I certainly found it hard to shake off in later life

Yes, clearly you're still a Catholic and tied to that belief system forever. ::rolleyes:: A quick look at the actual numbers of kids who are raised in Christian homes and then "fall away" i.e. cease to be Christians in later life, would indicate your despair over kids being raised as Christians is misplaced.

As for what you believe, your evidence bar is set very low, which means that, whilst you don't want to believe something that isn't true, you don't mind believing something that is almost certainly not true.

You don't know where my evidence bar is; this is bluster. And "almost certainly not true" is not based on any obtainable objective register of probability (there is none) but on your own beliefs. In short, you believe one way, I believe the other. The difference is I'm not trying to slander you for your beliefs, or denigrate your atheism, or insult your decsion-making abilities.

>>"atheism has in fact been a total disaster for mankind. Religion has not. And I have given exact examples." [R Davies]

& you have had some pretty exact examples back of where it HAS, for all your "has not" ~

You are neglecting the word "total" in his claim. He's not saying that religion has not led to disasters. He's saying that it has also led to good, so the sum total is not 100% disaster. Whereas for atheism, he is saying the sum total is 100% disaster. Whether or not this is the case, I do not know. But you two are talking past each other and I think the word "total" is the reason why. I don't know any religious person who would want to claim that everything done in the name of Christianity or in the name of Christ has been an unmitigated blessing to humanity.

Oh, no question Frank Zappa puts Mozart, Brahms,, Tallis, Byrd, etc. to shame. Whatever you say.

I never said he put them to shame, Ron - rather that he carried on in the same tradition and stands as an equal to each of them.

This is delerium. Please, see a brain care specialist right away. Zappa doesn't stand anywhere in their neighborhood. Although a quick google finds that Verdi, Berlioz, and Brahms were at least agnostic if not atheist (apparently Berlioz stated outright that he was atheist). John Cage of course was an atheist but no right-thinking person believes he's a good composer.

But faith IS irrational; if it were rational it would be a conclusion from evidence.

Faith steps in where the evidence is inconclusive either way. It is not irrational, which means against reason; it is arational. Amos says "metarational" but I"m not sure what that means.

to BillD: you are equating "good thinking" with "scientific thinking." As a philosopher, I cannot agree. There are some questions that are worthwile and meaningful that are not scientific questions.

Love is something we can get a measure of on an intra-personal level;

What unit is love measured in? By what instruments?

I remember years ago some Archbishop or other stating that Atheists could not be true altruists. I thought it then and I still think it now. Hogwash!

I agree with you. However at least in the United States, it is a pretty well established fact that Christians and other religious people give a lot more to charitable causes than Atheists do. An Atheist on another forum I frequent bemoaned this fact and worked hard to raise levels of giving to charitable causes by Atheists. More power to him.

to mauvepink: it's pretty uncontroversial to say that Darwin's loss of faith had a lot more to do with his daughter's death than his evolutionary theories.

Like orgasm - how do we measure that? Or pain? Constipation? Fear? Joy? Cramp?

You appear to agree, then, that scientific evidence is not the only kind that matters?

Science is generally not about people philosophising in ivory towers. It's about earning a crust.

How I would love to earn a crust philosophizing in ivory towers. Many do. They are university professors of philosophy for the most part. I think it is important that we think about what it means to think. And it was their thinking that gave rise to what we call "science" in the first place.

And let's not forget that Newton, that guru quoted above, was frequently wrong and was a self-centred, opinionated, arrogant prick!

Would that I, frequently wrong, self-centered, opinionated, and prickoid as I am, could have done what he did for the future of human knowledge!