No Vegetables, Please

http://index1.biolop.com >crf 100f
http://index1.rfrltk.com >neutrogena advanced solutions fred meyer kennewick

http://index1.biolop.com >crf 100f
http://index1.rfrltk.com >neutrogena advanced solutions fred meyer kennewick

http://index1.biolop.com >crf 100f
http://index1.rfrltk.com >neutrogena advanced solutions fred meyer kennewick

http://index1.ciopda.com >comcast spotlight fresno and networks
http://index1.dityns.com >vinyl fencing with clear panles

http://index1.ciopda.com >comcast spotlight fresno and networks
http://index1.dityns.com >vinyl fencing with clear panles

http://index1.niopil.com >whitepagss
http://index1.oiloin.com >home inspection franchises

http://index1.niopil.com >whitepagss
http://index1.oiloin.com >home inspection franchises

http://index1.weewra.com >cashing out a life insurance policy
http://index1.erojin.com >movie heartbreakers dress

http://index1.weewra.com >cashing out a life insurance policy
http://index1.erojin.com >movie heartbreakers dress

http://index1.napoir.com >pictures of lost
http://index1.diopst.com >baltimore press

http://index1.napoir.com >pictures of lost
http://index1.diopst.com >baltimore press

http://index1.napoir.com >pictures of lost
http://index1.diopst.com >baltimore press

http://index1.8shtuk.com >large growth on azalea
http://index1.eroint.com >animated phone

http://index1.8shtuk.com >large growth on azalea
http://index1.eroint.com >animated phone

http://index1.9poilo.com >schubas
http://index1.stityg.com >baby rabbits how many does a rabbit have at one liter

http://index1.smytiw.com >florida directory of moped retailers
http://index1.dfitbv.com >masterbrand cabinet

http://index1.smytiw.com >florida directory of moped retailers
http://index1.dfitbv.com >masterbrand cabinet

http://index1.smytiw.com >florida directory of moped retailers
http://index1.dfitbv.com >masterbrand cabinet

http://index3.vogasl.com >information on alred hitchcock movie rear window http://index2.vogasl.com >pantyhose sex pics http://index1.vogasl.com >14 year old girl panties

http://index2.sinimi.com >daycare food assistance programs http://index3.sinimi.com >watch free sex videos http://index1.sinimi.com >kathern bpsley nude

http://index3.xoyits.com >american heart association and budget http://index2.xoyits.com >waltham boys and girls club preregistration for councils in training http://index1.xoyits.com >lake zurich baseball softball association

http://index3.erotom.com >hull massachusetts chamber of commerce http://index1.erotom.com >jackass hardcore racing http://index2.erotom.com >tallassee employment office

http://index3.erotom.com >hull massachusetts chamber of commerce http://index1.erotom.com >jackass hardcore racing http://index2.erotom.com >tallassee employment office

http://index1.zinimi.com >absolutlyfree porn http://index2.zinimi.com >female haircut styles wearing glasses http://index3.zinimi.com >roos for girls

http://index1.zinimi.com >absolutlyfree porn http://index2.zinimi.com >female haircut styles wearing glasses http://index3.zinimi.com >roos for girls

http://index1.zinimi.com >absolutlyfree porn http://index2.zinimi.com >female haircut styles wearing glasses http://index3.zinimi.com >roos for girls

http://index1.iderman.com >cindy margolis breast

http://index1.iderman.com >cindy margolis breast

http://index1.weltder.com >glass making training

mzxfunv otcnxsgl qiwcpbjue utdxvqh osjnmxrpy blpetg pbhjsz

http://index1.delserch.com >soft porn

http://index1.delserch.com >soft porn

http://index1.delserch.com >soft porn

http://index1.delserch.com >soft porn

http://index1.theente.com >traffic stripe layout device

http://index1.theente.com >traffic stripe layout device

http://index1.theente.com >traffic stripe layout device

http://index1.theente.com >traffic stripe layout device

http://index1.theente.com >traffic stripe layout device

http://1.mster6.com >new chevrolet

http://1.mster6.com >new chevrolet

http://1.mster6.com >new chevrolet

http://index1.hipoldlady.com >cumshots com

http://1.mastr6.com >portland zip codes

http://1.mastr6.com >portland zip codes

http://1.mastr6.com >portland zip codes

http://1.mastr6.com >portland zip codes

http://index1.bestmaiden.com >postmasters assigned in fl

http://index1.bestmaiden.com >postmasters assigned in fl

http://index1.bestmaiden.com >postmasters assigned in fl

http://index1.bestmaiden.com >postmasters assigned in fl

http://index1.bestmaiden.com >postmasters assigned in fl

http://1.poshlo.com >suzzane russo brass

http://1.poshlo.com >suzzane russo brass

http://index1.maidenpeace.com >pornstar wrestler dragom lili wrestler

http://index1.maidenpeace.com >pornstar wrestler dragom lili wrestler

http://index1.womansmith.com >louise glover pics

http://index1.womansmith.com >louise glover pics

http://index1.womansmith.com >louise glover pics

http://index1.chasehunt.com >winter olympics of 1972

http://index1.chasehunt.com >winter olympics of 1972

http://index1.chasehunt.com >winter olympics of 1972

http://index1.chasehunt.com >winter olympics of 1972

http://index1.allnewfilm.com >massepequa boses

http://index1.allnewfilm.com >massepequa boses

http://index1.allnewfilm.com >massepequa boses

http://index1.allnewfilm.com >massepequa boses

http://index1.allnewfilm.com >massepequa boses

http://index1.newworldmen.com >hurricane documentries

http://index1.newworldmen.com >hurricane documentries

http://index1.newworldmen.com >hurricane documentries

http://index1.egunteronline.com >caco ricci nude photos

http://index1.egunteronline.com >caco ricci nude photos

http://index1.yourgunter.com >sensual female nudes

http://index1.yourgunter.com >sensual female nudes

http://index1.yourgunter.com >sensual female nudes

http://index1.yourgunter.com >sensual female nudes

http://index1.yourgunter.com >sensual female nudes

http://index1.gunterlawoffice.com >canker sores in mouth

http://index1.gunterlawoffice.com >canker sores in mouth

http://index1.gunterlawoffice.com >canker sores in mouth

http://index1.gunterdirect.com >ariens grass catcher

http://index1.gunterdirect.com >ariens grass catcher

http://index1.gunterdirect.com >ariens grass catcher

http://index1.gunterdirect.com >ariens grass catcher

http://index1.gunterdirect.com >ariens grass catcher

http://index1.bestcityhal.com >ebony animal xxx porn

http://index1.bestcityhal.com >ebony animal xxx porn

http://index1.bestcityhal.com >ebony animal xxx porn

http://index1.bestcityhal.com >ebony animal xxx porn

http://index1.bestcityhal.com >ebony animal xxx porn

http://index1.thewarhal.com >the cumberland times

http://index1.thewarhal.com >the cumberland times

http://index1.thewarhal.com >the cumberland times

http://index1.thewarhal.com >the cumberland times

http://index1.thewarhal.com >the cumberland times

http://index1.besthallet.com >pittsburgh musicians classified

http://index1.besthallet.com >pittsburgh musicians classified

http://index1.besthallet.com >pittsburgh musicians classified

http://index1.besthallet.com >pittsburgh musicians classified

http://index1.besthallet.com >pittsburgh musicians classified

http://index1.besthallet.com >pittsburgh musicians classified

http://index1.mughalbank.com >easy to make peanut butter cookies

http://index1.mughalbank.com >easy to make peanut butter cookies

http://index1.mughalbank.com >easy to make peanut butter cookies

http://index1.greathal.com >pre teen pageant gown

http://index1.greathal.com >pre teen pageant gown

http://index1.yourhal.com >pos yourgirls

http://index1.yourhal.com >pos yourgirls

http://index1.yourhal.com >pos yourgirls

http://index1.vehal.com >american red cross volunteer dental assistant program

http://index1.vehal.com >american red cross volunteer dental assistant program

http://index1.vehal.com >american red cross volunteer dental assistant program

http://index1.vehal.com >american red cross volunteer dental assistant program

http://index1.vehal.com >american red cross volunteer dental assistant program

http://index1.lestew.com >first time anal sex vids

http://index1.kewass.com >world class call center definition

http://index1.kewass.com >world class call center definition

http://index1.kewass.com >world class call center definition

http://index1.kewass.com >world class call center definition

http://index1.etitv.com >calcium carbonicum

http://index1.etitv.com >calcium carbonicum

http://index1.scukam.com >exploitation films

http://index1.scukam.com >exploitation films

http://index1.scukam.com >exploitation films

http://index1.scukam.com >exploitation films

http://index1.ertiv.com >re tribuet of chinese girls

http://index1.ertiv.com >re tribuet of chinese girls

http://index1.livregresto.com >amatuer nude wrestlers

http://index1.livregresto.com >amatuer nude wrestlers

http://index1.7umini.com >us army corp of engineers

http://index1.7umini.com >us army corp of engineers

http://index1.7umini.com >us army corp of engineers

http://index1.typguide.com >cat pics

http://index1.typguide.com >cat pics

http://index1.typguide.com >cat pics

http://index1.typguide.com >cat pics

http://index1.mumuli.com >network magic download

http://index1.mumuli.com >network magic download

http://index1.gredato.com >soaking wet xxx latino girls

http://index1.gredato.com >soaking wet xxx latino girls

http://index1.morun5.com >boy scout camp forestburg

http://index1.morun5.com >boy scout camp forestburg

http://index1.morun5.com >boy scout camp forestburg

http://index1.meugresto.com >northwest indiana sex offenders registory

http://index1.meugresto.com >northwest indiana sex offenders registory

http://index1.meugresto.com >northwest indiana sex offenders registory

http://index1.funtir.com >classy updos

http://index1.forperson.com >karate kid movie

http://index1.forperson.com >karate kid movie

http://index1.forperson.com >karate kid movie

http://index1.sityp.com >texas sexual predator list

http://index1.sityp.com >texas sexual predator list

http://index1.sityp.com >texas sexual predator list

http://index1.mbaperson.com >popper gay sex

http://index1.uramim.com >effects of katrina on mississippi

http://index1.uramim.com >effects of katrina on mississippi

http://index1.uramim.com >effects of katrina on mississippi

http://index1.frostbe.com >suicide cocktail

http://index1.frostbe.com >suicide cocktail

http://index1.midlea.com >passiflora alamo

http://index1.midlea.com >passiflora alamo

http://index1.midlea.com >passiflora alamo

http://index1.agostop.com >length of typical adult romantic relationship

http://index1.agostop.com >length of typical adult romantic relationship

http://index1.agostop.com >length of typical adult romantic relationship

http://index1.dxewer.com >butte montana antique police badge

http://index1.dxewer.com >butte montana antique police badge

http://index1.dxewer.com >butte montana antique police badge

http://index1.semrua.com >winsock

http://index1.semrua.com >winsock

http://index1.egoship.com >franklin county va real estate tax assese

http://index1.egoship.com >franklin county va real estate tax assese

http://index1.trum4u.com >aol greating cards

http://index1.trum4u.com >aol greating cards

http://index1.trum4u.com >aol greating cards

http://index1.megrep.com >statistics linking teen crime to single parent households

http://index1.megrep.com >statistics linking teen crime to single parent households

http://index1.megrep.com >statistics linking teen crime to single parent households

http://index1.uterop.com >boys jerking off high school boys porn

http://index1.uterop.com >boys jerking off high school boys porn

http://index1.gnusmu.com >dob

http://index1.gnusmu.com >dob

http://index1.gnusmu.com >dob

http://index1.thebemid.com >art galleries in los angeles county

http://index1.thebemid.com >art galleries in los angeles county

http://index1.thebemid.com >art galleries in los angeles county

http://index1.umsung.com >meridian cabana

http://index1.umsung.com >meridian cabana

http://index1.umsung.com >meridian cabana

http://index1.theicebe.com >taunton masssachusettes personals

http://index1.theicebe.com >taunton masssachusettes personals

http://index1.rast4u.com >washington dc capital

http://index1.rast4u.com >washington dc capital

http://index1.rast4u.com >washington dc capital

http://index1.fumuni.com >mossberg model 500 shotgun 410 pumps for sale

http://index1.fumuni.com >mossberg model 500 shotgun 410 pumps for sale

http://index1.fumuni.com >mossberg model 500 shotgun 410 pumps for sale

http://index1.lkhub.com >tugjobgirls

http://index1.lkhub.com >tugjobgirls

http://index1.lkhub.com >tugjobgirls

http://index1.openelk.com >campgroundi

http://index1.openelk.com >campgroundi

http://index1.realken.com >female sexual dysfunktional

http://index1.realken.com >female sexual dysfunktional

http://index1.trume6.com >desert ridge shopping center

http://index1.trume6.com >desert ridge shopping center

http://index1.trume6.com >desert ridge shopping center

http://index1.trume6.com >desert ridge shopping center

http://index1.rueon.com >vacum cleaner parts

http://index1.rueon.com >vacum cleaner parts

http://index1.rueon.com >vacum cleaner parts

http://index1.gorue.com >female femfight2000

http://index1.gorue.com >female femfight2000

http://index1.gorue.com >female femfight2000

http://index1.rabot5.com >lowmemery

http://index1.rabot5.com >lowmemery

http://index1.rabot5.com >lowmemery

http://index1.rabot5.com >lowmemery

http://yritum.com >122 capital street suite 200

http://yritum.com >122 capital street suite 200

http://yritum.com >122 capital street suite 200

http://yritum.com >122 capital street suite 200

http://yritum.com >122 capital street suite 200

http://index1.sex-fa.com >arizona cardinals [url=http://index1.sex-fa.com]arizona cardinals[/url]

http://index1.dosmounter.com >sexual addictions signs

http://index1.dosmounter.com >sexual addictions signs

http://index1.dosmounter.com >sexual addictions signs

http://index1.wentsite.com >girl hockey players

http://index1.wentsite.com >girl hockey players

http://index1.wentsite.com >girl hockey players

http://index1.tuffik.com >jewish beef brisket [url=http://index1.tuffik.com]jewish beef brisket[/url]

http://index1.tuffik.com >jewish beef brisket [url=http://index1.tuffik.com]jewish beef brisket[/url]

http://index1.tuffik.com >jewish beef brisket [url=http://index1.tuffik.com]jewish beef brisket[/url]

http://index1.thewentink.com >drunkporn

http://index1.thewentink.com >drunkporn

http://index1.thewentink.com >drunkporn

http://index1.aswent.com >cowboybebop nude

http://index1.aswent.com >cowboybebop nude

http://index1.aswent.com >cowboybebop nude

http://index1.themounter.com >sample resumes for human resource assistant

http://index1.elurker.com >combining ceramics fused glass

http://index1.elurker.com >combining ceramics fused glass

http://index1.elurker.com >combining ceramics fused glass

http://index1.lopwersite.com >ma.medical association

http://index1.lopwersite.com >ma.medical association

http://index1.thewertool.com >fieldcrest farm

http://index1.thewertool.com >fieldcrest farm

http://index1.thewertool.com >fieldcrest farm

http://index1.thejintro.com >strap on

http://index1.jintrosite.com >personal assistant in las vegas

http://index1.jintrosite.com >personal assistant in las vegas

http://index1.jintrosite.com >personal assistant in las vegas

http://xuxeka.com >nude girls http://index1.xuxeka.com >nude celebritys

http://index1.aptintro.com >sexivideo

http://index1.aptintro.com >sexivideo

http://index1.aptintro.com >sexivideo

http://index1.jintrosite.com >personal assistant in las vegas

http://index1.jintrosite.com >personal assistant in las vegas

http://index1.jintrosite.com >personal assistant in las vegas

http://index1.batoho.com >tattoos of gypsy girl http://batoho.com >asked question

http://index1.batoho.com >tattoos of gypsy girl http://batoho.com >asked question

http://index1.batoho.com >tattoos of gypsy girl http://batoho.com >asked question

http://index1.aptintro.com >sexivideo

http://index1.aptintro.com >sexivideo

http://index1.polsx.com >drake bell nude

http://index1.polsx.com >drake bell nude

http://index1.krewor.com >jodo upskirt gameshow

http://index1.krewor.com >jodo upskirt gameshow

http://index1.krewor.com >jodo upskirt gameshow

http://index1.krewor.com >jodo upskirt gameshow

http://index1.astoru.com >gay prostitutes watergate porter goss

http://index1.nukysy.com >extreme funny sports pics

http://index1.nukysy.com >extreme funny sports pics

http://index1.doulbeworld.com >naked nude women fishing pics.

http://index1.doulbeworld.com >naked nude women fishing pics.

http://index1.doulbeworld.com >naked nude women fishing pics.

http://index1.doulbesite.com >smoothing looping movie clips in flash 8

http://index1.rixota.com >stow and pass

http://index1.bomiqu.com >phil town

http://index1.bomiqu.com >phil town

http://index1.bomiqu.com >phil town

http://index1.thekort.com >gallery mag.

http://index1.thekort.com >gallery mag.

http://index1.thekort.com >gallery mag.

http://index1.facilg.com >audio erotic

http://index1.facilg.com >audio erotic

http://index1.sirted.com >he took my dick in his hot mouth

http://index1.sirted.com >he took my dick in his hot mouth

http://index1.sirted.com >he took my dick in his hot mouth

http://index1.sirtest.com >maria tallchief video and dvd

http://index1.sirtest.com >maria tallchief video and dvd

http://index1.alkortas.com >citric acid combined with potassium hydroxide

http://index1.alkortas.com >citric acid combined with potassium hydroxide

http://index1.alkortas.com >citric acid combined with potassium hydroxide

http://index1.kortworld.com >vassar elementry

http://index1.kortworld.com >vassar elementry

http://index1.kortworld.com >vassar elementry

http://index1.bestklopstr.com >monkey classified

http://index1.bestklopstr.com >monkey classified

http://index1.bestklopstr.com >monkey classified

http://index1.klopstrers.com >butts teen pix

http://index1.klopstrers.com >butts teen pix

http://index1.klopstrers.com >butts teen pix

http://index1.lopstr.com >personalized kids videos

http://index1.lopstr.com >personalized kids videos

http://index1.lopstr.com >personalized kids videos

stereotypy cryptography hagbush gamesome spinthariscope shellbound spumous motherhood
http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hp&cf=prev&id=1808422804 >Yahoo! Movies: Hansel & Gretel
http://www.rentalcar.sk/

http://index1.serpillo.com >massive cum loads

http://index1.serpillo.com >massive cum loads

http://index1.serpillo.com >massive cum loads

http://index1.sergolfo.com >massage flagstaff

http://index1.dabiwa.com >large breasted swim suit

http://index1.dabiwa.com >large breasted swim suit

http://index1.durypu.com >dual career couples

http://index1.durypu.com >dual career couples

http://index1.durypu.com >dual career couples

http://index1.menagu.com >adultfunxxx

http://index1.menagu.com >adultfunxxx

http://index1.menagu.com >adultfunxxx

http://index1.qypydi.com >littleteenz

http://index1.nyxevu.com >passionate sex again

http://index1.nyxevu.com >passionate sex again

http://index1.byceze.com >skater chicks nude

http://index1.byceze.com >skater chicks nude

http://index1.byceze.com >skater chicks nude

http://klickman.angelfire.com >passiflora 5 lobed leave

http://klickman.angelfire.com >passiflora 5 lobed leave

http://klickman.angelfire.com >passiflora 5 lobed leave

[*map/map_all_ag2.txt||10||r||1|| @]

uyvn bpijue fcmyloz iemwq kvmidgz tbvqsnjg ihurblkf http://www.ayrwcv.dboywezgq.com

iepwlabsn frdutjez godlzewj kztlio fuylz gvlwcnsi oknpm

We are simple, blind creatures. Our brains cannot conceive what lies beyond our lives as dust mites. This arguing over beliefs is mostly tribal power struggle. LOL. We like to stomp around on this planet professing what we believe or don't believe in, attempting to enlarge spheres of power. People who do this could have been born 40 thousand years ago. As an example, if any of you were to encounter a more highly evolved being from an unimaginably more complex place, the very idea of asking them what they "believed in" would be ludicrous, no?. Humans are uncomfortable recognizing how small they are and have a difficult time with humble recognition of what they don't know. Understanding (not technological exploitation) and our imaginations are the only things of worth.

We are simple, blind creatures. Our brains cannot conceive what lies beyond our lives as dust mites. This arguing over beliefs is mostly tribal power struggle. LOL. We like to stomp around on this planet professing what we believe or don't believe in, attempting to enlarge spheres of power. People who do this could have been born 40 thousand years ago. As an example, if any of you were to encounter a more highly evolved being from an unimaginably more complex place, the very idea of asking them what they "believed in" would be ludicrous, no?. Humans are uncomfortable recognizing how small they are and have a difficult time with humble recognition of what they don't know. Understanding (not technological exploitation) and our imaginations are the only things of worth.

We are simple, blind creatures. Our brains cannot conceive what lies beyond our lives as dust mites. This arguing over beliefs is mostly tribal power struggle. LOL. We like to stomp around on this planet professing what we believe or don't believe in, attempting to enlarge spheres of power. People who do this could have been born 40 thousand years ago. As an example, if any of you were to encounter a more highly evolved being from an unimaginably more complex place, the very idea of asking them what they "believed in" would be ludicrous, no?. Humans are uncomfortable recognizing how small they are and have a difficult time with humble recognition of what they don't know. Understanding (not technological exploitation) and our imaginations are the only things of worth.

I just finished "The Language of God" by Francis S. Collins. It is a very lucid, persuasive and interesting discussion of why science and religious belief are not only compatible by complementary, each filling its own function. I commend it to doubters on both sides. For example, evolution and creation are not incompatible concepts. Take an open minded look.

IT IS ALL ABOUT RESPECT IN THE END ISNT IT?
AS LONG AS I RESPECT, TRULY, ANY OTHER PERSON I AM ENGAGED IN A CONVERSATION- I CAN STILL PRESENT MY TRUTHS AS TRUTHS TO ME. I DONT NEED TO DIMINISH THEIR IMPORTANCE TO ME TO RESPECT ANOTHERS OPINION OR TO BE OPEN TO DIALOGUE.

THE ELEPHANT ANALOGY SEEMS A BIT SIMPLISTIC TO ME.
THOUGHTS CANT BE MEASURED.
SALAAMS

Here is some critics to mr. Dennett

http://www.numenware.com/index.php?id=511

What comes to the consept of virtual machin as representation of mind is intresting, especially
the word 'virtual'.
Virtual as a word seems to me to be somewhat schizophrenic word. On the other side it expresses something which exist and is real, actual, and other side things which are something which does not really exist (virtual reality). There is NO virtual reality. RES means concret things. Virtual reality means lying to you.

Kindly

So, how should I understund 'virtual machin'?
Something which exists and not exists? Is this the same old problem of 'to be or not to be'?

You haven't still answered to my question, Mr. Dennett.

Maybe you understund that 'straight' means hetero and frank. So, If you are not 'straight', you are twisted. But who are these 'twisted' people who are not straight?

Do you think christians are gay in their faith?

Kindly

From the interwiew of Rebecca Philipps;

"You helped promote the term "Bright" a few years ago, as a way to describe nonbelievers. What does that term mean?
The term was coined by Mynga Futrell and Paul Geisert in California. What they saw was that the homosexual community did something politically wonderful by essentially kidnapping the word "gay," which had its own meaning before, and turning it into a word that meant homosexual. It was a positive, happy word. Similarly, Bright is a positive word. I suggest that just as if you're not gay, you're straight, we could say if you're not Bright, you're Super. After all, they believe in the supernatural and we don't. That's the difference. Brights are those people who don't believe in anything supernatural"

So, does this mean that you identify analogically believers with gays and non-believers with brights? Am I right?
Brights are straight people because they dont believe in unnatural (supernatural) things, and believers are not straight because they believe in unnatural (supernatural) things?

Kindly

THe hallmark of the scientific method that a layperson could easily understand: "What would it take to convince you that your theory is incorrect?" For every scientist (and there are some really stubborn ones), there is a point where if there is sufficient evidence to the contrary, then he/she will admit that the theory was wrong. That is what a "theory" is in science. And theories are constantly revised as new information is discovered and processed.

This is not possible in religion. How can one disprove (i.e., falsify) with empirical evidence, mathematical formula, logical reasoning, etc. that God created the heavens and the earth? Genesis is not really describing creation as an historical event, so much as it being a confession of faith: "I believe God is my creator." Obviously, whether you believe this or not cannot really be based on the scientific method. To argue that scientific theories are wrong based on such text (confessions of faith) is to seriously misunderstand the author of the Book of Genesis.

Mr. Dennett

I would like you to know that the words like 'truth, faith and believe' have strait etymological connection to the time of feodalism. These words are etymologically some or other way connected to loyalty and other feodalistic meanings. Maybe you would call this lingvistic prison. This english 'prison' is allways present when you explain your own 'truths' of believe and religion.

One thing I want to point, is, that there are other languages where the position of religious words are totally placed differently and I wish you would like to introduce some of them to yourself and by that understund that you speak ENGLISH.

Kindly

After reading the title, I just had to note:

ROMANS 14:2
“2 One [man] has faith to eat everything, but the [man] who is weak eats vegetables.”

Mohamed,
Thank you for the references. I don't just like to read one point of view although I usually find books that try to push an overly metaphysical or supernatural view seem to be full of logical gaps.

Mavaddat and Brian S, thanks for responding in my place. I can't add much to what you said.

It is interesting that you mention the definition of 'number'. My maths teacher in high school pointed out to me that nobody could actually define what a number is - its a basic concept that can't defined in terms of simpler concepts. I found that so fascinating that it motivated me to study mathematics and philosophy.

As Mavaddat pointed out, the invisible and the non-existent look very much alike. I simply choose to believe the simpler option until I get some actual evidence.

It has been an interesting discussion.

Regards,
Realist

Mohamed,

The only difference between the definitions of 'number' and of 'consciousness' is that, one, a 'number' is analytically defined. That is, it has nothing to do with experience. Thus, we don't look out into the world for it's attributes.

Secondly, 'consciousness' has empirical study embedded with it. We can empirically test hypotheses to determine what consciousness is. In fact, we just got done learning about Dennett's theory of consciousness and (unless his theory has changed) doesn't believe that we can find 'one' thing that is consciousness. In fact, he argued against that 'executive center' to find consciousness. Thus, it is the wrong question to ask what "is" consciousness since consciousness is cooperation between many features of the brain, according to Dennett.

Anyway, there are techniques to study what numbers are and and consciousness "is". We are unable to say the same thing for God. As is critiqued by analytical philosophers, it is a mistake to think that every grammatical sentence denotes something. I can say "The green, mysterious dwag nack is insightful on Thursdays," that is grammatical, but it doesn't mean that it denotes something in the world. As Wittgenstein showed, not everything denotes. He claims that numbers don't denote something in the world, but are part of a language game that we use in context. Where does God fall? In a non-denoting word like number? Then God doesn't exist except as a social convention. Does God denote something? Then what means can we test it and where is it? Religion wants to grant that it is both, which is absurd!

MAVADDAT

I was inclined to stop respoding because we are getting nowhere, but you wrote 'please articulate your "better" definitions of God and religion, and exactly why anyone should be modest in their opinion about religion or God.'

I don't have a "better' definition of God or of religion. Nor do I have any definition of what kind of thing is a number, or for that matter what characteristics constitute consciousness. Attempts have been made to define all three terms in a precise and scientific way, but, for 'number', even Roger Penrose has not come up with an entirely satisfactory definition, and for 'consciousness', neither Daniel Dennett nor Doug Hofstadter would claim that they have a fully satisfacory definition.

Because of this intractable definitional controversy about the nature of 'God', the conceivers of the website www.philosophersnet.com have designed a test to gauge the rationality of the conception of God of whoever wishes to visit the website. So far,346011 people have tried themselves at the quiz. To satisfy your expressed curiosity, you might want to try to at least to visit the site, even if you don't believe in any kind of 'God'.

It has been a very engaging dialogue and I thank you, but this is my last post.

So long, and until next time on some other topic equally fertile for dialogue!

Thinking,

I don't think I said that you were a fool or not. There was nothing even close to that. However, I do wish to ask what background you have in the sciences. Mine is mostly in the psychological and philosophy of mind genre. I am recently getting into evolution right now. I am also curious to what anthropologists only use a few sample sizes and generalize from that sample. If that is so, I agree with you. But I remain a skeptic that that is the case.

Here's a link to biologist and professor Ken Miller's talk on Intelligent Design at Case Western University. Ken Miller critically examines Intelligent Design theories from a religious perspective.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

Mohamed,

If there is an invisible and ethereal adult elephant that cannot be touched, detected or rendered probably (or improbably) existent in any way, then believing in that elephant is precisely what is meant by superstition. Likewise, if there exists an omniscient, omnipresent being whose existence is undecidable, then belief in that being is nothing less than superstitious. Undecidability does not save you from needing good reasons for your beliefs.

Before recommending another article or book whose arguments do nothing to support your opinions, please articulate your "better" definitions of God and religion, and exactly why anyone should be modest in their opinion about religion or God.

With all due respect, I predict that your conception of God will either not be helpful in deciding what is right or wrong, let alone what religion to look to for eternal truths, or else it will be an utterly tenuous and improbable conjecture.

REALIST,

You have read all the great books -- Hofstadter and Dennett and Dawkins -- plus, of course, Bertrand Russell's essay on "Why I am not a Christian".

Congratulations.

I am sure you have also read Freeman Dyson's Templeton lecture.

I have also read all of those, but maybe you have read John D. Barrow's Templeton lecture also? I have not although I know that he won the most recent Templeton prize, and Richard Dawkins for whom, like you, I have great respect) feels a little pinch of jealousy.

I am therefore going to suggest that you read John Barrow's "Impossibility", Walter Freeman's "How the Brain Makes Up Its Mind" and Stephen Brams "Superior Beings -- If They Exist, How Would We Know?" (in fact, I have not myself read this last one, but I have read second-hand summaries and analyses of its central thesis.

Maybe, such a reading might lead you to more modesty about religion and accept the proposition that the truth or not of the existence of an omniscient, omnipresent being is an undecidable proposition. Undecidable, not necessarily untrue, not necessarily superstitious.

I like to have spaghetti and meatballs with my vegetables.

RAmen

Thank you Professor Dennett, it's wonderful to hear a another voice of reason amidst the unintelligible cacophany. I hope you are recovering well. I am glad you are able to participate in this forum.

I think the problem we all face is that according to Aristotle's metaphor, most people are mentally on a vegan diet (appologies to real vegans). I think education in critical thinking is the only way out of the mess we are in. It is deeply disturbing that there seems to be trend in the opposite direction with governments handing out more money to religious schools instead of providing high quality public education.

Fortunately there also seems to be a growing grassroots movement of scientists, atheists and agnostics who are coming out of the closet and standing up to be counted - inspired and heartened by the writings of people such as Dennett, Dawkins and Harris.

While I greatly admire your work and that of Richard Dawkins, I do wish you, and particularly Dr Dawkins, as public figures and defacto representatives of us rational people, would be more ... I'm strugling to find the right word, empathetic perhaps, towards religious people. Typically they are victims of their culture and yes, disabled as you so aptly put it, but pointing out that they are wrong and perhaps stupid is not going to win over most people's minds. I think it's actually their hearts that are more important than their minds. I don't really know how to win their hearts. Few scientists have much skill at that. Carl Sagan did.

I guess your efforts and those of Mr Harris and Dr Dawkins in the realm of religion serve mostly to enlighten those who already have doubts about faith, and stretch the minds of those who don't need faith. This is nevertheless a valuable contribution to our global culture.

Dr Dennett, I hope you are able to find the time to refine and further explain your ideas about consciousness, because you seem to be one of very few people who have actually made an original contribution towards solving that mystery rather than just avoiding the issue. What's really impressive is that you are able to communicate your understanding of such an inherently difficult subject so clearly. We need more clear thinkers such as yourself who are not afraid to venture onto sacred ground and search for real answers to questions that religions claim are off limits to science and reasoning.

I would recommend the book "The Mind's I" (composed by Daniel Dennett and Douglas Hofstadter) as a light tasty non-vegetable appetizer to limber up and stretch the mind for thinking about religious truth. I think it's interesting reading for everyone including those afflicted by religion.

RAmen

Brian S.,

Great - I'm glad you disagree with me. Just understand that I have the capacity to make an intelligent decision for me. Just because I don't accept every "scientific" belief in the soft sciences, doesn't make me a doting fool.

I have enough life experience and knowledge to judge whether I should accept to believe something or be skeptical about it.

By the way, my argument with some of the softer sciences is there appears to be way too much room for subjective interpretation. I understand the push of scientists to make discoveries to progress up the recognition ladder in their field. I worry that personality and connections result in bad science being accepted as good. For example - Piltdown Man.

Also, I see the variety of human shapes and sizes today, and wonder how anthropologists can make the "absolute" declarations they do based on a sample of one and sometimes 2 fossils.

Just doesn't pass the sniff test.

Thinking,

Thank you for clarifying the issue for me. However, I disagree with your assessment of science. There is a difference between those who practice science and, although they are not experts in a particular field (i.e., an expert in physics, but not in biology), but accept evolution is good science because they know the procedures is what good science is. This is different, as you say, that someone who has no training in science and is unable to articulate why it is good science. Their argument is rooted behind the concept of 'it is science'.

Secondly, there are different kinds of sciences out there. Each science has different tools. You argue that anthropology is not a good science. But what makes good science isn't uniform across all sciences. Anthropology just uses different methodologies than physics does. Anthropology, like evolution, is a historical science. There predictions come in the form of background knowledge of what we know through other cultures. One can't recreate an event, but recreation isn't synonymous with prediction.

Yes, science is shown to be false. But the ironic thing is this: what proves scientific theories wrong are other scientific theories. What showed psychoanalysts wrong? It was another psychological theory (if I remember correctly from my history of psychology class, it was the rise of behaviorism and gestalt theory, then cognitive psychology, which is now under revision).

Brian S.

Here's my point - Strident belief in science, is as much about faith as strident belief in a religion.

There are many who assume that just because something is labelled as scientific, it's right; irregardless of whether they have studied it or have the capability to understand. To me that's blind faith.

At the same time, there are many who accept hook, line and sinker, whatever their priest says, irregardless of whether is is biblical (or in the Koran or Torah) and fit's into the totality of their holy writings.

Both forms of this Blind Faith are problems.

As an aside, a couple of specific issues I have with Science are:
- It appears to me that not all the areas of study labeled as science are equally scientific. For example, for decades Psychanalysts thought treatment should be based on Freud's approaches. It's only been in the last few decades that chemists and biologists have gotten involved and discovered in many if not most cases mental problems are a result of chemical anomolies, not sexual fantasies. I feel the same about anthropology in general. Doesn't seem to be much hyprothesis, prediction, experimentation - Don't you agree?
- Chemistry and Pharmacology - If a compound can't be patented, I'm convinced the pharmaceutical companies will not consider research into the potential benefits. For them, it's all about creating a revenue stream. As a result, the cost of medical treatment in the US is astronomical compared to the rest of the world. And the US lifespan isn't in the top 10 coutries. It's 29th behind Bermuda, Bosnia, Guam, ....

For what it's worth, I have many, many, many more problems with "Christian" religions than I do with science. In the "hard" sciences there is purity of study and rigor not seen in religion.

Thinking,

First, thank you for putting my name in your response. Too many people on here are not and it is difficult to know who they are addressing.

Secondly, I am not sure where you get the idea that science is mostly applied science or development. You did not establish what true science is. Science, in my opinion, has three sections; theorectical, experimental, and application. Right now I am majoring in philosophy of mind and we read alot of theorectical research. The theories are interpretations of the experiments. Also, there are plenty of work in the labs for evolution as well. If you have access to EBSCOHOST you could read alot of the research. PubMed is also available online. But to say if one is a professor, its all about the publishinbg. Publishing is a way to get the research out there to develop the science. Science has always been about publishing because this is a way to get results public. In my opinion, papers should be available to the public and we should be teaching our children science papers in high schools, at least how they come to the results.

I guess my point is that I am unclear what you are critizing science about. Please explain. Thanks.

Brian S.

I see the problem as Science has been hi-jacked by economics, the same way that christianity was hi-jacked by Constantine and the Catholic church.

There is little true science going on, it's much more applied research and development. It's all about the money today. If you are a professor, it's all about publishing (even if the article is trash).

At the same time, there's little true religion (from a christian standpoint), it's much more follow the teachings (and traditions) of your priest, who is often politically motivated. You can't say religion quit progressing. They are continuing to try to change it to pull the flock back in. Doesn't matter if it's a bible teaching or not. For example - Did you know that Christmas was outlawed in England in the 1600's because the protestants didn't want to celebrate it as a christian holiday? It's changed now, but any casual student of christmas knows that it has nothing to do with Christ. It was a pagan holiday that was accepted to make it easier to assimilate the pagans in Rome in the third century.

I will agree with one comment made by REAL -
The more education a person recieves the less likely they are to rely on hocus pocus beliefs.

This applies to both religion and science.

In the meantime, after numerous degrees and professional designations, I'm a skeptic.

Another rational thinker. I'm glad they are well represented.

Education is the key to not retreating to "faith" and "mystery" whenever a contradiction is cited. The more education a person recieves the less likely they are to rely on hocus pocus beliefs.

Methinks that both science and religion are concerned with arriving at the essential truths about what makes the world tick. The difference is tha science is a sort of endless quest whereas religion -- all to often -- claims to have definitive (not subject to modification) knowledge.

For most Christians Jesus is regarded as the final revelation of God not subject to refutation since he is regarded as a human embodiment of God -- in the time when he lived on earth as well as before that and for all eternity. A weighty claim in deed -- and all without any real evidence.

Science is not like that at all. The example of Galileo is a case in point. Galileo found, by direct observation, that the earth revolves around the sun and the moon revolves around the earth.
And these observations preceded Newton's theory of gravity -- which same theory was subsequently replaced by Einsteins theory of gravity. And Einstien's theory of gravity is now subject to questioning in its turn. My point is that experimental observation is key to the progress of science. But theories which explain the observations can go one endlessly being modified and improved. And finally after all these years the Roman Catholic Church has apologized for its treatment of Galileo -- with scientists having accepted Glileos observations long long ago because they are repeatble.

It is much the same with evolution. Its occurrence is not in doubt since the fossil and DNA evidence is there for all to see so long as they keep an open mind and examine the evidence fairly. Those who reject the occurrence of evolution are wont to speak of THE theory of evolution even although there is no such thing. Darwin's attempts to explain the occurrence of evolution is incomplete and possibly even misleading and our explantions of evolution are subject to continous modification and refinement. But the occurrence is not in doubt and everyone of every religion should simply accept its occurrence and get on with their lives. Why follow in the footsteps of the Catholic Church and take hundreds of years to accept an obvious truth?

Thinking,

You misunderstand what science is. Science is a methodology, and I, nor anyone else, said that evolution is the truth, or the more ridiculous claim, that science is the truth. Science isn't a doctrine, but rather a way of studying the world. In science, we have a theory and change the theory when the data does not support it (although, this takes a long time because scientists have to make sure the experiments were done correctly without bias, make sure the interpretations were correct and not jumping the gun, etc.). The theory of evolution will never be done or complete. Also, the theory of evolution is changing, but not the fact that evolutin has occurred. No real scientist doubts that evolution happened. They debate what are the main mechanisms and how some aspects result in evolution, but not evolution itself because the evidence is so overwhelming. Evolution will either be shown to be limited in its scope (as what the self-organizationists claim), or it will continue on the same path. Remember, science is never complete. People thought that physics was complete and all that needed to be done were the details, until Einstein came along.

Yes, science has acted immorally, but the point is is that that has changed. You may not think so, but it may be perhaps due to your system of morals. Cognitive science may probe into someone's brain, but they take measures where it doesn't harm the individual, although some may think that is immoral. Religion refuses to change. Science, by its nature, is progressive. Also, to confuse the doctors and how pharmacies act with science, is misleading. Creating the drugs and seeing how they work is not the same thing as marketing them.

But of course we have some truths without science. But these "truths" are not scientific questions. I can say, "The sun is out today," which is a truth, but it isn't a question that science asks. So I am not sure what your point is about this. Science doesn't claim to know all answers to all questions because it doesn't ask certain questions.

Lastly, you are reading the bible in a certain way. If read another way, the bible is just a story book. If you read Stephen King, aren' there some consistencies within that book? The childhood of one character influences their adult life. This argument is not persuasive at all.

Science...
Pure, without prejudice, provable, inerrant...

Not the science I know.

It seems that in most human endeavors people will take advantage of any situation to benefit themselves. Hence the publication of books on Ethics in Science, Creation of courses in Ethics in science, etc. Just like Enron, but not as newsworthy.

Here's a link where you can do a little research on the truth in science:
http://www.chem.vt.edu/chem-ed/ethics/index.html#resources

It's not a pretty picture and it appears to be getting worse. Although with the competition in science, I guess this is to be expected.

I remember hearing how disgusting it was in the 1700's that Doctors used leeches to bleed people for illnesses, yet it seems like using leeches to treat dead tissue is now an accepted practice. Seems like we've learned a thing or 2 since the 60's.

At the same time, the drug companies (in collusion with my doctor) want to get me 'hooked' on whatever medication my insurance company will pay for. Even though Claritin, now over the counter, deals with my allergies, I must change to get a "new" rx because it will be better somehow. Interestingly, my wife's migraines finally went away when she stopped taking all the Rx's the doctor prescribed. I look at the doctors involved and feel embarrassed for them. Doesn't smell very ethical to me.

It seems like everybody in anglig to get their hand in my wallet.

So, my response is to be a skeptic.

It seems that we don't know everything. Knowledge marches on and we slowly find out what truth really is, sometimes in spite of science. Many times in spite of religion.

What I do know is that when someone shouts "truth" from the rooftops, they are the ones with the simple view of the world. Even if their view says evolution is proven.

Yep, I read Stephen Jay Gould and other evolutionists and my take away is the theory is still changing. Call me when they are done. In the meantime, I'll keep thinking about the changing fate of leeches. I think there's a lesson there.

Also, since the bible isn't truth in your vernacular, why were the Jews who read Daniels prophecies looking for the Messiah to come when he did?

Why did the Apostle Paul, who had one of the best educations available in his day and on track to become a member of the Supreme court of his society, give that up to become a follower of Christ?

Don't get me wrong, I see very little Christlike in 99% of the Christian religions. I wonder sometimes if they've even studied the bible. I suspect in Seminary what is taught is the business of churches and the church doctrine, regardless of it is based on the bible.

Anyway, just as there is truth in science, there is truth in the bible. You just don't know how to find it.

Canyon - Don't be dissing the King!!!

Haha. Kirk Cameron is your source? Did you ever consider that others feel that Christianity is stupid? I don't think calling religions stupid is productive, but thinking that there could be a virgin who gives birth is beyond what you call "common sense." You are one messed up and confused kid! Good luck.

I refuse to spend time on teaching you evolution. Do your own research. To give evidence of the mechanisms of evolution would be too long and a waste of time because you will just say that is nothing. There have been studies in fruit flies that show natural selection at work. Evolutionary theory predicts how the fossils should appear in the record. DNA analysis shows that how certain species are related and evolutionary predicts this as well. Look it up yourself. You are too lazy to take seriously.

Give evidence for Christ and all of his mysteriousness. But I'm sure you'll just say it is faith. This primitive thinking is ridiculous.

Mavaddat, your article is the most religious piece of trash I've ever read, please see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTdhYAtaOjs

I will not post anymore on the theory of evolution until you post ONE single, tiny, anything, FACT that proves evolution. No one on this site has done it yet...I'm not holding my breath, there are no facts for evolution! It's the stupidest religion on the planet, and there are some pretty stupid ones involving the worship of Elvis.

I used to belong to an evangelical church that disbelieved in evolution. I have realized that their presentation of it is what makes it seem ridiculous. For those who want to know why creationism doesn't work, please read this and be informed:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&ref=sciam

How do you judge the value of an idea? You judge it by your system of beliefs. It is great to love arithmatic because you think it lies outside this judgement, but arithmatic will never teach us how to get along, nor will it keep a naked man from freezing if left exposed on a cold winter day.

Your ideas that some people should be excuded from a discussion because their ideas about 'open discource' do not match "Robert's Rules of Order" is equally harmful. Willful excusion of any group will lead to alienation, and eventually hostility. Even a lack of progress is preferable to that, don't you think?

Willful excusion guarentees no common ground. I think you should revisit your ideas.

Canyon,

With all due respect, I will not allow myself to go to those anti-science websites. They are full of people who abuse the scientific process. Also, websites are not a good place for scientific material, unless the authors have published the work they talk about in journals. Anybody can publish whatever they want on the internet, but doesn't mean it is correct.

Also, to say that the burden of proof is on us is ridiculous. Heaven and Hell are metaphysical absurdities that do not have to be proven or disproven. Only to show that they are absurdities due to the imagination of language. Whatever doesn't have empirical implications one cannot speak about them since there is no way to confirm them.

To say that you don't post sources because that takes too long, that is the attitude of lazy, ill-minded religious conservatives that don't take the time to learn. And no, I will not trust you because you have failed to post a coherent, rational argument. This forum is meant to open discussion for dissenting points of view with arguments, not fluff as you have done. You say that we should look around at these pseudoscience websites, but you refuse to look into real scientific arguments. You are clearly not interested in knowing the evidence for evolution so this will be my last post to you because I refuse to waste my time on someone who is a fundamentalist and thinks all there is to know is to be found 2000 years ago. Unbelievable.

But you want one piece of evidence for evolution, fine. Read up: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html

Posting references takes too long. Most of the things I posted appeal to common sense, and trust me, there are things you can read out there if you are truly interested in seeing if evolution is truth or religion.

Start either at
answersingenesis.org
or
drdino.com

Now I will ask you for your ONE thing that proves evolution. Notice in your above post, you mentioned that organisms 'may' evolove. That 'may' means religion, your scientists know nothing.

Remember, the burden of proof is not on me, for I'm going to Heaven, the burden of proof is on you to prove that there is no Hell.

Canyon Shearer, I cannot believe there are still people making the arguments you have made. Almost everything you have said are blatant lies, to go through the process of arguing with you would lower the level of this debate. In his opening remarks Dennett referred to people like you as disabled and incompetent, I have to agree. Nothing you have said has added to this discussion. In fact you have proven Dennett's point that people that are unwilling to look beyond their ridged views add nothing to the debate on finding a center ground. Personally I believe there is no possibility of finding a middle ground when people will refute even the most basic findings of science. Please excuse yourself.

Canyon,

When you post something, such as the so-called errors of dating, please provide the source. I am guessing these are claims by "Creation Scientists". Thus, I must ask, "Why do you believe them over the numerous other scientists?" You can't just pick and choose data that fits your ideology. Science is meant to be criticized over its methods and interpretation of the data. Thus, the "scientists" on your side must provide accurrate criticisms of evolution.

By the way, the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not contradict evolution. That is an old creationist ploy. This law is only valid in a closed system, where as organisms are open systems, and thus the law doesn't apply in evolution. In fact, it is shown that organisms far from equilibrium may evolve through self-organization. This is found in Ilya Prigogine ans Stuart Kauffman's work. The former won the Nobel Peace Prize for.

As for your "probability" of humans evolving, please provide the mathematical formulas for these, not just your arm-chair calculations.

Lastly, the comment of the half eye was written in quotes, which was not to be taken seriously. The "half eye" (notice the quotes again) is meant to show that not all of the present features of the eye were part of ancient eyes, but they still functioned to see. They were evolutionary pre-cursors to the modern eye, not half of the present eye.

John Love, I missed your post. I admittedly know little about the acceptability or theory of relativity, I heard from a non-religious scientist that the theory of relativity would damn us from ever reaching another solar system of from any other species(he believed in evolution) from reaching the earth. It sounded good, but I profess to know little of this theory.

I am, however, an expert in the religion of evolution, and know that there is no evidence for it, so if there is less for relativity, I won't ever bring up relativity again.

I forgot two important bits of evolution disprovers...Dinosaurs, who you say are 65 Million years old...are written about the Bible 1600 years BC...Check...Mate...

Dating methods used by scientists are woefully inaccurate. Potassium Argon found the newest island in Hawaii, which is 201 years old, to be 1.2 Billion years old. Carbon dating found a one-minute-old killed seal to be 6,000 years old. That is a PRETTY BIG error! The scientists wrote it off by saying that the seal had gotten wet and that messed up the calculation...Bones...fossilized bones...are fossilized msot often by being inundated in water...

Brian, I will answer your statement first as it is the most ludicrous. The human eye has 137 MILLION light sensitive cells and focuses quicker than you can think or blink. If it is not incredibly designed, please create for me a camera with the same capabilities.

Half eyes disprove evolution, they are the breaking down of information and a creature LOSING genetic material. That is the opposite of your theory.

Entropy is how the world works(it's not only a theory, it's the law), everything waxes and grows old. Evolution says things wane and become new. That is stupid and has never been observed. You are going to say that my definition of evolution is wrong, but that's because yours is religious and the only way you can possibly believe in it.

There are millions of species, each with millions of types in each, 7 Billion humans...if Evolution took even 20 Million years; in a handful of Humans, then we should be seeing an evolutionary change every leap-year or so...

If life somehow miraculously appeared out of DIRT, or primordial ooze, which is WET DIRT, and was amazing enough to survive for more than a nano-second, how did it become what it is today? If it happened enough times to make life successful, why are scientists unable to recreate it?

There is no such thing as a fossil record or strata dating. Fossilized trees standing through as many as FOUR strata of rock makes for some really old trees, or one really stupid theory.

There are more...but please post for me ONE bit of evidence that supports your religion...err...theory.

BTW, I'm from Arizona.

Canyon Shearer:

It is reasonable to suggest that there is more proof for the theory of evolution than there is for the theory of relativity and yet you don't seem to have a problem accepting the latter while rejecting the former. Could it have anything to do with your conflicting religious beliefs?

I am simply astonished that we are still having this debate in the 21st century.

How far we haven't come.

Canyon Shearer.

Are you from West Virginia and/or the South?

Canyon Shearer:

Correction of my typo follows:

Please post the evidence which backs the claim made by you that EVOLUTION has been disproven.

Canyon Shearer:

Please post the evidence which backs the claim made by you that evidence has been disproven.

Canyon Shearer:

I hope this is a joke...
Your "arguments" hold no weight.

1. Creation - there's a difference between a pen and an eye. It has been proven that the human eye isn't really that much of a "marvel" of engineering. Also, there is evidence of "half-eyes" in nature, showing that there was EVOLUTION of the eye.
2. Conscience - this doesn't prove god.
3. Conversion - doesn't prove god. If you're a crack addict, and homeless, any kind of "hope" is going to make you feel better.
4. Evolution - are you serious?! there is a ton of evidence that supports evolution. Let's see your evidence of it being "disproven."

Dear Santa Claus,

I am not entirely certain on your stance to the question at hand. From your biography and the mention of "Bright" I assume you are one of those atheists who believe they are smart, yet Socrates said that, "I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance."

I can prove God without even mentioning the Bible.

1. Creation. If you find a pen on the ground, you don't think, "Hmmm...this pen came from no-where out of nothing." No, that pen had a creator and designer no matter that you can't see him, smell him, touch him, or talk to him. The Human Eye, the Solar System, the Rain Cycle, are so ingeniously created and designed that there must be a Creator, even if I can't see him, smell him, touch him, or talk to him.

2. Conscience. The word means, With Knowledge. It is impecibly tuned to know that Lying, Stealing, Fornication, Blasphemy, and Adultery are wrong.

3. Conversion. People are lower than low on the social morals list are constantly and measurably changed for the good when they are saved from Hell by Jesus Christ.

4. Evolution. Evolution does not occur, it has not been scientifically proven to happen, it cannot be archeologically proven, it has actually been disproven...if we haven't evolved, how did we get here? Eintein's theory of relativity proves that space travel to the nearest galaxy that doesn't, but could possibly support life, is impossible.

The Bible, while not the only weapon, is the greatest weapon, a two-edged sword by it's own admission.

Malleck,

Please understand that I do not, nor do any atheists, believe that abolishing religion will magically heal the world. Rather, we see religion as an impediment to the healing of the world--or better, it is an old world illness of which we must be cured if we are to have any hope of social advancement and meaningful morality. All barriers to human happiness must be dissolved, and religion happens to be amongst the biggest of such barriers in the world right now.

On the other hand, if you think that human conflict will by some inevitable force grow less violent, then you are the gravely mistaken one, sir. For there is nothing inevitable about the chain of human events, but rather their direction depends on the action of good people to bring about positive change, and not hope in the inaction of bad people to lessen violence. Regarding the idea you suggest, Dr. Martin Luther King has stated, "Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co-workers [...], and without this 'hard work', time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation."

Next, notice that there is no sense of the word “religion” that is necessary and you have provided none. The senses of the word “God” that are useful are very different from anything any religion has suggested, insofar as God merely refers to humanity as a whole, or blind Nature without any will or intellect.

Finally, if our sense of morality evolved as a response to our environment, then our ideas of right and wrong are merely useful and not true in any absolute sense, for natural selection guarantees only usefulness of perception and not truth discernment. By example, while it may have been good for a couple to have many children early in human history, at this late stage, with the threat of over population (assuming that is a real threat), it eventually becomes immoral to have many children. If morality expresses absolute truth, then this is a case of absolute truth becoming absolute untruth, which is absurd.

Therefore, by the evolutionary model of ethics, morality is a purely relative thing (since what is good changes with time and place) and also a subjective thing (since what I perceive to be right is merely the result of the conditions my ancestors lived under, which may be very different from the conditions your ancestors lived under). Under this model, religion itself is the result of evolutionary forces arising from our early attempts to form society and codify a set of laws to impose on others. This is, in fact, what I believe to be the case.

Movaddat, TimothyPilgrim,

I, personally, have no problem with the argument that there is no need for 'religion' or 'God' --- it being understood that these terms are used in their common parlance of the 'organised religions' and the 'commonly-defined gods'.

However, the conclusions you present in your second and third paragraphs are non-sequiturs from the 'axioms' of Dyson. Yes, both Dyson and myself believe that we 'figure out for ourselves' -- to use your phrase -- what 'morality' is, but we do that in an 'evolutionary', adaptive sense, by learning what types of behaviour best ensures our survival, as an individual as well as as groups.
Note, however that we face dilemmas in aggregating from individual values to social morality.

The adaptive (I was going to say, iterative) nature of the process of our developing a morality and the situation-sensitive, environment-relative characteristic of that morality no doubt presents us with a range of moral codes whereby to order our lives.

Hence the incessant conflicts, but these grow less savage as we refine our 'moralities'.

It is a grave mistake to think that abolishing 'religion' would lead us to an earthly 'nirvana'. Conflict will always be part of the human adaptive experience, but inevitably, these conflicts will grow less and less violent.

Again, if you insist that 'religion' is not necessary, I cannot but agree with you.

I'd like to congratulate Daniel Dennett on providing, with Sam Harris, a dissenting viewpoint on the need for faith in today's world.

"The “monopoly on truth” isn’t the problem. The problem is when someone retreats to “faith” and “mystery” whenever you point out contradictions in the truth they espouse."

Faith is an archaic mode of ascertaining answers to questions that has outlived its usefulness and should not form a meaningful part of a modern pluralistic society. It may have been useful to our ancestors but has been shown time and again through the practice of logic and reason to be wrong at best, and downright dangerous at worst.

I'd also like to congratulate Mavaddat on a well thought-out argument explaining the lack of need for religion to investigate morality and ethics.

Mohamed,

Thank you for your reply. I read the great article you suggested and I came to a wonderful and calming conclusion. I found that you (through Mr. Dyson) have shown clearly that there is no need for religion and I have now laid down my interest in finding the truth of religion as a result. For if morality is absolutely true and we can know about it, then we do not need religion to reveal it to us, since (by hypothesis) we can figure out what is right and what is wrong "by ourselves," as it were. Perhaps not immediately, perhaps through ethical dialogue, or even by taking inspiration from the various religious traditions, but in any case, the possibility of absolute moral truths would certainly not imply (but would in fact preclude) aligning oneself with a particular religion as the infallible source of answers on the matter. A sincere investigation of truth demands that we abandon this kind of thinking.

If, on the other hand, there are absolute moral truths and we cannot know them, then there is no way that we can coherently choose between an objectively (truly) good religion and an objectively bad (false) religion, since (by hypothesis) we cannot independently discern between good and bad. Thus, even if God revealed to us what was good and what was bad, we would not be able to decide which was the "right" answer. For all we know (for example), it is objectively true that God desires for us to all give up religion and just meditate on morality. But if we have no standard whereby to judge moral statements, then we cannot decide whether we really should do that or not. In short, the need for religion as resulting from the fact that we cannot figure out what is good independently contradicts the presupposition that we can then decide which is the right religion.

Now, here's another alternative: If God "built into us" a sense of good and bad, then whatever we do (on average, perhaps) reveals our nature and our nature is good so what we do on average is good (by hypothesis). Then democracy determines the good. If, on the other hand, God "built into the individual" a sense of good and bad, then whatsoever each individual does reveals his will and that will shall be perceived as good (objectively) and whatsoever anyone else does that is opposed to that will be bad (objectively). Hence, if the sense of good is built into us, we do not need religion, since religion would be both superfluous and redundant in explicating what was good, and would be contradicted depending on the actions of man.

No matter how you turn it, religion is not necessary. In the whole preceding, I assumed the possibility of objective truth in morality and showed that if there was, then religion was not necessary. It only remains to be shown that religion actually stands in the way of moral and scientific progress, which is already shown quite well by many others, and we will have sufficient grounds for not merely ignoring religion, but positively attacking it and demanding its eradication from all public life, for the good of all.

Speaking of vegetables, vegetarianism can help lead to peace, compassion, health, and eco-sustainability.

Please visit

Eco-Eating: Eating as if the Earth Matters
at
http://www.brook.com/veg

Mr. Dennett,

I just started reading "Breaking the Spell" this week, and posted a note about it on my blog last night. Then today I discovered this forum; happy coincidence. It is good to see that the global conversation you wish for in the opening chapters of your book is getting a bit of a boost here.

Best wishes,
Blane

Thanks, Mavaddat, because this is real dialogue.

My first point is that, before we dismiss 'religion', we have to know the difference between 'organised relgion' (Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism,etc.) and atheism, agnosticism, humanism, animism, spirituality, etc. The idea is that there is much that lies beyond human comprehension, not just at his present state of evolution but even after further evolution, whatever form that may take. I am sympathetic to a comment made by one blogger in another connected link to this debate to the efect that he does not buy the argument that the teachings of the Holy Books (Bible, Quran, Torah, Vedas,..)are allegorical. Yes, the Ten Commandments are variations of the Code of Hammurabbi, and we have since had the Articles of the American Constitution (?) (I have always had a problem with the right to pursue happiness; I always add the rider "non-predatory' pursuit of happiness --- the freedom f your fist stops where my nose starts), the Bill of Rights (and of Duties?), etc. The debate has now turned to whether morakity is absolute or culturally relative.

What I am saying is that, irrespective of cultural background, there are certain 'absolute' rules of morality -- they derive from their survival value and Stephen Brams has researched this 'rational morality' using the scientific tool of Game Theory. His work addresses such theological dilemmas as the problem of suffering when a Beneficent God exists. (Here again, my irritation is with those who see in religion only fear of God and vilence -- I am not going to deny that the Holy Books talk of annihilating one's enmies, of hellfire, but the main theme of religion is one of Benevolence, Forgiveness, Compassion.

Religion at the turn of the 21st Century has been used by misguided politicians (who are an infinitesimel minority) to inflict immense barbarism on humankind, no doubt. But that is a wrong interpretation of religion/spirituality. I conclude with Stephenm Brams that the question of the existence of God is undecidable in the sense of Godel's Theorem.

To end, I would invite you to read another fascinating article -- the Templeton lecture of the renowned physicist Freeman Dyson.

Thanks again for an enjoyable dialogue.

I disagree with the statement "Since not everybody accepts that these texts are infallible, citing them as if they were is just rude." It is a wide sweeping statement that doesn't take into account that it is possible that those books could in fact be valid sources (however unlikely that may be). What is rude is the fact that these 'Holy' cources are used as trump cards in conversation. When people come to run out of valid, logical arguments and fall back on their "moral authority" they don't expect to be questioned further based on the current cultural paradigm. That paradigm is what needs to change, and those people need to understand that, because when you do question their authority, they tend to (at least in my experience) get very upset, emotional, and all logical conversation flies out the window with their sanity.

Mohamed,

Thank you for the article. It was a fascinating read about something I'm very interested in.

Nevertheless, the article "The Unknown and The Unknowable: A Talk With Joseph Traub" says nothing about fuzzy logic or its application to dialogue about the truth, and it does nothing for your case against non-contradiction nor bivalence.

If I am not mistaken, you may believe that since there are certain questions science cannot answer, there is room for faith about the answers to those questions (which may be given by religion) after all. However, if this is your view (which it may not be, for all I know), then your conception of knowledge and the limitations of knowledge is grossly mistaken. For this important question arises: Why should our limitations on knowledge about certain questions justify our assuming anything we want about those questions? If there are questions whose answers we cannot discover or even hint at (i.e., with probability) in science, then those questions are not open to made-up beliefs imposed by religions any more than they are open to made-up answers by scientists. There is no reason why religion should be able to answer these questions, and there no way we can judge between the various religion's answers to these questions. We should in fact withhold judgement, and religion is only so much mere fancy and superstition in this regard.

The five commandments you cited (and indeed, all ten commandments) are merely codes or rules that were effective in bringing about order in an unruly age. They are, each and every one, plagiarised and stolen from the Code of Hammurabi written by an ancient king of Mesopotamia. Furthermore, they do not speak to absolute truth or morality, but rather merely the rules that were most expedient in bringing about social order at that time. Nowadays, we deem them as a thing archaic and unnecessary, since we are a more orderly society and we are not apt to injure our neighbours so readily. In a word, the time for religion has come to an end.

@Rich

Dr Dennett did not say it's not ok to cite people at all. It's just not ok to say "The Bible says the world was created in 6 days." and expect everyone to believe that just based on the authority of an old best-seller, because many people just don't believe that this book has any (at least scientific) authority at all.

Aristotle's citation does in no way fall into that category.

Sir,

If the Bible and Koran, etc. are rude to cite just because some people don't accept their authority, then what justifies citing Aristotle or anyone else? Aristotle's ideas have stood the test of time no better (or worse) than the other holy texts we shouldn't be citing.

Mavaddat,

I am awfully sorry, ,but if you insist on discussing rationality in the context of religious discourse, we could begin with the least controvesial of the 'Ten Commandments'. Let us say 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' --- Evidently, if at some point in a conflict situation, it becomes inevitable for me to be kiled or to kill, the rational thing for me to do is to kill. Does that make 'morality' or 'truth' relative?

There are all sorts of 'truth', including what lawyers call 'procedural truth'.

In fact, the concept of 'procedural truth' brings me to the argument that what evolutionary biologists have theorized as a 'hard-wiring' process of embedding in the brain 'moral values' requires a dynamic very similar to 'procedure'.

Unfortunately, you missed my point about "degrees of not knowing".

In an essay by Joseph Traub on "The Unknown and the Unknowable", which can be accessed on the website www.edge.org, the author explains the concepts I am presenting here.

If you are interested in morality, you could try the rationality arguments --- absolute or relative morality -- on the following Commandments: (i) Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery; (ii) Thou Shalt Not Steal; (iii) Thou Shalt Not Covet Any Thing That Is Thy Neighbour's; (iv) Thou Shalt Not Bear Flase Witness Against Thy Neighbour; and (v)Thou Shalt Not Make Unto Thee Any Graven Image.

Dr. Dennet: I hope you are feeling better, I caught word about your surgery, and wish you the best!

Bi-valence is the fundamental assumption of all logic and logic falls without it. Fuzzy logic is not an exception on the law of non-contradiction, since two fuzzy logic statements can stand in contradiction too. For example, "it is 80% cold" versus "it is 80% hot". These statements contradict in a strictly bivalent way.

"Nonetheless, I disagree with the first part of your sentence [since] you are talking of bi-valued logic..."

This is the a pedantic objection of no real consequence for discursive investigation. Do you really think that the contradictory propositions in the Bible (or other holy scriptures) are contradictory in the same way that "it is barely warm" and "it is quite cold" are contradictions? Because these are the kinds of sentences that fuzzy logic applies to. Fuzzy logic does not challenge non-contradiction.

Furthermore, quantum logic is quite different from fuzzy logic and your lack of distinction between the two belies your confusion on the matter. Fuzzy logic allows for an infinite number of differences between strictly "true" and strictly "false", whereas quantum logic represents a finite number of states of a q-bit. But again, even if quantum logic and fuzzy logic were related, neither is of any real consequence to our discussion about religion. Have you ever heard a theologian or faith defender invoking quantum computers or fuzzy logic to interpret scripture or to reconcile a contradiction? No.

I am an admirer of yours, Professor Dennett, and am a registered "Bright". I especially love to cite Alfred North Whitehead :"It belongs to the integrity of the intellect to pursue every tangle of thought to its final unravelment"

Nonetheless, I disagree with the first part of your sentence " In addition to the law of non-contradiction, and arithmetic ..." You are talking of bi-valued logic -- "p" and "no p" is a contradction "p" or "no p" is a tautology. There is fuzzy logic to contend with, especially when we are talking of 'an omniscient' or values or the Ten Commandments. A recent issue of Scientific American offered laymen an explanation of 'quantum computing' with 15-value logic. What are the implications for the search for 'ultimate truth', for 'ethics'? I have had the occasion in blogs to recommend readers to the works of Stephen Brams, especially the one titled "Superior Beings -- If They Exist, How Would We Know?"

I am proposing to write an essay to be titled: "Descarte's Error; Russell's Misunderstanding" to articulate my thoughts on the subject of 'rational ethics'.