When pushed for specifics, you insult, rather than answer. This is often an indication that there are no specifics. - please give me an example of this. I have been rereading my posts and do not see anything insulting, nor do I see any requests for specifics that went unanswered.

You made some very inflamatory statements above--the effect being that we should no longer tolerate beliefs, faith, and anything not based on "empirical evidence". Disturbing stuff--because it is a message of profound intolerance. What I think should no longer be tolerated is the insistence that if empirical data contradict someone's faith, then those empirical data should not be used because it would be disrespectful to that faith. I think it too dangerous in today's world, I think it harmful to humanity and to the biosphere, and I do not agree that if what you are not respectful of is faith-based then you ought not voice your disrespect. I have, and I have repeatedly said that I have, no argument with faith qua faith - what I object to is the argument that faith is reasonable and based on data. If there were data supporting people's mythologies then we wouldn't need faith, we could draw intelligent conclusions. So I guess I wouldn't consider it "profound" intolerance - it is intolerance of one specific thing, which is placing dogma ahead of intelligent thought. I think intelligence is more worthy of respect than blind adherence to authority in the absence of evidence, and even more so in the presence of counter-evidence.

I've been questioning you, hoping that you could present some basic ideas about how ethics and morality can be based in reason, rather than faith. As an academic with an interest in these matters, one assumes you've studied, and can discuss the various views on this. Instead, your ideas seem unformed and off-the-cuff. I have answered your actual questions. I have not responded to silly statements with question marks after them. Please go back thorugh the posts and find an example of a question you have asked that I didn't answer with data-based reasoning.

In contrast, your disadain for people of faith, and the anger that you have toward them, is very clear. Again, my disdain is with people who deny reality to protect their beliefs. I don't have problems with those who accept that their faith is faith-based and has no rational basis (which is, after all, the definition of faith). And I am not ashamed of my opinion that continued adherence to old god stories when discoveries of the natural world contradict them is bad for the human race, is anti-intelligence, and should no longer be tolerated. We can't afford the luxury anymore. We must deal with reality as it is, rather than as we wish it were.

Which is not to say that people shouldn't try to change the world to make it a better place. As a matter of fact, that is what I am trying to do - move the world in the direction of where I wish it were. But what I am *not* doing is holding to an illusion that the world *already is* the way I wish it were, despite empirical evidence to the contrary.

And I find that those who feel insulted by this point of view are those who *do* hold to their old god stories, and who think that their beliefs should still be respected despite the demonstrated wrongness of those beliefs. However, I do not think I have insulted them by stating that I don't respect their views. I do not feel insulted by your not respecting mine - but I do object to your mischaracterization of my arguments. If you want more details, ask a specific follow-up question, please, and I will be more than happy to provide some.