God

[Johnathan Napalm]

I find it mind boggling to contemplate the possiblity of something as complex as the living system, be it animal or plant life, to have evolved from a single cell carbon based life form. It is like randomly arranging a pile of alphabets and then come up with a literary masterpiece.

 

[arnisador]

Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm
In many situations, there are conflicting evidences. You cannot be absolute with your inference.

This is a far cry from "high probablity of error" as you said earlier though.

Yes, there isn't a single inference--competing theories are the rule. In fact, evolution is special in that there are so few competing scientific theories--look at the variety of particle/string/etc. theories in quantum physics, for spacetime of varying dimensions.

To nightingale8472, there is an historical/semantic issue to what is called a law as well as the ideal you describe. As you imply, there is both a law of gravity--things fall--and theories of gravity, most notably those based on fields as in relativity and those based on gravitons as in quantum physics.

 

[arnisador]

Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm
I find it mind boggling to contemplate the possiblity of something as complex as the living system, be it animal or plant life, to have evolved from a single cell carbon based life form. It is like randomly arranging a pile of alphabets and then come up with a literary masterpiece.

In fact, there is a mathematical theory of evolution that is able to better quantify these probabilities. Current research in complex adaptive systems ("artificial life") lends a great deal of plausibility to the scenario you describe, however--simulation, now considered the third way of doing science (along with theory and experiment), is very compelling in this regard.

Minds have boggled at many things over the years--round earth, constancy of the speed of light for all inertial reference frames, Lobachevskian geomotry--that it boggles the mind is not a good argument against something!

The obvious counterargument, though, is: Doesn't it also boggle your mind that a God, which is surely a form of intelligent life, formed randomly under your theory?

 

[Nightingale]

Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm


Does it fit "ALL" the evidence?

Yes.

 

[Dennis_Mahon]

"His deviant desires," eh? Would this be the same Jung who wrote as an apologist for Hitler,

The same.

while Freud recognized a group psychosis when he saw one, identified Hitler as what he was, and got the hell out? The Freud whose sisters died in camps? The Freud who--if you'd bother to read, say, his "Dora," case and his innumerable self-analyses--was quite well aware of the limits of his own ideas and his own biases?

Yet, he could not bring himself to admit that the source of his abandonment of his "Seduction Theory" in favor of "Oedipus Theory" was his need to excuse his incestuous relationship with Minna Bernays.

There's little point in my arguing about this. Some prefer the Jung who provided so much ammo to Joseph Campbell's maunderings and the superiority of men over women, to say nothing of his influence on that gorgonzola cheese of an intellectual, George Lucas. Some prefer Freud's humanity, analysis, and skepticism. Me? I with Siggy.

You seem to be under the impression that I somehow consider Jung "ligitimate" while considering Freud fraudulent; allow me to disabuse you of the notion- I consider both men to be frauds. That doesn't change the fact that Jung exposed Freud's maintenance of the "Oedipus Theory" in order to excuse his incestuous relationship with his sister-in-law during their 1909 trip
to America.
As you are undoutedly aware, Freud related to Jung his "bread-slicing" dream, which had been disturbing him for some time. When Jung asked Freud to tell him some of Freud's personal relations, Freud responded "I could tell you more but I cannot risk my authority!" Freud knew that exposure of his incestuous relationship with Minna Bernays would destroy both his credibility and the credibility of his theories.

If you'd like to attack Freud, show some evidence that you've read his work. It's the same problem with my students who want to write essays attacking Darwin: they won't read his works to see what the ideas and arguments are!

I could, but what would be the point? As Aristotle pointed out in his Ethics: "Men make revolutionary changes for reasons connected with their personal lives." Freud created revolutionary changes (his "Oedipus Theory") for reasons connected with his personal life (his incestuous relationship with Minna Bernays).

 

[rmcrobertson]

Fair enough, Dennis. At least you've read some of the material. However, you were quite clearly using Jung to attack Freud...and, I might add, all this stuff about, "deviancy," in fact comes out of Freud's life-long, running self-analysis. Fairly lately, it started being repeated by Jeffrey Masson...himself a guy with a big stack of skeletons in his closet, if we're going to get into the private lives.

I take your point about private neurosis being behind public achievement. Still, it's be pretty easy to say the same sorts of things about a lot of religious types...after all, one of Freud's best ideas was that this, "normalcy," stuff is a tissue of lies for everybody.

And it in no way invalidates the arguments Freud advanced about religion and illusion.

Once again, we're left with the same point: believers believe, non-believers don't. I'm chiefly arguing not against faith, but against claiming that faith's logical and scientific. And I was asking why it is that believers even need science on their side...

Thanks for the discussion.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Oh, I forgot. Yilisifu argued that evolution claims, "cows...{turned into} whales." Please, could somebody show me where this statement appears in any statement of evolutionary theory? It's like that silly bit about "monkeys turning into men," which is often put forward and which is nowhere to be found in the actual science.

It also simply isn't the case that there's no "macro," level evidence for evolution. Beyond the fact that the level of viruses and bacteria and flies and creatures with short lifespans IS the "macro," level, there're little things like the commonality of DNA, and the fossil record...


Again, thanks.

 

[chufeng]

Oh, I forgot. Yilisifu argued that evolution claims, "cows...{turned into} whales." Please, could somebody show me where this statement appears in any statement of evolutionary theory?

Item #1) See this article:

From: http://unisci.com/stories/20013/0921011.htm

Fossil Ankle Bones Link Whales to Sheep, Pigs, Cows
From Moby Dick to Shamu, whales have long fascinated humans. Their remarkable status as ocean-dwelling mammals, along with dolphins and porpoises, at once makes them related to us and yet inconceivably different from us.
Thus their evolution -- the developmental steps required to leave solid ground for a life in the water -- has long fascinated scientists, including Kenneth Rose of the Program for Functional Anatomy and Evolution at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine.
In today's Science, Rose provides outside perspective on a report in the same issue that fills an important gap in scientists' understanding of whale evolution. The report by others documents new fossils of very primitive whales that were found in Pakistan.
The new fossils, says Rose, have well-developed limbs and are the first to have well-enough preserved ankle bones to allow scientists to change their conclusions about which animals are the closest relatives of these 50 million-year-old primitive whales.
The importance of this finding, and a similar report about even older fossils in the September 20 issue of Nature, is that it unifies the scientific perspective on whale evolution, says Rose.
"What's most important about these new fossils is that they contain well-preserved ankles, the most important region morphologically for establishing evolutionary relationships as early whales were in the process of becoming aquatic," explains Rose. "Previously, only fragments have been known of these species, and the few ankle bones that some had identified were not widely accepted among scientists because of the condition of the fossils and their lack of direct association with whale skulls."
There are two main ways scientists determine evolutionary relationships among various species, he explains. Some scientists consider physical characteristics of specimens -- the morphology -- and look for similarities or differences, the presence and relative complexity of various systems, and other measures that help create connections in the evolutionary tree.
In the last two decades, others have focused on molecular examinations of species, determining the extent to which two species' genetic information share common features, through studying both nuclear DNA and DNA found in tiny cellular structures called mitochondria.
Until the new fossils were found, morphology and genetics gave different answers to the question of who are whales' closest land-dwelling relatives, thanks in part to the limited information about the primitive whales' ankles, says Rose.
Morphologic analysis of the fossil ankles, which Rose conducted independently for his perspective article, shows that these primitive whales (referred to scientifically as the cetaceans) are closely related to "even-toed ungulates" such as sheep, pigs, cows, camels, deer and hippos (an evolutionary order known as the artiodactyls).
"There has been no question about whales' relationship to hoofed mammals, the question was to which group of hoofed mammals," says Rose. "Prior to having the ankle information, morphologically, early whales appeared to be the sister group of mesonychians -- an extinct group of land-dwelling carnivores.
"The new fossils provide compelling evidence that whales are not just related to, but descended from, artiodactyls rather than mesonychians, bringing the morphological evidence into accord with the molecular data."
While the agreement of morphology with molecular analysis is welcome and affirmative of both methodologies, Rose cautions that there are problems created by the conclusions.
Among the outstanding conundrums: The close relationship between cetaceans and hippos appears to require the break-up of groups that have been thought for years to be closely related, he says.
Rose has published in the past on comparative anatomy of both artiodactyls and mesonychians, but his current work focuses on comparative and functional anatomy of fossils and existing animals to help interpret the probable behavior of extinct mammals. He was invited by the editors of Science to write the perspective on the new fossil discoveries. - By Joanna Downer

It took me three minutes to find this article, BTW...

Item #2) Those who believe doNOT need science to prove their point...but those who do not believe will accept nothing less than science as proof...kind of a Catch 22 isn't it?

good day

:asian:
chufeng

 

[rmcrobertson]

The article just quoted says nothing about "cows turning into whales."

Among other minor problems, cows are a very recent development. Those we see around us are in fact the product of something like six thousand years of selective breeding--carried out by human beings.

What this article says is that whales are related to other animals than originally thought. This is in fact a good example of science responding to new and better facts...but it in no way invalidates evolutionary theory. it brings an account of a particular species' evolution into better accord with what we know about the general mechanisms of evolution.

The remark I was objecting to boiled down to saying that evolution couldn't be true becaause it was ridiculous to argue that cows had turned into whales. I repeat, evolution don't say that. Evolution says (read Stephen Jay Gould on this stuff, eh?) that apes and men, for example, had common ancestors.

Thanks.

 

[chufeng]

I agree with you...

Apes and man had a common ancestor...
...and, apparently, cows and whales had a common ancestor, too.

Why did one branch of that evolutionary chain choose to return to the water?

I did not post this article to disprove evolution...

But, this is a RECENT article which disproves previous held "beliefs" (call them theories if you want) about the source of whales...

Yes science is getting better and better...but I don't think science will ever have ALL of the answers...

:asian:
chufeng

 

[Dennis_Mahon]

And it in no way invalidates the arguments Freud advanced about religion and illusion.

Actually, it does. You see, Freud's analysis of religion in The Future of an Illusion - an illusion created to satisfy an unconscious need for protection again the cruelties of the world around us- is unsubstantiated by psychoanalysis; in all his published works, nowhere does Freud publish a psychoanalysis of the belief in God based on clinical evidence provided by a believing patient.

Secondly, as Freud admitted in a letter written in 1927 to his friend Oskar Pfister: "Let us be quite clear on the point that the views expressed in my book (sic) form no part of analytic theory. They are my personal views."

Thirdly, Freud's belief that religion satisfies some need of a protecting father figure, collapses when applied against the immage of God (or Gods) portrayed by different religions around the world at different times. Freud's analysis of a loving Father-figure is based on a Judeo-Christian interpretaion of God- it bares little resemblance to the Hindu or Buddhist interpretation of diety.

Lastly, if it can be argued that belief in God is a psychological illusion created to satisfy one's unconscious needs, the opposite is also true- that disbelief in God is a psychological illusion created to satify unconscious needs! If belief in God satisfies the need for a loving, protecting father-figure, it also stands to reason that the disbelief in God satifies the desire to destroy an abusive, uncaring Father-figure. Thus, atheism becomes an illusion caused by the Oedipal desire to kill the father (God) and replace him with oneself. When cosiders the abusive nature of the relationship between Freud and his father, and that his views on God and religion were his personal views, it throws Freud's arguments about religion and illusion into serious doubt.

 

[qizmoduis]

Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm
That is why the evolution process can be observed in virus and bacteria. Their life span is short enough, relative to ours, for the effect to be noticeable.



Does it fit "ALL" the evidence?

Yes, in fact, it does.

Don't make the common mistake of confusing the FACT of evolution with the THEORY of evolution. Evolution - the change of genetic information in a population over time - is an observed fact. The Theory of Evolution attempts to explain and model the mechanism by wich evolution occurred. Gravity is another good example of this. Gravity exists. We all know it. If you throw a rock straight up, you'd better get out from underneath it, else it'll bean you good. That's the fact of gravity. It's been observed, and measured. Then, there's the Theory of Gravity, which attempts to explain how gravity works. Believe it or not, gravity is only very dimly understood. The current Theories (not plural) of Gravity are tenuous at best and have more holes than swiss cheese. By comparison, the theory of evolution is like a finished piece of fine furniture, with just a little bit of dust that needs to be wiped off.

Law vs. Theory in science: In general, scientists make no difference between laws and theories. Laypeople will often refer to the Law of Gravity, and to the Laws of Thermodynamics, when in fact there really are no such things in scientific terms.

 

[qizmoduis]

Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm
I find it mind boggling to contemplate the possiblity of something as complex as the living system, be it animal or plant life, to have evolved from a single cell carbon based life form. It is like randomly arranging a pile of alphabets and then come up with a literary masterpiece.

I don't find it mind boggling at all. In fact, I personally consider it to be nothing short of pure common sense. And, it is nothing like randomly arranging a pile of letters to get a work of literature. Evolution, as currently understood, is not random, although there most certainly is a random element at the individual level. Evolution is about changes in POPULATIONS over relatively large periods of time.

Think about it. You have a bunch of animals in an area. This is a population. In this area, there is a prevalence of a particular disease that occasionally plagues the population, killing a large number of it's members before they can reproduce. The ones that survive where either lucky, or more resistant to the plague. The survivors reproduce, and the ones that were more resistant grant their resistance to their children. Over time, the population that shows resistance to the plague will overwhelm the non-resistant population in terms of numbers. It's that simple. If it helps members of a population get to the age of reproduction, it will have a good chance of spreading and modifying the population. Enough changes, and you get a new species.

There is no scientific debate about evolution. There is plenty of arguing about the details, though, as research into genetics, paleontology, etc. continues uncovering new stuff.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Sure, fine, OK, right. And the desire to prove, again and again, that Freud was wrong--what's that, if you're Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson, but killing the evil father again and again and again?

It doesn't help to argue Hindu versions of what Blake called, "Old Nobodaddy aloft," as proof that Freud didn't know what he was talking about. The Jehovah of the Old Testament--as Freud knew perfectly well ("Moses and Monotheism")--was capable of, "a little hanging and drawing and quartering," himself.

The argument here seems to be that science, and modern skepticism, and much of contemporary philosophy, introduces an undecideability into knowledge. Certainly true. So? The alternative, for some of us, is the sort of unquestioning certainty that some--let me repeat, some--religious folks evidence.

Freud opens up all sorts of little black boxes that previously became closed. That seems to be his real crime--but using Freud's ideas about the unconscious to debunk Freud strikes me as a bit circular.

So anyway, tell me: whose ideas about psychology and religion do you prefer?

Thanks. Nice to converse with folks who have read something.

 

[Cruentus]

I just wanted to say a little something about logic and truth.

Whatever one decides to believe is "true," is based on faith. I think that this is with anything; evolution, theories in psychology, science, or religious beliefs. I know I've said this in so many words already, but I'm going to state myself more distinctly.

I'll use the "world is flat" as an example, again. Most of the civilized world believes that the world is round; but there are still some people, probabily in isolated areas, that do not believe that the world is round. You can put forth as much evidence to these people as you want, but if they don't accept your evidence (or your premise) as reliable, then they won't accept that the world is round. To them, the world will still be flat.

Am I making sense? ANYTHING that a person accepts as truth is a matter of faith, when it comes right down to it. The more evidance available to point towards a conclusion, the easier it will be to accept the premise, but ample evidence doesn't insure proof; not for many.

Now, how people come to the conclusion to believe that there isn't a God, or that there is a God, can be based on evidence and logical conclusions regarding that evidence. Now there are some people who just "believe in God" or "don't believe in God," and they haven't fully reasoned out for themselves as to why they have their beliefs. Then, there are others like myself and Quizmodus who have spent a fair amounts of time reasoning out beliefs.

So, I believe in God, and that belief is a matter of faith. Quizmodus chooses to not believe in God, and that is also a matter of faith. I have based my "faith" on logical conclusions from the evidence in which I accept to be true. Quizmodus also has based his "faith" on logical conclusions from evidence in which he accepts to be true.

As a Christian I have a different premise(s) then Quizmodus, who is an athiest. One of us is certianly more wrong then the other, but that doesn't mean that any amount of evidence at this point in time will actually "prove" one or the other. The decision for either is faith based. So, who is correct? Well, I hope I am, of course. But the sad reality is that we are both probably wrong to a certian degree; it just depends on how severe that degree might be.

There is one thing that I KNOW is NOT true, however. That is IT IS NOT FAIR TO ASSUME that I AM NOT logical in my decision to believe in God. An athiest is not necissarily illogical either. We both have decided to accept different evidence and conclusions, is all.

I wanted to state this because I am finding that many non-religious people want to say "Religion is based on faith (or "emotion" or whatever)," as to imply that being religious is "illogical," leaving them to the conclusion that they are "better" (or smarter, or whatever) for not buying such "nonsense." Many try to do this not just to justify their own non-belief, but to elivate themselves over the rest of the "ignorant" religious population. This, however, goes both ways. Many religious people try to use their beliefs as a ruse to elivate themselves above everyone else in a similar matter. In either case, I think that it is wrong to do so.

So, if any of you choose not to believe in God, yet continue to belittle religious beliefs as being "illogical," then you had better take a good look at yourself and your motives. Why do you believe what you do, and why you are so insistant on trying to be better then everyone else; as if your the only "freethinker" and "logical person" while everyone else who doesn't adhere to what you say must be "trapped" or "illogical" or somehow "lesser" then you. And, if your a Christian and you insist on behaving as if your somehow better then other non-believers because you "know the truth" or "have been saved," then take a hard look as to why you feel you need to do that. What are your REAL MOTIVES. I just think that there are too many people who take the "I'm better" stance in both factions; and I hope that someday they get a humility lesson.

So, believe what you want to believe, but don't judge or assume factors about others just because they don't agree. Just remember, every decision has its consequences. To me, the greatest consequence of being a Catholic Christian is that I feel that I live a better life because of it. That is what is important to me. And of course, that is just my humble opinion.

Now for a little Christian lesson for all you little Christians out there (and anyone else who wants to listen): The Devil (Satan) is refered to in scripture as "diaballein" or "ho katagoros" or "To Tradus" meaning "devil," or "accuser," or "slanderor". The Devil according to tradition and scripture was an Angel named "Lucifer," and was born not evil but innocent, but became evil because of his own PRIDE. He was not only the most beautiful Angel created, but he was also very WISE (hence his representation as a serpent, noted in tribal legends of many different cultures to be the wisest of animals). Satan is probably smarter and wiser then any human being on earth. He is probably more "logical" then you, even. He probably has all his beliefs pretty well reasoned out, too. Probably better then any one human being. But, does that make him right? Keep this in mind, whenever your discussing your beliefs. I don't have one specific point in adding this, for there are many different points here on many different levels. This is just something for you all to think about, and find the points for yourself.

Arnisador: For the record, I have no personal conflicts regarding the theory of evolution. I very much liked your link, also.

Quizmodus: I hope you didn't take offense in me using you as an example of an "athiest." I only used you because it appears that you have reasoned out your beliefs pretty well. I may not agree, and I may urge you and others to see things from my perspective (as I will try to see things from other perspectives), but they appear well reasoned out. Please, consider my using you as a compliment not an insult.

It was good talking to all of you today.

 

[qizmoduis]

Originally posted by PAUL

Quizmodus: I hope you didn't take offense in me using you as an example of an "athiest." I only used you because it appears that you have reasoned out your beliefs pretty well. I may not agree, and I may urge you and others to see things from my perspective (as I will try to see things from other perspectives), but they appear well reasoned out. Please, consider my using you as a compliment not an insult.

It was good talking to all of you today.
[/B]

Well, I don't really agree with you, but I appreciate the thought behind your explanation. It certainly isn't a requirement that you agree with my viewpoint. If I required agreement, the world would be damned boring.

Just a few small corrections and a point on perspective. It's 'Qizmoduis', not 'Quizmodus'. Or just Qiz, or Q, or, even Paul, which is my real name. Qiz is an old D&D character name that I've carried onto bulletin boards over the years. Also, it's 'atheist', not 'athiest'. Atheist means, literally, someone who lacks belief in a deity - i.e. without theism. Athiest, OTOH, suggest a person who is the most 'Athi':rofl: I'm pretty sure I'm low in 'Athi', so that doesn't really fit me.

Perspective: I grew up catholic. I understand the church and it's teachings intimately, because my family is quite religious and I spent 12 long years in the catholic education system. It was my attempt to truly validate and understand my faith and religion that led me to finally, after many years, come to realization that both were invalid.

A final point: Truth, facts, and reality aren't subjective. No matter how strongly you believe that gravity doesn't exist, you'll still die if you decide to test that belief by jumping into the Grand Canyon without a parachute.

To me, deities exist in the same class of entities as elves, fairies, poltergeists, and other ancient mythological beliefs. There is simply no evidence to suggest the existence of these creatures. For a rather irreverent, fun, but descriptive perspective on how I view religions, read this: http://www.jhuger.com/kisshank.mv (Note: I didn't write this, but I really think it holds an important message regarding the atheist perspective on religions within the humor.)

 

[qizmoduis]

PAUL,

A point about Satan. Satan, and especially the idea of evil being based on Pride, and that pride is a sin, is a religious device constructed by the religion to keep people in their place in religious and secular society. Of course pride, in any form, is dangerous, because it could lead a peasant to aspire to a position beyond what was granted to him, and become a potential thorn in the side of the current power-structure. Another example, is the whole Eve and the Apple story. This represents man's desire for knowledge which, again, is dangerous to the power structure. The history of religion throughout the ages is filled with examples of hostility towards education, and literacy.

Religion is nothing more than a codification of medieval fuedalism. In our society, it is slowly and painfully losing it's grip, but this isn't the case in many other parts of the world. It's enforcement mechanisms are the most effective ever evolved: faith, sin, and the threat of eternal damnation or the promise of eternal paradise.

 

[Cruentus]

Hey look, I spelled it correctly this time. Now lets try a..ath...athia...no.....atheist! Whew!

Really, I can spell. The problem is, I only have internet access at work, so....I am always working when I post. I usually post in a hurry, and I don't take any care to correct gramatical or spelling errors. The way I write it the 1st time is the way it gets posted. I rarely even re-read what I write.

I do not agree with your conjectures about Satan, in that these conjectures were created for the sole purpose of controlling the masses. Although I do agree with you in that certain Government systems have used previously created ideas to control the masses.

On Truth: Truth is subjective, reality is not. I don't have to believe in gravity. You can show me all sorts of evidence proving the existance of gravity, yet if I think through these proofs thoroughly enough, I will be able to refute them in a logical manner. But the reality is if I jump off a building, I'll splat at the same rate as the believer. The point is, what a person thinks is true or logical isn't going to always be correct. Logic won't always coincide with reality, either. And yes, I do realize that this arguement can be used against religion as well as for it. Personally, though, I think there is a bit more imperical evidence supporting gravities existance then there is supporting any metaphysical idea (religious or anti-religious), so I feel that comparing the two is like comparing an apple and an orange (to quote the old cliche').

I enjoyed reading "Kissing Hanks @$$", though! :rofl: I seriously laughed out loud!

 

[qizmoduis]

Originally posted by PAUL
Hey look, I spelled it correctly this time. Now lets try a..ath...athia...no.....atheist! Whew!

Really, I can spell. The problem is, I only have internet access at work, so....I am always working when I post. I usually post in a hurry, and I don't take any care to correct gramatical or spelling errors. The way I write it the 1st time is the way it gets posted. I rarely even re-read what I write.

Seriously, I can't tell you how many times I spelled it wrong too. I was just picking on you.

I do not agree with your conjectures about Satan, in that these conjectures were created for the sole purpose of controlling the masses. Although I do agree with you in that certain Government systems have used previously created ideas to control the masses.

That's definitely conjecture on my part. I'm not proposing that these things were CREATED, except for maybe some deliberate instances, but rather that they EVOLVED over many generations of cultural growth and change. Also, it's important to realize that Government and Religion, until very recently, were not discreet entities. Each was a tool of the other.

On Truth: Truth is subjective, reality is not. I don't have to believe in gravity. You can show me all sorts of evidence proving the existance of gravity, yet if I think through these proofs thoroughly enough, I will be able to refute them in a logical manner. But the reality is if I jump off a building, I'll splat at the same rate as the believer. The point is, what a person thinks is true or logical isn't going to always be correct. Logic won't always coincide with reality, either. And yes, I do realize that this arguement can be used against religion as well as for it. Personally, though, I think there is a bit more imperical evidence supporting gravities existance then there is supporting any metaphysical idea (religious or anti-religious), so I feel that comparing the two is like comparing an apple and an orange (to quote the old cliche').

Well, I don't really subscribe to the idea that truth, the noun, is somehow a separate idea than reality. Truth, and reality, are not beholden to anyone's beliefs. Logic also doesn't necessarily agree with reality, but only when it's premises are incorrect. As I said before, your arguments can be completely valid, but still be incorrect, if they're based on unsupported premises.

But that's neither here nor there. What's really important is:

I enjoyed reading "Kissing Hanks @$$", though! :rofl: I seriously laughed out loud!

It's hilarious. I saw it years ago, and I still get a chuckle or two out of it occasionally. But it really does illustrate the way I see religions and mysticism in general. Not usually with such hilarity, though.

Don't forget to click through to the list of "Hankisms" at the bottom. The author singles out and offends as many religions as possible, including the various flavors of atheism and non-theistic belief systems.

BTW, I chose Qizmoduis, back in my D&D geek days, to deliberately trick people into misspelling or mispronouncing it. I suppose I was easily entertained back then. :shrug:

Hey, here's a fun question for you: Can a belief be chosen?

 

[Cruentus]

I used to love that when I was a kid, around middle school. I haven't had the time to play ever since.

"Can a belief be choosen?"

Yea, I think so. I am a firm believer of free will, so I think people have the freedom of choice to believe and (really) do whatever they are capable of. I think that this "free will" can be a double edged sword, though, given all the poor decisions that we have all been guilty of from time to time.

Oh well, what-r-u-gonna-do?

:idunno:

Hankisms....:lol:

:ultracool