carepov

This approach (eg: Guantanamo Bay) has backfired in the War on Terror and made us less secure: 1. It has divided the West - when we should all be on the same side 2. It has likely created more enemies of the West 3. I see no benefit to foregoing due process for sworn enemies

Thank you for supporting my claim. I agree with eyeball too when he suggests that many people would claim to be biblical literalists but don't even know what is in the bible. Also, I would expect there to be a smaller percentage of biblical literalists in Canada or any other western country. IMO, you "draw the line" when beliefs are harmful/benign: Examples of harmful beliefs: -women do not deserve equal treatment -homosexuality is a sin -condoms/birth control is bad -death to infidels -vaccines cause autism Examples of benign beliefs (can be harmful if taken too far) -Virgin birth -Resurrection -Other miracles -Spread the word -Pork is bad -The existence of God/gods/spirits -Reincarnation -Karma -Superstitions -Astrology -Santa/tooth fairy/groundhog day -homeopathy and other "medical" quackery And of course there are plenty of positive beliefs. Yes, why not? I think that many people do indeed take the idea of Jesus as the son of god allegorically as well - it sounds like this is exactly what bleeding heart's father does.

I agree about this asumption but I question almost every other one you claim, eg: worshiping the bible Spoken like a true zealot! Nice one. I said IMO, which implies that I could be wrong.

I am no Bible expert but am pretty sure that most Christian's opinion is that the Bible is neither the "word of God" nor "simply hearsay". Perhaps it is a great collection of metaphorical stories with a few historical facts thrown in? This is the crux of my disagreement with you: we do not know what most religious folk believe. arggh: A tiny minority of religious people "worship the Bible"! Again I strongly disagree. Do you have any evidence of this claim, or are you taking a leap of faith? A common pattern I see is that people raised in religious families reject their religion in their teens then some return to it or their spouse's religion when they have kids. There are probably as many reasons for doing this as there are people doing it. Some may be inspired by a true belief. Some just want to raise their kids in the same way they were. Some want kids to spend more time with grand parents some want kids to learn about Jesus, some maybe afraid their kids will go to hell, some see the value of praying and developing an inner voice... I don't think anyone really knows "what most religious folks believe". IMO most practicing religious people do this. They make their decisions based on their beliefs but also based on many other factors: the proximity of the place of worship, values of the people in the group, business networking possibilities, social activities, the work/sacrifice involved in being a member, ....

IMO most Christians do not believe all the things that you think they beliive, such as "the Bible is the word of God". There is a whole range of different beliefs, some "Christians" would actually have atheist beliefs, some believe "God exists and Jesus was a cool dude", some believe in all the miracles, and some do believe that the Bible is the literal word of God. About half of Christians acknowledge the Pope as a leader, IMO very few would believe that he is "divine". The crazy fundamentalist beliefs of a vocal minority should not be used to pre-judge the beliefs and values of the silent majority. This is true of Christianity, Islam, or in fact any diverse group of people. Yes, I have a problem with anyone not critically examining their beliefs - religious or not. What makes you think that religious folk "fail to really critically examine their beliefs"? Seems to me that most people of faith do this regularly - and IMO more importantly they seem to critically examine their actions more than the average non-religious person.

Bonam and kimmy, With these responses it seems like you are painting all religious believers with the same brush. I think that it is important to distinguish between the fundamentalist believers (vocal minority) and the typical Canadian believer that is more like bleeding heart's dad.

Thanks again, it looks like we are on the same page.

If I was a Quebec separatist I would find your arguments pretty weak. a) status quo? It does not matter to me! b.) Quebeckers are too different from other Canadians to negotiate in good faith, duh, that's why we need to separate c) there are more cultural differences between Quebec and the rest of Canada compared to the USA and English Canada

Food for thought: Most of us have passionate and valid arguments that Canada should not merge with the USA. Can we pretty much apply the same arguments about why Quebec shoud not remain merged with the rest of Canada? If not, why not?

Thanks for the thoughtful post. If I understand you correctly some "articles of faith" are more plausible than others. For example, saying "God exists" is not the same as saying "the Cosmic Gummy Bear exists", right?

Yes, moving on, obviously there is a distiction between the claims: "God does not exist" and "I see no conclusive evidence God exists so I have no (logical) reason to believe it is so." There are some people, such as Asimov, that do calim "God does not exist" - and do so admitedly based on emotion. Are we to criticize Asimov for "not living in an evidence-based reality"? Here again are his words, what do you think? "I believe there's enough evidence for us to think that a big bang took place. But there is no evidence whatsoever to suppose that a superhuman being said, "Let it be." However, neither is there any evidence against it; so, if a person feels comfortable believing that, I am willing to have him believe it... as an article of faith. I have articles of faith, too. I have an article of faith that says the universe makes sense. Now there's no way you can prove that the universe makes sense, but there's just no fun in living in the universe if it doesn't make sense... my belief is that no matter how far we go we will always find that the universe makes sense. We will never get to the point where it suddenly stops making sense. But that is just an assumption on my part... I don't feel that people who believe in God will automatically be noble, but neither do I think they will automatically be wicked. I don't think those who don't believe in God will be automatically noble or automatically wicked either. I think this is a choice for every human being..." "Emotionally I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time." http://www.adherents...aac_Asimov.html

I don't know about evidence, but I can say that taking a leap of faith and saying "God exists" is not at all like saying "the CGB exists" - as per Asimov it is on par with the leap of faith into the claim that "God does not exist".

Here is an interesting study on weed: http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/3142/20130724/marijuana-use-adolescents-lead-long-term-cognative-imparment.htm IMO all this talk about legalization/decriminalization is giving teens the impression that weed is perfectly safe, even beneficial. It's time to stop talking about legalization and just do it. This way we can divert resources towards preventing children from taking drugs and damaging their brains.

If I understand your post correctly, I pretty much agree with all your points. I certainly agree that there are plenty of wonderfully virtuous non-believers and there are plenty of believers whose actions and ideas I will not defend. a.) Marginalizing harmful religious ideas is good and should be a the goal of secular and non-secular society b.) Marginalizing all religious people/ideas is counter-productive towards achieving goal a)

No. Probably not, but probably more than you. IMO, most Christians do not read the bible and know not much more than a few stories. Most Christians do not take these stories literally. Most Christians understand that the bible was written by humans and therefore flawed. No. If we "know" so much then there would be no need for books like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_History_of_God. There would ne no need for Departments of Theology. First, there is no "resulting story" - there are a bunch of stories. Second, there is more to religion than stories. Some people "practice" a religion and don't believe any of the stories. Some believe them all. Most are somewhere in between.

Oops, I did not realize that navy costs were being compared to air force costs. Thanks for pointing that out. However, Boeng says operating costs of the Hornets will be about 25% less than legacy planes, while Lockheed says costs will be about the same. Not that I trust the salesmen. But who can you trust?! Not our government, alas. Do you have a link to support your claim about the Super Hornet being obsolete faster than the F35?

A dude-god that is fond of killing people and takes Sundays off, etc, is about as unplausible as a Gummy Bear god. The Christian (Abrahamic) God is not so easily defined. I already suggested "The History of God" by Karen Armstrong. AFAIK, most beleivers think that this God is mysterious and unknowable.

When there are two claims where neither is supported by scientific evidence and neither is refuted by evidence, the less specific the claim, the more plausible the beleif.

Mighty AC, I looked up Asimov, and I think that you should pay attention to some of the things he says: "I believe there's enough evidence for us to think that a big bang took place. But there is no evidence whatsoever to suppose that a superhuman being said, "Let it be." However, neither is there any evidence against it; so, if a person feels comfortable believing that, I am willing to have him believe it... as an article of faith. I have articles of faith, too. I have an article of faith that says the universe makes sense. Now there's no way you can prove that the universe makes sense, but there's just no fun in living in the universe if it doesn't make sense... my belief is that no matter how far we go we will always find that the universe makes sense. We will never get to the point where it suddenly stops making sense. But that is just an assumption on my part... I don't feel that people who believe in God will automatically be noble, but neither do I think they will automatically be wicked. I don't think those who don't believe in God will be automatically noble or automatically wicked either. I think this is a choice for every human being..." "Emotionally I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time." http://www.adherents.com/people/pa/Isaac_Asimov.html

Explain the difference. What evidence or reasoning makes one idea superior to the other? More specific claims/beleifs are less plausible.

I must agree with you there. Stil I admire his effort and they guy seems to have a lot of knowledge. How about this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew He seems logical, no?

I call BS on you. Even Lockheed Martin says that the F35 operating costs will be about the same as "Legacy" fighters: According to the GAO, the Super Hornet actually costs the U.S. Navy $15,346 an hour to fly. It sounds like a lot — until you see that the U.S. Air Force's official "target" for operating the F-35 is $31,900 an hour. The GAO says it's a little more — closer to $32,500. CBC also asked Lockheed Martin to say if it had any quarrel with these numbers — and it did not. In a written response, a Lockheed spokesman declined to offer any different figures, but insisted the F-35's operating costs would be "comparable to or lower than" the "legacy platforms" — meaning, older jets — that it will replace. Those do not include the Super Hornets, which Boeing says are 25 per cent cheaper to run than Canada's "legacy" CF-18s. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/boeing-touts-fighter-jet-to-rival-f-35-at-half-the-price-1.1320636

There are however differences in "unsupported beliefs". First of all, there are beliefs that are benign and those that are harmful. Then there are degrees of plausibility. Saying that "I believe that some force beyond humanity's ability to comprehend created the universe" is not equivalent to the "tooth fairy" or "the great gummy bear". And worse than unsupported beliefs are refuted beliefs, some whoppers include: -Today's GM foods are worse for you than non-GM food -Vaccines cause autism -Growing corn to produce fuel is good for the environment -Free trade causes poverty and harms the environment -Republicans/Conservatives have better records in controlling deficits -Mandatory minimums and harsher sentences = "safer communities" -Teaching religious beliefs to children is a form of child abuse You seem to be making a big deal out of unsupported yet plausible and benign beliefs.

Well this guy tries - and he tries very hard: http://www.godandscience.org/ Are his arguments logical? Note: by posting this site I am not endorsing it

Do you think that they got what they deserved? They were totured and have been imprissoned in brutal conditions. They are human - none of the details you give above should matter. They should be charged and given due process or released. This is not selectivity, this is in fact the opposite - the universality of human rights.