Well, I finally found the time to listen to the KKMS interview with August. It's amazing how busy being unemployed makes a person. August - great job again. I'd like to bring up a few points for discussion just in case any discussion happens on these sleepy forums.

First, I was disappointed (but not surprised) by the questions the callers raised. They displayed the typical utter lack of understanding in science and what evidence actually is, and I actually sighed out loud on August's behalf. It was, "What, this again?" I guess I should be used to that by now, but the embarrassing clinging to wholly emotional explanations is both frustrating and tiresome. In any case, the questions (and confident assertions) were handled with admirable patience and respect by August as well as the hosts. I must commend them for their calm approach.

Next, I'd offer my opinion on one minor issue that may mostly involve semantics. I simply do not accept that anyone "chooses" what to believe. We either believe something to be true or we don't, and if we've actually "chosen" to believe something, we're either lying to ourselves or we're lying to others. Belief is a state of thought independent of desire, and one cannot direct belief and retain any sense of intellectual honesty. I bring this up because I'd feel much more comfortable with atheists in the spotlight never using the phrase "choose to believe". To me, it's an oxymoron, or a non sequitur, or whatever term is appropriate to describe a non-existing state of being.

How does that invisible watermelon taste on this beautiful, natural day?

Thanks for taking the time to listen and to post comments.

I often make the point that I have no choice but to disbelieve. I cannot "choose" to believe something that my logic says doesn't exist - I would know that I was lying to myself. (This in answer to Pascal's Wager.)

Do believers "choose" to believe? Every believer I have met has been very sincere, so they certainly are not consciously lying to themselves. I usually diplomatically say that they have reached a conclusion that is not warranted by the (lack of) evidence and reason. (This is a nice way to open a conversation about what constitutes evidence and reason.)

Or, to put it another way, we both look at the same reasons and evidence and come to different conclusions. But can we help which conclusions we reach? Maybe believers only "choose" to believe because they have not heard the atheist gospel (good news) yet.

There is also the question of whether we have free will at all, which I tend to doubt. If there is no free will, then "choice" is a meaningless term.

Waiting for someone like OJ to chime in.