Discussion with an Atheist - Explaining Faith with Reason

[navedub]

Sure, when we are convinced that "individual truth" is in fact true.

There are possibly two basic ways we may speak of "truth".

1) Truths of reality or logic. E.g. "It's raining out", "2+2=4"

2) Personal truths.

Personal truths are of a totally different sort than type 1. They are ideas that are so basic to our worldview that we feel in our gut they must be true. They may be based on life experience, or were learned when young. They seem obvious, and often go unquestioned. It can be very difficult to even imagine that a personal truth could be wrong.

There is one big problem with personal truths -- at least as seen by those people used to type 1 truths -- they aren't necessarily true in the sense that type 1 truths are. Personal truths are not necessarily true of either reality or logic.

While an atheist may be tolerant of other people holding type 2 truths, they usually place a high priority on type 1 truths. If someone asserts a type 2 truth as true, the atheist wants to make sure it is also a type 1 truth.

It seems that you are more of a type 2 truth kind of guy, so you may need to keep this in mind.

Does that make sense?

yes, it does make sense. it doesn't require you to be convinced in order to respect and honor and make an effort to understand in a way that goes beyond mere articulation of a personal truth. while you may be tolerant, the true tolerance can only begin when you concieve of the fact that you yourself might be wrong. i readily admit that all atheists may be correct but i also admit that christians may be as well, hindus, buddhists, taoists, muslims, scientologists, whoever. there are truth and lies in all ideologies, yours included. what sort of lies? things like, unless the concept of god can be understood with tangible truth, then its not a truth. that, to me is a lie. if you say "i'm in pain", lets say mental anquish, are you not? who am i to tell you you are not? because i don't comprehend it? i can't see it, touch it, hear it, smell it? yes i place importance on the second truth but no more than the first, its just that i myself can recognize both, is that so hard to believe?

 

[Tenka]

don't discuss philosophy if you don't understand philosophy. things like perception.....what do you know about it? enlighten me. even a 5 year old understand the concept ...."if a tree falls in a forest"....ever heard that on? ever put any thought behind it?

And when all else fails, PATRONISE!
What deep thought is required? Sound is vibration. A falling tree will cause vibrations in the air and through the ground.

Searching Google turned up a definition for "sound"; mechanical vibrations transmitted by an elastic medium; "falling trees make a sound in the forest even when no one is there to hear them"

just that no one knows everything and we ought to ALL recognize, honor and respect that, theists and atheists alike.

I choose to respect things that make sense, if some things don't make sense I'll question them, if no reasoning is forthcoming, I cannot respect or honor that belief.

if you refuse to understand my truth, though i fully explain it and then you still refuse you and i do not have the same goal.

I cannot refuse to understand something, though I can refuse to accept it.

so then we ought to discuss the goal...........which, none of you seem to want to do.

What is your goal?
For me to understand that your belief is equal to mine and we should respect them?

Or that your belief involves comprehension above me?

 

[navedub]

And when all else fails, PATRONISE!
What deep thought is required? Sound is vibration. A falling tree will cause vibrations in the air and through the ground.

Searching Google turned up a definition for "sound"; mechanical vibrations transmitted by an elastic medium; "falling trees make a sound in the forest even when no one is there to hear them"

I choose to respect things that make sense, if some things don't make sense I'll question them, if no reasoning is forthcoming, I cannot respect or honor that belief.

I cannot refuse to understand something, though I can refuse to accept it.

What is your goal?
For me to understand that your belief is equal to mine and we should respect them?

Or that your belief involves comprehension above me?

What is your goal?
For me to understand that your belief is equal to mine and we should respect them?

yes

Or that your belief involves comprehension above me?

no, comprehension is not a requirement of tolerance or understanding. yes, thats right, i said comprehension is not a requirement of understanding. that may seem like a paradox to you but it is fully comprehensible to many. look deeper.

 

[Tenka]

yes

Right, good.

I choose to respect things that make sense, if some things don't make sense I'll question them, if no reasoning is forthcoming, I cannot respect or honor that belief.

 

[pinqy]

what sort of lies? things like, unless the concept of god can be understood with tangible truth, then its not a truth. that, to me is a lie.

Why is it a lie? If something is a personal truth, it shouldn't be accepted as a logical truth until/unless it reaches that level of evidence.

if you say "i'm in pain", lets say mental anquish, are you not? who am i to tell you you are not? because i don't comprehend it? i can't see it, touch it, hear it, smell it?

If you claim to be in pain, I'll accept it. I may not understand why, but can accept that you feel what you feel. However, if you claimed that Pain was an actual entity, a thing that existed in its own right and that your feelings of hurt were caused by this entity, I'd question you strongly. I can accept that you feel pain without accepting your claim of Pain as a seperate entity. Same thing with God. I can accept and believe a person's experiences, and I'll call it "true" that a person feels an interaction with God or a personal presence, but that doesn't make God true in reality, just the feelings of God.

yes i place importance on the second truth but no more than the first, its just that i myself can recognize both, is that so hard to believe?

And atheists place more importance on the first. Personal truths are not useful to anyone except the person experiencing them.

 

[Ledifni]

ok, i'll admit many of my words were harsh but looking back on them, is there still no truth to be found in them? can, we, as human beings get past arguing a point and really get to what the heart of the matter is, which is what i was discussing throughout this whole post and that is.......not whether you or i are correct in the conclusions we come to about existence, rather what shapes our intent behind discussing them?

I'm sure the intent in discussing them is important, but I've never tried to hide my intent, and though you say I'm not being honest about my intentions, I don't think your assertion has merit (that will be better explained in my responses to your other posts, so I won't go into it here).

is it to serve the conclusion (to reinforce it) or is it to serve a better understanding of truth?

It is to serve a better understanding of truth. I have never tried to hide my intent, and that has always been my intent.

i deeply apoligize for any disrespectful comments, you seem to be one of the few atheists i've run into that actually care about respect on the whole, if you'd like to continue the discussion.

Thank you for the apology. Yes, I will continue the discussion, if you will wait a bit while I read over your posts.

But here's something for you to consider. You are contending for a point of your own -- apparently, that our debates and arguments are means to egotistically battle for our individual rightness. Without addressing the truth of that contention, surely you can't deny that you are debating and arguing the point. What is your intention? Is it to serve and reinforce your conclusion, or to serve a better understanding of truth? If you are debating to serve a better understanding of truth, then why do you think that our arguments cannot also serve that end?

 

[navedub]

Why is it a lie? If something is a personal truth, it shouldn't be accepted as a logical truth until/unless it reaches that level of evidence.


If you claim to be in pain, I'll accept it. I may not understand why, but can accept that you feel what you feel. However, if you claimed that Pain was an actual entity, a thing that existed in its own right and that your feelings of hurt were caused by this entity, I'd question you strongly. I can accept that you feel pain without accepting your claim of Pain as a seperate entity. Same thing with God. I can accept and believe a person's experiences, and I'll call it "true" that a person feels an interaction with God or a personal presence, but that doesn't make God true in reality, just the feelings of God.


And atheists place more importance on the first. Personal truths are not useful to anyone except the person experiencing them.

If something is a personal truth, it shouldn't be accepted as a logical truth until/unless it reaches that level of evidence.

what level of evidence? is science and atheism the only viable means of measuring logical truth? what about cognition, intuition? is it so illogical to say cognition and intuition exist? forget god. what about those ideas as an obvious reality (to some)?

but that doesn't make God true in reality, just the feelings of God.

again the heart of this discussion was not whether or not god exists, i have no tangible proof for that except of course the whole of existence, but thats beside the point. the discussion is whether or not we can all have a tolerance for people's beliefs, whether or not they meet our litmus test for what we measure to be true is inconsequential.

Personal truths are not useful to anyone except the person experiencing them.

in what way aren't they useful? if i share my experience of as you stated a "feeling" concerning god with another and that "feeling" is understood to them as well. then isn't it useful that we shared a similar experience? how is it not useful? because you yourself percieve it to be a lie?

p.s. if you'd like to continue could you please reply in discussion with an atheist- part 2, copy and paste the relevant text. i haven't been able to get into this discussion for 2 days. thank you, i'd appreciate it.

 

[navedub]

I'm sure the intent in discussing them is important, but I've never tried to hide my intent, and though you say I'm not being honest about my intentions, I don't think your assertion has merit (that will be better explained in my responses to your other posts, so I won't go into it here).



It is to serve a better understanding of truth. I have never tried to hide my intent, and that has always been my intent.



Thank you for the apology. Yes, I will continue the discussion, if you will wait a bit while I read over your posts.

But here's something for you to consider. You are contending for a point of your own -- apparently, that our debates and arguments are means to egotistically battle for our individual rightness. Without addressing the truth of that contention, surely you can't deny that you are debating and arguing the point. What is your intention? Is it to serve and reinforce your conclusion, or to serve a better understanding of truth? If you are debating to serve a better understanding of truth, then why do you think that our arguments cannot also serve that end?

Is it to serve and reinforce your conclusion, or to serve a better understanding of truth?

i have no conclusion, just faith.

If you are debating to serve a better understanding of truth, then why do you think that our arguments cannot also serve that end?

i never said it couldn't but then there is no end. in the same way many christians have come to a conclusion that they know the truth many atheists do as well. but, again there is no conclusion, no end. to understand why we are all spiritual beings you must understand why you want to know the answer, not what the answer is. please, for the sake of really understanding where i'm coming from, take a breath and read over that again and make a genuine effort to ascertain it fully. again this is just my opinion.

p.s. if you'd like to continue the discussion could you please respond in discussion with an atheist-part2, copy and paste the relevant text. my browser hasn't let me in here for the past 2 days. today i got lucky. thank you, i'd really appreciate it and again i'm sorry for making assumptions about your intent.

 

[navedub]

I choose to respect things that make sense, if some things don't make sense I'll question them, if no reasoning is forthcoming, I cannot respect or honor that belief.

oh damn, and we were so close. i thought for a minute there human beings were capable of honoring things outside their own comprehension, of actually being truly humble and seeing the value in all conscious perspective if there's virtue to be found in it. i see the value of atheism but you do not see the value of my own beliefs. this discussion is not about atheists and christians. are we all starting to see that yet? when i say you people i mean the "arrogant assumers of omnipotence". yes, even the christian voyeurs who choose not to chime in on this discussion but claim they know the "whole truth" as well. you're all a cut of the same mold. hypocrites.

p.s. if you'd like to continue the discussion could you please respond in discussion with an atheist-part2, copy and paste the relevant text. my browser hasn't let me in here for the past 2 days. today i got lucky. thank you, i'd really appreciate it, unless of course you're too upset by my above statement

 

[PKJ]

Pretty much falls to what was said on page 1.

 

[navedub]

Pretty much falls to what was said on page 1.

Tolerance: The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.

Since you people are sucking me dry to the bone, I’ll leave you with this. Keep it to yourself if you’re capable. Your only answer seems to be that you don’t have one. Why then take that away from someone who does especially if you believe you have the power to do so? Honestly view what atheism is about. Lets consider you were right and that the whole of human existence up to this point has been lying to itself concerning a creator. Is it not a beautiful lie? Does it not fuel so much virtue and love in this world? If Christ did come back tomorrow would you slap him in the face and say “you’re a liar!”? All religion, all faiths are about a return to companionship, a celebration and gratitude for life. And who could we thank for living if not our creator? What you ask is too hard to accept. It would be like asking a person to leave their mother, deny she existed and helped raise and nurture them to be who they are today. Search your heart. You all seem to be very intelligent but don’t use that intelligence to kill the heart of others. That is in fact what you do. Faith is a strong thing, but its tested enough by our god that we don’t need the added pressure of people who are supposed to be helping one another. I can tell most of you are good people just by the way you speak and that you’re honestly looking to understand things. Please try if you can to understand people, the weakest of us, the least rational of us and that we’re all just trying to get by the best we can. Don’t think you empower those you convince that god doesn’t exist, in the end you only really set them down another course. There’s multiplicity in defining a singular truth. You’re no different from all the religions of the world, its just that you haven’t got a mother. I hope one day you find her and find her to be warm and life giving, not so cold and sterile as logic. Words do not define life, nor will they ever, they are merely an expression of it. If all of life, all of existence and god could be summed up in a sentence what sort of god would that be? If you want the answer than here it is, E=mc2. There, are you happy? Good, I hope so, I want you to be happy. Take care.

 

[Ledifni]

well, good for you. what is the intent for discussing existence then?

To determine the truth about it as best I can.

if its a philisophical pursuit then i recommend you read j. krishnamurti, he is not associated with any religion but speaks truth, to its core. if you haven't yet heard of him.

Thanks for the recommendation. I may well read him. But I am not going to conclude he speaks the truth just because you say he does.

You say that almost as if reading Krishnamurti (whom I've heard of but never read) is an alternative to rigorous philosophical inquiry. You seem to be saying, "Oh, you want truth? Well, you don't have to do all this arguing and questioning for that. Just read Krishnamurti -- that's truth." That, you must understand, is something I cannot accept.

 

[Ledifni]

seee, again you didn't read the discussion. "instinct and an innate universal understanding"

No, navedub, I did indeed read the discussion. Your assertions are contradictory.

If God is comprehensible through "instinct and an innate universal understanding," then God is comprehensible. You said, "God is not comprehensible." I said, "If he is not comprehensible, then nobody comprehends him and nobody has any business professing to know truth about him." But you also assert that this innate understanding you speak of is a way to comprehend God. Which is it? Is God comprehensible, or is he incomprehensible? You cannot have an incomprehensible God that you comprehend.

 

[Ledifni]

again, insecurity. pursuit truth, be honest in your intentions behind discussing things. BE HONEST, thats the core of truth. self honesty as well as honesty with those you disagree with.

The only reason you exhort me to "BE HONEST" is because you believe I am lying to you. Yet you have not yet given me one good reason that you believe that. I am telling you I am here for philosophical inquiry and the pursuit of truth. You say, "No, you're lying, you're just here to push your views on us and convert everybody to the Church of Ledifni." Yet you have been unable to show me one time that I have tried to deconvert anybody. I ask questions and look for answers; I don't proselytize.

if i'm wrong in my assumptions prove me wrong, but human intention is very comprehensible.

Let's examine that. If you're wrong in your assumptions I should prove you wrong? No, you are asserting that I am a liar. It is incumbent on you to prove that, or you are committing ad hominem.

I do not have to prove I am not a liar, when you are simply accusing me of it on no factual grounds. I could accuse you of being a serial rapist, and would it then be incumbent on you to prove that you're not? You can't prove you're not on an Internet forum. So if I accuse you of being a rapist, should you be considered a rapist by everybody here if you can't prove me wrong?

why would you discuss something you already know the answer to?

When did I ever say I know the answer? I know very little. I make educated guesses, and I know for a fact my guesses have been wrong in the past. My guesses may be wrong now. That's why I'm here.

I think you are projecting your own psychodynamics onto me and other atheists here. You think you know the answers, and that you can't possibly be wrong, and so you assume that when we argue for our points of view, we are pretending to know all the answers. We aren't. You need to get that concept out of your head. A wise person knows that he doesn't have the answers.

for the sake of truth, no, for the sake of self.

No, for the sake of truth. Do not accuse me of crimes when you clearly know nothing at all about me. You apparently don't even care to read my posting history, before you rail at me with accusation after accusation about what I've been doing in that posting history. Don't you care to know whether your accusations are true before you make them?

i admit it, why can't you? push beyond the veil of your ego and try to unlearn that which you think you know. walk a path, don't just talk about it.

This is a lesson I learned years ago, navedub. That lesson is the reason I'm now an atheist. Before I learned that lesson, I was a solid Christian. Don't presume to educate me when you don't have any desire to find out the depth of my education first.

 

[Ledifni]

p.s. no disrespect intended, just blatant honesty. i respect your beliefs, i respect you as a part of the collective whole. continue believing as you do and i hope you also have a good life. what i don't respect is that you claim to be pursuiting an understanding of something which EVERYONE knows can not be understood with mere logic.

You are certainly correct that things cannot be understood with mere logic. This is because logic defines the relationships between truths. To reach a conclusion by logic, you must first have premises; and ultimately, your premises must come from a source other than pure deductive logic.

In short, things cannot be fully understood with mere logic because logic does not give truth. Logic tells us what we already know. If you know that your car is outside, and that it is raining, and that your car is not protected from it, then you already know that your car is wet. Logic tells you that. But logic cannot tell you that it is raining; it may be raining, or it may not, and the only way to find out is to check. You can't sit in your living room and logically deduce the fact that it's raining, without using any observations.

But I suspect that you mean there are truths that can be found without logic. That is clearly not true, for the following reason:

Truth is a property of propositions and nothing else.
Propositions are formed with language.
Language must use the rules of logic to make any sense.

Therefore, no truth can be found without using logic at some point.

how long have you all been on this quest to find the answer as to why people have faith in something outside of logic, science, matter (as we understand it today)? any results? do you have a better understanding?

I have a much better understanding, thank you. I greatly appreciate the help that others here have given me to understand their points of view. I cannot prove what is true, but I can at least determine what is not true, and make educated guesses from what is left. I'm curious -- what reasoning led you to believe that I have received no greater understanding from my participation here? Or is that yet another accusation that you choose to level without knowing anything about me?

no, because you don't seek an answer, you only seek to continue a question.

And why do you say that, if I may ask?

an unanswerable question to you in which no truth will be found because you live in a boxed in logic. the human heart is not understood with logic, neither is the conditioned ego until honestly viewed by one's self.

Neither are these things understood without logic. Logic is not truth. It is one essential cog in the epistemological methodologies we all follow, and there are other cogs as well.

i am a hypocrite, i am, i am, i know i am. i honestly view this about myself. i lie, i lie, i know i do. that i also view. these are all unchanging truths that can only begin to change once one admits they're a part of their intent. but i also know i love, i love and that i care. i do honestly care if i hurt your feelings in any way Ledifini. you are of great value to all existence and i pray you find that truth and constant rebirth if you haven't already. i respect all atheists, i do not respect falcities, but the people who hold them, myself included i will always respect.

Again -- I know you apologized for your disrespect, but this is extreme. I'm responding to your posts because I promised I would, but it is extremely difficult for me to be civil, because every word in your posts is dripping with vicious hatred, accusations, and vitriol. You say you respect me, but then in the very same breath you accuse me of a long list of crimes without even caring whether I'm actually guilty. Your every word indicates that you are extremely angry at me and that you really have little interest in respecting my views or learning what kind of person I really am.

If you like, we can start afresh. You can find what is of value in my posts and respond seriously, thoughtfully, respectfully, and honestly. Then I will respond in kind and perhaps we can learn something here. But if you cannot learn to show respect (remember, claiming to respect somebody and showing respect are two very different things), then I'm afraid that neither you nor I is likely to learn anything here, except how to hate one another.

 

[navedub]

To determine the truth about it as best I can.



Thanks for the recommendation. I may well read him. But I am not going to conclude he speaks the truth just because you say he does.

You say that almost as if reading Krishnamurti (whom I've heard of but never read) is an alternative to rigorous philosophical inquiry. You seem to be saying, "Oh, you want truth? Well, you don't have to do all this arguing and questioning for that. Just read Krishnamurti -- that's truth." That, you must understand, is something I cannot accept.

just a suggestion

 

[navedub]

You are certainly correct that things cannot be understood with mere logic. This is because logic defines the relationships between truths. To reach a conclusion by logic, you must first have premises; and ultimately, your premises must come from a source other than pure deductive logic.

In short, things cannot be fully understood with mere logic because logic does not give truth. Logic tells us what we already know. If you know that your car is outside, and that it is raining, and that your car is not protected from it, then you already know that your car is wet. Logic tells you that. But logic cannot tell you that it is raining; it may be raining, or it may not, and the only way to find out is to check. You can't sit in your living room and logically deduce the fact that it's raining, without using any observations.

But I suspect that you mean there are truths that can be found without logic. That is clearly not true, for the following reason:

Truth is a property of propositions and nothing else.
Propositions are formed with language.
Language must use the rules of logic to make any sense.

Therefore, no truth can be found without using logic at some point.



I have a much better understanding, thank you. I greatly appreciate the help that others here have given me to understand their points of view. I cannot prove what is true, but I can at least determine what is not true, and make educated guesses from what is left. I'm curious -- what reasoning led you to believe that I have received no greater understanding from my participation here? Or is that yet another accusation that you choose to level without knowing anything about me?



And why do you say that, if I may ask?



Neither are these things understood without logic. Logic is not truth. It is one essential cog in the epistemological methodologies we all follow, and there are other cogs as well.



Again -- I know you apologized for your disrespect, but this is extreme. I'm responding to your posts because I promised I would, but it is extremely difficult for me to be civil, because every word in your posts is dripping with vicious hatred, accusations, and vitriol. You say you respect me, but then in the very same breath you accuse me of a long list of crimes without even caring whether I'm actually guilty. Your every word indicates that you are extremely angry at me and that you really have little interest in respecting my views or learning what kind of person I really am.

If you like, we can start afresh. You can find what is of value in my posts and respond seriously, thoughtfully, respectfully, and honestly. Then I will respond in kind and perhaps we can learn something here. But if you cannot learn to show respect (remember, claiming to respect somebody and showing respect are two very different things), then I'm afraid that neither you nor I is likely to learn anything here, except how to hate one another.

ahhhhh, philosophy is a riot. one claims to be an adult while another points fingers at the child. neither you or i are right because there is no right, no wrong, no adult, no child. of course even that may not be an absolute. i won't bother to address each issue but hating is often the beginning of love. i respect deeply "your" intelligence, don't think i don't but the game must go on as there are always two parts to a game, think of it more as a dance. the more we dance the more we go around and around but hopefully come to enjoy the spinning, and no one wants to dance with a mannequin. you ledifini are no mannequin.

 

[pinqy]

If something is a personal truth, it shouldn't be accepted as a logical truth until/unless it reaches that level of evidence.

what level of evidence? is science and atheism the only viable means of measuring logical truth? what about cognition, intuition? is it so illogical to say cognition and intuition exist? forget god. what about those ideas as an obvious reality (to some)?

Cognition and intuiton are not viable means of measuring logical truth. They're not consistant, often wrong, and are not based on facts or observations but purely on interpretations and previously existing biases. They're not trustworthy and are purely individual and their rationale cannot be shared or demonstrated.

[/size][/color][/font]
again the heart of this discussion was not whether or not god exists, i have no tangible proof for that except of course the whole of existence, but thats beside the point. the discussion is whether or not we can all have a tolerance for people's beliefs, whether or not they meet our litmus test for what we measure to be true is inconsequential.

Tolerance for others' beliefs is certainly possible. But there are limits. I may tolerate a person's racist beliefs, but I won't tolerate racial discrimination on their part.

in what way aren't they useful? if i share my experience of as you stated a "feeling" concerning god with another and that "feeling" is understood to them as well. then isn't it useful that we shared a similar experience? how is it not useful? because you yourself percieve it to be a lie?

No, it's not useful because it is solely personal. You can share your feeling, but you can't demonstrate anything behind it. No, simply sharing a similar experience is not useful. So what? What actions should be taken? If we want to act off of these personal truths and 2 are in conflict, how do we resolve which is true and which is false? Personal truths are not useful in determining courses of action.

 

[Lynden1000]

what level of evidence? is science and atheism the only viable means of measuring logical truth? what about cognition, intuition? is it so illogical to say cognition and intuition exist? forget god. what about those ideas as an obvious reality (to some)?

I think anyone, atheist or theist, ought to approach other people's intuitions with skepticism. That is not the same as saying the other person's intuition is necessarily wrong. They might very well be right, but a reasonable person will generally want to see some other corroborating evidence before reaching a conclusion about whether the other person's claim is likely to be true. It might be an "obvious reality" to a sobbing mother that her child, who is sitting in prison, is completely innocent; but the public generally doesn't put much stock in such an intuition, no matter how deeply felt, because we're aware that it's so often incorrect.

Ditto for a person who knows deep down to the bottom of his heart that he's receiving messages from a deceased pet (and there are websites littered with such testimonies). For all I know, it might very well be true. But if all I have to go on is his "feelings", I don't think skepticism would be the least bit unreasonable.

again the heart of this discussion was not whether or not god exists, i have no tangible proof for that except of course the whole of existence, but thats beside the point. the discussion is whether or not we can all have a tolerance for people's beliefs, whether or not they meet our litmus test for what we measure to be true is inconsequential.

I'm all for that!

 

[navedub]

I think anyone, atheist or theist, ought to approach other people's intuitions with skepticism. That is not the same as saying the other person's intuition is necessarily wrong. They might very well be right, but a reasonable person will generally want to see some other corroborating evidence before reaching a conclusion about whether the other person's claim is likely to be true. It might be an "obvious reality" to a sobbing mother that her child, who is sitting in prison, is completely innocent; but the public generally doesn't put much stock in such an intuition, no matter how deeply felt, because we're aware that it's so often incorrect.

Ditto for a person who knows deep down to the bottom of his heart that he's receiving messages from a deceased pet (and there are websites littered with such testimonies). For all I know, it might very well be true. But if all I have to go on is his "feelings", I don't think skepticism would be the least bit unreasonable.

[/size][/color][/font]


I'm all for that!

it seems you all want to desperately continue this game but the way you're playing it, it takes out all the fun. please refer to the bottom reply on tolerance, i'm done playing. which is not to say anyone won.........if you'd like to think you did, by all means!