(Gosh, it's like everything's a circle, the same issues keep coming up over and over. Do we need new topics on this blog?)-Crid

Speaking of which. Said it before, & I'll say it again. Yep. What, exactly, it is I believe in is unclear. But something else? Oh yeah. Maybe it's just because I was raised to, or vanity, or fear, or maybe it's because I have a very busy imagination. And if there isn't anything, I won't know or care.

Which is why I would never kill, or die, for my convictions. I'm too aware I could be wrong.

In an era in which there are so many worrisome trends, Mr. Thornhill's findings are a welcome sign of a turn away from dogmatism and faith, and towards an inclination towards skepticism and inquiry.

Did he present stats regarding the number of people who identify as religious? I wonder whether those have gone up or down.

The older I get, the less I believe in any supernatural spirit. I pretty much regard mankind as a virus, an unfortunate colllective being multiplying out of control. If there ever was a god, or some such higher being, he put us on this little ball out in the middle of nowhere as a means of quarantine.

The book, SEX AND CULTURE, 1934, Unwin, available free online, described the inevitable change in religious beliefs in societies based strictly on the degree of sexual freedom of women, which is essentially the same as the degree of sexual freedom of the society. 'Atheism' is well within the predicted range of a society such as we have where the women have nearly unlimited sexual freedom.

Our society if following right along the path he describes.

In my life I have found very little connection between lack of religion and rational thought. All people have their blind spots and prejudices and have areas in their lives where they accept things or believe thing that simply are not true or have no objective evidence for their existence.I also know a number of religious people with impeccable logic and rational facilities who are quite good at compartmentalizing their faith and not letting it get in the way of their understanding of science and facts about the natural world. While I agree that a lot of the fundamentalist Christians are basically nuts and you will thus find them arguing about evolution and other proven science, Catholics tend as a group to be quite a bit more sane than some atheists that I know, one of whom actually spent money on a pet psychologist in order to communicate with her dog. I really admire people who use their religion and faith not as a club against people who do not share their beliefs but as a system of moral guidance to analyze their life and become an strong ethical person who does the right thing by other people. Isabel

Did he present stats regarding the number of people who identify as religious? I wonder whether those have gone up or down.

That is a good question. I remember hearing fairly recently (within the last year) that people (not sure if it was the state, region, US? - I don't remember) were identifying themselves less with organized religions, but more people where saying they were spiritual or something like that.

Isabel, I have two questions for you:

1. How about

people who use their atheism not as a club against religious people who do not share their rationality but as a system of moral guidance to analyze their life and become strong ethical persons who do the right thing?

Are they included in your admiration, too?

2. I think you are right to regard hiring a "pet psychologist" as a stupid move as long as there is no evidence that "pet psychology" actually works. But how is that related to the smart move to not believe in the existence of a god without evidence? Isn't it possible that stupid and smart beliefs can share space in the same head?

Isabel, I have two questions for you:

1. How about

"people who use their atheism not as a club against religious people who do not share their rationality but as a system of moral guidance to analyze their life and become strong ethical persons who do the right thing?"

Are they included in your admiration, too?

2. I think you are right to regard hiring a "pet psychologist" as a stupid move as long as there is no evidence that "pet psychology" actually works. But how is that related to the smart move to not believe in the existence of a god without evidence? Isn't it possible that stupid and smart beliefs can share space in the same head?

Isabel; What? Fundamentalist Christians, nuts? How about Catholics ,with the catchisms, giant hats , and wafers? Us Jews have some funny accoutrements too. I know some fundamentalist Christians too and my prob w them is they just think everybody's going to hell in their handbasket. Yeah, the pet thing, that's just substituting one religion for another. Some people are devout environmentalists (I'm pro-envirnment, trust me). Eric, that was a very dim view of humanity but funny as sh-t I must say. Very clever .

Charles, I don't equate the two. Yes, Catholics have catechisms, hats and wafers. These are symbols of tradition and ritual. In traditional religions such as orthodox Judaism and Catholicism catechism/communion/ study of the Torah function almost as a meditation upon your place in the world as well as training the mind. It unites you through mental exercise with the history and traditions of your faith. Fundamentalist Christians deriving from the Anabaptist traditions are usually a different sort. These people in general are a xenophobic lot who will deny reality (and science) if it comes into conflict with their beliefs. In my opinion, they have the same mind set of the radical Islamists and would be jailing adulterers and burning people at the stake if they could get away with it. When fanaticism about anything comes up against reality, magical thinking usually prevails. I myself was raised an Episcopalian but my father was a dedicated atheist who emerged from three brutal years in the South Pacific without acquiring religion but never hostile to it. My father in law is a different sort. He is an actively hostile atheist who pretty much sees all religions and religious people as equally deluded and dangerous. I don't share his view, I see some religious beliefs are extremely helpful to many individuals. It allow many to build a highly effective ethical matrix and to function happily and productively in the world. For others who are inclined to fanaticism and irrationality religion becomes a danger to anyone who does not share their pathology. I have no belief in the divine but sometimes I wish I had some faith in something, it would make some decisions in my life so much easier. Isabel

>>you will thus find them arguing about evolution and other proven science,

Generally, Isabel, I thought your posting was a good one, no, a great one, except for this.

I was a really good student back in high school in the Fities, and I knew all about evolution. I could tell you all the 'proofs' of it. Things such as Archeropterix. which was presented as a link between species.

Coelacanth was another link, which had been present on the planet and then became extinct. It was not at all extinct and still is not extinct.

I believed it all as many of you believe it all.

Then, as time passed, turns out their evidence was no good. Did they say, "Oops! Sorry. We'd better take another look at evolution and start from scratch, all our proof was wrong."

No, they didn't.

What they said, "All educated people know evolution is proven science. Wait while we find some better proof of it. We are college professors and we know everything."

I investigated and found out it had been this way since Darwin, who knew nothing much of genetics, and confused a loss of genetic material with an increase in genetic material.

These evolutionists generate millions of words, showing us how the species change into one another, and yet it is only conjecture, not proven science, like global warming and like the ozone holes from R-12.

I don't mind if gullible people who do not believe in God want to believe in evolution. Who cares? When they try to force their unproven beliefs on everyone else, that I do mind.

I am not saying evolution is untrue. I AM saying it is not proven science. Those who believe in evolution do pretty much the same and for the same reasons others believe in God. I hate liars, and they are lying when they say they have proof. We can disagree, but tell the truth.

And, I do mind when doctors practice medicine based on bad science. The reason you are told to take antibiotics, which can harm weak and fragile people, for ten days is because they believe bacteria evolve in the presence of antibiotics, so you must keep the pressure on to keep the resistant evolved bacteria from taking over.

IF THE BACTERIA ARE RESISTANT YOU CAN'T KILL THEM WITH MORE ANTIBIOTICS, NOW, CAN YOU?

A study a couple years ago, involving a 30 day dosage of antibiotics for veterans with prostate infections showed as soon as the antibiotics were started, the vets had resistant bacteria in their stools.

At the end of thirty days, when they stopped the antibiotics, the resistant bacteria went away, and the susceptible bacteria came back.

REVERSE EVOLUTION???? Ha ha hee hee.

The problem is, while those men were producing resistant bacteria, the resistant bacteria were contaminating the environment, which is why people normally only get MRSA in hospitals.

(Note my doctor friend says he has never even heard of MRSA in Mexican hospitals. And, they do know what it is. They just don't have it, and I'd sure like to know why not. My theory is labor is cheaper, and they spend a lot more time sterilizing the environment, but that is totally a wild guess. During the flu scare, they sterilized, I think with bleach, not sure, all "touch" surfaces over and over all day.)

Non-combative, but proud Atheist here.

Like lemmings.

"Which is why I would never kill, or die, for my convictions. I'm too aware I could be wrong."

You can call that what you like. But I call that cowardice.

"...a welcome sign of a turn away from dogmatism and faith, and towards an inclination towards skepticism and inquiry."

One word: Marxism.

"I pretty much regard mankind as a virus"

If you really believed that, you'd kill yourself to minimize the damage you do. Pathetic self flagellation absent any useful conviction.

--------------------------------------

To the first I say, sure anyone can be wrong, but when one way of life, one belief, or more than one as it may be, is a threat to your own, or to your life, if you are not willing to risk your life in its defense and in the defense of the group to which you belong, then you ARE a coward. Your entire existance, the choices you have and the way you live, or even that you live, is forever subject to the whims of others to allow you to continue to do so. If our founding fathers had believed as you do, we would not have democracy, we would have no liberty, we would have no vote, we would be censored at every turn, for that matter, I very much doubt there would ever have been any inventions worth mentioning in history, since the "I might be wrong" statement is a good excuse to avoid any risk at all.

To the second I add that secularism is not only entirely capable of shortages of inquiry, but not less, or arguably more, prone to dogmatism and "faith" than anything of western religion. Western religion might threaten someone with a hypothetical hell, but the dogmatic Stalinist or Maoist was quick to murder doubters and to demand obedience to a specific word for word set of beliefs against any evidence of the system's effectiveness. We see a similar behavior, if not of the murderous sort, in feminism, global warming advocates, and other supposedly rationalist and reason based movements or organizations, demanding adherence or attacking beyond all reason anyone who opposes it.

And to the third I say, if you are a virus, then end yourself and spare us your self hatred so that the rest of us can do productive things. Human life is unique in its ability to reason, its ability to raise itself up and carry on a continuing legacy, we create, we discover, we build and rebuild to an extent never achieved before in the natural world, and our potential to build ever greater monuments to human achievement continues to grow every day, and unlike all the rest of nature's admittedly remarkable wonders, we can appreciate and look in awe at everything from the deep chasms of the earth to distant stars and worlds, which no other creature or species on earth can even begin to comprehend. If you think so little of yourself that you equate your entire species to that of a virus, a thing that is not even technically classified as "living" since it cannot reproduce on its own, then if you made an end of yourself, wouldn't you be doing a favor to the world? Since you are unwilling to actually ACT on your stated belief, I can only ask this at the end:
Are you a hypocrite, stating one thing and doing another, a liar, stating something you do not actually believe, or a coward, to afraid of death to actually do what your beliefs suggest should be done with yourself?

-------------------

And people say "I" am nuts?

Irlandes, you should have been keeping up on your science education since the 50's Evolution has been proven. the evidence for it is everywhere especially in the genetic code. A couple of red herrings where scientist made mistakes or committed outright fraud do no disprove evolution, they merely point out that science is fallible (that is how you differentiate it from religion which claims infallibility among other things.) Now the mechanisms by which evolution occur, and the actual beginnings of life are earth are separate questions and separate theories which have not been proven and therefore are still theory. Many fundamentalists still deny that the earth is more than about 6000 years old because some 18th century minister calculated back all the generations listed in the bible and decided that was the approximate time for all those people to have procreated since Adam and Eve. If you deny that the earth is a couple of billion years old because it contradicts that shoddy piece of logic and literature than yes, you are a fanatic, and your reasoning abilities are suspect. Isabel

Well, Robert, as to second and third, I reckon they can respond for themselves. As to first, I don't really give a tin shit what you think.

"Evolution has been proven."

Evolution cannot BE proven since it cannot BE tested.

Read the scientific method, and tell me when it has been tested.
--------------------------------------

And Pricklypear:

"As to first, I don't really give a tin shit what you think."

Of course you don't. You'll think whatever a person willing to do violence, tells you to think. After all, you won't fight to defend any beliefs of your own, and you, presumably, wish to continue living.

You are nothing more than prey, devoid of conviction or of the courage it requires.

I'm reminded of a story:

One day a group of wolves attacked a field of sheep, and engaged a pack of dogs in battle, and, driven away from the herd by the ferocity of the guarding dogs, decided on a different tact. They sent a message to the sheep saying, "We wish no harm on you, we came because of the violence of your dogs, which you have seen first hand, if you get rid of them, we shall have peace."

The sheep of course, being desirious of peace, said to their dogs, "You are to violent, and you brought the wolves down on us, go away so that we will have peace." And away the dogs went, in accordance with the wishes of the sheep.

The wolves then came again to the field, and with no dogs defending them, there was a quick slaughter and a meal made of the sheep, and they were given the peace of the grave.

You pricklypear, have the morality of those very sheep. You fear being wrong so much that you are not willing to defend anything. You are the perfect subject to a tyrant in any age ancient or modern. Stand in a battle line and shoot at oncoming redcoats? Hell no, how do I know my cause is more just than theirs?

Step onto the beach at Normandy? What makes my beliefs right and theirs wrong?

Fight from ship to ship at Tripoli? Hell no. Surely those pirates have reasons they consider to be good, what makes me right?

Speak in a town square and demand that all people be accorded equal rights under the law? Hell no, what makes the people in power more wrong than the people without it?

You may not give "a tin shit" what I think.

But there is a difference more. "I" THINK things. "I" believe things. "I" have, do, and will, FIGHT for things, and yes, there are things I will KILL for as quickly as I would DIE for.

You have nothing but what others will let you have. War will always spare your life, because you will be amongst the first to raise a white flag, and fix your chains as tightly to yourself as those over you command. It baffles me most of all, that you almost sound...proud of that.

I close with a long favored quotation:

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranqility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."~Samual Adams

I can't remember who said it, I believe its a fairly old quote now, but it goes:

"What I hate most about the modern age is that a man can live his whole life and never know if he's a coward or not."

I'd put it differently.

What frustrates ME most about the modern age, is that some people live their whole lives being PROUD of their cowardice and their utter lack of any convictions.

Evolution, change over time is a fact. How this happens biologically has been hotly debated. How is it that the evolutionists and the creationist are going to meet by going in the opposite directions. The DNA shows how common all known life to other life. At the same time how different. Just think, in less than the next hundred years, if not sooner we may see designer animals. Animals which had no evolution except humans built them, based on the existing rules of DNA coding which is shared by all animal life.

The day that our Sun became a visible star, it would have taken about 8 minutes for that light to light up a primordial earth. And given the mean velocity of the solar wind, a little longer than 3 days about 4 for the Sun, Moon and stars to be visible from earth.

(Genesis 1:2, 3, 16.)

Of course, if Sun and Moon and stars were already visible as such. Or the Sun had lit up gradually. And there was no debris between the Sun, earth and rest of space. Or the solar wind was significantly faster or slower with the birth of our Sun. Then the 4 days would not be the case.

But then none of us were there to know.

The age of the earth is based on the dating of a meteor, since no earth rocks can be dated to the 4.5 billion years. The escape of radon gas from the rocks under earth's gravity and atmospheric conditions may account for this. And the vacuum of space for the age of the Moon and other space rocks (4.5 billion.) Where the Sun and other heaver elements found in our earth must have a much older origin. (Genesis 1:1.)

The age of the known universe is now thought to be between 13-12 billion years. (And has been said to be between 20-15 billion.)

I've always thought that an atheist IS a believer. He believes there is no god, despite no evidence that there is not. His unbelief is an article of faith.

There are two types of athiests Doug, the kind belive that there is no god, and the kind that as a result of seeing no evidence proving the existance of a god live their lives as if there is no god.

A small but signifagant difference.

Many people like to(in my opininon intentonally) confuse the second type of athiests with agnostics.

While I can not say with certainty "there is no god" I can say there is absolutly no evidence that any deity worshiped by man, now or in the past exists.

Dont belive me? Every religion created by man falls apart the moment you start asking questions.

And if an all powerful all knowing being was incapable of anticipating those questions they couldnt be all powerful of all knowing.

Every religion carrys within it religious dogma or sacred texts which invalidate their very reason for their existance

It be nice if they did, you have any idea how long it lake to dust over 1000 books?

> I've always thought that an atheist
> IS a believer. He believes there
> is no god, despite no evidence
> that there is not.

Too clever. I believe there's no reason to think there's a god. Anything else? Be in touch!

"You pricklypear, have the morality of those very sheep. You fear being wrong so much that you are not willing to defend anything. You are the perfect subject to a tyrant in any age ancient or modern. Stand in a battle line and shoot at oncoming redcoats? Hell no, how do I know my cause is more just than theirs?"

Are you talking to sheep, dogs or wolves? You automatically assumed that your audience is the sheep. The reality is that your audience could be dogs, wolves or even cockroaches. We all have our own agendas.

I want to remind you that the people who "stand in a battle line and shoot at oncoming redcoats" were Nazi German soldiers. And the Allies cooperated with the "redcoats" to ensure the "redcoats" survival. So, who are you? Dog, Sheep or wolves?

What I cannot tolerate is people like you, who are absolutely convinced that you are right, so I had to be wrong. Therefore, you "will KILL for as quickly as I would DIE for."

It is good to have your own conviction but that does not guarantee you or your family's survival. And Hitler found that out in hard way.

The modern day Japan and Germany were built by the people, who will NOT "KILL for as quickly as I would DIE for." And I think Steve Jobs would share the same ideas.

Re: "To the second I add that secularism is not only entirely capable of shortages of inquiry, but not less, or arguably more, prone to dogmatism and "faith" than anything of western religion. Western religion might threaten someone with a hypothetical hell, but the dogmatic Stalinist or Maoist was quick to murder doubters and to demand obedience to a specific word for word set of beliefs against any evidence of the system's effectiveness. We see a similar behavior, if not of the murderous sort, in feminism, global warming advocates, and other supposedly rationalist and reason based movements or organizations, demanding adherence or attacking beyond all reason anyone who opposes it."

I'll start believing in a God (I'm an agnostic) when I find clear evidence in favor of a God. (I have no animus against religious people so long as they don't forcibly try to impose their beliefs.) And I'll stop believing the hypothesis that human caused increases in greenhouse gases in earth's atmosphere are causing global warming when convincing evidence to the contrary has been presented. It hasn't happened so far.

Perhaps this Shakespeare line is relevant: "The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool."

Hi, Robert! Had to go do my grocery shopping. Did you miss me?

I thought about you the whole time I was gone. Rarely have I read a post from somebody who knows me so well, so soon.

Part of me wants to explain to you exactly how I feel, but another part says why? You already know!

Gasp! Are you...God? I think I love you. Come, teach me more of your infinite wisdom.

"I see no evidence flying purple dinosaurs exist..."

Flying red-white-and-black dinosaurs DID exist:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8498142.stm

As for purple ones, I'm agnostic. Feather pigments come in all colors, so there could be one out there somewhere, waiting to be dug up. The whole science of paleontology was started by people looking for evidence that mythical creatures like dragons & gargoyles really existed. As long as someone's belief in God doesn't get in the way of their fossil hunting, it doesn't bother me.

I believe that flying purple dinosaurs could exist. I can't say They Do Exist. But I don't rule something out just b/c we haven't seen it. Yet.

The universe is infinite, and with that comes infinite possibility! I think it's so exciting to think about that - ANYTHING could exist, anything could be true. The important thing, I think, is that we don't use non-evidenced ideas (god, aliens) and create an entire set of rules and regulations and philosophies behind it through which we try to control other people.

I think intelligent life most likely exist - it seems statistically probable. But I am not going to worship the moon and tell everyone else that if they don't give sacrifice to the Big Eyed Ones I will cut off their clitoris or behead them or something incredibly ridiculous.

Irlandes expresses skepticism about evolution based on his schoolboy lessons a half a century ago. We know that there are poor teachers and poor textbooks and yet it's evolution that is in doubt. Robert states that evolution cannot be tested in the lab, although there is an entire field of experimental evolution. (As an astrophysicist I will also note that science can certainly be done in absence of a controlled laboratory experiment.) Paul indicates that we are unable to know if the birth of the Earth occurred in conformity with Genesis because we weren't there, as though the product of decades of work on star formation and planet formation in young stellar objects has no application to our own solar system.

Look, I don't expect everyone to be up on current science but our educational system does an amazingly poor job at teaching analytical reasoning skills, probability and statistical analysis, and understanding of the scientific method, and it's a damn shame.

Just a small point:

"Evolution cannot BE proven since it cannot BE tested."

Outside of pure mathematics, no scientific theory can be definitively proven. All that science does is to say "Here is our current theory that seems to explain what we see. To test our theory, we have used it to make the following predictions." If the predictions turn out to be correct, over and over again, then the theory is probably pretty good.

Evolution can - and has been - tested. Adaptations can be created over the course of generations. As a really simplistic example, just look at some of the ridiculous dog breeds that have been created. That's not to say that the theory is complete and final. For example, current research is demonstrating that environmental effects affect genetics (example: if you are malnourished as a child, your *grandchildren* will have health problems). This will undoubtedly lead to revisions in evolutionary theory.

For a counter-example, look at global warming. From 1990 to 2000, climatologists made numerous predictions: warmer winters, more hurricanes, an ice-free arctic, etc. None of these predictions were correct, and that is how scientific theories are disproven.

Scientific evidence of evolution.

The peppered moth in England used to be light in colour, this colouring allowed them to blend into the light colouring of tree bark. During the industrial revolution in England the moths began to die off because they could no longer blend into the tree bark to hide from their predators. The bark of the trees had become dark with pollution. The moth evolved from light to dark colouring thus they were able to blend into the now dark bark of trees.

"The peppered moth in England used to be light in colour, this colouring allowed them to blend into the light colouring of tree bark. During the industrial revolution in England the moths began to die off because they could no longer blend into the tree bark to hide from their predators. The bark of the trees had become dark with pollution. The moth evolved from light to dark colouring thus they were able to blend into the now dark bark of trees."

Almost correct but not quite. The moths came in a variety of shades from dark to light but the light colored moths were in the overwhelming majority because the light colored trees gave them protective camouflage. When the trees and pretty much everything else became darker due to the burning of coal, the light colored moths lost their protective camouflage advantage and did not survive to reproduce. Their darker colored brethren were the ones who now had the advantage and became the dominant color. They did not change their color by "evolving" as there were always the genetic code for many different shades. Natural selection, now insured that the darker colored moths were the ones who survived to procreate.

More scientific evidence for evolution:

Sickle-cell anemia is more likely to occur in tropical regions where malaria is common.

What's most despicable about the people who say it hasn't been proven is that if they ever get into a bad situation and have to go to the hospital, they're going to BET THEIR LIVES that evolution is a certainty; they'll bet that their doctors studied evolution and its consequences with tremendous refinement for many, many years... And if it doesn't work out, they'll sue... Because the forces they claim not to believe in didn't work.

All the health and safety and comfort and longevity they enjoy today, with lifespans often twice those of their great-great-grandfathers, is the product of the science that's taken Darwin's insights to heart.

This isn't some intellectual novelty on their part... This is COWARDICE, and they ought to be ashamed. I'm plenty ashamed for them.

>>All the health and safety and comfort and longevity they enjoy today, with lifespans often twice those of their great-great-grandfathers, is the product of the science that's taken Darwin's insights to heart.

Just beautifully done, Crid.

And a lovely quick link, taking us straight from one of Darwin's insightful predictions to the proof that duly arrived, once scientific technique caught up (Miller is terrific...)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk

Well, when people knock down their own roadblocks that way, I'm always suspicious. (Lord know his opposition does that all the time.) It's the kind of a rhetorical trick that public speakers enjoy; if this happens then you SHOULD have that, without any real explanation as to why. The genome is one freaky-shit piece of complicated code. It makes Microsoft Vista look sane in comparison... Not that this would detract or convince the God-botherers he seeks to challenge.

I wish I could cite the source... It might be in my notes on the disk somewhere. But someone (Gould?) once said the genetic difference between you and a chimpanzee is only twenty times the difference between you and Darwin (or any other human being).

> Non-combative, but proud Atheist here.

I've decided to pick a team. Maybe it's a matter of temperament... I've always enjoyed the spaces between people, and not just the closeness of them.

But I'm proud enough of my cosmology that I'll never allow anyone to speak badly of it because their own beliefs (Christianity, etc.) happen to be more popular. That's "pride", m'kay? Believe what you want... But if you get snooty, I'm going to hurt your feelings in return, right there in the moment, and to Hell with whatever mood of brotherhood our gathering was intended to foster.

Tread carefully, believers... The jig is up.

"More scientific evidence for evolution:

Sickle-cell anemia is more likely to occur in tropical regions where malaria is common."

For those who don't understand the connection, the sickle shape of the cells make them less vulnerable to malaria which is passed from person to person by mosquito bites. Another interesting thing about the sickle cell mutation is that it seems to have arisen independently in two different malaria prone climates. Southeast Asia and Africa. If I remember my reading correctly, the sickle cell trait will kill you pretty quickly if you have a double copy of it as your blood will not carry the oxygen it needs. A single copy of the gene will allow you to live long enough to reproduce and insure the survival of your offspring so for environment where malaria can live, it is a positive trait.

My favorite Darwin prediction:

http://audubonmagazine.org/webexclusives/starShow-webexclusives.html

Well, duh.

If you're going to talk about evolution, you probably ought to look at this site.

It'll take you awhile.

And you could look up "the Lenski affair".

"Are you talking to sheep, dogs or wolves? You automatically assumed that your audience is the sheep. "

I thought it was pretty clear I was speaking to pricklypear. Whom I referred to as a sheep...not really sure how else I could have phrased it.

"I want to remind you that the people who "stand in a battle line and shoot at oncoming redcoats" were Nazi German soldiers."
I'm pretty sure you didn't mean that the way it came out, but don't worry, if I take your meaning correctly, what you're saying is that evil has convictions too.

And that we cooperated with an evil regime (Stalin).

Well duh, and double duh. Nobody is the villain in their own story. Nazi German soldiers had their own reasons for fighting, which I'm sure they believed to be good, as did Bolsheviks. The ability to justify evil as good is one of the few unlimited resources of humanity. As far as our cooperation with the Soviets at the time, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, at least until one or the other is dead. Don't mistake an alliance of convenience for common affection. And moral superiority does not win wars.

I freely acknowledge that. What you fail to realize my good Mr. Chang, is that such men are ONLY ONLY ONLY defeated by men with the opposite convictions, who put their only life in a bullet's path to stop other men of conviction.

You ask who I am, so I will tell you. I am the dog. I have no regrets about pulling the trigger, because I've seen up close and personal, the faces of people who depend upon my willingness to do exactly that.

------------------------
"What I cannot tolerate is people like you, who are absolutely convinced that you are right, so I had to be wrong."

There are some arguments in this world in which neither side could rightfully be called "good" or "bad", where one side is no more right than the other, but neither of those facts precluded conflict to find a resolution. The Americans and the British both had legitimate complaints about the other prior to the Revolutionary war. Legitimate complaints are not resolved simply by virtue of their being legitimate.

But before I go on a tangent, let me address your statement about what you cannot tolerate. While I do freely admit that there are occasions where neither side is implicitly right or wrong, that is also NOT always the case. Sometimes there is little grey between the black and white. On this occasion, I'm not sure what your argument actually IS...so I don't know that you are wrong.

You SEEM to suggest that because convictions can be wrong, one should have no convictions. IF that is your assertion, then yes, I call you wrong, unabashadly, plainly, and simply.

And my reasoning is simple. Evil men with convictions can ONLY be stopped by GOOD men with convictions. Not by anyone else, not by anything else. Sometimes this will mean Gandhi or Parks or M.L.K.'s civil disobedience, marches and petitions, going against a bad system and appealing to basically good people to change and be better, do better. Sometimes this means putting flesh on the line, throwing lead and taking lead in return. In both cases, people who believed nothing, were worth nothing in effecting change.

As to your point regarding Germany & Japan, I remind you that both Europe & Japan have the protection of the U.S. military, and have had that since WWII ended and the cold war began. And Europe is slowly turning into Eurabia because those countries are increasingly unwilling to take stands against Islam in defense of their culture or their liberties. People without convictions either live under the protection of those with them, or lose to those who have them. Conviction by itself does not provide victory, but its lack makes defeat a certainty.

----------------------

"Rarely have I read a post from somebody who knows me so well, so soon."

Heh, the irony in that statement is that until reading another of your posts in a different blog item on this site, I thought you were a guy. No offense, just an irony I thought might give you a laugh, certainly gave me a chuckle.

Fact is I wouldn't know you from Eve, but what I do know is that your belief regarding convictions is the sort guaranteed to lose. Since you consider no belief worth killing or dying over, you are forever at the mercy of, or living under the protection of, people willing to do either one. If you can explain a means whereby this is not so, I'm all ears.