Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Alan:

If you were made education minister tomorrow would you introduce a policy for "soul" to be taught as a fact alongside the facts biology already teaches?

[Gordon]

Biology is not about souls, it is about the material workings of the human body.

But if our biology interacts with your 'soul' notion then surely there must be something that is detectable in the biology that would confirm the that there were indeed 'souls': you need more than personal conviction you know.

In addition I'll ask again - are you aware of any neuroscientists or psychologists studying consciousness, and/or how choices are made by humans, who have a hypothesis involving these 'souls' you speak of? 

[SusanDoris]

Biology is not about souls, it is about the material workings of the human body.

In my very strongly held opinion, that collection of words is not only bad manners when you are asked a clear, straightforward question, but also very silly, and absolutely lacking in sense when considered as a response. I don't know how you can bear to churn out this stuff day after day,

Answer directly the direct question you have been asked several times above. Remember, if you do not, the only person who thinks it is clever not to answer is you.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Vladdo,

Wrong again. The Catholic education guidelines contain an explicit instruction to teach its knowledge with the same rigour and discipline as other subject areas teach their knowledge. There was no, "but really we should be a lot more circumspect about the former because they're just our faith beliefs" or similar. This in essence is the difference between religion in faith schools ("this stuff is factually true") and RE in secular schools ("this stuff is what various cultures believe to be factually true").

That Gabriella decided they meant something other than the plain meanings of the words they used is a matter you should take up with her.

BHS - you are still wrong about this. As I pointed out before, per our earlier discussion on another thread http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=15349.75, reply #97, the plainly written words on Page 7 of the RC schools curriculum doc show that RC schools are teaching beliefs. I even quoted them to you - you may remember the very first point under the heading "The aims of Religious Education:

1. To present engagingly a comprehensive content which is the basis of knowledge and understanding
of the Catholic faith"

As you pointed out, it says "It must present the Christian message and the Christian event with the same seriousness and the same depth" - the Christian message is a belief and they want to present information about the theology and the practice of that belief in a serious way and in depth in the same way that other subjects present their knowledge.

You can of course incorrectly decide that the plain meaning of the written words mean something else.

[ippy]

In my very strongly held opinion, that collection of words is not only bad manners when you are asked a clear, straightforward question, but also very silly, and absolutely lacking in sense when considered as a response. I don't know how you can bear to churn out this stuff day after day,

Answer directly the direct question you have been asked several times above. Remember, if you do not, the only person who thinks it is clever not to answer is you.

The poor bloke can't answer without undoing his whole delusional life and suffer a serious, for him, social disconnect from more or less all of his fellow travellers, he must be aware he's talking nonsense, it's been explained to him enough times about where he's going wrong.

Regards ippy

[Alan Burns]

Alan:

If you were made education minister tomorrow would you introduce a policy for "soul" to be taught as a fact alongside the facts biology already teaches?

No matter which way I answer this silly hypothetical question, you will no doubt claim to have caught me out.

The answer will have no bearing on the question of the nature of souls and their relation to biology.

So render to biology what pertains to biology, and render to souls what pertains to souls.

[Gordon]

No matter which way I answer this silly hypothetical question, you will no doubt claim to have caught me out.

You were caught out yonks ago, Alan.

The answer will have no bearing on the question of the nature of souls and their relation to biology.

Which is what exactly?

So render to biology what pertains to biology, and render to souls what pertains to souls.

Well do some rendering on the subject of 'souls' instead of evading.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

I don't know how you can bear to churn out this stuff day after day,

Why are you so bothered then?

Admit it. You're scared shitless that someone may read what Alan Burns is posting, understand it and become a believer. As a result you have to oppose it. After all, where will this leave your dream of a brave new world devoid of religious belief?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

All irrelevant. Whether a million schools teach faith beliefs as facts or one school does it isn’t the issue – the issue was just that conceptually at least doing it at all is wrong, and would in some cases be lying for the reasons I set out. Nor was whether the lies led to killing people the issue either - I just happen to think that lying to children in general is a bad idea, but that's just me I guess.

Rubbish. This discussion came up because you asserted that faith schools teach beliefs as facts - it was an inaccurate generalisation and there was nothing conceptual about your assertion. It's dishonest of you to pretend otherwise. 

As for Alan, so far as he’s concerned “soul” etc is a fact. Whether he’d condone therefore this supposed fact being taught as such alongside the facts of biology and geography in schools however is a question only he can answer.

I assume that like the Catholic schools religious education curicculum he would present it as a faith position. The teaching of facts require presenting testable evidence to support those facts. Alan hasn't presented anything that can be tested to determine the existence of a soul.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

BHS - you are still wrong about this. As I pointed out before, per our earlier discussion on another thread http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=15349.75, reply #97, the plainly written words on Page 7 of the RC schools curriculum doc show that RC schools are teaching beliefs. I even quoted them to you - you may remember the very first point under the heading "The aims of Religious Education:

1. To present engagingly a comprehensive content which is the basis of knowledge and understanding
of the Catholic faith"

As you pointed out, it says "It must present the Christian message and the Christian event with the same seriousness and the same depth" - the Christian message is a belief and they want to present information about the theology and the practice of that belief in a serious way and in depth in the same way that other subjects present their knowledge.

No, you are. Notice that the people who wrote this refer to their “knowledge” (you even just quoted it yourself). Not to their "faith". Not to their" beliefs". Not to their "creed". To their knowledge. So far as they’re concerned, they have “knowledge” in just the same way that other disciplines have knowledge – ie, as facts. There’s no distinction between them. And that presumably is why they expect this “knowledge” to be taught with the same rigour and discipline as the knowledge taught in maths and biology and geography and….etc.

It couldn’t be much plainer I’d have thought. These schools teach “this stuff is factually true” about their religious beliefs every bit as much as the geography teacher teaches “this stuff is true” about oxbow lakes. Both think they’re passing on facts.     

You can of course incorrectly decide that the plain meaning of the written words mean something else.

I’m content to leave that to you to do if you don’t mind.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

No matter which way I answer this silly hypothetical question, you will no doubt claim to have caught me out.

The answer will have no bearing on the question of the nature of souls and their relation to biology.

So render to biology what pertains to biology, and render to souls what pertains to souls.

Why are you so terrified of, so terrified in fact that you'll avoid at any cost answering such a simple question?

What the answer has a bearing on is whether or not you genuinely think that "souls" is a much a fact as Jupiter is a fact or as much a fact as germs causing disease is a fact. If you do, then why wouldn't you want this "fact" to be taught alongside those other facts in schools? If you don't, what then happened to your (proudly) closed-minded certainty on the subject?

Should we add cowardice to the dishonesty we already know about, or will you actually just tell us on a yes/no basis your answer?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

No, you are. Notice that the people who wrote this refer to their “knowledge” (you even just quoted it yourself). Not to their "faith". Not to their" beliefs". Not to their "creed". To their knowledge. So far as they’re concerned, they have “knowledge” in just the same way that other disciplines have knowledge – ie, as facts. There’s no distinction between them. And that presumably is why they expect this “knowledge” to be taught with the same rigour and discipline as the knowledge taught in maths and biology and geography and….etc.

It couldn’t be much plainer I’d have thought. These schools teach “this stuff is factually true” about their religious beliefs every bit as much as the geography teacher teaches “this stuff is true” about oxbow lakes. Both think they’re passing on facts.

It's perfectly plain that "Knowledge" in relation to theology means understanding and grasp of the subject matter, which in this case is a belief.

You asserting that these schools teach "this stuff is factually true" while presenting absolutely no evidence of a school presumably manufacturing testable evidence for souls and gods to turn beliefs into facts is not helping your case.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

Rubbish. This discussion came up because you asserted that faith schools teach beliefs as facts - it was an inaccurate generalisation and there was nothing conceptual about your assertion. It's dishonest of you to pretend otherwise.

Wrong again. This discussion came up because I argued that it was wrong to tell lies to children. How often that happens is a different conversation. Read the relevant posts if you don’t believe me.   

I assume that like the Catholic schools religious education curicculum he would present it as a faith position.

They don’t. They present it as “knowledge” with precisely the epistemic status of knowledge obtained from other subjects. If you can find something that says, “actually, we didn’t mean to call it “knowledge” at all, we actually just meant “faith” instead” then by all means share it here. 

The teaching of facts require presenting testable evidence to support those facts.

You’d think so wouldn’t you. Apparently though the “faith” bit bypasses that in some schools, which is why they make a claim to “knowledge” instead.

Alan hasn't presented anything that can be tested to determine the existence of a soul.

Now there you find me in rare agreement. He hasn’t even told us what he means by “soul”, let alone presented anything that’s investigable. That’s why I looked askance when you started asking him question about it. Why bother when he has zero information to share?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

It's perfectly plain that "Knowledge" in relation to theology means understanding and grasp of the subject matter, which in this case is a belief.

You’re floundering now. There’s no suggestion that by “knowledge” they mean, “just memorising bits of the Bible” or some such; they mean “knowledge” in the plain, common-or-garden, everyday sense of the term. “The resurrection (or whatever) actually happened, as sure as Henry VIII or the eruption at Krakatoa happened”. In secular schools you’d be right, they do indeed teach in RE, “This is what these cultures believe” but the fundamental difference with a faith school is the crossing of the line between faith and fact. That’s what they’re for for Pete’s sake.     

You asserting that these schools teach "this stuff is factually true" while presenting absolutely no evidence of a school presumably manufacturing testable evidence for souls and gods to turn beliefs into facts is not helping your case.

That’s just stupid. They (think they) don’t need the testable evidence bit at all – they have faith, so they can skip all that prosaic, feet of clay, limited, reductionist theory of knowledge stuff. Have you understood nothing here? Really though?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

Wrong again. This discussion came up because I argued that it was wrong to tell lies to children. How often that happens is a different conversation. Read the relevant posts if you don’t believe me.

I did. You're wrong. In the Re: Sweden's Social Democrats propose ban on religious independent schools thread, reply #83 I said that I would be against the idea of schools teaching facts that are not supported by evidence and you replied "So you’re against faith schools then?". And in reply #88 you went on to assert "Faith schools precisely "teach beliefs as facts" - that's what they do."

The discussion proceeded from there. Read the relevant posts.

They don’t. They present it as “knowledge” with precisely the epistemic status of knowledge obtained from other subjects. If you can find something that says, “actually, we didn’t mean to call it “knowledge” at all, we actually just meant “faith” instead” then by all means share it here.
You’d think so wouldn’t you. Apparently though the “faith” bit bypasses that in some schools, which is why they make a claim to “knowledge” instead.

I already shared it here - page 7 of the Catholic School document on R.E. states that they mean "faith". You obviously don't understand the different meanings of the word "knowledge". You can assert that "knowledge" only means facts but you would be wrong. The plain meaning of the words is that the knowledge is understanding, information, analysis of the faith.

Now there you find me in rare agreement. He hasn’t even told us what he means by “soul”, let alone presented anything that’s investigable. That’s why I looked askance when you started asking him question about it. Why bother when he has zero information to share?

Because this is a discussion forum where we share ideas and views. If you don't like it being used for that purpose, feel free to not participate.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

You’re floundering now. There’s no suggestion that by “knowledge” they mean, “just memorising bits of the Bible” or some such; they mean “knowledge” in the plain, common-or-garden, everyday sense of the term.

No, you're floundering. One of the common-or-garden, everyday sense meanings of the term "knowledge" is understanding and a grasp of the information relating to the subject matter. The subject matter in this case is a faith belief, as evidenced by Page 7 of the Catholic School document on R.E.

“The resurrection (or whatever) actually happened

They have a belief that the resurrection happened. They may well be sure in their belief, but it remains a belief.

as sure as Henry VIII or the eruption at Krakatoa happened”.

These are taught with supporting evidence. A resurrection isn't. You can't test for a resurrection.

In secular schools you’d be right, they do indeed teach in RE, “This is what these cultures believe” but the fundamental difference with a faith school is the crossing of the line between faith and fact. That’s what they’re for for Pete’s sake.

Asserting this repeatedly still isn't evidence.

That’s just stupid. They (think they) don’t need the testable evidence bit at all – they have faith, so they can skip all that prosaic, feet of clay, limited, reductionist theory of knowledge stuff. Have you understood nothing here? Really though?

You don't need testable evidence to pass on the message of your belief. That's why it's a faith position rather than a fact. I have understood that you need the boring testable evidence bit for statements to be more than an assertion or belief or opinion. It would be good if you could understand that point before churning out your assertions. And this has been repeatedly pointed out to Alan regarding beliefs about souls.

ETA: you just have to look at page 2 of the curriculum document where it says under the heading "Some key features of this revised Curriculum Directory"

4th bullet point "The first section of Area of Study One is now called Knowing and Loving God, recognising that all knowledge of God is dependent upon God’s self-revelation in Christ."

So nothing about testable evidence of facts but relying on stories about Christ to have knowledge of God.

And the 6th bullet point states "There is a renewed emphasis upon Catholic Social Teaching, the Catholic understanding of Virtue, and ‘Theology of the Body’.

And the 8th bullet point states "The inclusion of a small sample of typical questions about the Catholic Faith are intended to draw the attention of educators to the important discipline of Apologetics, so that we may be ready to give an account of the hope that is within us, with gentleness and respect. (These will be of particular interest to those preparing pupils for some public examinations.)

Under the heading "Aims of religious education" on page 5, there is also nothing about testable facts but it has plenty to say about knowledge and understanding of the faith. It states the first 3 aims are:

1 To present engagingly a comprehensive content which is the basis of knowledge and understanding
of the Catholic faith;
2 To enable pupils continually to deepen their religious and theological understanding and be
able to communicate this effectively;
3 To present an authentic vision of the Church’s moral and social teaching so that pupils can
make a critique of the underlying trends in contemporary culture and society;

[ekim]

The problem with banning ideas is that...you can’t. Try not thinking of something that you don’t want to think about. And history has shown that eradicating religious thought is virtually impossible. Sure, Christianity did a reasonable job on paganism but only because it replaced it with something else, that was tweaked in places to be not so different anyway. And the ‘folk religion’ followed in rural
Britain (a mishmash of Christianity and lucky rabbits feet thinking) was still going strong until the early twentieth century. Things change slowly, over time.

The thing to do with ideas, surely, is to examine and understand them and where they come from? They are a part of us. I actually think it’s healthier to introduce children to ideas at a young age so that they can reject the bad ones. If you don’t introduce both good and bad ideas to children they can’t think critically, and that’s the biggest danger. It worries me that a simple quote from Nietzsche can be seen as ‘bad’. Better surely to understand?

Yesterday there were marches to mark women’s suffrage. Time was when that was thought to be a dangerous idea. And as Gabriella pointed out yesterday, our good ideas in the West haven’t done much for the rest of the world. Guns and other weapons we can stop making - I don’t get why Blue has an issue with only kids getting guns - they are things external to us. Ideas reside within us, they are a part of us, they don’t have an external origin (unless you want to believe in gods). So of course it is people that are the problem.

Yes, I agree that people are the problem which is why I said beware of motives and manipulation.  I would suggest that it is the emotional drive behind ideas, especially when that drive is related to power over and control of others, which makes the difference.  Political ideas, religious ideas, consumerism ideas, financial ideas have all been used by the power hungry to manipulate and persuade the masses.  How do religions, allegedly of love and communion, lead to holy wars and internal strife and division?  Could it be because men have been the initiators of those manipulative processes and emotional intelligence has been suppressed?  Science is a neutral tool, but scientific ideas have been used to promote health but also the means of mass annihilation and pollution of the planet.

[ippy]

Why are you so bothered then?

Admit it. You're scared shitless that someone may read what Alan Burns is posting, understand it and become a believer. As a result you have to oppose it. After all, where will this leave your dream of a brave new world devoid of religious belief?

It'd be a very bad, bad day for anyone that took up belief in souls etc due to the ramblings of A B's stuff of silly nonsense.

There's always room for those that still have Zeus type beliefs like yours Sword, it's having our schools devoid of people teaching religions in any of them as though they're teaching facts that's needed and a lot of us are looking forward to that day.

Regards ippy

[Alan Burns]

But if our biology interacts with your 'soul' notion then surely there must be something that is detectable in the biology that would confirm the that there were indeed 'souls': you need more than personal conviction you know.

It is not detectable in biology, but it is evident to every living human being.  It is known as human free will.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Why are you so terrified of, so terrified in fact that you'll avoid at any cost answering such a simple question?

What the answer has a bearing on is whether or not you genuinely think that "souls" is a much a fact as Jupiter is a fact or as much a fact as germs causing disease is a fact. If you do, then why wouldn't you want this "fact" to be taught alongside those other facts in schools? If you don't, what then happened to your (proudly) closed-minded certainty on the subject?

Should we add cowardice to the dishonesty we already know about, or will you actually just tell us on a yes/no basis your answer?

Surely you must know by now that I consider the existence of souls as a fact, so why bother with such a contrived hypothetical question?
It looks to me like you are trying to set up a disguised ad pop argument.

[wigginhall]

It is not detectable in biology, but it is evident to every living human being.  It is known as human free will.

You are cheating really, since you were asked about souls.   I'm not aware of a soul, and I don't see free will  as you do.  Souls are not taught about in schools, since they don't exist.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Very sexy I’d imagine if your entire education consisted of rocking back and forth reciting the Q’uran in Madrasas. Of course it’s better to explain the counter-arguments, but how could that happen in that environment? Blasphemer! Apostate! Burn him! Burn him!

Do you have any evidence that memorising the Quran or rocking back and forth leads to believing in virgins for suicide bombing?

I think you'll find that people who are radicalised to become suicide bombers are persuaded by people i.e.extremists that Islam is under threat due to specific political events in the world that lead to Muslims dying or losing their land or Muslim leaders being overthrown without any intervention to prevent this by international bodies, and that although suicide is prohibited in Islam, by becoming a suicide bomber they are actually becoming martyrs rather than committing a prohibited act. This leads to them persuading a minority of people that the lesser jihad (struggle) using weapons is more important than the greater jihad (struggle) against your own ego.

These extremists glorify suicide bombers as heroes who made a sacrifice for the greater good, and they manage to persuade a minority of people that there is an existentialist threat to Muslims in a particular area by citing Muslim deaths at the hands of foreign nations that are pursuing their own strategic agenda and interests.

A very different scenario from your simplistic assertions. 

[Gordon]

Surely you must know by now that I consider the existence of souls as a fact, so why bother with such a contrived hypothetical question?

A fact eh! Nope, not a fact at all but a belief of yours: this is where you are going wrong.

It looks to me like you are trying to set up a disguised ad pop argument.

Nope: you've never got the hang of fallacies, Alan.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

I did. You're wrong. In the Re: Sweden's Social Democrats propose ban on religious independent schools thread, reply #83 I said that I would be against the idea of schools teaching facts that are not supported by evidence and you replied "So you’re against faith schools then?". And in reply #88 you went on to assert "Faith schools precisely "teach beliefs as facts" - that's what they do."

The discussion proceeded from there. Read the relevant posts.

Should I conclude that you‘ve just made a mistake here or that you’re being deliberately dishonest? Now look at the posts in this discussion – you know, the one we’re actually talking about – when I argued that telling lies to children is a bad thing and you hijacked that into a discussion about how often it happens. Either you think that as a general proposition telling lies to children is a bad thing or you don’t. If you want to talk about something else (ie how often it happens), start a new discussion. 

I already shared it here - page 7 of the Catholic School document on R.E. states that they mean "faith". You obviously don't understand the different meanings of the word "knowledge". You can assert that "knowledge" only means facts but you would be wrong. The plain meaning of the words is that the knowledge is understanding, information, analysis of the faith.

Dear god but you struggle. I think faith and knowledge are different things. For all I know you think faith and knowledge are different things. The point though is that the people who wrote the guidelines think otherwise – it’s all “knowledge” apparently, and their “knowledge” about (say) a resurrection should it seems be taught with the same rigour and discipline as the geography master teaches his knowledge about rainfall in Peru.   

Because this is a discussion forum where we share ideas and views. If you don't like it being used for that purpose, feel free to not participate.

More stupidity? Seriously though? It’s got nothing to do with what I like – I just asked why, when someone has zero information about a faith claim he asserts as a fact (“soul”), you’d then ask him for information about it. 

It’s your business of course, but as fool’s errands go its pretty up there. He knows nothing. Zip. Zilch. Nada. The cupboard is bare. All he has is a word – “soul” (translation: “it’s magic innit”) – and that’s it.

No, you're…

You do this a lot I’ve noticed. Every time you’re caught out (which is a lot) you just take the problem, add “no you’re…” to the beginning and ping it back. You were suppsed to grow out of that after the age of about seven you know.

…floundering. One of the common-or-garden, everyday sense meanings of the term "knowledge" is understanding and a grasp of the information relating to the subject matter. The subject matter in this case is a faith belief, as evidenced by Page 7 of the Catholic School document on R.E.

Stop digging! In their heads it’s knowledge in just the same way that the existence of Jupiter is knowledge. They don’t see the “faith” bit as problematic here – just the opposite in fact.   

They have a belief that the resurrection happened. They may well be sure in their belief, but it remains a belief.

You don’t say Sherlock. And how do they view it?

These are taught with supporting evidence. A resurrection isn't. You can't test for a resurrection.

Tell it to the RC folks!

Asserting this repeatedly still isn't evidence.

Take the blinkers off and read the damned guidelines willya. So dfar as they're concerned, IT'S ALL KNOWLEDGE!!!!

You don't need testable evidence to pass on the message of your belief. That's why it's a faith position rather than a fact. I have understood that you need the boring testable evidence bit for statements to be more than an assertion or belief or opinion. It would be good if you could understand that point before churning out your assertions. And this has been repeatedly pointed out to Alan regarding beliefs about souls.

ETA: you just have to look at page 2 of the curriculum document where it says under the heading "Some key features of this revised Curriculum Directory"

4th bullet point "The first section of Area of Study One is now called Knowing and Loving God, recognising that all knowledge of God is dependent upon God’s self-revelation in Christ."

So nothing about testable evidence of facts but relying on stories about Christ to have knowledge of God.

And the 6th bullet point states "There is a renewed emphasis upon Catholic Social Teaching, the Catholic understanding of Virtue, and ‘Theology of the Body’.

And the 8th bullet point states "The inclusion of a small sample of typical questions about the Catholic Faith are intended to draw the attention of educators to the important discipline of Apologetics, so that we may be ready to give an account of the hope that is within us, with gentleness and respect. (These will be of particular interest to those preparing pupils for some public examinations.)

Under the heading "Aims of religious education" on page 5, there is also nothing about testable facts but it has plenty to say about knowledge and understanding of the faith. It states the first 3 aims are:

1 To present engagingly a comprehensive content which is the basis of knowledge and understanding
of the Catholic faith;
2 To enable pupils continually to deepen their religious and theological understanding and be
able to communicate this effectively;
3 To present an authentic vision of the Church’s moral and social teaching so that pupils can
make a critique of the underlying trends in contemporary culture and society;

Just out of interest, have you come across the Sally Anne doll test? It’s here if you’re interested:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjkTQtggLH4

It’s a test for whether or not the subject can put him or herself in the shoes of another person. You should try it.

You can ramble all you like about “testable evidence of facts”. I know it already. Perhaps you do too. The point though is that, if you seriously think that faith is an inerrant guide to truth, then you can dispense with all that and go straight to the assertion of fact – ie, “knowledge”. Which is exactly what the RCs do.

From their point of view – actually, let me put that in caps in case you miss it again – FROM THEIR POINT OF VIEW – their faith claims are facts. Proper, real, indisputable, 24-carat, solid as a rock facts. Not only is arriving at them solely as articles of faith not an impediment to that in their minds, its actually better and more reliable as a route to factual truth than all that limited, prosaic, materialist facts and evidence stuff.

Will you please now stop telling me what would be necessary to establish facts. I know all that. I believe all that. I’m way ahead of you on all that. The point though is that those who want their faith “knowledge” to be taught in the same way as evidence-based knowledge don’t. They really, really don’t. For them faith does the job just fine thanks very much, so why on earth wouldn’t they teach the resurrection as just as much as fact as the Wars of the Roses are a fact?

Dear god – I think I need a lie down. Could you at least try to think before posting again?

Please?

[SusanDoris]

Why are you so bothered then?

Admit it. You're scared shitless that someone may read what Alan Burns is posting, understand it and become a believer. As a result you have to oppose it. After all, where will this leave your dream of a brave new world devoid of religious belief?

I am always happy to answer questions, but wonder why you choose the unpleasant language you have done in this post directed at me. Is it a deliberate attempt to demean? If so, it failes utterly and reflects on you, not me!
Is your vocabulary so bereft of words that you are unable to find anything different?  You might not have noticed, but the fact is that I personally never use swear words of any kind. What others do is up to them. I am sure you have[/I] noticed that I am able to express my views quite firmly!

As I believe I have mentione before to you, the words 'scared' is totally inapplicable as far as I'm concerned.