The Ethics of Atheists and Skeptics, A bold essay by Mark Fournier Options

[tmtek]

Hey all,

I just thought I'd cross post this little essay written by Humanist Association of Ottawa member Mark Fournier. He has a pretty rich history of writing challenging pieces on religion and philosophy, and this recent post by him is worth a read:

The Ethics of Atheists and Skeptics:
http://tachyphrenia.blogspot.com/2010/07/e...d-skeptics.html

I'd love to hear your thoughts on it.

[Andy]

Those are the conclusions that you would expect from any rational thinker who had had no personal experiences on which to base any faith. There are many such essays already, and there will be many more; my thought about it is that it is unimportant.

[Elliot]

Those are the conclusions that you would expect from any rational thinker who had had no personal experiences on which to base any faith. There are many such essays already, and there will be many more; my thought about it is that it is unimportant.

Brushing it off as unimportant is too easy Andy.

It is the response (note I did not call it an answer) that has turned of more Athiests than anything.

Since Religious people have not figured out a way to explain thier faith rationally, they turn to spurning non believers and just suggesting they know no better.

Sort of like your parents saying. "You will understand when you grow up."

Indeed as I age, I do understand they were right some of the time, BUT I also understand they were indeed wrong about other things.

An athiest may or may not be proven wrong in the end. That is the dilemna.

We all go to bed thinking we are right, but none of us KNOW we are right.

[Andy]

Brushing it off as unimportant is too easy Andy. It is the response (note I did not call it an answer) that has turned of more Athiests than anything.

It is logical from the atheist perspective, it brings nothing new, and it is a common theme. If you think that calling it unimportant is unfair, then what is there about it which is important?

Since Religious people have not figured out a way to explain thier faith rationally, they turn to spurning non believers and just suggesting they know no better. Sort of like your parents saying. "You will understand when you grow up." Indeed as I age, I do understand they were right some of the time, BUT I also understand they were indeed wrong about other things.

It's deeper than that: there IS NO way to explain it rationally, if there were, then it would not be faith. There is no spurning. Why would we spurn people who make rational choices given the information they have available to them?

An athiest may or may not be proven wrong in the end. That is the dilemna. We all go to bed thinking we are right, but none of us KNOW we are right.

Elliot, when you speak, you're giving the point of view of an atheist; did you know that? If you were not an atheist, I would not have to explain this to you.

I've noted in the Atheist camp a tendency to fail to truly understand the nature of belief, in that, some of them think that we arbitrarily choose to succumb to indoctrination, or that if we randomly choose to believe, that we do it because it gives us comfort and direction. Many are so locked in their own perspective that they don't grasp that we believe it because it's true and that we don't have any choice in the matter. The corollary to this is that we get 'accused' of knowing that what we believe in is fake, as though it's some kind of game to us. Let's be better than that; let's recognise that in the absence of any personal revelation, atheism is the only rational stance. In the absence of any evidence of God's existence, it is logical to go forward on the basis that the God hypothesis is false. The word 'lying' implies deception; there is no deception, only a lack of information.

The atheist has no evidence one way or another, but can build a case on likelihood, while poking fun at a ridiculous and corrupt church in the process. The theist has his own experience on which to base his faith, but cannot share this with anyone else in any meaningful way. The atheist has no personal experience to rely on, but has the weight of probability in his favour. The theist knows what is true but is crippled in his ability to prove it. Isn't it clear that this will go on forever?

Imagine for a moment that you were brought up in a remote tribal area. A traveller shows you a pair of magnets, but refuses to let you keep them, and passes on his way. When you try to explain this to your tribe, you find that there are many writings denying the existence of magnetism, and proving that it is impossible for any forces to apply without contact of some kind. Your friends ask you if there were perhaps a clan of invisible leprechauns pushing the magnets together. One of the tribe elders offers you a thoughtful and well-reasoned argument showing how unlikely it was that magnets existed... would you read it carefully to see if you were perhaps mistaken, or would you dismiss the document respectfully as unimportant?

[Country Mamma]

Elliot it is not fair to say that believers spurn atheists. I have atheist friends, not because they are atheist friends, but because they are a lovely people. I have a life long Muslim friend, who is my friend because he is a wonderful person whom I think I would be willing would put my children's lives in his hands.

I do not collect friends or neighbours because they are stuck in group think along my lines. (And yes I do have some friends who are like minded to..really) How boring and uneventful a life would that be if we spurned those that did not comply to our thought process??

Of course it is natural to make and have relationships over a commonality but that commonality does not have to be religion, atheism or politics (or the long census form either apparently). That is not a life, that is living in a coma like echo chamber of group self congratulation.

[Country Mamma]

And no I did not read it, why would I. Nothing on this earth is capable of changing my mind. If I was about to be burned at a stake or was tortured I might recant verbally but I know it would be a selfish weak lie to save myself some pain. I don't do pain well enough.

[Mrs Chicken]

It's deeper than that: there IS NO way to explain it rationally, if there were, then it would not be faith.

Ah yes, FAITH. And yet, I can show you thousands of {... faithful people ...} who have as much faith as you. Faith that drives them to blow themselves up (as long as they can take some people who don't share their "faith" with them). I'd have to say that your faith is either not as strong as theirs (since I doubt you'd kill yourself, or like Country Mama admits, allow yourself to be killed or tortured in the name of it). So if your faith is not as strong, then in any argument that's based on strength of faith you'd have to admit that they are right and you are wrong, and what God actually wants from you is for you to go out and murder some infidels. Alternatively, you can say your faith is just different to theirs, but again, there can't be 2 differents faiths and both be right just because you both KNOW your faith to be correct. How can 2 different people espouse such different faiths because they just KNOW them to be correct, and not be able to look at each other and realize that in fact what at least one of them KNOWs must not be as "known" as they think it is. But again, saying 1 TRUE + 1 FALSE != 2 TRUE would be simple fact - and there's no point arguing that with a theist, since they will not accept fact. Instead they wander off on to that old "it's all about faith" argument.

There is no spurning. Why would we spurn people who make rational choices given the information they have available to them?

Ah, but therein lies the rub. Most people do change their behaviour on the basis of their faith. You may be an exception, but hopefully you are not blinded enough by your faith to refuse to admit that much, if not most, of the violence and intolerance and discrimination in the world today is down to people who think that it is their duty to "educate" (or eradicate) people who don't share their "faith". From the merely irritating end of the scale of people who try and preach at your front door, or look down their noses at gay people; to the more dangerous extremists who force their teenage daughters into incestuous polygamous relationships or set off bombs to kill people who don't agree with them. I'm sure if you asked Warren Jeffs he'd tell you that he just KNEW it was OK for him to marry his own mother and a bunch of underage girls - and he couldn't explain it to you because you'd need faith to understand it.
I hope that illustrates how dangerous it is to have people going around in our society telling us that they have faith and they just "know" whatever they believe is correct, and that all us athiests should just accept that.

Imagine for a moment that you were brought up in a remote tribal area. A traveller shows you a pair of magnets, but refuses to let you keep them, and passes on his way. When you try to explain this to your tribe, you find that there are many writings denying the existence of magnetism, and proving that it is impossible for any forces to apply without contact of some kind. Your friends ask you if there were perhaps a clan of invisible leprechauns pushing the magnets together. One of the tribe elders offers you a thoughtful and well-reasoned argument showing how unlikely it was that magnets existed... would you read it carefully to see if you were perhaps mistaken, or would you dismiss the document respectfully as unimportant?

Imagine for a moment that you had been drunk, or dreaming, and imagined your traveller who showed you a pair of magnets. Imagine that you had been so desperate to believe in some sort of supernatural force more powerful than you were, and this con man came along and using whatever con trick necessary managed to hoodwink you into believing that these 2 "magnets" he had displayed some sort of attraction to each other. Imagine if based on that experience, you decided that you would put some device together which would make life "better" for your tribe. Imagine that you based your design of this device on the premise that 2 pieces of metal inside it will stick to each other for no other reason than that you had faith that they would do so. Imagine that putting this device together took you a year, during which time you didn't contribute to your tribe in any other way and scoffed at anybody who came along to tell you that you were wasting your time and that your time might be better spent helping the rest of the tribe with things that could be factually proved to contribute to the betterment of the tribe. Imagine at the end of it all you put the device together and the 2 pieces of metal flew apart, killing you and injuring several members of the tribe sitting nearby. That's the danger or faith.

This post has been edited by Andy: Jul 30 2010, 10:19 AM

Reason for edit: Oh dear... I just had to mod my own wife :-(

[thatguy]

One reason that God, in general, and Jesus Christ, more specifically, are unfathomable to atheists or rationalists is because if one has read a book they know that myth has been a part of this world since mankind created it to explain the unexplainable. Your magnet story, taken from another perspective, could involve the person in the remote tribe explaining the God that appeared to him with this powerful force and insisting that he believes in this God and his magic because he has experienced it. David Berkowitz would insist that a dog really spoke to him and would never buy your explanation for it. A schizophrenic will insist that angels appear to him. Mormon leaders will insist that Jesus Christ appears to them personally.

Jesus, as any more than a man, is a myth. He is no more the Son of God than any Caesar was who claimed the same divine birthright. So, the insistence of an appearance by said mythical person to you in a mystical experience has to indicate a problem.

I keep hearing the statement that atheism is it's own religion. I am not sure how NOT believing in a mystical, magic wizard in the sky who grants wishes somehow makes you religious.

I will always be curious why my coincidences are religious people's personal signs from God. I give the example of having typed on facebook a response to a status. My response involved hobbits, the shire and Frodo in particular. Not two seconds after I finished it, one of my dogs came to me with something in it's mouth. A Lord of the Rings bookmark with Frodo on it. A bookmark I had not seen in ages. An incredible coincidence! Now, if I had typed a comment regarding religion, my waning faith or my devout faith and my dog had shown up with a "Jesus Loves You" bookmark, well BOOM! Divine intervention!!! Religious people see what they want to see. Need to see. Believe what they deeply need to believe for whatever reason. It doesn't mean it is real, it means they need it to be real. It justifies any number of things. Success that one may not feel worthy of, hard times that one needs to feel is a test. The death or disablilty of a child (God has his reasons). It replaces heroin or alcohol as the new reason to live( it is a better one but still). We live in a world where 250 people die in a plane crash and one kid lives and God was looking out for HIM! Really? What kind of messed up logic is that? And that kid may grow up to say "I know I have a purpose on this earth because God saved me from death when I was a child". Again, how messed up is that? That anybody thinks that God created the UNIVERSE and that that same God takes the time out to personally point out a bumper sticker to help them make a life choice or got them that job at Burger King is deranged.

We created God, God did not create us. Evolution is a theory the same way gravity is a theory. So go throw a rock up in the air and stand underneath it.

[Country Mamma]

Ahhh Mrs. Chicken shall we also blot the spotless record of the rational non-religious too, put the multi 100's of Millions of murderous deaths at the door of atheists like Mao, pot pol, Stalin and so on who were trying to convert others to their religious adherence of non religion? Tat for a Tit. If religion must wear their's in your fear mongering theory of the perils of faith then so does non religious religions then.

[Country Mamma]

Mrs. Chicken:

I'd have to say that your faith is either not as strong as theirs (since I doubt you'd kill yourself, or like Country Mama admits, allow yourself to be killed or tortured in the name of it).

Please do not be so silly as to think this has any bearing on the strength of my faith, it is absolute and unshakable. All I did was admit that I might be capable of verbalizing a lie while being tortured or faced with burning at the stake, survival is a very strong human instinct don't you know and as I am not divine, (in that way,) I was admitting to being a human being who dislikes pain, it's a weakness. No one knows what exactly they would do when faced in reality with such scenario. So Shoot me, but do not presume to think that makes my faith weak, it only makes my flesh weak.

[Country Mamma]

Most people do change their behaviour on the basis of their faith. You may be an exception, but hopefully you are not blinded enough by your faith to refuse to admit that much, if not most, of the violence and intolerance and discrimination in the world today is down to people who think that it is their duty to "educate" (or eradicate) people who don't share their "faith".

Faith has nothing to do with religion really....


Hmmmm your comments are wise said could be said for almost any group really, global warmists extremists who think that their cause gives them the right to jail folks for being a denier, vilify those that have the audacity to be a denier of the religion. Add the Peta freaks, Eco-freaks and we have a real smorgashborg of nutters willing to do all sorts of nasty thing to each other because ideals are not strictly followed.

My contention is that Faith has absolutely NOTHING to do with it, it is arrogance and greed, the need to be validated to the point of lunacy, the constant US and THEM that is fostered in this world. People gain great power and riches from these manufactured conflicts, the stressing of differences between us all. It is to their benefit that we all stay weary or afraid and divided from each other.

[Aramis]

Well it's obvious that Mrs. Chicken is certainly the "better half".

Even if edited by Andy

[digitalman]

Ahhh Mrs. Chicken shall we also blot the spotless record of the rational non-religious too, put the multi 100's of Millions of murderous deaths at the door of atheists like Mao, pot pol, Stalin and so on who were trying to convert others to their religious adherence of non religion? Tat for a Tit. If religion must wear their's in your fear mongering theory of the perils of faith then so does non religious religions then.

I'm glad you brought this up, since nost people remain blind to the faults of their own group. I had posted the same thing in the last paragraph of my post here
http://www.ottawaforums.com/forum/index.ph...ocols&st=66

but since that time it has become lost in the mists of antiquity.

[digitalman]

Ah yes, FAITH. And yet, I can show you thousands of {... faithful people ...} who have as much faith as you. Faith that drives them to blow themselves up (as long as they can take some people who don't share their "faith" with them). I'd have to say that your faith is either not as strong as theirs (since I doubt you'd kill yourself, or like Country Mama admits, allow yourself to be killed or tortured in the name of it). So if your faith is not as strong, then in any argument that's based on strength of faith you'd have to admit that they are right and you are wrong, and what God actually wants from you is for you to go out and murder some infidels. Alternatively, you can say your faith is just different to theirs, but again, there can't be 2 differents faiths and both be right just because you both KNOW your faith to be correct. How can 2 different people espouse such different faiths because they just KNOW them to be correct, and not be able to look at each other and realize that in fact what at least one of them KNOWs must not be as "known" as they think it is. But again, saying 1 TRUE + 1 FALSE != 2 TRUE would be simple fact - and there's no point arguing that with a theist, since they will not accept fact. Instead they wander off on to that old "it's all about faith" argument.

And since it is just as impossible to prove the non-existence of God as it is to prove God's existence, it may take far more faith to believe there is no God than to believe in God, depending on the experiences life has dished out to one. How can an Atheist claim that his or her faith is any more correct than the faith of a Jew, Christian, Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, etc.?

The idea of God wanting somebody to go out and murder some infidels is an aberration of ANY faith, but exists for other reasons which I will brief in my next post.

[digitalman]

Ah, but therein lies the rub. Most people do change their behaviour on the basis of their faith. You may be an exception, but hopefully you are not blinded enough by your faith to refuse to admit that much, if not most, of the violence and intolerance and discrimination in the world today is down to people who think that it is their duty to "educate" (or eradicate) people who don't share their "faith".

Any accuracy to this statement can only be achieved if one intends to include those who have faith that God does NOT exist such as Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. I do not know if it was your intention to include them.

From the merely irritating end of the scale of people who try and preach at your front door, or look down their noses at gay people; to the more dangerous extremists who force their teenage daughters into incestuous polygamous relationships or set off bombs to kill people who don't agree with them. I'm sure if you asked Warren Jeffs he'd tell you that he just KNEW it was OK for him to marry his own mother and a bunch of underage girls - and he couldn't explain it to you because you'd need faith to understand it.
I hope that illustrates how dangerous it is to have people going around in our society telling us that they have faith and they just "know" whatever they believe is correct, and that all us athiests should just accept that.

For many of these extremists who claim a faith, their "faith" is simply smoke and mirrors; their true intentions are more personal; greed and selfishness, but rather than see themselves as the monsters they are, which would be unbearable, they unload responsibility and accountability for their selfish acts onto the dogma of their "faith", which they had twisted to meet their own selfish ends (kinda like McGuinty hitting us with an illegal health tax, and then quashing the "Taxpayer Protection Act" afterwards).
Wars are waged purely for economic reasons since there is much profit possible from war (The most profitable war in US history, for example, was won in 1842 when the USA gained 1.9million square miles of new territory from the Mexican border to Idaho, including the 4 corner states) and, under many circumstances, the true economic reasons for waging war are thinly disguised under the cloak of "religion" or "faith". This even holds true for Communism, which is very globalist in nature, and is well documented in writings such as Anatoliy Golitsyn's "New Lies for Old" and "The Perestroika Deception".

I don't think ANY of us of ANY faith, be it Christian, Atheist, Jewish, Islam, Hindu, etc. should have to accept or put up with the tripe spewed by these wicked and evil individuals which you describe.

[Mrs Chicken]

How can an Atheist claim that his or her faith is any more correct than the faith of a Jew, Christian, Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, etc.?

So it's your position that atheists have faith.... maybe some atheists would like to respond to that one.

Just as an aside digitalman, I'm not an atheist anyway - I'm an agnostic. It would only be rational to accept that if there were an entity capable of creating the universe, such an entity would be so far beyond our comprehension that we could never seriously consider that we would be able to get our tiny minds round the smallest aspect of it. Let alone be able to prove or disprove its existence.

I don't like having to admit I'm a tiny tadpole in an enormous ocean that's beyond my comprehension and that I'm unable to exert even the slightest amount of control over most of the universe that I exist in. It would be very comforting to me to be able to turn to an omnipotent being when I have no way of influencing things myself. But as a rational person I would have to admit that this is just what I want to believe, and cannot ever be "known", no matter how many "personal experiences" I deveop in my mind to convince myself of it.

For many of these extremists who claim a faith, their "faith" is simply smoke and mirrors; their true intentions are more personal; greed and selfishness, but rather than see themselves as the monsters they are, which would be unbearable, they unload responsibility and accountability for their selfish acts onto the dogma of their "faith", which they had twisted to meet their own selfish ends
I don't think ANY of us of ANY faith, be it Christian, Atheist, Jewish, Islam, Hindu, etc. should have to accept or put up with the tripe spewed by these wicked and evil individuals which you describe.

I disagree that extremists who blow themselves up are doing this out of greed or selfishness. The act of sacrificing one's own self is the ultimate act of selflessness not selfishness. I'd certainly agree that they are deluded, but I'm sure that their faith is just as sincere as yours.
This is the essence of what the "faithful" people in this thread seem to be saying ....
An "extremist's" faith is smoke and mirrors and they are just spewing tripe. But "my" faith is right and true. And everyone else has to accept this because anyone who has "faith" just "knows" it is so. And if you don't share my "faith" yourself you couldn't possibly understand ... so any argument you can give to the contrary is "unimportant".

Perhaps I should try and summarize what I was trying to say to Andy in my response to his initial post. In essence my point is this ..... Accepting a statement such as "I can't explain to you why I'm right, I just am because I just know it. And it's faith so you wouldn't understand and therefore anything you say to the contrary is unimportant." is both ludicrous and dangerous in the context of civilized society. Nobody should be allowed to justify anything based on such a statement. (I won't call it an argument - because it's not one). And consequently I don't like people holding forth in a public forum and trying to say such things without someone challenging that statement as unacceptable (even if it's my husband who says it).
It's not necessarily a religious thing. Although I'd be surprised if Stalin or Pol Pot had ever tried "I just know I'm right, because I have faith" or "You don't have faith so you're opinion is unimportant", as arguments to get their way.

[digitalman]

So it's your position that atheists have faith.... maybe some atheists would like to respond to that one.

Just as an aside digitalman, I'm not an atheist anyway - I'm an agnostic.

Many of my Atheist/Agnostic friends take this position. I do understand their reasoning, and we do accepr the fact that we hold different beliefs.

It would only be rational to accept that if there were an entity capable of creating the universe, such an entity would be so far beyond our comprehension that we could never seriously consider that we would be able to get our tiny minds round the smallest aspect of it. Let alone be able to prove or disprove its existence.

You make perfect sense here, too, and that is why so many people believe so many different things. I believe what I believe but I cannot prove that I am more right than somebody else.

I don't like having to admit I'm a tiny tadpole in an enormous ocean that's beyond my comprehension and that I'm unable to exert even the slightest amount of control over most of the universe that I exist in. It would be very comforting to me to be able to turn to an omnipotent being when I have no way of influencing things myself. But as a rational person I would have to admit that this is just what I want to believe, and cannot ever be "known", no matter how many "personal experiences" I deveop in my mind to convince myself of it.

To the best of my knowledge, people's personal experiences are NOT developed their minds. I had recently entrusted your husband with a "defining moment" personal experience of my youth via a PM, and I am authorizing him to share it with you now provided you retain this information in confidence. Please note, this experience was NOT developed in my mind, and I can dig up the newspaper article pertaining to it, scan it, and e-mail it to you to prove it. I'm sure many people's lives are full of experiences that are not figments of their imaginations.

I disagree that extremists who blow themselves up are doing this out of greed or selfishness. The act of sacrificing one's own self is the ultimate act of selflessness not selfishness.

well.... yes and no. They are obviously brainwashed and instilled with the belief that they will have great riches in their next life in their version of Heaven, and they are brainwashed into thinking that blowing themselves up along with innocent others is the fast track to that better life, and therein lies the selfishness.

They are members of a nation whose extremists have a very expansionist and globalist agenda and they take pride in being a part of that nation. For the advancement of the their nation, they are willing to give up their lives; the sacrifice of the few for the potential future material gain of the many, and therein lies their selflessness.

I'd certainly agree that they are deluded, but I'm sure that their faith is just as sincere as yours.
This is the essence of what the "faithful" people in this thread seem to be saying ....
An "extremist's" faith is smoke and mirrors and they are just spewing tripe. But "my" faith is right and true. And everyone else has to accept this because anyone who has "faith" just "knows" it is so. And if you don't share my "faith" yourself you couldn't possibly understand ... so any argument you can give to the contrary is "unimportant".

Perhaps I should try and summarize what I was trying to say to Andy in my response to his initial post. In essence my point is this ..... Accepting a statement such as "I can't explain to you why I'm right, I just am because I just know it. And it's faith so you wouldn't understand and therefore anything you say to the contrary is unimportant." is both ludicrous and dangerous in the context of civilized society. Nobody should be allowed to justify anything based on such a statement. (I won't call it an argument - because it's not one). And consequently I don't like people holding forth in a public forum and trying to say such things without someone challenging that statement as unacceptable (even if it's my husband who says it).
It's not necessarily a religious thing. Although I'd be surprised if Stalin or Pol Pot had ever tried "I just know I'm right, because I have faith" or "You don't have faith so you're opinion is unimportant", as arguments to get their way.

You may be correct that people like CM, Andy and myself are just as true to our beliefs as these extremists may be to theirs but regardless, we are NOT like them. Not all "faithful" people on this forum hold this argument. I have plainly stated, many, many , many, many times on this forum that the existence of GOD can Neither be PROVEN nor DISPROVEN, and that I have my belief, but I cannot prove it to be right anymore than anybody else can prove their belief to be right. However, it seems to be continuously falling on blind eyes among those whose beliefs differ from mine, when they read my posts; since all of us of similar belief seem to get painted with the same brush when the topic of religion and faith rears its ugly head again. Believe me, I will NEVER start a thread on this forum arguing the precedence of one belief over another(like Tony just did with his essay), but I WILL debate anybody who makes the claim or assertion that their belief is more right than others, and I try to end these threads with the same argument that I have used in the past; that nobody's belief can be proven right over anybody else's. I think the Scottish rock band, Marillion, states it very well in their 1997 song, "Estonia": "Finding the answer, it's a human obsession; but you might as well talk to the stones and the trees and the sea. 'Cause nobody knows and so few can see, there's only caring and beauty and truth beyond darkness...."

I admire your vigour with which you challenge your husband. From the posts I have read by him he seems like a very nice guy. I think you may have convinced him to word the expression of his faith differently.

As far as Stalin and Pol Pot were concerned the statement could be shortened to "I just know I'm right" and since they viewed religion as a hinderance to their plans, they banned it all since, probably in their eyes, people without faith lose hope... and people without hope are easy to control.

[Andy]

Oh, my God there's so much to cover, I don't know where to start; in fact, perhaps I shouldn't.

Theres one thing I do want to say in general on this subject, though. Normally, when you explain something, you assume that if you do it properly, the recipient will 'believe' you. This applies to virtually all reasoned argument. The explanation that I (a theist) am giving in terms of having had personal experiences is simply the best I can do to describe the reasoning behind my views, but it's there for your (the atheists) interest only... I can't expect you to 'believe' it in the same way as normal explanations. If you have not had any of these, then clearly you will not believe me, and you will find some other explanation for my report. If you were truly to 'believe' me, then you would of necessity have to allow for the possibility of some kind of being/spirit outside our physical world, and that would be a conversion; you're not going to be converted by someone elses report - to expect otherwise would be silly.

So don't complain that my explanations are convenient and unconvincing... I know. I don't expect you to 'believe' me, and I don't expect you to treat my religious views with any special consideration, because you don't have any reason to.

[Mrs Chicken]

As far as Stalin and Pol Pot were concerned the statement could be shortened to "I just know I'm right"

And would you have let Mr Stalin or Mr Pot go unchallenged if they made such a statement in a public forum? ..... I wouldn't.

I'm tempted to carry on with the subject of personal experiences, but maybe I'll start another thread....

[digitalman]

And would you have let Mr Stalin or Mr Pot go unchallenged if they made such a statement in a public forum? ..... I wouldn't.

I agree with you.