Pew poll, was "NATURE: 93% of Leading Scientists"

["".]

"the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity
or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God,
while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. By"

http://www.pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Scientists-and-Belief.aspx

[John Manning]

93% of *leading* scientists do not believe in any god.

Our chosen group of "greater" scientists were
members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS).

Our chosen group of "greater" scientists were members
of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS).

Our survey found near universal rejection of the transcendent
by NAS natural scientists.

Leuba attributed the higher level of disbelief and doubt
among "greater" scientists to their "superior knowledge,
understanding, and experience" [3].

Similarly, Oxford University scientist Peter Atkins commented
on our 1996 survey, "You clearly can be a scientist and have
religious beliefs. But I don't think you can be a real scientist
in the deepest sense of the word because they are such alien
categories of knowledge." [4]

Such comments led us to repeat the second phase of Leuba's study
for an up-to-date comparison of the religious beliefs of "greater"
and "lesser" scientists.

Our chosen group of "greater" scientists were members of
the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Our survey found
near universal rejection of the transcendent by NAS natural
scientists.

Links and more here: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

[//"".]

> "the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of
deity
> or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God,
> while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. By"
>
> http://www.pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Scientists-and-Belief.aspx
>


"93% of *leading* scientists do not believe in any god.

Our chosen group of "greater" scientists were members of the
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)."

I see your polling population and raise you, from the link above:

A survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center for

[John Manning]

Fact remains, a huge majority of scientists simply
do not operate within the framework of superstitious
religious hokum and claptrap - nor do they abide in its
accompanying so-called 'deity' (or 'deities').

[Terry Cross]

What a stupid survey. They might as well have surveyed "the most
competent people in the world" -- as defined by membership in the
Politburo.

If you don't get it yet, a statistical sample is invalid when the
individuals are self-selected.

Self-selection bias http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-selection

In statistics, self-selection bias arises in any situation in which
individuals select themselves into a group, causing a biased sample
with nonprobability sampling. It is commonly used to describe
situations where the characteristics of the people which cause them to
select themselves in the group create abnormal or undesirable
conditions in the group.

Self-selection bias is a major problem in research in sociology,
psychology, economics and many other social sciences. In such fields,
a poll suffering from such bias is termed a self-selecting opinion
poll or "SLOP". The term is also used in criminology to describe the
process by which specific predispositions may lead an offender to
choose a criminal career and lifestyle.

While the effects of self-selection bias are closely related to those
of selection bias, the problem arises for rather different reasons;
thus there may be a purposeful intent on the part of respondents
leading to self-selection bias whereas other types of selection bias
may arise more inadvertently, possibly as the result of mistakes by
those designing any given study.

TCross

["".]

Fact remains that as in science the question determines the answer.
Putting ""superstitious religious hokum" into the mix does not help at all.
Such is in fact a weakness of argument, as would "mindless neo-atheist
blindness" be if used.

Science and religious belief are not inherently in oppisition. It is a
false dichotomy that the rabid mockers and their counterparts among some
fundamentalists has created.

Science can and is being done with belief in the divine in some form, and
the oppisite by some who have other belief systems. The mark of science is
not in any way modified by either belief system. Neither belief system is
at odds regarding science as an empirical program.

[John Manning]

That's gibberish. Atheism is not a "belief system." It's a
*lack* of belief in anything but verifiable objective evidence.

[raven1]

"Universal spirit" and "higher power" strike me as so vague as to be
meaningless, and do not necessarily imply a deity in any case.
Moreover, many scientists use the term "God" as Einstein did: as a
metaphor for an underlying order to the universe (cf. "Spinoza's
God"), not as an expression of belief in a personal being with that
title. I'd like to see the same sample group re-polled with more
specific questions.

---
raven1
aa # 1096
EAC Vice President (President in charge of vice)
BAAWA Knight

[.."".]

> Science can and is being done with belief in the divine in some form, and
> the oppisite by some who have other belief systems. The mark of science
is
> not in any way modified by either belief system. Neither belief system
is
> at odds regarding science as an empirical program.

"That's gibberish. Atheism is not a "belief system." It's a *lack* of
belief in anything but verifiable objective evidence."

That's uninformed, atheism has no inherent connection to any imperical
program. It is in fact a belief system because it can not justify the
blind faith conclusion of the lack of the divine. No empirical system can
address this question, which is why science stands mute and dumb on the
topic and atheism a belief system only.

[.."".]

>"the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of
deity
>or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God,
>while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. By"
>
>http://www.pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Scientists-and-Belief.aspx

""Universal spirit" and "higher power" strike me as so vague as to be
meaningless, and do not necessarily imply a deity in any case. Moreover,
many scientists use the term "God" as Einstein did: as a metaphor for an
underlying order to the universe (cf. "Spinoza's God"), not as an
expression of belief in a personal being with that title. I'd like to see
the same sample group re-polled with more specific questions."

Sorry, the response to the poll does not support your asserted inclusions
as to the results. It is wishful thinking. In any case it is not any form
that comes close to the neo-atheist belief system of nothing but a material
reality external to the human mind.

Bottom line, science and any belief system are not at odds, learn to live
with reality.

[John Manning]

Fabricating one's own self-serving definitions is typical of
religionists who cannot support or justify adherence to their
hokum with any verifiable objective evidence.

[raven1]

Did you actually read what I wrote?

>Bottom line, science and any belief system are not at odds,

The poll does not show that at all. No one asked about a specific
belief system.

> learn to live
>with reality.

[Dreamer In Colore]

There's no "blind faith conclusion of the lack of the divine." The
lack of the divine is the inability to provide incontrovertible
evidence of its existence.

Atheism is simply lack of belief. I'm pretty sure that every atheist
would believe in a supernatural being if there was evidence to support
the notion.

Science stands mute on anything that can't be experimentally verified.
Lots of theories get pushed out, and they stand or fall on their
merits; divinity is another one of the theories.

Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306

[./"".]

Smile, then be my guest, do outline an empirical program by which the
question of the divine can be addressed. Failing to do so will be
reasonable grounds to conclude absent same that atheism is a blind faith
system regarding the question of the divine.

[/."".]

>>"the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of
>deity
>>or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God,
>>while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. By"
>>
>>http://www.pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Scientists-and-Belief.aspx
>
>""Universal spirit" and "higher power" strike me as so vague as to be
>meaningless, and do not necessarily imply a deity in any case. Moreover,
>many scientists use the term "God" as Einstein did: as a metaphor for an
>underlying order to the universe (cf. "Spinoza's God"), not as an
>expression of belief in a personal being with that title. I'd like to see
>the same sample group re-polled with more specific questions."
>
>Sorry, the response to the poll does not support your asserted inclusions
>as to the results. It is wishful thinking. In any case it is not any
form
>that comes close to the neo-atheist belief system of nothing but a
material
>reality external to the human mind.

"Did you actually read what I wrote?"

You bet, it was fishing for how to do a poll to get the desired results.
Then a lame attempt to redefine the poll results to exclude what it clearly
says about the religious beliefs of those scientists mentioned. belief
system.

>Bottom line, science and any belief system are not at odds,

"The poll does not show that at all. No one asked about a specific"

You bet, it is an observation from having interacted with atheists many
times who in fact are uninformed on what they are claiming. Who are
uninformed on the belief system underlying their views. A belief system
based on blind faith alone absent any empirical foundation to conclude
otherwise.

[/."".]

"There's no "blind faith conclusion of the lack of the divine." The lack of
the divine is the inability to provide incontrovertible evidence of its
existence.

Atheism is simply lack of belief. I'm pretty sure that every atheist would
believe in a supernatural being if there was evidence to support the
notion.

Science stands mute on anything that can't be experimentally verified. Lots
of theories get pushed out, and they stand or fall on their merits;
divinity is another one of the theories."

The latter sentence is the heart of the matter. Science standing mute and
dumb on the question of the divine does not support the belief system of
the atheist. Same then concluded on blind faith alone absent an empirical
program.

[John Manning]

On 5/18/2013 12:26 PM, ./ "". wrote:
>>> Science can and is being done with belief in the divine in some form,
> and
>>> the oppisite by some who have other belief systems. The mark of science
>> is
>>> not in any way modified by either belief system. Neither belief system
>> is
>>> at odds regarding science as an empirical program.
>>
>> "That's gibberish. Atheism is not a "belief system." It's a *lack* of
>> belief in anything but verifiable objective evidence."
>>
>> That's uninformed, atheism has no inherent connection to any imperical
>> program. It is in fact a belief system because it can not justify the
>> blind faith conclusion of the lack of the divine. No empirical system
> can
>> address this question, which is why science stands mute and dumb on the
>> topic and atheism a belief system only.
>>
>
> "Fabricating one's own self-serving definitions is typical of religionists
> who cannot support or justify adherence to their hokum with any verifiable
> objective evidence."
>
> Smile, then be my guest, do outline an empirical program by which the
> question of the divine can be addressed.

If that could have been done, it *would* have been done somewhere
by you religionist clowns who claim to be scientists. It hasn't
been done.

With atheism, there *IS* no question to be addressed as there is
no question outside of the framework of empiricism to be addressed.

> Failing to do so will be
> reasonable grounds to conclude absent same that atheism is a blind faith
> system regarding the question of the divine.
>

That's even more gibberish.

[John Manning]

It's not the job of the atheist to investigate claims of
an invisible divine God any more than it's the job of the
atheist (or anyone else for that matter) to investigate the
existance of the Easter Bunny or Peter Pan.

If you wish to pursue proving your hypothesis of a God, be my guest.

[John Manning]

Your absurd claims of an invisible divine being simply are
not capable of empirical analysis. Why would any empiricist
even bother to take them seriously?

[Dreamer In Colore]

Because /."". said so! Wasn't that clear?

*grin*

Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306

[MarkA]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 11:40:38 +0000, wrote:


> learn to live
> with reality.

I smell smoke.....I hope I didn't leave my irony meter near anything
flammable!

--
MarkA

If you can read this, you can stop reading now.

[.//"".]

> Smile, then be my guest, do outline an empirical program by which the
> question of the divine can be addressed.

"If that could have been done, it *would* have been done somewhere by you
religionist clowns who claim to be scientists. It hasn't been done.

With atheism, there *IS* no question to be addressed as there is no
question outside of the framework of empiricism to be addressed."

Then we will accept your confession, absent an empirical program by which
to address the question of the divine the atheist has a belief system based
on blind faith alone.

["".]

> Smile, then be my guest, do outline an empirical program by which the
> question of the divine can be addressed.


If that could have been done, it *would* have been done somewhere
by you religionist clowns who claim to be scientists. It hasn't
been done.

With atheism, there *IS* no question to be addressed as there is
no question outside of the framework of empiricism to be addressed.

>> Atheism is simply lack of belief. I'm pretty sure that every atheist
would
>> believe in a supernatural being if there was evidence to support the
>> notion.
>>
>> Science stands mute on anything that can't be experimentally verified.
Lots
>> of theories get pushed out, and they stand or fall on their merits;
>> divinity is another one of the theories."


> The latter sentence is the heart of the matter. Science standing mute
and
> dumb on the question of the divine does not support the belief system of
> the atheist. Same then concluded on blind faith alone absent an
empirical
> program.



"It's not the job of the atheist to investigate claims of an invisible
divine God any more than it's the job of the atheist (or anyone else for
that matter) to investigate the existance of the Easter Bunny or Peter
Pan."

This is a good confession, the atheist absent an empirical program by which
the question can be addressed resides in the end on blind faith alone for
his belief system.

"If you wish to pursue proving your hypothesis of a God, be my guest."

I have proposed no such, only the atheists in this thread have proposed
their belief system. We await their empirical program by which to get past
blind faith alone.

["".]

>> Bottom line, science and any belief system are not at odds,
>
> "The poll does not show that at all. No one asked about a specific"
>
> You bet, it is an observation from having interacted with atheists many
> times who in fact are uninformed on what they are claiming. Who are
> uninformed on the belief system underlying their views. A belief system
> based on blind faith alone absent any empirical foundation to conclude
> otherwise.

"Your absurd claims of an invisible divine being simply are not capable of
empirical analysis. Why would any empiricist even bother to take them
seriously?"

I have made no such claims. We have in this thread the claim of the
atheists that there is no divine. Absent any proposed empirical program in
support we are forced to conclude it is based on blind faith alone.

[John Manning]

You appear to be incapable of rational thought, Mr/Ms .// "".

BTW, is .// "". your christian name?

[John Manning]

Your false, self-serving definitions and assumptions negate
the legitimacy of your comments.

[John Manning]

On 5/18/2013 6:37 PM, "". wrote:
>>> Bottom line, science and any belief system are not at odds,
>>
>> "The poll does not show that at all. No one asked about a specific"
>>
>> You bet, it is an observation from having interacted with atheists many
>> times who in fact are uninformed on what they are claiming. Who are
>> uninformed on the belief system underlying their views. A belief system
>> based on blind faith alone absent any empirical foundation to conclude
>> otherwise.
>
> "Your absurd claims of an invisible divine being simply are not capable of
> empirical analysis. Why would any empiricist even bother to take them
> seriously?"
>
> I have made no such claims.

Now you're lying. The claim of a divinity is glaringly implicit in
your commentary.

> We have in this thread the claim of the
> atheists that there is no divine.

I have made no such claim and I have seen no one else make that claim -
only that there is no verifiable objective evidence for such a thing -
AND repeated requests for you to provide such.

> Absent any proposed empirical program in
> support we are forced to conclude it is based on blind faith alone.

You can make up any nonsense you wish to justify your
point of view - but no matter how often you repeat that
nonsense, it still remains nonsense.

[SPQR]

In article <WJCdnTS6jddqnQXM...@giganews.com>,

Until someone can provide objective physical evidence supporting the
theological claims of god-centered religions, gods remain no more
validated than fairies or elves or ogres. Whose only "reality" is in
cartoon films.

[SPQR]

In article <VKCdnfLD1oAQYgrM...@giganews.com>,

On the contrary, there is no empirical support for any theist claims.

And scientists, for that reason, are largely non-theistic, i.e.,
non-beleivers.

[Smiler]

So, to you, 'not collecting stamps' is a hobby, bald is a hair colour and
abstinence is a position for sexual intercourse. Thanks for showing us
your ignorance.

--
Smiler,

The godless one. a.a.# 2279

All gods are tailored to order. They're made to

exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <51979f3d$0$2658$1c46...@news.club.cc.cmu.edu>, /. "".
wrote:

What belief system? What blind faith? What are you talking about?

--

JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <5197f4a8$0$2655$1c46...@news.club.cc.cmu.edu>, ;; "".
wrote:

> >> Bottom line, science and any belief system are not at odds,
> >
> > "The poll does not show that at all. No one asked about a specific"
> >
> > You bet, it is an observation from having interacted with atheists many
> > times who in fact are uninformed on what they are claiming. Who are
> > uninformed on the belief system underlying their views. A belief system
> > based on blind faith alone absent any empirical foundation to conclude
> > otherwise.
>
> "Your absurd claims of an invisible divine being simply are not capable of
> empirical analysis. Why would any empiricist even bother to take them
> seriously?"
>
> I have made no such claims. We have in this thread the claim of the
> atheists that there is no divine.

Who has claimed any such thing?

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <51976767$0$2658$1c46...@news.club.cc.cmu.edu>, .. "".
wrote:

> > Science can and is being done with belief in the divine in some form, and
> > the oppisite by some who have other belief systems. The mark of science
> is
> > not in any way modified by either belief system. Neither belief system
> is
> > at odds regarding science as an empirical program.
>
> "That's gibberish. Atheism is not a "belief system." It's a *lack* of
> belief in anything but verifiable objective evidence."
>
> That's uninformed, atheism has no inherent connection to any imperical
> program. It is in fact a belief system because it can not justify the
> blind faith conclusion of the lack of the divine.

But that's not what atheism is.

> No empirical system can
> address this question, which is why science stands mute and dumb on the
> topic and atheism a belief system only.

What is believed in?

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <i71fp8pr01eq7ni45...@4ax.com>,

Dreamer In Colore <dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On 18 May 2013 11:35:03 GMT, .. "". wrote:
>
> >> Science can and is being done with belief in the divine in some form, and
> >> the oppisite by some who have other belief systems. The mark of science
> >is
> >> not in any way modified by either belief system. Neither belief system
> >is
> >> at odds regarding science as an empirical program.
> >
> >"That's gibberish. Atheism is not a "belief system." It's a *lack* of
> >belief in anything but verifiable objective evidence."
> >
> >That's uninformed, atheism has no inherent connection to any imperical
> >program. It is in fact a belief system because it can not justify the
> >blind faith conclusion of the lack of the divine. No empirical system can
> >address this question, which is why science stands mute and dumb on the
> >topic and atheism a belief system only.
>
> There's no "blind faith conclusion of the lack of the divine." The
> lack of the divine is the inability to provide incontrovertible
> evidence of its existence.

Or ANY evidence at all.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <5197a04d$0$2658$1c46...@news.club.cc.cmu.edu>, /. "".
wrote:

What "belief system"? What is it that you claim we believe?

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <5197f31b$0$2655$1c46...@news.club.cc.cmu.edu>, .// "".
wrote:

Blind faith in what?

[John Manning]

Lying appears to be part of these people's religion.

[./."".]

Additional confession of the plight of the atheist, no empirical program in
support, a blind faith belief system. If it were otherwise we would have
seen sooner in this thread the empirical program to the contrary offered.

[./."".]

> This is a good confession, the atheist absent an empirical program by
which
> the question can be addressed resides in the end on blind faith alone for
> his belief system.
>
> "If you wish to pursue proving your hypothesis of a God, be my guest."
>
> I have proposed no such, only the atheists in this thread have proposed
> their belief system. We await their empirical program by which to get
past
> blind faith alone.
>

"Your false, self-serving definitions and assumptions negate the legitimacy
of your comments."

Confession is good for the soul, the atheist has no empirical program in
support of their blind faith belief system. If it were otherwise at least
an outline of an empirical program would have been offered, none, nada,
zip.

[./."".]

Absent any proposed empirical program in
> support we are forced to conclude it is based on blind faith alone.


"You can make up any nonsense you wish to justify your point of view - but
no matter how often you repeat that nonsense, it still remains nonsense."

I know, i know, it stings when all the rhetorical legs are kicked out from
under the support in science for the atheist belief system. It being left
after all in the strong light of being blind faith alone. If it were
otherwise an empirical program in support would have long since been
presented here.

[raven1]

On 18 May 2013 15:33:17 GMT, /. "". wrote:

>>>"the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of
>>deity
>>>or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God,
>>>while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. By"
>>>
>>>http://www.pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Scientists-and-Belief.aspx
>>
>>""Universal spirit" and "higher power" strike me as so vague as to be
>>meaningless, and do not necessarily imply a deity in any case. Moreover,
>>many scientists use the term "God" as Einstein did: as a metaphor for an
>>underlying order to the universe (cf. "Spinoza's God"), not as an
>>expression of belief in a personal being with that title. I'd like to see
>>the same sample group re-polled with more specific questions."
>>
>>Sorry, the response to the poll does not support your asserted inclusions
>>as to the results. It is wishful thinking. In any case it is not any
>form
>>that comes close to the neo-atheist belief system of nothing but a
>material
>>reality external to the human mind.
>
>"Did you actually read what I wrote?"
>
>You bet, it was fishing for how to do a poll to get the desired results.

Ah. I see. You didn't actually read it. It was about how to do a poll
and get *meaningful* results by not asking vague questions.

---
raven1
aa # 1096
EAC Vice President (President in charge of vice)
BAAWA Knight

["".]

"Until someone can provide objective physical evidence supporting the
theological claims of god-centered religions, gods remain no more validated
than fairies or elves or ogres. Whose only "reality" is in cartoon films."

Ah, then such a proposed empirical program as asserted would have to be at
least outlined. Absent it the atheist must cchoose another program,
perhaps tea leaf reading.

If the atheist can not suggest said empirical program then they are left as
now, a blind faith belief system for their conclusions.

[''."".]

> >> Smile, then be my guest, do outline an empirical program by which the
> >> question of the divine can be addressed.
> >
> > "If that could have been done, it *would* have been done somewhere by
you
> > religionist clowns who claim to be scientists. It hasn't been done.
> >
> > With atheism, there *IS* no question to be addressed as there is no
> > question outside of the framework of empiricism to be addressed."
> >
> > Then we will accept your confession, absent an empirical program by
which
> > to address the question of the divine the atheist has a belief system
based
> > on blind faith alone.
> >
>
>
> You appear to be incapable of rational thought

"On the contrary, there is no empirical support for any theist claims."

On the contrary, the atheist is left hanging with a blind faith belief
system absent any proposed empirical program to the contrary.

"And scientists, for that reason, are largely non-theistic, i.e.,
non-beleivers."

And as the thread topic originally offered, 51 percent of polled scientists
in the AAAS had such a belief.

They know that on the question of the divine that any empirical program
like science stands mute and dumb. They do science, they believe, there is
no conflict.

[John Manning]

Additional nonsense doesn't help you at all. Sorry.

[/."".]

> That's uninformed, atheism has no inherent connection to any imperical
> program. It is in fact a belief system because it can not justify the
> blind faith conclusion of the lack of the divine. No empirical system
can
> address this question, which is why science stands mute and dumb on the
> topic and atheism a belief system only.

"So, to you, 'not collecting stamps' is a hobby, bald is a hair colour and
abstinence is a position for sexual intercourse. Thanks for showing us your
ignorance."

Smile, desperation sets in in the light of the reality that atheisim is a
blind faith belief system absent an empirical program in support.

We are happy to etertain said empirical program at any time to the
contrary.

[John Manning]

On 5/18/2013 10:06 PM, ./. "". wrote:
>> This is a good confession, the atheist absent an empirical program by
> which
>> the question can be addressed resides in the end on blind faith alone for
>> his belief system.
>>
>> "If you wish to pursue proving your hypothesis of a God, be my guest."
>>
>> I have proposed no such, only the atheists in this thread have proposed
>> their belief system. We await their empirical program by which to get
> past
>> blind faith alone.
>>
>
> "Your false, self-serving definitions and assumptions negate the legitimacy
> of your comments."
>

> Confession is good for the soul,the atheist has no empirical program in

> support of their blind faith belief system. If it were otherwise at least
> an outline of an empirical program would have been offered, none, nada,
> zip.
>

Self-deception appears to be one of your afflictions, along with your
dishonesty.

[John Manning]

Your delusions are becoming more and more excessive. Seems you have
no place else to go.

[Dreamer In Colore]

Again, you're the one making the statement for the divine. So yours is
the empirical program to design and demonstrate. Think of atheists as
your very own free quality assurance department.

Atheists are not responsible for the validation of claims made by
theists, regardless of your wishful thinking in this regard.

Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306

[Dreamer In Colore]

No. You're the one who started the thread by saying "51% of scientists
believe in a higher power".

You are engaging in one of the simplest of logical fallacies, which is
the assertion that atheists have to prove a negative. This is
fallacious because there is no more reason to state "There is no
divine" as there is to state "There are no unicorns".

If you believe that there is a divine... then go ahead and lay out
your evidence. It's not the job of the atheist to do your proof work
for you.... that's entirely on you.

Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <51982a47$0$2660$1c46...@news.club.cc.cmu.edu>, /. "".
wrote:

> > That's uninformed, atheism has no inherent connection to any imperical
> > program. It is in fact a belief system because it can not justify the
> > blind faith conclusion of the lack of the divine. No empirical system
> can
> > address this question, which is why science stands mute and dumb on the
> > topic and atheism a belief system only.
>
> "So, to you, 'not collecting stamps' is a hobby, bald is a hair colour and
> abstinence is a position for sexual intercourse. Thanks for showing us your
> ignorance."
>
> Smile, desperation sets in in the light of the reality that atheisim is a
> blind faith belief system

Belief in what?

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <5198268f$0$2660$1c46...@news.club.cc.cmu.edu>, ./. "".
wrote:

> Absent any proposed empirical program in
> > support we are forced to conclude it is based on blind faith alone.
>
>
> "You can make up any nonsense you wish to justify your point of view - but
> no matter how often you repeat that nonsense, it still remains nonsense."
>
> I know, i know, it stings when all the rhetorical legs are kicked out from
> under the support in science for the atheist belief system.

Belief in what???

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 15:11:14 -0300, John Manning
<jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:

>On 5/18/2013 12:37 PM, /. "". wrote:
>>> "There's no "blind faith conclusion of the lack of the divine." The lack of
>>> the divine is the inability to provide incontrovertible evidence of its
>>> existence.
>>>
>>> Atheism is simply lack of belief. I'm pretty sure that every atheist would
>>> believe in a supernatural being if there was evidence to support the
>>> notion.
>>>
>>> Science stands mute on anything that can't be experimentally verified. Lots
>>> of theories get pushed out, and they stand or fall on their merits;
>>> divinity is another one of the theories."
>
>
>> The latter sentence is the heart of the matter. Science standing mute and
>> dumb on the question of the divine does not support the belief system of

>> the atheist. Same then concluded on blind faith alone absent an empirical
>> program.
>
>
>
>It's not the job of the atheist to investigate claims of
>an invisible divine God any more than it's the job of the
>atheist (or anyone else for that matter) to investigate the
>existance of the Easter Bunny or Peter Pan.
>

>If you wish to pursue proving your hypothesis of a God, be my guest.

What "belief system of the atheist" was the lying idiot lying about?

[John Manning]

The one he fabricated in his self-deluded mind.

[Smiler]

And where is your empirical program to show that Zeus, Odin, Thor and the
other 20,000+ gods known to have been worshipped by mankind do not exist?
Or do you believe in all of them, even though they are contradictory?

I'd be especially surprised to see your empirical evidence that
HRH, Prince Phillip, the Duke of Edinburgh doesn't exist. He is a god,
worshipped by the people of Vanuatu, a South Seas Island.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 00:55:18 +0100, Smiler <Youm...@JoeKing.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 19 May 2013 01:26:31 +0000, /."" wrote:
>
>>> That's uninformed, atheism has no inherent connection to any imperical
>>> program. It is in fact a belief system because it can not justify the
>>> blind faith conclusion of the lack of the divine. No empirical system
>>> can
>>> address this question, which is why science stands mute and dumb on the
>>> topic and atheism a belief system only.

Lie noted.

Is its exact equivalent of not believing in the fairies at the bottom
of the garden a belief system on this in-your-face, mentally ill
sociopath's planet as well?

>> "So, to you, 'not collecting stamps' is a hobby, bald is a hair colour and
>> abstinence is a position for sexual intercourse. Thanks for showing us
>> your ignorance."
>>
>> Smile, desperation sets in in the light of the reality that atheisim is a
>> blind faith belief system absent an empirical program in support.

Lie noted.

Apart from being so mentally ill he stalks complete strangers to lie
about them to their faces, what's wrong with this moron?

>> We are happy to etertain said empirical program at any time to the
>> contrary.
>
>And where is your empirical program to show that Zeus, Odin, Thor and the
>other 20,000+ gods known to have been worshipped by mankind do not exist?
>Or do you believe in all of them, even though they are contradictory?

Stupid theists "think" that's different.

>I'd be especially surprised to see your empirical evidence that
>HRH, Prince Phillip, the Duke of Edinburgh doesn't exist. He is a god,
>worshipped by the people of Vanuatu, a South Seas Island.

Just because somebody believes something or somebody is a god, doesn't
make it so.

[Smiler]

And not making stupid assumptions based on prejudice.

[//"".]

Then please do provide an empirical program to save the atheist belief
system from being blind faith alone.

[John Manning]

Your request is meaningless as it assumes a false premise -
just like your indoctrination.

["".]

>> "You can make up any nonsense you wish to justify your point of view -
> but
>> no matter how often you repeat that nonsense, it still remains
nonsense."
>>
>> I know, i know, it stings when all the rhetorical legs are kicked out
> from
>> under the support in science for the atheist belief system. It being
> left
>> after all in the strong light of being blind faith alone. If it were
>> otherwise an empirical program in support would have long since been
>> presented here.
>>
>
> "Your delusions are becoming more and more excessive. Seems you have no
> place else to go."
>
> Then please do provide an empirical program to save the atheist belief
> system from being blind faith alone.
>

"Your request is meaningless as it assumes a false premise - just like your
indoctrination."

The atheist declares there is no divine as a conclusion from various
rhetorical devices. That conclusion is either blind faith or has empirical
support. Which is it?

[John Manning]

No one in this thread has made a declaration that
"there is no divine," only that there is no verifiable
objective evidence for a divine. But as a matter of course
you persist in demonstrating your "christian" dishonesty as
you already knew that - as it has been pointed out to you
repeatedly.

[//"".]

>> "Your delusions are becoming more and more excessive. Seems you have no
>> place else to go."
>>
>> Then please do provide an empirical program to save the atheist belief
>> system from being blind faith alone.
>>
>
> "Your request is meaningless as it assumes a false premise - just like
your
> indoctrination."
>
> The atheist declares there is no divine as a conclusion from various
> rhetorical devices. That conclusion is either blind faith or has
empirical
> support. Which is it?
>


"No one in this thread has made a declaration that "there is no divine,"
only that there is no verifiable objective evidence for a divine. But as a
matter of course you persist in demonstrating your "christian" dishonesty
as you already knew that - as it has been pointed out to you repeatedly."

Then it does not apply to you if you have not concluded there is no divine.
If you or others do so conclude it does apply.

When "evidence" is evoked in support of any claim regarding the divine then
an empiricle program is being evoked. In which case one must be able to
show what in principle could be such evidence. Lacking same evidence is
irrelevant to the question.

If none is forthcoming then any such program, including science, stands
mute and dumb on the question. In which case the conclusion however
derived is one of blind faith alone.

So in the end it does not matter what you believe or why or how you arrived
at any conclusion, that is the bottom line reality. Unless of course such
empiricle program can be proposed. Then and only then can the atheist or
any other be relieved of the conclusion being of blind faith alone.

There is a wall of seperation between science and the question of the
divine, leaving the atheist empty handed and standing on blind faith alone.

[John Manning]

That's total nonsense. No one who isn't an indoctrinated twit
like you, buys it.

[/]

> There is a wall of seperation between science and the question of the
> divine, leaving the atheist empty handed and standing on blind faith
alone.

"That's total nonsense. No one who isn't an indoctrinated twit like you,
buys it."

Then the proper approach will be to propose an empirical program, including
one of science, by which the contrary can be demonstrated. Absent same,
blind faith alone is left standing at day's end and the wall of seperation
is firmly in place. .

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <519a1011$0$2661$1c46...@news.club.cc.cmu.edu>, // "".
wrote:

What do we have "blind faith" in?

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <519a5f62$0$2658$1c46...@news.club.cc.cmu.edu>, ;; "".
wrote:

Your premise is fatally flawed, so your questions are null and void.

[/]

> > I know, i know, it stings when all the rhetorical legs are kicked out
> from
> > under the support in science for the atheist belief system. It being
> left
> > after all in the strong light of being blind faith alone. If it were
> > otherwise an empirical program in support would have long since been
> > presented here.
> >
>
> "Your delusions are becoming more and more excessive. Seems you have no
> place else to go."
>
> Then please do provide an empirical program to save the atheist belief
> system from being blind faith alone.

"What do we have "blind faith" in?"

The validity of the conclusion of the atheist regarding the divine.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <519a7879$0$2658$1c46...@news.club.cc.cmu.edu>, // "".
wrote:

> >> "Your delusions are becoming more and more excessive. Seems you have no
> >> place else to go."
> >>
> >> Then please do provide an empirical program to save the atheist belief
> >> system from being blind faith alone.
> >>
> >
> > "Your request is meaningless as it assumes a false premise - just like
> your
> > indoctrination."
> >
> > The atheist declares there is no divine as a conclusion from various
> > rhetorical devices. That conclusion is either blind faith or has
> empirical
> > support. Which is it?
> >
>
>
> "No one in this thread has made a declaration that "there is no divine,"
> only that there is no verifiable objective evidence for a divine. But as a
> matter of course you persist in demonstrating your "christian" dishonesty
> as you already knew that - as it has been pointed out to you repeatedly."
>
> Then it does not apply to you if you have not concluded there is no divine.
> If you or others do so conclude it does apply.
>
> When "evidence" is evoked in support of any claim regarding the divine then
> an empiricle program is being evoked. In which case one must be able to

empirical

> show what in principle could be such evidence. Lacking same evidence is
> irrelevant to the question.

Care to translate that word salad into English?

> If none is forthcoming then any such program, including science, stands
> mute and dumb on the question. In which case the conclusion however
> derived is one of blind faith alone.

What program? What the fuck are you talking about?

> So in the end it does not matter what you believe or why or how you arrived
> at any conclusion, that is the bottom line reality. Unless of course such
> empiricle program can be proposed. Then and only then can the atheist or
> any other be relieved of the conclusion being of blind faith alone.
>
> There is a wall of seperation between science and the question of the
> divine, leaving the atheist empty handed and standing on blind faith alone.

Blind faith in what? You spout all this gibberish but you never answer
that very simple question.

So try again.

What, specifically, are you accusing us of having "blind faith" in?

[../"".]

> There is a wall of seperation between science and the question of the
> divine, leaving the atheist empty handed and standing on blind faith
alone.

"Blind faith in what? You spout all this gibberish but you never answer
that very simple question.

So try again.

What, specifically, are you accusing us of having "blind faith" in?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Pick that part that floats your boat.

There is a wall of seperation between science and the divine.

[Terry Cross]

On May 20, 2:00 pm, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> In article <519a1011$0$2661$1c468...@news.club.cc.cmu.edu>, // "".

The truth of your "prestigious" magazines, their writers, their TeeVee
shows, and all that they pretend to reveal to you.

TCross

[Terry Cross]

On May 18, 5:39 pm, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> In article <51976767$0$2658$1c468...@news.club.cc.cmu.edu>, .. "".
> wrote:
>
> > > Science can and is being done with belief in the divine in some form, and
> > > the oppisite by some who have other belief systems.  The mark of science
> > is
> > > not in any way modified by either belief system.  Neither belief system
> > is
> > > at odds regarding science as an empirical program.
>
> > "That's gibberish. Atheism is not a "belief system."  It's a *lack* of
> > belief in anything but verifiable objective evidence."

>
> > That's uninformed, atheism has no inherent connection to any imperical
> > program.  It is in fact a belief system because it can not justify the
> > blind faith conclusion of the lack of the divine.
>

> But that's not what atheism is.

>
> > No empirical system can
> > address this question, which is why science stands mute and dumb on the
> > topic and atheism a belief system only.
>

> What is believed in?

The Atheist demonstrates blind faith in the prestigious magazines of
her culture, the writers, and all that is revealed therein. If those
magazines were publishing Lysenko, you would believe them, not because
they made sense, but because of your deliberate blindness. Yours is
the new Politburo of blind faith in the group mind.

TCross

[John Manning]

Are you a mindless parrot?

[John Manning]

It's a waste of time attempting to communicate with a mindless parrot.

[John Manning]

In your world does it require "blind faith" to conclude that
there really is no Santa Claus?

[../"".]

Some people just require some additional time to see the myth on which
their belief system is based.

The myth that science can be brought to bear on the question of the divine.
The myth that the atheist in evoking same has his ducks all in a row.

[John Manning]

Terry now openly admits that he(she) rejects verifiable
objective evidence. Most religionists do. It's rather revealing
then that they accept a claimed divine entity for which there is none.


>
> TCross
>
>

[John Manning]

Bottom line: You have ZERO verifiable, objective evidence for the
existence a divine entity. Yet you claim that anyone who accepts that
fact is going on "blind faith." That pretty much indicates that
you aren't playing with a full deck.

Can I expect that you will once again return to your parrot mode?

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <519a9215$0$2658$1c46...@news.club.cc.cmu.edu>, ../ "".
wrote:

> > There is a wall of seperation between science and the question of the
> > divine, leaving the atheist empty handed and standing on blind faith
> alone.
>
> "Blind faith in what? You spout all this gibberish but you never answer
> that very simple question.
>
> So try again.
>
> What, specifically, are you accusing us of having "blind faith" in?"
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
>
> Pick that part that floats your boat.

Why can't you answer a simple question?

> There is a wall of seperation between science and the divine.

As there should be.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <519a8f66$0$2658$1c46...@news.club.cc.cmu.edu>, /,/ "".
wrote:

What conclusion are you talking about?

I have no conclusion. I have no evidence on which to base a conclusion,
so how can I have a conclusion?

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <519a8cbb$0$2658$1c46...@news.club.cc.cmu.edu>, /, "".
wrote:

So why haven't you or someone else proposed a research program and found
someone to fund it? Nobody's stopping you.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <519a9e57$0$2658$1c46...@news.club.cc.cmu.edu>, ../ "".
wrote:

Until you provide evidence that the divine exists, there's nothing to
discuss.

> The myth that the atheist in evoking same has his ducks all in a row.

And what "myth" is that?

[Terry Cross]

You have no idea whether it is verifiable -- YOU never verify it. But
you have faith that someone else might. In other words, your faith is
in a society of intellectuals (or "priests") that may or may not
exist.

I have no faith in your brotherhood of academics. I know where and
how they get their income, and little of it comes comes from honest
work. Most comes from producing results desired from their income
sources, be they government, military, or corporate investors.

I have seen that brotherhood of academics endorse cigarettes, X-Rays,
poisonous pharmaceuticals, weapons of mass destruction, fake safety
devices, noxious medical experiments, false statistics, and fairy
tales. As a group, they have less credibility than the writers of
People Magazine -- which I despise.

TCross

[John Manning]

On 5/20/2013 6:35 PM, Terry Cross wrote:
> On May 18, 5:39 pm, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>> In article <51976767$0$2658$1c468...@news.club.cc.cmu.edu>, .. "".
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Science can and is being done with belief in the divine in some form, and
>>>> the oppisite by some who have other belief systems. The mark of science
>>> is
>>>> not in any way modified by either belief system. Neither belief system
>>> is
>>>> at odds regarding science as an empirical program.
>>
>>> "That's gibberish. Atheism is not a "belief system." It's a *lack* of
>>> belief in anything but verifiable objective evidence."
>>
>>> That's uninformed, atheism has no inherent connection to any imperical
>>> program. It is in fact a belief system because it can not justify the
>>> blind faith conclusion of the lack of the divine.
>>
>> But that's not what atheism is.
>>
>>> No empirical system can
>>> address this question, which is why science stands mute and dumb on the
>>> topic and atheism a belief system only.
>>
>> What is believed in?
>
> The Atheist demonstrates blind faith in the prestigious magazines of
> her culture, the writers, and all that is revealed therein.

Total horseshit. NOBODY accepts everything they read.

However a reasonable, sane, educated human being
DOES generally accept objective, verifiable facts.

Science is the basis of such facts which in turn are
the basis of the technology of an advancing civilization.

And these scientific facts *ARE* written down and shared with an
educated human population in published material which is taught in
schools and universities.

If you prefer to reject all of that and live
like an uneducated primitive tribal goat-herder,
where religionist fundamentalists choose their religion
and deity over education and science, I'm sure the Taliban in
Afghanistan would accommodate you - unless of course, they
found out you're not really "one of them."

[John Manning]

Meaningless, empty word games.

>
> I have no faith in your brotherhood of academics. I know where and
> how they get their income, and little of it comes comes from honest
> work. Most comes from producing results desired from their income
> sources, be they government, military, or corporate investors.
>
> I have seen that brotherhood of academics endorse cigarettes, X-Rays,
> poisonous pharmaceuticals, weapons of mass destruction, fake safety
> devices, noxious medical experiments, false statistics, and fairy
> tales. As a group, they have less credibility than the writers of
> People Magazine -- which I despise.

Now Terry reveals his bizarre mental state as
he/she desperately resorts to a gobbledegook mix
of distortion, misinformation, half-truths, false
claims and sheer nonsense that sounds like something
from that obscenely overpaid crackpot and fraud, Glenn Beck.


>
> TCross
>

[//"".]

>> Then the proper approach will be to propose an empirical program,
> including
>> one of science, by which the contrary can be demonstrated. Absent same,
>> blind faith alone is left standing at day's end and the wall of
> seperation
>> is firmly in place. .
>>
>
>
> "Are you a mindless parrot?"
>
> Some people just require some additional time to see the myth on which
> their belief system is based.
>
> The myth that science can be brought to bear on the question of the
divine.
> The myth that the atheist in evoking same has his ducks all in a row.
>

"Bottom line: You have ZERO verifiable, objective evidence for the
existence a divine entity. Yet you claim that anyone who accepts that fact
is going on "blind faith." That pretty much indicates that"

Bottom line, I need not have any evidence because unlike the atheist I do
not evoke an empirical program in support. Once evidence is mentioned it
is the burden of he who proposes it to also propose
what possible evidence can be brought to bear. If there is none
forthcoming it is an empty gesture to evoke evidence in either direction.
Once that is established only blind faith remains to comfort the atheist.

The wall of seperation between science and the divine remains.

[/."".]

> There is a wall of seperation between science and the divine.

"As there should be."

It is not a matter of preference nor wishful thinking, it stands as
objective reality that the atheist can not evoke science in his cause, one

[./."".]

"I have no conclusion. I have no evidence on which to base a conclusion,
so how can I have a conclusion?"

Exactly, no grounds for science to bring comfort to the atheist who wallows
in blind faith only.

[John Manning]

That doesn't make sense. I've never encountered any atheists who go by
"blind faith." Only religionist nutjobs like you do that.

[John Manning]

On 5/20/2013 8:01 PM, // "". wrote:
>>> Then the proper approach will be to propose an empirical program,
>> including
>>> one of science, by which the contrary can be demonstrated. Absent same,
>>> blind faith alone is left standing at day's end and the wall of
>> seperation
>>> is firmly in place. .
>>>
>>
>>
>> "Are you a mindless parrot?"
>>
>> Some people just require some additional time to see the myth on which
>> their belief system is based.
>>
>> The myth that science can be brought to bear on the question of the
> divine.
>> The myth that the atheist in evoking same has his ducks all in a row.
>>
>
> "Bottom line: You have ZERO verifiable, objective evidence for the
> existence a divine entity. Yet you claim that anyone who accepts that fact
> is going on "blind faith." That pretty much indicates that"
>
> Bottom line, I need not have any evidence because unlike the atheist I do
> not evoke an empirical program in support.

Then you live in an imaginary world in your own mind,
and the nonsense you wrote below is meaningless to anyone
but you (or anyone else who shares your affliction).

["".]

> Then the proper approach will be to propose an empirical program,
including
> one of science, by which the contrary can be demonstrated. Absent same,
> blind faith alone is left standing at day's end and the wall of
seperation
> is firmly in place. .

"So why haven't you or someone else proposed a research program and found
someone to fund it? Nobody's stopping you."

Because the potential of using it is at present untenable on the question
of the divine. For which reason for the atheist to claim science or that
evidence is at all possibly used is a fool's errand. The atheist might as
well use tea leaf reading in place of the blind faith now the only possible
basis.

Each time the atheist whines about evidence he exposes the poverty of his
thought process on the question of the divine. It exposes his blind faith
only.

[John Manning]

You're just grasping at straws with meaningless nonsense.

[."".]

> Some people just require some additional time to see the myth on which
> their belief system is based.
>
> The myth that science can be brought to bear on the question of the
divine.

"Until you provide evidence that the divine exists, there's nothing to
discuss."

Oh dear, there you go again, evidence evokes an empirical program such as
science. He who evokes the status of evidence has the burden to propose
what it might be. This is part of the myth of the atheist that science is
a conceptual tool suited to the task, sad really.

> The myth that the atheist in evoking same has his ducks all in a row.

"And what "myth" is that?"

[Christopher A. Lee]

On 20 May 2013 23:19:27 GMT, ;. "". wrote:

>> Some people just require some additional time to see the myth on which
>> their belief system is based.
>>
>> The myth that science can be brought to bear on the question of the
>divine.
>
>"Until you provide evidence that the divine exists, there's nothing to
>discuss."
>
>Oh dear, there you go again, evidence evokes an empirical program such as
>science. He who evokes the status of evidence has the burden to propose
>what it might be. This is part of the myth of the atheist that science is
>a conceptual tool suited to the task, sad really.

Why can't you stop lying?

It's all about you morons either putting up or shutting up when you
can't put up, instead of wiping your neverending bullshit in our faces
day in and day out,

Which word was too hard for you to understand?

>> The myth that the atheist in evoking same has his ducks all in a row.
>
>"And what "myth" is that?"
>
>The myth that science can be brought to bear on the question of the divine.

There is no "question of the divine" outside the fantasies of
religionists too stupid to think outside the box, imbecile.

[Terry Cross]

For anyone mystified by that saliva spray, those words are the Atheist
equivalents equivalents for "demon possession," "heresy," "anathema,"
"paganism," "blasphemy," etc. Every religion has such words.

> that sounds like something
> from that obscenely overpaid crackpot and fraud, Glenn Beck.

I wouldn't know. I see TeeVee only at the gym. How do you know so
much about Mr. Beck?

TCross

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <519aab58$0$2662$1c46...@news.club.cc.cmu.edu>, // "".
wrote:

Care to translate all that gibberish into English?

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <519aabe2$0$2662$1c46...@news.club.cc.cmu.edu>, /. "".
wrote:

We're all still waiting for you to tell us what we have "blind faith" in?

And in English, please. Gibberish doesn't help your cause.

[//"".]

>Oh dear, there you go again, evidence evokes an empirical program such as
>science. He who evokes the status of evidence has the burden to propose
>what it might be. This is part of the myth of the atheist that science is
>a conceptual tool suited to the task, sad really.

"Why can't you stop lying?"

Are you still beating your wife?

"It's all about you morons either putting up or shutting up when you can't
put up, instead of wiping your neverending bullshit in our faces"

Agreed, we await the empirical program proposed by the atheist to even in
principle be able to answer the question of the divine.

There is a wall of seperation between science and the divine. Science
stands mute and dumb on the question.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <519aac63$0$2662$1c46...@news.club.cc.cmu.edu>, ./. "".
wrote:

Blind faith in what?

Please give your answer in English, not gibberish.

YOU have blind faith in a god. See how easy that was?

What do I have blind faith in?

[casey]

On 20 May, 16:19, ;. "". wrote:
[...]

> "Until you provide evidence that the divine exists, there's nothing to
> discuss."
>
> Oh dear, there you go again, evidence evokes an empirical program such as
> science.  He who evokes the status of evidence has the burden to propose
> what it might be.  This is part of the myth of the atheist that science is
> a conceptual tool suited to the task, sad really.

And that is essentially the issue. Religion's concept of what
constitutes evidence is not the same as science's concept
of what constitutes evidence. Same data, two different
programs, different outputs. One program produces the
modern technology of the world today the other program
continues with the mentality of the dark ages producing
nothing except an unsubstantiated belief in another reality.

[../"".]

> "I have no conclusion. I have no evidence on which to base a conclusion,
> so how can I have a conclusion?"
>
> Exactly, no grounds for science to bring comfort to the atheist who
wallows
> in blind faith only.

Blind faith in what?

Please give your answer in English, not gibberish.

YOU have blind faith in a god. See how easy that was?

"What do I have blind faith in?"

If that shoe fits, wear it, I ain't no mind reader and in fact it is not
relevant to the atheist mythology what you believe or not, that science can
be brought to bear on the question of the divine.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <519aae7a$0$2662$1c46...@news.club.cc.cmu.edu>, ;; "".
wrote:

"Blind faith" in what?

YOU have blind faith in your god.

What do I have blind faith in?

Answer in English, please, not gibberish.