tar

magnificant? sorry, meant magnificently and magnificent I think magnificant is that little packet you pack in your box to keep your goods from getting smaller during transport. Jaden, Was thinking about Mooey's post on the way home today, and had a thought that might back up her argument a bit. If the Bible and the rules within, are from the God that created the universe, why do they seem to be skewed in favor of Humans, and not only that, but human males. Would the rules read differently if God would have delivered his message to an Amazon wandering in the hills? Or if there is a sentient, language using species on Titan where each individual impregnates themselves, would rules about women being subservient to men make any sense? Did God deliver any messages to starfish-kind about how they should behave? Do whales go to hell, if they are bad whales? Seems that the kind of things the Bible lays out are skewed toward keeping powerful males in control, and asking everybody else, who is not the dominant male, to bow down before him, and be subservient and meek. (with the reward being something you get AFTER you die). You don't see any indication here, that the Bible was written by human males? And not the creator of the universe? Regards, TAR2 Or a sulpher based organism living near a volcanic vent at the bottom of the ocean might FAVOR an afterlife that promised boiling water for eternity.

Jaden, I apologize for not reading through the whole thread. Had a thought though, and a response to your most recent few. Seems there are "reasons" to believe that abiogenisis is rather miraculous, that is, "not easy" to explain or reproduce, without retreating to some super intelligent agent orchestrating it. However, in the absence of any explaination for, or evidence of, such a magic force, and in the presence of life, one could also realistically endeavor to explain abiogenisis without magic, or an omniscient agent, and simply believe in a magnificantly complex universe that we have managed to emerge from. Not wrong to believe in such a universe, seems apparent, but wrong to ascribe ones own judgements and values to a source other than a magnificant and complex universe. There is no vehical, through which the magnificant and complex universe could or would tell somebody to change lanes, or predict the fall of a nation. Except the "human" vehical, which itself is capable of making such judgements. Regards, TAR2

Typist, The mention of 1984 in relation to your vision of sanity, is an important element arguing against your vision of a "sane" world, arrived at through "only" studying our tendency toward "insanity". You cannot be the sole judge. This is not a situation that one will, one judgement, could possibly take everybody else's will and judgement, into account. While there may be advantages to yielding power and authority to an "elite", that knows "better", the ultimate power and responsibility belongs to the individual. And it is better to have educated individuals ruling each other through a collective understanding, than having a Mullah rule, keeping his subjects poor and ignorant to retain power. You fear the "one bad day" that might, in a million years, occur, if technology advances to the point where each individual has the ability to "push the button" that takes us all down. And your solution is to "change human nature" by finding a sanity gene and an insanity gene and outlawing the later, even if the removal of said tendency would keep people from enjoying themselves in non doomsday ways. Your thesis, has a weakness. What about the human Genome is so important to assure the survival of, that you would destroy its very nature, to accomplish its continuance? Better to advance on all fronts, and reuse good ideas, and improve upon them, and discard the bad ideas that don't work. Trust, but verify, so to speak. Promote the valuble and stand against the harmful. As individuals, as groups, as nations, and as humanity. Stupid indeed to stop everything, until Typist is satisfied that no one will make a bad judgement. We are already looking into the human mind. You are not the first to notice the value in understanding ourselves. We have been doing that since Plato and probably before. But we have been looking into understanding the world around us, as well. The investigations on all fronts, should not stop. No reason to stop. And every reason to continue. Regardless of the guy on the street, with the Placard that reads "The End is Near". The end is NOT near. Has never been near. The only thing near is tomorrow. Regards, TAR2

Typist, Not sure I agree that we are broken. We are mortal, and frail, sure. But we have been making "human culture" work for quite a while. We probably do not have a way to become immortal and bullet proof. Its a shame, but that appears to be the way it is. Seems better to me, to keep making the good judgements, for those around us, and those that will survive us. Death will come to the individual, but we seem to have taken that into consideration, and seem to have put some of our efforts into a greater good. No reason to stop doing that. And no reason to give up hope. Regards, TAR2

typist, OK. I see your point. But the other side of the coin during the 5000 years of more and more deadly conflicts, is the stronger and stronger periods of peace and cooperation between the wars. Look at the internet and the European Union, and the way the world is bound together by commerce and mutual interdependency. Medical advances are shared worldwide. Better crops and processes benefit many. Manufacturing advances in material science and robotics have improved the quality of life, and the wealth of billions. For just a few hundred dollars, that an average person can make in less than a month, a device can be purchased that will connect them to the world's knowledge. Too much knowledge? Perhaps. But which would you rather, that some few of us pursue a doctorate and lay the groundwork for advancement on all fronts, or that everyone should remain ignorant. Look at Wiki. Sharing knowledge. Wonderful contributors. For you and me to learn from. Sure its moving fast. There are books written on topics I didn't even know existed till I read the titles (and even then had little clue what the topic was.) Point being, that there is plenty of evidence of sanity, and consideration of others, and evidence that millions, if not billions are hard at work already, "doing the right thing". We need not feel we each are the only one on Earth that can use good judgement. There are billions who can and do. And we need not fear our own bad judgements will stand for very long. There will be someone, to put us back on course. Not that we don't need to be mindful of dangers and unintended consequences, but that most people are likely to avoid danger and seek to moderate the negative effects of their activities. The fact that there are more people on Earth, living free, contented lives, than there were 5000 years ago, puts a little crimp in your thesis. At each technological advance along the way, your thesis could have been voiced. Each advance could have signaled the demise of our race. Except none of them did. We obviously have something else going for us. And the half the time, that we are sane wins out over the half the time we are not. If this were not true, we would have all been killed by rocks, as soon as we learned how to throw. Regards, TAR2

typist, And you forget the value of working together for a common goal. What are the benefits of a sporting event, or the Olympics? Should the money have been given to bums on the street? (well the scalpers got theirs) Every pursuit we have has an intrinsic value. Why spend 100s of thousands of dollars searching for a lost child? The little one does not even have a job to pay us back. I look at all the crap, clothes, fancy kitchen counters, drugs, alcohol and millions of other things that people with money, spend it on. What is the value to humanity of someone buying a 15th antique automobile? Probably a good deal of "trickle down", ie. gives the antique car dealers a livelyhood. And someone has to build the garage and make the ceiling tiles. Or what is the value of YOU seeing the Grand Canyon? Its already been seen...a lot. And your seeing it, isn't going to make it any better. Maslows hierarchy of needs. I would imagine as each of us fullfills a level and turns an eye to the next, so do groups, and society as a collective. And as Inow has described, scientific research helps fulfill our needs on all levels. The Higgs, and the better we get to know it, can only open doors, and lay before us, new possibilities. The dangers, we will handle, as they present themselves. Knowledge is power, but it need not be misused. There is always "everybody" to keep an eye on each other. Sure there will be wars. There will always be competition over scarce resources, battles of ideology, and strong willed people forcing their will on others. But there will always also be people working their way up Maslows chart. Together. The celebration is on. As far as I am concerned. Your worries are misplaced. Regards, TAR2

too-open-minded, I don't know that we are looking at this, all that differently. I think we would be in agreement that reality, and our consciousness of it, are indeed a bit more vast and complex than any four symbol representation, could possibly account for. There is room enough to give each other the benefit of the doubt, and consider that we really are probably both talking about "this" reality. However we might characterize it. Seems rather apparent to me, that we have to be talking about the same thing. There is no other universe but this one, available for witnessing or discussion. Regards, TAR2

too-open-minded, Well yes and no. One would still have to be careful as to how much of that consciousness one could realistically consider their own, and how much they should realistically consider "other". Such is probably the reason why religious discussions are so difficult. In this take, it would be obvious that "there could be a god". In fact if taken in this manner, its almost a requirement. And human consciousness is just an "example" of the universe/nature, being aware of itself. Thus Aethelwulf's determination that the uncertainty principle would disallow god, would then, if true, disallow any consciousness at all from being possible. Which is obviously a non-starter, since we are here, conscious, talking about consciousness being possible or not. Consciousness is obviously something that nature can do. At least in the many billions of cases of human consciousness that we have very good evidence of. Unless one would consider their own consciousness as being "impossible" for nature to come up with...which would only leave consciousness a "supernatural" position in the universe. So a religious person would be wrong in suggesting that God was supernatural, if it was their own consciousness they were considering as "above" nature. But this fault would pass to the atheist as well, that would consider their own consciousness was "other than" natural. That is, that their consciousness superceded nature, and was not created by it, and was not subservient to it. So, to me, the question is not so much "could there be a god?" as "what is the nature of God?" Regards, TAR2

Aethelwulf, I read through this thread, all the time thinking it was supposed to be in Religion. The lastest posts revealed it was moved for its failure to provide evidence for your claims. I thought that was pretty obvious from the get-go, and had thought this thread had resided in the religion section for a longer period of time than it evidently has. So I was always reading you as attempting to relay a religious type of insight. And was formulating different "responses" to your ideas based on this take. If your intent is to formulate a scientific proof of "no god", I believe you have it wrong. The inability of an entity, such as TAR2 or a quark, or an atom to know everything is rather evident. Here the uncertainty principle seems to have more to do with the limitations of any entity, that is, the reach of any subtanitive entity is by defintion, limited. The speed of light precudes any one "here and now" to be anything else, but "everywhere and always". Yet we each (human), have an "idea" of that which is more than here and now. And always are able to imagine the grain size larger, that would "have to" be there, even when the largest "real" grain size is identified. That is, as soon as you show your evidence of "everywhere and always", someone else can point to the necessity of there being, or at least the possibility of there being, "something other". A thing that is bigger or smaller. A thing that may have come before, or that will result from the existence of the "everywhere and always" described. In this human ability, is where I believe "god" resides. That we have "memory" and can learn about our environment and can cause changes in our environment "on purpose", puts us "a little" ahead, of the mindless quark. But the quark also dances to the same tune as we do, and we know by this we are not the only musician apparent, and not the only tune being played. If god is nature, as you suggest, and as is apparently true, then nature is NOT constrained to being "here and now" as we and the quark are. We as humans can consider history, and future, entities that make up other entities, successively larger and smaller containers, and the rules and connections between such. Nature itself has no such abilities. It is the whole ball of wax, that makes up the stage and the players, and as such, probably "knows" everything it has done, everything it is...already. But probably has not done, what it is going to do next, at least in the exact manner in which it is going to do it. If, in your claims in the OP, you have noticed/discovered, something about nature, which everybody else has missed, than by all means, show us, point it out, and we can explore it together. Move it back to speculations, on the strength of your evidence. On the other hand, if it is the same "god" the rest of us are already aware of, that you talking about. Then let's talk about it, here, where the discussion is real. And we can then, at least together, determine what god is not. And together know what is the "same", about your god and mine. (Which would put the discussion again, back in the hands of science, as in that which we all together, can see evidence of.) After all, this is a science forum. Regards, TAR2

ydoaPs, You are right, as usual. The OP does indicate plurality. Regards, TAR2

Sergeant, I hear there's 'dis group of people gather down in that big house with the big bell in the tower and READ that trash talk outloud t' each another. I think we best get some of da boys and bust into that place and round up all dem black books an burn 'em. Bubba ydoaPs, No fair. That's two. Which is your favorite? Hey, on number one, do you think there is a county in America that would allow that particular judge to sit on the bench? Wonder why people would believe in an ultimate judge, that has such poor judgement? Seems a bit harsh a sentence to me. Little bit of overkill there. Especially since he was probalby bald and "going up". Regards, TAR2 Iggy, Thanks for pointing out the recipe. Guess I missed it. I take what I said about his ommision, back. And thanks for pointing out the warning. I'll have to cut back to half a bag per sitting. Regards, TAR2

Inow, You bring up a good point. The Bible does not mention Peanut Butter Cups. How such a heavenly thing should have slipped the mind of God when he was telling us his innermost thoughts, is almost impossible. He didn't even have anybody prophecize on the topic. Regards, TAR2

MrAndrew1337, Mostly, I found it confusing, as to what the point was. The prophecies cited were in no way specific, and have applied, as Ophiolite suggests, before, now and no doubt would be applicable in the future, since they mostly suggest continually present types of things. Deadlines have come and gone in the past. And people are still around saying "the time is just around the corner". I dare say, that evidence suggests that I will die, before the world does. And I have complete confidence that Christmas 2012 will come, dispite the Mayan's running out of patience or stone. (although that particular epoch ending moment was not brought up in the film) But we did have in the film, conspiracy theories, black helicopters, equating Obama with the Devil, and other things like 'beware the new world order, chips implanted to control you, beware the illuminati", and other things basically to be afraid of. Not sure what the point of this is. Almost it is like the film is saying, if you are going to believe all this crap is being done behind your back, by people, imagine what God must be doing behind your back. He should "really" be feared, because he can shift the Earth's mantle, throw planets at you, and basically bring an end to everything if you piss him off...but he is going to do it anyway, no matter what you believe, or what you do, and he has already picked who he is going to take into heaven (those that fear him)...no those he chose...no those who are afraid of the Rockefellers...WHAT? What is the point. What is the message that the Bible is telling us so clearly, that the bible lays out for us so precisely that it can be nothing but the word of God? What?! Can you make any sense of this message. What exactly is it telling YOU? Regards, TAR2 What is it a warning of. That God is an asshole?

Leviticus 6:21 It must be prepared with oil on a griddle; bring it well-mixed and present the grain offering broken in pieces as an aroma pleasing to the LORD. Ummm. Pancakes. Where would we be, without pancakes?

Inow, Just watched an episode of the 700 club (Pat Robertson) a few hours ago. I think I finally see your point. It was an episode about a devil worshipper who overcame his "belief in the occult" through accepting Christ as his lord and savior. Jesus defeated the devil and the devil was powerless against the authority of Christ. It is quite broken in my estimation to believe that what is really happening in ones mind is coming from an outside magical force. When, as you say, it is quite straight forward to explain such struggles and victories in other real ways. A real inner strength, and inner weakness that come from our human rationality and our human frailities. If one should give themselves authority to judge properly, and take responsibility for judging poorly, this would be enough. No Gods and demons need to be summoned to fight the battle. It is enough to simply reach out to each other, for help, and extend a helping hand when the need arises. The "supernatural" powers that are envisioned, would be, in this take, our human powers to judge, misappropriately assigned to a magical non-existent, "supernatural" entity or two. Quite inappropriate to enforce this misappropriation on the rest of the world. And though difficult, quite important to find a way to "get people to stop doing this". Not stop them from judging properly, but stop them from pretending that their good judgements are guidance from God, and their bad judgements are the work of the devil. I want to apologize for being an apologist for religious thinking. It, religious thinking, really is broken. And we do need to talk people out of it. I am not recanting my arguments, just recognizing that what I am arguing for, is simply using good judgement, and giving other humans the benefit of the doubt. What I am arguing for, is NOT Pat Robertson's delusional beliefs. There are better things to believe in. MUCH better things Regards, TAR2

Iggy, Yeah, I liked the article. This Einstein fellow must have been pretty smart. We know a little more about the cosmos than he did 80 years ago. But probably, we can not know it any better. He seems to have been rather fully conscious of it. Regards, TAR2

I suspect you are right. But its not a Christian quote, its the quote of a christian, written by a student 40 or 50 years ago. If a muslim student had written it in Bagdad it would look all squiggly and it would envoke Allah as the father and Judge, and say stuff about living as Mohammed would have lived, to thusly have the school bring credit upon Allah and his messenger and show that the students would strive to not fall into error, but live a proper life. Rather on topic, if you ask me. It's about belief in God, being a real thing that people do. We can look for the psychological and societal and evolutionary reasons for it to be so, but its still real. Its not broken just because it doesn't fit your requirements for logical consistent thought. And tied with the Pew study Monday's Assignment:Die linked, which shows that many Americans HAVE and do question the teachings of the faith they were brought up on, yet still have ties to religion or are looking for a deeper meaning, suggests to me that "Belief in God" does not equate to a broken, irrational, uneducated, childish, uninspected, unchallenged faith in puff the magic dragon. Regards, TAR2

Music, Jessica is a brave young lady. And as she says in her own defense against the vile of her classmates, "It's for their own good. I am protecting their constitution, as well". I am not opposed to her stance on principle. But it seems impractical and silly to me, none-the-less. You say it will do some good. Perhaps, but perhaps not. You could strike the "Dear Heavenly Father" and the Amen, and call it a school creed. There is no acid being thrown in people's faces here. (Not yet, anyway) And I hope her community does no such thing. She, Jessica, is however "going against" the people that make up her local objective reality. Who or what is she doing it for? Is there an objective truth she knows that the rest of her community is unaware of? I am not so sure her basis is sound. Her logic is not complete. Would it not be better for her to bring it up in a student counsel meeting, and point out how it goes against our constitution, and argue for a change in the wording, than file suit with the civil liberties group? Well perhaps she did. I don't know. But since we have laws against mandatory school prayer, I would have hoped the administration would have taken care of it when the laws were written, and not left it up, intact, in the face of the law. (those laws are still in force, aren't they?) Anyway, its sort of like turning your co-worker in to human resources for raising his eyebrows while looking at a pretty pair of legs that belong to another co-worker. Sure there is actual sexual harassment there. But it is not serious enough to make a big deal about. It would probably not be "good for" anybody concerned, if you did. Reminds me of a situation in the Army, before don't ask, don't tell. I was friends with a lesbian soldier, went to a gay bar with her, visited the same place with my Sergeant (both of us straight) so that the gay community at my post either thought I was gay as well, or at least tolerant. They did not hide their sexual preferences from me (as in break up a behind the building embrace as I walked by) so I knew who was gay. It was against the law, against the military code of conduct, they would be court martialed out of the service if their behavior was brought to the attention of the military authorities. It was my duty to report them. I gave them a pass. Regards, TAR2 Should I have reported them? For their own good? A Captain I was on 24 hour duty with, once told me, when I was questioning him on what someone should do (unrelated to the gay issue) when regulations did not cover a complex situation, "when the rules don't apply, use your best judgement".

Immortal, I have a few objections to #1174, but not to your general point. It is interesting to me that Inow for instance is looking for the reasons why we give theists a pass. One of my thoughts on the issue is that it is difficult to construct a consistent worldview, without giving oneself a pass, on or about the same level that theists operate. Regards, TAR2

Music, Status in the community, but not only that, maybe. There are people like me, who hold the community in a Godish type manner. That is, that when it comes to objective reality, the community is just that, from the standpoint of an individual. Knowing other people, validates ones knowledge of objective reality. And in a sense, increases ones "feeling of self" to include others. And there may be some "reasons" why believing the same things as others actually makes those things real. (as in the border between Canada and the U.S., doing on to others, as you would have them do onto you, and countless other shared, "made up" beliefs.) It does not seem completely broken to me for instance, to continue listening to my Grandfather, and using his integrity and honesty and love and attention to other people, as a guide to how I structure my life and make my decisions...even though he passed away quite a few years ago. Am I allowed to "believe" in this no longer existing entity, as pertinent and real and currently present in my heart and mind? What evidence do I have, that he would be dissapointed, if I failed to follow his advice or show that I had not learned an important lesson he had taught me? None. No evidence. He is dead and gone. He is just about as real as puff the magic dragon, living only in my memory, and the memory of others he had touched during his life. My Grandfather's image, how he lived his life, what he means to me, is not substantially different in kind, to the image a person may hold of Muhammed, or Jesus or Moses. And that all four of these people really existed is fact. And that all four of these people taught us that one should feel responsible to "others" is a true fact. And for the sake of my argument, I will not tell you if my grandfather believed in God or not. Where belief in objective reality (which includes other consciousnesses) turns from not broken to broken is not an easy line to draw. And as you say, the "spirit" of the community is a real and present concern to all of us. Since this is the case, it is not a far stretch to label the commonly held spirit, and see the logic in together submitting to it. Regards, TAR2 And this is another partial answer to Inow's question as to why we might give other people that believe in the pet "spirit" of the community, a pass.

Villian, So, since I am not as intelligent as Plato I must admit I am ignorant. Fine and good. I yield to all humans that know more than I do. About anything. Except those that believe they know the disposition of my soul. I am the best judge of that. Do you expect that you know what God thinks of me? Based on what knowledge, do you establish this claim? Regards, TAR2

ydoaPs, I read your post and agreed with it, mostly. I DO think that appealing to a non-existant authority is illogical, and there is no evidence that belief in such an authority is valid. I think that killing at the command of Allah, or being insulted, that someone else does not share your delusion, is extremely problematic, and have no problem with it being called broken, childish, insane, stupid, idiotic, selfish, ignorant, and wrong. No problem at all. But this is a discussion about whether people who believe in god are broken (childish, wrong, illogical, deluded, etc.), so its important for me to inspect my own beliefs as to my claim's validity. Can I back up MY claims, as a non-believer in Mohammed's Allah, without acknowledging that I have some belief in my own interpretation of God? So I challanged your "starting to" be concerned about the rehabilitation of the hell dweller. 'Cause I am after the truth. Same as you. I did not ignore your entire post. Regards, TAR2

ydoaPs, Well wait a minute. If there is no punishment, then there is no reward either. If concern for the afterlife is to be had, then it is had. Why would you even start to say that hell doesn't make a person a better person, then realize NOBODY makes it out of hell at all? Are you considering that there is "something" of you that will care one way or the other, once you are dead? Let me make a guess, as to my own "thinking" on this. (I am allowed, since I have been around me rather consistently for 58 years.) I was brought up believing in heaven and hell. I do not think that such beliefs are easily shed. Perhaps re-evaluated, but not shed. I have, like you have, realized that God would be rather a nut-case to create the devil in the first place. Makes no sense. How can God have a nemesis? If he created the thing in the first place? Wouldn't the devil have to be part of God? Sort of a split personality problem at best. So, we throw out the Abrahamic God Idea. No hell, no heaven, no actual supernatural being, making the call, as to the disposition of your immortal soul. Which leaves what? Who is going to make the judgement? It has to be you, and the people around you, and the "spirit" of the universe that you are made up of, that...and we are back to a consideration of "God". Well, wait. I was talking about me, and I slipped into first person plural, sorry...So I throw out the Abrahamic God idea, but am still left with the idea of God, in that it still seems rather correct, that I am not "other" than reality, and can still consider it mine, even that which was, previous my birth, and that which will be, after I die. And it therefore makes a difference to me, whether TAR2 does good things, or TAR2 does evil thing. I would much rather have objective reality, judge me good, and not evil...even though I have no fear of burning in hell, or any hope that virgins and rivers of honey await me. Which means, I am pretty much taking responsibility for my life, on my own authority. And I care about the universe and life on Earth...as if I was going to be around to continue to witness it. Whether this is a "real" pact I have with objective reality is a matter of interpretation. That I HAVE the pact, is not a question in my mind. I have it, without any other human's permission. Its between me and it. And I don't know that my notions are not in some ways extensions or reinterpretations of what I learned in Sunday School, held against the ideas of other human's that I have talked to, or read, or learned about. So, ydoaPs, is there any evidence that you should care about life on Earth, after you die? Do you not have to have "some" belief in God, even if only figurative in nature, to care? Do you not have to have some understanding of your "immortal nature", to feel responsible to a "greater power" than yourself? I don't know that you have to be broken, or a spoiled child, to care about your immortal soul. There may be valid reasons, to do such. Regards, TAR2

ydoaPs, Childish in the sense that we, as a collective (humanity) have become more conscious of the world, are more mature than when the scriptures were written. More facts have come to light. Reasons why things can or cannot be the case, are in our collective minds. But the scriptures were still written by adults, even if they might have been goat herders, or entwined the ledgends of the goat herders into their writings. It is still the same reality (in essence) that was contemplated by humans, then, as now. And even 3500 hundred years ago, palaces and civilizations were built by humans. Adult humans, without the benefit of that which we have learned since. While I think it appropriate to consider certain religious beliefs outdated, and the pervue of a "younger" humanity, the "reasons" for certain beliefs, existing then, may still be the same "reasons" that exist now. And I do believe a certain "benefit of the doubt" should be extended to other "Adults" who arrive at workable insights about human existence, whether they have arrived at such 3500 years ago, or just yesterday. With age, comes wisdom, no doubt. But if humanity is to be thought of as one life, that has an infancy, a childhood, an adolesence, a young adulthood, a maturity period and an old age...exactly how old do you think we currently are? Would a 4000 year old civilization, like the Chinese one, be then considered further advanced than an infant, like the United States? Should each successive "improvement" in philosophy, religion and law, be considered a "new" thing, an "infant", or is it better to go with Hegel with the ascending spiral metaphor. That as consciousness goes, we follow a similar path as did the consciouness before us, and pass the same "marks", but having the benefit of the knowledge gained on the previous pass, make the cycle on a slightly higher level. So to think that TAR2 is at any kind of "mark", that has not been passed before is both true and somewhat ordinary. And "childish" is a relative term, indeed. Childish, therefore, should probably not be likened to "broken". Regards, TAR2

Villian, But a logical truth follows. If we cannot judge, then we should not think we could. But since we CAN judge, then our judgements are true and existant and can be taken at face value, with no possibility of having made a mistake in thinking we are able to judge. Where people who believe in God are broken, is in their assumption that their judgement is not their own, but inspired by a "true" judge, who has magically revealed the basis upon which true judgements are actually made. This is contrary to reality. Either we can make judgements, or we can't. The evidence, whether subjective or objective, is that we CAN make judgements. Then, since we can make judgements, all that we have together determined is true, is true, if we judge it to be true, based on our common ability to judge the difference between fact and fancy. As Inow is pointing out to us, we HAVE the ability to determine the truth, to distinquish reality from imagination, and we use it to determine everything we think about, everything we do, and everything we discover, share and maintain...except, suddenly, in one particular instance, we figure we DON'T have the ability to judge after all, and that ability must only be in something else's mind. Villian, let me ask you this. Do you believe that Joseph Smith actually found, with the help of an Angel, golden tablets, inscribed with the words upon which Joseph Smith based the Mormon religion? Or that the voices that Mohammed heard came from an actual angel? Is there not a "problem" in mistaking the idea of God, for God? Is there not a "problem" in supposing that your judgements are the same ones God would make? Or in the case of Mohammed, or any person deemed to be a prophet of God, speaking for God? How, in reality, could Mohammed's judgements, be equivalent to God's judgements? Either God is real and natural, and evident, and we can all make a judgement on its existence...or God is a made up image in an individual mind, that projects upon reality, human judgements. I would think that belief in the former is not broken, and that belief in the later may very well be broken. Regards, TAR2 (the later) Equivalent to the belief in fairies, demons, and thunder gods. Or, if God is that which is beyond our understanding, would it not be quite broken to claim that you understood it? Understanding THAT there is something beyond ones understanding is one thing. Believing that you magically have special knowledge of that thing, is somewhat inappropriate, under the circumstances. It is better to describe exactly where your knowledge is actually coming from, and what it is you are actually describing. So that others can make a valid judgement on its existence. Thereby pushing the outer borders of our undertanding a bit further into "that which is beyond" our understanding. In this, the "people who believe in God are broken" camp is absolutely on the right track. Identifying "false" gods is the best way to learn about God. Assuming God is actually the case. And scientific method is the best way we have to elimate personal bias from the investigation.