God - The Bear and Badger

JonB

Mod74 wrote:

Guy on there said the only way a decision is rational is if it benefits oneself.

I think 'rational' is a slippery word that's bandied about in these discussions too freely. You could call what you mention there an 'instrumental rationality' in which you make rational decisions based on the best outcome for yourself, but that certainly doesn't define rationality as a whole. From another perspective this behaviour would be irrational. Imagine a situation where one could sacrifice just oneself to save everyone else and it suddenly seems less 'rational' to opt to save oneself. There's also a distinction between rational means and rational ends. For example, science may be said to use rational means but not necessarily towards rational ends (nuclear war?), whereas religion may be a case of rational ends (dispelling the fear of death) which employ irrational means.

Birdorf

Ali wrote:

I'll get the blue juice.

I used to threaten my dog with the old blue juice when he'd misbehaved, when the time came, and if my vision wasn't too blurred with crying, the juice was pink, now I'm never quite sure what to threaten my current dog with.

Sorry, on topic (sort of), re money, Macka B has much wisdom to convey in his song 'False Preacher'.

This thread is not suiting my puny brain.

Ali

We have pink and blue. For boys and girls?!

Rev

JonB wrote:

Mod74 wrote:

Guy on there said the only way a decision is rational is if it benefits oneself.

I think 'rational' is a slippery word that's bandied about in these discussions too freely. You could call what you mention there an 'instrumental rationality' in which you make rational decisions based on the best outcome for yourself, but that certainly doesn't define rationality as a whole. From another perspective this behaviour would be irrational. Imagine a situation where one could sacrifice just oneself to save everyone else and it suddenly seems less 'rational' to opt to save oneself. There's also a distinction between rational means and rational ends. For example, science may be said to use rational means but not necessarily towards rational ends (nuclear war?), whereas religion may be a case of rational ends (dispelling the fear of death) which employ irrational means.

Would you have a rational or Irrational fear of God then? Not you personally - just a question.
Its just semantics but it depends on whether you believe. I don't fear god, but that is because I don't side with the guilt, wrath, punishment side of things. Â I could be said if I had a fear of God it would be rational because I do believe.Â
Whereas an atheist might state that I have an Irrational fear of God because there is no God.Â

Or am I reading too far into things.Â

Facewon wrote:

revelthedog wrote:

At a base genetic level we are preprogrammed to breed.Â Nothing more. Good and Evil are completely subjective, depending on the society you are in.Â

As I said generaly, don't overstate. I always find Evil a problematic concept, or at least used way to freely.

In that case are we better defining those acts as Bad instead?

I guess I would see Evil as an act that is carried out that the perpetrator knows is Bad but carries on regardless?

How would you define it.Â

That definition has it's flaws I suppose. Someone who has mental health issues could carry out what others would consider an evil act though have no personal awareness that what they are doing is bad? Diminished Responsibility?

Vince Weiguang Li

Â who cut off the head of a fellow bus passenger Â - was that bad or evil considering he was a paranoid schizophrenic.Â

Anders Behring BreivikÂ - would he be considered Evil because heÂ consciously carried out the shootings and has claimed he is not insane?

WorKid

Brooks wrote:

Broadly, humans are born Social. So far as we align being social with being good, humans am gud.

This.

Enjoying very much the little snippets Brooks throws in.

CBA to read much of the longer posts, sorry chaps. Seems futile trying to argue this out, when we could be playing games or annoying Prankster or something.

Skerret

tl;dr

Rev

I think I've help kill this thread.

[Deleted User]

Gonzo wrote:

negative numbers, pffts. Try the square root of -1, that blew my mind at A level.

There's really no difference at all. Neither exist in the "real world". If you can understand the idea of a negative number you can understand the idea of a complex one. It's really a very similar concept. Fuck your pffts. You should have understood already.

[Deleted User]

I hate this "blew my mind" argument actually. I've heard it a hundred times before. Complex numbers are no different to negative ones.Â

Negative numbers were invented to answer the question, "What is one minus two?".

Complex numbers were invented to answer the question, "What is the square root of a negative number?"

Both concepts are unreal but mathematically useful. You can't have a negative apple any more than you can have the square root of a negative one. To understand one is to understand the other.Â

Complex numbers are as easily understood as negative ones, and everyone understands those.

Facewon

SG posting something that SG might agree with. woah.

I've been meaning to get back to this thread for a while, hopefully today will be the day. The way the rain is going at the moment the dog certainly won't get walked.

Skerret

Facewon wrote:

SG posting something that SG might agree with. woah. I've been meaning to get back to this thread for a while, hopefully today will be the day. The way the rain is going at the moment the dog certainly won't get walked.

It's cold too, 9 degrees or so.Â I was in a nice warm gym.

Facewon

EDIT due to page turn.

Facewon

Meanwhile, some general musings from the first few pages. I promise I'm not picking on revel.

One of the things I see as a bit of a running theme across the two threads and also in general is a defensive reaction from theists, particularly of the more liberal/pantheist variety, to any comment on religion in general. Certainly, they could be reacting to responses ranging from the odin pic on the first page, to a polite query, to being called stupid for believing, and sometimes the reaction is understandable, but at the same time, religion, as a general thing, seems to end up being untouchable, even when I think it's the legitimate target of whatever criticism is getting dished out.Â

Basically, the problem seems to be that an attack on, say, the Catholic Church, gets derailed/sidetracked by a bunch of believers crying foul because they're personally nice enough people and don't believe x y and z in lockstep with the church bigwigs. Ok, fair play, but that shouldn't mean nothing came be said against the religion in question. (The question follows, to me, how many things can you disagree with the upper management about before you decide that the organisation isn't one you want to associate with?)

Speaking of colateral damage, and revel, it strikes me, reading back through that he may have been cought in some crossfire, some of it his making through a lack of clarity, some of it through unfair assumption on others behalf.

Mod suggested he's probably closer to a pantheist, and he self identifies as a non-organised religion kinda guy (correct me if I'm wrong). To be honest, I'd suggest this is another class of believer that can end up getting a little defensive when religion is getting bashed. Part of the problem being that every one wants to do a Tony Blair and call it capital F Faith, and say they're of Faith, and then when any mud gets slung, everyone seems to get up in arms.Â

Personally, I really doubt there would be a strong atheist movement if every theist in the world Â was of the revel kinda stripe. I don't feel the same way about how we should react to some of life's experiences as he does, for instance, here:

revel wrote:

There are too many points in my life where there are mini miracles. You take that bus, go to that shop first, turn left instead of right. And something happens that changes your life.
So i found god after going through science. I believe in the facts of science. I believe in the presence of something godlike. Its my opinion. And a part of me. And it gives me peace as i get older.

I think describing the above as mini miracles isn't a great way of viewing the way the world works. And I can elaborate on that at a later point, but my point is also that at the end of the day, I'm not too fussed by it. We might end up dscussing it further at a later point, but on a harm scale, it's relatively low. Which is why I don't spend my time looking to pick fights about it, I save my "passion" and vitriol for nastier issues to do with religion and belief. (I was going to post Tim Minchin's song "Thank you God," but it seems to be the one thing not up on youtube, strangely.)Â

Ghah, the problem with reading for a couple of days, and then catching up is you forget things. If I remember what else I wanted to write, I'll post more.

Anyhoo, just as a bit of a conversation starter/continuer, and for the fun of it:

Jerry Coyne has a piece published about religious belief and the acceptance of evolution.

JAC wrote:

My paper on the relationship between acceptance of evolution, religion, and societal health is finally available for free atÂ EvolutionÂ (you can see the early publication sectionÂ hereÂ and download my pdfÂ here; if the second link doesnâ€™t work, just go to the first link and download my paper directlyâ€”itâ€™s the 9th one down). There are three typos that, I hope, will be fixed, but this is essentially the final piece. If you want the article, Iâ€™d appreciate it if you downloaded it from theÂ EvolutionÂ site rather than asking me:Â EvolutionÂ keeps track of such things to assess the impact of the journal and of original articles.Â If neither of those links works for you, email me and Iâ€™ll send you the pdf.
Iâ€™m grateful to Daphne Fairbairn, the indefatigable editor of the journal, for her suggestions and willingness to allow the article to be disseminated for free; to Tom Meagher (theÂ Outlook on Evolution and Societyeditor)Â and three anonymous reviewersâ€”yes, it was peer-reviewedâ€”for their helpful comments; to our old friend Jason Rosenhouse for reading the whole thing and making many useful suggestions; and to Mona Albano for a wonderful (and voluntary) job of tweaking the prose.
Hereâ€™s the abstract:

American resistance to accepting evolution is uniquely high among First World countries. This is due largely to the extreme religiosity of the United States, which is much higher than that of comparably advanced nations, and to the resistance of many religious people to the facts and supposed implications of evolution. The prevalence of religious belief in the United States suggests that outreach by scientists alone will not have a huge effect in increasing the acceptance of evolution, nor will the strategy of trying to convince the faithful that evolution is compatible with their religion. Because creationism is a symptom of religion, another strategy to promote evolution involves loosening the grip of faith on America. This is easier said than done, for recent sociological surveys show that religion is highly correlated with the dysfunctionality of a society, and various measures of societal health show that the United States is one of the most socially dysfunctional First World countries. Widespread acceptance of evolution in America, then, may have to await profound social change.

The reaction in some corners of the blogosphere seems predictable, but Iâ€™ll leave you make those prognostications.Â All I can say is that when you see religion as responsible for anything badâ€”even something as palpably obvious as creationismâ€”or suggest that there may some incompatibility between science and religion, there will be nay-sayers alternately bawling and osculating the rump of faith.
Iâ€™ll finish with a relevant quote from p. 325 of Carl Saganâ€™sÂ The Demon-Haunted WorldÂ (aÂ wonderfulÂ book; do read it). Iâ€™ve put in bold the sentence that absolutely distinguishes science from religion.

I meet many people offended by evolution, who passionately prefer to be the personal handicraft of God than to arise by blind physical and chemical forces over aeons from slime. They also tend to be less then assiduous in exposing themselves to the evidence.Â Evidence has little to do with it:Â What they wish to be true, they believeÂ isÂ true.Â Only 9 percent of Americans accept the central finding of modernÂ biology that human beings (and all the other species) have slowly evolved byÂ natural processes from a succession of more ancient beings with no divine intervention needed along the way. (When asked merely if they accept evolution 45 percent of Americans say yes. The figure is 70 percent in China.)

Rev

I suppose its nice to be mentioned..

I have a new example of my mini miracle statement. All about this forum as well. But im in the middle of making lunch for today so I'll post later.
is there such a thing as fate?
I might post something that sone will consider nonsense later as well. Depends how I feel.

Skerret

revelthedog wrote:

I suppose its nice to be mentioned.. I have a new example of my mini miracle statement. All about this forum as well. But im in the middle of making lunch for today so I'll post later. is there such a thing as fate? I might post something that sone will consider nonsense later as well. Depends how I feel.

It will depend on how you feel as to whether some will consider it nonsense or not?

Rev

Skerret wrote:

revelthedog wrote:

I suppose its nice to be mentioned.. I have a new example of my mini miracle statement. All about this forum as well. But im in the middle of making lunch for today so I'll post later. is there such a thing as fate? I might post something that sone will consider nonsense later as well. Depends how I feel.

It will depend on how you feel as to whether some will consider it nonsense or not?

Okay... Skerret is a wonderfully warm, intelligent human being.Â

*waits for the haters*

Skerret

yer but how do you feel tho

Mod74

"Facewon wrote:

Mod suggested he's probably closer to a pantheist, and he self identifies as a non-organised religion kinda guy (correct me if I'm wrong). To be honest, I'd suggest this is another class of believer that can end up getting a little defensive when religion is getting bashed.

It's hard for me to say exactly what I believe, it's something of a mixture.

I'd say I was a agnostic atheist in that I don't believe there definitely is or isn't a God, but I'm open to the idea there might be, and if there was it wouldn't be the friendly faced individual variety, but the unseen cosmic midichlorian variety.

Just doesn't quite sit right to me that all the mysteries of life and the universe will end up just being physics.

As for defensive, I'm not being defensive of myself. Anyone is more than welcome to ridicule my thoughts on the matter or call me delusional.

I'm defending the blanket delusional white wash that's aimed at the people I know who are normal moderate religious types who aren't delusional at all. They're normal nice people who support and follow something I don't subscribe to. And no, this isn't just because of my GFs new found faith. Since forever I've railed against the nastier elements of organised religion but supported individual freedom and recognised for most people it's of benefit to them and those around them.

For me the largest part of most religions aren't the unprovable bits, but the perfectly provable benefits to following guides to how to live your life and interact with others.

Every organisation that wields power will have individuals that might try to steer it in undesirable ways. You shouldn't lump every follower of the larger idea in with the ideas of small numbers of individuals. I'm sure not every Republican agrees with every Romney idea, nor every Nestle employee agree with every third world baby milk policy.

You might argue that simply having faith makes you delusional and the toy of those who head up a religion, but that's simply not true is it otherwise you wouldn't be able to walk down the street without a suicide bomber crying Allah akbar and pulling the pin.

JonB

Mod74 wrote:

You might argue that simply having faith makes you delusional and the toy of those who head up a religion, but that's simply not true is it otherwise you wouldn't be able to walk down the street without a suicide bomber crying Allah akbar and pulling the pin.

Huh?

Rev

Skerret wrote:

yer but how do you feel tho

I feel a bit tired today. So I might just leave it until I can put down exactly what I want to say.

Facewon

Sorry mod, I was saying you described revel as a pantheist. I realise I may have written it in such a way as to be unclear.

now to read the rest of your response.

Mod74

JonB wrote:

Mod74 wrote:

You might argue that simply having faith makes you delusional and the toy of those who head up a religion, but that's simply not true is it otherwise you wouldn't be able to walk down the street without a suicide bomber crying Allah akbar and pulling the pin.

Huh?

Clear enough wasn't it?

Not all followers of a religion believe and do what people in power tell them to do.

Facewon

woah, oops, really bad time for you to misunderstand me.Â

Anyhoo, fair play on your response. And on some aspects (I so don't want to quote line for line and pick things apart) we're clearly coming at things from pretty much the same angle, it's just a matter of degrees.

However, where I think we my diverge:

For me the largest part of most religions aren't the unprovable bits, but the perfectly provable benefits to following guides to how to live your life and interact with others.

My issue with this bit is that they're (religions - specifically Abe's big 3) not so flash at telling people how to live their lives, and that's ignoring whether that's based on a miracle or other such nonsense. See their stance on, well, abortion, homosexuality, right to life, take your pick.

Also, I don'tÂ lump every believer together, my post surely at the very least implicitly implies that? Surely.Â

I suspect that delusion is too much of a loaded and pejorative term for it to not set things off, even if you could argue it's technically accurate.

Your example of republicans is an interesting one, mind. No, I don't think every republican thinks that everything out of mit's mouth is golden, but my question stands, how far can you diverge from what the party stands for before you vote with your feet and don't call yourself a republican, or a catholic or a whatever?

Rev

Facewon wrote:

Meanwhile, some general musings from the first few pages. I promise I'm not picking on revel. One of the things I see as a bit of a running theme across the two threads and also in general is a defensive reaction from theists, particularly of the more liberal/pantheist variety, to any comment on religion in general. Certainly, they could be reacting to responses ranging from the odin pic on the first page, to a polite query, to being called stupid for believing, and sometimes the reaction is understandable, but at the same time, religion, as a general thing, seems to end up being untouchable, even when I think it's the legitimate target of whatever criticism is getting dished out.Â Basically, the problem seems to be that an attack on, say, the Catholic Church, gets derailed/sidetracked by a bunch of believers crying foul because they're personally nice enough people and don't believe x y and z in lockstep with the church bigwigs. Ok, fair play, but that shouldn't mean nothing came be said against the religion in question. (The question follows, to me, how many things can you disagree with the upper management about before you decide that the organisation isn't one you want to associate with?) Speaking of colateral damage, and revel, it strikes me, reading back through that he may have been cought in some crossfire, some of it his making through a lack of clarity, some of it through unfair assumption on others behalf. Â Personally, I really doubt there would be a strong atheist movement if every theist in the world Â was of the revel kinda stripe. I don't feel the same way about how we should react to some of life's experiences as he does, for instance, here:

revel wrote:

There are too many points in my life where there are mini miracles. You take that bus, go to that shop first, turn left instead of right. And something happens that changes your life. So i found god after going through science. I believe in the facts of science. I believe in the presence of something godlike. Its my opinion. And a part of me. And it gives me peace as i get older.

I think describing the above as mini miracles isn't a great way of viewing the way the world works. And I can elaborate on that at a later point, but my point is also that at the end of the day, I'm not too fussed by it. We might end up dscussing it further at a later point, but on a harm scale, it's relatively low. Which is why I don't spend my time looking to pick fights about it, I save my "passion" and vitriol for nastier issues to do with religion and belief. (I was going to post Tim Minchin's song "Thank you God," but it seems to be the one thing not up on youtube, strangely.)

Well let's deal with the 'mini miracle' firstly.Â
I stopped visiting the old forum about a year ago, I was going through divorce and other things and so pretty much just couldn't use it at work and I stopped serious gaming.
Â I pretty much ignored the Blurum - because it was a mess - and only really registered with edge-online properly on the 1st May. Â There I checked out the forum, there I found what was happening with B&B and logged on there.Â
I wasn't in touch with anyone here, no one messaged me or tweeted me or anything like that (maybe you buggers didn't want me to find you! lol) Just happened to find it within a couple of days of it being launched.Â
So was that just blind luck? Fate? Â I'm not claiming there involvement from a God - that would just be daft.
Is it because everything was settled down in my life and I now married again, happy with a wee one on the way. So I thought I would connect up with some people again? Â I don't really know. Maybe the B&B was just a complete coincidence on my part? Or were events laid out so I found it?
Things like this can really mess with your head. if you think about them too much.Â
there seems to be a real sense of community Â on this place and beside the heated debates, not really any trolling, bullying or anything you expect to see on a run of the mill forum. toÂ

As I said - It may sound nonsense to some. But I'm juts putting it out there. As a Hypothesis. lol.

JonB

Mod74 wrote:

JonB wrote:

Mod74 wrote:

You might argue that simply having faith makes you delusional and the toy of those who head up a religion, but that's simply not true is it otherwise you wouldn't be able to walk down the street without a suicide bomber crying Allah akbar and pulling the pin.

Huh?

Clear enough wasn't it? Not all followers of a religion believe and do what people in power tell them to do.

That's what I thought. The implication being that the upper echelons of Islam all condone suicide bombing, and only the common believers' ability to pick and choose from official doctrine stops them all from becoming suicide bombers. This is patently false and as much of an absurd blanket statement as attacking the religion or its believers as a whole.

djchump

revelthedog wrote:

So was that just blind luck?

Yes.

revelthedog wrote:

Fate?

No.

revelthedog wrote:

Is it because everything was settled down in my life and I now married again, happy with a wee one on the way. So I thought I would connect up with some people again?

Congratulations! :-)

revelthedog wrote:

Maybe the B&B was just a complete coincidence on my part?

Yes.

revelthedog wrote:

Or were events laid out so I found it?

No.

Rev

djchump wrote:

revelthedog wrote:

So was that just blind luck?

Yes.

revelthedog wrote:

Fate?

No.

revelthedog wrote:

Is it because everything was settled down in my life and I now married again, happy with a wee one on the way. So I thought I would connect up with some people again?

Congratulations!

revelthedog wrote:

Maybe the B&B was just a complete coincidence on my part?

Yes.

revelthedog wrote:

Or were events laid out so I found it?

No.

Well that's that all cleared up.

Mod74

See their stance on, well, abortion, homosexuality, right to life, take your pick.

But everyone, religious or not, has a view on those things.

A Religion picks one side, which will please those who agree and displease those that don't. Extend it to women bishops or similar and you'll see the same thing within a group that supposedly all thinks and acts the same way because the leaders said it so.

You don't have to go far to find a homophobe that doesn't believe in God.

OK, some religions are more tolerant than others, just like the followers are more tolerant than others. Being a Catholic doesn't mean you're protesting outside of abortion clinics 24/7. Or even feel the need/obligation to.

Things like that come under civil law, and thankfully almost all people that disagree from a faith point of view respect the other made up institution for keeping people in check.

It's complicated sure, but I don't really see how being pro-life because you're religious is that different from being pro-life because you're a Republican.

Either all forms of organisation have their faults and share similar controlling characteristics but we accept them and get on or we do away with the whole lot and have anarchy. No political/economic/religious model has provided all the answers to please everyone.

Mod74

JonB wrote:

You might argue that simply having faith makes you delusional and the toy of those who head up a religion, but that's simply not true is it otherwise you wouldn't be able to walk down the street without a suicide bomber crying Allah akbar and pulling the pin.

Huh?

Clear enough wasn't it? Not all followers of a religion believe and do what people in power tell them to do.

That's what I thought. The implication being that the upper echelons of Islam all condone suicide bombing, and only the common believers' ability to pick and choose from official doctrine stops them all from becoming suicide bombers. This is patently false and as much of an absurd blanket statement as attacking the religion or its believers as a whole.

You've added the upper echelons and official doctrine bit, I just said people in power. Who as individuals and small groups have advocated such actions and found followers. Obviously.

Lord_Griff

Every religious person I have met (a fair few, as I had to infiltrate and subsequently extricate my beautiful, smart and intelligent wife from the clutches of hereditary evangelism) exclusively attributes everything good in their lives to a benevolent deity but nothing bad. I find this an horrendous concept.

Some examples of supreme arseholery that I have experienced:

(i) Chap giving a sermon and starts talking about his mate educating the natives in Africa. His mate needs to teach the next village about Jesus, so walks across the river (not wading, but pond skater-like). The crowd went fucking nuts over this shit, whooping, cheering and screaming hallelujah. I sat there thinking "what the fuck" with a rather nasty hangover.

(ii) Sat through a DVD, with a very pro-religious family, on the subject of astronomy. FYI, I have a degree in physics. Essentially the DVD kept reiterating the same point in a variety of ways; look at this shit, it is pretty fucking amazing and almost incomprehensible/impossible: that is god's work.... During that little debacle the number of times these irritants said "How great is our god, eh? Seriously how great?"

(iii) God grows people's limbs back. You can't say that he hasn't because there's never been a case of limb re-growth. It could've happened but not been publicised.

Now I won't go into the specifics but when I questioned the reasons behind my wife's adherence to such poppycock she was unable to formulate anything of note. Fear, family pressure and a desire to sort some certain issues out in her life which were of a concern to her were the driving forces. In every part of her life she was/is rational, smart, articulate, beautiful, interested in anything and everything, open minded and tolerant which was at complete odds to this element of her. For years she would not want to address this inconsistency even though by her own admission she was thoroughly aware of it. This was 5 years ago, and in that time through talking, reading, discussing surrounded by a solid, loving relationship we are both happy and the religious part of her life has taken a back seat. This is not from pressure from me, more that over time if you start seeing the whole world as blind cause and effect and if you conduct yourself appropriately (thinking of others etc...) you no longer need to attribute all the good and bad things to various â€œhigher powersâ€, you realise that whatever happens is a direct result of your actions (or of those people around you).

BTW, these evangelicals outright forbade my wife to be with me (not just her family but other people in her congregation) purely on the basis that I did not subscribe to their belief system as meticulously as they did (hey, I went in with an open mind..ok!). I was fucking livid with everyone, and to this day I still get a fire in my belly thinking about certain individuals. The majority of the congregation displayed an immense amount of arrogance wrt their belief that they had found the answer to all of life's questions, that they were right and would be saved and guffawed/chuckled at how wrong non-believers were and how wrong other religions were; seriously things like "Well, they'll soon know they chose the wrong path when they are burning in hell"... "We're born in the blood of the lamb" it made me sick.

What is immensely sad is how certain crises are dealt with, for instance, delaying medical intervention during problematic labour to pray that god repositions the unborn child.
Another issue is the self imposed segregation. They don't mix with non-believers - this little ditty is stipulated in almost all religious texts so when some dickhead says "Religion is a tool for bringing people together creating a community" they are so wide of the fucking mark. It may have worked in tribal cultures of c150 people where it created some form of social cohesion but those tribes would still kick the living fuck out of each other given the chance (due to their inherent differences) - read Pinker btw for some truly gruesome tales - but we're in the cosmopolitan 21st century, a global community and , as such, do not need anything that divides us further or creates barriers to relating to one another.

The worrying thing about all this is that even if you agree that any form of fundamentalism/extreme belief is bad, but a more watered down version is harmless, you are forgetting the fact that the foundation of the two is one and the same. Operating from a platform of faith leads you down a path that can result in you making decisions and acting and influencing others to do things, believe things that are abhorrent to a rational caring individual.

The shocker is the kids. The poor fuckers don't stand a chance. Being indoctrinated into religion from an early age must impact their critical faculties. Get them singing and dancing etc is a great way to have fun. If they are smart, how do they deal with the inconsistency of dealing with modern life/education in a rational way but have to disconnect that rationality when appraising the merits of their faith?

Anyway, enough waffle just wanted to get that off my chest.

Also Chimps do display altruism. Unrelated chimp gives nut cracking rock to female chimp with baby as hers doesn't work - there's a video somewhere.

Also, being born pre-programmed. Fairly sure that 1 hour old prairie dogs run away/are scared of the silhouette of a specific bird of prey, they react with no foreknowledge of what it is, just the shape (... other silhouettes do not elicit the same response).

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories