Poirot, we'll have to agree to disagree about AJP, I think. As I said, I watched a friend spend hours every day doing just as AJP does, with the same reason for starting (disaffection with a church upbringing). I've heard all of the arguments, made quite a few of them myself and in my view it's a wrong-headed approach.

I don't feel strongly enough to take action against Constance or Singer and as a fellow poster I don't think it's even my role, to be honest. It's GY's site and if he's happy to allow that sort of thing it's up to him. If I were him I'd likely try to reduce the noise a bit though. I'm sure it drives some away.

I'm not a "believer", by the way. I've said so on many occasions. My interest is in trying to understand the things that make us all tick, which includes for many of us, religion or spirituality. I've certainly had experiences I can't satisfactorily explain, which is one reason I'm perhaps more willing than you to explore the ways that others who may have had similar experiences explain them. I see no virtue in the kind of "muscular atheism" that some here seem to want to promote.

Craig Minns,

"I don't feel strongly enough to take action against Constance or Singer and as a fellow poster I don't think it's even my role, to be honest. It's GY's site and if he's happy to allow that sort of thing it's up to him. If I were him I'd likely try to reduce the noise a bit though. I'm sure it drives some away."

In the case of posters (not article authors - unless they breach when replying to comments)...yes, it's Graham's site, but if you "don't feel strongly enough" to report then (as I've already pointed out) how do you expect Graham to know?

He's the sole moderator - and presumably "has a life". Believe it or not, I'm thinking he tends to rely on us to moderate ourselves to great extent - coz we're supposedly grown-ups...and that seems to be something that's occurred to some extent latterly on this thread.

I like your term ""muscular atheism" ...that would be a slightly watered-down version of "militant atheism", a term batted around by "muscular theists"?

Thanks a lot for the words of support, Poirot. Whether or not that’s what they were meant for.

Craig Minns,

This would depend on what it is that you’re trying to achieve…

<<I've heard all of the arguments, made quite a few of them myself and in my view it's a wrong-headed approach.>>

Is it to raise consciousnesses among fence-sitters? Is it to mobilise fence-sitters? Is it to help nudge those who are starting to doubt the beliefs they had shoved down their throats as kids? Is it to de-convert believers in general? Or is it just because you might value having bad ideas countered whenever possible?

For me it’s mostly the last one. My main goal is to correct problems that I see in the arguments of others so as to not leave them there unaddressed and uncorrected. My urge to do this is more akin to seeing a pimple that needs to be popped than it is to an evangelist’s need to convert and save souls (I'd know, I've been on both sides). I guess the main difference is that I hope to prevent others picking up bad ideas rather than removing those already held. If I manage to achieve the latter, then that’s just icing on the cake.

Different people respond to different approaches in different ways. I don’t think we can say that a particular approach is wrong in all instances. Given the fact that churches in Australia lose 200 members per week, I think something is going right somewhere.

All we need is love. Can we hug Constance, Sells and David Singer? Would they want to be hugged? Maybe that's what they need. I just had a loving hug and feel benevolent to you all even though there doesn't seem to be a point in much of our argy-bargy.

The sun is shining. Outside my window the ixora flowers and the poinciana sway in the wind, and my breath is sweet with chocolate. In billions of years space will be filled with lifeless rocks in meaningless motion. Now it's filled with rocks occupied by life in meaningless motion. The universe doesn't care. Hotchacha!

AJP, the point is that the "bad ideas" are not driven by religious experience, they (mis)use it to promote some power agenda. The real problem, as Peter pointed out earlier, is that the various holy books are often readily misused in that way because they were, without exception, written by people who were embedded in a particular cultural matrix, often not the people who are their subjects (the NT is not written by Jesus, the OT wasn't written by any of the prophets, the Bhagavad Gita not written by Shiva and so on) and rewritten over the years to suit new agendas.

They are often quite muddled, but the religious experience is by its nature not a clear one for most people, even the great prophets, any more than maths sprang fully formed to the minds of Leibnitz, Euler, et al. Their insights developed over time and they tried to pass them on, often imperfectly. The great advance of mathematics was that it created a clear, concrete language to express ideas which had not existed before.

I recommend highly the work of von Neumann on subjective probability, but be careful, it sent a Nobel laureate (John Nash) mad for 35 years. You should be safe though, since you have a very strongly grounded view of the world that limits your ability to observe anomalies.

David, hug accepted and returned. Chocolate-scented breath notwithstanding, I'm going to draw the line at a kiss though.

Sheesh, serves me right for editing on the fly. First sentence should have read:

"AJP, the point is that the "bad ideas" are not driven by religious experience, [but that some] (mis)use it to promote some power agenda."