I don't see the necessity to believe or deny. Why not just live with the mystery?Quote:
Originally Posted by cafolini
Printable View
I don't see the necessity to believe or deny. Why not just live with the mystery?Quote:
Originally Posted by cafolini
mal4mac, you never heard of the religious science professor Mile Hulme, and the mathmetician/science philosopher Lennox...so you deemed them "minor"?? I guess it's all relative because I never heard of Dawkins until you brought him up...should I therefore deem him "minor"?
Regarding the existence of God being a mystery:
God's existence is not a mystery to me
I see proof daily all around me
in every breath I take
in every human relationship
in every gift of love, joy, kindness
in everything I learn
every word, every smile
looking into someone's eyes and seeing their soul
i could go on and on...
Show me the scientific evidence for those things.
I looked Hulme up and he seems an average professor, no Nobel prize, not even an FRS. Ditto for Lennox. They have also had little involvement with the religion vs. atheist debate in the UK. Dawkins usually seeks out the "real deal" to argue with (Archbishop of Canterbury, Chief Rabbi,...), not minor leaguers. Though as Lennox is in Oxford I guess he's easy to use as a sparring partner...Quote:
Originally Posted by Melanie
Have you really never heard of Dawkins? How did you avoid him? He's always on TV, and in leading newspapers in the USA and UK. You should read his wikipedia page, at least, just for the sake of "general culture". I think most people would hold him to be the highest profile atheist of the last decade.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins
"In a poll held by Prospect magazine in 2013, Dawkins was voted the world's top thinker based on 65 names chosen by a largely US- and UK-based expert panel." Just over half of voters came to the world thinkers homepage via Twitter or Facebook, so you are likely to encounter a lot of people who hold Dawkins in high regard if you float around social media sites.
I looked Hulme up and he seems an average professor, no Nobel prize, not even an FRS. Ditto for Lennox. They have also had little involvement with the religion vs. atheist debate in the UK. Dawkins usually seeks out the "real deal" to argue with (Archbishop of Canterbury, Chief Rabbi,...), not minor leaguers. Though as Lennox is in Oxford I guess he's easy to use as a sparring partner...Quote:
Originally Posted by Melanie
Have you really never heard of Dawkins? How did you avoid him? He's always on TV, and in leading newspapers in the USA and UK. You should read his wikipedia page, at least, just for the sake of "general culture". I think most people would hold him to be the highest profile atheist of the last decade or two.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins
"In a poll held by Prospect magazine in 2013, Dawkins was voted the world's top thinker based on 65 names chosen by a largely US- and UK-based expert panel." Most voters came to the world thinkers homepage via Twitter or Facebook, so you are likely to encounter a lot of people who hold Dawkins in high regard if you float around social media sites.
If you had read my post #42 regarding why God is not a mystery to me, you would know why I have no desire nor purpose for reading about Dawkins. There are more things to learn of "general culture" that I would consider "best use of my time".
Regarding the existence of God being a mystery:
God's existence is not a mystery to me
I see proof daily all around me
in every breath I take
in every human relationship
in every gift of love, joy, kindness
in everything I learn
every word, every smile
looking into someone's eyes and seeing their soul
i could go on and on...
Show me the scientific evidence for those things...this could take awhile :Yawn:
I think Hitchen's description of North Korea as a "religious" state when it is a state atheism is an example of attempting to excuse the bad behavior of atheists. Here's a quote: http://www.haveabit.com/hitchens/88001Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
It is fine for atheists to have whatever world views they want as long as they are tolerant of others to believe differently. I don't see that tolerance in either Hitchens or Dawkins. This is essentially a civil liberties issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oedipus
Than you have a problem with specific people; who happen to be intolerant in your opinion. You don't have any evidence that this is something more common in atheists. They have the right to say whatever they want about religion; just as religious people have the right to respond or ignore. They have not done anything to repress religious people directly. As for North Korea, it is well known that the worship of the ruling family acts as a kind of surrogate religionQuote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
You don't think there is scientific evidence that breathing has a naturalistic explanation? Neuroscience has shown the roots of every human emotion; none of these things are a mystery, no matter how warm and fuzzy they make you feel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melanie
Of course. Unless one suffers utter stupidity it is impossible for God to be a mystery. We deal with the mystery of life. We could never resolve it and we refuse to discard it. Only God knows that. Who else? Not a single one of us or all of us together can give an answer. Hence our faith is in God. This is very obviously so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melanie
The leader worship that goes on in perverted communist states like North Korea is very similar to religious worship. Judging all atheists by the actions of Kim Il-Sung is like judging all protestants by the actions of Henry VIII.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
Of course they are tolerant! How have they interfered with anyone's civil liberties? They are robust in argument, but their words have never damaged anyone's civil liberties; quite the opposite, they have always been great supporters of civil liberty. Can you produce any quotes that show them being against civil liberty?Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
I agree with you that there is mystery in these things. Why is there breath? Why is there anything at all? Why are we conscious? I agree with you that science may not answer these most fundamental of questions. But why bring in God as an explanation of these mysteries? Today's science doesn't explain everything, perhaps science will never explain everything. But you can't explain away mystery by suggesting the answer is provided by the Old Testament God. Mystery is mystery, not God. There is no evidence for God, which is why other religions postulate Allah, Zeus, Odin, Brahma, and many other beings as the cause of everything. (Although there is no evidence for them either!) I don't see why you can't just live with the mystery, and pursue science to try and make inroads into solving some of the mysteries. Why do modern, intelligent, well read, people try and force themselves to believe in Christ, Mohammed, Buddha, Krishna, whoever? Isn't it time to classify these figures as "interesting, perhaps inspiring, fictional characters", like Santa Claus and the tooth fairy?Quote:
Originally Posted by Melanie
the question is would be to ask
would a believer in god become an atheist and vice versa? many atheists convert to religion but would the opposite apply?
Can you name any who have converted from atheism to religion? There are many who have converted the other way, e.g., Dawkins had "a normal Anglican upbringing" and was a Christian until his mid-teens years, Dawkins states: "the main residual reason why I was religious was from being so impressed with the complexity of life and feeling that it had to have a designer, and I think it was when I realised that Darwinism was a far superior explanation that pulled the rug out from under the argument of design. And that left me with nothing." http://www.theguardian.com/world/200...ienceandnatureQuote:
Originally Posted by cacian
hi malmac was not cat stevens an atheist who turned into Islam the same with Jacques Cousteau upon finding the source of sweet water in the ocean?Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
Are you kidding? Gazillions. I guess you've never watched a Billy Graham Crusade. One that comes to mind is Josh McDowell. When he was young he considered himself an agnostic. Here are two accounts of his transformation from agnostic to Christianity that only touches the surface:Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
"He truly believed that Christianity was worthless. However, when challenged to intellectually examine the claims of Christianity, Josh discovered compelling, overwhelming evidence for the reliability of the Christian faith. After trusting in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord, Josh’s life changed dramatically as he experienced the power of God’s love."
"Eager to rail against the existence of a Savior, McDowell sought out conflict with the Christians he encountered in college. He mocked their beliefs and scorned their faith until they issued him a challenge: prove God doesn’t exist. Obsessively, McDowell traveled the world scouring sacred historical texts for evidence contradicting Christianity. What he found instead was truth — and a faith that led to grace and redeemed a broken man."
He went on to publish his story in a quick read paperback called "More Than A Carpenter" and more recently a film called "Undaunted" you can find online. Eventually, he published 2 volumes of evidence for God's existence titled "Evidence That Demands A Verdict".
Because I've experienced incredible answers to prayer that have no other explanation. And because I have read the New Testament (except Revelations...that will come in time) and found no contradictions when not taken out of context. And because I look around me and see proof everywhere. I know without a doubt.Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
Why not God heal amputees? After all, he does offer "incredible answers to prayer", does he not"? Strange how he never does anything that cannot be explained as coincidence
OK I was kidding a bit :) Just wanted to see what names would come up. I've no idea who Josh McDowell is! But, unlike you, I'm always open to learning about someone new. I read his Wikipedia page, and a few others, and wasn't that impressed:Quote:
Originally Posted by Melanie
"Apologetics as practiced by Josh McDowell is merely an exercise in after-the-fact rationalization of beliefs held on prior emotional grounds ... " Robert M. Price (Professor of Theology, expert in apologetics, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Price)
Jaqueus Cousteau impresses me more as an example. I used to watch, "The undersea World of Jacques Cousteau" as a kid. Just read his Wikipedia page -- what a man! But there is nothing there to indicate he was actively religious in any particular way. He came from a Roman Catholic family, and was buried in a Roman Catholic service. It's very common for people just to go along with the religious situation they find themselves in "on the surface", then they can concentrate on more interesting things... and he did a lot of interesting things!
I have an interesting story regarding Billy Graham, which I think I already told a long time ago in LitNet. But rather than search for it, I'll tell it again. My grandmother was a Baptist and used to take me to Sunday school. There was in Buenos Aires, in those days, a Boxing Stadium, named Luna Park, which Billy Graham used to rent for his crusade. One day my grandmother took me there, and when Billy started with his eternal pitch about "take the lord." my grandmother wanted me to do so, regardless of the fact that I was very young and hardly understood a word of it. But she started elbowing me and I decided to please her. So I stood up and took the lord, got my certificate, and we later went home, she as happy as could be.
Once home we got into a dispute. She somehow got me upset. So I pull out the certificate, tore it to pieces, let it fall on the floor and exited the house irritated.
About 10 years later I came to the United States of America. All throughout my life, I had noticed my grandmother collected my toys as I evolved and didn't play any longer with them. Years later, my grandmother passed away, and my aunt was in charge of distributing what grandma left, as per her instruction. So I inherited the box of toys. Surprise. Inside the box I also found the certificate I had gotten from Billy's assistants, put together with scotch tape on the back. At that point, I had already grasped the message. Amazing story.
God be with you.
That's a great story, cafolini.
mal4mac...why am I not surprised that an atheist would find a naysayer...only one? Naysayers abound when a man writes one of the 20th century's top 40 books and one of the 13 most influential books of the last 50 years on Christianity. The name of that book is "New Evidence That Demands a Verdict". Like your naysayer, Josh McDowell attended Talbot Theological Seminary, where he graduated Magna Cum Laude with a Master of Divinity degree. But what's more impressive is what he did with his education: http://www.josh.org/about-us/joshs-bio/
Oedipus...you asked "Why not God heal amputees?" Everyone has afflictions they suffer, some more visible than others, and for various reasons. In eternity, God will settle the score and make it right. Time here is a drop in the bucket if that. Some are natural consequences. None are caused by God. If someone prays for a healing then God may say yes, no, or wait for his perfect timing. If he says no, and allows suffering, it's for one or many of a gazillion reasons that are for the purpose of his perfect plan. It could be for the reasons of teaching, building relationships, and more. There are over 100 reasons in Biblical scripture for why God allows good people to suffer but, like I said, in eternity He will make it right. Regarding your comment about "coincidences"...that's semantics isn't it. You call it coincidences that rule out divine intervention. I call it all a part of God's perfect plan...whether it appears good or bad to us now, we will someday know why it was so perfect. There's a vast network, a vast web of a plan that God is doing...far more than our finite minds can fathom. I'm humbled by it. One word can describe what it's all about....love....brotherly love, love of God, love of yourself, love for the unlovable, love for creation, etc etc. Perfect love is waiting for us in eternity. Believe.
cafolini...yes, lovely story
Which has 22 one star reviews on Amazon, most of them written by people who seem to know what they're talking about. I think I'll give it a miss, I've read enough apologetic waffle for one lifetime. If you want to defend this book, I suggest you join the arguments there, there are some fairly interesting debates going on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melanie
22 out of how many? A Billion? Wow, that's excellent! Those 22 are exactly the ones Josh McDowell wants to reach. Of course you would gravitate to their side since, A. You've never read the book, and B. You and they are like-minded which is closed to spiritual matters...so you've chosen to be their follower. I'd rather follow God.
Well those 22 have read the book, and, for me, have produced very good reasons not to read it. I've just read a book devoted to spiritual exercises in Ancient Philosophy, so my mind isn't closed to spiritual matters. And you have to be very careful in using the word "spiritual"; it has multiple meanings. Looking at my concise OED, one of them is "having the higher qualities of the mind". It's very insulting to say to anyone, atheist or Christian, that they are not interested in the higher qualities of the mind.
"Spirituality can mean something that I’m very sympathetic to, which is, a sort of sense of wonder at the beauty of the universe, the complexity of life, the magnitude of space, the magnitude of geological time. All those things create a sort of frisson in the breast, which you could call spirituality. But, I would be very concerned that it shouldn’t be confused with supernaturalism." - Richard Dawkins
What you provide is an example of an atheist excusing other atheists for bad behavior by saying, in this case, that the atheists are no longer atheists, but have turned themselves into some sort of "religion". It is more useful to use atheistic states like North Korean as evidence for what atheism can produce when it gets political power and its righteousness, unchecked by anything since it claims not to believe in anything, is unleashed.Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
Now, I need an example of people like Dawkins nitpicking religions. Here is a quote from Dawkins: http://ffrf.org/news/timely-topics/i...me-to-stand-up
"To blame Islam for what happened in New York is like blaming Christianity for the troubles in Northern Ireland!" Yes. Precisely. It is time to stop pussyfooting around. Time to get angry. And not only with Islam.
Dawkins doesn't mind blaming Islam for 911 nor Christianity for what happens in Northern Ireland. However, you tell me I shouldn't do the same thing with atheists and North Korea. Why not?
Further in that article Dawkins says the following that I partially agree with:
My point is not that religion itself is the motivation for wars, murders and terrorist attacks, but that religion is the principal label, and the most dangerous one, by which a "they" as opposed to a "we" can be identified at all. I am not even claiming that religion is the only label by which we identify the victims of our prejudice. There's also skin color, language, and social class. But often, as in Northern Ireland, these don't apply and religion is the only divisive label around. Even when it is not alone, religion is nearly always an incendiary ingredient in the mix as well.
As I see it, based on evidence from the 20th century, atheists are the primary ones who use the label "religion" to generate targets. This has destroyed the civil liberties and even the lives of millions of people.
It is ironical that Dawkins makes my case for me. This targeting of religion is much like targeting people with a different skin color or social class. I agree. Dawkins should stop targeting. Until he does I put his atheism on the same shelf with racism and antisemitism.
That was a very nice story, cafolini.
This reminds me of something I learned in one of the threads on "many worlds". The phrase, "there is no evidence for", if one is honest, should be rephrased as "there is no evidence that I accept for" something.Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
The main reason I can't accept atheism is that the 20th century undermined any scientific foundation that atheism might have enjoyed. It has no ground to stand on given quantum physics, the big bang and evidence of near and shared death experiences.
Now if we were living in the 19th century with a belief that one day we would find an atomic structure that was materialistic and deterministic, then I would have to reconsider. But we are living in the 21st century, not the 19th century. If there is any metaphysics for which there is no evidence (certainly none that I accept), it is atheism.
Forget the universe. That's the verse of the UNI, impossible for you or anyone to reach in actuality. But to think of God as supernatural is the most appropriate way to avoid the possibility of people like you manipulating God and prescribing His behavior as if it were a natural piece of meat, which you postulate and then turn around and claim you can't find it.Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
beautiful story and a very caring clever grandma for looking after your toys and things from childhood. we should all do the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by cafolini
I'm not excusing Kim Il-Sung for anything. Like most liberals, atheist or Christian, I think that cruelty is the worst thing we can do, and no one, atheists or Christians, should be excused for being cruel.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
Atheism only claims not to believe in a god.Quote:
It is more useful to use atheistic states like North Korean as evidence for what atheism can produce when it gets political power and its righteousness, unchecked by anything since it claims not to believe in anything, is unleashed.
9/11 and the troubles in Northern Ireland came out of conflicts directly related to the religions involved. Troubles in North Korea, and other communist states, come from the pseudo-religion involved there, i.e., communism. Communist states have killed people because of communist ideology. For instance, landowners who complained too loudly about their land being taken away from them, were killed for talking against communist principles. Dawkins himself has called the current North Korean leader "ludicrous":Quote:
Dawkins: http://ffrf.org/news/timely-topics/i...me-to-stand-up
"To blame Islam for what happened in New York is like blaming Christianity for the troubles in Northern Ireland!" Yes. Precisely. It is time to stop pussyfooting around. Time to get angry. And not only with Islam.
Dawkins doesn't mind blaming Islam for 911 nor Christianity for what happens in Northern Ireland. However, you tell me I shouldn't do the same thing with atheists and North Korea. Why not?
https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/s...57043237474304
Communists, like Stalin, certainly killed priests, but he didn't do that because he was an atheist, but because he saw priests as being opposed to communist ideology (along with many other sectors of society.) If you look at atheist leaders of liberal democracies, like Clement Attlee in the UK, then you see no sign of priests being persecuted, no sign of civil liberties of religious people being affected in any way.Quote:
As I see it, based on evidence from the 20th century, atheists are the primary ones who use the label "religion" to generate targets. This has destroyed the civil liberties, not to speak of the lives, of millions of people.
No it's not, religions have nasty doctrines like "Don't suffer a witch to live" that explicitly propagate cruelty. Think of the Salem Witch trials, and the persecutions of old women in Europe simply because they muttered a few off-colour words, or were said to have done so. Also, Dawkins doesn't promote violence against religious people, or suggest they should be treated as second class citizens. He just argues against their ideologies, and encourages them to adapt more rational & liberal attitudes.Quote:
This targeting of religion is much like targeting people with a different skin color or social class.
Quote Originally Posted by mal4mac View Post
Well those 22 have read the book, and, for me, have produced very good reasons not to read it. I've just read a book devoted to spiritual exercises in Ancient Philosophy, so my mind isn't closed to spiritual matters. And you have to be very careful in using the word "spiritual"; it has multiple meanings. Looking at my concise OED, one of them is "having the higher qualities of the mind". It's very insulting to say to anyone, atheist or Christian, that they are not interested in the higher qualities of the mind.
"Spirituality can mean something that I’m very sympathetic to, which is, a sort of sense of wonder at the beauty of the universe, the complexity of life, the magnitude of space, the magnitude of geological time. All those things create a sort of frisson in the breast, which you could call spirituality. But, I would be very concerned that it shouldn’t be confused with supernaturalism." - Richard Dawkins"
Forget the universe. That's the verse of the UNI, impossible for you or anyone to reach in actuality. But to think of God as supernatural is the most appropriate way to avoid the possibility of people like you manipulating God and prescribing His behavior as if it were a natural piece of meat, which you postulate and then turn around and claim you can't find it.
I found this quote interesting, but this part of the quote irks me a bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by WyattGwyon
From my interpretation, this comparison is incorrect. If we are looking from the perspective of God being omniscient and omnipotent, and him knowing exactly what our every move and decision will be, and how we will come to look, this is a flawed comparison. A carpenter can vision a table, or a chair, but he will never know for a hundred per cent what it will come to look like. Even if he follows his plans perfectly, there will always be a scratch too many or too little which he did not picture beforehand. In that sense he can only make a general picture of it in his mind, a blueprint of the shape and properties he would ideally like it to have. He is also unable to see where it will end up, e.g. who will buy it and how it will be used, and he is most definitely not able to envision the scars it will collect over the years, and how its existence as a table or chair will end. Things which, from the perspective of God being omniscient, would all be visible to him beforehand. Whereas our creations will never truly end up the way we pictured them, God's creations will always end up the way he pictured them. Therefore, this is a comparison that to my view cannot be made, and is much more like a contrast than anything else.
But if God is supernatural how can he interact with nature? How can he impregnate a woman and produce a Virgin birth? If you say he didn't do that, then what did he do? If he's totally outside nature then how can he be even said to exist?Quote:
Originally Posted by cafolini
That something is defined as supernatural does not have to mean that it cannot interact with the natural, though. Supernatural by definition only means that it is something that cannot be explained by science, which is exactly what God is. Unexplainable by science. The fact that he is supernatural, however, does not have to mean that he cannot interact with us, and (to some people) we cannot interact with him.Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
I agree. If the quotation was to be attributed to me, I would have excluded the part you point out. It is, however, the speech of a fictional character which I chose not to edit by removing that passage. (Probably should have removed it.)Quote:
Originally Posted by EvoWarrior5
Nah don't worry about it. Quotes should never be edited. I failed to realise when I made my post that it was from a fictional character, in my mind I thought for a second that it was from a religious philosopher or something. Well technically the writer of the novel (?) did write it so maybe he did in fact have this view himself. Where is it from?Quote:
Originally Posted by WyattGwyon
Also, to this thread in general, I find it interesting how on both sides, the views seem to be strong, instead of some people having a midway. One side composes of people who do not believe in God and have used arguments such as 'then why do bad things happen?' or 'why can I not hear him?' and on the other side are the strongly religious people who believe that God has a big plan which will make us realise that everything is perfect. I would also have expected to see more of an Enlightenment point of view, where some people (deists) started to believe that God was not really this omniscient being that brings good to the people who deserve it and punish those who have done bad, but instead, that he was the creator of man who no longer takes action or influences our lives. That all of our developments, growth, good things, bad things etc. do not come from him, but from our own thinking. This gives the idea of freedom a lot more, and to me, gives a lot more sense to the concept of Hell. If there is a Hell, then people who have sinned a lot would go there. Why would God let this happen, since his plan would be to get everybody an eternal life in Heaven? If God created us but man is responsible for their own sins, those who do good can live with God, but those that do bad would go to Hell. As I said earlier, this, to me, gives more meaning to the concepts of freedom and of hell.
I must say that I am not religious myself, but I liked this point of view and I am wondering if there is anybody who believes in this, rather than believing in a bigger plan or not believing in any religion.
We can only know God by his acts, and there is no good evidence that his supposed acts (immaculate conception, resurrection, burning bush...) ever happened. Therefore there is no good evidence that he exists, whether he is supernatural, natural, or "something else".Quote:
Originally Posted by EvoWarrior5
I can agree with this, but you said that if he was supernatural that there would be no way for him to interact with us, which I defended by saying that this does not have to be true by definition. What you said earlier differs from what you say now; that instead of it not being possible, that there is no proof that it is true. This is a different case and I cannot argue about it. There is no solid evidence that he is real or that he is fiction. What I think however, is that absence of proof does not have to be proof of absence. I am open to a lot of views (which unfortunately limits my debating, especially in this case when there is no concrete evidence).Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
Why would that be God's plan? Sounds more like your plan.:) Most Christian sects believe in the all powerful, Old Testament God, who condemns sinners to eternal torment in hell. Some of the "nicer" sects, like some branches of the good old Church of England, have come up with the concept of a "nicer" God. This holds that people don't go to a permanent torment in hell, they go to purgatory and work off their sins, so that eventually everyone ends up in heaven. They reckon it's still worth becoming Christian on Earth, because you avoid a very long slog through purgatory.Quote:
Originally Posted by EvoWarrior5
I didn't say that, I asked a question, "But if God is supernatural how can he interact with nature?" I can't see how a supernatural God could interact with nature. Every time people have looked for the cause of events they have been able to find a natural cause. For instance, when looking for the cause of life they used to think there might be a supernatural "elan vital", but then scientists showed we do not need to postulate such a thing, as chemistry and biology can quite adequately explain how life comes about from generation and growth of chemical & biological structures. Lightning bolts were once though to be caused by an angry (perhaps supernatural?) God, but meteorologists found a better explanation, using basic physics & chemistry. So for all the events we see there is a physical explanation. There are only a few events (immaculate conception, resurrection...) that are holding on as possibilities for being supernatural events, but it seems like a desperate holding on, especially as Christians hold that they can only happened once, and that was 2000 years ago. Very neat... beyond any chance of all conquering science explaining them away as well. But why should we believe that these "one off" events happened? There is no good evidence for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by EvoWarrior5
I'll accept that, along with Richard Dawkins. There can be no absolute proof of absence. But there is no proof of absence for Thor, Tooth Fairy, or Zeus. But do you believe in these things? Will you put a fallen tooth under your pillow, or raise hymns to the Gods of Mount Olympus and Valhalla, just in case, just to keep them happy. If not, why should you believe in the Christian God, and make similar genuflections to an almost-certain absence.Quote:
absence of proof does not have to be proof of absence.