Catholics make up 78% of free state population.👍👍👍

[omaghjoe]

So when I suggest that J70 and myself consider ourselves atheists based on the information we have, of course nothing is certain, but you make life choices based on the information you have and you make a call on whether that information is accurate or trustworthy.

You can't possibly be an atheist on the information you have.

On the contrary, I can be nothing but an atheist on the information I have because the information I have gives me no reason to believe in the existence of a god - which is the definition of atheism. What information do you have that makes you a theist?

  As you have no more idea how the world started you cannot say their is no God.

And as you have the correct idea of how the world started you can say there is a God? Did you make up these bizarre rules of debate?

While being agnostic is reasonable based on the information available, atheism is just arrogance.

So it's perfectly reasonable to make assertions without evidence that the rest of us are expected to accept - on pain of eternal torture according to some? But it's arrogant to reject such ... well ... arrogance?

Atheists are not making any assertions. Theists and creationists are the ones asserting that an entity for whose existence they present no supportable evidence not only exists, but created the universe, intervenes in the daily lives of all individuals, cares about being loved, exacts retribution on those who fail to adore it, etc. etc. Atheists are merely pointing out the lack of evidence for these assertions.

Why are atheists never accused of arrogance for pointing out precisely the same deficiency in assertions of the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Cosmic Teapot as you would yourself? And these assertions stop at existence, leaving out all the other made up stuff about omnipotence, etc. I think the answer is obvious. The 'creator of the universe' god has more believers than the monster or the teapot. It's only a question of numbers.

Forgive the following cliché but it's accurate: we're all atheists, in that we don't accept assertions of the existence of any number of deities or imagined supernatural beings, from Buddha to Thor. I'm just atheist about one more god than you.

Atheists are making assertions, if your not making an assertion your an agnostic you need to decide.
But before going on please answer the following questions, I have been asking you for a long time on this

How do you know your evidence is correct and complete?
How do you your methods of collecting the evidence is correct ie empirical. Our senses are seemingly honed for reproducing and surviving not for giving us an accurate picture of the cosmos.
Do you assume there is only the material in this universe and if so why?
How do you know there is not a solipsistic or idealist universe? Both of which are much more logical than a materialist universe and infinitely more so than a empirical universe.
Where do you lie in all of this? A bunch of interchanging atoms? so YOU as a distinct seperate entitiy don't exist.

Lets start with a satisfactory response to those and then I will get into consciousness, freewill, morals, and God knows what else.

Joe, I'm not engaging with you other than to make the following points just once. There's no point in debating with someone who is conducting an entirely different debate of his own, the parameters of which are unfathomable and whose argument consists mostly of non sequiturs. That's not to mention the difficulty of figuring out your "your" from your "'you're".

Just to clarify - I'm not discussing solipsistic or idealist universes, nor indeed materialist or empirical universes. I'm not discussing universes at all. My point has nothing to do with consciousness, free will, morals, or your "God knows what else". I'm not interested in when or how you will get into whatever your threatening to get into. Fire away. Just don't expect me to pay attention. I tired of the tree falling in the forest conjecture in my teens.

I was simply responding to Armaghniac's point suggesting one couldn't be an atheist (in this material universe) and outlining my definition of an atheist for the practical purposes that definitions are for.

You just enjoy yourself with wondering whether words or letters exist. Or what is ink. And if we can't decide whether ink exists, what are we to make of pixels on a screen? Never mind the meaning contained in the pixels, letters and words that construct this thread.

Most of us have figured out that if we treat every item of communication as a research project into the nature of existence or the existence of existence, we'll have missed out on what is (probably – and that's the important word in this whole post) our one and only opportunity to experience existence.

Now now Ad hominen only makes you look silly Hardy

Where's the non sequitur? Your continuously trying to assert there could be no such things as a spiritual entity through empirical means which is completely contradictory your assuming that a whole other range of possibilites are not possible either which I have questioned. If you'd never thought about them fair enough, now Ive outlined a few of them to you what do you think now?
You need to consider these other possibilities and be able to refute them outright to show the materialist/empirical universe you are asserting can explain everything (even tho it cant within its own realm) and then you'd be in a position to say something concrete about God.
So if you dont want to do this fair enough, you already said that it was too difficult for you to think about, so i understand.

Regarding our experience, freewill, you as an entity, and language now that mention it, etc with all things being equal if you say God doesn't exist because of empirical evidence what does that evidence say about those things? Yup they vanish into quantum spacetime. Its nothing to do with me Hardy and my outlook as I said to J70 earlier, their your standards....

But huffing probably works better if you want to understand things simply so knock yourself out .

[Esmarelda]

Joe, again, I think your arguments have plenty of merit but they're about debunking the atheist argument rather than backing your own.

Of course you're full entitled to keep your specific reasons for your beliefs to yourself. But for someone who's so prolific on the board when it comes to this topic I think it would aid the discussion if you revealed all, so to speak.

[J70]

No need to get so defensive J70, I just pointing it out that's all. It comes across like your trying to insult people's beliefs. But its really bordering on the ridiculous to have such venom for something that you dont believe in. But for me its even more ridiculous to assume such physical human characteristics for a being that isn't human (and that was my opinion on Mr Fry tirade also).

Don't think I've tried to insult anyone beliefs. I think its fair game to ask someone who is predicting regret and sorrow come judgment day for unbelievers what kind of being would harshly judge someone who honestly arrived at the wrong conclusions with respect to that being's existence. I thought Fry's comments were fair too. Are they not issues that theologians have been wrestling with for centuries?

For a start the evidence wouldnt "look" like anything, how could it, its not physical? Its actually your the one that needs the evidence so its a question for yourself really. But for me I have evidence of God by the experience of life I have all around me. The designer with the supercomputer I don't know? Its not my theory its more comes from the skeptists and solipsists, fractals in nature and the commonality with modern computer graphics are a big part of their basis for this.

But you are also assuming causality would extend to the creator of the empirical universe. Why would it? Just because its something that we see why would that also apply to the creator? And when I think about it since causality is a governed by the passing of time, and time is a part of the empirical universe, Why also would the creator of the universe be subjected to time at all?

I can appreciate your personal conclusion based on your own life experience, but you're losing me with the rest. The "just is", "always was", not subject to time or causality or even evidence (you're right!)... We have to have SOMETHING to go on, or at least I do.

Sorry but I must have missed the place where you addressed the correctness of evidence. Your assuming its correct is what it sounds like your telling me because you dont really know if it is our not. But I wake up everyday and feel God and experience thingswhen there is no reason for me to do so none why should I experience smell or sight?

What I meant was that the "correctness", as in how do know what we perceive is real and so on and on, is beside the point. With respect to Tony's point, our perception and the tools we use to understand the world is all we have and we are all using the same tools. So if some of us end up, despite our best and very honest efforts, being wrong, then why should we be penalized?
More broadly, given that we cannot rule out what we cannot detect, we can obviously never rule out the existence of deities (or any other supernatural phenomena). But, we have no real reason to rule them in either, beyond, in my opinion, the "gaps".

I'll be honest with you I dont know if God would subject someone who rejects him but has lived a wholesome honest and moral life, it would be a difficult one for him. Prehaps  he would say "WELLLL? Do you believe now? FFS everyone was telling you including your own intution only you allowed yourself to be convinced otherwise, it was an honestish mistake but your going in prugatory for a stint  just below those who take my name in vain on a regular basis (thats me by the way)

If this god is all knowing and all powerful, then surely he would know that the person's intuition (I still am not sure what you mean by this) was telling him there was a god and so that person would not have much of a defense? If something deep in you is telling you that that being exists, can your mind honestly just deny that?

I've got slight OCD with respect to certain things. I know I'm overthinking the issue when it comes up and I can think logically about why it should be safe to ignore it, but I still have to satisfy the compulsion to move on past the miniscule risk. My mind seems to be wired to obsess on a relatively minor, seemingly trivial thing or risk. But I feel no such conflict with respect to the possible existence of deities, including those who would demand our reverence, with possibly severe consequences.

As you say we perceive and assume all day long, people of faith also do this but then somehow we are incorrect to do tie our feelings on a certain subject into this as well? At what point do you say that's not included because of x and this is because of y. Why not subject love and morality to the same rigorous examination that you have subjected God too? If you think these things are real then more power to you, this is where I find God and attribute them to, but how conclude they are real if God is not?

Don't see the connection. I don't see love and morality as being in any way contingent on the existence of a god. In fact, it only makes the idea more troubling. What if the particular god happened to favour murder and mayhem (as many groups' interpretations of their gods throughout history did and do)? Plus, morality is obviously not universal or set in stone. I see no reason to doubt that scientists will settle on a sound biological basis for love and morality in time.

With that, I think I'm done with this for now (busy week!). Last word to you.

[omaghjoe]

Joe, again, I think your arguments have plenty of merit but they're about debunking the atheist argument rather than backing your own.

Of course you're full entitled to keep your specific reasons for your beliefs to yourself. But for someone who's so prolific on the board when it comes to this topic I think it would aid the discussion if you revealed all, so to speak.

I thought my own faith would be fairly obvious at this point and Im pretty sure Ive gone over it before, but saying your a civil fella I'll put it out for ye.

My choice of faith resides from having an instinctive feeling of God, which Im pretty sure we all have (or had) as there is research to show that as children we are "prewired" for a belief in God.
This is backed up by:
The world around me, the total beauty of it all (well Socal might struggle on that front actually ). Nature, Art, music sometimes even sport also stirs that feeling of God, I suppose you could say that feeling of the sublime.
Then we have all had that experience of recieving kindness and good sometimes for no reason what so whatever.
I also gain strength from God and see others gain strength from their faith also.
Then I have my relationships which I feel is a connection that is more than physical. I feel like I'm connected to other souls through our relationships. With my wife I feel like our souls are completed intertwined with each other. I feel my kids come from God, that they're a gift that they're more than flesh and bones that they have souls which have been nurtured and shown the way of life and faith also.
Then there is my conscience which I believe is a guide to give us the choice between right and wrong in our actions which admittedly can be confusing and contradictory at times.

Its all subjective of course not testable but then isnt everything ultimately subjective and untestable?

Some people talk about fear of the here after keeping them in check but the only thing that I have a fear of is that we are just the flesh. But the fact that I experience life and feel God everyday counters this. I mean if we are just flesh and bones with a brain we would just be zombies who couldn't experience our lifes at all.


I have plenty struggles too, but incidentally not with science in the slightness, that many on here seem to. I take a great interest in many fields of science and I find it bizarre that people use it to suppress their faith, it actually is part of the experience of life should be embraced and in fact strengthens my faith.
The obvious bad and unjust in the world weigh heavily on my faith. Homelessness is rife here is Socal and it really is a demoralising to see these people have to live how they do. But that just what I see personally on a daily basis, we also have genocide, war, murder and rape countless atrocities in the world.
I also had a friend die abroad in unfortunate circumstances when I was younger, this was a great guy and the though of him going the way he did really makes me doubt things, still does to be honest.
So trying to reason those things out can be hard to swallow at times.... but I do try. Truth is I don't really understand why terrible things can happen to good people sometimes but they do.

But I put all of these things together and still come out with a faith in God, its went the other way before too so who knows maybe I'll switch again.  Tho the reality is losing my faith was just part of the journey in faith I had to have, its answered many questions I had and left my faith stronger.

[Hardy]

Michael Shermer's "The Believing Mind" is a good read (so far - I'm halfway through it) about the neurological basis of belief. It's far too early in the progress of neurological research to have a coherent theory of the mind, but Shermer outlines a lot of fascinating research that builds the case for the physical basis of the workings of the human mind - i.e. the case that what we call the mind resides physically in the brain and is essentially the manifestation of the firing of neurons.

The book's main subject is belief - justified or otherwise. It's interesting in explaining the light research throws on how our brains work in dealing with religious, political, ideological and other beliefs.

[Esmarelda]

Joe, you hadn't outlined that before but thank you for doing so.

None of that makes any sense to me though. What I mean is, I have most of those things that you've listed but I see no place for any deity in those experiences.

To me it sounds like you're working backwards from your belief. I don't mean to insult you or tell you what you believe but if appears that you were brought up believing in the Christian god, had some doubts and then looked for reasons to regain your faith. Obviously there are so many wonderful things in the world and in your life specifically that can attribute to god if it helps you on the path you desire. You recognise the bad stuff in the world and how it sort of contradicts how you attribute the good stuff to god, but you settle for the god side as it brings you peace.

Like I said, that probably sounds very arrogant and condescending. It's not supposed to be and of course I might be wrong. It's just how I read it.

[Hardy]

...
To me it sounds like you're working backwards from your belief. I don't mean to insult you or tell you what you believe but if appears that you were brought up believing in the Christian god, had some doubts and then looked for reasons to regain your faith ...

Interestingly, this is one of the subjects examined in the book I mentioned above. Research indicates that the practice of deciding on your belief and then finding arguments to support it is not a disorder or a form of faulty brainwork.

Some here will know more than I do about this but it is suggested that we are predisposed to this behaviour by the evolution of the part of the brain that governs fight or flight responses as opposed to the analytical, reasoning part of the brain.

It's about the consequences of Type 1 (assuming something to be true that is false) versus Type 2 (assuming something to be false that is true) cognitive errors and the fact that it is genetically preferable to make Type 1 errors than Type 2.

Which is better for survival?
1.   To make an error by deciding that the rustling in the reeds is a tiger about to attack you and just running like hell, when it's really just the wind, or
2.   To make an error in deciding that it's just the wind, when it really is a tiger.

Organisms that make Type 2 errors disappear from the gene pool.

[omaghjoe]

Joe, you hadn't outlined that before but thank you for doing so.

None of that makes any sense to me though. What I mean is, I have most of those things that you've listed but I see no place for any deity in those experiences.

To me it sounds like you're working backwards from your belief. I don't mean to insult you or tell you what you believe but if appears that you were brought up believing in the Christian god, had some doubts and then looked for reasons to regain your faith. Obviously there are so many wonderful things in the world and in your life specifically that can attribute to god if it helps you on the path you desire. You recognise the bad stuff in the world and how it sort of contradicts how you attribute the good stuff to god, but you settle for the god side as it brings you peace.

Like I said, that probably sounds very arrogant and condescending. It's not supposed to be and of course I might be wrong. It's just how I read it.

Yes God forms the basis of my view of the world so I would say that I work up from faith but no Im not working backwards.

IF you say you dont have it fair enough but you beleive "you" as a distinct entity exist dont you? you believe that you have freewill dont you?

Maybe you dont but and there are plenty of people who dont, there are some people who even believe that their consciousness experience is an illusion. Ironically much of this is based on the notion that our consciousness experience gives us a solely accurate depiction of the world, ourselves and of consciousness itself. This is an assumption based on nothing and the later is complete circular reasoning.

Anyway my point is (that I am continuously trying to make) that everyone needs a foundation to base their outlook on and that ultimately has to be something subjective. Otherwise you'll end up at skepticism where nothing exists. It also seems to me that those basing their outlook solely on the empirical believe that it is somehow objective. Truth is, its not, as empiricism is based on our subjective experience, at least those of faith are frank about where their outlook comes from.


As far as how or why I lost and regained by faith, obviously I refute your assessment. I lost faith because I didnt like the idea of someone telling me what to do, and to a lesser extent thought it was fashionable, God of the Gaps etc and then looked for ways to back that that up (mostly more God of Gaps and assumption that we live in base reality, but there are plenty more). I regained it because of the experience of life i had, the relationships I had and probably what finally tipped me over was a certain occasion when I had that feeling of sublime. I have to say tho I never completely lost that fire of faith, just choose the doubts ahead of it. Maybe a few more years of suppressing it tho and I might have extinguished it, I don't know. Obviously its brings me more at peace is that not further vindication?

[omaghjoe]

Michael Shermer's "The Believing Mind" is a good read (so far - I'm halfway through it) about the neurological basis of belief. It's far too early in the progress of neurological research to have a coherent theory of the mind, but Shermer outlines a lot of fascinating research that builds the case for the physical basis of the workings of the human mind - i.e. the case that what we call the mind resides physically in the brain and is essentially the manifestation of the firing of neurons.

The book's main subject is belief - justified or otherwise. It's interesting in explaining the light research throws on how our brains work in dealing with religious, political, ideological and other beliefs.

I try to cut to the chase Hardy and make a few assumptions about where this guy is going with his book...
So when we experience the colour red (for example) its neurons firing in a certain pattern? correct?
So where does that leave the colour red residing then? I imagine your author probably says its an illusion? If so then he is saying that everything he is studying and indeed all of science is based of an illusion.... can you see the problem?
Its a problem as old as the hills, most recently called the hard problem.
So where does that tie into the materialist universe? Any luck with it yet?

[Esmarelda]

Joe, you hadn't outlined that before but thank you for doing so.

None of that makes any sense to me though. What I mean is, I have most of those things that you've listed but I see no place for any deity in those experiences.

To me it sounds like you're working backwards from your belief. I don't mean to insult you or tell you what you believe but if appears that you were brought up believing in the Christian god, had some doubts and then looked for reasons to regain your faith. Obviously there are so many wonderful things in the world and in your life specifically that can attribute to god if it helps you on the path you desire. You recognise the bad stuff in the world and how it sort of contradicts how you attribute the good stuff to god, but you settle for the god side as it brings you peace.

Like I said, that probably sounds very arrogant and condescending. It's not supposed to be and of course I might be wrong. It's just how I read it.

Yes God forms the basis of my view of the world so I would say that I work up from faith but no Im not working backwards.

IF you say you dont have it fair enough but you beleive "you" as a distinct entity exist dont you? you believe that you have freewill dont you?

Maybe you dont but and there are plenty of people who dont, there are some people who even believe that their consciousness experience is an illusion. Ironically much of this is based on the notion that our consciousness experience gives us a solely accurate depiction of the world, ourselves and of consciousness itself. This is an assumption based on nothing and the later is complete circular reasoning.

Anyway my point is (that I am continuously trying to make) that everyone needs a foundation to base their outlook on and that ultimately has to be something subjective. Otherwise you'll end up at skepticism where nothing exists. It also seems to me that those basing their outlook solely on the empirical believe that it is somehow objective. Truth is, its not, as empiricism is based on our subjective experience, at least those of faith are frank about where their outlook comes from.


As far as how or why I lost and regained by faith, obviously I refute your assessment. I lost faith because I didnt like the idea of someone telling me what to do, and to a lesser extent thought it was fashionable, God of the Gaps etc and then looked for ways to back that that up (mostly more God of Gaps and assumption that we live in base reality, but there are plenty more). I regained it because of the experience of life i had, the relationships I had and probably what finally tipped me over was a certain occasion when I had that feeling of sublime. I have to say tho I never completely lost that fire of faith, just choose the doubts ahead of it. Maybe a few more years of suppressing it tho and I might have extinguished it, I don't know. Obviously its brings me more at peace is that not further vindication?

But don't you base your every day life on empirical evidence? Because we're dealing with the supernatural you claim we shouldn't apply the same approach. Why? Like i said in my football analogy earlier. Maybe the game I saw wasn't a draw. Maybe I imagined the whole thing. But I'm going to assume I saw it because it's what I tend to do.

The way you talk about your faith doesn't sound like faith to me at all. It sounds like you're pretty much on the fence. Talk of potentially going to the other side, that its bringing of peace to you being a vindication. It sounds like you might be thinking about it in the empirical way that you're saying we shouldn't.

And we haven't even started on why Christianity over any of the others.

I'm guessing even more that you're just happy being at peace with what you've decided to follow, rather than actually believing in what you say you believe in. Then again, I said from the outset that I don't usually use the word believe as I find it hard to define.

[Hardy]

Michael Shermer's "The Believing Mind" is a good read (so far - I'm halfway through it) about the neurological basis of belief. It's far too early in the progress of neurological research to have a coherent theory of the mind, but Shermer outlines a lot of fascinating research that builds the case for the physical basis of the workings of the human mind - i.e. the case that what we call the mind resides physically in the brain and is essentially the manifestation of the firing of neurons.

The book's main subject is belief - justified or otherwise. It's interesting in explaining the light research throws on how our brains work in dealing with religious, political, ideological and other beliefs.

I try to cut to the chase Hardy and make a few assumptions about where this guy is going with his book...
So when we experience the colour red (for example) its neurons firing in a certain pattern? correct?
So where does that leave the colour red residing then? I imagine your author probably says its an illusion? If so then he is saying that everything he is studying and indeed all of science is based of an illusion.... can you see the problem?
Its a problem as old as the hills, most recently called the hard problem.
So where does that tie into the materialist universe? Any luck with it yet?

What are you talking about?

[Jell 0 Biafra]

Michael Shermer's "The Believing Mind" is a good read (so far - I'm halfway through it) about the neurological basis of belief. It's far too early in the progress of neurological research to have a coherent theory of the mind, but Shermer outlines a lot of fascinating research that builds the case for the physical basis of the workings of the human mind - i.e. the case that what we call the mind resides physically in the brain and is essentially the manifestation of the firing of neurons.

The book's main subject is belief - justified or otherwise. It's interesting in explaining the light research throws on how our brains work in dealing with religious, political, ideological and other beliefs.

I try to cut to the chase Hardy and make a few assumptions about where this guy is going with his book...
So when we experience the colour red (for example) its neurons firing in a certain pattern? correct?
So where does that leave the colour red residing then? I imagine your author probably says its an illusion? If so then he is saying that everything he is studying and indeed all of science is based of an illusion.... can you see the problem?
Its a problem as old as the hills, most recently called the hard problem.
So where does that tie into the materialist universe? Any luck with it yet?

What are you talking about?

You're going to regret that, Hardy.

[ned]

Michael Shermer's "The Believing Mind" is a good read (so far - I'm halfway through it) about the neurological basis of belief. It's far too early in the progress of neurological research to have a coherent theory of the mind, but Shermer outlines a lot of fascinating research that builds the case for the physical basis of the workings of the human mind - i.e. the case that what we call the mind resides physically in the brain and is essentially the manifestation of the firing of neurons.

The book's main subject is belief - justified or otherwise. It's interesting in explaining the light research throws on how our brains work in dealing with religious, political, ideological and other beliefs.

I try to cut to the chase Hardy and make a few assumptions about where this guy is going with his book...
So when we experience the colour red (for example) its neurons firing in a certain pattern? correct?
So where does that leave the colour red residing then? I imagine your author probably says its an illusion? If so then he is saying that everything he is studying and indeed all of science is based of an illusion.... can you see the problem?
Its a problem as old as the hills, most recently called the hard problem.
So where does that tie into the materialist universe? Any luck with it yet?

What are you talking about?

Seeing a colour is a complex thing, which is dependent on a few variables including how the light shines on it and through our experience of that 'colour'. Someone who is colour blind can name a colour correctly without seeing it the same as a non colour blind person.So yes in a way it is an illusion. So is time. I can't explain the concepts but perhaps your God is an illusion too? Your belief, Joe, appears to be based on instinct which is I suppose what faith is. Perhaps atheism is an instinct too or perhaps it is just a position arrived at due to lack of evidence. All these arguments have been done to death. Neither side is going to persuade the other.

[Esmarelda]

Michael Shermer's "The Believing Mind" is a good read (so far - I'm halfway through it) about the neurological basis of belief. It's far too early in the progress of neurological research to have a coherent theory of the mind, but Shermer outlines a lot of fascinating research that builds the case for the physical basis of the workings of the human mind - i.e. the case that what we call the mind resides physically in the brain and is essentially the manifestation of the firing of neurons.

The book's main subject is belief - justified or otherwise. It's interesting in explaining the light research throws on how our brains work in dealing with religious, political, ideological and other beliefs.

I try to cut to the chase Hardy and make a few assumptions about where this guy is going with his book...
So when we experience the colour red (for example) its neurons firing in a certain pattern? correct?
So where does that leave the colour red residing then? I imagine your author probably says its an illusion? If so then he is saying that everything he is studying and indeed all of science is based of an illusion.... can you see the problem?
Its a problem as old as the hills, most recently called the hard problem.
So where does that tie into the materialist universe? Any luck with it yet?

What are you talking about?

Seeing a colour is a complex thing, which is dependent on a few variables including how the light shines on it and through our experience of that 'colour'. Someone who is colour blind can name a colour correctly without seeing it the same as a non colour blind person.So yes in a way it is an illusion. So is time. I can't explain the concepts but perhaps your God is an illusion too? Your belief, Joe, appears to be based on instinct which is I suppose what faith is. Perhaps atheism is an instinct too or perhaps it is just a position arrived at due to lack of evidence. All these arguments have been done to death. Neither side is going to persuade the other.

That's most likely. I like to discuss it because faith and the reasons for it interest me. Omaghjoe seems happy to discuss it so I don't see the harm.

[guy crouchback]

for people who dont have faith (like myself) the notion of having faith is a fascinating one, I'm always intrigued by it and love discussing it with people who have faith.
a lot of the time its a hard topic to discuss because with a lot of people their faith is built on foundations of sand and when the discussion starts going in a direction that challenges it they can pull away and even take offense.

in fairness to joe he is doing his best to describe the reasons of his belief and why he believes as opposed to the usual what he believes.