[iconoclast]

Didymos Thomas,

Please explain to me the logical necessity of the distinction between literal and figurative omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence. Isn't this just a fudge to explain away the bizzare consequence of these absurd absolutist claims?

I still haven't looked up sufism but i maintain that there are no God notions not supernaturally characterized. It goes with the territory i'm afraid, in contradiction of sound and established scientific fact.

You ask: 'Even with God out of the picture, how can we honestly know that such a thing has not taken place?'

The milk I bought on Saturday has gone off. I remeber buying the milk - and now it has undergone a change that takes time to occur. This correlation between memory, natural processes and the evidence of the senses is the source of my reasonable knowledge that i have existed before now, at least since Saturday!

The point i'm trying to make is that if you assert the existence of this supernatural entity - God, then nothing is even as certain as that because it denies the cause and effect relations that bind everything together. If you're asking for certainty that will map the skeptical land your God seems to inahbit, i can't provide it, and that's the point. By asserting the existence of this supernatural entity - existing in contradiction of cause and effect, you deny the possibility of knowledge, and then everything is truly meaningless.

You argue: 'Some religious ideas are destructive, therefore all are destructive - the argument does not follow. Some notions of God are not valid, therefore all notions of God are not valid - the argument does not follow. Whatever components we place in this form of argument, the argument is still flawed.'

I don't think that religious notions are necessarily destructive - rather they are constructive of morally righteous, inward looking groups living in shared beleif. This is great if you're in one of those groups, and without such groups existing through pre-history we would still be hunting and gathering in the forest. But should someone come along who doesn't share those beliefs, they are ostrasized and demonized - perhaps ritually murdered as a heritic, or an infidel. And when one morally righteous inward looking group in this ever more crowded world rubs borders with another - all hell breaks loose.

'We need a degree of sensitivity for the variety of religious notions...'

No we don't. No right minded man or woman should tolerate these primtive, racist, irrational and false ideas. Teaching religion to children should be considered child abuse and the meme thus stamped out.

You go on to say: 'The problems, what you might call the invalid outlooks, are universal - fanaticism is destructive in all cultural contexts...so perhaps if we want to 'belong to a species with a future', we should begin to work on those troubles that cause harm to all cultures, like fanaticism.'

Don't try and palm off the problems with religion on the most devoted among you. You moderates provide these people with thier justifications - and then stand back in mock horror while secretly chalking one up for the home team.
Your moderation echoes hollow in my ear amidst the crackle of gunfire.