WooHoo! More idiots running the gub'ment.

Since we're off-topic anyway (and this is coffee house): This brings to mind the well-known Aesopian parable of the blind men and the elephant.A few blind men are having an argument over the nature of elephants. One man, holding the trunk, believes elephants are long snake-like creatures. Another, who feels only the leg of the elephant argues that elephants are like trees. Etc etc.All of the blind men are right, in a way, having captured a single aspect of the elephant. While they may agree on a few things (the smell for example), their blindness gives them vastly differing opinions of what an elephant is. Another blind man would be wrong to draw the conclusion that elephants do not exist based solely on the fact that there is disagreement on what an elephant is.I'm not claiming that human belief in the supernatural constitutes evidence for it. I'm merely pointing out what I perceive as a flaw in your turtle allegory. The fact that there are many contradictory beliefs about God or gods is hardly reason to conclude that gods do not exist.Respectfully,-Meldinoor

Most religious people believe that they are, in some sense, able to "perceive" the supernatural. Of course, everyone else will just have to take their word for it. However, those who haven't "touched the elephant" can not take for granted that "elephant believers" have not touched the elephant. I can not rule out that someone, somewhere, has had a genuine spiritual experience (I might have myself, but that's another story).I don't agree that a lack of objective evidence is evidence of absence. The blind man who is touching the elephant may indeed have evidence that a blind bystander does not possess. I believe the term is "subjective evidence", which of course is worthless to anyone who isn't standing near the elephant.Now, you might say: "But anyone can walk up and feel the elephant". Sure, that'd make the evidence for elephants objective. If it were not possible for everyone to get to the elephant, however, it does not nullify the subjective evidence that the "elephant groper" possesses.Thus, I can not rule out that any religious person may have a good reason to believe what he believes, merely because I don't have access to his evidence. Of course, his word does not qualify as evidence to garner my belief.I hope that makes sense. It's almost 3am and I've been wracking my brain on some projects, so I don't know how sensible I am at the moment Respectfully,-Meldinoor

Hi DA, And I agree with you. Just like I never claimed that these were verifiable objective experiences.The only point I was trying to make by invoking Aesop was that differing opinions of what a god is, is in itself not evidence that gods do not exist. (And I was bored and I like using silly metaphors).Then I responded to the claim that the allegory should be modified by removing the elephant altogether. Which IMHO is stupid because the uncertainty and subjectivity part of the problem is already exemplified by the blindness of the "elephant touchers". Religious experiences are either of "gods" or of something else entirely, but considering the pervasiveness of religiosity in human culture and core similarities amongst beliefs, one might humbly suggest that religions exist for more or less the same reasons.These reasons could once again be gods, or they could be psychosomatic, but nevertheless they are represented by the elephant. Beliefs in the "elephant" may differ because of varying perspectives, ideas and, if indeed the elephant is "supernatural", because of imperfect knowledge of what the elephant is. I hope I have made it clear now that I'm not trying to "prove" anything. My purpose was merely to point out what I perceived as a weakness in subbie's argument.Respectfully,-Meldinoor

Hi subbie,I admire your poetically verbose imagination. You might just be qualified to write religion. Nevertheless, I see more similarities between different religions than I see differences. Sure, the details may vary. But you'll notice that the blind men in Aesop's story have contradicting opinions of what an elephant is too.One thinks the elephant is a long snake like thing, another thinks it's a tree trunk, another thinks an elephant is flat like a pancake. Pretty contradicting, and mutually inconsistent, unless they consider the possibility that these things are all parts of what an elephant is.Respectfully,-Meldinoor