@shockadelic "Jimmy Jones “Of course, I COULD get into a lengthy discussion with you about the poor old saint if you really wanted...” No, you couldn't, unless you already had knowledge of Christianity. The only reason you could discuss Joan of Arc is because you *do have that knowledge."

One more time for the dummies, ok? ...

1. Your premise was that without SRI in primary schools, western civilization would be "utterly indecipherable".

2. I did not receive religious instruction of any kind in my childhood, yet I find myself able to understand history just fine, INCLUDING St Joan.

3. Therefore, your premise is demonstrably WRONG.

I don't think I can pit it any simpler than that. Perhaps if you'd spent less time being subjected to fairy stories as truth when you were at school, you'd be able to grasp the irrefutable logic above.

Amnesia'd Ammonite, my original posting said "May...." Do I have to go back and retrieve it to satisfy you?

How do you know why or how each individual atheist or agnostic has chosen their particular viewpoint? Is it not possible that some have chosen their viewpoint to be free of, or not bound by, adherence to a set of values that most of us would consider inviolable? Are psychopaths more likely in the main to be agnostic or atheist, or bound by adherence to a religious doctrine (other than "do it first" and "let the Devil take the hindmost")?

Anyhow, have you had a look at BPT's article "On Spiritual Atheism", just posted today? You may find it interesting.

On OLO, I look only out of interest, and to consider viewpoints which may vary from, or contest, my own. I post my considered opinions, in the interest of delving the possibilities, and I do not go purposely looking for an argument, as I've noticed some others appear to do.

You appear to make a differentiation between your referring to one of my comments as "insulting", and my response that you have been insulting by misrepresenting what I had posted. So I used a direct remark, whereas you put yours in an oblique manner - so, what's the real difference? Sorry if your sensitivities have been offended, but you should only expect to get as good as you give.

Anyhow, I think you miss the point that A's and A's tend to maintain a religiosity in their fevered maintenance of their viewpoint, in spite of fundamentally adhering to a spirituality in their belief of non-belief. In the end result, they appear little different to those who maintain an unsupported "faith" in any other viewpoint.

"You [both you and Dug] say, “Look at the evidence.” I do, but from a different angle to you. This includes all the evidence of plate tectonics, geological strata, fossil record, etc. etc. I would suggest that you are conditioned to looking at the evidence only one way."

By evidence I did actually mean published and reputable science based data collected under repeatable controlled conditions and able to be verified by independent scientists and researchers.

Show me any published scientific evidence that has been throughly tested and independently verified that shows a flood layer on every land mass on earth that is of exactly the same date and depth in the geological strata.

Show us the evidence show us the research show us some proof and we will look at it. Tell us fables from long ago with no supporting evidence and you will have to pardon our skepticism.

(other than "do it first" and "let the Devil take the hindmost")

Now cultural heritage by definitional's is part of what most reject. Notice the word findings in...."cultural" is the word CULT:)

LEA

Salpetre

I will put this as clearly and concisely as I can.

You made a generalisation that atheists choose not to believe in god in order to "not be bound to do the right thing".

I am an atheist, therefore you are claiming I take this position in order to behave badly?

This is insulting to myself and other atheists. I don't believe in god because there is no evidence for his/hers/its existence and the very premise of a supreme watchful deity is the imaginings one would expect of less informed, educated peoples - like those of the bronze age.

If the only restraint on you behaving badly is a belief in god - I can only feel sorry for you.

Dug,
Keep your skepticism. A healthy skepticism is good.
 
Evidence itself is not a mystery. We all see the data. Yet evidence doesn't speak for itself. The key is in the interpretation; seeing the same evidence from a different viewpoint.

For example, a uniformitarian geologist might view rock layers as representing time epochs, while a catastrophist geologist would view the same rocks as representing something different. A creationist is not expecting to find a flood layer at particular dapth signifying a date.