fayfreethinkers.com

See here.



Cerebral palsy sufferer broke both legs on 'healing pilgrimage'

A cerebral palsy sufferer took a pilgrimage to Lourdes in the hope it would help her condition returned home with two broken legs after falling from a hoist.

The family of wheelchair-bound Patricia Mitchell are taking legal action against the organisers of the trip.

Ms Mitchell survived the 4ft fall, but her family claim, she never fully recovered and died earlier this year aged 63.

...Mrs Featherstone, 60, said: "You go to Lourdes to get cured and she came back with two broken legs. It's unbelievable."

...Two volunteer carers had just helped bathe Mr Mitchell when she fell about 4ft to the ground from a hoist.

She was assessed by a nurse but was told she had not sustained serious injuries, her sisters say.

It was only when Mrs Mitchell returned to the North East that it emerged she had broken her left leg in three places and her right leg once.

...Mrs Scarr said: "It's so sad. She was disabled, but she led a good life and I think if it wasn't for the fall, she would still be here today."

That's a horrible story Doug but it has very little to do with the possibility that faith can lesson symptoms of various maladies, including normal everyday existence for some people. I say it can!

That is not to say that what happened to Patricia Mitchell was in any way excusable but faith can help dire medical circumstances and can ease suffering, so don't POO POO it without at least trying to understand it's potential advantages.

Why don't you just leave it alone and let them believe what they want to.
It's no skin off your nose. They ain't hurtin' nobody but themselves.
If you can't understand just let it go....

gray

graybear13 wrote:Why don't you just leave it alone and let them believe what they want to.
It's no skin off your nose. They ain't hurtin' nobody but themselves.

Bullshit. This type of thinking leads to stuff like this:

http://www.skepticmoney.com/infants-eye ... -and-prey/

And there are plenty more examples like this one. Laws are being changed to hold "faith healing" parents accountable. Parents are in jail for neglect.

graybear13 wrote:it has very little to do with the possibility that faith can lesson symptoms of various maladies, including normal everyday existence for some people. I say it can!

You say it can. I have evidence that it doesn't.

GRAYBEAR
Why don't you just leave it alone and let them believe what they want to.
It's no skin off your nose. They ain't hurtin' nobody but themselves.

DAR
Hey Graybear, start your education here:

What's the Harm?

More specifically faith healing.

Tip of the iceberg.

graybear13 wrote:...so don't POO POO it without at least trying to understand it's [sic] potential advantages.

DOUG
I have studied it. I have read analyses of more than one study on the subject. Faith healing never works when it's scientifically tested to see if it works.

Now here's the advice for you: Don't RAH RAH it without at least trying to understand its potential disadvantages.

Faith healing kills. See Darrel's links above.

I do have to say she doesn't have a case unless there is much more to the story. She CHOOSE to buy into this. She CHOOSE to take part. Things happen and people fall, get hurt, and die. It's not always someone's fault. As for the issue at hand, I am slightly divided. On one hand I don't want anyone telling me what I can and can not do/believe in. On the other hand there certainly is a line to be drawn where this kind of silliness gets taken to what certainly seems to be its natural ends and you have parents refusing to seek medical attention for their children. It's a difficult issue. As for this healing pool...well...I mean I don't see that it does any harm so long as they are not discouraging people from seeking actual medical treatment. However you are more likely to catch some contagion as to get "miraculously healed". At any rate I don't think anyone should be held liable just for playing makebelieve. At least not in this case. But I reserve the right to judge on a case by case basis.

Kevin

kwlyon wrote:As for this healing pool...well...I mean I don't see that it does any harm so long as they are not discouraging people from seeking actual medical treatment. However you are more likely to catch some contagion as to get "miraculously healed".

DAR
Exactly right. Here is an old blurb I've had for years:

"A surgeon in Ireland was puzzled when a 72-year-old woman twice developed serious eye infections just prior to having cataract surgery. What caused the infections? "Holy" water from Lourdes that she had put on her face. "The problem," says The Irish Times, "is that holy water is often contaminated by dangerous bacteria." The woman might easily have been blinded by the infection if the surgery had been performed as scheduled. The Irish Times continues: "Blessing simply doesn't kill germs. And the sprinkling of holy water that is meant to cure, may actually cause life-threatening infection in certain circumstances." According to the report, well-meaning friends or relative who sprinkle you with "holy" water when you are in the hospital may be "the greatest risk to your survival." --Awake! 3/22/97

Darrel wrote:And the sprinkling of holy water that is meant to cure, may actually cause life-threatening infection in certain circumstances.

DOUG
This belief has become a serious problem in India. It has long been the belief in India that the river Ganges is a goddess and her waters are sacred. A corollary is that people there believe that no bacteria can survive in the water because it is sacred. People bathe in it, drink from it, dump sewage in it, water cattle in it, and dispose of the dead in it.

In bygone days, the river could handle a lot of this. But the population has grown so much, this combination of practices is now lethal.


By some estimates, 2 million people a day bathe in the Ganges.

From another link, here.

"Polluted river water is the biggest cause of skin problems, disabilities and high infant mortality rates," says Suresh Babu, deputy coordinator of the River Pollution Campaign at the Center for Science and the Environmet, a watchdog group in New Delhi, India's capital.

These health problems are compounded by the fact that many Hindus refuse to accept that Mother Ganga has become a source of illness.

"People have so much faith in this water that when they bathe in it or sip it, they believe it is the nectar of God [and] they will go to heaven," says Ramesh Chandra Trivedi, a scientist at the Central Pollution Control Board, the monitoring arm of India's Ministry of the Environment and Forests.

...Rakesh Jaiswal [said] while studying for his doctorate in environmental politics, "I opened the tap at home and found black, viscous, stinking water coming out. After one month, it happened again, then it was happeing once a week, then daily. My neighbors experienced the same thing."

Jaiswal traced the drinking water to an intake channel on the Ganges. There he made a horrifying discovery: two drains carrying raw sewage, including contaminated discharge from a tuberculosis sanitarium, were emptying right beside the intake point. "Fifty million gallons a day were being lifted and sent to the water-treatment plant, which couldn't clean it. It was horrifying."

Mishra says he's especially concerned for the future of India's most devout Hindus, whose lives are entirely focused on Mother Ganga. He calls them an endangered species. "They want to touch the water, rub their bodies in the water, sip the water," he said, "and someday they will die because if it."

Darrel wrote:Hey Graybear, start your education here:
.

More like indoctrination. Obviously the children have to be protected. "There are no christian children, only children that happen to have christian parents."

MEDICINE UNDER THE SHAMANS The entire life of ancient men was prophylactic; their religion was in no small measure a technique for disease prevention. And regardless of the error in their theories, they were wholehearted in putting them into effect; they had unbounded faith in their methods of treatment, and that, in itself, is a powerful remedy.

For centuries the Egyptians placed their faith in tombs as the safeguard of the body in the afterlife.

Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen.
Faith is an effective armor against wrong doing.
Faith is the act by which man earns Gods favor.
Faith is the only requirement for eternal salvation.
All men, high and low, can attain bliss by faith in righteousness and justice.

Reason is the method of science; faith is the method of religion.
Reason is the proof of science, faith the proof of religion.
Though reason can always question faith, faith can always supplement both reason and logic.
Science is sustained by reason, religion by faith. Faith, though not based on reason, is reasonable.

If your nonreligious approaches to cosmic reality presume to challenge the certainty of faith on the grounds of its unproved status, then I can likewise resort to the dogmatic challenge of the facts of science and the beliefs of philosophy on the grounds that they are likewise unproved; they are just experiences in the consciousness of the scientist or philosopher. My view point may seem unusual to you but my unending finite reality is just as valid as yours.

jag

graybear13 wrote:Obviously the children have to be protected. "There are no christian children, only children that happen to have christian parents."

You sound like Dawkins.

graybear13 wrote:And regardless of the error in their theories, they were wholehearted in putting them into effect; they had unbounded faith in their methods of treatment, and that, in itself, is a powerful remedy.

Perhaps for piddly or wholly emotional maladies. People who aren't religious kooks call this the placebo effect.

graybear13 wrote:Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen.
....
Faith, though not based on reason, is reasonable.

No, it's not. You said so yourself: it's hope for things for which there is a lack of evidence. Believing that something is true without evidence for its existence is unreasonable.

graybear13 wrote:... I can likewise resort to the dogmatic challenge of the facts of science and the beliefs of philosophy on the grounds that they are likewise unproved; they are just experiences in the consciousness of the scientist or philosopher.

1. No, they're not just experiences. You're no scientist, but I could show you a photographic plate with an electron diffraction pattern on it. The plate is not an experience.
2. By this standard, nothing can be proved. I'll elaborate: Let's suppose that "experiences in the consciousness" can't be trusted. What, then, can we trust? There is nothing left, not even religious/spiritual "experiences." The best you can do is argue that we can't trust science by arguing that we can't know anything? Then the argument would become: What is the most reliable? For this, science beats faith, hands down, as shown by examples provided in this very thread.

graybear13 wrote:My view point may seem unusual to you...

Not really. Billions of people have stupid beliefs like yours.

graybear13 wrote:but my unending finite reality is just as valid as yours.

Only if you take the position that your own delusion "reality" must be just as invalid as you claim ours to be, which is nuts on its face. Science makes testable, useful predictions that are correct. Faith does nothing of the sort.

None of this really needs to be said, but I am going to say it anyway.

Poor Graybear, he knows how to pile claims on top of themselves but he doesn't bother to check and see if a single one of them is actually true.

But you know what Graybear's problem really is? He's not intellectually honest. He is an intellectual coward, afraid, terrified of ideas that show his beliefs are wrong.

He said: "Why don't you just leave it alone and let them believe what they want to. It's no skin off your nose. They ain't hurtin' nobody but themselves."

Then he had his ass handed to him and was shown to be completely and utterly wrong. The response of an honest person, someone who was interested in truth, accuracy and believing things that are true would have been to say, "oh yes I see, I was wrong" or, "let me try that again."

Instead we get all of this regurgitated boiler plate faith babble brought up from the lower limbic fear based part of his brain. This is not how an emotionally mature adult acts. It's how a child trapped in an adult body acts.

Look at this favorite trick with the canard at Hebrews 11:1

"Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen."

Unfortunately most people who babble about faith haven't bothered to learn what the word faith means. I know, because I regularly ask Christians and they can't answer. Amazing but true.

faith n.
1. unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence
2. unquestioning belief in God, religious tenets, etc.

Faith is never a reason to believe. It is only called upon when there is a lack of a reason to believe. But those who have given their thinking capacity over to (and let's not beat around the bushes here) religious insanity, have learned a little trick. When they hear the word "faith" or say the word "faith" they have learned to make a little bell go off in their noggin. ~Ding!~ They pretend that this little bell sound means they have said something meaningful or that they have just given an actual piece of evidence in support of their claim. They pretend they have actually just given a reason to believe in something. They haven't of course but they are so brainwashed, so desperate to hold up their house of cards based upon nothing, so desperate to believe what they want to believe in spite of having no good reason, so desperate to receive eternal candy from the sky God that they will participate in this idiotic childish game rather than admit they have no reason to believe any of their shit.

Ding!

Did you hear the faith bell? Dinner is ready and some horseshit is about to be served.

And then look at this, which really reveals how deeply the intellectual rot of "faith" has eaten into Graybear's frontal lobes and the ability to think rationally:

If your nonreligious approaches to cosmic reality presume to challenge the certainty of faith on the grounds of its unproved status,

DAR
The "certainty" of "faith"? Did you really say that? On purpose?

then I can likewise resort to the dogmatic challenge of the facts of science and the beliefs of philosophy on the grounds that they are likewise unproved; they are just experiences in the consciousness of the scientist or philosopher.

DAR
Okay, this is the same shit that libertarian theocrat presuppositionalist Ed Garrett pulled on me when he was totally and completely, utterly, stuck. We can't know anything because we could all be brains in a vat, minds hooked up to the Matrix, software programs running on alien software etc. He might possibly be right because, ultimately, we can't know anything thus all claims go in the same pot of unknowable. What is the name for this last ditch defense? Doug do you know? Solipism? Existentialism? Stupidity on stilts?

I'll post this classic quote again because it directly addresses the notion of faith as a reason to believe. It was written for Christianity but it works just as well for the bearshit Graybear pulls from his ass. He didn't learn any of the other times I posted it for him, and he won't learn this time, but I still think it is useful for others.

D.
--------------------
APPEALS TO FAITH
"By appealing to faith, the Christian wishes to claim the status of
knowledge for beliefs that have not fulfilled the minimum requirements of
knowledge. Indeed, this is the only context in which the appeal to faith
makes sense. But to label as "knowledge" that which has not been rationally
demonstrated is a contradiction, because reason demands that nothing be
designated as knowledge except that which can fulfill its fundamental
requirements.

This is the essence of faith: to consider an idea as true even though it
cannot meet the test of truth, to consider an idea as having a referent in
reality while rejecting the process by which man knows reality. Regardless
of the particular manner in which the Christian characterizes his version
of faith, he cannot escape its irrational bias. His only chance of escape,
to claim that articles of faith can also meet the requirements of reason,
is a dead end, because it renders the concept of faith inapplicable. Faith
is possible only in the case of beliefs that lack rational demonstration.
Since faith must entail belief in the absence of rational demonstration,
all propositions of faith--regardless of their specific content--are
irrational. To believe on faith is to believe in defiance of rational
guidelines, and this is the essence of irrationalism.

Because of this inherent irrationalism, faith can never rescue the
concept of God or the truth of Christian dogmas. Faith is required only for
those beliefs that cannot be defended. Only if one's beliefs are
indefensible--and only if one wishes to retain these beliefs in spite of
their indefensibility--is the appeal to faith necessary. If the Christian
wishes to argue for the rationality of his convictions, he should stick
with presenting evidence and arguments, and he should never appeal to faith
in the first place. The Christian who calls upon faith has already admitted
the irrationality of his belief; he has already conceded that his beliefs
cannot be defended through reason.

If we cannot understand the concept of God, we do not come closer to
understanding it through faith. If the doctrines of Christianity are
absurd, they do not lose their absurdity through faith. If there are no
reasons to believe in Christianity, we do not gain reasons through faith.
Faith does not erase contradictions and absurdities; it merely allows one
to believe in spite of contradictions and absurdities.

The appeal to faith solves nothing and explains nothing; it merely
diverts attention away from the crucial issue of truth. In the final
analysis, not only is the concept of faith irreconcilably opposed to
reason, but it is evasive and quite useless as well."

--George H. Smith, (Atheism: The Case Against God, Prometheus Books 1989, pp. 123-124)

Darrel wrote:He is an intellectual coward, afraid, terrified of ideas that show his beliefs are wrong.

This may well be the only point I disagree with. In general, I believe that we are obligated to take issue, vocally and publicly, with faith. Faith is not the evidence of things unseen...it is little more than wishful thinking and does quite a lot of harm. It has no place in the enlightened world. Hope, on the other hand...that is a different matter. Be that as it may, I could not disagree with Jim more...but he is no coward. He is here defending his ideas. (I'm not sure exactly why but I rather enjoy his exchanges). The man is on a freethinker forum discussing faith! Boy got some balls! At any rate, I have nothing more to offer on the matter here. If you want to talk religion and faith some time, Jim, we should grab a beer:)

Kevin

Now I want to give this a little line by line toasting.

graybear13 wrote: MEDICINE UNDER THE SHAMANS The entire life of ancient men was prophylactic; their religion was in no small measure a technique for disease prevention.

DAR
And it was for the most part a failure. Unless you want to argue for the wonderful successes of witchdoctors.

Incidentally, lest anyone thing Graybear squeezed out this stinking pile on his own, he didn't. As he has done in the past, he plagiarized it entirely from that stinking pile known as The Urantia Book. A book which can effectively remove the functioning ability of the frontal lobe material by rendering all language useless and stupid. It's much like church except in some instances faster acting. He stole his snatch of text, from here:

http://www.textfiles.com/occult/URANTIA/p090.txt

And regardless of the error in their theories, they were wholehearted in putting them into effect;

DAR
Right. And those interested in discovering the truth of a given matter, don't give points for "wholeheartedness." That's a fail.

they had unbounded faith in their methods of treatment, and that, in itself, is a powerful remedy.

DAR
Actually, it isn't. (except for some personal placebo benefit SAV referred to)

For centuries the Egyptians placed their faith in tombs as the safeguard of the body in the afterlife.

DAR
Right. And since they are still dead, nothing needed to be guarded except for the treasures they hid (mostly long stolen now). Regarding claims about the afterlife, these are monuments to human wishful thinking (or stupidity).

Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen.

DAR
Hoping for something doesn't give it substance. Not seeing something is in no sense "evidence." This is one of the most profoundly dishonest texts in the Bible (and thus a favorite) and the competition for that position is steep. Here is another howler from James 5:16

"The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much."

No it doesn't. All tests of intercessory prayer fail. But look at the dishonesty with language. Who could be so stupid as to be fooled by it? They put the word "effectual" in there as if something has been accomplished by its mere assertion! It's like saying "faith" and pretending you have given a reason to believe something when you have not.

Faith is an effective armor against wrong doing.

DAR
Weren't the Indians told they had invisible shields that could stop bullets? That's faith in action. That's a bunch of dead Indians.

Faith is the act by which man earns Gods favor.

DAR
But for that you would need to have a God. And no one has ever shown one of those to exist.

Faith is the only requirement for eternal salvation.

DAR
I think the Urantia Book is mostly stuff that was too stupid to be included in earlier religious books. It's crap that should have been left on the cutting room floor. That's why it's largely ignored.

All men, high and low, can attain bliss by faith in righteousness and justice.

DAR
As someone once noted, if the goal is bliss, no doubt ignorance may be one of the paths to it.

Reason is the method of science; faith is the method of religion.

DAR
One works, one doesn't. See world history.

Reason is the proof of science, faith the proof of religion.

DAR
Faith is the anti-thesis of proof.

Though reason can always question faith, faith can always supplement both reason and logic.

DAR
Let's hear a reason to believe that one.

Science is sustained by reason, religion by faith. Faith, though not based on reason, is reasonable.

DAR
Who didn't see that contradiction coming? (besides graybear)

My view point may seem unusual to you but my unending finite reality is just as valid as yours.

DAR
And we get one more contradiction for good measure: "unending finite reality." You're a soothsayer who can't rhyme, a meta-physician who can't reason. I only hold to view points for which there are good reasons to believe. If you had good reasons for your beliefs, you wouldn't have to appeal to faith.

D.
-----------------------------
"A harness must be placed on reason to manufacture the need for faith. If reason is released from its bondage, faith is its first--and
only--victim." --George H. Smith

kwlyon wrote:

Darrel wrote:He is an intellectual coward, afraid, terrified of ideas that show his beliefs are wrong.

KEV
I could not disagree with Jim more...but he is no coward. He is here defending his ideas.

DAR
Well I guess it takes a little gumption to anonymously poke freethinkers with cut and paste from the Urantia book. But surely it doesn't take very much. Here is what I am saying is cowardly. After he said:

"Why don't you just leave it alone and let them believe what they want to.
It's no skin off your nose. They ain't hurtin' nobody but themselves."

and it was so clearly shown to be false, he had the option of admitting what everyone knew to be true anyway. He didn't do that. He avoided the option that would have demonstrated a little courage and went instead with a cut and paste of ridiculous/absurd incoherent defensive blather.

KEV (I'm not sure exactly why but I rather enjoy his exchanges).

DAR
Because you are a little addicted to crazy people too.

You should go and chat with Tom Brown at the farmers market. He's got a whole eight foot table full of crazy. He's the fellow with the church based upon marijuana. He sells a bumper sticker that says something like: "Ask me what Jesus said about marijuana."

The human body has about 22 major organs. Usually they work flawlessly, but on occasion they don't work well or have problems. The brain, perhaps the most complex organ of all, needs to be programmed with stimulus and if we want effective higher function, then it needs education. But life is hard and people play around with drugs, or they have a chemical imbalance, or a genetic miswire or they are forced to read religious literature in their youth or maybe they get hit in the head with a board. Sometimes the brain just doesn't interact with the real world well. This happens a lot more than is commonly acknowledged (see Fox News). Anyway, as Bill Harter likes to point out, we are lucky we have as many functionable adults as we do considering how evolution has patched the human brain together with leftover parts from previous attempts.

D.

Darrel wrote:Well I guess it takes a little gumption to anonymously poke freethinkers with cut and paste from the Urantia book.

I'm not defending his material. However he is not poking anyone anonymously. He had the courage to meet with me (admittedly one of the more genteel freethinkers) and I must say I was rather disappointed with our meeting. As you have said, I am a bit addicted to crazy. I like to poke crazy people with the quintessential stick--I find them fascinating. I found Jim, in person, to be rather humble and straightforward. He has plenty of ideas that I think are a little cooky. He has an interest in science and experimentation however, being rather untrained in the pursuit of either, tends to head down what would otherwise be easily avoidable dead ends. In contrast to his post online, he was rather quick to qualify his ideas and recognize that he was not a physicist. He showed me some of his work on his "vortex" machine and though I don't think it in any way supports his ill conceived ideas regarding gravity (so few people understand gravitation at even the most rudimentary level) they certainly represent an immense amount of work and I think, at the very least, he will end up with a rather impressive demo. He may even learn a few things quite accidentally. Hey, as long as he is not trying to market a free energy machine I will never discourage him from such endeavors. I found him to be not the least bit crazy, but rather just another basement warrior. Everybody wants to be a scientist. It has become uber geek chic. And I am very aware of how privileged I am to have been given the opportunity to pursue a career in physics. Had I not had such an opportunity, I would certainly still be a basement warrior! I hope this doesn't sound condescending...I am just trying to express that, though we can't all be scientist, I highly encourage people to be basement warriors...you will likely learn something. Just try to stay humble and recognize that the experts generally do know what they are talking about with regards to their field of study--this advice goes for scientist as well as we rely on the expertise of everyone else.

We spoke a bit on religious issues as well and he was very accepting of my perspective though we certainly do see the world quite differently. I think perhaps I feel he underestimates the danger "faith" and religious belief poses to our future and I think he probably maintains that I underestimate the role of faith in providing comfort and inspiring general "goodness". The point is we had our disagreements yet the conversation was exceedingly civil and quite enjoyable. I will have to buy him a beer some time in exchange for another chat. Honestly, Jim reminds me a lot of my stepdad. Very intelligent, but not well educated in the sciences. I think he shows up on this forum because he is more open minded than he is given credit for. I think he shares his often rather quacky ideas precisely because his is not afraid of criticism but rather is interested in learning what he can. However, judging from his previous discussions on the forum, it would be an understatement to call him stubborn! And I think he, like so many others, likes to argue. This is my take on the Greying Bear. Quacky as he may be...he is no Tom Brown (though I have meet Tom and I find him to be NUUUUUUUTTTTTTTTSSSSSS!....Though also a nice guy......but CRAZZZZYYYYYY as a shit house rat.)

Kevin

kwlyon wrote:

Darrel wrote:He is an intellectual coward, afraid, terrified of ideas that show his beliefs are wrong.

. Be that as it may, I could not disagree with Jim more...but he is no coward. He is here defending his ideas. (I'm not sure exactly why but I rather enjoy his exchanges). The man is on a freethinker forum discussing faith! Boy got some balls! At any rate, I have nothing more to offer on the matter here. If you want to talk religion and faith some time, Jim, we should grab a beer:)

Kevin

Thank you Kevin,

I'm not sure why either...I guess I was bored, work has been a little slow lately and I wanted to engage in a little gamesmanship.

I'm not afraid to have my views totally rejected, it happens all the time. What I am afraid of is not having faith in my view. I have been there ...that is scary!

Sure...lets get together and talk about cosmic realities over a couple of cold ones, maybe we can come to a better understanding of some, yet to be proven truth.

Jim

graybear13 wrote:I'm not afraid to have my views totally rejected, it happens all the time.

Hint, hint.

graybear13 wrote:What I am afraid of is not having faith in my view.

And according to our discussion of the meaning of "faith," this translates to, "I am afraid of needing reason for my view." So Darrel had it right: He is a coward.

graybear13 wrote:I'm not afraid to have my views totally rejected, it happens all the time. What I am afraid of is not having faith in my view. I have been there ...that is scary!

I have no idea what you mean by this...I might say I have a lot of "faith" in a particular view as I have found a great deal of support for said view...however my use of the term faith here is a bit of a misnomer. I take comfort in the knowledge that many of my ideas seem to have practical value or are seemingly congruent with reality as they are supported by evidence. If I turn out to be at odds with reality however, I certainly do wish to be corrected....is this what you mean?

greybear13 wrote:Sure...lets get together and talk about cosmic realities over a couple of cold ones, maybe we can come to a better understanding of some, yet to be proven truth.

GOD WILLS IT!!!! I believe in BEER!!!!

P.S. You get a cookie if you can name the two movie references made above:)

Savonarola wrote:Hint, hint.

Sav, I love you man....but you aren't getting my budlight!

Darrel wrote: Unfortunately most people who babble about faith haven't bothered to learn what the word faith means. I know, because I regularly ask Christians and they can't answer. Amazing but true.

faith n.
1. unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence
2. unquestioning belief in God, religious tenets, etc.

It must be very hard to be a scientist or someone who cannot acknowledge anything that cannot be proven. Sav says I am stupid because I have faith in knowledge that I cannot prove; Maybe stupid is not the right word but I am certainly less up tight .

Your profanity and intellectual dishonesty concerning your particular viewpoint of unending finite reality is offensive to me but I don't really give a shit...it's no skin of my nose.

The point I was trying to make was, like it or not, faith has played a big role in the evolution of mankind up to this point...I dare say that science, philosophy, and your narrow little, profane, view would not have had a chance to develop had it not been for faith. Faith is what tamed the beast and allowed science and philosophy to thrive...civilization to survive.

It seems like a fools mission to attempt to destroy faith and release the "Kraken" that will destroy civilization and sink mankind into anarchy.

I think you would be surprised at the number o people out there that don't know the difference between "bullshit"and "goatshit"....or even bearshit for that matter.

Best Regards,

Gray