I've noticed during my thoughts on the issue that I seem to be biased against Christianity- although raised in a Christian household, I have noticed that I become more tense when reading effective arguments for Christianity and more relaxed when reading good arguments against it- I also feel strongly tempted to pull out books which I know give good arguments against Christianity.

I thought the issue of whether Christianity was actually true concluded- but given that I am now aware I'm biased, it's difficult to be sure. On the one hand, there is a lot of evidence against it (biblical contradictions etc...). On the other, there are some pieces of evidence that appear false 'on the surface' but which seem plausible when I take my bias into account.

I'm somewhat reluctant to talk about my personal life online nowadays, but suffice to say that I've discovered an area of likely self-delusion and I want to prevent myself from backsliding through forgetting what I've learned. Any ways to make sure the knowledge stays in my head?

(And yes, writing this post will likely help- I'm not stupid) 

I had an idea- has it been done before, and if not shouldn't somebody try to do it? I live in Melbourne where LWers aren't organised, but perhaps the New York branch or some other group could try this? (IF it hasn't been done, that is- I haven't seen in mentioned, which is why I'm checking)

Idea:

-Recruit a non-rationalist scientist (or better group of scientists) either by persuading friends or perhaps getting some money together to pay somebody (or finding a helpful volenteer) or perhaps several.

-Have THEM come up with a series of tests to test rationalists relative to a control group.

If 'sucessful' (in the sense of a significant difference between rationalists and non-rationalists, the result we on LW would presumably predict), it would provide enough evidence to justify a formal test (there would likely be a few weaknesses, such as recruiting friends of rationalists), which could then (again, assuming such a result) persuade scientists to become rationalists (benefits should be obvious on a bit of thought) and generate publicity. If a 'failure' or indecisive, it justifies a serious reevaluation of site methodology.

I'm not sure if this is the right place to put this, but there's a problem I can tell I'm biased on so I'm requesting some advice from people unlikely to be biased on it.

Legally, circa the time of the actual secessions leading to the creation of the C.S.A, was secession legal? As far as I can tell it was (the Supreme Court may have practical control but they aren't infallible, and because of the Tenth Amendment), but I can tell I have biased emotions on the subject so I'm checking with people less likely to.