Woman, 42, never married, curmudgeon, contrarian, freethinker; former tech writer, currently office manager, student of Middle Eastern dance and music since 2000, and Klezmer music since around 2004; simultaneously Jewish Wiccan Buddhist and Ceremonial Magician, guess that is "polyreligious" in the same way as some people are "polyamorous". Never lived in any Middle Eastern country other than Israel. I'm a bit of a music and dance geek.

She should be thanking all her "deities" that she lives in this country, where she can thank them without repercussions! She should be thanking them that she was able to put up a webpage, and that she can post here whenever she wants. And that she has a job, and the freedom to be a student of all the various disciplines she's fond of. Or, she could always go back to Israel. Geek, indeed. She sounds confused, more than anything else.

That's why I think the perfect short form answer to her is this:

"Your proctologist called. They found your head."

And I thought I was a rambler...

Well, she's not wrong about many American girls being screwed up :-)

It might actually be true that some people are happier with fewer choices. But so what? That doesn't mean we need to engineer society for them.

Live, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Keyword is "pursuit".

With freedom comes responsibility. Not everyone takes responsibility. Religious-think versus freethinking compares to being in a corporation versus being an entrepreneur. In a way, a corporate job is very easy, because you can often get by with just filling in the blanks provided for you. An entrepreneur has a wide-open field and loads of options, and bears more risks, but ultimately, I, at least, find it enormously satisfying to cut my own path, and much moreso than working for somebody else.

"A lot of the American girls in the class are a lot more messed up than she is - whining about their boyfriends all the time" speak for yourself...

However, my one complaint about my boyfriend: one time he wrote a fake letter to Amy, posing as me - he knows I really like this site and mocks my quasi-addiction to blog battles w/ strangers.

I had been a bit miffed about something (second time in two years, oh the horror) and he was trying to make me laugh or something - I guess he thought it was funny. I gave him the raised left eyebrow.

Good one, slick ;-}

I'm multi-cultural and I've had the opportunity offered to me by circumstance. However I recognize the faults of each culture and am grateful to live in western society that allows me a wide range of opportunities and free thought. It doesnt mean I dont enjoy the positives of other cultures (which have allowed me to escape the materliasm of my peers and obsession with social status). Also they provide a diffrent world-view which has allowed me to accept myself better. Perhaps there are many young American women who express their sexuality in crass ways but I think that form of expression is as annoying as the virginal one by their young Muslim counterparts. Covering yourself up for fear that men might find you attractive is immature.

The young Muslim girl in her class is happy not because of her religion but because of her framework. Are we to take it that I'm happy because I'm an atheist? Or perhaps it's because I lead a busy life with goals.

Ugh, ugh, ugh. She's giving a bad name to us Klezmer fans everywhere.

Her post is patronizing in so many ways, not the least of which is her assumption that Westerners are too stupid to recognize that not all individuals and families conform to cultural and religious standards.

like it's such a shame that she doesn't "get" to dance in public like the rest of us.

What else do you think she doesn't "get" to do, r? Bellydancing is probably the proverbial tip of the iceberg. Yeah, a lot of girls in the West are pressured by their families to do things they don't like, or conversely, barred from doing the things they love. There are a lot of Christian sects who will shun the girl who strays from their societal norm. The difference lies in the end result: no normal Western family or government is going to harm the girl who chooses to bellydance in public. It's convenient to ignore this very important component to a religion, even one that is as rich and varied as Islam.

"no normal Western family or government is going to harm the girl who chooses to bellydance in public" Key word being normal. Once someone defines the term and all the associated characteristics I'll be all on board. What is normal?

There are a couple of things that we don't know about the situation. First are there any men at the class or in the school during the class. If there are then she maybe hiding behind her religion, which would forbid any man from seeing her. She maybe the one who doesn't want to dance in public. Belly dancing in it's native countries is like striping/burlesque here (no not exactly but similar in perception). If her family has this belief then it may not be the "tip of the iceberg" but the whole issue. Red Ree doesn't give any where near enough information to defend her point. She rambles and her use of "I know this person who went and they said" as an argument is point less. When a person goes to visit a country they will have very different experiences then if the immigrate. Her friends likely stayed in larger cities and she used Egypt and Morocco which are a bit different from Iran or Afghanistan.

You're right, the key word there is "normal". I put it there in case of a comeback by "r" that I didn't consider families who are members of the Westboro Baptist Church, a small theocracy like the Vatican, or whatever else is outside the Western norm of free markets and free minds. And you're right in taking me to task for not defining it further.

Bellydance might be burlesque in Egypt and elsewhere, but I assume the girl isn't using this class as a means of eventually learning how to hump a pole. I could be wrong.

I guess I should clarify that I am not a supporter of strict Sharia law, for me or anyone else. I think complying with it should be a free choice like any other freedom. Perhaps it is unrealistic of me to argue that this freedom might include the freedom to make "wrong" choices as well as "right" ones.

I live in one of the most tolerant and freak-friendly places in America. I am very thankful to live where I do, where I have the freedom to be open about my beliefs and where I have the opportunity to do what I want with my life.

I guess I should clarify that I am not a supporter of strict Sharia law, for me or anyone else. I think complying with it should be a free choice like any other freedom.

Uh, it doesn't quite work that way. Instead of rejoicing in the brainwashing of Muslim girls, you should cheer that people like me recognize the dangers and vileness that is Islam and rail against it with frequency. I believe Europe is already lost to these primitive nutwads, and in my lifetime, the face of the Mona Lisa will be painted over by the Islamists. Because we have a much larger population, we still have a chance to preserve our society and western democratic values.

Don't you understand that Islam's treatment of women is all about controlling them, and that women in Muslim countries have rights just slightly beyond those of dogs?

To say you're confused and deluded is the most polite way I can put it.

I am the antithesis of tolerance. I support people's freedoms to think idiotic shit -- like the belief, evidence free, in god. But, as my late friend Cathy Seipp said, when somebody accused her of making "a value judgment": "I have values, therefore I make judgments."

Of all the nonthink promoting businesses called religions, Islam is the most dangerous, sick, and repugnant.

Call me intolerant -- please!

Amy, you are intolerant

Why, thank you!

Ugh, Amy. Usually, I like you, but this comment:

"Of all the nonthink promoting businesses called religions, Islam is the most dangerous, sick, and repugnant."

I think your own list of adjectives - dangerous, sick, and repugnant - fit this comment to a T.

I think your own list of adjectives - dangerous, sick, and repugnant - fit this comment to a T.

I'm a libertarian - and believe my right to punch you in the nose ends where your nose begins. Do you think I can follow the lead of the Islamists and behead you or stone you to death -- but with my thoughts?

Are my thoughts dangerous or are they merely challenging -- challenging to nonthink and acceptance of women as property to be controlled by men?...and based on what? A god for which there is no evidence exists?

I urge you to go over to Jihadwatch.com and do a little reading. You'll see why calling Islam repugnant is perhaps not strong enough.

But, first -- about all these adjectives you've stuck back on me: Islam is a religion that urges violence and death to "infidels" and the squashing of free thought, and not just for those who voluntarily follow Islam, but for all of us...what, exactly is dangerous, sick and repugnant about my finding that repugnant?

Isn't what's dangerous, sick, and repugnant the fact that more people don't think as I do?

I don't understand how the relative contentment of one Muslim woman in America somehow overturns everything we know about female subjugation in the vast majority of Sharia-based regions.

I'm very happy for that belly-dancer who appears to have more self-confidence than her classmates. I'm more happy for her that she lives in America where she can change her mind without consequence.

"I've had exposure to at least a few people who were Muslims - Sufis, in fact - who were fairly traditional in their morals but were also very peaceful, tolerant, and loving about it."

If only their tolerance were as loud as the acts of terrorism they greet with routine silence.

Amy, your comment about Islam is true today, but I think Christians have the world record for violence and mindf**k.

I've often thought that Jews, collectively, are some of the nicest people around, not that I want to be one.

I used to be Jewish. Now I'm a godless harlot.

So you're labeling all of Islam, because of the thoughts of radicals? I'd have not had a problem with your statement had you said that you find the people at Jihadwatch.com to be dangerous, sick and repugnant. Similarly, I don't think that all Christians are uptight, backwards, morally reprehensible assholes just because of the Jerry Falwell show. Nor do I think that all libertarians are arrogant and full of themselves based on this one discussion (for the record, that's not how I think of you, either, although you're coming across that way right now).

Furthermore, I find it distasteful that not only did you disagree with the original writer, but you also encouraged your commenters to jump on that bandwagon. I never figured you one to encourage mob mentality, Amy, but that's exactly what I'm seeing here. I'm very much reminded of the bully who's a nice guy most of the time, but get him around his little friends and he gets ruder and more agressive as a way to show off and up his reputation in their view. Think about it, and I'm sure you'll see a little of that in your comments, whether you care to admit it or not.

Read Jihadwatch and listen to recordings of some of the big Imams in London advocating and inciting violence. Clearly, you lack understanding of Islam.

And I have to laugh at your accusation of "mob mentality." People aren't here wielding molotov cocktails like the Islamists who attacked the embassies (without, it seems, having even seen the cartoons they were rioting over). I'm encouraging people to speak freely. To have other voices heard than my own.

Unlike in Muslim countries, free speech is allowed, and welcome here -- and no ugly beheadings!

> because of the thoughts
> of radicals?

The radicalism of Islam is inherent. Even if workaday muslims ignore the bulk of the text in their practice of the faith, the monsterous proscriptions are still there in black and white in the Koran, waiting for someone to recognize.

> Furthermore, I find it
> distasteful...

Yes yes, it's always about being so elevated and urbane...

Pull in your pinky and get a grip.

Hey Amy, Myspace has devoured the next poist (the Volkswagon. You can't comment on it without it going to myspace.

"Pull in your pinky and get a grip."

Another difference --- here, we get to keep our pinkies.

There, they cut them off at the wrist for violating Rule #Whatever(subparagraph B).

Thanks, Crid...will replace with YouTube version.

For the ignorant (pssst! Anna!), here's an accurate description of Islam from someone who had to grow up under it:

http://www.reason.com/news/show/122457.html

Amy, tell the proctologist to discard the head; Borg don't need them.

Funny, Roger. And Hirsi Ali is one of my heroes.

Anna, ever wonder how your talk of tolerance sounds to somebody like Hirsi Ali who got her clit hacked off by the barbarians?

Amy - There's a tell in Red Ree's letter that gives us all the information we need about her perspective on Islam.

She said that the muslims she knows are Sufi.

Sufi are one of the smallest sects, and the most deeply spiritual, and the most docile.

Comparing them to the majority Shia, and the growing Wahhabi and Salafi (strains of Sunni) is like comparing Lucy to one of Michael Vick's pit bulls. Not only bigger, but trained to be vicious.

Thanks for pointing that out, Brian, and great analogy. Anybody heard from Joe? He could really set some things straight here.

[quote]I guess I should clarify that I am not a supporter of strict Sharia law, for me or anyone else. I think complying with it should be a free choice like any other freedom.[/quote]

LOL! You are an incredibly deluded chick.

What the hell do you think that Sharia is, anyhow? Cultural tourism? Bellydancing? Whirling Dervishes? Couscous?

It is a legal and theocratical autoritarian system involving, among other things, subservience of women. In a legal way. As in, our word is worth half of a man's word in court. Among other nasty stuff. If you don't believe me, read the fricking Koran, woman, and wake up!

Liz, in a word (or two), it's not optional. Repeat: sharia is not optional. You don't get to chose to make it optional. And tipping is mandatory.

Are you making fun of me, George?

Is that not what I said in my above message? Perhaps my crappy grasp of markup codes has you wondering. I was quoting the extraordinarily stupid chick who thought that optional Sharia was not only possible, but desirable.

No I was agreeing with you, and augmenting you point.

Oh. Well that is okay then.

(See, I'm trying to be as laconic as you!)

Seriously, though, I cannot get over the stupidity we have vis a vis Islam. I heard that the Empire State Building is going to be lit up in green to celebrate Eid. Or maybe to give the tiny minority of the religion of peace a better target.

Disgusting.

And since you brought it up, optional sharia, even if it could be instituted in western countries, isn't all that hot an idea, either. For example, what do you do when there's a statute against polygamy? Can you make statutory law optional? They are already making exceptions to their anti-public smoking laws in Vancouver, by allowing hookah parlors, where smoking bars aren't allowed. That's just plain discriminatory.

As a matter of civil law, you might be able to make some form of contractual binding arbitration work in some situations, but we can't have optional criminal or regulatory law. You can't have optional sharia any more than you can have optional child abuse.

augmenting you point.

Point augmentation - it sounds like a really bad idea for a breast implant.

As for "optional sharia" -- sorry, secular country, and if that doesn't work for you, stay the fuck where you were.

Come on, George! A house divided cannot stand. There is one law for everyone. Yeah, I'm naive, cause I still believe in the nation state. The US has been successful because we are a nation of laws, not backsheech. Follow the law, or bugger off. The only exception I could envisage is tribal law on native american reservations, for being here first.

I am not even suggesting that Western culture is better than islamic culture. Only that it is MY culture, and that I want to live in a place that I am comfortable in. There are plenty of Sharia states to go to, if that is one's inclination. This steady encroachment bugs the shit out of me, which is one reason why I thought that France would be a safe haven, being as secular as they are. But, actually, I have to agree with Amy and deem them fucked. You cannot exist as a democracy when you have so many antidemocratic imports around. They will be voting us out soon.

Amy, in Canada, and to a limited extent in the US, there are situations where parties can agree to a binding arbitration arrangement that allows a religious judge to be the arbitrator. That's fine. That's consenting adults working out their private affairs. The problem with sharia is that it's inherently comprehensive. It covers all aspects of civil and criminal law, and as such is incompatible with western secular law in a way that these private agreements under the laws of other religions aren't.

I am not even suggesting that Western culture is better than islamic culture.

I'm not suggesting it, either. I'm stating it emphatically.

Everyone in the class acts like it's a huge tragedy that she has chosen to respect her family's wishes, like she's totally oppressed, like it's such a shame that she doesn't "get" to dance in public like the rest of us.

I am Western, and I belly-dance. I've been dancing for about three years now. When I first started, the idea of performing in public frightened me. If I had been a Muslim, and my family had forbidden me to perform, I probably would have been very happy too, also to have an excuse to blame it on so that I didn't have to admit I was frightened. But my first dance teacher provided the space, provided the opportunity, and most importantly provided the encouragement that I could do this, and got me to perform eventually.

And I found out that I loved it. Not just liked performing, LOVED it--in a way that is difficult for me to describe. The closest way I can talk about it is to say that the challenge of performing opened up a side of myself that I didn't even know was there before--I know that sounds so cliche, but it's true. Now, maybe if this person's friend had a chance to perform, she would like it as much as I do. Maybe she wouldn't. Maybe she would decide that performing isn't for her--that it just isn't her thing. But the fact is, she doesn't even have the chance to find that out for herself, because her family has forbidden it.

And I call that a shame.

Some of you have misinterpreted my position. I am totally against any sort of theocratic government. The law of the land should not be directly controlled by any religious system, religious law, or religious hierarchy.

I support the rights of all private citizens, who should all be equal under the law of the land, to pursue their own freedom of expression, which includes freedom of religion. Freedom of religion does NOT include the right of any one individual or government to force any other individual to practice, or to refrain from practicing, a religious observance.

I know about Hirsa Ali and if I were her I would probably hate Islam, too.

The law of the land should be based on justice for all - for me this would be the principles that in spirit inform American democratic law - or perhaps what I would call basic human rights. If the ideal law of the land conflicts with religious laws, then the law of the land should prevail. So if a religious law REQUIRES child abuse, involuntary confinement, forced labor, or other human-rights violation, this should obviously not be permitted, and anyone who commits these acts should be prosecuted. Even if a religion CONDONES these things without actually requiring them, any attempt to commit such an illegal action should be prosecuted, and any systematic attempt to enable these actions should also be prosecuted.

My original point was a lot smaller than all this. I merely said that we should not leap to conclusions when we see people around us choosing to obey some selected subset of these traditions.

For those of you who think the Koran is bad, the Bible's got some bad stuff too. Maybe you'd like to toss that book onto the fire as well. I wouldn't. Do you think that every single Muslim on the planet believes every single word in the Koran? And there is more to Islamic thought than the Koran - the oral lore, the "hadith", is almost as important.

I think the main problem with Islam is actually that theocracy itself corrupts the religion, because the power itself corrupts and leads to autocratic and suppressive practices. Government and priesthoods should be separate. Those of you who think all Jews are cool but all Muslims must be violent nutballs may have forgotten that it was a Jewish fanatic who assassinated Yitzhak Rabin.

I suppose the right to wear what I want is not normally thought of as a human right, more like a civil liberty. I didn't make that distinction. Civil liberties can only be had once human rights are attained.

Those of you who think all Jews are cool but all Muslims must be violent nutballs may have forgotten that it was a Jewish fanatic who assassinated Yitzhak Rabin.

That's what's called the exception that proves the rule. It's a cheap rhetorical trick to take something unusual and imply that it's identical to something that usual.

There are about six nutbags in the world who are Christian and Jewish, like Eric Rudolph, the abortion clinic killer. You don't see rabbis and priests standing up every week and commanding their congregants to "Kill the infidel!"

Wafa Sultan made this point on Al Jazeera. Incredible, incredibly courageous woman. (And as I say that, I'm reminded of how horrible it is that I am saying that. She's a Muslim woman who went on TV criticizing Islam, and is in peril because of it. Go on TV in this country, criticizing Christianity, as I have, and...no biggie.)

Anyway, the point she made: Jews aren't blowing up German restaurants.

My original point was a lot smaller than all this. I merely said that we should not leap to conclusions when we see people around us choosing to obey some selected subset of these traditions.

Why should we not? Do you think there are closet atheists running around in pup tents and headscarves?

Red, I recently was down in the hood, hanging with my homies, when I realized that my choice to wear my gang colors was holding me back from any real accomplishments in life.
When I told them I wasn't going to be a gangbanger any more, they cut off my hand with a saw, ripped out my tongue with iron pincers, and beheaded my eight year old sister with a sword, accusing me of not being faithful to the banger code.
But you know, it's not like anyone is forcing us to stay in the gang or anything. So it's cool.

Red - time for the application of the blunt instrument.

My original point was a lot smaller than all this. I merely said that we should not leap to conclusions when we see people around us choosing to obey some selected subset of these traditions.

If I see someone beating the shit out of his wife/girlfriend/sister, because they choose to 'obey some selected subset of [a] tradition', I'm gonna beat that motherfucker down. Contrast this with the German position, where a judge told a woman seeking divorce that she's shit out of luck, because Islamic scripture allows her husband to smack her around.

There are some traditions whose very existence is vile. Traditions that enforce second-class status are unacceptable to a pluralistic society.

There are some traditions whose very existence is vile.

As anybody who has been here more than once or twice knows, I tend to disagree pretty strongly with Brian on a lot of issues. But not here. Sorry, but it's not OK for any culture to officially subjugate women. Our world's got plenty of real challenges and we need both genders on board.

Does anybody really think the women killed in honor killings (worse oxymoron in existence) is able to opt out if she doesn't like? She tried. That's why she's dead and that's why, in a nutshell, Amy is right and this religion can't be tolerated where others can. Yes, if you took the Holy Bible or the Torah as literally (and I traveled from Christian to Jewish to Agnostic before arriving at Atheist, it took 10 years or so to undo my childhood brainwashing), it's pretty vile but very few wackos take it that literally. Only the nutcases proposed an eye for eye for stoning anyone for adultery. In Christianity and Judaism, they are so much the exception that they are considered wacko. In Islam, they are the rule. Do we have to likewise call the Religious Reich to task in this country before they become the Christian taliban? Yes. But again, they are the minority. They worry me and they've taken this country backward so yes we do have to prevent them from getting the same kind of power and progressing to the same kind of fanaticism but it is a matter of preventing regression, not being so PC as to prevent progress. Women are getting killed while we turn the other cheek and that's just for beginners. And, no, George, no one should be able to go to a religious court instead of the secular one. If the secular law doesn't concur, too bad, too sad. Go leave in Iraq (or wherever). It is too simplistic to think that no apparently consenting adult is ever coerced into agreeing to the religious court. Not to mention the scary implications of religion being exempted from secular law. Nothing prohibits a religious person from going through their church/temple/mosque as well as the civil courts of the land but giving the religious institutions that kind of power will definitely result in religious law overriding secular law as in the example Brian gave us.

God, sorry about the all the bad grammer etc in the above post. I meant to hit preview and hit post instead.

I for the most part will give any idiot the benefit of the doubt. I will not judge someone based on religion alone. I will however without hesitation judge and happily condemn someone for the action regardless of justification.

Islam is no more inherently evil then any other religion (read this however you want). The actions of theocracies through out history show one thing with an apocalyptic clarity. Once any religion, cult, fairy tale philosophy begins to control government then it will always become a vile brutal thing bathing in innocent blood. Islam is not evil when it is voluntary, the use of mandated shari law (which by it's own nature makes it mantatory) is a threat that must be watched as though our lives depend on it, they do.

> I thought that France would be a safe haven, being as secular as they are. But, actually, I have to agree with Amy and deem them fucked.

I have a different perspective on that point. Travelling in the Midi last month, I saw signs of better, not worse, integration of the Harkis. France as a whole looks rather different from Paris, as seen from a terrace table at Café de Flore.

Stu, find a new horse to flog!

I'm going to assume that the comments directed towards "Anna" were meant for me, although I know what they say about assumptions.

I've yet to see anyone quote scripture to back up what you're spouting. Sure, you can say people have had their clits whacked off, and I know this is true. But I don't blame that on the religion any more than I blame gay teenagers getting killed by a brick to the head on Christianity. There are nuts out there of all stripes - Christian, Jew, Muslim, Pagan, and Atheist.

I'll agree with everyone here that there is an intrinsic problem in combining religious law with secular law, and I don't agree with that at all. For the time being, though, I'm sticking with the thought that the problem with Islam is the radical viewpoints - and I can say the same about any other religion out there.

For the interview with Hirsi Ali - thank you for the link. It was a very informative read. However, I don't necessarily think that her view is non-biased (and I certainly don't blame her for that view - she's had some horrific experiences). On the other side of the fence, you have articles such as these:
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/projects/muslimsspeakout/index.html

Personally, I don't condemn any religion as being evil, just the actions.

I, on the other hand, condemn all belief, without evidence, in god, which, to a lesser or greater degree, as Hitchens says, "poisons everything."

And that's your right. I find it rather amusing, though, as a steadfast belief that there is no higher power is just as much faith-based as any other religion. Unless you claim to know everything that there is to know about Life, the Universe, and Everything (tm), then you can't possibly know for a fact that there is no higher power - you're just taking it on faith, kind of like the rest of us poor, uninformed schmucks that believe in a god of some sort ;)

As Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." I can see you aren't a really rigorous thinker, so I'll explain: I don't believe without evidence. There's no evidence there's a god; hence I don't believe in god, same as I don't believe there's a giant purple vagina orbiting my house. (I see no evidence for that either, in case you need me to spell it out.)

Are you also agnostic about the existence of giant purple orbiting vaginas, or just about the existence of god?

Sheesh. Embrace logic. I don't know how you manage without it.

Nice that you are resorting to insults about my intellect in order to make your point.

As for purple vaginas, I've never thought about it. I suppose there could be, but that's neither here nor there. You say you see no evidence in a higher power - I find that sad. I see evidence of that every single day, just by looking at the world around me.

Onto a totally different matter. I've been a visitor here for over a year, since before your site was "cool", when there were maybe 3 or 4 comments per article. I'm very happy that you're enjoying success - you've worked hard for it, and you're a very gifted writer and I agree with a lot of your advice. BUT - this is the first time that I've ever been belittled here. I don't like it. In the past we've respectfully exchanged ideas. That's not the case any more. Now, I talk about my beliefs and suddenly I'm a non-reasoning idiot - simply because I don't agree with you. Your site has changed, and honestly, I don't like it. I don't expect what I like or don't like to make any difference to you, but I believe in being upfront about things like that. Best wishes to you.

"You say you see no evidence in a higher power - I find that sad. I see evidence of that every single day, just by looking at the world around me."

Excellent! Now if you'll just provide the rest of us with the peer-reviewed scientific studies supporting your conclusion, we can all get back to the business of killing all the non-believers to satisfy our god's bloodlust. Best wishes to you, too!

Anne, this is a different kind of website than perhaps you're used to. You should be worried that you aren't a rigorous thinker, not that I criticize you for it.

I've been blogging since 2003, thanks, and I think you should check my archives if you think I only got 3 or 4 comments.

I think what's happened is I've given you an out. According to multi-culti values, one opinion's worth as much as the next one. According to reality, that's bullshit.

You believe, without evidence, in god, because you aren't a very rigorous thinker. Or...is there some other explanation? For example, you have cocktails with god every Wednesday night?

The way this site works -- see Crid bitchslapping me on the Freud entry from today -- is we aren't all girly about criticizing or being criticized. Again, the answer isn't banning criticism, but thinking more rigorously so as to avoid the dreaded "gotchas."

But, back to the issue you're avoiding by wah-wah-wahing that I'm a rude meanie: Where is the evidence for your belief?

And make that evidence behind the belief that Muslim society is wunnnderful for women AND belief in god. We have yet to see either from you.

Amy - here's the thing - unlike a lot of people of different religious beliefs - I don't give a rat's ass if you believe or not - that's your business. Likewise, Gog, my god isn't a bloodthirsty god - you don't know or have any idea *what* I believe, other than that I believe in a higher power. So, thanks on that - your whole argument is a non-issue.

Back to you, Amy. Yes, I do believe that your opinion is just as valid as mine, and vice-versa. I don't give a rat's butt if you believe, don't believe, or whatever. I don't think you're going to hell if you don't believe, nor do I believe that you're a bad person or morally bankrupt for not believing. I just get a bit irate that people - ie. you - assume that just because I believe that there's something out there that can't be explained, but it's bigger and greater than I (and the whole human race) - well, I must be an idiot that doesn't think for myself. Nice.

For what it's worth, I don't believe everything the bible puts forth, or the Koran, or any other religious text. Why? Because I don't think the writers of those books know everything, either. Do I believe in evolution? Yes, I do. Science and spirituality aren't mutually exclusive. I don't think less of you for your beliefs, and I'd consider it a kindness if you wouldn't jump to the conclusion that I don't have a brain because of my beliefs.

Perhaps I wasn't that helpful...we'll do this point by point:

I see evidence of that every single day, just by looking at the world around me.

Such as...?

Thinking the world is an incredible place is not evidence of god. The fact that somebody's four-year-old survives an accident (and somebody else's four-year-old doesn't -- oops!) is not evidence of god. A strong feeling there is a god is not evidence of god.

But, feel free to present any actual evidence you might have.

Oh - and as a further clarification, not that y'all seem interested in anything other than shoving just how wrong I am down my throat - about the only thing I hold against some other religions / beliefs is this intrinsic need to "spread the word". Christianity certainly embraces that, as does Islam. And that I whole-heartedly disagree with. Because, really, if someone wants to believe in large, purple, floating vaginas, what skin is that off your nose, as long as they don't also believe that they should whack off everyone's labia in homage to said purple vagina? I really, truly wish that people would believe what they want and stop with the proselytizing.

And you know what kills me? Atheists are just as bad as every other group when it comes to shoving your *beliefs* down people's throat. Because you don't have any proof, either, that there is no god, you just have a lack of evidence that there is one. So you're operating just as much on your faith as I am on mine. I suppose the only good thing is that so far none of you have wanted to burn me at the stake ;-)

Amy, we can argue this 'til the cows come home. To turn this right back at you - your thoughts that there is no god isn't evidence that there isn't a god.

I'll present my evidence when you present yours. There is no evidence. Not one way or the other. You take the lack of evidence as being proof that there isn't a god. All it is just a nice, big "insufficient data" message. But I'd sure love to read any reports or findings that you have ;-)

"your whole argument is a non-issue"

So, have ya got the peer-reviewed test results yet? I'd like to see that evidence of yours verified before the IslamoChristoJudaeoHindists blow us all to bits in a paroxysm of orgiastic nuking.

Gah. Sorry about the utter redundancy of that first paragraph. I'll try again.

"A strong feeling there is a god is not evidence of god."

Just so. But your strong feeling that there isn't a god isn't evidence in favor of your opinion, either. Again - all any of us are doing is following a belief that isn't based on evidence. You use that lack of evidence to support your BELIEF that there is no higher power - I don't. That's the bottom line. You have no more evidence than I do to back up your stance on this.

"So, have ya got the peer-reviewed test results yet? I'd like to see that evidence of yours verified before the IslamoChristoJudaeoHindists blow us all to bits in a paroxysm of orgiastic nuking."

I'll say the same to you, Gog, that I did to Amy,

Where's *your* peer-reviewed test results? Oh - you don't have any? Shame about that. Guess your beliefs aren't valid, either.

"Where's *your* peer-reviewed test results? Oh - you don't have any? Shame about that. Guess your beliefs aren't valid, either."

Since you're claiming evidence of a higher power, you need to cough up the proof.

Let's have it, and please, no namby-pamby shilly-shallying around it any longer, okay? Stick to your original claim of having evidence and produce said proof.

I'll present my evidence when you present yours. There is no evidence. Not one way or the other. You take the lack of evidence as being proof that there isn't a god.

Anne, see the Carl Sagan quote. You're the one making extraordinary claims. You must present proof of these claims.

What I'm saying is this: I see no evidence there is a god. Therefore I see no reason to believe in god. Likewise for giant purple hovering vaginas.

I think you're incapable of understanding how to think logically because you simply repeat your errors in logic again and again and again. Pity.

Funny. I think that your claim that something came from nothing is more extraordinary than my belief that there *is* something out there greater than us.

And Gog, my "evidence" is the sheer fact that we, the world around us, the universe, everything, exists. Perfectly ordered systems that work together - that to me is enough proof that there's a higher power. Is it a peer reviewed journal? No.

Amy - I just have to shake my head at you. Your belief that there isn't something out there that's greater, you're expecting me to take that at face value. You throw out the example of the purple vagina. You shouldn't believe in that because there's no evidence. Fair enough. But your belief, to me, is akin to my walking into a room in your house and there's a 1,000 piece circular jigsaw puzzle put together on the table. I ask you if you put the puzzle together. No, you say. Oh, well, it must have been your friend, husband, roommate, child, someone must have put it together. No, nobody did, you say. There sits the puzzle, but there's no evidence that anyone put it together. Sooo - suddenly we all believe that someone just threw the pieces into the air, and when they came down they were "magically" assembled all by themselves, with no outside influence other than the fact that the puzzle pieces were in the same vicinity? And y'all say *I'm* the illogical one?

I think that your claim that something came from nothing is more extraordinary than my belief that there *is* something out there greater than us.

Okay, remedial reading and reasoning here:

Contrary to what you think I said and think I think, I don't claim to know anything about where the earth or humans came from. I really have no idea.

Again, Anne, my beliefs are based on evidence. In the absence of evidence, I do not believe.

I'm sorry you weren't trained in logic and reasoning, but it's never too late to educate yourself.

A tip: If you don't have evidence, it's okay -- and even a very positive thing -- to say you have no idea instead of clinging to primitive, evidence-free explanations. This goes for who put the jigsaw puzzle together or grander questions.

P.S. You still have yet to provide evidence there is a god. Did you forget?

"Perfectly ordered systems that work together - that to me is enough proof that there's a higher power."

----------

Therefore, cannibals serve an important albeit mysterious function on Earth, as do flesh-eating bacteria, lice, and the Cult of C'thulu.
It is, after all, a perfectly ordered system.

Speaking of remedial reading:
From my above post:
And Gog, my "evidence" is the sheer fact that we, the world around us, the universe, everything, exists. Perfectly ordered systems that work together - that to me is enough proof that there's a higher power. Is it a peer reviewed journal? No.

Now, then, you freely admit that you don't know where the earth or humans come from. I will admit the same thing. You, however, say that we must have come from pure chance, as you see no evidence to the contrary (the mere fact that we're here not being evidence for you), whereas I say that the perfection of our world (human mucking about notwithstanding) means that some higher power must have put the pieces together.

Personally, I'm happy to agree to disagree. I don't really care that your beliefs aren't the same as mine, and I don't think you're any less intelligent for your beliefs. Why you can't extend the same courtesy is beyond me.

Instead, even though you admit that you don't know the question that has the answer of 42, you're perfectly comfortable in saying not just that you believe that there is no god (which is fine) but also that I must be a dimwit to believe that there is a god (which is not, IMO, fine).

my "evidence" is the sheer fact that we, the world around us, the universe, everything, exists.

Anne, the fact that the universe seems to exist is neither proof there's a god or a giant can of tuna ruling life.

Anne also says: "You, however, say that we must have come from pure chance, "

I say nothing of the sort. I say I don't know.

The worst thing about having this debate with you is what a waste of time it is because you either are so intellectually limited or so unpracticed in using reason that you cannot even begin to grasp the logical flaws in your thinking.

LOL Anne, you crack me up.
You attribute to me admissions that I did not make.
You claim that I have said things which I have not said.
And finally, you graciously allow me to have an opinion that you have assigned to me which I do not hold on my own.
Still, before you declare victory for yourself and depart the field, could you provide the proof of your original assertion that you have evidence of a higher power?
The fact is, Anne, that the entire world wants this proof, not just me.
Dazzle us!

Debating with y'all is like talking to a brick wall. Because I have no "scientific" proof (and Gog, there is your answer, for the fourth or fifth time, so feel free to choose a different point rather than repeating yourself like a broken record) the two of you are crowing that I must be wrong. However, you refuse to admit, or even consider, that you have no proof, either.

Amy, I could say the same about you and your flaws in logic. In one breath, you say that you don't know, but in the next, you say that there is no god. You are pronouncing your beliefs in fact, when instead, they are no more than your OPINION.

To the both of you, I will say that my beliefs are my opinion, based upon my feelings, with no empirical evidence other than my feelings to say that this is so. That's why I'm not all bent out of shape that you don't share my beliefs. I just find it sad that you can't say the same. Because neither of you has any more proof than I do to support your stance that there is no higher power.

Gog - to imply that 'god' is bloodthirsty implies that you know the mind of god. Do you?

I have a saying I use - I believe in God. I do not believe in religion. Religion is simply the act of claiming to infallibly know the mind of the creator. Since the creator is ipso facto unknowable, there is no possible way to know his thoughts. Therefore, religion does not exist.

As to the existence of God? Very simply - the second law of thermodynamics requires it. That one little piece of physical proof demands that there be some intellect guiding the ever-increasing complexity of organisms presently attributed to evolution.

In other words, there is no incentive, from an energy/entropy standpoint for anything to ever get MORE complex, absent outside intervention.

Anne - you might wanna lose the complex. Whether God exists or not is immaterial to the arguments vis-a-vis Islam. Islam is, by its design, a religion of conquest, and by its own definition a complete system of life - faith, morality, social order, governance.

You may be uncomfortable with the word "evil", so let's go with something your little relativist brain can deal with: incompatible. Islam is, by design and definition, incompatible with western post-enlightenment civilization as we currently experience it. The Islamist movement, which is growing in strength by the minute, has the sole goal of purifying Islam through the spilling of the blood of the Kufr. That would be us.

So, you may not want to call it evil, but it certainly non-negotiable.

Amy - you might want to stop with the whole provability thing too. Because up until about 100 years ago, there was no proof that gravity didn't travel like light. People believed it, absent proof.

To suggest that because the existence of a creator cannot be proven now implies that one must not exist requires you to do something that is acknowledged to be impossible. You cannot prove a negative. And lack of positive proof does not constitute an acceptable substitute.

Therefore, either prove the non-existence of God, or simply admit that your position is no less one of faith. You simply have faith that there is no God.

Sure, I know the mind of the god I invented.
After all, I invented it.
Now that we've all agreed that the law of thermodynamics explains why eating shellfish is proscribed in the Old Testament, we can move on to more important things, like why asking for extraordinary proof of someone else's extraordinary claim immediately proves you to be their enemy.
That's a corker, that one is.

Thank you, Brian, for being a breath of fresh air, and also for very eloquently stating what I've been beating my head against a wall about for the past two hours.

Regarding Islam - is there a web site or a book that you would recommend that's *fairly* non-biased? I say fairly because pretty much everywhere you look people are being pretty dogmatic one way or the other - that either "It's evil!" (and I have no problem with the concept that there's evil in the world) or that no, it's just the radicals that are that way.

Brian, look up falsifiability and non-falsifiability.

Until there's proof god exists, I won't believe in god. Same as for the giant purple hovering vagina. This is reasonable, logical thinking.

People believe there's a god and not a giant hover pussy because they were told there's a god, and nobody in religious garments claimed there was a hover pussy. There's no proof of either.

Gog, you seem to have a huge problem in distinguishing "higher power" from "organized religion". Higher power, ie. god, has nothing to do with eating shellfish, or, in fact any one particular religion. Also, last I checked, I don't think anyone here has said you're an enemy. But nice straw man.

"what I've been beating my head against a wall about for the past two hours."

Amy, you state that you have no evidence for your claim, and then you RE-STATE THE CLAIM as if your non-evidence is actually evidence.

Mind-boggling.

What's mind-boggling is that you don't see that you're doing the same exact thing. Oh, except that I've pretty much said that my beliefs are just that, whereas you're still clinging like a bulldog to the claim that you're RIGHT (with no evidence to back that up).

Oh, and Amy's on your side of the debate team.

Gog, I think you meant "Anne," not Amy.

Anne, you have no evidence for your beliefs, yet you believe.

I say, I see no evidence, therefore I do not believe. If evidence is presented, I will believe. There's a big difference.

P.S. Why don't you worship Zeus or Mohammed? Do you believe in Santa and the tooth fairy as well?

How about I tell you I'm god, and you need to tithe $100 into my paypal? I mean, there's no evidence I'm god, but that doesn't seem to stop you from believing.

I suspect you're desperate to defend your nonthink in lieu of doing the work it takes to become rational.

As Daniel Dennett told me at a dinner a few years back (and I'm quoting from memory, so I may err slightly):

"People don't believe in god so much as they believe in the belief in god."

"whereas you're still clinging like a bulldog to the claim that you're RIGHT (with no evidence to back that up"

Uh, we cling to the facts - that there's no evidence of a god.

I am so sorry you are too dim to understand the difference, but you are a giant sucking waste of time. Debating this with you is akin to arguing with a goat.

Apologies, I did mean to address Anne, not Amy.

Anne, if Amy is on my side of the debate team today, I can't lose and it's an unfair fight.

You have been horribly, horribly wronged.

Anne... if perchance you're the 'Ground truther' who added a para to Amy Alkon's wikipedia page at 10:46 PDT this morning (I'm just having a wild guess since it seems to follow from this thread), it's misplaced. It should NOT be in the External links section. Easily remedied....

Heh heh...thanks, Stu. Pretty hilarious.

Comes off rather wounded duckie, too. And what a surprise that it seems to be the ONLY post "Ground Truther" has ever made! And quelle surprise, anonymously, too!

No, that wouldn't have been me. I have no idea what you're even talking about. My user name on Wiki (and most places on the web) is Arkali. But I'd suggest filing a report with Wiki if it's Wiki graffiti. They're pretty strict about nipping those kinds of shenanigans in the bud.

And Gog, I know - it's a shame, really. You've got a ringer ;-)

Anne, thinking rationally is to be commended not pitied.

Amy, why is it that you feel the need to insult me? Whatever.

For the record, I don't believe in the Christian god, either, as such. I merely use the word "god" as the most convenient term out there - ie. a higher power.

And yes, you do believe. You believe that there is no god - you believe that with no evidence to prove that there is no god. I'll even agree with you that there's no scientific evidence of a god (aside from what Brian said about thermodynamic theory).

The FACT of the matter is that we have both reached different conclusions based on the same evidence, or lack thereof. However, you're saying that no evidence proves that there is no god, and I'm saying that it doesn't. I'm just rather stymied as to why you can't seem to wrap your brain around the fact that you're conclusion is just as much faith as mine is, because, as you've said again and again and again - there is no evidence. Not one way or the other.

Gog -

For the very last time: God != Religion

God - creator of universe
Religion - rule that says you can't eat shellfish.

See the difference?

Amy - It is not a logical fallacy. There was no evidence that anything ever escaped a black hole. Stephen Hawking believed that there must be, absent any evidence. Turns out he was right, and we just hadn't developed the technology to notice it at the time.

Was Hawking irrational to believe in black-hole radiation in the absence of evidence?

Believing in religion (an organized set of rules handed down from God) is irrational, because no mortal can reasonably claim to know God's thoughts. The Bible, Quran, Torah, et. al. were written by men. Therefore religion is NOT A CONSTRUCT OF GOD.

Anne - you might be careful in attempting to think I agree with you. I do not. There is no evidence to suggest that God knows or cares what we do, nor is there any evidence that anyone in history has ever spoken to God. There is only hearsay. Just because you read it in a book don't make it so.

And we neatly come back to the original assertion of this thread. Islam (a construct of men) is inherently evil from a post-enlightenment construct of rationality. From their perspective, we are evil.

Which makes the whole thing elementary, in my mind. I am more valuable to me than anyone else is (conversely, I am more valuable to me than I am to anyone else). If I'm dead, I don't really have much need for anyone else. So, if someone tells me that their goal is to kill me, I say "fuck you, I'm gonna kill you first."

Simple, enlightened self-interest.

Interesting about the goat comment --- some years ago, in a foreign land of big green plants and high humidity, I saw families corral their property with wire fencing of large open squares.

Their goats could turn their heads at an angle, push through an opening, and eat the grass on the other side of the fence.

Once they had taken that position, however, they would not retreat from it.

The children would then spank the goat butts with a stick and chide them for their stubbornness.

What we're missing here, today, is large green plants and high humidity.

I regret - well, not really - to inform you all that among the gross misconceptions out there, at least three have been expressed on this thread. I'll address two directly, and one with a suggestion...

The first gross misconception is that things in the universe are "random", or "pure chance". No, they're not.

There are at least four forces which act on matter and energy all the time: gravity, magnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces. These help produce what we describe as "the laws of physics". We call them "laws" because we observe that they always apply to their related circumstances. Here's the important part: A universe with a law of physics cannot be random. Chances are, you have merely mistaken the extremely large number of combinations and permutations available for "random". Nope. And do you want evidence of cognitive dissonance? Bible fans routinely make the "random" claim while citing the obvious order all around us - as if a physicist can't see that!

The second misconception, a complex one, is expressed in the term, "something from nothing". There are actually two major avenues of error, here. The first is the fallacious "special pleading", which lets a Bible fan claim that "everything didn't come from nothing - God made it" without having to answer the obvious question, "Where did God come from?" This is often dishonestly avoided. The second avenue is a bit more startling: There is no evidence of "creation". Sit back a second and think: what process disobeys the laws of conservation of matter and energy? When you look at a "new" car, do you not recognize that it was built from elements found in the earth? We defined "new", and we are so used to it that we cannot think about it.

I am not here to berate people - merely to arrest sloppy thinking. To remove any negativity from this issue, I suggest a Google search for the term, "fallacy tutorial". If you do not have ego problems, such a tutorial can tell you the difference between "true" and "false" - which do not depend on your opinion or level of understanding. Take a look. It will help you understand law, too, both physical and legal.

Brian, I actually do agree with you. I do not consider myself to be part of any organized religion. I have more paganistic leanings, if anything, but they aren't an organized religion. I follow no dogma, and if you've noticed, I've yet to push any religion on anyone here.

I will comment on this statement of yours:
"...nor is there any evidence that anyone in history has ever spoken to God. There is only hearsay. Just because you read it in a book don't make it so."

I actually would agree with this 100%. AND - this would be an instance where I think it would be logical to ask someone for proof that god spoke to them. If someone were to tell me that god spoke to them, absent of that proof I would not say that they were lying, but I would not necessarily believe their statement, either.

So, I do think we're on the same page. I'm not quite sure if I've said something to make you think that I'm pushing a particular religion, or religion at all. That's not the case.

And I'll concur with your thought that if it's an "us vs. them" case with the Muslims, I'd much prefer that it be us. I'd like to think that we can agree to disagree with them, but if in fact it isn't just the radicals that think all non-believers should be killed, then I'd be on board with saying "Not if we kill you first." I'm just not convinced that it needs to come to that.

However, you're saying that no evidence proves that there is no god, and I'm saying that it doesn't.

Anne, that's not what I'm saying at all.

I'm saying I see no evidence there's a god. Period.

Clearly, you aren't clever enough to comprehend what I'm saying, so please avoid telling me what it is. You get it wrong every time.

Amy, there's not an appreciable difference in the two. It's clear that you'd prefer to insult and belittle me as opposed to actually discussing/debating this, and at this point you're just being obtuse.

Anne - if you are going to engage in debate, it is best not to take anything personally.

Amy - It is you who are too clever by half. You assert that since a thing cannot be proven true, it is ipso facto false.

This is, of course, illogical. Until Fermat's last theorem was proven, it was not false. It was conjecture.

God is conjecture. That it makes you comfortable to believe that there is no God does not make his lack of existence so.

#1 -- "I have no evidence for the reality of A. However, I believe A does exist."

#2 -- "You have no evidence for the reality of A. Until you have evidence, I cannot believe A exists."

#1 --- "Aha! You don't have any evidence that A does not exist, and therefore believe that A does not exist!"

This is Monty Python-level arguing. "I came here for an argument" -- "No you didn't".

Let us not forget who has the burden of proof. (The affiant.)

Let us also not forget that there are subtle but important differences in what the defense is for any assertion. If you state that there is a God, you must produce evidence which is exclusive to and supportive of that statement, and no other assertion relieves you of the burden of doing so. For instance, attacking "evolution" is NOT a defense of "intelligent' or any other kind of "design".

Amy's position is easily defended with a quick look at adherents.com, which shows immediately one quick test for the existence of God which is failed : the existence of two or more religions with "exclusive truth".

There is another distinction which escapes people. Often, "God" is not defended - the Bible is. There is a dizzying number of irrational claims about God which people derive from the Bible. Apparently it makes a lot of people happy to think that giant forces beyond anyone's comprehension are responsible for the pitfalls encountered every day, and that they do not have to look out for themselves every moment. That this last is obviously false does little to put a damper on things.

Brian, I agree that one shouldn't take a debate personally. But that's kind of hard when one's being insulted. The fact that people don't agree with me - that I don't take personally. Being called an idiot, that's another matter.

Okay, Gog, let me break down the logic for you.

Amy says she refuses to believe something without evidence. Amy has said that there is no evidence that there is a god. Amy also says she believes that there is no god.

So for her to believe that there is no god, then she must be equating a lack of evidence with evidence of the negative.

Since she has admitted that there is no scientific evidence (and I'm agreeing with that), one would think that her *logical* conclusion would be that there isn't sufficient data to decide one way or another that there is or is not a god. She wouldn't believe that there is a god, but not neither would she believe that there is not a god - she would be waiting on evidence to prove it one way or another.

Instead, she believes that there is no god. What I'm arguing is that this conclusion is just as much faith-based (ie. founded on a lack of evidence) as my belief that there is a god. That is the only thing I'm arguing. Whether anyone believes or doesn't in god is *not* what I'm trying to accomplish. I'm merely trying to point out that a firm belief that there is no god (ie. Atheism) is just as much faith-based as a belief in the affirmative. Why? Because if you believe something without evidence then you are doing so on faith. And I think we've pretty much all agreed that there is no scientific evidence one way or the other.

Gog - Reading Comprehension. Try it. Where did I say anything that could be twisted into implying that someone believes in something they cannot prove does not exist. And you might want to consider freshening up on your Python too.

Rad - there you go again, this time with an entire website behind you. RELIGION CAN NOT BE USED AS A PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. In order for religion to be of any value, it would have to derive from direct interface with the creator. WHICH HAS NEVER PROVABLY HAPPENED. Furthermore, using religion as a proof or non-proof of God implies that God both cares, and interacts with his creations. There is likewise no evidence to support that assertion.

Therefore falling back on man-created institutions to prove the existence of a creator is illogical.

You want a simple proof of intelligence? Take a pair of microphones, one above and one below the surface of water. Make a controlled sound. Notice that there is an approximately 16 dB difference in signal strength as the sound transitions the air-water boundary.

Now, examine the inner hear of the standard mammal. The three bones that connect the tympanic membrane to the water-filled cochlea form a mechanical amplifier. With a gain of approximately 16 dB.

These things do not happen by accident. I find it unlikely that the mammalian ear could have evolved as it did in the small time humans have been on Earth. Hell, I don't think the short life of the Earth (4.5 billion years is still short in terms of the age of the universe) is sufficient for such a complex mechanism to have managed to assembled itself from a mass of cells by way of successive random point mutations.

Proof of God? Not necessarily. However, I consider it proof that there's something beyond our comprehension that had a hand in designing biological life.

Amy - You have positioned yourself as the rational one here. You then proceed to berate and deride anyone who is unswayed by your "how can you believe in something you cannot prove" arguments as somehow lacking in critical faculties.

You will find that to be a less-than-optimal position. 200 years ago, there was no proof that unseen organisms caused disease. People who believed otherwise were berated, derided, even jailed. They were right.

Just because something is imperceptible does not mean it does not exist. Read up on the Higgs Boson if you want a non-religious appplication of faith. Am I irrational for believing in that?

Gog - going back, I think I need to completely disassemble your last post.

#1 -- "I have no evidence for the reality of A. However, I believe A does exist."

OK. So far, so good. Expression of faith.

#2 -- "You have no evidence for the reality of A. Until you have evidence, I cannot believe A exists."

OK. Still fine. Expression of lack of faith without evidence.

#1 --- "Aha! You don't have any evidence that A does not exist, and therefore believe that A does not exist!"

Insane. You go completely off the rails here.

Especially when you consider that the real conversation that has happened here is this:

#1 -- "I have no evidence for the reality of A. However, I believe A does exist."

#2 -- "You have no evidence for the reality of A. Until you have evidence, I cannot believe A exists. In fact, you are stupid for believing A exists in the absence of evidence."

#1 closes eyes.

#2 -- "Why do you close your eyes?"

#1 -- "So that the room will be empty."

No proof for A leads you to believe in A.
No proof for A leads her to not believe in A.

No proof for A does not mean that anyone has to provide proof for Not A.

And still he misses it.

Hold still while I drive this home.

I do not believe in God BECAUSE there is no proof. I believe IN THE ABSENCE OF PROOF. If God were proven to exist tomorrow, I would not change my position simply because to be contrarian.

Amy does not believe in God because there is no proof. She has repeatedly berated people who do believe as irrational. I have provided several examples for things that were and are believed absent proof.

When Amy gets the opportunity, I'd like her thoughts on the rationality or lack thereof of believing in some other thing that is not God, in the absence of proof.

Nobody has asked Amy to prove the non-existence of God. In fact, you'll find that I've stated a conclusive proof of non-existence is explicitly impossible. Amy has, however, committed the logical fallacy of assuming that a lack of proof of existence constitutes a proof of non-existence.

Brian, please read back; you have mistaken my position.

Adherents.com does not "prove" the presence of a deity. What it does - and this is why I cited it - is prove that the assertions of any religion claiming exclusivity are false in the presence of another.

Thus, it proves the absence of a deity - the particular one described by a religious faith. I apologize for not making that distinction. Such faiths routinely insist that their deity truly has all the properties assigned (even as they routinely botch discussion about what some of those words mean).

Now, you may wish to disassociate yourself from anyone and anything else in the determination of whether a deity of any degree is present; that is what you are doing above, and it is only proper, because each issue stands on its own merit. In that case, I suggest, gently, that you distinguish the "logical" deity from current favorites in some fashion. For instance, "God©" would be the Christian model, restricted to what the Bible says, no more, no less. Your "unlimited" deity, free to act, move back and forth on any timeline, do whatever without regard to whether a human wrote about it, and still remain invisible, but it is not the "Christian" God©.

By the way - the results of scientific investigation agree with you that the development of certain features in living beings is NOT an "accident". As I have already described, above, the Universe is NOT RANDOM. Further, you should know - and would, had you studied this - that "natural selection" is NOT a random process either.

Before you get going about how "miraculous" (translation:"I dunno how that happened") any part of the human body is, you might consider these features: your retinas are "inside-out", having the optic nerve pierce the sensing surface. You have a common tube for breathing and eating. You had gills as a fetus. You have as many nerves in your (prehensile!) toes as in your hands. You have muscles to steer your ears, fluff non-existent fur and extend a vestigial tail. It's right behind you.

We were developed, not "poof!ed".

Rad - doesn't it strike you as a trifle odd that the ability to see in color developed as it did? I mean, at the same time the eye differentiated into the various retina we have for seeing in three colors the brain had to develop the processing centers to actually make sense of the data.

And you expect me to believe that this, the tongue, the nose, and everything else developed in a mere 100 million years?

And the planet - it's been here 4.5 billion years, right? We've been here for a tick of that.

There's no way it happened without outside influence is all I'm saying.

Consider for the barest moment that the same code - DNA - is used to determine the features of living animals. Set aside the idea that 100 million years is "mere" - you do know that's the equivalent of about 5 million generations of most lifeforms, right? So far we can't show humans existed as a species for more than a few hundred thousand years - but there are lots of clues that our ancestors did.

But, finally, consider the current evidence. If you were designed, your inept designer left you with a bunch of useless features, such as I named above; there are actually dozens more things wrong with how you are built. But the process of natural selection does not demand the elimination of vestigial features - it only favors features which produce an enhanced survival rate.

Why do some of you fight Amy when all she is saying is that she sees absolutely no evidence that god exists (or Santa Clause, or the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster). Why do you insist upon trying to make her see something that is not seen, and that none of you are able to prove exists?

Thanks, Norm and Rad.

Norm - very simply - it is not in the interest of decorum for Amy to declare someone who believes something different from her, has no desire to change her mind, and means her no harm to be dangerous, stupid, etc.

In the case of the Islamists, and certain sects of evangelical Christianity, she has a point. But the vast majority could not care less that Amy thinks they are idiots. Their lives would not be complete without their "irrational" belief, and as long as they aren't harming or influencing her, then she doesn't need to slam them.

Rad - I never said the designer was perfect. But if natural selection is supposed to be good for weeding out bad features, can you explain why I have a drippy, runny, sneezy hole upside down over my mouth?

Amy - do you have any commentary to offer on the rationality or lack thereof of believing in Hawking Radiation?

The point that I'm trying to make that so many are trying to miss is this: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Neutrino. That's all I'm sayin'.

"Why do you insist upon trying to make her see something that is not seen, and that none of you are able to prove exists?"

Norm, You've missed the whole argument. That's not what I'm trying to do at all. I don't think that's what Brian is trying to do, either, though I won't speak for him.

My point is that an absolute belief that god (not the Christian god - merely a higher power of some sort) does not exist is just as much a faith-based belief because it is a conclusion reached with no evidence. To call me a non-critical thinker, an idiot, because I believe in god when there is no scientific evidence is pretty much the pot calling the kettle black when that person also has a firm belief that there is no god.

As for me trying to convince Amy that there is a god - I don't care if she believes that or not. Like I said, I'm just trying to point out that Atheism - a complete faith that there is no god - is just as much faith as a belief in god.

Anne, look, I'm sorry you can't read, but what I say is simply this:

I see no proof that god exists, and until I do see proof, I will not believe in god. The same goes for giant hovering vaginas and flying yogurt (to borrow from Sam Harris).

Should I ever feel nostalgic for this little experience for you, I'll argue with an unopened can of tuna.

Three things:
1) You blocked my work email from making comments. Yet you encourage free speech? No worries - I can take a hint. I notice you didn't say anything about that, though, so it would just appear that I had given up. I suppose your next step will be to delete this comment.

2) Back to the insults? You do realize that an inability to debate without resorting to insults shows a weakness in your side of the argument?

3) Lastly, to clarify, since I'm not the only one with reading comprehension issues:
If your point is:
a) I don't believe in god without evidence, but neither do I disbelieve, because, again, there is no evidence.

I have no problem with the above statement.

If, on the other hand, your point is
b) I believe that there is no god.

Well, that's just as illogical in believing in god if you are purely evidence-minded as you claim.

With that, I retire from the field.

"The point that I'm trying to make that so many are trying to miss is this: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

I see this argument attempted on a regular basis. Unfortunately, it often fails, for at least two reasons:

1) It's inadequate to advance your point. When another's argument is incomplete because of this factor, it does not bolster your own. You still have to support your assertion with exclusive, supportive evidence. 2) You must guard such a statement from a powerful block: the presence of another factor which prohibits your statement.

For instance, the "absence of evidence" ploy is tried when the first statements against a "global Flood" are offered, but it is prohibited by the presence of exclusive evidence that other natural processes occupied the same time and space with no disruption whatsoever.

Thus, someone who professes that their God caused something to occur must not only show that the event was not the product of the non-random, but complex, forces of nature, operating without interference... they must show that it was NOT Amy's PHV, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster (yum!) which was the cause. These would prohibit the action of their agent.

.....

I understand Amy's disdain for this line of inquiry intimately. I am surrounded at work by people who insist that broken equipment is "normal", and who are allowed to sit and do nothing about it; they are happy to do so. They have taken a series of statements to heart, found them comfortable and see no reward in anything else. Such people find learning not only uncomfortable, but frightening, especially when it approaches "sacred" mental territory, such as the superstition and lies passed on to them by loved ones. Dispelling this ignorance is a big job at best, because people not only do not want to hear they are wrong, they really don't want to hear Daddy or Grandpa was wrong. Even if you're talking about motor oil!

1) You blocked my work email from making comments.

Anne, I'm not at all surprised you make this assumption.

Also, once again, your ability to reason leaves much to be desired.

Why would I block one e-mail and allow you to comment from another?

I don't block people, not even annoyingly blockheaded people like you. Chances are, you did something that activated my spam software -- or that of another site running Akismet. Feel free to go to Akismet.com and tell them your e-mail address or IP address has been eroneously blocked.

And work on unblocking whatever is getting in the way of rationality for you.

And thanks Rad, for doing the work on that one...it's just a life-sucking waste of time to try to hammer logic into this woman's thick head.

And again, you should be less troubled by the fact that I said that than the fact that you are 1. Lacking in rationality, 2. Either incapable of seeing or admitting it.

Actually, you may be both incapable of seeing and admitting it.

a) I don't believe in god without evidence, but neither do I disbelieve, because, again, there is no evidence.

There is likewise no evidence that there is no giant hovering vagina, or Great Pumpkin, or tooth fairy, or park bench that has power over all of us.

Madame, you're a moron.

I missed this, but I'll address it because I should be out mowing the lawn.

"But if natural selection is supposed to be good for weeding out bad features, can you explain why I have a drippy, runny, sneezy hole upside down over my mouth?"

Natural selection does not eliminate features which do not inhibit survival. You're actually implying your designer did this wrong?

Your nose is right where you need it, so that your olfactory organs can quickly identify edible foods. It has to have a way to repel and clear itself of debris, so it leaks. This is no risk to the mouth, since said debris were already in the body and the mouth has ways to clear itself, too.

Neither structure is optimal, though. This serves to illustrate the need to know a lot about how the world really works before commenting on any of it being "evidence" for one thing or another. I have a heckuva time bringing people up to speed on the basic concepts of probability, physics, astronomy, geology and the state of the investigative arts, and all of them are necessary for a worthwhile discussion - "decorum" or no.

This is from awhile back, but Brian, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics doesn't prove that there is a creator. It applies only to closed systems, the Earth is an open system.

Thank you Rad and Ad.

Easy one first. Adam - the Universe is a closed system. Hell, for the purposes of argument, the Sun-Earth-Moon system can be assumed to be closed, as the effects from the remaining bodies of the solar system contribute a statistically insignificant effect. I've had people use this simplistic line to get away from thermodynamics. You cannot. The simple fact of adding undirected energy to a system is not sufficient to do work, which is what is necessary to overcome entropy.

Rad - Again, you have conflated God with Religion. The so-called "great flood" is again, a creation of religion. Anything anyone says about any creator that uses a book as "proof" is simply arguing from fantasy. As I said, to do so would require one to know the thoughts of the creator, which is not likely to be possible. Is it the use of the word God that trips you up so?

And I'm not merely implying that the creator did things wrong, I'm outright saying that the creator fucked up.

Finally, Amy - There is no evidence that anything ever leaves a black hole. Will you berate me for believing, in the absence of evidence, that Hawking's postulation that this is not the case?

This whole argument comes down to one thing - you have consistently insisted that anyone who believes in a being that gives no evidence of its existence is intellectually deficient and mentally questionable. I have simply sought to disabuse you of this notion.

Brian - you are disabusing someone of a different notion entirely than the one you are professing, and you are losing track of my position with every new breath. Please read back.

The notion, "anyone who believes in a being that gives no evidence of its existence is intellectually deficient and mentally questionable" is testable. But you have been arguing a different thing from the start. You have also begged the question, claiming that The Creator erred, because you have not shown that such a thing exists.

I challenge you to produce an - one - example of "creation". What you can observe today is conversion, a totally different process.

I have no trouble distinguishing between the ideas of religion and "a deity"; perhaps you should, again, look above for the term, "God©". You should also study heat transfer a bit more, because the 2nd Law doesn't say what you think it does, and your claim of "Sun-Earth-Moon" being "closed" is absurdly wrong. Your citation of the 2nd Law would imply that a baby is not possible. Oops. They're all over the place.

Anne linked me to this whole debate in a post on a forum I run, and I'm just getting that out of the way at the start, so I don't appear disingenuous.

I'm not sure exactly what commentary Anne expected from those she shared this site with, but my own thoughts would be:

1. Calling someone a moron because they disagree with you is, in my opinion, de facto proof that your argument cannot stand on its merits; if your position was so sound, so irrefutable that anyone disagreeing with it should feel like an idiot for doing so, you wouldn't have to point it out.

2. I believe the notion of God as described by any and every organized religion is beyond the realm of stupidity, and, if anything, the result of a cultural need to believe in something.

3. I DO believe that it is POSSIBLE that something/someone/whatever is behind the beginning of the universe, and that as yet we have not the slightest idea what, how or why. I see nothing that proves or disproves that notion, and personally reserve judgment until such time that we have more information. I'm not so arrogant as to presume to have such answers either way, and I believe that people who are, be they religious or athiest, are the truly dangerous people.

4. I think Anne misinterpreted Amy's postion, partly because Amy spent a little too much time spouting insults and giving herself high fives, and partly because we (as in the members of my forum, including Anne) have had this very same argument about nine thousand times before, and Amy's position is somehwat similar, but fundamentally different than, some truly obnoxious idiots there.

5. My first experience with this site will be my last, since I really can't stand people who make personal attacks under the guise of intellectual criticism. I'm all for attacking the logic behind someone's argument, but people who personally attack other individuals simply for disagreeing can shampoo my crotch, to paraphrase Melvin Udall, since people here like to quote others so much.

Peace
Bio

The problem is that Anne is apparently incapable of the most rudimentary reasoning skills. Perhaps, in between crotch delousings, you can edumicate her. We've found it a hopeless endeavor.