zapatos

That is an outlandish and unfounded statement and I resent it greatly.

I think we are all in agreement that Berkowitz is broken. Are you suggesting that this somehow indicates that others are broken?

I don't know where the cut off point is but I assume it is something covered by the American Phychiatric Association. I know next to nothing about psychiatry but I assume that someone who hears a dog speaking to him in English is generally considered to have some kind of mental defect. I don't believe that there is a mental disorder defined for people based on a belief in God.

I agree that generally scientists will think more critically than non-scientists, although plenty of theists think critically, plenty of scientists have 'undue' confidence in their field of work, and of course there are plenty of scientist/theists. I feel confident that I can find people who have a belief in God that is probably wrong and who are willing to let go of their beliefs in the face of convincing argument, and people who believe in scientific theories that are probably wrong and who deny that they could be wrong.

I'm not exactly sure what you are saying here, but if you are only talking about fundamentalists then we will be arguing past each other anyway. The OP refers to all people who believe in God, not just fundamentalists. Why wouldn't it be applicable?

He was equating who with David Berkowitz? I'm guessing he meant theists but it could have been the others. And yes, I believe that neither group could be considered menatlly ill in the way DB is. Yeah! That's what I'm looking for. When you put it that way it is obvious you have a big difference between the two groups. Another good example would be: People who have a belief in God that is probably wrong and who are willing to let go of their beliefs in the face of convincing argument, or people who believe in scientific theories that are probably wrong and who deny that they could be wrong. IMO, in this example it is clearly the 'scientific theory' believers who are more likely broken. And this is my point. The simple belief in God is not in itself enough to prove you are 'broken'. You must also consider other factors, such as unwillingness to use reason, ignoring evidence, maturity, education, etc.

Damn! I should have seen that one coming. (Oops! Just opened myself to another joke!!)

Does this then suggest that belief in God does not imply a child is broken at least until they reach that same point in time when they should figure out Santa? You got that out of me asking you a question? Actually I think we'd find a lot to agree on if you'd give in and add some contraints. Although the conversation might not be as much fun then.

I can't remember if we covered this. Do you think that kids who believe in Santa Claus are broken?

Not my argument. You are misrepresenting my argument then telling me it is wrong. That is a strawman. You cannot simply substitute words in my argument with words of your choosing and say that it is still my argument. Are you really suggesting that there is no relevant difference between my 10 year old niece and a person who believes dogs are telling him to kill people? Which I believe answers my question to Iggy. Assuming that you think that someone who believes dogs are telling him to kill people is mentally ill, then you are equating 'People who have a belief in God that may turn out to be wrong' with 'the mentally ill'. The weakness lies in the OP, and its fatal flaw is its lack of constraints. By making the OP overly broad you have opened it up to too many simple opportunities to reject it, including the argument I made. As an example, if a theist has no knowledge of the tons of research and the confluence of research supporting a scientific theory, for that person it can be considered not to exist. It therefore would put belief of God and belief of that scientific theory on the same footing. You cannot fault someone for equating the likelihood of the Big Bang and the likelihood of God if he knows of the exact same amount of support for both (i.e. Nothing). The OP implies ALL who believe in God are broken, yet the arguments put forth by you and others in this thread concentrate on those with at least a minimal level of knowledge/education/experience/rigorous thought/etc. In my opinion you are claiming fault with a large group, then trying to prove it by exposing flaws in a subset of the group. This seems to me to be in violation of Rule 1c - "Slurs or prejudice against any group of people (or person) are prohibited."

I used to have an English Setter named libido.

Who are you equating with the mentally ill? People who have a belief in God that may turn out to be wrong, or people who have a belief in scientific theories that may turn out to be wrong?

Cider House Rules - John Irving To Kill a Mockingbird - Harper Lee Anything by W.E.B. Griffin Robinson Crusoe - Daniel Defoe Into Thin Air - Jon Krakauer The Call of the Wild - Jack London A Prayer for Owen Meany - John Irving A Farewell to Arms - Earnest Hemingway The Grapes of Wrath - John Steinbeck

"Weather forecast for tonight: Dark. Continued dark overnight, with widely scattered light by morning." "I would never want to be a member of a group whose symbol was a man nailed to two pieces of wood."

Placing the DNA extracted from adult cells into an egg that has had its DNA removed.

It seems to me that individual liberty is much more cherished by liberals than conservatives. For example, gay rights, civil rights, voting rights, women's rights, etc. are traditionally liberal causes. Conservatives are more inclined to limit gay rights, voting rights, civil rights, women's rights, etc. In addition to limiting these rights they also seem to be more inclined to limit personal liberties through laws such as the Patriot Act. I kow there will be exceptions in either group, but I don't see how this trait could even remotely be considered conservative over liberal.

Why are you under the impression that I think that? How did you get that out of my post? Did I say I have a problem? Although I guess I do have one problem, which is why it seems to be such as mystery that a post about sex with animals in America would prompt a post about sex with animals in Europe. I guess it was a mistake on my part. CP made a post which sounded to me like there was a bit of US/Europe jousting going on. JC then threw into the mix a question about the legality of bestiality in the US. I was just playing along. For the record, I don't think bestiality is common in Europe, and I didn't mean to impunge Fuzzwood's views on interspecies copulation. I will now move on to less serious topics...

Apparently not as much as on the other side of the Atlantic... In Belgium it is legal to have sex with animals, just not to film and embarass the animals... Go Denmark! Finland is ok with it as long as there is no rough sex... Germany is getting even more liberal! Ok, this is getting ridiculous. In Hungary... I was going to visit Sweden but I'm having second thoughts. What else goes on over there??? Edit: Oops. Forgot the link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_the_law

Because I exist. (Side Joke: Did you know that having children was hereditary? If you parents didn't have any, you wouldn't have any either!)

I supplied one of the neg reps. I also don't think Justin was malicious or hateful and I meant nothing personal by it. But I think an OP littered with false premises and a bunch of conclusions that can be shown to be flawed on numerous accounts is reason enough to give a neg rep.

Maybe it shouldn't be, but it certainly is. And while this may be a little selfish, I am very glad that not even one of my ancestors throughout the history of life on this planet decided to adopt instead of having a child of their own. So if it is selfish to ignore the suffering of children by not adopting them, why limit your criticism to those people who want to have children of their own? Shouldn't everyone adopt children? Singles, older couples, corporations? You seem to be picking on the one group that is already contemplating doing something good for children. Should be easy enough to find out if awareness makes a difference. A quick poll to see if scientists, or maybe even specifically biologists, to see what percentage of them adopted instead of having a child of their own. I meant that couples who decided to remain childless are being selfish. They should have more resources to adopt than the people who are having children of their own.

Me raising your child does nothing for my biological purpose of perpetuating my genetic material. Given the commitment required to rear a child, I would never agree that having children is a selfish act. A friend of mine married a woman and adopted the woman's young child. They then had a child together. He told me the satisfaction he receives from his own child is much greater than what he gets from his adopted child. I think you'd be hard pressed to prove that adopted children meet yearnings equally as well as natural children. I don't think there is any ethical dilemma when choosing to adopt or have your own. It would be easier to make the argument that childless people are selfish and unethical.

I live in Missouri. We have a local company that sells appliances and electronics, and they are "Open everyday but Sunday, in honor of the Lord's day". Even when many of their competitors went out of business the last few years they did just fine. Personally I refuse to shop there just because of the ad. I also hate when I get off the phone with someone and they say "goodbye, and have a blessed day".

I understand why you say this and have seen anecdotal evidence in some of these threads, but is there any substantial evidence that belief in God translates into belief in incredible things not associated with God? As far as the mechanic and the 'new' engine additive, having an intimate knowledge of engines would IMO make him the least likely to believe in extraordinary claims about engine additives. I have also seen atheists on this site who believe aliens have visited us, but that does not seem to get them to be more likely to believe in God. (I was unable to use your link - maybe that answers my question.)

A Short History of Nearly Everything - Bill Bryson Since it covers the history nearly all science, only some of it covers the topic you seek. But it contains great stories in historical context. I've read it twice now. Highly recommended.