My Error [Above]: Pluto not Plato. The idea that there is no toaster orbiting Pluto is sometimes stated to argue the possibility of impossibility. As a highly degraded hypothesis [negative heuristic] I hold the toaster does exist. Of course, the main hypothesis is that it is extremely, incredibly unlikely that there is a toaster orbiting Pluto. Both hypotheses are concurrently held. Probability is highly variable, though.

One must be careful of intimidating any opposition by utilizing words, concepts and the names of folk, not in common usage.- David

-- Sorry, I was not trying to use "elitist" terms. I find that there is potential for the religionist/theist debate to turn into a slinging match. Herein, I try not adopt a priori a position and go for it. Instead I try to leverage history and the Philosophies to evaluate the status of religion. Science can be used too, but more than not it offers an "alternative" in opposition, which begs retaliation:e.g, The Big Bang versus Intelligent Design. With history, one, even a religionist, would find it hard to argue that Amenophis IV [XXVII Eygption Dynasty] was a not monothesist before Moses [actually post-Most, because Moses' crowd was henotheist] or that Seropis did not have a godhead similiar to that established to Christian godhead developed at/from Nicaea. These matters are essentially categorically known.

[1] Atheists do not generally exhibit an absolutist stance so I see it unnecessary in [2] you stating ambiguously, to whom you may be referring. i.e. Atheist or the religionists.

-- [1] If correct, that is good.
-- [2] Neither, Atheists nor the Religionists should posit their knowledge to be infallible, I suggest. Uniformity not ambiguity. Please excuse me, if I was unclear.

It may have been more useful to just state you do not accept a god exist because of the lack of evidence, as have I. - David

-- ... And that what evidence there is does not support the existence of God(s), wherein, the Atheistic position adopted held is to be true tentatively and tested and retested

Cheers,

O.

Oliver,

I think you underestimate your own knowledge. That which to you is “categorically known”, is not to most people, even many ardent religionists. I am more than pleased you are willing to share the accumulation of your education.

By the way the toaster orbiting Pluto either derives from or precedes Bertrand Russell’s Sun orbiting teapot. In any case, both are brilliant examples differentiating between making improbable assertions and the assumption they are true. (Or something like that)

Speaking of Bert, here is a quote, which exemplifies his attitude to Christianity.

“That the world is in a bad shape is undeniable, but there is not the faintest reason in history to suppose that Christianity offers a way out.”

All the best,

David

David,
You are dealing with humans who do not have a good record of improving society or the world for that matter; no matter their philosophies. People who have strong conviction will always rise as leaders and others as followers.

Philo,

That is exactly why we should place immense value on the democratic system and why we should make sure it is not influenced by beliefs that are not in accord with rationality, compassion and empirical evidence. That is why we should keep dogma out of politics.

Any system of governance dependent on force, personality or 'sacred' creeds is the enemy of humanity.

Once dictatorial ideologically inspired tyranny takes over, democracy is hard to recover.

Be occupied for a couple of days with AFA Committee meetings etc.

David

David,

I agree that [religious]dogma should not enter politics. Democracy should represent the people, equally. Nonetheless, Pell et al would seem to have greater access to power than ordinary voters, yet constituent: Yet, we would have a Parker having greater access than you or I. Instutions of a feather flock together, towards suppression of democracy.

In England, we don't have true separation of Church and State, compounded a legacy of a Monarch being "Defender of the (sic. a) Faith. Canada still has an appointed [I think] Upper House. The US an Electoral College [I met Gore Vidal (hoping you know he is, not tying to be elitist) at a seminar about a year back; he said that the US Founding Fathers did not evisage a democracy. In Oz, we still don't have citizen refenda nor have we adopted the idea of some Ancient Greek City-States of treating some seats in the Senate like Jury Duty: Ordinary people were selected to serve for periods of time to break the formation of Party power. True democracy, I posit, would be less likely to bend to the Power of the Church, Business and Instututional interests, generally. But we are not a democracy, either. At leasted, not a fully developed one

David:

I'll try again :-)...

I agree that [religious]dogma should not enter politics. Democracy should represent the people, equally. Nonetheless, CARDINAL Pell et al would seem to have greater access to power than ordinary voters, yet IS NOT A constituent: Yet, we would have GENERATIONS OF [ MEDIA ]PACKERS having greater access than you or I. INSTITUTIONS of a feather flock together, towards suppression of democracy. - O.