UPDATE : Since this prehistoric post, I have a new Blog (blindfaithblindfolly.wordpress.com), featuring - to date - 679 posts ! I seriously doubt that anyone will stumble on this November 2017 note, but if you do, do yourself a favor and check out a collection of ticklers and teasers you won't find anywhere else.

But while many people disagree about specific attributes of God, the large majority of the world believes in supernatural realities and (and least one) transcendent being.

Yes, most believe. I am just reflecting on the fact that what most believe must be wrong. It just seems odd to me that deities with omnipotent attributes would put up with that. It is a little corner in the Problem of Evil.

Q, this is true if you are gauging how many people are 100% right about God and faith. But while many people disagree about specific attributes of God, the large majority of the world believes in supernatural realities and (and least one) transcendent being.

Was that today's article on Robert Ingersoll that went up at HP?

Of course you are entitled to argue your case on this blog. But all I want to say is that we all have different reasons and sources for our unbelief just as you all have different sources and reasons for your belief.

"if some religions are false, then all religions are false" - is a straw man though. That's not John's argument.

What you need to look at are the means by which people come to religious belief, and those means have allowed people all over our planet to come (both presently and throughout history) a wide variety of religious beliefs. We can both agree that the majority of those beliefs are false. The argument now becomes why use a method to come to a belief which we know produces very poor outcomes in terms of accuracy? That method is, of course, faith, and faith is a very very poor method of determining truth.

Yes, I think Rick is a complete nut job. But what I want to know is does he make sense to other Catholics? Do they think he represents them? What do they think his best points are? Or are they embarrassed to be associated with him. Even when I was a Catholic I would have seen him as a nutter. What do other Catholics think he's built a case for? How does he get from a hypothetical uncaused cause (which is an argument that many religions use) to the Catholic 3-in-1 god who wrote or inspired the bible and had a son that was really himself?)

And what about his confusion over this idea that there was living tissue in dinosaur bones (which wasn't what the article was about... it was about finding a marker of collagen proteins in reconstituted mineralized dinosaur fossil bones-- this hasn't and it hasnt' been replicated nor confirmed... but even if it was, nobody but Rick seems to think that it means something... and I think he thinks it's evidence for a young earth... (6000-10,0000) years which fundamentalist Christians often buy into (after counting up the begats in the bible and estimating), but Catholics usually don't. I think most Catholics accept a 14 billion year old earth as well as evolution.

In any case, the Christian who did the study does not think of it as evidence for a young earth or god or anything supporting Christianity even though young earth creationists have jumped around imagining it is evidence that dinosaurs lived recently and thus their young earth beliefs are true. What do the Catholics here think of rick and his links.

I strongly suggest that anyone interested in real science and prefer to get it from a Catholic-- google Ken Miller. He writes science textbooks and wants nothing to do with these fundamentalists: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk

While Catholicism (and religion in general) can result in such a wide disparity of belief, there doesn't seem to be any method for resolving disputes. In science we trust that truth will out... you can't learn more if you are on the wrong path. A valid theory uncovers more evidence and our knowledge (and resultiing technology) grows. Many religionists are like Rick... they look for evidence to fit the truth they imagine themselves saved for "believing in". And they are desperate to find evidence if they fear they'll be tortured forever if they don't have faith.

They're main method of fostering belief is putting those who don't believe what they believe down it seems. I suppose that's the best you can do when there's no real evidence for the stuff you think you MUST believe (or else).