Coreeece

One cannot simultaneously embrace faith, as required by religion, and reject faith, as required by the scientific method There is no reason to reject faith in the areas of life where it's relevant. Both science and faith have their place and can coexist harmoniously. I can mentally prepare myself and pray to God for objectivity in my observations, safety during my experiments, accuracy in my measurements and effective communication of the results, free of conjecture and advancement of a personal or social agenda. Amen. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Both have their place - ymmv Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

One can objectively study, understand and explain that which is observable, while having faith in that which is not. Now you may not like that because they don't use science as a platform to go off on tirades of anti-religious conjecture and promote militant atheism, but that has nothing to do with being a good scientist. Science is not the end all - say all, nor does it address every area of the human experience. Also - reading and understanding the whole of scripture is not a prerequisite for being a "good christian." Some of the most revered believers didn't have the gospel as we now know it, while others were unfamiliar with that which had already been written - they merely just believed. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

...and inadvertently repeating oneself ad nauseam is a sign of dementia, but I suppose that I could give one the benefit of a doubt and leave that up to a doctor's diagnosis. I think mental illness could certainly lead one to become more religious - or even worse - lead to more virulent manifestations of faith, but I would expect physical evidence as to the cause of mental illness whether by way of genetics, brain damage, or chemical imbalance. In most cases, religious people fit a clean bill of health - therefore, the evidence suggests that their propensity toward faith is either directly or indirectly the result of human adaptation. But you guys are the evidential types, so that's your problem. I'm merely a christian - therefore, God did it. I agree, but I would also add that the protestant reformation was a step back in the right direction. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Right - that's what all of this is really about, so excuse me for recognizing the irony in singling out a group of people and taking a jab at them by using information designed to resolve conflict and help us "learn to live in each other’s backyards." Kegan said that it's unlikely that a person can be helped by someone that merely assumes they are engaged in a certain order of consciousness when they are not. That doesn't mean that they don't reflect on those circumstances and assess measures to prevent it from happening again. Second, "magical thinking" isn't even the way Kegan described stage one - that's just an adaptation that some couple in Colorado made up - In his books, Kegan described it as an order of consciousness more related to impulsiveness. A more accurate adaptation to his theory is illustrated in this chart here. Also, stages 1-2 are used to describe how young children and adolescents may exclusively handle conflict, while stages 3-4 are reserved for adults - but I think we could say that in general, people may entertain anyone of these stages to address conflict throughout their adult life depending on the scope of the conflict and the type/number of individuals involved. For example, if a person operating at stage 4 the majority of the time is faced with an unfamiliar conflict that catches them by surprise, they may react impulsively given that the circumstances are new to them. I think another example might be with professional baseball players - they are operating on superstition while aggressively evaluating themselves simultaneously. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

QED - Thanks for your honesty. No further questions. . . Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Thank you Jesus. how true. So let me guess - having mastered all 5 stages at a very young age, you guys have since graduated to stage 6 - a hyper figmental state of development - where you arbitrarily assign subjacent stages to your annoying coworkers and the more contemptible protected social classes among us? Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Are you saying that there are more homosexuals because there is less bigotry against them? No, just more visible. undoubtedly, as long as they keep their faith to themselves nobody cares. It's when they start using their faith to push things like anti homosexuality where the problem starts. See, this is part of that emerging stigma that's being placed on Christianity. You dismiss any positive affect that Christianity may have on society and ignore the billions of dollars in charitable events that Christians undertake around the world every year. Instead you focus on anti-homosexuality, while your colleagues around the internet focus on and how christians are hateful, uneducated bigots with sloped foreheads, lol. . . I mean seriously, who on the fence wants to be associated with that, even if in the end, they can't help but to identify with the virtue of Christianity? We're creating an environment that is essentially pushing Christianity back down to it's "underground roots." We see this especially in the scientific field, where scientists feel compelled to hide their religious views out of fear of being ridiculed or losing credibility - and in some cases - maybe even losing their job. Now I know some people see this as a good thing - that if we can overcome religion, it will be for the betterment of society - but often these are the same people talking about tolerance, compromise, and creating an environment where people can make their own decision rather than being forced into the group that's viewed more favorably. It shows that these people really aren't about tolerance and compromise, but rather pushing their agenda under the guise of tolerance and compromise. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Ok, fair enough, but you also mentioned how you wanted to get rid of christian based laws - what do you think christian lobbyists are lobbying for? Um, no. The Megachurch of Our Lady of the Eternal Dollar does not pay taxes like everyone else. Ok, if this is a reference to the Catholic Church, then I agree. Priests are different than evangelical/protestant pastors in that the church itself provides for the priest given their vow of "poverty," lol. But an evangelical/protestant pastor is still subject to income tax whether he draws a salary from the church or makes his money off book sales. Total non-sequitur, but okay. Planned Parenthood gets paid for its services just like any other medical provider. Some of that payment comes from the government in the form of Medicare and Medicaid. Getting government funding as payment for services has nothing to do with paying taxes. I would have no problem if churches were structured like any other non-profit for tax purposes. Assuming, of course, that they followed all the non-profit rules. We weren't really talking about the organizations themselves as much as we were talking about enriching the people that work in these organizations. You seem to have a problem with a pastor making a bunch of money even tho they're not taking any government funding, nor are they charging for their services - and practically every dollar they receive is given willingly. But then you don't seem to have a problem with paying outrageous salaries to those that do take government funding and do charge for their services - and probably unreasonable charges at that. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Yes. "Shortly after beginning HRT, MAAB trans people may start becoming more emotionally sensitive, especially to stress, though this is not a universal experience. Six to eight weeks after beginning hormone therapy, the first physical effects in MAAB trans people begin to appear. The first noticeable change is the beginnings of chest growth. Sometimes, this can be very painful. Acne usually begins to clear up, and skin becomes softer and less coarse. Balding ceases and some hair might even begin to grow back, though it is usually very fine. Body hair lessens and becomes finer. In some places (such as the stomach), it may disappear entirely. Gradually, body fat begins to redistribute from around the waist to the hips. Muscle mass starts to disappear, and it causes a noticeable loss in strength. The loss of muscle, though, gives the body a softer look and feel. Another thing to be expected with HRT is loss of sexual functioning. The external gonads generally shrink, it becomes harder to maintain an erection, and there is a loss of the ability to ejaculate." Source Jeeze. . . Do you get an increased life expectancy with all that as well? Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

You said that you want religion out of government - but taxing religious institutions would give them more political influence. Lobbying is only but one form of that influence. I agree. Ha, enriching pastors? I'm not trying to defend them, but many of these megachurch pastors don't even pull a salary from the church. They make their money off books and speaking engagements - and even if they were taking a salary, they'd still be subject to income tax just like everyone else. It's interesting how you get all indignant over "enriching pastors," but don't express any contempt for organizations like planned parenthood that not only take government funding but charge for their services(unlike churches) and then accept medicaid and other government funding on top of that - and then "enrich" themselves with $500,000 salaries - must be nice to just write-off obscene profits as a salary. My concern was mainly with small churches, but Billvon already addressed that. Oh, I thought you said you wanted religion out of government - my bad. They are. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

I could agree that we're all born agnostic given that we don't know anything at that time. If we were then left to wander around independent of any positive or negative external influence of religion, I think we would ultimately - on our own - begin to conceptualize a very generalized idea of what we might consider God. How you would proceed from there and define God beyond that is another story - and I don't think it's wrong to criticize that definition as long as you know what you're criticizing. Some of the ignorance found in arguments against Christianity rivals that of uneducated creationists arguing against evolution. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

You're not factoring in all the other medium to mega-sized churches that otherwise wouldn't care to have a political voice and go through the trouble to lobby - I'm sure that would all change if they were to be taxed. Small, legit churches that are minding their own business obviously don't care to lobby, nor would they. I know some churches that don't even take up a collection - they just have a box by the door as you leave to give as you please - and it would be amiss if taxes caused these churches to close their doors or deter others from building them. It would be a gross violation of the protection provided by the separation of church and state. Personally, I don't really care about religious lobbying - I just find it interesting that you would bolster an environment that would promote it, especially given that you were the one whingeing about how you want religion out of your government/laws. . . Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

I suppose that might work. My main concern is with protecting smaller churches that might not be able to afford a tax, especially since they aren't forcing a charge for their services - which isn't always the case with "any other" nonprofit. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

That is some amazingly twisted logic. How so? It would hurt smaller churches and it would give megachurches more political clout. Right now, churches can't lobby - so we have all these religious lobbyist organizations that need to be set up in order to lobby - and the only way they get to lobby is if the money they receive to lobby is taxed. Taxing churches would then give them a right to a political voice and just open the floodgates without having to go through a "lobbyist loophole." Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

They should be treated as any other tax exempt non-profit organization under which they qualify. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

I suppose the same thing could be said about loud "millitant" theists vs. the majority that isn't trying to force their beliefs on anyone. But then you want to have it both ways by taxing religious institutions that will ultimately only end up hurting legit smaller churches trying to mind their own business, while giving even MORE political clout to the loudmouth megachurches. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

There is a stigma that's beginning to be attached to faith, and it won't be the majority for long if it starts to stick - which is why many atheists couldn't careless about the hypocrisy of it all. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

See, that's part of the stigma. There is this level of condescension - that you are an ignorant buffoon if you believe in God. As that mindset advances, one could expect an increase in atheism, because nobody wants to be called a moron - especially morons. I'm not denying that there is a stigma attached to atheism - but I do believe the tides are changing and find it interesting that some atheists don't see the hypocrisy in it. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Quiet in the peanut gallery! Seriously? LOL No, I just thought you might get a kick out of that. It seemed like something funny to shout out while in the midst of my exchange with the other posters here. But to honest, I just don't think that that Roberts quote has as a profound affect as you and jclalor think, given that I'm not trying to understand why you dismiss my God, nor do I care. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

If you think the "stigma based on faith" is bad, you should try the stigma based on lack of faith. I suppose YMMV depending on where you live. ...but if that example of a stigma makes you feel better and helps illustrate the point that it's not really about education, then that's fine with me as well. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

I don't think it has as much to do with education as it does with the stigma that has been placed on faith. It's really no different than any other type of bigotry against people for the way they were born and choose to live their lives - why do you think we have record rates of homosexuals? There are plenty of highly educated people that maintain their faith and have a net positive affect on society. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Good, because I wasn't using it to say anything about the existence of God. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

I appreciate your thoughts, and I get all that - which is why I initially asked jcd if he believed in the predisposition whether it was an indirect result or not. I may have not expressed the idea accurately, but these studies say a lot and it's difficult to sum it all up in one quick sentence off the top of my head while jcd and I are going back and forth hit for hit. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

But it does not imply that religion offers any beneficial value. I think that's one of the questions the studies were trying to answer - whether it was a benefit or not, was it a direct adaptation or merely a byproduct, or was it just an evolutionary disaster? Again, I'm more concerned with the reality of the predisposition itself - and while I understand that many religious people bring the ridicule on themselves, I'd hope to use this as a tool to promote tolerance/understanding. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour