Piltdown Superman

Here is the second of two articles that originally appeared elsewhere ( Part 1 is here ). I have edited this one a bit as well. The sceptic-tank-ical approach. That is, the constant denial of evidence. Absolutes If you insist on irrefutable, absolute proof before you will accept or believe something, you will have pitifully little to believe  at all.  What would happen in the court systems if they took that approach? Witnesses are  expected  to differ on details because of their knowledge, observations, personalities and whatever else; everyone has their own perspective. They use  reasonable  evidence, and not just iron-clad positive proof. Otherwise, there would be few convictions indeed. Edit: Demanding physical proof of a transcendent God is a category mistake , a logical fallacy. It's funny in a way that "everyone knew" that Casey Anthony was guilty, and were outraged that she was found not guilty. But "everyone" was not in the courtroo

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Here is a revision of an article that I did as a guest post back in April of 2011. It may come as a shock to some people, but the propaganda is untrue: Christians are not gullible by default. We can be as gullible as the next person — including you. Oh, don't give me that! You've been "had" before, we all know it. I've been tricked by certain e-mails, especially when they say something that I want to hear, or if it's presented very well. Most of the time (I want to believe), I'm careful. Healthy skepticism is a good thing. Occasionally, I have been sent the " atheist professor and the chalk that wouldn't break " gag. I would look it up on urban legends sites and reply to the sender, "Hey, Horatio, you've been had". Or how about the bit where young Einstein told off an atheist teacher when he was a child? (There's even a video dramatization of this hoax . It contains some good discus