Poll finds 90% of Americans Believe in God

The president's approval ratings remain at just 33 percent

Shows that 77% of the respondents are able to see clearly on some issues.

Shows that American math classes are still failing.

;)

I've thought some about it. It is a valid concern. But what are your thoughts?

I wouldn't be opposed to a meritocratic weighting system.

I've thought some about it. It is a valid concern. But what are your thoughts?

Some sort of examination, to be sure. Every time I think about me having the power to elect my leader I get very afraid at what kind of maniac would give me such responsibility. But of course I need a voice to not be oppressed. It's a very complex issue, and I am not going to pretend that I am in any way qualified to whip up a super government. But then again, I live in a democracy, so I do get to enjoy the privilege.

Will somebody intelligent please help.

I feel the same as you, Ansab.

On the one hand, you have the issue of fairness. Not everyone sufficiently qualified to make informed decisions about government leadership and policy would always be capable of passing some type of test or meeting some criteria. It's the same reason we don't have literacy tests anymore, they are unfair to those who can't read but who may still be capable of making an informed decision.

On the other hand, people are easily manipulated, misled and convinced of things for which there is no evidence (case in point). Thus, a completely open system allows these irrational people to make a possibly negative impact in elections.

It seems to me that the solution would be to somehow eliminate irrational, illogical thought. Unfortunately, however, I don't think there is an ethical way of doing that.

It seems to me that the solution would be to somehow eliminate irrational, illogical thought. Unfortunately, however, I don't think there is an ethical way of doing that.

This reminds me of Crime and Punishment. If there was a truly noble end, would the means be justified? If somebody is superior in intellect is it their duty to be a superman and transgress laws for the betterment of mankind?

Should we grab our axe and pull a Raskolnikov? Will the world be better of without that pawnbroker we call Democracy?

Will the world be better of without that pawnbroker we call Democracy?

I don't think so. I just think it won't be fair until irrational, illogical thought is the exception not the norm.

Again, a simple weighting system could eliminate the vote of the irrational. So, in the instance of global warming - all of the scientific evidence and the economic arguments should be taken into account. So, planetary destruction is bad - significantly worse than a short economic recession. So, use a formula and determine that it only takes a 32% vote to pass legislation to cull global warming. Then, give citizens that are educated and informed additional votes [preferably in a direct democracy, but it would also improve the current system].

In doing so, anti-intellectualism will fail.

I think the strength of democracy lies not so much in the technical aspect, the participation in the electoral process, but in the culture of public debate and parliamentarism as such - as well as the division of powers and checks and balances to dictatorial power. Someone defined democracy as a system where it is possible to get rid of a dictator without a violent revolution.

Parliamentarism, of course, requires a general standard of education and a press that does not serve as a mouth piece for the authorities.

At this point, I'm more interested in listening than in speaking to this matter. But it is not only an important topic, but a highly important topic.

I think the prophecies predict a modified form of democracy. People need a say in their governance, but the question is how, and to what extent?

For example, to what extent is democracy served by a two-party system where the differences expose a polarity in the population rather than a consensus of the people?

When an election shows a presidency candidate preference roughly divided 50-50 between democratic and republican, would a DUAL PRESIDENCY be in order?

And what about these 5-4 splits in Supreme Court decisions? Does this mean an issue is five-ninths constitutional and four-ninths unconstitutional? According to historical tradition, citizenship was an honor and privilege that was not afforded to all. Citizens had the right to be heard by Caesar. Even the U.S. Supreme Court does not recognize this as a citizen right.

The people deserve better, either a clear consensus or dual representation.

When an election shows a presidency candidate preference roughly divided 50-50 between democratic and republican, would a DUAL PRESIDENCY be in order?

No, because there are few true democrats or republicans. In this modern day and age, it is not difficult to set up a system of direct democracy. That is what needs to be done.

As an agnostic, I'm certainly not in a position to say whether everyone else is wrong, and being in a position to seek knowledge rather than inherit faith, agnostics do not retain a superior perspective to look down at others from.

If I'm correct about where your name comes from, then the creator of that character worked for years fustrated at the general ignorance of science displayed by journalists.

frustrated*, the above is to Captain Carrot

It's a good thing Newsvine has the intellectually superior 10% on hand to tell everyone else how wrong and stupid they are.

Always glad to help.

If Jesus comes back to Earth, I'll kowtow to the superiority of your literary idol.

But, if Elvis comes back to Earth, I'll kowtow to the superiority of Men in Black with the same fervor.

It isn't a matter of fear. It's a matter of whether we'd be better off is such blatant ignorance were not disseminated from parents to children, generation after generation. The answer is a resounding, yes.

To a certain extent I have to agree with Darell. Let's not get too worked up. What the result of the survey reveals is pretty much like insurance. Since you cannot be sure there is no God with a more or less simplistic system of retribution and reward in the afterlife, it is safer to say you believe. There are no atheists in the trenches, they say, and religious tendencies clearly increase in times of war - so in a sense the Islamic extremists are evangelizing USA.

It is also useful to remember that there is a significant amount of peer pressure in a culture. Whatever you tout as a current trend gains followers, so placing too much emphasis on statistics like these actually serves the fundamentalist cause.

Finally, there is such a thing as fear of nihilism, which basically works the same way as horror vacui. You got to have some standard, people think, and without God everything might just turn into anarchy and everybody having their own opinion about everything.

If you ask in India, how many people believe in millions of gods, you would get about the same result. People are religious, because it serves a purpose - and just to be on the safe side.

Since you cannot be sure there is no God with a more or less simplistic system of retribution and reward in the afterlife, it is safer to say you believe.

Guess what. I just read in an old book I found in my house that there are crazed black unicorns with silver horns and teeth of a lion that will continually eat at the flesh of all of those who don't blow the one who is to come. Clearly, you should get to my place and on your knees because it's safer to believe. This is the most idiotic argument there is because the question of god wouldn't even come up in a rational world.

I agree that Dawkins' is an extreme voice.

But, I don't agree with Claus' rendition of Pascal's Wager, which reduces religion to a binary choice between belief and non-belief. What if you pray to or follow the teachings of the wrong deity? You just might be s--- out of luck when the real deity/deities exact their judgment. Judging from the preponderance of disparate religions in the world, what are the chances that you'll happen upon "the right one," if it exists? Essentially zero.

Since every religion bases itself on social constructs and biological imperatives for behavior, it'd be more logical not to believe in the embellishments, and stick with the biological imperatives that inspire most religious ethical codes.

It is not a question of agreeing or disagreeing. I am making and observation, not stating my opinion. Readers should try to discern between the two.

Jack has, of course, a point, but I think most people don't ever get to the point where they contemplate that. I don't even think he explains it in a very lucid manner. Like I said, in India they are Hindus. In the West we stick with "God" for whatever that means. If people really understood the nature of the god they worship, I think they would be inclined to agree with Dawkins.

No, they do believe - and that's what's so troubling about this.

We did back in Creation times.

We just evolved to do without that extra one.

What spiritual nature of man? In the modern world, that "spiritual nature" is simply the ignorance of the past making up for what they did not know.

Oh Pharaoh - in those few words you would condemn us all to a world without hope.

It was Buddha that really started it all - his teachings spread across many barbaric nations, and gave hope, where before there was none. Hope that there was more to life than the daily struggle for survival - hope that, as spiritual beings, it was possible to climb out of the mire that was the unfairness and solidity of the physical universe.

Without that hope, man would not have risen to many challanges that came his way, for without hope there is only gloom, and live for today. It is those that believe that man came from mud that pursue a path of permissiveness and are all too willing to ignore mans true potential.

Of course man has a spiritual nature, but I hope you do not have to wait until the body dies before you also find this out....

That's almost the same argument as saying that if I am atheist, then I must be immoral. I do NOT believe in God and I personally think that religion is the fundamental basis for a great deal of the world's problems today.

But that doesn't mean I don't have HOPE.

I have a successful IT career, am happily married and have and two young boys. I do the things I do and learn what I can so I can teach my boys what I have learned (like real-time evolution!) and I do it because I want to improve humanity and make the world a better place for my kids and their kids to live when I am dead and gone.

So my hope is for the continued betterment of mankind through thought, study, science, innovation and using the most amazing thing (thus far) in the world: the human brain. Let's not sell humanity short.

I have hope for humanity and my hope does not originate from any form of organized or unorganized religion.

I didn't realize hope only comes through god. What about the hope for a better future?

I'm not justifying religion here, merely saying that with religion comes moral codes because people are trying to be better - without that push, morals slip, and an anything goes attitude comes in, as evidenced by labours Britain.

In some Islamic countries they're very religious. So religious they'll blow themselves up. In America, religion is use as an excuse for hatred and discrimination. It's used as an excuse for anti-intellectualism. It does more harm than good.

...and millions all over the world follow quiet satisfied lives following religious tenants

If we measured everything by the extremists then this would clearly be a terrible world.......... and there is just as much hate and destruction in non-believers, perhaps more...

Religion has its problems, and many reasons for people not to follow it - see my comments above - but overall, the concept of religion has had more beneficial effects on this culture and others, than anything that ever came out of atheism

Spaman, with respect, I disagree.

OK, in a materialistic world with Science doing a head in the sand act on anything it cannot explain,

I'm not aware of any phenomenon that scientists are taking an ostrich approach to ... perhaps you could enlighten us. It's true that there are currently many things which science cannot yet explain, I doubt very seriously that scientists will simply ignore these things though.

... merely saying that with religion comes moral codes because people are trying to be better - without that push, morals slip, and an anything goes attitude comes in, as evidenced by labours Britain.

This is fallacious. It is a slippery slope fallacy. An immoral society/population are not necessarily the result of a world with out religion. That might be the result, but I doubt it would have anything to do with religion being gone. I'm not sure what you're referring to with the reference to "labours Britian (sic)," but it sounds like you're trying to extrapolate your opinion of the morality (or lack there of) of those in the Labour party in Britain to all of humanity. You'll need to do more than that to convince me. What evidence do you have? What is your interpretation of morality? How does a lack of religion/faith/whatever lead to immorality?

I don't know how a lack of religion/faith/superstition could lead to immorality, but I do know how those things can and have lead to immoral behavior. They have lead to the following things, but certainly more: xenophobia, homophobia, sexism, racism, murder, genocide, sacrifice (of both animals and people), war, child abuse, social inequality (of all kinds: racial, caste, gender, age etc.), suppression of free speech ... the list goes on. Keep in mind that these are not the evils of one religion, but all.

... but then there are the ceremonies that celebrate events that were impossible to explain with science, mainly because science is not up to the job currently.

Or perhaps, we could go with the most simple, logical answer: that they didn't occur. Are you familiar with Occam's Razor? It basically says that all things being equal, the simplest explanation tends to be correct. Which is more likely: that X religion's miracle occurred in contradiction to mountains of scientific evidence which suggests it can't occur ... or that the miracle didn't occur and is simply a story made up to explain events the observers could not understand or to reinforce other religious stories?

... and there is just as much hate and destruction in non-believers, perhaps more...

Again, where is your evidence? If this is just your opinion, you should say so. If it's your opinion you need no evidence, but you've made a statement that encompasses all non-believers and portrays them in a less than desirable light. You could at least provide an argument as to why this is so.

... but overall, the concept of religion has had more beneficial effects on this culture and others, than anything that ever came out of atheism

It's true that lots of good things have come out of religion and religious people, but who's to say that atheists haven't and won't do a proportional amount of good works? Religious followers and believers far outnumber atheists and agnostics so of course it will appear as if believers do more. We should look at it like this: what percentage of believers do good things (like say give to charity) vs. what percentage of atheists do good things. I don't know what those numbers are, but I suspect they are at least not too disparate.

Excellently and thoughtfully stated, Jay. I do want to take issue with one thing you say however.

I don't know how a lack of religion/faith/superstition could lead to immorality, but I do know how those things can and have lead to immoral behavior. They have lead to the following things, but certainly more: xenophobia, homophobia, sexism, racism, murder, genocide, sacrifice (of both animals and people), war, child abuse, social inequality (of all kinds: racial, caste, gender, age etc.), suppression of free speech ... the list goes on. Keep in mind that these are not the evils of one religion, but all.

I'm not convinced that you can attribute all these things to all religions. I'm not sure this is what you mean to say. Perhaps you should clarify: do you mean to say that these things have been caused by religious belief in general, at one time or another? That seems more reasonable to me. I think that was the point you were trying to make.

Also, a thought occurs. It seems as though morality, as defined religiously, is often fundamentally incompatible with atheistic morality on certain points. The most obvious example is lack of faith, of course, but other things (homosexuality comes to mind) are immoral by the standards of a religiously-founded moral code. In that sense, perhaps homophobia is not immoral in principle, according to that standard.

I'm not saying, of course, that this is correct. Who's to say which moral code is right? Personally, I find homophobia abhorrent, but the same is clearly not true for everyone. This speaks to the fundamental difficulty of arriving at an acceptable moral code to be applied to a civilization, or a world, at large; further, it speaks to the difficulty of even communicating constructively about such issues. Not that we shouldn't make the attempt in spite of this...

Perhaps you should clarify: do you mean to say that these things have been caused by religious belief in general, at one time or another?

That's exactly what I meant to suggest. I only meant to suggest that religion can cause them, not that it always does. I was also proposing that atheism/agnosticism does not cause these things. Surely, there are some atheists/agnostics who practice some of those behaviors, but they would not be caused by their lack of belief. Thanks for pointing that out, I should have made that point clearer.

As for the issue of how to define morality, I think a concept of fairness is the best universal concept we can go by. The whole notion of "your right to punch me in the face stops at my nose," I think is a great ethical system to live by. Everyone should have the right to do whatever they want as long as that right does not interfere with someone else's right to do whatever they want. In this sense, people can live dignified lives as defined by themselves (as opposed to dignified defined by some religious/government/cultural doctrine). Furthermore, this concept does not need any supernatural/superstitious/ancient text backing

I'm actually working on an article that touches on this issue. Not sure when it'll be done, what with March Madness and all, but I'll keep you posted.

I was going to address each of your points as I had done before, but I'm growing tired of this. Your last comment is rather disjointed and you present no real argument for me to address. I assure you, I mean no disrespect by this, but you are either too close minded to consider my arguments or you considered them and chose to ignore them.

I will, however, say one thing and I'd like you to really think about it.

Which religion/belief system is correct? Why? How do you know?

One thing most scientists can agree on is that there is equal evidence for the existence of any or all gods: zero. That doesn't mean that there is no god(s), but what it does mean is that they are all equally probable, and not just the ones we've imagined already but any god(s) you can imagine have just as much probability to exist as any believed to exist now.

Since many of the gods of the religions of Earth claim to exist exclusively, some of the religions must be wrong. In other words, if all of the world's religions allowed for the existence of other gods, then they could all potentially be true. But since some religions hold that their's is the only god, someone has to be wrong. So, who is wrong and who is right?

If I were an alien visiting the planet and knew nothing of Earth's many religions, how would you convince me your's (or anyone's for that matter) is correct? Since there is no evidence for the existence of our gods, how would you convince me? After you gave your speech, I would, being an alien visitor and all, likely speak with other people on the planet, some of whom would believe differently than you. How could I choose between your two arguments, since neither of you have evidence? What makes either of you more likely to be true?

Furthermore, how do you know your beliefs are correct?

For my perspective, I don't need the confidence that might come with a repeatable scientific experiment, to say who or what I am, when I already know.

You say you already know, but how? There is no evidence for anything supernatural. I don't want to offend you by saying what you believe when I'm not entirely certain, but it seems clear that you at least believe in some type of higher power. How do you know there is a higher power? How can anyone?

Indeed how can we know anything about the universe? Well, thanks to Quantum Mechanics, it turns out that we can't really "know" reality. To make things worse, our brains are very limiting: what you perceive as reality is actually your mind's interpretation of the senses. Your brain ignores and changes information collected by your senses which contradict your schema, your view of the world. What I'm getting at is, how can we trust our perception of the world since our brain changes it to fit what we already believe?

Well, we can't. And that's why the best thing we have to explain the universe is science, backed up by evidence. Science isn't perfect and it's not a savior for humanity and it can't explain everything ... but it's the best we've got.

Oh please, I've resisted getting into this, but please stop the passive-aggressive condescension with your "oh, I know these things to be so totally true and feel-good spiritual, it's just that science is closed-minded and so totally blind."

I thought religion and spirituality generally taught some semblance of humility. Maybe you missed that lesson in your realization of your higher spiritual truths.

Interesting turn of expression... nothing left to dissect, so invalidate the writer... fair enough

....but from responses I would say you don't consider anything unless its been written up in a scientific magazine - at least that's the mentality that comes across.

There is far more to this world than can be described in a science journal.

nothing left to dissect, so invalidate the writer... fair enough

Others have attempted to rationally discuss things with you on a level playing field for a while, to no avail. Thus, I'm not wasting my energy redissecting every point you make. I see no point in repeatedly sifting the same clump of mud, hoping that a gem might appear in the 146th sifting.

There is far more to this world than can be described in a science journal.

Sure, there's local politics, the entertainment industry, antitrust law, etc. :-p

There're also personal senses of meaning that many try to extend beyond themselves, sometimes into grand judgments of others. Sound familiar?

I consider many things outside of scientific journals. However, if you want to be all high and mighty about how science is simply ignoring magical truths of spiritual existence, you'd have to do better than circular logic and "I'm just truthier, neener."

I'm with you Jack, this is getting rather old. I'll just end on this:

For my perspective, I don't need the confidence that might come with a repeatable scientific experiment, to say who or what I am, when I already know.

I think that pretty much sums up our differences. Apparently, no evidence is required for your beliefs. You may view this as some great transcendental truth about the world, I do not. Since both your beliefs (whatever they may be) and the beliefs of say, Scientologists or the ancient Greeks rely on the same principle for their existence; you'll forgive me if I consider you all on equal footing.

Can't imagine why anybody would be putting forward stuff like this just because I'm not interested in playing their game:

Others have attempted to rationally discuss things with you on a level playing field for a while, to no avail. Thus, I'm not wasting my energy redissecting every point you make. I see no point

...and that's not how it came across.

Why do you have to treat this like a scientific dialogue and dissect it all ....for deeper meaning ?

This thread started off slamming people for believing in God - I offered a different perspective, but the only responses I got back were on the lines of "if it ain't endorsed by the scientific community then it ain't worth even considering" ....I have no intention of validating, or not, scientific responses to religion - there are plenty in this community who can join in with that...

I can only conclude that atheists rely too much on scientific data for their justifications of their denial of self, so please do not tell me atheists are open minded and want open discussion - perhaps, but only within their boundaries.

Maybe I'm linking atheists too much with science, perhaps it all comes down to feelings and experiences instead... but everyone that knows science should also know that there are no absolutes in anything, whether that is belief in God or science.

When atheists are lying awake, on cold dark nights, are their thoughts comforted by the notion that science can explain everything for them, or do they wonder whether there are some cracks, some areas of life that will never fall to scrutiny...and what if... JUST - What if...?

Why do you have to treat this like a scientific dialogue and dissect it all ....for deeper meaning ?

An ardent purveyor of spirituality as undeniable truth is criticizing me for looking "for deeper meaning"? You slay me.

This thread started off slamming people for believing in God - I offered a different perspective

This thread actually started off with incredulity at the prevalence of young-Earth creationism in America. That's very different from simply belief in God and whatever the heck your version of undeniable spirituality is, at the moment. Oh, and you're presenting a different perspective? The "Science doing a head in the sand act on anything it cannot explain" perspective? (Comment #12) Well, that is different, albeit entirely ignorant of history. Pardon me if we don't kowtow to your supreme knowledge of the essence of humanity. Pardon me for wanting, oh I don't know, any evidence whatsoever for grand claims about the nature of man.

Maybe I'm linking atheists too much with science, perhaps it all comes down to feelings and experiences instead... but everyone that knows science should also know that there are no absolutes in anything, whether that is belief in God or science.

Really? No absolutes in belief in God? Go talk to a young-Earth creationist or Seventh-Day Adventist and ask them how absolute God is. Heck, just look at your comment above (#18) about the undeniable spiritual nature of man, then come back and tell me there are no absolutes.

Please. Don't try to play me for a fool. It makes me think that your mind operates at that level, and we wouldn't want that, now would we?

When atheists are lying awake, on cold dark nights, are their thoughts comforted by the notion that science can explain everything for them, or do they wonder whether there are some cracks, some areas of life that will never fall to scrutiny...and what if... JUST - What if...?

Personally, I don't feel a need to mentally cuddle with God, if that's what you mean. I personally find it pitiful that someone can't deal with not knowing (or pretending to know) everything. Very few atheists and no scientists purport to know everything. Our reaction isn't fear (which is apparently your reaction), but curiosity.

By the way, everything can fall to scrutiny. To think that you know the bounds of human knowledge is, at best, arrogant.

Actually, I accept that science is still looking for answers - it is often those that interpret the answers who have closed minds.

Why? Because they want natural, physical explanations for things as opposed to simply "feelings"?

How can you claim curiosity, when you attempt to slay anything that you can't feel or touch.

Ummm, I didn't say "the soul can't possibly exist." I said "there's no evidence for the soul yet," so positively saying that it totally exists is little more than wishful thinking.

Somethings come from within, and eventually science may be able to measure these... but you may have to wait a while before you are able to recognize them for what they are - its called awareness of self.

I hate to break it to you, but self-awareness isn't just this abstract spiritual concept of "soul." It's also a scientific concept found in anthropology, evolutionary biology, and psychology. I don't need to say "there's totally a soul" to understand self-awareness.

Of course I do not know the bounds of human knowledge - but then neither does science. If you imagine that in less than 2000 years science can know everything there is to know, then it must be a very tiny universe.

Ummm... when did I ever say that science will ever know everything? Please, by all means, point it out if you can.

The only thing that invalidates this progress are constraints on or inhibitions on proceeding in certain directions - in other words; prejudices. Left to itself, science will eventually discover the human soul - will you be ready for it..?

Ah, such as not thinking that there's so totally a magical soul in each of us, like for realz? Well okay, then, believing absolutely in the existence of something without evidence is totally notanything like prejudice.

What is unnatural about feelings

Nothing -- they help us stay alive. However, saying things like "There are cats on Alpha Centauri because I feel them" is patently ridiculous (I hope), whereas "everyone undeniably has a magical soul because I feel it" seems perfectly rational to you.

The implication was most strongly there... I'm sure as heck not going to wait for science to tell me something is OK or there before knowing it for myself - how can you live like that ?

You "know" (for yourself) that everyone has a magical soul thingy? Well, okay. That's your prerogative. The main disagreement I have with you is your claim that science is closed-minded simply because it doesn't assume that souls exist. Would you be a closed-minded person if you didn't assume that cats (star cats) lived on Alpha Centauri?

As for waiting for science to tell me something before trying it myself, I handle liquid nitrogen on a regular basis. I'll let science tell me that drinking it is bad for me. I'm not going to go "knowing it for myself," and I'm very happy living (and staying alive) like that.

Well, that's some common ground at last... but not entirely - how do you know you are aware of self if some scientist has not fully defined it for you.. what does that mean to you ?

You want me to define my sense of self? My definition of self comes from my life experiences, my family, my friends, my opinions, my pet peeves, etc. I don't see these things as being encapsulated in this supernatural bag you call a soul.
(Oh, and I can recognize myself in the mirror. That's a big cognitive step in self-awareness, evolutionarily)

the implication has always been that science knows it all already

Haha, really? Where's that implication? If science already knew it all, you'd think people would wonder why there were any research scientists left in the world. Personally, I don't wonder about that, but apparently you've met hordes of people scratching their heads at the existence of continuing scientific research.

You're thinking up quite a storm of "implication[s]."

without a truly open mind, research will be constrained

Can a mind be open without totally believing in souls? If something's entirely undetectable in any objective manner, it is the mark of an open mind to say "Ah, this undetectable thing absolutely exists, and anyone who disagrees is closed-minded"? I think not.

I know I said I wasn't going to comment anymore, but Jack, you've been hitting the nail on the head every time. Bravo.

Well Jack - I could say your responses are warped, to say the least and certainly immature - but I won't - but you do have an art in coming at things off tangent...

I'm not convinced that your interpretation of what I have been saying is the intended one... You appear to be out to disagree with anything said.... so no common ground, you just want to grind my words in the dust...?

Perhaps we should restate our original case and pick it up from there.....

Initially I think it's an encouraging thing for people to conceive that there is a supreme being, because the spiritual nature of man has been forgotten and pushed into the background by man is mud theories and such like.

The question really, is all about whether these same people can see the difference between on one hand of belonging to a movement that recognizes that man is of the spirit against the anti-christs who tell us we are nothing but chemicals and self delusion - I Know Where I Stand on that !

Recognizing that there is more to life than we know, or can see/touch currently, is important otherwise we proceed along a narrow dark tunnel, missing out on what might be..

I don't see how we've actually deviated, though by claiming this, you conveniently dodge every single point of mine (due to sloth or protracted mental capacity, I can't decide which). If this is to be a trend, where you simply don't address "inconvenient" points, then I'm wasting brainpower. If you're not simply dodging because you're unable to rebut, feel free to address any points at any time.

I'll give you the benefit of doubt, and say that the original point has always been at the center of my comments. You claim that what you parallel science with: "man is mud theories" (um, care to elaborate), "the anti-christs... chemicals and self-delusion" is apparently counter-productive and unhealthy.

I'm curious as to wherever in heck you pull this demonization from. Oh dear, we're not supremely super-special with souls and whatnot? What exactly is wrong with that? You really need to fabricate this dichotomy between humanity and everything else?

I can gaze in wonder at the amazing complexity and beauty of scenery, stars, people, animals, and everything in between without believing in some supreme being or this special soul thingy. You can't? That's rather sad.

Recognizing that there is more to life than we know, or can see/touch currently

Pardon my French, but no s---, Sherlock. This isn't some spiritual existential relevation of the universe. Like I said, science is constantly advancing and progressing. We're not the ones who write down a cute story and proclaim it the Absolute, Immutable Truth of All Existence, nor are we the ones who say "if you don't absolutely believe in this soul thing that has zero objective supporting evidence, then you're closed-minded and somehow anti-christ (??)."

P.S. - The passive-aggressive shtick is annoying. If you want to insult me, don't try to use second-grade "I'm not technically saying so-and-so, but I could say so-and-so" tactics. I feel like I'm talking to a pouty 8-year-old, and I don't like being lowered to that level of discourse, though you opening the ad hominem can of worms allows me a bit of fun wiggle room.

As an atheist, you must be very well aware of the scientific theory that man arose from mud

Haha, while it's refreshing that you respect atheists so much that being atheist necessarily means that a person is well-versed in scientific advancements, such an equivocation is, how shall I put it lightly, wrong.

By "man from mud", you mean that there is absolutely no evidence for the supernatural creation of homo sapiens, and that science is progressively finding ever-more evidence for evolutionary theory as well as the undirected formation of primeval life.

This is the opposite to religious belief, and all I'm saying is that there is too much emphasis on an unprovable theory

And too little emphasis on really old fairy tales or these spiritual vibes that you get? I'm sorry that people don't simply take your word on the inalienable spirituality of man. We really must work on our faith in your vibes.

... and what is wrong with cute stories, especially when they bring some lightness to a dark landscape..

Hansel & Gretel is also a cute story, and it teaches a moral tale of not eating the houses of strangers. Should it be part of the Absolute, Immutable Truth of All Existence?

There's nothing wrong with cute stories as long as they stay cute stories, and don't warp into undeniable facets of reality.

My point is, that dismissing any possibility of mans spiritual nature is not conducive to the reality of life - You don't get sensible spiritual believers denying that science exists - the two things are undeniable and do live side by side.

DId I ever deny the possibility of this spiritual nature? Here you go with your implications again. I simply said that there's no evidence for such, and to absolutely assume that this totally unevidenced thing must exist is far more naive than simply saying "so-and-so is possible."

Dismissing any possibility of man's lack of spiritual nature (i,e, saying that it's undeniable), esp. when there's no evidence that it exists, is far less conducive to this "reality of life" you speak of.

What I get from your commentary (and I correct me if I'm wrong) is a general sense that you fervently wish to feel more than normal, more than "just" natural -- that humanity must be special in some way, which is why you desperately try to distance yourself from and demonize "man from mud" theories, because such things make us frighteningly ordinary. Ordinary, on the cosmic scale, is apparently something you find highly uncomfortable.

I have a few questions for you: Do animals have spiritual natures? Do bacteria? Is humanity exclusive in its spirituality? If you answer "yes" to the last question, why?

the evidence is that you are fully aware of one of the main planks on which you base your lack of belief

Hmmm, not believing in a novel that tells a story about a guy turning water to wine, something which has never been observed in any rigorous manner means that I know all? Mmmm, no. You still want to think that I absolutely deny the possibility of God and Jesus and all that juicy stuff, but I don't. It's simply improbable to the extreme, and it's much too easy to see why people would fabricate such "embellishments."

No...and again you extrapolate from a known point but at a very odd angle to end up in the clouds...

Would you be so kind as to correct my cloud-targeting "very odd angle" and explain what you mean by "man from mud" theories? I don't think you're so naive as to assume that I believe in Greco-Roman mythology (the part about Prometheus, 4/5 of the way down), nor do I believe in Mesopotamian, African, or Native American creation stories. (I did a Google search on "man from mud theory")

but you can only admit that 'man from mud' is still only an unproven theory......... while at least the miracles of old were actually observed by real people.

Prove that the miracles of old were observed by real people. After all, you say "unproven" as if the miracles are proven. And please, don't use the dog-tired attempt at "oh, but the Bible is the infallible truth." The Bible is simply just another book with some sort of possible historical grounding, just like the Iliad. (and I don't think you really believe that Achilles' body was borne away by a Greek goddess)

Your "fairy tale" response is too disjointed. Did it have a point, or was it some sort of attempt at condescension and insult?

That really depends on your viewpoint, and what you want to believe... the question should be rather, do spiritual beings inhabit animal bodies, and if so, why

"What you want to believe" applies much more to your assertion about undeniable spiritual souls, especially since there's no evidence supporting your steadfast belief.

Also, if that's the question we should ask, then why not ask the same for one species of animal: humans. You seem to conveniently skip asking that question and automatically assume that souls exist.

Um, you still haven't explained what this "man from mud" theory is. Since you're the one referring to it, I'm assuming that you know something about what it is, as opposed to simply pulling single-syllable words from a hat.

If you're simply going to play stonewalling semantic games about vague philosophical platitudes, then I've wasted my time, and apparently my hope that you were at least a semi-rational human being wanting actual discussion was ill-conceived.

Of course, I do hope that you have an idea of what that "man from mud" theory is, and are willing to share it here. it seems to be the last straw marginally capable of supporting your weight.

You're the one playing games on this - you linked to a description on this in your response, why would you want educating further - I suspect you just want me to waste my time so you can pull any explanation to pieces.... I don't believe you really want to discuss this