracles" (which IMO is completely apart from belief in religion for the purposes of this question) have a positive benefit or effect on people that non-belief in miracles, or at least an apathy towards deciding either way, might have?

---

That's a tough call to make. On a purely
observational stance (no science whatsoever, no
ma'am), I'd have to go with "possibly."

I've known many people who always expected the
worst out of everything, and often times it seemed
like they got it (or else they acted like they got
it). OTOH, I've known many people who always
expected good things to happen and they often did,
or at least they acted like everything was good.
I've also seen people who expected those miracles
to happen and they often did. Seemingly impossible
coincidences would occur.

Now... to my knowledge this sort of thing has
never been tested and I honestly wouldn't be
surprised if the results of such a test would show
that any real difference (if it exists) was the
result of a placebo effect influenced by what
the person expected (as per my earlier argument
about people seeing what they expect to see).

So then, what's the difference between a miracle
and a coincidence (or a long shot that pays off)?
Nothing, really. Just the interpretation of the
people that are seeing it. But whether it's defined
as a miracle or not, it still has its benefits.

A rose by any other name, and all that.

Please note that even though the person who thinks
the positive thoughts, but sees it as positive
coincidences, still has an amount of belief in its
world view, just as the person who constantly
believes that everything will turn to crap.

Belief permeates the worldview and may be seen
outside of religion (though perhaps not
spirituality).

On to another topic:
Thus spake Bravus:

quote:

---

Yeah, I was kind of struck by the same thing - the atheists are pretty confident, the believers are awfully cautious: and I'm the worst offender, I think!

---

On this board, I think those that believe don't
want to piss off those that believe something else
and start a flamewar.

That said. I'm a believer, but at the same time,
I'm pretty ok with anybody else believing what
they believe. I may think they're wrong, but who
am I to go about saying such things. What I
believe works for me and not necessarily anybody
else.

I will add that I find those with a total lack of
faith (and not just religious faith either) to be
really sad. How can they expect to hold a decent
relationship without some form of faith?

Hopefully that last bit wasn't really flamebait.

Just kidding.

I pretty much saw wraith post this one (like I said, here all the time) but I put off posting. Gotta' think about that one. Think about it a long, long time.

So I go off to think about it and come back to a mass of posts covering pretty much everything I could possibly want to say and saying it much better than I ever could. Pat yourselves on the back people. This one is amazing.

So, not much to add to the conversation, just a data point; a sort of mini-autobiography.

Faith: In a way, that one's easy. Faith is part of life. All of us believe things, mostly from experience, sometimes from deep consideration of the evidence. Only very rarely is some part of our lives affected by something which could be described as 'purely factual', and even then you've got to believe your own senses. (Which is a mistake, sometimes.)

Superstition: I try not to be, but there is always that part of me, deep down, that is scared of the dark.

Spirituality: I would say, a belief that there is more to life, and more to our being here, than we know. Possibly more than we can know.

And this is where I come out. I am agnostic. Agnostic in a very specific sense: I believe we cannot know the answer, and indeed, we probably can't even ask the question.

Am I spiritual? I don't think I believe in a soul. I'm not so sure I don't believe in anything else.

I don't actually believe in an afterlife, but every night I pray I am wrong. Then I wonder who I am praying to. Myself, I guess.

The slow firming up of my conviction that this is probably all we get has certainly led me to an even greater sense of the preciousness of life.

My family was never explicitly religious. I never went to Sunday school, and I was never confirmed. I think, if I had been, I would have regretted it. I have taken communion once, at a friend's church, and instantly regretted that. I felt it was a lie, and even if there was a God just like in that big ol' Book, He would rather I sat that one out rather than play acting my part.

For me there is one thread of doubt/hope. The universe, in all it's beauty and complexity, is here, with us in it. I think, no matter how much we play with our equations, we will never be able to answer in a really satisfactory way the question: why is it?

Why is, when is not seems so much simpler?

Ne? Ne!

quote:

---

I have taken communion once, at a friend's church, and instantly regretted that. I felt it was a lie, and even if there was a God just like in that big ol' Book, He would rather I sat that one out rather than play acting my part.

---

I'm not sure that the divine would be so petty as to be upset with your participation in communion. It's a sacrament created by man after all. Plus:

[rowan atkinson]God the joy giver, Christ the comediam[/rowan atkinson]

I attended church almost every sunday until I left home to go to university. I was confirmed in the lutheran church at the age of 14 (I think it was 14).

You make some kind of promise then to commmit yourself to god or some such thing... but how is a 14 year old supposed to really understand what they are doing. Apparently our unexpanded understanding of the world around us passes as faith.

I am somewhat upset that I was edged into that commitment without really understanding what it meant. I mean, I understood, but I didn't really understand. I'm sure god, if he exists, will forgive that promise though.

I think, like alot of people, I am disillusioned with the church as an institution. It never delivered what I really wanted. The only thing I enjoyed about it was moving to a more open and contemporary worship style and being involved in the musical aspect of the church music. That was the only thing that held my interest.

In my experience christianity stresses a personal relationship with god. So that's how I approach it now. I don't need some kind of formal construct between myself and the sky. I don't need a curtain, or an altar, or a minister to help me interface. But then, am I pulling god down to a level that demeans any relationship that forms? I can't know that. All I can know is whether I am ok with the relationship. If I'm not, well, I don't want to be friends.

If god exists, well good on him. At this point I feel like an agnostic. I want to believe, but I don't have the inclination or the faith.

We live in a world where the quest is not only to believe, but what to believe.

Are homosexuals sinners? Should women be clergy? Is eating shellfish an abomination?

The Bible offers opinions on all of these, or at least, people take an interpretation from the Bible in forming their opinions on the matter.

The last thing I want to do is let an institution tell me how to discriminate. I can do that all by myself thankyou very much.

erg... seething vitriolic ooze. The journey of a would-be-believer.

---
Made from an extremely authentic tough shiny blue nylon, every detail is matched to the original spec. The real mouton sheepskin collar is just sumptuous, and their reproduction of the Crown zipper is stunning.

Re: Petty God.

I wasn't actually thinking that God would be 'upset', just, maybe, a little disappointed that I didn't take the time to consider what I was doing in the light of my own convictions. Just like I was, after the fact.

My image of God, though I don't believe He exists, is a very personal one. He's me. That is to say, He's everyone. Individually. And every thing too. Just that better version of your self that knows the right thing to do, and has the courage to do it, but forgives you for not being that wise or that strong. And, just by the way, the foundation of all things. The reason for is.

(Rereading: That's a whole lotta sentence fragments goin' on.)

Ne? Ne!

quote:

---

I will add that I find those with a total lack of faith (and not just religious faith either) to be really sad. How can they expect to hold a decent relationship without some form of faith?

Hopefully that last bit wasn't really flamebait

---

Just postulating here:

Faith is a word to define supra congnitive deductions which, I can only conclude, are aroused in an observer in the abscence of a quantifiable mechanism to tabulate the panoply of actions and reactions shaping time and space within and without. In other words, you don't know the answer.

We're imperfect machines. We lack the processing power to calculate all the variables. So we cheat and make things up to patch the buggy code until, hopefully, the next upgrade comes along and shifts the paradigm.

An outside opinion: http://www.csicop.org/si/9907/kurtz.html

Let it be known that by linking to the article I am in no way sponsoring this author as the last word in anything.

Were it not for my curiousity about a certain Dr. Gene Scott of the Los Angeles University Cathedral, who happened to be a few flicks of the remote away from a USC debate on genetic engineering, I might not have come upon the above Kurtz document.

I think wraith did us all proud with post #300!

Alrighty then...

Some stream-of-unconsciousness stuff on life, faith & religion:

It's funny - when I was a kid I thought the mystery of the universe's existence was such an utterly mindblowing issue that I couldn't understand how people could live their daily lives without its being a constant topic of conversation. I mean, there they all were - living as though there was nothing to discuss, like this big amazing unknown THING was sitting on the living room carpet and everyone was walking around it pretending it wasn't there. Now I guess people either figure they already know the answer, or realise they'll never know it. Either way, there seems to be no need to keep coming back to the question. Then again, this is a very popular thread...

To me as a kid, the main point of a religion was the explanation how we (and everything else) came to be here. All the rest followed on from that; the rules for living a good life gained their authority because they were made by the supreme being, the maker of the universe. So if there was a problem with the explanation, everything else lacked a foundation. And I have to admit, I still feel this way.

Of course, to many (most?) people who follow a religion, the "how we came to be here" issue is far less relevant or involving than the "how do we live our lives" issue.

But keep asking "why", and you get back to the answer "because that's what God wants". So you need to be confident in the foundations.

My parents weren't especially religious, but I went to a church school (for reasons other than its religion). I went to church services at school, but they didn't resonate for me. Maybe if it had been a Catholic school instead of Anglican (Christianity Lite) it might have seemed more sincere.

I think it was Bravus who posted something to the effect that people make up their minds about something first, then create the logic that justifies their position. I'm sure that's right. Ratchet my brain chemicals a few notches up or down at a particular developmental stage and I may have seen things quite differently.

I don't have many issues with the Bible's teachings on the way to live one's life. But I don't think I need the Bible to justify these. If you want any sort of polite society, it's not very smart to covet your neighbour's ass (etc).

I don't believe there's any form of absolute morality, in the sense of anything outside humanity that gives the thumbs-up to Gandhi and the thumbs-down to Hitler. We make our own morality, which is a sobering thought. We make our own heavens and hells right here, and we're fully responsible for them.

I think the development of morality has its roots in our deepest, most basic biology; religion stakes a claim to specific moralities for reasons of social cohesion and (at a base level) power. A few ulterior motives there rather than a selfless expression of truth.

I could never accept a particular religion as the one true faith because the similarity of human religions to each other implies they arise through the workings of human sociology rather than an extrinsic truth.

If you are a believer in a particular faith, you honestly believe and accept that it is right, it is correct, its teachings are laid down in the architecture of the universe as fundamental verities. Doesn't matter whether you're a computer programmer from San Diego or a purple lizard thing from Arcturus V. This is the One. Objectively. The creator of the universe has so decreed.

Must be a real bummer for the thousand-and-one other religions that share 99.9% of your true faith's DNA. Missed it by that much.

Sorry - the likelihood that any of our religions have any relationship to the true state of the universe's affairs (if there is one) stretches credulity well beyond its limits IMHO.

Having lots of religions to choose from = many paths to the truth? Wishy-washy. They can't all be right.

If it works for you then it works? Break out the kaftans and crystals.

Okay, have a rich full life in the religion of your choice. But don't tell me it's anything other than a tool. Some people get a lot out of prayer or meditation. That's fine - it's something they're using that works for them. But it doesn't say anything about the greater reality.

On the subject of which...

Anyone here a fan of Occam's Razor? Arguably any explanation of the universe that posits a supreme being of sufficient complexity and power to design, create and run the universe is a great deal more complex than whatever model cosmologists
are favouring this week.

As far as I can tell, the observable universe is equally consistent with the existence or the non-existence of a God. Unless you want to accept Pascal's wager, why add complexity?

(Mind you, Occam's never really convinced me. Show me a statistical analysis that establishes that simpler solutions are actually the most likely.)

Faith - isn't this the ultimate fallback position of a religious person who can no longer support their position using logic? "Trust me, I'm religious".

I'm not talking about faith in the broader sense, but the need to disconnect one's critical faculties at some stage and simply accept the conclusion that there is a God (of a particular persuasion, naturally). People who say "stop thinking and trust me" have a distinct whiff of charlatan and huckster about them. Too big a hurdle for me to get over, I'm afraid.

Finally - if there is a God, his/her/its notion of morality is demonstrably uncivilised, so I'm not inclined to start worshipping even if there's a 9/11-style event tomorrow morning that proves me entirely wrong.

Er - I think this puts me firmly in the "non-spiritual materialist" camp.

My current utterly mindblowing issue? How the hell did we end up conscious? We're the universe trying to understand itself. You twist matter this way and that way and it starts writing poetry and inventing philosophy. Amazing. But you don't need religion in my view.

Souls? Fine - what was mine doing last time I had a general anaesthetic?

"I just can't accept that when we die, it's the end"? Funny, people can't accept that the universe can do without them perfectly well. It functioned very nicely for billions of years before you were born, so it'll handle losing you, believe me.

End of a very long (and no doubt tedious) dissertation. Apologies people. I avoided posting on this thread as long as I could. Hope no-one's too offended.

"and far away, across the fields,
the tolling of the iron bells,
brings the faithful to their knees,
to hear the softly spoken magic spells."

That's about what I think of religion, having spent my formative years at Catholic schools, being an alter boy etc. I am nostalgic for the ceremony and nostalgic for myself as a true blue believer but anti-religion in the main these days.

BTW, I've taken on the rather hubristic task at the moment of writing a book called 'On Being a Man', just playing with the issues effecting men. One of the chapters is going to be called 'Spirit' (others are on Choices, Sex, Money, Work, Power, and so on) and will deal with the whole issue of spirituality in as broad and inclusive sense as I can manage. This thread - particularly the discussion of 'spirituality for the irreligious' - has been *enormously* valuable in helping me crystallise my thinking for that project. Thanks to everyone *yet again*.

Bravus

Fits in this thread, and....

Hey Bravus...

My father lent me a book that he wanted me to read...

It's 'Wild at Heart' by John Eldredge.

It's written from a christian perspective, (christian family and all) and it discusses the things you've just mentioned.

It's about 'discovering the secret of a man's soul'. You know, whatever that means.

It might be worth checking out though.

---
Made from an extremely authentic tough shiny blue nylon, every detail is matched to the original spec. The real mouton sheepskin collar is just sumptuous, and their reproduction of the Crown zipper is stunning.

Danke, I'll do that. In a way I probably should have read around the field abit, but I wanted to start my book with just the ideas I've developed, without drawing on lots of other people. My main goal is to avoid being either prescriptive or repetitive, and to be as inclusive as possible of men in all situations (young/old, gay/straight, married/single, etc - possibly even (gasp) liberal/conservative!), but in a Western context. Will check out that one, though... I find a lot of the Christian stuff too socially conservative for my tastes, in the sense that they seem to suggest that the solution to all our problems is re-duplicating the society of the 50s... I want 21st century approaches!

Bravus

Ok I started reading the bible again and ran into a problem right there at the start in genisis.Adam and eve are told not to eat the fruit of knowldge. Right. If they do then they will know the difference between good and evil. Ok so they are child like and they do not know it is wrong to do what you are told not to. So how the hell can they be blamed if they dont know the difference between good and bad to begin with???It seems to me that the whole original sin thing is blown up way out of proportion and a good lawyer could have gotten them off.

Hmmm... well the book is conservative and not.

It's conservative in the sense that it takes a position that there is something that the man part of 'mankind' has lost, and that we need to 'get it back'. That it is there to 'get back' because God intended it... if I oversimplify some of his musings.

It made me think, in parts, of Fightclub. How there is a generation of men that don't know how to act, in part, because they are raised by women. (disclaimer: not saying I believe this...) The author doesn't say this, but that's what it made me think of.

But it doesn't prescribe a regression, or at least the parts I've read didn't seem to.

I found some of things in the book insightful... but I haven't read all of it.

---
Made from an extremely authentic tough shiny blue nylon, every detail is matched to the original spec. The real mouton sheepskin collar is just sumptuous, and their reproduction of the Crown zipper is stunning.

quote:

---

So how the hell can they be blamed if they dont know the difference between good and bad to begin with???

---

I think it's mainly just to do with adam & eve disobeying God's word. Period.

---
Made from an extremely authentic tough shiny blue nylon, every detail is matched to the original spec. The real mouton sheepskin collar is just sumptuous, and their reproduction of the Crown zipper is stunning.

Deb reminded me of something.

I often thought that that whole fruit of knowledge thing was an attempt to describe the loss of innocence that happen when we acquire any knowledge, not just of good or evil. How many times have we opened doors of perception and wishing we never opened them in the first place, but those doors cannot be closed again.

Ignorance is bliss.

Once that innocence is gone, we can never go home again. We're locked outside of Paradise's gate.

Genesis (imo) is a parallel fable to the story of Prometheus. For those not familiar with the Greek myth (which was a religion, remember? Will Genesis one day be called a myth by future generations?)

Prometheus had a love for humanity. He, out of all the gods of Olympus, felt for Humanity's hardships, cowering in the darkness. So Prometheus gave Humanity the gift of Fire (direct symbology of knowledge) and incurred the wrath of the other gods.

He was punished, chained in Hades, to have carrion birds eat out his heart. Being immortal and cannot die, the torture is never-ending. He would heal only to have his heart picked out again the very next day (obvious parallels to the Serpent of Eden).

Now, as punishment for the humans who accepted Prometheus' gift of knowledge. The Olympians made a box and tricked the human woman, Pandora (played by Eve in Genesis) into opening it. They gave her a beautiful sealed box but told her not to open it but the box's mystery and her own curiosity proved to be her and Humanity's undoing.

Pandora opened the box and let out all the evils of the world until only Hope remained.

There are similar legends I think, but I cannot recall them. To me it's an obvious fable on the hard paths that knowledge can take us, about misery in taking what is essentially the intellectual property of higher beings. This uncertainty and neverending quest for more meaning is our cross to bear for evolving beyond beasts. Knowledge is a double-edge sword. Since the discovery of Fire which brought not only light and warmth, it brought along combustion. When you think about it, most of our energy even now remain dependant on us burning stuff. It all started with one bite from that fruit of knowledge.

Now we are far from paradise. Knowledge may bring misery but I for one would prefer it to ignorance. That's just me. Masochistic.

This one's not so thought out, there'd be lots of flammable material contained within. please excuse me my lack of editing, as I have a new toy to play with before I have to go to bed (my new laptop).

Prometheus, I thank you man. Sorry for the birds eating out your heart.

Yelena, that Barker quote is aptly from 'Sacrament'. Which dealt a lot with the themes we're discussing here.

--------------------

<pedantic git>IIRC, it was Prometheus *liver* that got munched. Equally painful, of course, but less rib retractors needed on the part of the eagles!</pedantic git>

And in true 'ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny' (yes, I know which way around I mean) fashion, each individual undergoes the same process. No smile is as pure as the smile of a baby, because they don't yet have the *knowledge* that the world can hurt you (knowledge of evil). Once we learn that, we're safer but sadder...

Bravus

Holy cow, take time out for the real world over a weekend, and look where the thread goes.

I'm not going to bother going back to every post and discussing every point (and the board breathes a collective sigh of relief), but let me try and contribute just a little bit.

Secular origins of morality, or How we know what's right or wrong without god: the real origins of what we now recognize as morality are rooted in cooperative behavior between organisms in the same population of the same species. One of the examples I've read is when chimpanzee females (and lesser males) risk injury and/or death to intervene in disputes between big males, disputes which threaten the social fabric of the troop. If the troop splits over a rivalry between two alpha males, the result is two smaller troops which then compete for resources and, having fewer members, are ill-equipped to fend off predators and have alessened genetic variety. So the theory goes that these behaviors developed as they emerged in certain populations through mutation, enabling those populations to survive more successfully than populations preoccupied with infighting. The old natural selection, but applied to groups of organisms rather than individuals. And as populations become larger and more complex, so, necessarily, do the behaviors.

Religion suffering from bad or corrupt leadership: well, remember Frank Herbert: power does not corrupt, it merely attracts the corruptible. The iron law of oligarchy is that organizations are invariably drawn toward power structures in which a few powerful individuals control the scope and direction of the organization. And the nature of bureaucracy is that organizations become ends in themselves, that is: the real goal of the Church (the HRC and every other Church, really) became the continued existence of the Church rather than the salvation of souls. The evangelical missions of the Church are more about increased membership (and thus resources) rather than a higher saved/damned ratio.

Devout nonbelief: who was it that said that without religion, atheists wouldn't be called atheists? Brilliant, that. I often come up against the argument that I'm just as dogmatic and ardent in my atheism as religious fundamentalists are in their faith. Well, I'm as vocal as I am about this because the country I live in is in danger of becoming a theocracy, a threat I take very seriously. The ideas and precepts under which I would like to see government organized are based in verifiable (or falsifiable, to use the language of theist/atheist debate) fact and scientific evidence rather than subjective interpretations of dubious historical documents which may or may not be divinely inspired. If I didn't feel my position (that would be the "leave me the hell alone" position) were being attacked, I wouldn't defend so vigorously. And you all know the old yarn about the best defense...I think McCoy Pauley said that while piloting a Chinese supervirus named Kuang. I could be wrong.

Spiritual without the supernatural: It just seems to me that this definition of spirituality removes all its meaning. So the excitement I feel while playing chicken with oncoming semis while making a left turn in heavy traffic, a feeling rooted in glandular activity, chemicals translated into experiential emotion by my cortex, is a spiritual experience. Sorry, I can't dig it, flat-earther that I am.

I'm sure I left something out, so I guess I'll see you all later. In the meantime, thanks to everyone for such an engaging discussion, carried out with civility and genuine class.