Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 10,701-10,750 of 12,463

[cHriS]

Travis wrote:
do you have a secondary source?"

....the bible is not just one source, it is a collection of information.

[Travis]

cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote:
do you have a secondary source?"

....the bible is not just one source, it is a collection of information."

It is one book, so it is one source.

[cHriS]

Travis wrote: "cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote: As much as King Arthur did. ."

As much as Tiberius Caeser did."

more like as much as Santa Claus did."

Ok you avoid my 'Caeser' comment and swap King Arthur with Santa.

The benevolent attitude of St. Nicholas has lived on in the Santa we know today. You see Santa does have roots and even King Arthur is thought to have been based on an historical figure from the 6th century.

[Travis]

cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote: "cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote: As much as King Arthur did. ."

As much as Tiberius Caeser did."

more like as much as Santa Claus did."


Yes, but while being possibly based on real people, or amalgams of people and/or stories and legends, King Arthur, Santa and Jesus are not actual people.

They have vague roots. Which is not the same thing as existing or being actual historical figures.

[cHriS]

cerebus wrote: "Ah, the old cs is back....."

Give it but can't take it.

.....and the original cerebus is still here, calling folks 'trolls' only this time its Geoffrey.

[cHriS]

Travis wrote: Yes, but while being possibly based on real people, or amalgams of people and/or stories and legends, King Arthur, Santa and Jesus are not actual people.
..."

Tiberius Caeser was alive at the same time as Jesus.

[Travis]

cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote: Yes, but while being possibly based on real people, or amalgams of people and/or stories and legends, King Arthur, Santa and Jesus are not actual people.
..."

Tiberius Caeser was ali..."

Yes, and Abe Lincoln was around at the same time as Paul Bunyan.
Which, by your reasoning proves that giant blue oxen once roamed the Earth.

[[deleted user]]

Cerebus --

About a month ago, I made an assumption. I assumed people didn't want to discuss something due to the fact it either made them uncomfortable or the topic wasn't popular.

You called me on that. Rightly so. You told me not to make assumptions and encouraged me to ask questions if I had questions.

Ask questions.

I'm taking you at your word on this and have asked several questions. I'm just curious. Is your lack of a response an oversight, or do you not intend to answer them? It's cool with me if you have no desire to address this with me. No problem. I have done as you encouraged me to do, though. So, I've been a bit confused at the lack of answers.

[[deleted user]]

Heather wrote: "This is true. The challenge is, a lot of scholars are atheists, and the few that aren't are generally historians. In my field, for example, atheists are in the majority. In fact, the Point of Inquiry podcast just had an anthropologist about a month ago who studies terrorists and other extremists; his atheism gives him a sort of neutral zone, if you will, as does his training as an anthropologist, which teaches to not outwardly judge the population you are studying. "

You mentioned something really interesting. I'm fascinated by history, so this is even more interesting to me.

You said anthropologists are taught not to outwardly judge the population under study. Do they judge populations inwardly? Do what extent? (I'm guessing you likely won't be able to answer. As if you know all anthropologists! But, in your experience.) Do their internal judgments, if they make them, influence what they choose to research, their research in general, and their conclusions?

Guess I might be tough out of luck when it comes to ancients who make notations about Jesus and finding a research without a horse in the race. But, .... The Carrier piece concerns me, especially. First, it's used as the standard on Wiki, which is what most people go to. Second, he makes the zombie reference. There are Atheists and there are Atheists. Some make fun of and belittle believers. I view the "zombie" reference as poking fun. Then, there are Atheists who, at least outwardly, don't make snide and judgmental remarks. If most scholars on this or similar topics are religious or Atheists, I'd like to think that some are out there who are ... I don't know, more moderate. Wishful thinking, probably.

[Leslie]

Shannon wrote: "Heather wrote: "This is true. The challenge is, a lot of scholars are atheists, and the few that aren't are generally historians. In my field, for example, atheists are in the majority. In fact, th..."

I can't answer for all anthropologist but for me I chose my area of study because I find it fascinating. I'm a cultural Anthropologist who mainly focuses on religions impacts on society. I don't know if this will make a difference but I'm also a Pagan. I do think it's had a bit of an impact since I mainly study fringe religions. I can say that I try not to let my inner judgements taint my results. I stay as true to the study as I can but it's unrealistic to think that a person's own belief system won't influence a person's conclusions. It's a part of human nature IMO.

To answer the original question of this thread: I don't want a world without science or religion. My career revolves around both. I'd be out of job if there weren't both! Lol.

[[deleted user]]

Leslie wrote: "It's a part of human nature IMO. "

Yes, I'd say it is part of human nature, regardless. It just struck me. If a large percentage of scholars share the same background and/or path, might that have an impact on what they choose to research and the conclusions they make? Makes me wonder a bit ....

[Heather]

Shannon wrote: "Heather wrote: "This is true. The challenge is, a lot of scholars are atheists, and the few that aren't are generally historians. In my field, for example, atheists are in the majority. In fact, th..."

The practice of cultural relativism is very difficult because oftentimes when you're out in the field, your customs are being judged simultaneously. Early anthropologists sometimes kept two journals; one was their professional recordings and the other was personal and often had complaints about the people and their environments.

In my experience, and yes it is limited because I'm an undergrad, it is often impossible not to judge inwardly because sometimes the customs are so different from our own. For example, sometimes you have to break a cultural taboo in order to avoid offending your hosts, such as eating dog or rotten meat. It's challenging, but to fully understand another person's culture, one must immerse oneself in certain aspects of culture.

[Leslie]

Shannon wrote: "Leslie wrote: "It's a part of human nature IMO. "

Yes, I'd say it is part of human nature, regardless. It just struck me. If a large percentage of scholars share the same background and/or path,..."

I think it would have an impact on what a scholar studies but I'm not sure it would how much of an impact it would have on the conclusions. I mean there would be a little impact but I'm not sure it would be enough to completely change the actual results of a study. Most scholars and researchers that I know personally (can't speak for all of them obviously) value their beliefs but they value the scientific process even more. I think that most of the people I know personally, if they had results they didn't like would add a caveat. Like "My research shows that so and so BUT it was a limited study so that doesn't mean so and so if conclusive".

[Leslie]

Heather wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Heather wrote: "This is true. The challenge is, a lot of scholars are atheists, and the few that aren't are generally historians. In my field, for example, atheists are in the major..."

Heather I keep two journals like that. Lol. It makes it easier for me to differentiate.

[[deleted user]]

Heather wrote: "Early anthropologists sometimes kept two journals; one was their professional recordings and the other was personal and often had complaints about the people and their environments."

Very interesting! That would, I think, be a way of checking to see if one's research and conclusions were being overly influenced by personal bias!

[Heather]

Leslie wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Heather wrote: "This is true. The challenge is, a lot of scholars are atheists, and the few that aren't are generally historians. In my field, for example, atheists are in the major..."

My first anthropology prof was religious to some capacity, too; he, like you, was a cultural anthropologist. To me, it doesn't make much difference in what you personally practice as long as you don't proselytize to me or let it impact your professional work. Considering that I used to practice Paganism, I think it's safe to assume you believe proselytizing is wrong. Also, since you are a Pagan, I'm sure there are a few of your beliefs that are comparable to those whom you study.

[Heather]

Leslie wrote: "Heather wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Heather wrote: "This is true. The challenge is, a lot of scholars are atheists, and the few that aren't are generally historians. In my field, for example, atheists ..."

That's interesting. It definitely would help keeping your biases out of the work. Considering a lot of early anthropologists were influenced by the white man's burden, however, I'm sure whatever personal complaints you have would be more comfort issues and less racial issues.

[[deleted user]]

Heather wrote: "To me, it doesn't make much difference in what you personally practice as long as you don't proselytize to me or let it impact your professional work. "

A little curious.... Do you feel the same way about non-believers? It could be read as both, but .... Since you followed up regarding Paganism and Leslie's beliefs specifically, it made me wonder.

[Leslie]

Heather I don't believe in proselytizing. Actually I find it rather annoying since people do it to me all the time. There is nothing worse than feeling like you are being preached to. The journals do help keep my biasis out of my work but more importantly they give an outlet to complain about missing my family, friends, tv, bed, ect. I would probably go crazy if I didn't have some outlet like that.

[Heather]

Shannon wrote: "Heather wrote: "To me, it doesn't make much difference in what you personally practice as long as you don't proselytize to me or let it impact your professional work. "

A little curious.... Do yo..."

Yes I do. I think atheists can get in trouble with being less relativistic than believers at times.

[[deleted user]]

Heather wrote: "Yes I do."

Cool. :)

[Heather]

Leslie wrote: "Heather I don't believe in proselytizing. Actually I find it rather annoying since people do it to me all the time. There is nothing worse than feeling like you are being preached to. The journals ..."

I figured as much; it's one of the appeals of Paganism. Nobody likes to be preached to; heck, when my aunt was no older than five, my grandmother had brought her to church and sat in the front pew during a hellfire and brimstone sermon. My aunt pointed at the preacher in the middle of the sermon and yelled, "You! Shut up." They stopped going to church after that.

Having a place to gripe about missing favorite foods and television programs is understandable, especially since you're in the field for six months to a year. I would go crazy, too, if I didn't have an outlet while I lived with my in-laws, who were highly anti-feminist and didn't like my decisions to work after my marriage. My mother in-law likes the idea of me going back to school, but hates the idea of my wanting to work after having children, and my father in-law thinks I have no business going to school as a married woman even though one of the reasons I'm getting an education is to be able to survive if something happens to my husband.

[Shanna]

cHriS wrote: "Shanna wrote: Bible is not proof of it's own claims, circular reasoning....

The bible claims nothing, it is an inanimate object."

Seriously? You are making the claim the bible has no special qualities as it is an inanimate object?

[cerebus]

cs bin cHriS wrote: "cerebus wrote: "Ah, the old cs is back....."

Give it but can't take it.

.....and the original cerebus is still here, calling folks 'trolls' only this time its Geoffrey."
Troll.

edit: let me elaborate....you are once again out to provoke people by deliberately cherry picking and crowing as if a point other than the one originally being made has been conceded.
Let me make it clear. If you stating that because there may be evidence that there was a real Jesus and therefore GOD, then by that same logic you must also believe in the muslim god. In my original post which you cherry picked in order to suggest that I was now on your side when it comes to christian deities, I finished by saying that the existence of either Jesus or Mohamed does not prove that they were in any way divine or prophetic or did any of the things claimed for them in their respective holy texts.

I will also restate the question I asked previously but which you avoided....based on your recent statements on the bible, and its multiple sources, do you believe that the bible is the inerrant word of god? If not, which bits do you accept as the inerrant word of god, and on what basis do you make the distinction between those parts, and the others?

[cerebus]

Shannon wrote: "Cerebus --

About a month ago, I made an assumption. I assumed people didn't want to discuss something due to the fact it either made them uncomfortable or the topic wasn't popular.

You called ..."
No, my lack of response is down to two things, 1) when I post from the ipad app it doesn't make for easy quoting, unlike the web interface, so I tend not to bother with longer postings, and 2) the way your posts are structured it can be hard to find the questions. I am happy for you to repeat any questions you feel I have missed.
I will answer your question about honest curiosity. Yes, I am curious and willing to learn, and my recent postings were part of that....I tried my best to make it clear that I understood why the incidents you describe would lead you to a religious position (and I tried to do that in a way which made it clear I wasn't belittling your experiences), but as part of my attempt to understand I was trying to ascertain whether you felt that those same experiences, as you related, were ones you felt should serve as proof of the supernatural to others, or alternatively whether you presented them as an explanation for your own beliefs but at the same time realising that as anecdotal evidence it would be unlikely to sway non-believers. I assumed the latter, but asked to avoid assumptions.

[[deleted user]]

cerebus wrote: "I will answer your question about honest curiosity. Yes, I am curious and willing to learn, and my recent postings were part of that....I tried my best to make it clear that I understood why the incidents you describe would lead you to a religious position (and I tried to do that in a way which made it clear I wasn't belittling your experiences), but as part of my attempt to understand I was trying to ascertain whether you felt that those same experiences, as you related, were ones you felt should serve as proof of the supernatural to others, or alternatively whether you presented them as an explanation for your own beliefs but at the same time realising that as anecdotal evidence it would be unlikely to sway non-believers. I assumed the latter, but asked to avoid assumptions. "

I see....

A question I raised, a few times, was ... proof of what ...?

Proof that things which haven't been scientifically proven might exist?

In the hopes that people might be open to, perhaps, being a bit openminded, not even about religion but about the possibility that they might not have the definitive answers they proclaim to have ... for themselves and everyone else.

Or....

Proof of God?

What were you asking?

But, at the end of the day, it is what it is ....

I feel like I'm trying to get at the willingness to maybe ... sometimes ... being openminded about possibilities we don't understand and can't prove via science experiments.

I feel like, whether accurate or not, you're trying to get at the fact that it's proof of nothing and, really, can't I understand that... Not even seeing the aspect of being openminded regarding being openminded ... in general and not even in regard to God.

I'd like to be heard for saying what I actually say. I think we'd all like that, actually.

[Leslie]

Heather wrote: "Leslie wrote: "Heather I don't believe in proselytizing. Actually I find it rather annoying since people do it to me all the time. There is nothing worse than feeling like you are being preached to..."

The story about your aunt is really cute. Lol. You're in-laws sound like a nightmare! I think that would drive me nuts too.

[cerebus]

Shannon wrote: "A question I raised, a few times, was ... proof of what ...?"
I guess this is where it becomes a bit recursive, as I could answer with another question of "what do *you* see it as proof of?", but I will answer by saying that I made an assumption that you were relating those incidents to explain what you see as proof for the supernatural for yourself. That they are sufficient evidence for you to conclude that there is "something out there". And that's fine, and as I've said, from your description of the incidents and your responses to them, I understand that, for you, they are proof. My question, following on from that is, taking that they are proof for you as a given, do you understand why non-believers would not take those descriptions as proof for them? Or do you think that once you have given those descriptions that that *should* be sufficient proof for a non-believer, and that not taking it as such means they are somehow missing the point (either deliberately or otherwise)?

[Heather]

Leslie wrote: "Heather wrote: "Leslie wrote: "Heather I don't believe in proselytizing. Actually I find it rather annoying since people do it to me all the time. There is nothing worse than feeling like you are b..."

Thanks; my aunt had a habit of doing odd things. They once had to switch churches because once again they were sitting in the front pew, and my aunt shouted, "Oh, shit!" when my mother dropped something during the sermon.

My in-laws are crazy, but I often have to remind myself that they're going to believe what they believe and I'll believe what I believe. I can think they're wrong, and can vent to a journal or blog when it gets to the point of explosion if I avoid it. If they knew my beliefs, they would go crazy, hence why I'm still in the closet about a lot of things.

[cerebus]

Shannon wrote: "I feel like, whether accurate or not, you're trying to get at the fact that it's proof of nothing and, really, can't I understand that... Not even seeing the aspect of being openminded regarding being openminded ... in general and not even in regard to God.

I'd like to be heard for saying what I actually say. I think we'd all like that, actually"
Yes, and I think this is an instance where I'm not saying quite what you think I am.
I am not saying that your experiences are proof of nothing, I am saying they are proof of nothing *to people who aren't you, or as you clarified, people who know you closely*....I am aware, and can understand, and have accepted, and have repeated, that they are proof of something *to you*. My question has been though, do you see why non-believers do not accept anecdotal evidence, or do you see that as a failing of non-believers, as evidence of close-mindedness in non-believers, or as evidence of duplicity?

[[deleted user]]

cerebus wrote: "I guess this is where it becomes a bit recursive, as I could answer with another question of "what do *you* see it as proof of?", but I will answer by saying that I made an assumption that you were relating those incidents to explain what you see as proof for the supernatural for yourself. That they are sufficient evidence for you to conclude that there is "something out there". And that's fine, and as I've said, from your description of the incidents and your responses to them, I understand that, for you, they are proof. My question, following on from that is, taking that they are proof for you as a given, do you understand why non-believers would not take those descriptions as proof for them? Or do you think that once you have given those descriptions that that *should* be sufficient proof for a non-believer, and that not taking it as such means they are somehow missing the point (either deliberately or otherwise)? "


Can you answer this for me? Really simply. A or B...

A) Proof that God/Great Spirit exists....

B) Proof that something might exist that can't be proven....

When you keep asking me the same questions and I keep asking the same questions and trying to explain, only to get the same questions, what are you getting at, exactly?

When you talk of your assumption and my "conclusion" that something is out there, are you referencing A or B?

(Regarding the recursive, .... I've actually answered that. Several times. :( Guess I'll go back to ... it is what it is....)

[Travis]

cerebus wrote: "cs bin cHriS wrote: "cerebus wrote: "Ah, the old cs is back....."

Give it but can't take it.

.....and the original cerebus is still here, calling folks 'trolls' only this time its Geoffrey."
Trol..."


am I the only one who thinks 'Geoffrey the troll' sounds like a good title for a children's book?

and I never got the idea that the bible is morally/historically authoritative or the word of god, if everyone cherry picks it.
Seems like two concepts that cancel each other out and would discredit it as a source.

[[deleted user]]

cerebus wrote: "Yes, and I think this is an instance where I'm not saying quite what you think I am. I am not saying that your experiences are proof of nothing, I am saying they are proof of nothing *to people who aren't you, or as you clarified, people who know you closely*"

Honestly, that's not what this is about. It really and truly isn't. You can choose to accept that or not. Your choice.

This is about a question. In order for me to answer you, I need an answer.

A or B

It's not about my, supposed, tender feelings or the idea that you've been disrespectful ... which I've told you, explicitly, isn't something I feel.

It's really as simple as ... A or B.

Can you tell me ... A or B?

[cerebus]

Shannon wrote: "Can you answer this for me?"
What is "this"? Sorry, but your options of A and B don't make it clear what the question is.

[[deleted user]]

cerebus wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Can you answer this for me?"
What is "this"? Sorry, but your options of A and B don't make it clear what the question is."

Oh, wow....

Okay.

Did you read Post 10933? Maybe you missed it. Do you truly not understand what I asked?

[cerebus]

Travis wrote: "am I the only one who thinks 'Geoffrey the troll' sounds like a good title for a children's book?"
No, I'd agree with you on that....and I'll take it as an opportunity to say why I responded to Geoffrey's post in the way I did....If his point was that he felt it was somehow an invalid question, as a first post I think there were better ways he could have made the point, allowing a discussion to be had. As it was his opening gambit was scorn, which I responded to accordingly.

[cerebus]

Shannon wrote: "Can you tell me ... A or B? "
When I know what the question is to which those are the possible responses, certainly.

As for "supposed, tender feelings" or "disrespectful" that isn't something I'm suggesting, in either case.

[cerebus]

Shannon wrote: "Did you read Post 10933? Maybe you missed it. Do you truly not understand what I asked? "
edit: oh I see, the question comes after the answers, not a format I'm used to....
the answer is A)

[[deleted user]]

cerebus wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Can you tell me ... A or B? "
When I know what the question is to which those are the possible responses, certainly.

As for "supposed, tender feelings" or "disrespectful" that isn'..."

Okay. I've asked it so many times, at this point, I realize I've not been clear enough. By the by, I'd like to refer you to Post 10878.

But, ....

When you ask me, as you have several times, about proof and about whether or not I can understand that my experiences aren't proof ....

When you say you assumed I saw my experience as proof, as a given, that something is out there ....

What do you mean?

Proof of what?

A) Proof that God/Great Spirit exists....

B) Proof that something might exist that can't be proven....

What do you mean by "something is out there"...?

A) God/Great Spirit is out there....

B) Something exists that can't be proven....

[cerebus]

Shannon wrote: "cerebus wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Can you tell me ... A or B? "
When I know what the question is to which those are the possible responses, certainly.

As for "supposed, tender feelings" or "disrespe..."
Sorry, I edited an earlier response to answer the question, but I'll do so again....the answer is A)....

[[deleted user]]

cerebus wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Did you read Post 10933? Maybe you missed it. Do you truly not understand what I asked? "
edit: oh I see, the question comes after the answers, not a format I'm used to....
the answ..."

Yeah.... That's what I've thought. All of this time. That you were hinting at that despite my words.

I'm not sure why you've thought "A" despite my saying, over and over, that wasn't my point.

Again, I refer you to Post 10878 and, really, any of my other posts.

I really don't know what to say....

[cerebus]

Shannon wrote: "cerebus wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Did you read Post 10933? Maybe you missed it. Do you truly not understand what I asked? "
edit: oh I see, the question comes after the answers, not a format I'm used..."
Ok, let me ask you a question: Do you believe there is a god?

[Travis]

cerebus wrote: "Travis wrote: "am I the only one who thinks 'Geoffrey the troll' sounds like a good title for a children's book?"
No, I'd agree with you on that....and I'll take it as an opportunity to say why I r..."

I don't think you were terribly out of line in your response.
One, I'm pretty nitpicky when it comes to bad analogies, and it seemed a bit pointless to just announced the whole topic is ridiculous, without adding anything to the conversation.

still makes a catchy title.

[[deleted user]]

cerebus wrote: "Ok, let me ask you a question: Do you believe there is a god?"

I could ask what that has to do with the fact that, despite my saying, several times ... that I wasn't saying my knowings are from God and or are proof of God ... you'd ask me that at this of all moments.

But, hey .... I'll play.

Yes.

[cerebus]

Shannon wrote: "cerebus wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Did you read Post 10933? Maybe you missed it. Do you truly not understand what I asked? "
edit: oh I see, the question comes after the answers, not a format I'm used..."
And in fact, let me say that even if the answer had been B), my question is still the same, do you accept that what you have given of "proof" of A) or B) is seen by others as not sufficient, or do you think that it should be sufficient for non-believers to say "ok, what you describe does not have a rational explanation that does not require some unknown or unproveable".

[[deleted user]]

cerebus wrote: "And in fact, let me say that even if the answer had been B), my question is still the same, do you accept that what you have given of "proof" of A) or B) is seen by others as not sufficient, or do you think that it should be sufficient for non-believers to say "ok, what you describe does not have a rational explanation that does not require some unknown or unproveable". "


I've already answered this .... Check Post 10878, for one.

[cerebus]

Shannon wrote: "But, hey .... I'll play.

Yes."
Thank you.
As part of that belief, do you require anything that you would regard as 'proof'? Or is it entirely a faith based position?

And in the same way I am atheistic in the traditional sense of a belief in a god, I am also atheistic with respect to claims of the supernatural, talking to the dead, receiving messages, "knowings" etc, so whilst you may not take them as proof of a god, you do take them as proof of something supernatural, yes? As I said, my question is still exactly the same, albeit slightly less directly to the original question asked 219 pages ago.....Do you see non-believers (in this case, non-believers in a non-god related supernatural incident) as being close minded in not accepting your experiences as proof of non-god related supernatural phenomena?

[[deleted user]]

cerebus wrote: "Shannon wrote: "But, hey .... I'll play.

Yes."
Thank you.
As part of that belief, do you require anything that you would regard as 'proof'? Or is it entirely a faith based position?

And in the same way I am atheistic in the traditional sense of a belief in a god, I am also atheistic with respect to claims of the supernatural, talking to the dead, receiving messages, "knowings" etc, so whilst you may not take them as proof of a god, you do take them as proof of something supernatural, yes? As I said, my question is still exactly the same, albeit slightly less directly to the original question asked 219 pages ago.....Do you see non-believers (in this case, non-believers in a non-god related supernatural incident) as being close minded in not accepting your experiences as proof of non-god related supernatural phenomena? "

Did you go back and re-read that post? Did you re-read any of the other posts? Did you see that I answered your question, in both ways, at least twice?

I'd appreciate answers to those questions.

Given the fact that I have answered your questions and have explained things several times, I'd appreciate it if you'd give some explanation, at this point in the conversation.

[cerebus]

Shannon wrote: "cerebus wrote: "And in fact, let me say that even if the answer had been B), my question is still the same, do you accept that what you have given of "proof" of A) or B) is seen by others as not su..."
Ok, rereading the referenced post, I am inferring that yes, you see not accepting your anecdotal evidence as proof as being close minded.
I disagree...non-acceptance of anecdotal evidence is a common practice in science, for the simple reason that it is not testable or repeatable. Not accepting it as evidence is *not the same* as saying "therefore we have proven that the supernatural does not exist" which would be an incorrect (and close minded) reaction, it simply means that it has not proven the positive. In the same way as an atheist I do not say I have proof there is no god, I say I have seen no evidence to indicate there is one (or many) so there is no good reason for me to believe....if definitive evidence comes along, then I'll be in church every sunday. That to me is being open-minded. In the same way, I have seen no evidence of supernatural, if definitive evidence comes along, then I will revise that position also.

[cerebus]

Shannon wrote: "I'd appreciate answers to those questions."
See post 10949.