Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
I know all this, I agree with you. I am just pointing out that even fullblown scientists using the skeptical collaborative cross-checking model sometimes happen to have it wrong and consider something as absolutely impossible.

When we speak about religions, we must distinguish what we're talking about.
For me, there are the mystical aspects that I may doubt about (ie, I don't venture defending them in a debate, but I keep an open mind, from reasons explained in my posts above);
there are philosophical aspects with which I came to agree with, after careful consideration;
there is stuff like the creation part, of which frankly, in a debate with a skepticist, I wouldn't know what to say: is it a metaphor, is it something deeply spiritual and without immediate logical value, or something else - this is indeed the realm of subjective, although I wouldn't go as far as to call it irrational;
and finally there are the religion bureaucracies, with the history we all know, and which I don't defend or particularly support.

All this shows why I shy away from giving outright verdicts about this or that, even as I understand your issues with the church bureaucracy or Jerome's with the mystic side of it.

Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)

by ValentinD (walentijn arobase free spot franša) on Sun May 31st, 2009 at 07:38:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:

melo 4