Same Sex Marriage Legal in all US States

[shades]

in as far as a religious conversation goes, what soul monster is saying makes so much more sense than what someone, myself in this instance making a case for my beliefs has to say.

The book definition of faith, I believe is 'belief not based on proof. '

my faith is based not only on the comfort of it but also on the fear of it.

Part of my belief is that the consequences are high for not believing.

I remember when I was like 10 years old and someone in one of my classes asked the Nun, the teacher at the time why there was so many verses in the bible telling us to fear the lord.

She very seriously said, You better fear him if for no other reason than what if.

As rude as that sounded at the time it has always stuck with me.

believe just because what if his word is true, the consequences are pretty severe, so what have I got to lose.

the only downside is listening to people ridicule you from time to time. I certainly have bigger shoulders than that.

[DieselDaisy]

You have to assume there is a complete absence of intelligence in The Creation and in the physical properties that comprise the universe to be an atheist. Now, I am certainly not ready to make such a bold statement; It is in fact actually faulty science, to out rule something such as intelligence. For a start, as we descend or ascend through multiple layers of our own eco-environment's physical matter with superior scientific equipment and observational skills we discover intelligent presences hitherto unknown to the naked eye. Large animals for instance such as the whale or the elephant are virtual walking ecosystems themselves, possessing whole colonies of smaller lifeforms. Our own bodies have millions of bacteria. How can we throw out the hypothesis that we are similarly not just a lower tier of a higher life form? As I said, I would not be so bold to throw that out considering The Creation possesses so many unknowns and is so hard to comprehend. Should we really be so flippant in dismissing off hand a guiding creator behind 'The Goldilocks Principle' for instance? Goldilocks Planets are mathematically so rare, and the mathematical equation so precise. Very poor science.

[Dazey]

I remember when I was like 10 years old and someone in one of my classes asked the Nun, the teacher at the time why there was so many verses in the bible telling us to fear the lord.

She very seriously said, You better fear him if for no other reason than what if.

Which is exactly why religion should be kept out of schools. Plant that crap in a 10 year old's head and it can be there forever.

[Len Cnut]

You have to assume there is a complete absence of intelligence in The Creation and in the physical properties that comprise the universe to be an atheist. Now, I am certainly not ready to make such a bold statement; It is in fact actually faulty science, to out rule something such as intelligence. For a start, as we descend or ascend through multiple layers of our own eco-environment's physical matter with superior scientific equipment and observational skills we discover intelligent presences hitherto unknown to the naked eye. Large animals for instance such as the whale or the elephant are virtual walking ecosystems themselves, possessing whole colonies of smaller lifeforms. Our own bodies have millions of bacteria. How can we throw out the hypothesis that we are similarly not just a lower tier of a higher life form? As I said, I would not be so bold to throw that out considering The Creation possesses so many unknowns and is so hard to comprehend. Should we really be so flippant in dismissing off hand a guiding creator behind 'The Goldilocks Principle' for instance? Goldilocks Planets are mathematically so rare, and the mathematical equation so precise. Very poor science.

Thank for that Dies', that really made me think.

[SoulMonster]

Arent you in a sense negating the concept of the idea of the supernatural by saying that its either natural and logical or too complex for our understanding? I mean it just deads the entire idea or possibility of the supernatural as a concept.

But I have a reason for saying that any unexplained phenomenon probably is naturalistic: Every other unexplainable phenomenon we have enountered and which we have later explained, has turned out to be completely naturalistic. Thus, any remaining phenomenon which we aren't able to study scientifically, because they are too distant to us in time or geography, will probably turn out to be completely naturalistic, too (if we ever are able to study them).

[Dazey]

You have to assume there is a complete absence of intelligence in The Creation and in the physical properties that comprise the universe to be an atheist. Now, I am certainly not ready to make such a bold statement; It is in fact actually faulty science, to out rule something such as intelligence. For a start, as we descend or ascend through multiple layers of our own eco-environment's physical matter with superior scientific equipment and observational skills we discover intelligent presences hitherto unknown to the naked eye. Large animals for instance such as the whale or the elephant are virtual walking ecosystems themselves, possessing whole colonies of smaller lifeforms. Our own bodies have millions of bacteria. How can we throw out the hypothesis that we are similarly not just a lower tier of a higher life form? As I said, I would not be so bold to throw that out considering The Creation possesses so many unknowns and is so hard to comprehend. Should we really be so flippant in dismissing off hand a guiding creator behind 'The Goldilocks Principle' for instance? Goldilocks Planets are mathematically so rare, and the mathematical equation so precise. Very poor science.

Postulating an intelligent creator proves nothing. If that's true then who created the creator?

[SoulMonster]

in as far as a religious conversation goes, what soul monster is saying makes so much more sense than what someone, myself in this instance making a case for my beliefs has to say.

The book definition of faith, I believe is 'belief not based on proof. '

my faith is based not only on the comfort of it but also on the fear of it.

Part of my belief is that the consequences are high for not believing.

I remember when I was like 10 years old and someone in one of my classes asked the Nun, the teacher at the time why there was so many verses in the bible telling us to fear the lord.

She very seriously said, You better fear him if for no other reason than what if.

As rude as that sounded at the time it has always stuck with me.

believe just because what if his word is true, the consequences are pretty severe, so what have I got to lose.

the only downside is listening to people ridicule you from time to time. I certainly have bigger shoulders than that.

You problem is: what deity should you devote yourself to? You might be fucked if you pick the wrong one, right, because some of these deitites are jealous bastards who punish non-believers harshly (not all, though)? And there are thousands of religions, extant and extinct, that might theoretically be the right one. By choosing Christianity you have already discarded the multitude of remaining religions, and some of them will punish you to eternal hell for not having chosen them. So if we for the sake of the argument say that there actually is one god or a set of gods that are real, and they will punish non-believers with eternal damnation for not following their rules, then I will surely be doomed but chances are you will, too. You have cast your lot with one, due to having inherited that particular belief from your surroundings, but have just a slightly higher chance of escaping damnation than what I do.

In other words, in the words of Dawkins, you are atehistic in regards to almost all deities, except the one you have inherited. I just take it one step further.

You have to assume there is a complete absence of intelligence in The Creation and in the physical properties that comprise the universe to be an atheist. Now, I am certainly not ready to make such a bold statement; It is in fact actually faulty science, to out rule something such as intelligence. For a start, as we descend or ascend through multiple layers of our own eco-environment's physical matter with superior scientific equipment and observational skills we discover intelligent presences hitherto unknown to the naked eye. Large animals for instance such as the whale or the elephant are virtual walking ecosystems themselves, possessing whole colonies of smaller lifeforms. Our own bodies have millions of bacteria. How can we throw out the hypothesis that we are similarly not just a lower tier of a higher life form? As I said, I would not be so bold to throw that out considering The Creation possesses so many unknowns and is so hard to comprehend. Should we really be so flippant in dismissing off hand a guiding creator behind 'The Goldilocks Principle' for instance? Goldilocks Planets are mathematically so rare, and the mathematical equation so precise. Very poor science.

Sure, we can't rule out that we are "just a lower tier of a higher life form" (although I think there is a good case for why we are safe to to just that*), but again, there is no reason to assume that "higher life form" is supernatural, for reasons I have already given.

* If we were the lower tier of a higher life form, like bacteria on a mammal, viruses on a bacterium, fleas on a wildebeest, then we should be able to see some evidence for that being the case. And since there are no such evidence then it is rather stupid to believe such a higher life form exists.

Edited July 2, 2015 by SoulMonster

[Lithium]

in as far as a religious conversation goes, what soul monster is saying makes so much more sense than what someone, myself in this instance making a case for my beliefs has to say.

The book definition of faith, I believe is 'belief not based on proof. '

my faith is based not only on the comfort of it but also on the fear of it.

Part of my belief is that the consequences are high for not believing.

I remember when I was like 10 years old and someone in one of my classes asked the Nun, the teacher at the time why there was so many verses in the bible telling us to fear the lord.

She very seriously said, You better fear him if for no other reason than what if.

As rude as that sounded at the time it has always stuck with me.

believe just because what if his word is true, the consequences are pretty severe, so what have I got to lose.

the only downside is listening to people ridicule you from time to time. I certainly have bigger shoulders than that.

Care to answer my previous post?

Why is it so difficult to accept that we just haven't come to a conclusion regarding "the beginning"? Science can't be sure how it all started yet, but that doesn't mean we should resort to stories about an invisible deity just to fill a temporary gap in the history of the universe. Science is constantly evolving and improving - what we didn't know yesterday, we know today, and someday we might also know for sure how the universe came into existence. As for what you said about being held accountable - how do you explain tribes in South America that live in complete isolation from the rest of the earth? These people have never heard about the Christian God. Should they be held accountable for not following Christian principles and believing in "god"?

[SoulMonster]

Soul Monster arrives back after a sojourn and you immediately get another gigantic smugfest haha

I think your complaining about my claimed smugness is a bigger distraction in this thread than any smugness I might have.

[Lithium]

Soul Monster arrives back after a sojourn and you immediately get another gigantic smugfest haha

That's ironic

[Len Cnut]

If we were the lower tier of a higher life form, like bacteria on a mammal, viruses on a bacterium, fleas on a wildebeest, then we should be able to see some evidence for that being the case. And since there are no such evidence then it is rather stupid to believe such a higher life form exists.

Bacteria can't see us, if we're a lower form of life, infinitely smaller then how could we? Perhaps the universe we see is almost like...a smaller part of it?

I remember when I was like 10 years old and someone in one of my classes asked the Nun, the teacher at the time why there was so many verses in the bible telling us to fear the lord.

She very seriously said, You better fear him if for no other reason than what if.

Which is exactly why religion should be kept out of schools. Plant that crap in a 10 year old's head and it can be there forever.

I dunno, they tried with me since the beginning, all it did was wind me up

[Lithium]

I remember when I was like 10 years old and someone in one of my classes asked the Nun, the teacher at the time why there was so many verses in the bible telling us to fear the lord.

She very seriously said, You better fear him if for no other reason than what if.

Which is exactly why religion should be kept out of schools. Plant that crap in a 10 year old's head and it can be there forever.

That shit is child abuse.

[SoulMonster]

If we were the lower tier of a higher life form, like bacteria on a mammal, viruses on a bacterium, fleas on a wildebeest, then we should be able to see some evidence for that being the case. And since there are no such evidence then it is rather stupid to believe such a higher life form exists.

Bacteria can't see us, if we're a lower form of life, infinitely smaller then how could we? Perhaps the universe we see is almost like...a smaller part of it?

Well, sur,e but then we are talking about a higher tier of life form that is vastly different from life as we know it. I am not syaing it is not possible, just that I don't see any reason to believe it must be so just because we know of other examples of small creatures living on larger creatures, and again, there is absolutely no reason to believe that any of this is supernatural.

Edited July 2, 2015 by SoulMonster

[Len Cnut]

If we were the lower tier of a higher life form, like bacteria on a mammal, viruses on a bacterium, fleas on a wildebeest, then we should be able to see some evidence for that being the case. And since there are no such evidence then it is rather stupid to believe such a higher life form exists.

Bacteria can't see us, if we're a lower form of life, infinitely smaller then how could we? Perhaps the universe we see is almost like...a smaller part of it?

Well, sur,e but then we are talking about a higher tier of life form that is vastly different from life as we know it. I am not syaing it is not possible, just that I don't see any reason to believe it must be so just because we know of other examples of small creatures living on larger creatures, and again, there is absolutely no reason to believe that any of this is supernatural.

But if you've eliminated the concept of supernatural, which you essentially do when you say it's either natural or its a very very complex natural that we can't understand yet then this is what we are left with, the notion a higher tier life-form. And if you're allowed to use the current principles of our understanding to presume that that which is, at the moment, too complex for us to explain or define fits within the realm of an undeciphered form of nature then why can't you presume in this instance of a higher life form, based on the examples that currently exist?

[SoulMonster]

If we were the lower tier of a higher life form, like bacteria on a mammal, viruses on a bacterium, fleas on a wildebeest, then we should be able to see some evidence for that being the case. And since there are no such evidence then it is rather stupid to believe such a higher life form exists.

Bacteria can't see us, if we're a lower form of life, infinitely smaller then how could we? Perhaps the universe we see is almost like...a smaller part of it?

Well, sur,e but then we are talking about a higher tier of life form that is vastly different from life as we know it. I am not syaing it is not possible, just that I don't see any reason to believe it must be so just because we know of other examples of small creatures living on larger creatures, and again, there is absolutely no reason to believe that any of this is supernatural.

But if you've eliminated the concept of supernatural, which you essentially do when you say it's either natural or its a very very complex natural that we can't understand yet then this is what we are left with, the notion a higher tier life-form. And if you're allowed to use the current principles of our understanding to presume that that which is, at the moment, too complex for us to explain or define fits within the realm of an undeciphered form of nature then why can't you presume in this instance of a higher life form, based on the examples that currently exist?

I haven't eliminated it at all, I have just realized that it is highly improbable.

I am not saying we definitely aren't the lower tier on a higher life form, I am just saying it is not probable since there is nothing to assume we are, except for the fact that since many other animals are on the lower tier we can imagine us being, too. And I am also saying that even if it turns out we are the lower tier, then the higher tier is probably not supernatural in nature, because all experience tells us it probably isn't.

[Len Cnut]

If we were the lower tier of a higher life form, like bacteria on a mammal, viruses on a bacterium, fleas on a wildebeest, then we should be able to see some evidence for that being the case. And since there are no such evidence then it is rather stupid to believe such a higher life form exists.

Bacteria can't see us, if we're a lower form of life, infinitely smaller then how could we? Perhaps the universe we see is almost like...a smaller part of it?

Well, sur,e but then we are talking about a higher tier of life form that is vastly different from life as we know it. I am not syaing it is not possible, just that I don't see any reason to believe it must be so just because we know of other examples of small creatures living on larger creatures, and again, there is absolutely no reason to believe that any of this is supernatural.

But if you've eliminated the concept of supernatural, which you essentially do when you say it's either natural or its a very very complex natural that we can't understand yet then this is what we are left with, the notion a higher tier life-form. And if you're allowed to use the current principles of our understanding to presume that that which is, at the moment, too complex for us to explain or define fits within the realm of an undeciphered form of nature then why can't you presume in this instance of a higher life form, based on the examples that currently exist?

I haven't eliminated it at all, I have just realized that it is highly improbable.

I am not saying we definitely aren't the lower tier on a higher life form, I am just saying it is not probable since there is nothing to assume we are, except for the fact that since many other animals are on the lower tier we can imagine us being, too. And I am also saying that even if it turns out we are the lower tier, then the higher tier is probably not supernatural in nature, because all experience tells us it probably isn't.

Why do experience or pre-existing examples have a value in presuming in the one instance but then in other instance, despite having examples, it doesn't?

Edited July 2, 2015 by Len B'stard

[SoulMonster]

If we were the lower tier of a higher life form, like bacteria on a mammal, viruses on a bacterium, fleas on a wildebeest, then we should be able to see some evidence for that being the case. And since there are no such evidence then it is rather stupid to believe such a higher life form exists.

Bacteria can't see us, if we're a lower form of life, infinitely smaller then how could we? Perhaps the universe we see is almost like...a smaller part of it?

Well, sur,e but then we are talking about a higher tier of life form that is vastly different from life as we know it. I am not syaing it is not possible, just that I don't see any reason to believe it must be so just because we know of other examples of small creatures living on larger creatures, and again, there is absolutely no reason to believe that any of this is supernatural.

But if you've eliminated the concept of supernatural, which you essentially do when you say it's either natural or its a very very complex natural that we can't understand yet then this is what we are left with, the notion a higher tier life-form. And if you're allowed to use the current principles of our understanding to presume that that which is, at the moment, too complex for us to explain or define fits within the realm of an undeciphered form of nature then why can't you presume in this instance of a higher life form, based on the examples that currently exist?

I haven't eliminated it at all, I have just realized that it is highly improbable.

I am not saying we definitely aren't the lower tier on a higher life form, I am just saying it is not probable since there is nothing to assume we are, except for the fact that since many other animals are on the lower tier we can imagine us being, too. And I am also saying that even if it turns out we are the lower tier, then the higher tier is probably not supernatural in nature, because all experience tells us it probably isn't.

Why do experience or pre-existing examples have a value in presuming in the one instance but then in other instance, despite having examples, it doesn't?

We have no examples of anything ever being supernatural in nature, hence it is improbably something else will turn out to be.

I am not following your suggested contradiction, but if you are saying that since we have existing examples of animals being in the lower tier of some larger ecosystem then we humans must be, too, then the difference is that we have some examples of animals being in the lower tier contrast to all phenomena being studied having turned out to being naturalistic. In addition, all such ecological relationships studied have been between life forms that we know of, that are known to us (biological in nature); if we assume that we must also be on the lower tier of such a relationship due to this being the normal situation, then we must assume that the higher tier must also be a related biological life form, like for all other such relationships studied, but we know this isn't the case, because such a higher tiered creature would be observable to us. In fact, we have no prior observaryions of any biological life form being in the lower tiered relationship with a higher tiered non-bilogical life form. Hence, everything suggests we are one of many life forms probably not being on a lower tier in some ecological relationship.

Edited July 2, 2015 by SoulMonster

[shades]

You problem is: what deity should you devote yourself to? You might be fucked if you pick the wrong one, right, because some of these deitites are jealous bastards who punish non-believers harshly (not all, though)? And there are thousands of religions, extant and extinct, that might theoretically be the right one. By choosing Christianity you have already discarded the multitude of remaining religions, and some of them will punish you to eternal hell for not having chosen them. So if we for the sake of the argument say that there actually is one god or a set of gods that are real, and they will punish non-believers with eternal damnation for not following their rules, then I will surely be doomed but chances are you will, too. You have cast your lot with one, due to having inherited that particular belief from your surroundings, but have just a slightly higher chance of escaping damnation than what I do.

No need to say "your problem is"

I don't think I condemned you in that way for not believing .

And to your point it is a very valid one.

I can not speak for anyone else or any other religion, but for myself I have dismissed the "you are doomed to eternal flame" if you don't believe in God.

I had to and for the very reason you stated. How dare I make such a claim, the arrogance and utter rudeness of that would make me sick of myself, or anyone whom I hear make such an assertion.

And that leaves me wondering even further about my beliefs, on the surface.

BUT

My beliefs are so strong and embedded in my world that I have made my own revisionist approach along that end.

I don't preach my beliefs, and I don't condemn anothers. If someone asks me about my beliefs I will offer,

and give reason because I am proud of it, and as I said it is my comfort.

I believe Abe Lincoln once said, and if I am mistaken then so be it, I don't go google my every memory to verify, I prefer to live in the pre google world in that regard,

but someone said,

"Many a man has been driven to his knees because he had no where else to go".

And I find comfort that when something borders too heavy for my coping ability I can turn to God.

And if you have been there you may know that depth, and if you havn't you will.

[ZoSoRose]

You problem is: what deity should you devote yourself to? You might be fucked if you pick the wrong one, right, because some of these deitites are jealous bastards who punish non-believers harshly (not all, though)? And there are thousands of religions, extant and extinct, that might theoretically be the right one. By choosing Christianity you have already discarded the multitude of remaining religions, and some of them will punish you to eternal hell for not having chosen them. So if we for the sake of the argument say that there actually is one god or a set of gods that are real, and they will punish non-believers with eternal damnation for not following their rules, then I will surely be doomed but chances are you will, too. You have cast your lot with one, due to having inherited that particular belief from your surroundings, but have just a slightly higher chance of escaping damnation than what I do.

No need to say "your problem is"

I don't think I condemned you in that way for not believing .

And to your point it is a very valid one.

I can not speak for anyone else or any other religion, but for myself I have dismissed the "you are doomed to eternal flame" if you don't believe in God.

I had to and for the very reason you stated. How dare I make such a claim, the arrogance and utter rudeness of that would make me sick of myself, or anyone whom I hear make such an assertion.

And that leaves me wondering even further about my beliefs, on the surface.

BUT

My beliefs are so strong and embedded in my world that I have made my own revisionist approach along that end.

I don't preach my beliefs, and I don't condemn anothers. If someone asks me about my beliefs I will offer,

and give reason because I am proud of it, and as I said it is my comfort.

I believe Abe Lincoln once said, and if I am mistaken then so be it, I don't go google my every memory to verify, I prefer to live in the pre google world in that regard,

but someone said,

"Many a man has been driven to his knees because he had no where else to go".

And I find comfort that when something borders too heavy for my coping ability I can turn to God.

And if you have been there you may know that depth, and if you havn't you will.

Hey Shades, this wasn't a bad post

[moreblack]

[luciusfunk]

Seems like everyone online is bending over backwards to congratulate themselves for being such amazing forward-thinking individuals that believe in true love. It kinda reminds me of that ice bucket nonsense last summer which was much more about attention than an actual good cause.

I can honestly say it makes zero difference to me whatsoever if gay marriage is legal or not. But if I actually say that I really don't give a shit either way, I guess I'd be branded a homophobe. Not caring doesn't equal being a homophobe.

My cousin's husband believes anyone who didn't change their Facebook profile to a rainbow last weekend is a bigoted racist homophobe. He's in his 40s and believes that.

[arnold layne]

If we were the lower tier of a higher life form, like bacteria on a mammal, viruses on a bacterium, fleas on a wildebeest, then we should be able to see some evidence for that being the case. And since there are no such evidence then it is rather stupid to believe such a higher life form exists.

Bacteria can't see us, if we're a lower form of life, infinitely smaller then how could we? Perhaps the universe we see is almost like...a smaller part of it?

Well, sur,e but then we are talking about a higher tier of life form that is vastly different from life as we know it. I am not syaing it is not possible, just that I don't see any reason to believe it must be so just because we know of other examples of small creatures living on larger creatures, and again, there is absolutely no reason to believe that any of this is supernatural.

But if you've eliminated the concept of supernatural, which you essentially do when you say it's either natural or its a very very complex natural that we can't understand yet then this is what we are left with, the notion a higher tier life-form. And if you're allowed to use the current principles of our understanding to presume that that which is, at the moment, too complex for us to explain or define fits within the realm of an undeciphered form of nature then why can't you presume in this instance of a higher life form, based on the examples that currently exist?

I haven't eliminated it at all, I have just realized that it is highly improbable.

I am not saying we definitely aren't the lower tier on a higher life form, I am just saying it is not probable since there is nothing to assume we are, except for the fact that since many other animals are on the lower tier we can imagine us being, too. And I am also saying that even if it turns out we are the lower tier, then the higher tier is probably not supernatural in nature, because all experience tells us it probably isn't.

Why do experience or pre-existing examples have a value in presuming in the one instance but then in other instance, despite having examples, it doesn't?

We have no examples of anything ever being supernatural in nature, hence it is improbably something else will turn out to be.

I am not following your suggested contradiction, but if you are saying that since we have existing examples of animals being in the lower tier of some larger ecosystem then we humans must be, too, then the difference is that we have some examples of animals being in the lower tier contrast to all phenomena being studied having turned out to being naturalistic. In addition, all such ecological relationships studied have been between life forms that we know of, that are known to us (biological in nature); if we assume that we must also be on the lower tier of such a relationship due to this being the normal situation, then we must assume that the higher tier must also be a related biological life form, like for all other such relationships studied, but we know this isn't the case, because such a higher tiered creature would be observable to us. In fact, we have no prior observaryions of any biological life form being in the lower tiered relationship with a higher tiered non-bilogical life form. Hence, everything suggests we are one of many life forms probably not being on a lower tier in some ecological relationship.

[DieselDaisy]

If you are dealing with a higher intellectual entity who has set all the planetary motions in orbit, etc., does not the concept of the 'supernatural' become rather nebulous? Ghosts might also have a rational underpinning for all we know (again, it is flawed science to dismiss that hypothesis); we only pertain them to the 'supernatural' because we do not understand them and a significant proportion query their existence. Something is 'supernatural' only within the parameters of present human knowledge. Great beasts existed as quasi-religious mythological animals in many disparate cultures such as China and Ancient Greece, yet in the 19th century with the arrival of paleontology and 'dinosaur hunters' we began to discover and scientifically log the remains of great beasts every bit as terrifying and sublime as dragons.

[SoulMonster]

You problem is: what deity should you devote yourself to? You might be fucked if you pick the wrong one, right, because some of these deitites are jealous bastards who punish non-believers harshly (not all, though)? And there are thousands of religions, extant and extinct, that might theoretically be the right one. By choosing Christianity you have already discarded the multitude of remaining religions, and some of them will punish you to eternal hell for not having chosen them. So if we for the sake of the argument say that there actually is one god or a set of gods that are real, and they will punish non-believers with eternal damnation for not following their rules, then I will surely be doomed but chances are you will, too. You have cast your lot with one, due to having inherited that particular belief from your surroundings, but have just a slightly higher chance of escaping damnation than what I do.

No need to say "your problem is"

I don't think I condemned you in that way for not believing .

It wasn't a condemnation for being a believer, but me expressing the fact that you have a problem when confronted with thousands of religions and having to choose one when they are mutually exclusive.

[arnold layne]

They say the universe is expanding. What if they're both right? The universe is a cancerous tumor on The Creator's liver.