Don'tcha love 2x2 matrixes...

[luke warm]

I'm interested in whether this example affects your opinion.

i don't know yet... from your pov, what does this section mean?

 

"The problem, then, is whether to quantify the whole ring as a single species (despite the fact that not all individuals can interbreed) or to classify each population as a distinct species (despite the fact that it can interbreed with its near neighbours). Ring species illustrate that the species concept is not as clear-cut as it is often understood to be."

 

what does the "... not as clear-cut ..." part mean, to you?

Occam's Razor.  A supreme being requires a large number of unlikely things to be assumed.  Spontaneous generation of life just requires the right chemicals and energy sources to be around, and it only has to happen once.

i missed quite a bit this past week but i'd like to revisit this... what large number of things must be assumed for a supreme being, other than his existence?

[jdonn]

i missed quite a bit this past week but i'd like to revisit this... what large number of things must be assumed for a supreme being, other than his existence?

You are stating the same thing twice and simply rewording it. When you ask what must be assumed 'for a supreme being', you are really asking what must be assumed for a supreme being to exist. I agree with you that all that's required for it to exist is for it to exist. And along similar lines, all that's required for the Bridgebase forums to appear on my computer screen is for Bridgebase forums to appear on my computer screen. However I do not consider a discussion along those lines to be very useful.

[luke warm]

i missed quite a bit this past week but i'd like to revisit this... what large number of things must be assumed for a supreme being, other than his existence?

You are stating the same thing twice and simply rewording it. When you ask what must be assumed 'for a supreme being', you are really asking what must be assumed for a supreme being to exist. I agree with you that all that's required for it to exist is for it to exist. And along similar lines, all that's required for the Bridgebase forums to appear on my computer screen is for Bridgebase forums to appear on my computer screen. However I do not consider a discussion along those lines to be very useful.

no i'm not, i'm asking for clarification... a statement was made concerning a 'large number of things' and i was asking for examples... your analogy is not apt imo

[PassedOut]

I'm interested in whether this example affects your opinion.

i don't know yet... from your pov, what does this section mean?

 

"The problem, then, is whether to quantify the whole ring as a single species (despite the fact that not all individuals can interbreed) or to classify each population as a distinct species (despite the fact that it can interbreed with its near neighbours). Ring species illustrate that the species concept is not as clear-cut as it is often understood to be."

 

what does the "... not as clear-cut ..." part mean, to you?

It means that ring species illustrate clearly that there is no distinction between micro- and macro-evolution.

[mikeh]

I'm interested in whether this example affects your opinion.

i don't know yet... from your pov, what does this section mean?

 

"The problem, then, is whether to quantify the whole ring as a single species (despite the fact that not all individuals can interbreed) or to classify each population as a distinct species (despite the fact that it can interbreed with its near neighbours). Ring species illustrate that the species concept is not as clear-cut as it is often understood to be."

 

what does the "... not as clear-cut ..." part mean, to you?

Occam's Razor.  A supreme being requires a large number of unlikely things to be assumed.  Spontaneous generation of life just requires the right chemicals and energy sources to be around, and it only has to happen once.

i missed quite a bit this past week but i'd like to revisit this... what large number of things must be assumed for a supreme being, other than his existence?

While I do not disagree with Josh, I would reframe the issue about the existence of a Supreme Being by suggesting that the assumption that such a being exists begs a lot of questions, including:

 

1. When did this being come into existence

 

2. Was the supreme being created by something else (and we can see that if the answer is affirmative, we get to ask all these questions again)

 

3. into what environment was this being first created?

 

4. what mechanism did this being use to create the universe

 

5. of what material, substance, energy is this being made

 

6. by means of what mechanism does this being sustain itself

 

I appreciate that the simplistic answer to these questions will no doubt be that supreme beings by definition operate outside of such petty concerns... but if that is your answer, then you have indeed shut your mind off at the boundary of the issue. A refusal to consider these questions is a closing of the intellect, and no amount of self-sustaining bullshit can hide that fact, except from oneself..

 

If, otoh, you try to answer these questions, then you are engaged in making all kinds of assumptions or speculations or theories which are far more than one need make about the origins of life if you study science. I know you find the conclusions suggested by science to be repugnant to your world view.. but the truth remains whether you accept it or not.

 

Of course, so far scince has been unable to answer questions about what, if anything, preceded the origins of our universe, but they are getting ever closer...and certainly science has been able to show how our current universe has unfolded, since tiny fractions of a second after its initiation, without needing to resort to a supreme being. If a supreme being existed ALL the real evidence suggests that it has done nothing to evidence its involvement since the universe was set in motion. So the notion of a supreme being still playing a role in the universe is completely unnecessary. And the whole idea of a supreme being to whom we can and should pray is based on the notion that it continues to play a role. Thus to assume the ongoing existence of a active supreme being is idiotic.

 

If the only people hurt by your sort of belief structure were your fellow religionists, then it would merely be amusing. But the sad thing is that unthinking belief in supreme beings underlies much of large scale human suffering throughout history.

[Codo]

Mikeh,

 

you asked some questions.

 

But why?

 

If you belive in a supernatural being, why should you bother to answer these questions?

You can simply accept that the work and "life" of this being are still beyond your and mine understanding- and will ever be.

 

If you cannot accept that there are areas which we will never understand (in religion and in science), you have a view, which is quite common but which I do not share. I belive that our knowledge is still very limited. It is increasing with lightning speed, but it is still small.

 

And if you are an atheist, why do you care about these questions? You don`t belive, so why ask about´something you don`t belive in?

 

So the questions are quite pointless in my view.

[Codo]

Well, to start with...

 

What we (meaning humanity) is attempting to do is to create a working hypothesis about how we all got here. This is in no way equivalent to making assumptions about how God works.

 

You yourself are admitting that Occam's Razor is a useful tool to build hypotheses. It seems strange that you are so opposed to applying it in this specific case.

 

As to your example about stars...

 

Bodies with a large amout of mass rarely move at relativistic speeds.

You're confusing stars and photons...

Very different things...

 

As is lightning (Blitz) and light

Sorry, I read some posts like:

 

"There cannot be a superantural being which gifted us with life, because according to "Occams Razor" there is an easier possibility, so the possibility that a God exists must be wrong."

 

 

I tried to say that Occams Razor is no profe for or against anything, it is just a way to built a hypothesis which you can use till it is proved or disproved.

 

And by no way Occams razor says that just the easiest hypothesis is right.

 

So we can use this tool and check whether or not a supernatural being is the easiest way to explain many things we cannot explain yet. Maybe sometimes it is, maybe sometimes it is not. But this make a supernatural being not more or less likely to exist.

[luke warm]

I'm interested in whether this example affects your opinion.

i don't know yet... from your pov, what does this section mean?

 

"The problem, then, is whether to quantify the whole ring as a single species (despite the fact that not all individuals can interbreed) or to classify each population as a distinct species (despite the fact that it can interbreed with its near neighbours). Ring species illustrate that the species concept is not as clear-cut as it is often understood to be."

 

what does the "... not as clear-cut ..." part mean, to you?

It means that ring species illustrate clearly that there is no distinction between micro- and macro-evolution.

then i guess we have opposite views on what the article purports to prove... i must be missing something, but it seems difficult for "... Ring species illustrate that the species concept is not as clear-cut as it is often understood to be." to be interpreted as your "It means that ring species illustrate clearly that there is no distinction between micro- and macro-evolution."

 

how do you get "... illustrates clearly ..." from "... not as clear-cut ..."?

I'm interested in whether this example affects your opinion.

i don't know yet... from your pov, what does this section mean?

 

"The problem, then, is whether to quantify the whole ring as a single species (despite the fact that not all individuals can interbreed) or to classify each population as a distinct species (despite the fact that it can interbreed with its near neighbours). Ring species illustrate that the species concept is not as clear-cut as it is often understood to be."

 

what does the "... not as clear-cut ..." part mean, to you?

Occam's Razor.  A supreme being requires a large number of unlikely things to be assumed.  Spontaneous generation of life just requires the right chemicals and energy sources to be around, and it only has to happen once.

i missed quite a bit this past week but i'd like to revisit this... what large number of things must be assumed for a supreme being, other than his existence?

I appreciate that the simplistic answer to these questions will no doubt be that supreme beings by definition operate outside of such petty concerns... but if that is your answer, then you have indeed shut your mind off at the boundary of the issue. A refusal to consider these questions is a closing of the intellect, and no amount of self-sustaining bullshit can hide that fact, except from oneself..

maybe you and i have different definitions of 'God'... i've yet to find a definition better than anselm's ".. something than which nothing greater can be thought ..." what is your definition?

While I do not disagree with Josh, I would reframe the issue about the existence of a Supreme Being by suggesting that the assumption that such a being exists begs a lot of questions, including:

 

1. When did this being come into existence

he has always existed

2. Was the supreme being created by something else (and we can see that if the answer is affirmative, we get to ask all these questions again)

no

3. into what environment was this being first created?

see 1 & 2 above

4. what mechanism did this being use to create the universe

his will

5. of what material, substance, energy is this being made

he exists as spirit

6. by means of what mechanism does this being sustain itself

he is (i am)

[jdonn]

4. what mechanism did this being use to create the universe

his will

5. of what material, substance, energy is this being made

he exists as spirit

6. by means of what mechanism does this being sustain itself

he is (i am)

Sorry, none of those answers mean anything at all as far as I'm concerned. They can't even be said to be wrong because they don't say anything.

[luke warm]

4. what mechanism did this being use to create the universe

his will

5. of what material, substance, energy is this being made

he exists as spirit

6. by means of what mechanism does this being sustain itself

he is (i am)

Sorry, none of those answers mean anything at all as far as I'm concerned. They can't even be said to be wrong because they don't say anything.

which explains why one must have some idea of what one means by the word "God"

[PassedOut]

then i guess we have opposite views on what the article purports to prove... i must be missing something, but it seems difficult for "... Ring species illustrate that the species concept is not as clear-cut as it is often understood to be." to be interpreted as your "It means that ring species illustrate clearly that there is no distinction between micro- and macro-evolution."

 

how do you get "... illustrates clearly ..." from "... not as clear-cut ..."?

You have a chain of slightly different populations, all of which interbreed with the adjacent populations, with one exception: the beginning and the ending of the chain. At the ends of the chain, the differences are great enough that the populations are of a different species.

 

The accumulation of many small changes eventually produces a new species, just as stirring drops of red paint into a bucket of yellow eventually produces orange. The precise boundary lines between species are indistinct and somewhat arbitrary, as is the boundary line between yellow and orange.

 

In most cases, the effects of time and competition have eliminated the links between species, so the gradations are no longer apparent. But with ring species, the links remain.

 

Because new species are created by many small changes, the boundaries between species are not clear-cut. That is just what evolution, micro- or macro-, predicts.

[luke warm]

then i guess we have opposite views on what the article purports to prove... i must be missing something, but it seems difficult for "... Ring species illustrate that the species concept is not as clear-cut as it is often understood to be." to be interpreted as your "It means that ring species illustrate clearly that there is no distinction between micro- and macro-evolution."

 

how do you get "... illustrates clearly ..." from "... not as clear-cut ..."?

You have a chain of slightly different populations, all of which interbreed with the adjacent populations, with one exception: the beginning and the ending of the chain. At the ends of the chain, the differences are great enough that the populations are of a different species.

 

The accumulation of many small changes eventually produces a new species, just as stirring drops of red paint into a bucket of yellow eventually produces orange. The precise boundary lines between species are indistinct and somewhat arbitrary, as is the boundary line between yellow and orange.

 

In most cases, the effects of time and competition have eliminated the links between species, so the gradations are no longer apparent. But with ring species, the links remain.

 

Because new species are created by many small changes, the boundaries between species are not clear-cut. That is just what evolution, micro- or macro-, predicts.

maybe i'm not being as clear as i should be... the article says that the existence of ring species means things aren't as clear-cut as they were thought to be... this is very far from saying that there existence "clearly illustrates" anything

[matmat]

5. of what material, substance, energy is this being made

he exists as spirit

hmm.. what proof of ethanol is that?

[PassedOut]

maybe i'm not being as clear as i should be... the article says that the existence of ring species means things aren't as clear-cut as they were thought to be... this is very far from saying that there existence "clearly illustrates" anything

No, the article does not say "things aren't as clear-cut as they were thought to be." It says:

 

Ring species illustrate that the species concept is not as clear-cut as it is often understood to be.

(You can look it up.)

 

Some folks promote a clear-cut distinction between species, leading others to a false understanding of the concept. The goal of the deception is to promote the notion that "macro-evolution" differs from so-called "micro-evolution."

 

The reality is that the boundaries between different species are not clear-cut. That fact is consistent with evolution, and inconsistent with the notion of "macro-evolution." Ring species provide a perfect illustration.

[luke warm]

maybe i'm not being as clear as i should be... the article says that the existence of ring species means things aren't as clear-cut as they were thought to be... this is very far from saying that there existence "clearly illustrates" anything

No, the article does not say "things aren't as clear-cut as they were thought to be." It says:

 

Ring species illustrate that the species concept is not as clear-cut as it is often understood to be.

(You can look it up.)

 

Some folks promote a clear-cut distinction between species, leading others to a false understanding of the concept. The goal of the deception is to promote the notion that "macro-evolution" differs from so-called "micro-evolution."

 

The reality is that the boundaries between different species are not clear-cut. That fact is consistent with evolution, and inconsistent with the notion of "macro-evolution." Ring species provide a perfect illustration.

ok, maybe there is a semantical difference between "thought to be" and "understood to be"... in any case you and i read the same thing differently

[mikeh]

4. what mechanism did this being use to create the universe

his will

5. of what material, substance, energy is this being made

he exists as spirit

6. by means of what mechanism does this being sustain itself

he is (i am)

Sorry, none of those answers mean anything at all as far as I'm concerned. They can't even be said to be wrong because they don't say anything.

which explains why one must have some idea of what one means by the word "God"

This is funny B) :P :o :)

 

Jimmy, you consistently allege that I am wrong in saying that true believers, such as you, shut off your intelligence, your sense of curiosity, at the boundaries of your 'god' entity... and then you come up with drivel as your answer to legitimate questions about your god entity!

 

let's start with gender B) gender arose through recognized (by people with genuine intellectual curiosity, that is) evolutionary mechanisms.... uni-cellular life doesn't have gender.. the earliest life lacked gender, and the vast majority of life-forms on and in the earth today lack gender. Yet christians and muslims are absolutely fixated on the masculine nature of their god entity.

 

Gender arises from the advantage that gender affords in a reproductive sense. I asume that your god doesn't reproduce sexually :P So why a gender?

 

Then we get to 'will' as an 'explanation'. Telekinesis? Does your god entity have a body of any sort? How does he effect his will? What is the mechanism? Does it require the expenditure of energy? If so, how does it generate the energy?

 

What does 'will' mean? I mean, I have 'will'.. I have willpower... some say I am very strong willed. But I can stare at an object, willing it with all my power to move or change colour, and it ignores me. I push it, and it moves... I have applied force to it. I have caused electro-chemical forces to actuate muscles and have physically suppled kinetic energy to the object of my will.

 

I appreciate that 'god' doesn't use muscles.. he uses 'will'.. but clearly he uses a different, and more effective, 'will' than the 'will' that makes up human willpower. So what is it? How does it work? Where does it come from?

 

The reality is that you are utterly unable to answer these questions in a meaningful, intelligible sense.. all you can do is to parrot meaningless words or phrases... because, for you, the questions have no meaning... and the questions have no meaning precisely because you cannot seriously consider them and retain your superstitions about god... cognitive dissonance won't let you think! The irony is that the very condition that afflicts you won't let you even see that you are afflicted... there are none so blind as those who will not see.

 

When I say that answers such as 'will' or 'spirit' are meaningless, I do so because you use words that have meaning in other contexts but are devoid of content in the context in which you use them.

 

BTW, let me backtrack a little from the harsh sentiments set out above.

 

I have always conceded that so far science cannot yet explain the ultimate 'why' of the universe or the ultimate 'how'. It may be that these concepts, which are thought of by meat-brains evolved to think of issues in this way, are meaningless.. it may be that brains evolved as ours have are incapable of even considering the 'true' concepts underlying the universe. And for as long as there are gaps in our scientifically derived, and testable, theories there remains room for the existence of some force, entity, what-have-you that is beyond science. Thus there remains some basis upon which to entertain, as a speculative idea, the existence of a god entity.. but the god entity of which I speak has taken no role in the universe since its beginning, and certainly is not the god entity worshipped by so many deluded believers since man or his ancestors began looking for answers to questions beyond their-then capacity to resolve scientifically. I do not 'deny' such a god entity... I have no need of it but I cannot rule it out... but I do deny the god of religion.

[jdonn]

I love Mike's post, it is a far more thorough way of saying what I was getting at. Your answers are just words that mean nothing the way you use them. Look at number 6, "he is"? That is simply avoiding the question. He is therefore he is therefore he is.... He exists by existing....

[Winstonm]

maybe i'm not being as clear as i should be... the article says that the existence of ring species means things aren't as clear-cut as they were thought to be...

 

 

Ring species illustrate that the species concept is not as clear-cut as it is often understood to be.

 

ok, maybe there is a semantical difference between "thought to be" and "understood to be"... in any case you and i read the same thing differently

 

Jimmy,

 

Don't take this as a personal insult, but now you are simply being pigheaded and you are too intelligent to use hardheadedness as an excuse to disagree.

[luke warm]

I love Mike's post, it is a far more thorough way of saying what I was getting at. Your answers are just words that mean nothing the way you use them. Look at number 6, "he is"? That is simply avoiding the question. He is therefore he is therefore he is.... He exists by existing....

if mike or you would at least give your definition of God, maybe i could clear things up (not to either of your satisfaction, i'm sure)... i've already given mine... so answering your question from the framework of my definition, i can imagine a god greater than one who has not always existed, and that would be one who has

Jimmy,

 

Don't take this as a personal insult, but now you are simply being pigheaded and you are too intelligent to use hardheadedness as an excuse to disagree.

i sincerely don't think that's the case, winston

[Winstonm]

cognitive dissonance won't let you think! The irony is that the very condition that afflicts you won't let you even see that you are afflicted... there are none so blind as those who will not see.

 

Mike,

 

You speak from a perspective that sounds to me like you have been on both sides of this issue. I know I have been. And if you haven't, then I can substantiate your claims from my personal experience that these questions cannot be tolerated within the believing mind - cognitive dissonance, indeed.

[Winstonm]

i sincerely don't think that's the case, winston

 

I have never doubted your belief in your sincerity. And I support 100% your right to believe as you wish. My OWN belief from MY experience is that religious-based cognitive dissonance can mimic sincerity, though - just saying....

[jdonn]

I love Mike's post, it is a far more thorough way of saying what I was getting at. Your answers are just words that mean nothing the way you use them. Look at number 6, "he is"? That is simply avoiding the question. He is therefore he is therefore he is.... He exists by existing....

if mike or you would at least give your definition of God, maybe i could clear things up (not to either of your satisfaction, i'm sure)... i've already given mine... so answering your question from the framework of my definition, i can imagine a god greater than one who has not always existed, and that would be one who has

How do you expect me to give a definition of something which I don't believe exists? If I tried to come up with a definition, it would be based on the answers to the earlier questions and similar ones. It wouldn't be anything which means "that for which these questions can inherently not be answered by known phenomena" or such. That would be total nonense as far as I'm concerned.

 

Now your answer to "6. by means of what mechanism does this being sustain itself" is that you can imagine such a being? If that's another way of saying he exists in your imagination only, I agree! ;)

[mikeh]

cognitive dissonance won't let you think! The irony is that the very condition that afflicts you won't let you even see that you are afflicted... there are none so blind as those who will not see.

 

Mike,

 

You speak from a perspective that sounds to me like you have been on both sides of this issue. I know I have been. And if you haven't, then I can substantiate your claims from my personal experience that these questions cannot be tolerated within the believing mind - cognitive dissonance, indeed.

Heck, I run into it almost every day, in one form or another. BBF is a great one for me... I have my ideas about basic bridge theory... others post to the contrary and I have to fight my knee-jerk reaction to the effect that I am right and they are wrong... sometimes, I don't get to that until after I have posted a pig-headed response, reaffirming my bridge view.... and then belatedly realize that maybe I was wrong... or that maybe both views have merit...

 

And I run into it in my professional life.. where opposing counsel (or the parties they represent) have a profound difference of opinion on basic facts, or the application of the law.

 

However, in my profession, and at the bridge table, the real world has a habit of imposing the 'correct' outcome on one, regardless of belief. So I am forced to recognize, daily, that ideas contrary to my wished-for reality have value.. must be accommodated in my world-view.

 

I was brought up going to Sunday School, learning my catechism. The school I attended was affiliated with the local cathedral (it was founded by the cathedral in 1796), and held regular services in the cathedral. We took 'divinity' as a academic topic... altho if memory serves, it focussed on a very select version of divinity.. the god of the high anglican church. But, fortunately, we had a science teacher who was somewhat outspoken about applying scientific reasoning to life, and that struck a chord with me. I think I became an agnostic at about age 12... and an atheist by 15... but my 'reasoning' has become somewhat more refined over the decades, not least because I love reading. While I appreciate that many excellent scientists profess religious belief and that such as Gould suggest that religion addresses different issues than does science, I find such arguments to be disingenuous efforts to be accommodating to the religious majority... i am speaking primarily of the US, when referring to that 'majority'.

 

religion, as an explicative mechanism for 'us' existing, occupies precisely the areas occupied by evolution, in the cosmic short term, and physics, in the cosmic long term.

 

religion, as a mechanism for the establishment and maintenance of morality, is essentially a charade.. a scam... as anthropological studies have shown, religion is mostly about power over other people. Further, those who argue that we need religious belief to avoid being callous, cruel existentialists are, to be blunt, idiots. For every cruel atheist, I will show you, in history, scores of misguided religious fanatics who thought it perfectly proper to torture heretics and non-believers to death.

[luke warm]

i sincerely don't think that's the case, winston

 

I have never doubted your belief in your sincerity. And I support 100% your right to believe as you wish. My OWN belief from MY experience is that religious-based cognitive dissonance can mimic sincerity, though - just saying....

can you see how i can think the same about you? can you see how i can believe paul's words that God has given every man evidence of his existence and that man deceives himself (is that the same as cognitive dissonance?)?

I love Mike's post, it is a far more thorough way of saying what I was getting at. Your answers are just words that mean nothing the way you use them. Look at number 6, "he is"? That is simply avoiding the question. He is therefore he is therefore he is.... He exists by existing....

if mike or you would at least give your definition of God, maybe i could clear things up (not to either of your satisfaction, i'm sure)... i've already given mine... so answering your question from the framework of my definition, i can imagine a god greater than one who has not always existed, and that would be one who has

How do you expect me to give a definition of something which I don't believe exists?

then i refer you to codo's response, at the top of page 8 on my monitor

[mikeh]

Mikeh,

 

you asked some questions.

 

But why?

 

If you belive in a supernatural being, why should you bother to answer these questions?

You can simply accept that the work and "life"  of this being are still beyond your and mine understanding- and will ever be.

 

If you cannot accept that there are areas which we will never understand (in religion and in science), you have a view, which is quite common but which I do not share. I belive that our knowledge is still very limited. It is increasing with lightning speed, but it is still small.

 

And if you are an atheist, why do you care about these questions? You don`t belive, so why ask about´something you don`t belive in?

 

So the questions are quite pointless in my view.

If those of religious persuasion confined the effect of their beliefs to conversations between themselves and their imaginary friend (or friends) then the question of the existence or otherwise of any of the various god entities would indeed not matter.

 

Unfortunately, this is not the case.

 

Unfortunately, religion gives power to closed-minded bigots, whether they be popes or mullahs or rabbis.

 

That is NOT to say that all, or even most, priests, ministers, rabbis, or mullahs are bigots... they virtually have to be close-minded in order to be able to persuade themselves that their imaginary god is real, but many of them profess and some practice tolerance and charity.

 

But it doesn't matter how many are 'good'. There are enough who are fanatical about their beliefs, and intolerant of non-believers, that the god superstition continues to cause real harm.

 

Whether it be people who shoot abortion doctors, or bomb synagogues, or blow themselves up for the glory of allah, or declare fatwah on authors or cartoonists, or proclaim that the best post-invasion treatment of Iraq would be to kill all the mullahs and forcibly convert the population to christianity (yes, a prominent right-wing loonie in the US did propose this), or vote against equal rights for homosexuals because homosexuality is a sin.... all of these, and many, many more are examples of the imposition of cruelty and bigotry justified by the beliefs held by the perpetrators.

 

It is not money that is the root of all evil... it is the belief that revealed truth makes one right in whatever one does.

 

It is therefore important, if you are desire a more moral and just world, to eliminate the main source of bigotry and hatred.. strangely, elimination of this horrific power structure would NOT mean the end of kindness and charity... I give money to the homeless, I buy food for foodbanks, and so on.. not as often as maybe I should, but I do it. And I don't do it because of any belief that this will get me to heaven.

 

if, by virtue of anything I or others on this forum write, a single individual starts to actually THINK rather than to BELIEVE, then something good and useful has come out of our posts... and slowly but (I hope) surely, religion will be pushed back into the darkness where it belongs.