Vanden, Feelings can be misplaced. Intuitions are often deceiving. Inconsistency (or, in other words, "unsoundness", or self-contradiction) is always a hint toward incorrectness. That's why we have logic. That's why we test things. That's (among other reasons) why objectivism is always superior to faith. ------------------ I am; therefore I think.
Unicron, You might as well ask why the majority of humans on Earth <u>don't</u> believe in God. Or, you might ask why the majority of scientists to date came from countries, cultures, and family backgrounds dominated by Christianic faith. And it doesn't matter where evolution gets its ideas (though it's the first time I heard that particular allegation against Darwin). Theories stand or fall on empirical testing and consistency with other theories. Most scientists do not study evolution, and therefore have no idea of its scientific foundations beyond the shallow introductions of grade school. Most scientists who study evolution do not believe in a Creator. Most scientists are not true scientists, in that they do not grasp the actual philosophy and logic underlying the scientific method; they simply go through the motions because someone else had already established the routine for them. Most scientists do not concern themselves with philosophy, and therefore do not pay attention to the utter inconsistency of their religious faith and their enterprise of choice as epistemological frameworks. Are most scientists to be commended for their religious faith? On the contrary! They are to be berated for it, as any hypocrite should be. <hr> As to your other extremely long post, I have this sneaking suspicion that you are not its author. Did you re-post material from some web page? In that case, it would be better if in the future you simply provide the url, rather than littering the discussion with material not of your own making. Otherwise, this could quickly degenerate into everyone re-posting stuff from the web and never actually providing any original commentary, at which point there is no longer a reason for the thread to exist. Additionally, it would be appropriate for you to credit the original author(s), since otherwise you are committing plagiarism (and undermining your own credibility). Now, if all of that really is of your own making, then I apologize and retract these criticisms; yet I'd say that in any case for posts of that length it would make sense to split them up into logical chunks. Concerning the "what do the candidates think" bit: why should the opinion of the candidates carry any weight in this discussion? Are they experts in either creationism or evolution? Are they philosophers, logicians, naturalists, biologists, biochemists, geologists, paleontologists, archaeologists, computer scientists, meteorologists, cosmologists, mathematicians, cognitive scientists, anatomists, physicists? Because evolution draws from and unites all of those disciplines and more! So just what authority do the candidates hold in this discussion? Not quite right! The "axyoms" are <u>not</u> true without proof just because. This is the wording of mathematics, which still suffers from its original idealist roots. In truth, every single concept in mathematics itself is merely an empirical induction. How do we know that 1+1=2? Not <u>because</u> it's assumed to be true without proof, although such an assumption is indeed made, and that's where mathematics likes to anchor it. We need to look deeper at <u>why</u> we even bother to make such an assumption in the first place. (The "assumption" part of it is due to the fact that past empirical observations are not a guarantee of the future; knowledge and existence itself are subject to the Fundamental Principle of Induction (FPI), which is the mother of all axyoms.) It is only true because we <u>observe</u> it to be true. Mathematics arose out of empirical observation coupled to induction -- including both its axyoms <u>and</u> its methods. The same is true of any branch of science. In fact, the same is true of any branch of knowledge. The difference between scientific and other forms of knowledge is that science actively tests, structures and organizes its knowledge, and invests a great deal of effort to ensure that none of its statements come into contradiction with one another. In contrast, other forms of knowledge never go that additional distance, and hence are prone to fallacy, inconsistency, overgeneralization, misinterpretation, etc. It is only because science constantly tests itself that its knowledge base is able to grow; no such natural growth factor (beyond serendipitous discovery) is available to grow and advance knowledge in absense of the scientific methodology. This is very true. And it is yet another way to see how creationism cannot even be compared in its veracity, utility, or explanatory power to evolution. The interpretation is key, and evolution makes no assumptions which do not derive from empirical observations. Creationism, on the other hand, bases its assumptions on mythology. Right away, a vast difference is visible between the two: one is anchored in objective reality and well-integrated with many other disciplines, the other is based on an inconsistent cultural artifact that itself comes into direct conflict with many observations to date (and hence would have been long since discredited as a theory, were it not for the usual fanaticism and general scientific illiteracy associated with religion.) Then, of course, there is the question of testability. If I can test my theory and show that it passes test after test, while all you have is "claims" -- then it should be clear which one of us is being reasonable, and which is builiding castles in the air. Remember, the Bible is not the only account of creation in existence; other religions have other accounts. In fact, as with any theories, the total set of all possible theories to explain life is infinite; only empirical testing can winnow down the possibilities and allow us to approach the truth. Any theory that is not testable, then, does not even deserve consideration -- since its probability of being correct is 1/(infinity) = 0. Also something amusing I find in that picture you posted up: "100% infallible" in reference to the Bible. No scientific theory can ever claim to be 100% infallible; such a statement would in fact come into direct contradiction with the inductive nature of knowledge. Just the fact alone that a creationist is willing to claim the Bible to be 100% infallible, exposes that creationist's view as pseudoscientific. Besides that, the Bible is clearly not 100% infallible, by any reasonable account. Clearly, the biology teacher in question was not knowledgeable about the underpinnings of the scientific method enough to demonstrate to her students the superiority of her set of assumptions to the creationist set. All sets of assumptions are not equally well-founded, nor equally well-justified, nor in equal agreement with reality, nor are testable. It is a fact that none of the fundamental creationist assumptions is testable, whereas every single one of the fundamental assumptions of the scientific method are being tested every single time a scientific experiment is conducted -- and indeed with every breath we take. I don't think so! The so called 'brute facts' are of the variety that denotes straightforward empirical observation. Here's a brute fact: if on Earth you pick up a stone, raise it above a supporting surface, and then release it -- the stone will fall. Here's another brute fact: the stone will fall every single time you try that particular experiment. Where's "interpretation" in these observations (other than FPI)? Just one comment here: "if the Bible says so, then it must be so". Now, where's wisdom in that? Is that how you "teach the children to think"?!! That does not demonstrate the validity of the Bible. Indeed, people have reconciled every other religion in existence with science. They've also reconciled the Bible with everything from racism to geocentrism. Of course, none of these reconciliations lend validity to creationism. But what would give creationism validity, is if it actually predicted genetic drift, or if it actually predicted the fossil record, or if it actually predicted morphological similarities across species within phyla, or that some phyla or kingdoms are geologically older than others, or if it actually predicted biochemical commonalities in all life, or if it actually predicted the geological time scales on which various kingdoms emerged and evolved. However, creationism predicts none of those things. Genetics, biochemistry, and mathematics in the context of evolution, on the other hand, do. As another example: does creationism predict that life had evolved elsewhere in the universe? Well, does it? Evolution certainly does! But where in your 100% accurate Bible is there even a single mention of other solar systems or other planets or other intelligent species? But I have no doubt that when life is discovered elsewhere in the cosmos, creationists will find a way to reconcile the Bible with that finding as well. Though I do believe there is one final blow in coming from which creationists will never recover: complete scientific unraveling of the human mind in terms of purely biochemical processes, obviating the postulate of souls and etching a final epitaph onto the gravestone of afterlife. This will certainly come into direct conflict with the Bible by any degree of reinterpretation, and I'd love to see what excuses creationists will come up with when they have to deal with the reality of artificial human (and even superhuman) intelligence, human-machine hybrids, etc. It is nonsensical to talk of something as "evolved the right way." Of course we "evolved the right way" -- otherwise we would be extinct. The universe is not entirely random (at least not on the large scale; there's some debate about the sub-quantum realm); it is indeed governed by laws, as profusely demonstrated by any branch of science. What is <u>assumed to be</u> random, however, is the starting configuration and distribution of matter/energy in the protouniverse. It shows a thorough misunderstanding of materialism to say that atheism precludes one from judging correctness or appropriateness of anything. These aspects are determined by both biological structure of the human cognitive machine, and the knowledge of the world that machine begins to amass even prior to birth. This is not atheism. It's called solipsism, and is a very lame philosophy (surely you'd agree on that.) Learn the difference between the two. How about this: "cogito ergo sum." (I think therefore I am, for those who don't speak Latin.) How about this: I am, therefore logic is justified as long as I am, therefore I can talk about things that are true vs. false as long as I am, therefore I can measure and sample my environment, and build theories about it, and let it allow me to decide what is true and what isn't -- as long as I am, that is. I'm confused. How can these philosophers be secular and at the same time find the Christian framework indispensable? Do you know what "secular" means? <hr> Now come on, stop regurgitating what other people have stuffed you with, and try to think on your own every now and then. You just might find it stimulating. ------------------ I am; therefore I think. [This message has been edited by Boris (edited March 08, 2000).]
Alright...im a fraud, FRAUD!!!!!!!!!!!! You said- "I have this sneaking suspicion that you are not its author." "plagiarism"- their is nothing illegal in what im doing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Oh, how old are you, just curious? Boris, what do you mean by that? I don't understand. 'On another occasion, a man came to me after a seminar and said, ‘Actually, I’m an atheist. Because I don’t believe in God, I don’t believe in absolutes, so I recognize that I can’t even be sure of reality.’ I never said he was an Atheis, he did! ok, ill give you the url....it'l cost ya.....50 dollars!!!!
Quote originally posted by Boris- "Concerning the "what do the candidates think" bit: why should the opinion of the candidates carry any weight in this discussion? Are they experts in either creationism or evolution? Are they philosophers, logicians, naturalists, biologists, biochemists, geologists, paleontologists, archaeologists, computer scientists, meteorologists, cosmologists, mathematicians, cognitive scientists, anatomists, physicists? Because evolution draws from and unites all of those disciplines and more! So just what authority do the candidates hold in this discussion?" Yeah, but neither are you any of those. You don't have to be stupid to beleive in God.
Unicron, I may not be an expert, but I'll whip any presidential candidate into a pulp on any of those topics. So I'd say I'm a little bit more qualified as an "authority" on these issues. And if some slob doesn't know the difference between atheism and solipsism, it still gives you no excuse to repeat what he said as if it was spoken on behalf of atheism. (Btw, all this time I'm talking both to you, as well as to whoever wrote the original text.) Though I must say that so far, your response has been on the feeble side. ------------------ I am; therefore I think.
Boris, If that's how you feel, then you must have no conception of religion, and you probably shouldn't even be arguing these points with people. If you think that everything needs to have empirical evidence to be believed, you have no hope of ever understanding religion or becoming religious youself, although I doubt that disturbs you too much. Are you simply trying to prove to us that your way is right and ours is wrong? I know that my faith is not founded in logic, and you tell me that because of this it is not a reasonable thing to believe. Maybe it isn't, but I do still believe it, and you are not going to change my, nor anyone else's mind about it. You can look back to my previous post for my answer to your "objectivism is always superior to faith" argument. Can't you see that the two are entirely different, and should not be judged in the same ways, or used for the same purposes? Actually, I suppose you can't, or you wouldn't be saying such things. [This message has been edited by Vanden (edited March 09, 2000).]
Vanden, the whole point, is that faith rests on intangible concepts. Subjective to the individual and their psyche. This is why you find so many people who all swear by their faith in their partircular God, religion or metaphysical philosophy. Even within one major religion, let's take Christianity as an example. You will find different doctrines, beliefs and traditions. On an individualistic level, the fragmentation of beliefs/interpretations becomes even finer, to the point in fact where you can put ten 'Christians' into a room to debate their individual beliefs and you wouldn't be too surprised if a fight broke out amongst them, because of disagreement. Maybe I'm exaggerating slightly, but red faces shouting "heresy" and fists banging tables are not hard to imagine in this context. If I can make an analogy between faith in a religion/God/concept, what you will. And faith or at least acceptance of science and logic, it would be like; I see the ocean, blue, wet and inviting. I wade in, but only up to my waist. I know that it's an unpredictable and potentially hazardous place. I know that scientists have and are studying the oceans and have discovered a lot of important information and I also know that there are still many, many things to be found out. I wave to you and I say, "come on in the waters lovely". You shout back, "don't be silly, come and swim in the river with me. Oh, and don't worry about the crocodile, you've just got to keep on swimming". And I say, "but I don't see a river or crocodile, you are standing on hard ground". You say, "ofcourse I'm swimming in a river, why do you need to see it? you gotta have faith man, come jump in" At that point, one of your friends sitting up a tree, shouts to me, " If you don't want to swim in the river, come and wade in my lake instead! but don't stop wading unless you want the piranhas to bite your ass" Now given the choice, I would choose the ocean any time. I can see it, feel it, taste it, am truly in awe of it and I know that it's real. You and your friend though... well as if it's not enough that you both think that you're in something wet and deep (no pun int) when in actual fact you are on and even off the hard dry ground. And as if it's not enough that the wet spaces you describe do not correspond with each other. You have also mentioned animals, which again only you seem to see and they don't correspond either. This is the difference, as I see it anyway. ------------------ I used to think I was weird...till I discovered Excoscience messageboards!
Boris, Explain to me how it is that you think that the Christian faith is NOT objective? I don't get it. ------------------ You may think I'm a nut, but I'm fastened to the strongest bolt in the universe.
Boris, Explain to me how it is that you think that my faith in Jesus isn't objective exactly? ------------------ You may think I'm a nut, but I'm fastened to the strongest bolt in the universe.
Vanden - I believe that the point Boris is laboring to push across is that relying on your feelings may work, but may not. Emotions can become confused, can believe things that aren't true, and can be decieved. Ever been sitting alone in the dark and had the feeling that you were being watched? Children have this problem all the time because they lack the logical skills to know that a monster is not under their bed. Actually, even if you're an adult and think that there is a monster under your bed, you realize that its no bother to simply poke your head under there and check. Logic and emotion are different, yes. Both have capabilities that the other doesn't, and so in general, we can't compare them. However, this is a rather specific case, and we can indeed compare the benefits and hazards inherent to each. FyreStar
First I'd like to answer Lori's question to Boris. The Christian faith is not objective because we have no physical proof that God exists that can be objectively tested in controlled conditions. Next, I fully realize that religion cannot be tested, and I know that may make me appear to be an idiot to some of you for believeing in God. But if you think about it, God has no reason to give us objectively testable proof that he exists. If he did, the test of faith that he has put before us would be invalid, as we would no longer have to rely on what we feel to determine whether or not there is a God. It has been put before us that we can either believe in God and go to heaven, or we can reject him and go somewhere else. It's not much of a test if he can be proven to exist, is it? Tablariddim, your analogy is interesting, but invalid. I am not trying to give proof that there is a God. That is your own choice to make based on your feelings, not what evidence is put before you. I agree that 10 different Christians will probably have different views on their faith, but there's nothing wrong with that. It would be against the Christian faith to start physically fighting over, and I think most Christians would agree with me on that. Those who judge others' views on religion to be evil are stepping out of their place as Christians and playing God. It is not our place to judge others. FyreStar, You speak of benefits and hazards in your response to my post. I can think of quite a few benefits to believing in God, and I'm sure you can name quite a few benefits to remaining completely objective. I cannot, however, think of a single hazard inherent in being a Christian. I can name quite a few hazards to remaining completely objective. Can you name some hazards to being a Christian that I haven't thought of? -Vanden
Feeble side? OK, point well taken, point well taken. OK, I'm going to give you a statment and you give me your response...bring it on!!!!! -------------------- The Bible proves it "In the Bible it says that..." "Most atheists feel that the Bible is of questionable accuracy, as it was written thousands of years ago by many authors who were recording oral tradition that existed many years before. Thus, any claimed 'truth' in it is of questionable legitimacy. This isn't to say that The Bible has no truth in it; simply that any truth must be examined before being accepted. Many atheists also feel that because any passage is subject to "interpretation", any claim that a passage 'means' one thing and one thing only is not legitimate. Note that this feeling tends to extend to other books. It is also remarkable to many atheists that theists tend to ignore other equally plausible religious books in favor of those of their own religion." ---------- "If you believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you have lost nothing -- but if you don't believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you will go to hell. Therefore it is foolish to be an atheist." ----------- Einstein and "God does not play dice" "Albert Einstein believed in God. Do you think you're cleverer than him?" Einstein did once comment that "God does not play dice [with the universe]". This quotation is commonly mentioned to show that Einstein believed in the Christian God. Used this way, it is out of context; it refers to Einstein's refusal to accept some aspects of the most popular interpretations of quantum theory. Furthermore, Einstein's religious background was Jewish rather than Christian. A better quotation showing what Einstein thought about God is the following: "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings." Einstein recognized Quantum Theory as the best scientific model for the physical data available. He did not accept claims that the theory was complete, or that probability and randomness were an essential part of nature. He believed that a better, more complete theory would be found, which would have no need for statistical interpretations or randomness. So far no such better theory has been found, and much evidence suggests that it never will be. A longer quote from Einstein appears in "Science, Philosophy, and Religion, A Symposium", published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941. In it he says: The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exists as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted [italics his], in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot. But I am convinced that such behavior on the part of representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress. In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests. In their labors they will have to avail themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself. This is, to be sure, a more difficult but an incomparably more worthy task... Einstein has also said: It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. The above quote is from a letter Einstein wrote in English, dated 24 March 1954. It is included in "Albert Einstein: The Human Side", edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, and published by Princeton University Press. Also from the same book: I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it. -------------------- Many people beleive in God and say he exists because of their own personal experiences. What do you think about them? Boris, if Jesus came once what makes you think he wont come again? He raised the dead, and had all these other powers. Do you think he was just a crack head? Do you beleive in Souls, or life after death? Are you 100% sure God dosnt exist? How can you be so sure?
What do you think about this quote, Boris? "Sylvia is truly on a mission for God. Simply put, she is determined to show the world that the soul survives death. In addition she wants to emphasize that God, both Father and Mother God, are infinitely loving Beings, not full of wrath and hate as represented by many of today's religions. Sylvia feels that all people can reach God by knowledge and reason, rather than relying upon faith alone. For any question your mind can raise, God will provide an answer; the trick is being able to understand that answer - which Sylvia does on a daily basis, and it gets stronger and stronger with each person she counsels. To help Sylvia on this mission, God gave her a psychic ability that is unmatched by anyone, which is evident to all who have seen her work on television shows. Many times she has appeared on the Montel Williams Show, Leeza, Unsolved Mysteries, etc; where her astonishing insights and communications with the dead are nothing short of miraculous" www.sylvia.org This is the God i beleive in, not the Christian God. So what do you think?
Who usually wins in an argument, Boris or Lori? also read this, see what this guy thinks- http://www.georgeanderson.com/askga2.html
Vanden - First of all, particular belief in god is a subsection of what I was talking about before, but I'll adress it nonetheless. Do you really expect me to think that you can't see any hazards in being a christian? I can name a few. closemindedness; once you think you have not only *an* answer, but *the* answer, you close yourself to all the other possibilities. Fooling yourself; without logical support, there is always the chance that you're chasing wisps. People have been deceived since before the beginning of civilization.. what makes you any different? Loss of individuality; when people start to speak out about their faith, they tend to blur into each other. I could go on. Lets examine the benefits; it seems that in almost all cases, the benefits are themselves generated by the philosophy. Don't want to go to hell? Well, without religious beliefs, we wouldn't have to worry about that anyway. When inventing god in our minds (since of course, like you said, there is no way we can prove him, and therefore his presence *must* come from our minds), he comes batteries included while dangling heaven on a string for us to grab at. And the 'covering your ass' theory just doesn't make sense. Unicron - When any of these arguements can be said to have been won, Boris does, without exception. Emphatically, FyreStar
Vanden, Well, for one Fyrestar has already provided part of my answer for me (thanks Fyrestar.) Secondly, no I don't claim that you need empirical evidence to believe in something. What I do claim, however, is that such beliefs are phony. The only beliefs worth entertaining are those that can at least in principle be verified. Do you introspect? Have you ever wondered, what causes you to hold your religious beliefs? Have you ever questioned the origin of emotions you connect to your faith? A big part of the reason that I will never be religious is because I never take anything for granted, especially concerning my own thoughts and feelings. I will never willingly engage in the autosuggestion of prayer precisely because I realize that autosuggestion is all there is to it. Additionally, it is my claim that religions derive purely from overgeneralizations over empirical evidence. In essense, religions are merely bad theories that fail in logic but cling to life via popular illiteracy and emotion. There are people still alive today who believe that properly worshipping their volcano god will prevent eruptions. As someone who does not share their faith, I should hope it's obvious to you just how wrong their particular theory is. As someone who doesn't share any faith, it is equally obvious to me how wrong any and all faiths are. I don't see why not. After all, Satan allegedly had all the proof in the world of God's existence, and yet he chose to reject God anyway. Would that not be the true test -- given the <u>undeniable reality</u> of God, would you still accept him as your Lord, or will you choose to challenge his authority? The alleged test is much muddled by the fact that faith is required to even have a chance at passing it. It's not a clean separation of experimental conditions, and scientifically I'd call it a poor setup. ------------------ I am; therefore I think. [This message has been edited by Boris (edited March 09, 2000).]
Unicron, You are making no sense. Once again, you've reposted a snippet from some debate, but this time it does not even hold any relevance to the topic at hand. First of all, it is irrelevant what Einstein thought about religion; authority of any type doesn't qualify as a reason to accept anything in my book. Secondly, the snippet you posted actually defeats most claims a creationist would want to draw from the fact that Einstein was religious. Hint: stop posting what other people said, and start making your own arguments. Given my views, it shouldn't be too hard to imagine what I think. I think these people are sloppy thinkers who make a habit out of falling into fallacies head first, leaping to conclusions, letting someone else do their homework for them, and actually believing that the human emotional apparatus is well suited to making judgements of truth. That's what I think. I do believe Jesus existed. I do not believe he was anything but human. What does that have to do with evolution vs. creation? What does that have to do with the fact that your set of premises is inferior to mine in all respects? No. If you want to discuss that, please start a new thread. No. Neither am I sure that the Goddess doesn't exist. Neither am I sure that somewhere out there, Luke Skywalker doesn't exist. But I give the idea that God exists about a 1/(infinity) chance of being correct. I certainly give it no more validity than the idea that God does not exist. But what I do believe with 100% conviction, is that everything <u>within</u> this universe is purely physical and mechanistic, has always been, and always will be. ------------------ I am; therefore I think. [This message has been edited by Boris (edited March 09, 2000).]
Wow, I'm truely amazed that this thread still exists ! Even though it may have deviated a bit from its original topic since its now more a debate between atheists and believers in some form of god. I notice to my pleasure that Boris is still holding his ground and that Lori still hasn't figured out that believing in a certain system wich is based on a revelation simply can't be objective. Maybe to bring the thread back to its roots I would encourage everyone who can receive BBC to follow the documentary every tuesday evening. Its about the human evolution and what the mechanisms where that triggered the different steps if this evolution. One of the most interesting episode was the first one where they showed that the cavepaintings that were found in the European caves were very much similar to those found in the mountains of Namibia. The latter ones were made by bushmen and they depicted what their shamens saw in their trance. This points toward a shamanic origan of the cavepaintings. An other issue that they raised was that under hypnosis people at a certain point experience the same kind of waves and patterns before their minds' eye. These patterns were also very similar to what was found in the paintings of the bushmen and of our ancestors. This would mean that at a basic level the human mind generates the same kind of responses. This is the reason why the shamanic believes and customs are very similar all over the world and also back in time as it seems. One more thing, it seems that religion was one of the first things that evolved once we became conscious and could communicate our feelings to each other. This might explain why we have such a hard time getting rid of those old ideas, they have been with us since the dawn of time and growing up is so difficult and frightning... ------------------ "If I have been able to see further, it was only because I stood on the shoulders of giants." Isaac Newton
Fyrestar, I beg to differ. I've been out here for over a year, and I always know when I've won. No one responds and I end the string. For example, I totally blew away the homo debate. I won. I even have a hermaphrodite to back me up. I didn't even finish posting the site that would have put the nail in the coffin, and I STILL won. Believe me, the day that Boris can answer WHY, is the day He wins. And paradoxically, the day He answers the question why, is the day that I win too. Actually, none of us win or lose, we debate. The only one who really wins or loses in this debate is God. ------------------ You may think I'm a nut, but I'm fastened to the strongest bolt in the universe.
Tee hee hee hee hee!!!! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ------------------ I used to think I was weird...till I discovered Excoscience messageboards!
