(An OPINION of mine follows. Please, be aware that I don't easily fall into the trap of equating my convictions with "THE TRUTH", since I know some- thing that few people appear to know: none of us can ever tell when our thinking is wrong.)

DC, without having any intention of offending you, I must tell you that I detect a strong vein of what I choose to call "religious dementia" in your last contribution. First I'm convinced that people will believe any damned thing that they truly want to believe. And next, it is my observation that belief in a supreme being effectively strips people of many of their critical faculties.

Regardless of how intelligent, experienced, or knowledgable they are, those among us who entertain the fanciful notion of an afterlife appear to be unable to see that this cherished notion is preposterous.

Where is this "heaven"place? Where?

Where is this "hell" place? Where?

Everywhere? Nowhere? Anywhere?

Might heaven and hell be only part of a metaphor?

On the other hand I grant that, if the only way that people can carry on living without being plunged into despair at the thought that their deaths will be the end of them, religious belief must be beneficial, and in many cases indispensable.

Now perhaps I have offended you. If so, my sincere apologies.

Still, perhaps the saving grace in this is that I've been scrupulously honest in responding to your post. (I'm assuming that you prefer to hear people's honest opinions, rather than having them say, "Yes, yes, me too.")

I get a continuous kick out of responses like yours that carry so many hidden assumptions that really cannot be assumed at all.

And I know I'm right about this.

Your epistemology for instance as best I can tell, to defend your Godel's theorem in natural language depends upon having swallowed the undigestable Kantian idealism.

Kant's cant can't persuade me of anything. Most of the folks on this board actually suffer from epistemological idealim, an isolation from which it is difficult to escape. All of the atheists suffer from this, unknowingly.

That's wildly ironic in that they like to see themselves as the so-called 'evidence -based' thinkers. Not at all from the evidence I've seen. 

Your comments on heaven and hell and religion betray the same fatal flaw in your unexamined premises.  

Your theory would be true but for the unseen and unacknowledged flaw.

And I know that I am right.

Call Aristotle or Aquinas. They will set you on the right path and you will know it.

Among other things, Toronthab said that he knew that he was correct in his convictions.

What that indicates to me is that he hasn't the foggiest idea how human cognition works. It appears that he knows nothing of the 'gates' that fall in his brain, whenever he encounters notions that are contradictory to his view of how the world works. Thus, he can never absorb any idea that refutes his thinking.

It is no wonder that he feels free to come on here attacking those of us who reject the concept of a supreme being. (He oddly points out that we think that we can offer some sort of unconvincing "evidence" that god cannot exist. What nonsense! As though it is incumbent on non-believers to prove the non- existence of god! Suppose that I told him that I was in daily conversation with Martians. Would it be his responsibility to prove that I was wrong? Or my responsibilty to demonstrate that I was right?)

We thoughtful non-believers pose such a threat to the religious that I fully appreciate why they feel compelled to disparage our disbelief. I understand that, and I am happy to grant those who lack sufficient moral courage to reject the preposterous notion of an afterlife, whatever solace that they can get from their religious convictions.

I 'd prefer that everyone accept his or her mortality, of course; however, since so few seem able to do so, I'm happy for those who have found a modus vivendi which allows them to get through each day.

(His suggestion that I re-read Aristotle and Aquinas is merely intellectual posturing.  Every philosopher that he cares to name has had the same problem that he has - cognitive dissonance.  And that severely limits what we can gain by constantly re-reading their works.)

I find the subject matter quite interesting. I am not sure a show could be done on this though, because the majority of those watching would have a difficult time following or understanding it. I know I would.

I think this would be because of the subject itself. I have considered myself somewhat open-minded and felt that my opinion on matters could be changed if the case were made effectively. So I might say this whole topic is nonsense. Since reading the above I find myself wondering if there is a strong enough arguement that could be made to cause me to change my core beliefs, or would I resist at all cost.

The other question I would have is; How does this account for the "Undecided" ?

As far as "God" is concerned, there is no definitive proof either way, arguing about it is silly in my opinion. Those who have faith should welcome the challenges, those that do not....I don't know why they care.

Boris complained that I have become repetitive and boring.

(What he was actually indicating was that he is unwilling to consider that all of his firmly held opinions and values might well be foolishness. He is not alone in this. Not many seem willing to accept the limitations that their cognition imposes on their notions of what is right and what is wrong.)

I have advice for him.

When he sees my name on a post, HE SHOULD NOT READ IT!

I am somewhat puzzled that he did not discover this solution without my help. If it hurts to bang your head against a wall, you should stop banging your head against that wall.

Perhaps he did realise that though, and could not resist taking a slap at me? Boris is not brimming with the milk of human kindness, is he? A fairly hostile fellow, don't you think? Rather insecure, perhaps?

Just to clarify: I do know that any opinion of mine could be wrong-headed. It's a pity that so few can make this admission. Many cannot distinguish between their personal convictions and "The Truth". A reading of most of the offerings here shows that.

My thanks to Over Taxed, who  expressed some interest in learning about the manner in which cognitive dissonance + "gates" in the brain impede our full understanding of the world around us.

Dr. Richard Festinger  was an early student of this topic.  Those interested in the concept might want to browse for information on his ideas.

To get others thinking about  their own cognitive limitations, I like to use the following example:

There are two individuals who have a great deal in common.  (1) they are highly intelligent  (2) they are extensively informed on U.S., federal politics  (3) they are widely experienced  in politics,  These are very bright, and highly knowledgable people. 

Oh, yes, and one's a Democrat, the other a Republican.

They sit down to watch and listen to a U.S. presidential debate. When it is over the Democrat knows that his candidate won hands down, and the Republican ls fully confident that his man scored a smashing victory.

I suggest that cognitive dissonace is at work here.  I further suggest that for all of us this kind of thing goes on all of the time, unless we combat it. 

Do you know that when O.J.Simpson was first suspected of having commited a double murder, over 70% of American whites told pollstsrs that he was likely guilty, and over 70% of American Blacks told the same pollsters that he was clearly innocent?  (I'm satisfied that their different opinions had nothing to do with their intelligence, or the amount of information they had on the case.)

The fact is that to a great extent. "we stand where we sit". That is to say, our reactions to an event are determined by who we are, and how we think, rather than by any information that we receive.

At first, people hate this notion, because it forces them to face the fallibility of their own thinking.  It is so much more comfortable to be confident that, once you have thought something through carefully, you can trust your conclusions to be correct.

Well, clearly you can't. 

ContinentalOp, you can p-off any time now.    Hmmm..."prance"?...  "perambulate"?... "peregrinate"?     <smile>

I did not dismiss the contributions of every philosopher down through the ages, as you suggest I did.  Perhaps you need to work on your limited reading comprehensioin skills.

What I did was suggest that they were disadvantaged, because they had to work within certain limitations on human cognition that affect us all.

(You know nothing about my work as a teacher, and you make yourself look totally irrelevant by commenting on it.  I haven't disparaged your life endeavours, merely because we have a difference of opinion here.  Kindly afford me the same respect.) 

In conclusion, let me say that, if you want to equate your convictions with the capital T truth, you should go right ahead.

I know better.   (Now smile, please.  This is is merely talk.)

Who's attacking!?

I didn't even know YOU fancied  yourself  an atheist! I'm not shocked given that you think you can't know anything, I'd be inclined to say that it's almost a foregone conclusion! 

What do you mean 'attacking' everyone?

I have maintained that atheism is silly and involves oddly enough exactly the same kind of mistakes that makes you think that you can't ever know whether or not you are right. So ...you're wrong! What's so tough about that?

Yo're already attacking me and all I did was diagree with you! The other 'thinkers' I agree that after getting labelled fundamentalist, and right-wing and hateful and such, and then having read what they probably still think was a cogent or reasonable response,  I did kind of start laughing a bit.

You may note without too much attention that I am DEFENDING the rightful  authority and role of reason, not you, and certainly not the other kids.

So why are you jumping all over me for my teasing little response to your notion.

I even offered you the key to that way out!

I'm a hell of a nice guy! Ask my mom!

Think I never heard of Godel, or failed to understand him? I use his stuff all the time! Do you expect me to recant my cant aout Kant's cant? 

I can't. It's utter nonsense.

And I'm right about that.

Now take it easy, breathe deep and let's get at it.

Eh? 

Mind without a box had some observations to make on the great difficulty that we have in communicating our thinking to others,  which I found interesting..  There was nothing that he/she had to say with which I would disagree.

What occupies me particularly is the suggestion that our brains seem to be constituted in such a way that notions contrary to our way of thinking  routinely get shut out.

In another post today I made a reference to a public opinion poll that was done in the U.S. at the time that O.J.Simpson was first identified in the media as a double murder suspect.

Over 70% of whites said that he seemed to be likely guilty.

Over 70% of non-whites told the pollsters that he was clearly innocent.

(Whether he killed the two people or not is, of course, irrelevant to this dicussion.)

What I see in the results of that poll are two groups of people "standing where they sit".   It is because they came to the question with different perspectives, that they arrived at different conclusions.

Every one of us needs to learn  about this pitfall.

If we want our convictions to hold water, every one of us needs to guard against just "standing where we sit" all of the time. 

Few people seem interested in doing so. Check out the "pro-life" and "pro-choice" camps, if you disagree with me.  Or the gun lobby vs. the gun safety crowd.  Or gay marriage advocates vs. religious extremists.

Well, when any one seems to disagree with you, you disparage them, usually attacking their deepest held beliefs. You seem pretty certain about the fantasy of others' beliefs but state your own as if they were gospel truth. You do it very rudely too. In other words, you asked for both Boris's & my own censure. Boris is more polite & patient than I am, so he censured you more lightly.

I'm fairly confident in my reading comprehension abilities. I'm paid to read for a living. It was you who discounted the value of re-reading a philosopher's work. Why read it or think about it when you can just say it? Why address anyone's counterargument's when a certain theory of modern psychology will allow you to discount everything in one fell swoop? P-off yourself, & while you're at it, read Aristotle & Aquinas for the first time. I have no idea about the content of your life's work, but I have a pretty good idea about the content of your closed mind.

P.S. there's a right way & a wrong way to present a topic. This topic is, objectively, really interesting. Your holier-than-thou delivery though has precluded any reasonable discussion.