I also believe that Forster meant that as criticism. Just goes to show you the intellect of people running web sites like that.

Votes: +2

I understand 'believe' as a level of 'faith'. Faith can go to zero, total assurance about the opposite of the 'thing', to 100%, total assurance about the 'thing'.
In reality you can never be sure about anything. 0 and 100% never really occurs .. or at least they should not. Your own mind, memory and senses can fail you (and often they do).
It is hard to map faith to percents (other then the extremes). But there is one important 'faith level' milestone: you ACT as if the 'thing' was true. And that level I call 'believe'. There is another, higher milestone: 'I know'. Now that is hard to define, but usually it means 'I think I have personal experience with it, even if it was only once and not clear'. Still people can believe and not know. And some only say they do believe, but in fact they do not act like it, so they don't.

50% should be perfectly neutral. Hard to do since you will have opinion about anything, based on your previous experience. On a strange twist of events, 'I'm skeptical about something' is less then 50%, at least in general sense. That's why people usually say we skeptics are negativists.

Faith in religious meme-sets (aka religions) are common and I think important feature. Religion meme would not survive without such mechanism. There are other mechanisms with similar effects, which can be seen in all religions.
Like: the other religions may be right too about something, but we are the best. Or .. it might not work for you, it is your problem, not problem of the religion (you pray too little, you don't mean it, bad karma etc). Votes: +0

I've commented before on this site, that I know a number of clergy, who all extol the Virture of Faith, particularly in funeral services.

Yet the same clergy demand evidence of licenses, certifications, and insurance (as applicable) from their doctors, plumbers, car mechanics, etc. etc. When it comes to their bodies, houses, and cars, suddenly evidence based reasoning comes into play instead of having faith in the various practitioners ...... I have long found it curious, how they could be so certain about something they could not see, hear, touch (God, Angels, efficacy of Prayer) yet appropriately interested in proof when it comes to the tangible. Votes: +19

"The person who may ridicule faith usually has faith himself in tried and trusted friends...."

This may be a case of unwitting equivocation. "Faith" in the sense is to have confidence because those friends have already been tried and have proved themselves to be trustworthy. "Faith" in the religious sense is to believe without proof/evidence or despite the existence of disconfirming evidence. Votes: +15

"It is not important what you believe, only that you believe."
Unknown

That is a line spoken by Shepard Book (Shepard = Reverend) in the movie Serenity by Joss Whedon (he is an Atheist)
Now it may have an older source, but if that is were it is from, that is very humorous. Votes: +2

There is a difference between 'blind faith' (faith without evidence) and run-of-the-mill faith (faith based on past experience, evidence, or consistency). Religious faith is based upon the former. Votes: +10

I've been a visitor for many years and have corresponded cordially with Mr. Randi directly several times. I'm sure this post will get shouted/voted down. However, this article brings my principal objection to the skeptical mission to the fore. Does everyone here indeed summarily dismiss as completely unredeemable morons all humans who ever existed and expressed religious faith of some description? Randi says, "No." But a post like this belies that.

There was a thread a while back in which Hal Bidlack had to suffer the expected slings and arrows regarding his non-atheisim; however, because Randi admires him, the faithful (pardon the word) had to fall back on explaining to Bidlack why what he was saying wasn't really what he thought he was saying.

My point is that when brites dimiss and broadly mock the thinking of billions of humans throughout history - including many of the most important philosophers and scientists - merely because they were/are "believers" of some decription and the brites have "seen the light" re: reason indicates a narrow, bunker mentality. A mentality, indeed, very similar to many religious sects. Votes: -7

My point is that when brites dimiss and broadly mock the thinking of billions of humans throughout history - including many of the most important philosophers and scientists - merely because they were/are "believers" of some decription and the brites have "seen the light" re: reason indicates a narrow, bunker mentality. A mentality, indeed, very similar to many religious sects.

I think your point is missed. The difference is that we're not condemning anyone to eternal damnation, or outright killing them, for their beliefs. We're simply trying to point out how those beliefs don't make a lick of sense. Votes: +30

Once again...Jeff shows that he is more interested in being anti religion than he is in being pro-reason (or just plain reasonable). (See the "Denny's Discrimination Debate"

I consider myself a skeptic, as well as a person of (albeit marginal) faith. While I know that many in the skeptical community will vehemently disagree, as is their right, I disagree with their assertions just as vehemently, as is my right.

Do I believe that the bible is 100% true. No. I'm not even sure if it is 1% true, and in fact to me it does not matter much. I view the stories in the bible in the same light as I view Greek, Norse, or any other cultural mythology. Stories that, true or not, have underlying messages that are applicable today as they ever were.

But this post is not about what I do or don't believe, its about the fact that jeff, through his postings has shown that not only is he an atheist (which is fine by me), but that he seeks to ridicule and marginalize anyone who does not agree with him (which is not fine by me).

This would still be OK if the JREF were an outright atheist organization, but in many posts my Randi and others the JREF purports to not be an anti religious organization. Yet posts such as these persist.

Anyone can cherry pick (and many do, both religious and atheists) quotes from the bible or other sources that support their core beliefs (See this excellent clip from the west wing which proves just that point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R998lW2DxPs

The folly is in finding those "crazy" examples and generalizing based on that that anyone who has any belief or even respect for others beliefs is out and out crazy.

Jeff is entitled to his opinion, and entitled to express it, however I wonder only this: do posts such as this really advance the core mission of the JREF? If the answer is yes than this, in my opinion is not the organization it purports to be, if the answer is no, than those at JREF would be well within their rights to exercise editorial controls over content, and Jeff should post such things in a more appropriate forum Votes: -8

But you do indeed "condemn" almost everyone outside of a very tiny group to irrelevance - your own brand of hell. What about Jefferson? Socrates? Descartes? Newton? Did they say things that made "a lick of sense?" I suppose you would divide these men's "beliefs" from their other, indisputably "rational" and important, contributions. They, however, would not have. Certainly not Newton. Maybe Jefferson. Such division is very modern. And modern does not - just like ancient does not - automatically equal "correct." Votes: +0

it's Toxoplasma gondii. Votes: +2

#1: Randi has stated many times that the JREF accepts believers and non-believers alike.

#2: Being a person of faith does not equal not accepting evolutionary theory. Votes: +11

Sorry Davis, but there are mountains of evidence for evolution (Why do we get new flu shots every year? Conspiracy?). But of course this is old news. This article is not about which beliefs are supported by the majority, or by authorities such as Socrates or Newton, but which beliefs are supported by verified, real-world evidence. Enough of the relativist "it's just another religion" argument already, the observable evidence and repeatable experiments don't support supernatural deities.
Another quote I've seen: "Regret looks behind, fear looks ahead, faith looks up." No, faith closes its eyes.
Yeah, yeah, I know--you're not listening. Votes: +14

There is a difference between 'blind faith' (faith without evidence) and run-of-the-mill faith (faith based on past experience, evidence, or consistency). Religious faith is based upon the form
Not necessarily. Many believers I know have some personal 'experience'. Sometimes it is really absurd, like 'somebody brought me book I needed' and sometimes it is something we can only guess about, like visions of light, hearing of voices.
But it is always the pattern 'something I don't understand happened .. it means something else must be true' (like there is a God for example). If the same person had same experience with different spiritual background, he would start to firmly believe in different religion. I know of no experience which would directly point to a specific religion .. like if the light said 'I'm Jesus, stop dreaming about Buddhism, and go to church, sinner !'.

Votes: +2

"If you'd like to demonstrate the walking on water thing, I have a challenge for you."

There is documentary evidence of people walking on water - you just need the right shoes and some practice.


@Dr Sid: "In reality you can never be sure about anything. 0 and 100% never really occurs .."

Nonsense. If I cut off your head, you'll die - 100% - unless you decide to redefine the word 'dead'. There are many things we can be absolutely sure of even if there are some uncertainties in the little details.
Votes: +10

@Jeff: "To see by faith is to shut the eye of reason" is usually attributed to Ben Franklin. Ben was a big-time woo buster in his time and some of his stunts (publishing an obituary for a wooster) were hilarious.
Votes: +4

But you do indeed "condemn" almost everyone outside of a very tiny group to irrelevance - your own brand of hell. What about Jefferson? Socrates? Descartes? Newton? Did they say things that made "a lick of sense?" I suppose you would divide these men's "beliefs" from their other, indisputably "rational" and important, contributions. They, however, would not have. Certainly not Newton. Maybe Jefferson. Such division is very modern. And modern does not - just like ancient does not - automatically equal "correct."

You're going from one extreme to the other, but sure, if they believed in invisible sky daddies, then they did indeed believe in stuff that doesn't make a lick of sense. In many ways they were victims of their times. But, just because someone believes something silly doesn't mean everything they say or do is silly. That's just silly.

Not to mention that I'm sure none of the men you mentioned believed in Norse gods, or Hindu gods, or Mayan gods, etc, and probably thought such beliefs to be rather provincial, or silly. It's a matter of perspective. From an atheist's perspective, people who believe in gods believe silly things (at least that's my perspective.) Votes: +15

"It does not matter what you believe, as long as you believe."

This quote is at least DECADES older than the series "Firefly" (which I own and enjoy on DVD).

WAY back when I was in Junior High School, which would be mid to late 1960's, this was widely quoted, printed on t-shirts, discussed earnestly by young people, etc. and refuted, since Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Torquemada, Mary Tudor of England (Queen Mary I), her father Henry Tudor (Henry VIII), etc. etc. all believed in what they were doing, all were able to justify - even claim as virtuous their behavior and activities, and were all horribly, horrifically, and tragically wrong. The content of faith does matter. Votes: +5

the quote was old when we got it, we did not originate it. Votes: +0

There is no better Denial, than deferring to a Deity, it absolves the adherent of complicity and provides a scapegoat and justification for any behaviour, and also gives the adherent a taboo that should not be questioned.

In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second hand, and without examination.
Mark Twain

The history of our race, and each individual's experience, are sown thick with evidence that a truth is not hard to kill and that a lie told well is immortal.
Mark Twain, Advice to Youth Votes: +12

popsaw said: Creationists have faith that the creator has always existed. Darwinists have faith that the scientifically impossible actually occured. Something (the universe)came from nothing. When science can replicate this production matter from nothing, they will no longer require faith!

Somehow this does not ring true but I cannot put my finger on it. I think s/he is misrepresenting the Darwinist view, but I do not have enough facts. Anyone? Votes: +0

Somehow this does not ring true but I cannot put my finger on it. I think s/he is misrepresenting the Darwinist view, but I do not have enough facts. Anyone?

Darwin made no claims as to ultimate origins, so that's the misrepresentation. Votes: +7

If it was impossible, it could not have occurred. Since it did occur, it is not scientifically impossible.

It is a false duality pretending to be logical yet fraught with logical errors. Votes: +8

Darwin made no claims as to ultimate origins, so that's the misrepresentation.

Doesn't matter... remember, "It is not important what you believe, only that you believe."

Votes: -8

Doesn't matter... remember, "It is not important what you believe, only that you believe."

No, I follow the evidence. It doesn't mean I believe everything every scientist says. Votes: +8

written by Kuroyume, October 02, 2009
There is a difference between 'blind faith' (faith without evidence) and run-of-the-mill faith (faith based on past experience, evidence, or consistency). Religious faith is based upon the former.

"Faith based on past experience, evidence, or consistency" is not "faith" at all, but "trust". Votes: +14

Evolution (especially if you call it Darwinism, as if he was its only proponent) makes no claims to explain the origins of life, of our planet, or of our universe. And if memory serves, the Big Bang Theory does not claim that the universe arose from nothing. Only the religious would make that kind of claim, seeing as we don't have the evidence to draw such a conclusion. If Creationists want to talk about science, they need to learn the the basics of science, as well as the terminology. Votes: +14

Sure about that:

faith
  /feɪθ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [feyth] Show IPA
Use faith in a Sentence
See web results for faith
See images of faith
–noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

faith (fth)
n.
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

Now, I agree that this is a more vernacular use of the word 'faith'. Like 'theory', it is so misused that this meaning of 'faith' is mixed up with the usual one involving belief without evidence. See who used it here? Votes: +1

I am happy to see JREF no longer pussyfooting around religious faith. Religion is one of the most obvious sources of credulity that has ever existed. I don't think JREF should start an all-out attack on religion. It should stick to more specific claims made by or for gullible people. This could include various claims about "faith healing."

I'm personally ok with this post. Many of the quotes mentioned explicitly or implicitly dismiss reason and evidence as being bad. Reason and evidence if what JREF stands for. If reason is the enemy of faith, then faith is the enemy of reason. Votes: +14

Please explain where in all of the theory(s) regarding the beginning of the universe (as we know it) the reference to matter being created from nothing. Only Genesis does that (and you have stated that this cannot happen). Votes: +8

Missed a couple of commas there. Votes: +0

I am saying that if one does not believe in intelligent design/creation, the only alternative is that matter came from nothing. Evolutionists have 'faith' that matter just appeared since no experiments have produced matter from nothing.
This is the same faith that creationists have in regard to the belief that God has always been.

Dichotomistic reasoning at its best. Really? There are only those two choices, huh? How about current ideas about multiverses and colliding membranes and that whatever caused this universe to come into being may be 'eternal' (for lack of a better word)? To reiterate what has already been replied, none of our current hypotheses require there to have been nothing when the universe came into being.

Currently we are at a *slight* disadvantage in finding evidence and thereby good hypotheses to explain how the universe (in which we are contained) came into being. Let's face it, we can't pop out to the other side or travel through time so there is quite a bit of missing information. But the audacity to then propose that the only other option is an intelligent extra-universal super-being which has no evidence whatsoever just confounds the idea that humans have intelligence. Votes: +5

I maintain that since the origin of matter has not been proven/replicated or even anything near satisfactorily explaine, faith is required to accept that matter came from nothing.

Wrong! You are still stuck in your false dichotomies. Rejection of one explanation is not automatic acceptance of another explanation. It requires no faith whatsoever to say that we don't (yet) have an adequate explanation for the origin of the Universe. Votes: +9

Surely, the rejection of intelligent design means that matter came from nothing. I would be interested to know what other possibility exists.

It doesn't matter how many explanations I or anybody else can come up with. Even if those are the only two explanations, disbelieving one of them does not automatically mean believing the other. The default position is to reject both explanations until there is sufficient reason to accept one of them. Votes: +12

Popsaw:
"Surely, the rejection of intelligent design means that matter came from nothing. I would be interested to know what other possibility exists."

Why is it not possible that matter has ALWAYS existed? The axiom that everything had to "come from" something else is a holdover from the influence of religious thought on human reason. The development of religions among our earliest forebears was a product of the universal human compulsion to explain the world in terms of cause and effect (the scientific method in its infancy, if you will) working backwards into the abyss of time toward the original cause. That there WAS an original cause is an unproven assumption, not an absolute necessity.

Also, if everything must come from something, where pray tell did God come from?


Votes: +7

I did not say that everything must come from something. I have said that matter must come from something (God is not matter). Skepticism rightly looks to science for evidence. There are no scientific tests or experiments that have produced matter from nothing, therefore, the belief that matter has always existed would be solely faith based, like the belief that God has always existed. Votes: -8

While I was reading this article, I thought of the many times Christian proselytizers have stopped me on the street to try to "save" me. They'd have a card or pamphlet with sayings similar to the ones Jeff cites. I used to waste time talking to these people, but the last time I was approached by two gentlemen dressed in white shirts and thin ties, I told them bluntly I didn't believe in Jesus and started walking away. One said, "I feel sorry for you," and I quickly shot back, "Well, I feel sorry for you."

I'm also appalled that "believers" have a plethora of sayings they spew out self-righteously, but have never thought deeply about them. Votes: +4

I maintain that since the origin of matter has not been proven/replicated or even anything near satisfactorily explaine, faith is required to accept that matter came from nothing. Colliding membranes are something!

No, the best explanation is "we don't know yet." And we may never know. Votes: +6

matter from nothing

Only the ignorant say such things. Quantum Mechanics and Relativity state that matter and energy are interchangeable. Scientific experiments prove it is true. Got a cell phone or a GPS? The proof might be in your own pocket.

Self centered, ego-centric people always seem to require an authority being, be it supernatural or mortal, to "create" the universe and all of its functions. It's tragically amusing how this authority being always behaves exactly as the individual believer does.

The is no need for the existence of Humans, or any of their beliefs, for the universe to exist and to function. Votes: +8

The is no need for the existence of Humans, or any of their beliefs, for the universe to exist and to function

Oops, we need an edit function here! It's supposed to say "There is no need for the existence of Humans, or any of their beliefs, for the universe to exist and to function Votes: +0

Quantum Mechanics and Relativity state that matter and energy are interchangeable. True, but energy is something. Where did it come from? To assert it has always existed requires faith since no experiments have been conducted that produce energy from nothing. Science shows that energy is produced from matter. Votes: -10

Surely, the rejection of intelligent design means acceptance that matter came from nothing (requiring faith). I would be interested to know what other possibility exists and why it does not require faith

It means acceptance of the hypothesis that matter came from something that was probably not intelligent, that's all. In a sense, it is a form of 'faith' (but more akin to speculations while we gather more information). On the other hand, we have Occam's Razor and no objective evidence for an intelligent designer. Therefore, all options being equal, the need for an intelligent designer is superfluous. Votes: +3

Actually religions have some interesting concepts. Buddhism at least. It says (at least some schools): there is no beginning.

If you think about how matter came into existence, you must first prove there was time when it did not exist. The Great Question of Origin should be more 'if ever' then 'how','when','why' etc.

Just I interesting point of view (IMHO), of course we don't want to limit our questioning in any way ! Votes: +1

Is Buddhism classified as a religion? There is no deity worship involved, so I don't think it is. Votes: +0

It depends how you define 'religion'. In my language (czech) it clearly means 'worshiping of god'. AFAIK as I know, in english it means something like re-connecting.
In such case Buddhism is not a religion.

However if look what role religion plays, like teaching how world works, giving moral codex, defining meaning and goal of life .. then Buddhism is religion. At least it plays role of a religion in both society and personal life. Votes: +1

I saw a bumper sticker, "The bible says, I believe it, and that settles it."

Faith is a gift from god. He didn't give me any.

PS Religion = Superstition + $$$$$ Votes: +2

written by pervel, October 03, 2009

Surely, the rejection of intelligent design means that matter came from nothing. I would be interested to know what other possibility exists.

written by popsaw, October 03, 2009

That is a reasonable suggestion, however, it must be said that there is no theory or school of thought regarding the existence of matter that does not require an element of faith. That is my main point.

You've done a terrible job of arguing your main point, indulging in argument by assertion.

It is what it is.

A is A. (thx Ayn)

If I hit you in your effin' head with a hammer, how does it feel? (not that I would ever do that).

I'm not saying look at the moon, not the finger pointing at, just to look at that finger that's about to poke you in your poorly argued eye.

Your absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I don't work for you, so I'm not going to list all the schools of thought and theories that contradict your "main point".

There is nothing that is nothing, therefore there is nothing that can become nothing, and there is nothing that can come from nothing. Or words to that effect. Votes: -2

Some of us want to see the world as it is, and some of us don't.

I'd go a step further here; it seems to me that the faithful are convinced that if they just believe in something hard enough, it will becoem true. Such is the strength of their delusions. Votes: +4

To assert it has always existed requires faith since no experiments have been conducted that produce energy from nothing

Quantum Mechanics and Relativity do not assert that anything came from nothing.

No scientific theory, observation or experiment does either.

There is no such thing as "nothing" in any of these. The very vacuum of space has energy. It does not come from "nothing", it is already there.

The state of space/time energy/matter during the last 13.7 billion years is described by current knowledge. The state of the universe before that is pretty much unknown, but it is apparent that something did exist before it transformed into the current observable universe.

Of course, there is still lots of knowledge to be gained.

P.S. Asserting that some sky-daddy made everything is, frankly, the product of a childish mind. Votes: +6

The theory that the universe itself has awareness of what's going on and can influence worldly events (let's call that theory religion) is a fundamental theory that occurs separately in all cultures.

Indeed it has. And that says something about how the human mind perceives the world. It doesn't even come close to saying anything about the truthfulness of religion.
Votes: +5

@Willy K
The very vacuum of space has energy. It does not come from "nothing", it is already there.
The question though is has it ALWAYS been there? If you are saying energy has always been there, it is similar to the assertion that God has always been there. Faith (confidence in ones belief)is required for both beliefs since neither can be proven. The suggestion that energy has not always existed has the same merit as the suggestion that energy has not always existed and it would be presumptuous to categorically state otherwise without evidence.
It is interesting that some who wrestle with the nothion of a God that has always existed have no problem believing that energy has always existed! To this end I quote Isaiah 40:26... “Raise YOUR eyes high up and see. Who has created these things? It is the One who is bringing forth the army of them even by number, all of whom he calls even by name. Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one [of them] is missing.

Votes: -7

line 4 above should read...
as the suggestion that energy HAS always existed and it would be presumptuous to categorically state otherwise without evidence.

Votes: -4

written by Steel Rat, October 03, 2009

Is Buddhism classified as a religion? There is no deity worship involved, so I don't think it is.

As a Buddhist and skeptic, I'd like to answer this. For many cultures in the world, Buddhism is indeed a matter of worship and devotion, to Buddha and the various lesser divine beings that populate the various cosmologies. You see, as Buddhism spread it adopted the attitude of incorporating or existing alongside the existing religious traditions instead of waging war on them. So some Buddhists might pray for intercession and believe in various heavens and hells. A Buddhist in Korea might also have the local Shamaness over for a ceremony to communicate with their ancestor's spirits. Only in the rabid monotheistic religions of Jewish, Muslim, or Christian variety do we have cultures that insist their one True religion has to wage war on the others.

But Buddhism also has many humanistic sects (schools) that stress rational observation and the philosophy we follow does not allow, leave alone include, a creator God. These tend to be the Zen schools imported into the West and are the ones most familiar to the English speaking world (with the exception of the Tibetan Buddhism).

So yes and no. There's plenty of woo in the Buddhist world, so we can't claim innocence.

Votes: +4

@Popsaw

If you are saying energy has always been there, it is similar to the assertion that God has always been there.

No similarity whatsoever. No assertion either.

Energy, as defined by the aforementioned scientific evidence, has existed as currently understood for approximately 13.7 billion years. Something existed before that. It is unknown how long that something has existed. There is evidence, where's the assertion?

OTOH, there is absolutely no scientific theory, observation or evidence for the existence of any supernatural deity of any kind.

OTOH, there is scientific theory, observation and evidence that explains why Humans believe that supernatural deities, ghosts, goblins, faeries, etc. exist. All of these beliefs are rooted in the Human psyche.

You biblical quote is a perfect example of the ego-centric nature of ignorant Humans. Billions of people still can't comprehend that the Universe is not structured like some Human tribe. As I said in a previous post, there is no need for the existence of Humans, or any of their beliefs, for the universe to exist and to function. Votes: +8

@Willy K

If as you say, energy has existed for 13.7 billion years then where did energy come from? You say that something existed before that. It is unknown how long that something has existed.You must concede that following this line to its conclusion, eventually a point must be reached in time where there was nothing, no vacuum, no energy, no 'something', otherwise this allows for the idea that 'something' could have 'always existed'. This acceptance of something that always was and had no beginning requires faith in the same way that faith is required to believe that an intelligent creator has always been and had no beginning. Votes: -6

You must concede...

Really? I must concede to your rationalizing? You want the unknown state of the Universe before the Big Bang to conform to an answer that you propose.

You should ask yourself why you must have answers that conform to your notions.

Faith is not needed while waiting for the unknown to become known, only patience. Votes: +5

Is there really any practicality in trying to answer questions about what came before everything? Isn't it just self-serving as justification of your beliefs rather than acceptance that humans are not capable of finding answers to every question? One big problem with relgion is that it promotes the notion that humans can indeed answer such questions through prayer, meditation, deep contemplation. In reality, that is no way to find real answers to such questions without objective observations. Einstein may have developed the rudiments of his Relativity hypotheses using Gedankenexperimenten (thought-experiments) but he wasn't simply making stuff up. He was using the known laws of physics and real data and then putting himself in a different frame of reference (that of the photon). What is is what is. Trying to shove the framework of the universe into a anthropomorphic construct doesn't make any sense. As someone else here has noted, the universe doesn't require humans to exist and therefore there is less justification for invoking an anthropomorphic creator thereof. Fact 1. Humans have only existed in this one tiny place in a very tiny window of the entire existence of this universe (less than a million years out of 13.7 billion and only on this planet). Fact 2. It is almost certain that humans will go extinct within the next million years but the Sun will go on for another 5 billion years and the universe might go on in perpetuity or for an excrutiatingly long time. That does not agree with the notion of an intelligent designer which created (or orchestrated the eventual creation of) life and humans for a specific purpose. Votes: +5

Is there really any practicality in trying to answer questions about what came before everything?
I merely question those that assert that something has always existed (be it energy, matter or 'something')because there no sound basis for this belief.
I personally have little regard for religion but I do see evidence of supremely intelligent design in nature because despite being intelligent ourselves our attempts to mimic natures designs are poor. This is one of many reasons that I have 'faith' that there is a creator.
Since even a simple machine does not evolve by chance, how can it be a fact that the infinitely more complex brain did? Robert Jastrow said: “It is hard to accept the evolution of the human eye as a product of chance; it is even harder to accept the evolution of human intelligence as the product of random disruptions in the brain cells of our ancestors.

Votes: -6

Though I tend not to to engage in 'debates' or more-like banging my head against a brick wall with the likes of popsaw anymore, occasionally I do put myself through the purgatory of following such exchanges as I have just done here. Thanks to those who had it in them to try reasoning against such a closed mind. I read every word because every now and again I need reminding there's a lot of people out there who think like this and they have votes and influence how things are run.

Anyway, my reason for writing this now is to ask first whether the above picture of the Twain 'believing what you know ain't so' is photoshopped or does the place pictured exist. Also, if so, where can I find out what it's about please?

BDd Votes: +0

I merely question those that assert that something has always existed

Who asserts this besides you? My statements are in the posts above , I won't repeat myself again.

Intelligent Design? Really? Do you believe that adds any merit to your rationalizations?
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
"The concept of intelligent design originated in response to the 1987 United States Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguillard ruling involving separation of church and state."

What next? Homeopathy? Voodoo? Acupuncture?

I must attend to others things now, but y'all have a nice day! Votes: +2

Look at the bottom of the picture. You will see that it comes from www.says-it.com. It is a web site that will allow you to generate pictures of all kinds of outrageous signs. Take a look.
. Votes: +0

It is interesting that some who wrestle with the nothion of a God that has always existed have no problem believing that energy has always existed!

A notion is not the same as "absolute truth" espoused by religion. The correct answer to whether the energy has always been there is "We don't know". As I stated before, we shouldn't be afraid to say we don't know, nor be afraid of the fact that we may never know. Votes: +3

The answer is easy: energy and matter (which are interchangeable, for popsaw's enlightenment) have existed since the start of the universe. It should also be noted that space and time itself (the space-time fabric of General Relativity) is 'something'. Before that, we have no idea in what form 'something' existed. We don't know. All that we have currently are hypothetical speculations.

I'm done trying to insert any form of reason into inpenetrable places. How about a new Swift about 'Radiation Hormesis'? Votes: +1

@Steel Rat
A notion is not the same as "absolute truth" espoused by religion. The correct answer to whether the energy has always been there is "We don't know". As I stated before, we shouldn't be afraid to say we don't know, nor be afraid of the fact that we may never know.

I have already stated 6 posts up...
I personally have little regard for religionso we are in agreement there. However, if it is reasonable to say we don't whether energy has always been there surely it is also reasonable to make the same statement about a creator since what we have observed scientifically tells us that matter has a source. he idea that energy may have always existed is as fantastic/unfathomable as the idea that a creator has always existed. Votes: -5

You're logic is flawed. Energy is something (and it is something that we have objective knowledge and data concerning). Extrapolation isn't a far-fetched regime of science and, in this case, energy is a cornerstone of this universe. The so-called data being used to extrapolate to a 'creator' involves humans. But humans aren't a cornerstore or necessity in this universe. We are a fluke of evolution. That means that any hypothesis concerning an intelligent creator rightfully must include how that creator 'evolved', its qualities, and of what it is constructed. We have zero reason to extrapolate the rare occurence of life and the even more rarer occurence of sentient life in this universe beyond this universe without reason. Do you get it yet? Thought, not... Votes: +3

However, if it is reasonable to say we don't whether energy has always been there surely it is also reasonable to make the same statement about a creator since what we have observed scientifically tells us that matter has a source. he idea that energy may have always existed is as fantastic/unfathomable as the idea that a creator has always existed.

Sorry, but that's a pretty broad logical leap to make, one without any support. Just because you don't know doesn't mean you make shit up that have no basis in reality, or evidence to support it. Votes: +2

@Kuroyume
Energy is something (and it is something that we have objective knowledge and data concerning).
e also have he same 'object knowledge' that energy has a source, yet you are open to he idea that it may have always existed!
Votes: -4

sorry,T not working properly on keyboard Votes: +0

"nothion of a god"--Freudian slip? Votes: +1

Although Creation "ex nihilo" - "from nothing" is a Common Christian doctrine, the text of Genesis actually reads:

"At the beginning of God's creating of the heavens and the earth, when the earth was wild and waste, darkness over the face of Ocean, rushing-spirit of God hovering over the face of the waters -- God said: Let there be light! And there was light." Genesis 1:1-3

Several notes: "Ocean" was also the name of a wilderness/water deity in various Middle Eastern communities.

Also, note that God did not create "stuff." There was already "stuff" there (earth and water, for example). In Scripture God is portrayed as an organizer, not originator.

Not that it makes much difference, nor demonstrates whether such a being did/does exist. Votes: +1

@Ex Nihlo
For thus said the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he has established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

Your speculation that the Genesis account allows for the earth to have already been in existence is shown to be in error by Isaiah 48:18 (and other passages)which reads...
For thus said the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he has established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else. Votes: -5

The Hebrew in Isaiah says "make" and "form" (rather like molding something out of clay). Again, it is not "ex nihilo."

OR, is your thesis that Isaish pulls rank on Genesis?

Why is it the verses mean what you want them to mean? Do you not realise you are substituting your interpretation of the texts for what the texts actually say? You are in fact re-writing your own version of the Bible, one conducive to your opinions. Votes: +1

There is no basis for your belief that 'stuff' was already there.The act of creating, or causing the existence of, someone or something. It can also refer to that which has been created or brought into existence. The Hebrew ba·ra’′ and the Greek kti′zo, both meaning “create,” are used exclusively with reference to divine creation.
It is a serious misrepresentation of the scripture y have quoted which in no way implies that this is the case. This is further backed up by ...
Isaiah 45:8 ...
Rain down from above, you heavens, and pour down righteousness, you skies. Let the earth open. Let salvation and righteousness sprout. Let them spring up. I, the LORD, have created them.
Isaiah 45:11..
I myself have made the earth and have created even man upon it. I—my own hands have stretched out the heavens, and all the army of them I have commanded.”
Revelation 4:11...
"Worthy are You, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, and because of Your will they existed, and were created."

These scriptures do not contradict or pull rank on Genesis, they merely confirm that the event was an actual creation from nothing.
Nice try though!
Votes: -4

I'm busy today, and cannot continue -- but I am simply reading the plain meaning of the text, which says the "stuff" was already here. You are the one extracting a meaning that is not in the Hebrew, nor even in the various good translations into English.

The fact that you have a condordance so can find verses with the English word "create" does not impress me, by the way. Have you read them in context and understood their meaning? Or just prooftexting?

I find it amazing and amuzing that I, a non-believer, have a greater respect for the text and the integrity of it's translation and meaning than you, apparently a person of faith, have.

This has to be my last post on the subject, I have a deadline for work. Votes: +0

I will explain it further so that the context of Genesis (in conjunction with the scriptures I have quoted)can be in NO doubt. Gods name 'Yahweh', means... He Causes to Become.
Votes: -5

The theory that the universe itself has awareness of what's going on and can influence worldly events (let's call that theory religion) is a fundamental theory that occurs separately in all cultures.


Indeed it has. And that says something about how the human mind perceives the world. It doesn't even come close to saying anything about the truthfulness of religion.

It also says something about the nature of the world.

Some brief notes on reality

There's no doubt we did evolve from ape like creatures and small mammals before them and sea creatures before them and microbes before them. But was the evolution unassisted? Just random chemical reactions? Evolution relies on the existence of chemicals on Earth reacting with each other. But what are these chemicals? What is matter? What is a solid? A solid existing is an oxymoron if you think about it. We use sub composition analysis and find smaller and smaller solids making up a solid, but where does it end? For a century we thought there were 3 fundamental particles, protons, neutrons and electrons. All the matter on Earth could be compressed into the size of a bin of these particles. It's just a trick of the imagination to push it further to a point! These particles are now shown to have subparticles, and at least some of the subparticles are point source masses, they have no volume, just mass. So as my father often describes to me, if you had the perfect microscope and you looked at a speck of dust and increased the magnification again and again, after seeing the individual molecules and then the particles, you keep increasing the magnification and THERE IS NOTHING THERE. Just forces! The reason we don't fall through the floor towards the center of gravity at the center of the Earth, is because forces hold us up, not stuff.





Penrose's Three Worlds. The drawing schematically illustrates the idea that the Physical World can be thought of as a projection from part of the Platonic World of eternal Truths, the Mental World arises from part of the Physical World (presumably the brain), and that the Platonic World is 'grasped' somehow during some mental activities.

The main idea is that the physical universe operates in perfect precision by following operations defined by a small subset of mathematics. A small subset of the physical universe is used to manifest our mental operations, and a small subset of our mental activity is used to conjure the platonic world (when we do mathematics), forming a cycle and making you ask which is the real world?

Now back to the point sources of matter and forces, it's now clearer that the physical universe is a mathematically subtended reality of the platonic world. We live in a mathematically precise domain, like the matrix, fabricated to give us the illusion of substance.

So although you see your 'reality' and can't think for the life of you why something over here could be influenced by something over there, think again, these point sources of matter and photons and the resulting forces are all interlinked by quantum entanglement, modern science suspects that everything is connected, the old Newtonian theories of a world where stuff interacts with other stuff locally is what the random evolution theory is based on.

Herc
Votes: -3

Don't tell our space probes that Newtonian mechanics don't work anymore--there's a lot of money at stake out there. Please don't slip into philosophy, it's annoying.

It's well-known among atheists and others familiar with the Bible that it is full of self-contradiction and logically inconsistent "facts". I still find it amazing that people can claim literal truth from a book that can't decide whether Adam and Eve were the same age. For any position you want to argue, you can find support in the Bible. Votes: +0

So although you see your 'reality' and can't think for the life of you why something over here could be influenced by something over there, think again, these point sources of matter and photons and the resulting forces are all interlinked by quantum entanglement, modern science suspects that everything is connected, the old Newtonian theories of a world where stuff interacts with other stuff locally is what the random evolution theory is based on.

Unfortunately, for you, quantum entanglement is just what it says it is: entanglement of subatomic particles to react at any distance (Bell's Theorem). It has no scaling effect above quantum levels - just like all quantum theory and mechanics. I also keep hearing about how Einsteinian theories have destroyed Newtonian mechanics. This is so untrue that I ignore this out of frustration. At speeds less than like 80 or 90 percent light-speed, Einstein 'mechanics' agrees with Newtonian mechanics. In other words, it doesn't destroy it, it supplements it by considering light-speed and gravitational effects (like time-dilation) not considered by Newton. Newtonian mechanics is still used to build cars, roads, buildings, bridges, tanks, tools, machinery, gear-systems, engines, space-craft, ......... Actually, evolutionary theories are much more recent than Newton (by several hundred years). They were borne out of the geological/biological studies done during the 1800s but have been expanded into many other areas such as cosmology, paleontology, archaeology, plate-tectonics with superlative success. Votes: +2

It is the stated doctrine of all mainstream christian religions that god created everything "ex nihilo", which is just a cleve latin phrase which means "from nothing." You are arguing against the doctrine of your own religion if you say everything DIDN'T come from nothing. If you believe it came from the substance of god, then you are a pantheist, which is a heresy in mainstream christianity.

Science, on the other hand, says pretty clearly something can't come from nothing. Concerning the origin of the universe, science simply says either it has been here forever or it seems to have had a beginning (the big band) we don't know where it came from. These are the hypotheses that seem reasonable based on the available evidence. No theoretical physicist in the world will tell you they know the answer to that question.

So you are rather humorously arguing against yourself. Votes: -1

@Griz
Nowhere have I said I accept the teachings of 'mainstream Christianity'as your post implies.Furthermore, the scriptures I have quoted were written before Latin (except the Revelation quote) evenexisted. They were written in Hebrew
I believe the bible, not religion as already stated 16 posts previous. Religion is generally a racket and contradicts the bibles teachings. The scriptures I have shown are proof that the context should be understood as created from nothing. Also, Gods name means 'he causes to become'. The thoughts conveyed in my biblical quotes, and the context, could not be clearer, despite clumsy attempts to show otherwise! Obviously, as a believer in a creator. Votes: -1

entanglement of subatomic particles to react at any distance (Bell's Theorem). It has no scaling effect above quantum levels

Skeptics are selectively ignorant. EVERYTHING is made of particles. The scalability is UNKNOWN, heard of Schrodinger's Cat? The Universe IS connected, it's not just isolated chemical reactions that depicts random evolution. Quantum mechanics is the most accurate depiction of matter and you try to ignore it. "Spookiness" in physics isn't palatable to the skeptic.

Herc
Votes: -2

Yes, indeed, I've heard of Schroedinger's Cat (and Planck Quantization, De Broglie Waves, Duality Principle, Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, Pauli's Exclusion Principle, and Feynman Diagrams). And? It is the most accurate description of subatomic particles and their interactions and qualities. Again, after these, you have four fundamental forces: Gravity, ElectroMagnetic, Strong Nuclear, and Weak Nuclear. These are not covered by Quantum Theory (except as mainly elusive particles like the graviton) - thus the reason why macro physics and quantum physics haven't been successfully integrated (TOE and such).

1. The Copenhagen Interpretation is a purely philosophical set of conclusions musing on the ramifications of Quantum Theory. 'If a tree falls...', Many-Worlds Interpretation, and Schroedinger's Cat are all musings not experimental conclusions.

2. Quantum physics is soooo often misused and coopted by woo that it is laughable. Whenever woo-woos need an explanation that sounds scientific, they grab for quantum physics. Again, quantum physics only applies to interactions of subatomic particles. Whether or not its affects can be seen in the macroscopic world doesn't matter (double-slit experiment for example). According to Quantum Physics, you could potentially walk through a wall by having the probability of your particles lining up just right with the wall to do so. The problem is that the probabilities would mean that it may happen if you tried it constantly for several quintillion years (longer than the universe might exist several times over - literally, not likely). There have also been discussions about FTL communication using particle entanglement but you still need to transport (at regular speeds) the one entangled particle to a location where it would be useful for FTL. And no real information can be communicated (just the matching states of the entangled particles). Way too rudimentary for anything and impractical.

3. Evolution is NOT RANDOM!!! It is a process which involves some random events (such as mutation and catastrophe) as part of the process but it is not a random process.

I'm so sorry that I'm not as ignorant as you assumed. Votes: +1

Why do so many people have trouble telling the difference between metaphor and reality (e.g., postmodernists, Biblical literalists, relativists)? Schrodinger's cat is an analogy.

If you detect a wormhole, run away. Even if you're a worm (no insult implied). Votes: +0

or maybe it's a simile, or a metaphor, or an illustration... Votes: +0

Metaphor is good. Illustration is better.

There is a misconception that quantum events must be 'scalable' (as Herc puts it) directly. That is incorrect. They 'scale' as the normal interactions of energy and matter that we see in the atomic and larger-scale world. For instance, a baseball batter hits a baseball. The exchange of particles and energies (which are the same thing in the subatomic realm) is what makes the bat and ball 'seem' solid and transmits the forces which cause that Newtonian interaction (for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction). Those who follow quantum physics probably have seen this example. In other words, out of the soup of the strange quantum world, we observe our usual non-quantum world. To paraphrase, what happens in Quantum Vegas, stays in Quantum Vegas.

Schroedinger's Cat is no different. The release of a particle from a radioactive substance which releases a poison is the quantum-level uncertainty and the state of the cat after observation is the normal certainty. Schroedinger plays with the 'what if' inbetween before an observation has been made (stating that the cat is in a state of superposition - both dead and alive). One need not infer a quantum-level uncertainty as the probabilistic decider of live/dead states of the cat prior to observation. You could just as easily put some razor blades (macroscopic objects) in the box - the choices of the cat cutting itself fatally or not are still uncertain until the box is opened (as a crude analogy). This illustration is about uncertainty - a problem (but a reality) with Quantum physics with which its disciples struggled. By the HUP, they knew that one could not know both the exact position (100%) and exact momentum (100%) of a subatomic particle. You could only measure so much of each or fully one or the other. Before you measure (observe) the particle, it exists as a fuzzy superposition of positions and momentums (what if) and after you measure it, you can only know so much through the measurement - not everything. For instance, when the cat actually died (if it did) could not be precisely measured because you only measured whether it was dead or alive not when it died. Votes: +0

The fundamental difference between modern science and philosophy (religious or otherwise) is that science primarily attempts to answer the question "how," while philosophy primarily attempts to answer the question "why." However, it is interesting to note that for many thousands of years, Western Civilization's most learned and esteemed scholars made no distinction between science, religion, and philosophy. It is only within the last 200-400 years that science has separated itself from 'natural philosophy.' Even Newton considered himself, first and foremost, to be both a Christian and an alchemist. To anyone unversed in history, this concept-- that science and philosophy (and from philosophy, religion) are indistinct-- likely seems odd, if not downright alien. Religious philosophy, when manifest in its most useful form, has no real conflict with science, because science in no way detracts from religion's ability to answer the 'why' questions-- it typically just enhances that ability. Likewise, religion in no way detracts from science's ability to answer the 'how' questions (or the 'when,' 'what,' 'who,' & 'where' questions, for that matter). It's when you start trying to use science to answer 'why' and religion to answer 'how' that you run into problems. Whether you ascribe to a religious philosophy or a different one, you necessarily employ *some* form of faith, even if it's not spiritual. How else could you determine what is 'good' or 'bad' or 'best' for humanity and the world, if you didn't have some form of morality within which to treat the answers to such qualitative questions? I think it's fantastic when we as skeptics challenge oppressively blind faith and superstition within religions which attempt to answer 'how' with 'why.' But it is equally our duty to check science when it claims the high ground in construing 'why' with 'how.' It is unwise, I think, to dismiss all religions outright because of their historical mixups in purpose, because, like it or not, well-implemented religion is still quite capable of answering the 'why' questions in a way that no science ever will. I think we all agree that skepticism should combat every form of fundamentalism, be it Christian, atheist, or otherwise. And while atheist fundamentalism is far less likely to occur, when it does, it is in many ways more dangerous and difficult to dispel, because its agent is so utterly convinced that his/ her belief is factual. Just remember that, ultimately, for the vast majority of instances, you really can't prove the answer to 'why' something happens-- it requires at least a little faith, if only in the most literal and basic sense. Votes: +3

you're jumping around the issue on scalability. When state reduction occurs is completely unkown.

Whether or not its affects can be seen in the macroscopic world doesn't matter

So even if quantum effects occur in real everyday life, like guiding my hands to open books at the perfect position to read answers to any question, doesn't matter? Now there's a blatant cop out.

quantum events must be 'scalable' (as Herc puts it) directly. That is incorrect.

Now you've put words in my mouth and made my statements wrong! Good one.

Face the facts, we know matter (you can call it ONLY particles) is connected over distance.
The mechanism for an all knowing entity is plausable.

Herc
Votes: -1

So you picked two small portions out of all of that, huh?

It doesn't matter. The scaling effects of quantum interactions are observed as regular old macroscopic physics. We don't see atoms or cats appearing out of the quantum foam because they can't (within a very large improbability). You didn't get the baseball analogy whatsoever, did you? Despite quantum physicists being able to explain how the baseball and bat interact at the quantum level, what we observe is the bat hitting the baseball and imparting a force to it just as expected in Newtonian Mechanics (and other applied physics). The ball doesn't pass through the bat and no atomic explosions occur due to fissioned atoms.

The word that I put in your mouth was 'scalable' that is all. You said, and I quote, "The scalability is UNKNOWN". You are incorrect. It is known. Quantum effects stop before the atomic level. Again, there has never been an observation of an entire atom appearing from 'nowhere'. There is one notable exception to scaling: the Aharonov-Bohm Effect. Strictly speaking, though, this is still a electromagnetic field (represented by quanta in Quantum physics) and electrons (represented by quanta). The main curiousity is the action-at-a-distance without entanglement which shows a potential for an electric field even when there is none (no measurable force exerted). The problem is that it has not been explained and tested thoroughly enough. Although the effect was describe in 1959, it wasn't until 1998 that an experiment actually took place. Again, even though this is a bit out of my league, it doesn't sound like a purely Quantum effect scaling into the macroscopic world at all.

Face the facts, we know matter (you can call it ONLY particles) is connected over distance.

Show me the evidence for this (and by evidence, I want peer-reviewed publications with experimental data). Votes: +0

The mechanism for an all knowing entity is plausable.

You should submit your c.v. Votes: +0

Quantum effects stop before the atomic level.

I'm going to pick a small portion of your post again, as I see it as central to the argument.
Find a source for that and I'll find one about quantum entanglement connecting matter over large distances.

If you can find a source, then you just showed Schrodinger's Cat was just an exercise in literacy.

Herc Votes: -1

Here's the latest (only a couple months old) cutting-edge, most highly technical experiment ever devised to measure (eventually - this is still IN PROGRESS!!!!) quantum effects at 'macroscopic' scales (and we're only talking nano sized structures). If you actually read it carefully, you'll see my evidence that, to date, quantum effects have been limited and only measured at the subatomic level.

http://seedmagazine.com/conten..._behavior/

That said, for the past 100+ years, this hasn't been the case. And this is still not definitive. Not until there is peer-review and replication. That is how SCIENCE works, correct?

Again, noone here is claiming that the macroscopic structure popped in and out of existence or had non-localized, FTL connections. Votes: +0

I did read that part about a small molecular structure (a Buckyball - after Buckminster Fuller who developed geodesic dome ideas) showing a quantum effect (wave-particle duality). That's a bit of scaling above subatomic particles. But then tests of larger structures (a virus) had none. I think this shows quite definitively that as you move further away from subatomic effect scales, the quantum effects are quickly subdued. Note that Buckyballs don't have that many atoms - we're talking a dozen or two and they're in a closed shell-like configuration which may (or may not) have an amplifying effect.

Even if we can show that some quantum effects reach all the way out to a few thousand atoms radius, you do realize how many atoms in, say, a grain of sand, yes?

A: 26,548,795,476,000,000,000 atoms! Votes: +0

Scientists have faith in the instruments they use.

No, they calibrate them, replace them when needed, etc. They have confidence in their instruments based on known physical laws and repeated use and experimentation. Votes: -1

"Both sides are demanding that the other want what they want."

I've long given up on that and only demand fair treatment. What and how my neighbor believes "neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." What my neighbor actively does to me matters far more to me.

I'm often especially amused by modern Lutherans, who often grant me "acceptable" status as a Jew against "those atheists". The irony that I'm an atheist competes with the irony that Luther literally wrote the book on anti-Jewish hatred (Von den Jüden und iren Lügen, 1543), and I'm not sure which wins as most ironic. Votes: +1

>> Scientists have faith in the instruments they use.

>> No, they calibrate them, replace them when needed, etc. They have confidence in their instruments based on known physical laws and repeated use and experimentation.

So you are telling me that every instrument used is analyzed from first principles by every scientist that ever uses it? At some point, you just have to have faith in the peer review process, the publication that informed you of peer review, the mailman that delivered the article... Votes: +0

In my humble opinion, it is a waste of time and resources for the JREF to waste time arguing with intelligent designers who will never be conviced, or by ridiculing any and all persons of faith as wackos because that is a gross generalization and is simply not the case.

Rather, they should spend their time and resources combating and exposing things like this:

FAITH HEALING PARENTS CHARGED IN DEATH OF INFANT SON

http://www.philly.com/philly/n...t_son.html

I know many of you will see this as an indictment of religion, which it is not. It is a testament to the dangers of extremism and ignorance and should be exposed at any oppurtunity Votes: +0

Jesus said n Matthew 7:22
Many will say to me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?’ 23 And yet then I will confess to them: I never knew YOU! Get away from me, YOU workers of lawlessness.
Therefore, your comments are certainly no a indictment of those that believe the bible but arerightfully damning of those that profess to e Christian but their actions are unchristian! Votes: -1

I have found this correspondence absolutely fascinating, although a few contributors seem to have a few kangaroos loose in the top paddock (to use an aussie expression!) I cannot understand how anyone in this day and age could possibly believe in an invisible friend somewhere in the sky. Some friend! Typhoons, hurricanes, tsunamis destroy millions, but there is always someone who says it was "a miracle" that they survived. Meaning they were worthy of saving by the invisible friend, but newborns, children etc were not. Hmmm. Votes: +0

This versatile styling tool has an ergonomic design and curved edge plates to create any style from straight to curly and everything in between. With a flash heating element and fixed temperature setting, the power to create the style of your dreams is your hands.
GHD
GHD IV Styler Votes: +0