Why do you believe?

[directorrico]

I try to imagine there is no designer but I find it impossible. It’s like finding an expensive watch in a field, pulling it apart and looking at how it works, then trying to convince myself that it was not designed and made with intelligent hands.

It’s the same when I look at the natural world and see the amazing variety (eg 18000 types of butterflies), the different colours, shapes, textures in the natural world are so beautiful and complementary. A true artist has been at work.

Then I look at things that fill me with awe such as the transformation of a caterpillar into a butterfly, how every person has unique fingerprints, how every snowflake is different, how a foetus develops from a couple of cells into a unique human being, how that baby ‘knows’ when to be born, how sunsets can be so different and beautiful, the complexities of a human cell – it’s like an efficiently run factory. Anyway I’ve only scratched the surface - I could go on and on but you get the picture.

You are absolutely right about it being about faith because I know others can look at these things and say they don’t see God as they think science can explain everything. God is the scientist!

The watchmaker argument?
This is far too common of an argument that does fail as a rational reason to believe. Please attach this to the end of your youtube dot com link to save time: /watch?v=9S4F1czs2tk

And since when did science claiming it can explain everything? If you get this from scientists, that is their take on science. Science is used to discover the naturalistic laws and such of the universe; nothing more. And if God is a scientist, then he'd most likely have trouble discovering himself.

^ That one video actually covers your whole statement, conveniently.

Please watch.

 

[directorrico]

Belief, takes a man, and makes him something holy.

Folly, takes a man, and makes him something choosy.

If you cannot believe, choose folly, but if you cannot choose folly, choose death.

I believe in Spider-man being the best superhero. I guess I do not deserve death.

(I kid. But how does a quote take you to believe in God?)

 

[directorrico]

There is nothing that can be peer-reviewed by anyone. Infants and small children cannot peer review anything. Neither can the senile, the severely retarted, or the mentally ill. Blind people cannot peer review sights and deaf people cannot peer review sounds. Illiterate people cannot peer review written material and people who don't speak a given language cannot peer review something from that language. People who lack intellectual background in a certain area cannot peer review things in that area; a plot in the frequency domain may serve as evidence to some people, but other people have no clue what it means.

Obviously any appeal to peer review cannot literally claim that material "can be peer reviewed by anyone", but instead must claim that the evidence in question can be peer reviewed by some people but not others. You yourself said "testimony is just not reliable on the account of truth. Of course, in particular cases it is". That's begging the question: in what cases do you choose to trust testimony and why?

Perhaps I was not clear.
Here is the claim that gravity exists.
You don't believe me.
Here is the proof: I throw a ball off a building and measure it's drop rate and it is in accordance to the evidence that we have discovered.
Of course we are NOT going to ask someone who is brain dead, or blind, or a newborn baby to test this.
The point is that when you claim a God exists.
One cannot just say "I believe because it is evident to me" or "because the Gospels said he was there".
The claims of God/Jesus are EXTRAORDINARY. Miracles are one thing.
The proclaimed son of a transcendent God is another.

 

[directorrico]

At this stage all you are doing is making a spiritual statement, if all you do is make a spiritual statement and death comes for you, you die. And death comes for us all, my friend. Are you spiritually alive? Really?




Please show me this "I don't know" where is it? How long does it last? What is it made of? Please!

Is this a joke?

 

[directorrico]

At this stage all you are doing is making a spiritual statement, if all you do is make a spiritual statement and death comes for you, you die. And death comes for us all, my friend. Are you spiritually alive? Really?




Please show me this "I don't know" where is it? How long does it last? What is it made of? Please!

You say "the only reason you did join [Christianity] was because it fit your personal beliefs" and clearly you think this is a mark against my decision. But people make major life decisions based on what fits their personal beliefs; what else could they do? If a man decides to spend his life as a teacher in an inner-city school when he could earn much more money elsewhere, he certainly makes that decision because it fits his personal beliefs. When Oscar Schindler chose to risk his life during the Holocaust to save thousands of innocent people, he made that decision because it fit his personal beliefs. And why does anyone choose to get married or have children, if not because it fits his or her personal beliefs? I have the utmost respect for those who make their decisions based on the principles they believe in. It seems much better than being willing to make decisions that flatly contradict one's principles.

The fact that what Jesus said seemed, as best I could tell, to be true. My non-religious instructors told me that I should indulge whatever sexual tastes I had and I'd be happy. Jesus told me that doing so would make me unhappy, and that marital fidelity was the right thing to do. Jesus was right; the others wrong. My non-religious instructors that more money would always make things better. Jesus told me that hoarding money would put my soul in danger, while giving away earthly treasure would lead to treasure in Heaven. Jesus was right; the others wrong. My non-religious instructors felt that pouring out unrestrained anger constantly was a good thing. Jesus told me to love my enemies. Jesus was right; the others wrong. When I first became a Christian, I felt sure it was right to be one in the liberal and universalist vein, as I said. But the more I studied and considered, the more I realized the absurdity of trying to base my life on Jesus's moral teachings while ignoring his teachings about his own nature.

(I entirely rejected the theory that Jesus didn't actually claim to be Messiah or God and that such works with attributed to him after the fact, since I've never seen the slightest reason to believe such a thing.)

Well, how do I know that anything I experience is genuine rather than my brain playing tricks on me? How do I know that I'm not actually sitting in a tub of orange goo while machines use my body heat to generate electric power? I've heard a lot of theories offered by the non-religious to explain away the experiences of the religious, but none have been convincing. I've chosen not to be a solipsist.

I am not saying do not follow your core principles or good beliefs. The whole purpose of the thread is to why you believe in a God.?
What you've done is come to believe a super-human (who can do many supernatural things no other human can) who cares for us and does this and does that, but have shown no evidence for me or yourself other than "he does things I like".
I can name 5 things off the top of my head:
I have black hair, I go to university, I am below 6 feet, I can swim and I am God.
Anyone can agree that the first four are plausible, are demonstrable in reality and are likely. The God claim is one that is no plausible, is not demonstrable and is not likely. We are attacked that one issue here: why do you believe in God and what is your justification? And so far all your justifications have been nonsensical.

Please help me out here if I am missing something.

 

[Gottservant]

I believe in Spider-man being the best superhero. I guess I do not deserve death.

(I kid. But how does a quote take you to believe in God?)

If it is a choice, to believe or choose folly, then I believe.

If believing makes you holy, then it makes sense to be holy for a reason.

The best reason to be holy I can think of, is God.

God is ...the most natural conclusion
...the surest way
...the highest purpose
...the purest wonder
...the greatest strength
...the most able

I could go on.

You will notice that my belief makes a leap into faith, I must admit I do not understand that either. If you are stuck there, as in you know you must believe, but you don't know how to take the leap of faith, I suggest you pray. If you do not fear God at all, if you've never felt guilty about all the wrong things you've done, the prayer is still going to help, but it will help less.

The most selfish reason I can think of... if you must know... whatever I give to God that God doesn't get, comes to me! You might say "well why not just be selfish" the reason is simple: if there is a God, giving it to Him first will be the best thing I can do, if there is no God, delayed gratification will make me a better person anyway! But I digress, better that you pray and get your own answer.

 

[LottyH]

No. I'm saying that this is a possibility that Lewis' trilemma ignores, thus making it a false trichotomy.


Or they could have concluded that he was the genuine article.

You're a Christian, so it's probable you don't believe the central figures of other religions - Buddha, Muhammed, the Guru Nanak, etc - did the various supernatural things their respective religions claim they did. Yet, Buddhism, Islam, and Sikhism, are flourishing. If the followers of those people were mistaken, why couldn't the followers of Christ?


Why?


Lewis' trilemma addresses those who broadly agree with the mundane aspects of the Gospels, but disagree that with the supernatural aspects (they dispute that the resurrection of Jesus and Lazerth, etc, occurred), instead saying that Jesus was merely a good moral teacher. Thus, the trilemma does not begin from the premise that the miraculous things occurred.

Naturally, if Jesus really did bring people back from the dead, that would make people sit up and listen, but the trilemma aims to prove Jesus' divinity using logic, not empiricism.


On the contrary, that is exactly the kind of people to whom Lewis is addressing: those who broadly agree with the Gospels, but dispute the more improbable, supernatural stuff.

Lewis argues that such people are left with three possibilities: that Jesus was lord, lunatic, or liar. He then proceeds to disprove the latter two, leaving us with only the first option left, which we must therefore conclude is true.

My only point, then, is that these people have a fourth option: that Jesus was simply honestly mistaken in his claims to divinity, and not through mental illness.

I don’t believe that miracles are proof that a person is ‘God’ or whoever it is they claim to be. Supernatural occurrences also occur in other religions/the occult. But I mentioned miracles as a possible reason why people who witnessed these events decided to follow Jesus rather than dismissing Him as a deceiver or a mad man. But I agreed it doesn’t mean that kind of reasoning is necessarily correct and people can get deceived with the supernatural. The reason I personally follow Jesus is not because I’ve seen any miracles or that I’m hoping for a miracle such as healing. And I’m sure people would follow other religions for other reasons apart from miracles too.

But my stumbling block in your argument is trying to imagine the possibility that Jesus made a mistake in thinking he was God. One reason is because I think cracks would appear somewhere in His teachings but on the contrary I see the opposite in his teachings – nothing but true perfection. A perfect person doesn’t make mistakes.

You mentioned about Lewis addressing those who broadly agree with the gospel except for the supernatural stuff. You may mean teachings such as ‘Love your neighbour’. There is actually very little that Jesus taught that I think an atheist would accept as being accurate as its full of references to the spiritual world. Also a lot of Jesus teachings are full of warnings and are very difficult even for believers to hear. Sadly many churches do not teach the difficult parts so unless people read it themselves they will have little exposure. For any Christians out there that disagree with me, tell me if you’ve ever heard Matthew chapter 25 preached in church, I’d love to hear from you.

 

[LottyH]

The watchmaker argument?
This is far too common of an argument that does fail as a rational reason to believe. Please attach this to the end of your youtube dot com link to save time: /watch?v=9S4F1czs2tk

And since when did science claiming it can explain everything? If you get this from scientists, that is their take on science. Science is used to discover the naturalistic laws and such of the universe; nothing more. And if God is a scientist, then he'd most likely have trouble discovering himself.

^ That one video actually covers your whole statement, conveniently.

Please watch.

Oops! I’ve been caught out with a very unoriginal concept, I should have known better! Anyway I had a look at the utube link, here’s a transcript if anyone would like to read:

‘The reason why you recognise the watch is designed has nothing to do with how ordered or complex it is or its perceived purpose, it’s because you already know the watch is designed. You have a million examples of watches being designed and none of them occur naturally. Humans/animals occur naturally but watches/building do not occur naturally. If you draw this analogy out to its logical conclusion that there is a God and created the universe and everything in it. Then in reality he also created the grains of sand on the beach and therefore you are walking along a beach full of watches next to an ocean full of watches and a stream and a tree made of watches. And you are reaching down and picking up one watch and saying this watch is so vastly different to the trillions of other watches that are surrounding me that it is therefore proof of a designer. It is a self-reinforcing argument – you are inventing a claim based on.. You recognise the design because you are scaffolding up to the point where we can identify that this is actually designed. We don’t put the designed label on it until we are certain that it is.’

I also searched around other websites to see what they said. I came across things like ‘if all complex things are designed that must mean the designers themselves are designed. Therefore who designed God?’

Sorry I’m not convinced. Whenever I look at something in nature such as the human kidney that has a complex yet amazingly simple design all I see is God. I don’t think anything will change that.

My conclusion: Unless I can prove God exists atheists will not believe, unless atheists can prove God doesn’t exist I will continue to believe in God.

 

[AlexBP]

Perhaps I was not clear.

It would certainly help if you used correct grammar, included a verb in every sentence, organized your sentences into paragraphs, and and presented us with a clear flow of ideas. You do have a problem with clarity, but you have a much bigger problem with correctness.

I asked "How do you define evidence?" You answered that evidence "can be peer-reviewed by anyone." In post #50 I pointed out that such a definition is obviously meaningless. Now you've said "Of course we are NOT going to ask someone who is brain dead, or blind, or a newborn baby to test this." So you've reversed yourself and we both agree that your original definition of 'evidence' doesn't hold up to scrutiny. In that case, the ball is still in your court. How do you define evidence?

 

[directorrico]

If it is a choice, to believe or choose folly, then I believe.

If believing makes you holy, then it makes sense to be holy for a reason.

The best reason to be holy I can think of, is God.

God is ...the most natural conclusion
...the surest way
...the highest purpose
...the purest wonder
...the greatest strength
...the most able

I could go on.

You will notice that my belief makes a leap into faith, I must admit I do not understand that either. If you are stuck there, as in you know you must believe, but you don't know how to take the leap of faith, I suggest you pray. If you do not fear God at all, if you've never felt guilty about all the wrong things you've done, the prayer is still going to help, but it will help less.

The most selfish reason I can think of... if you must know... whatever I give to God that God doesn't get, comes to me! You might say "well why not just be selfish" the reason is simple: if there is a God, giving it to Him first will be the best thing I can do, if there is no God, delayed gratification will make me a better person anyway! But I digress, better that you pray and get your own answer.

Two things here:
i) To believe makes you holy, then I'll be holy therefore God.
In a slight sense (other than your claim of holy = the justification for God), this is an ignorance fallacy. "I don't know any other explanation of being 'holy' or to have justification to believe so therefore the best natural conclusion is God".
ii) Faith in it's basic sense and by its definition is gullibility. That's an explanation for you. You have taken the word of the most outrageous claims because you heard it and because you like it. If you were born in North America, you have taken that leap onto Christianity. If you were born in the Middle East, you have taken that leap onto the Muslim dogma. In no way are any of these faiths justified and assessed accordingly by their followers but by concluding that "it is the best possible conclusion because I could not see it any other way".

//

 

[directorrico]

Oops! I’ve been caught out with a very unoriginal concept, I should have known better! Anyway I had a look at the utube link, here’s a transcript if anyone would like to read:

‘The reason why you recognise the watch is designed has nothing to do with how ordered or complex it is or its perceived purpose, it’s because you already know the watch is designed. You have a million examples of watches being designed and none of them occur naturally. Humans/animals occur naturally but watches/building do not occur naturally. If you draw this analogy out to its logical conclusion that there is a God and created the universe and everything in it. Then in reality he also created the grains of sand on the beach and therefore you are walking along a beach full of watches next to an ocean full of watches and a stream and a tree made of watches. And you are reaching down and picking up one watch and saying this watch is so vastly different to the trillions of other watches that are surrounding me that it is therefore proof of a designer. It is a self-reinforcing argument – you are inventing a claim based on.. You recognise the design because you are scaffolding up to the point where we can identify that this is actually designed. We don’t put the designed label on it until we are certain that it is.’

I also searched around other websites to see what they said. I came across things like ‘if all complex things are designed that must mean the designers themselves are designed. Therefore who designed God?’

Sorry I’m not convinced. Whenever I look at something in nature such as the human kidney that has a complex yet amazingly simple design all I see is God. I don’t think anything will change that.

My conclusion: Unless I can prove God exists atheists will not believe, unless atheists can prove God doesn’t exist I will continue to believe in God.

Your conclusion is ridiculous.

I believe bigfoot lurks in New York City.
You don't?
Why not?
I saw him AND I have relatively clear pictures of him.
Many people have seen him and are clearly convinced.
Oh you still don't believe me?
Okay, prove to me a bigfoot does not exist.
Oh you can't?
Ok, bigfoot exists.

^
This is rubbish. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Do you have to prove the non-existence of a unicorn?

Your Logical Fallacy Is "dot com" /burden-of-proof

Follow the link please. The Internet is Great.

 

[directorrico]

It would certainly help if you used correct grammar, included a verb in every sentence, organized your sentences into paragraphs, and and presented us with a clear flow of ideas. You do have a problem with clarity, but you have a much bigger problem with correctness.

I asked "How do you define evidence?" You answered that evidence "can be peer-reviewed by anyone." In post #50 I pointed out that such a definition is obviously meaningless. Now you've said "Of course we are NOT going to ask someone who is brain dead, or blind, or a newborn baby to test this." So you've reversed yourself and we both agree that your original definition of 'evidence' doesn't hold up to scrutiny. In that case, the ball is still in your court. How do you define evidence?

Evidence is and includes everything that is used to reveal and determine the truth, and therefore is presumed to be true and related to a case. Giving or procuring evidence is the process of using those things that are either (a) presumed to be true, or (b) were in fact proven to be true by earlier evidence (truths) and demonstrates the broadening of the truth of a case. And the collection of evidence is in fact the act of determining; what is evidence. Whereas, the word evidence carries with it the presumption of it (the evidence) being seen as true, the where and how it fits; its relationship in and to the other evidence. In short, it goes from determining what is evidence, to evidence is determined; determining truth, to truth determined. Evidence is the currency by which one fulfills the burden of proof as the burden of proof relies on the person making the claim.

 

[AlexBP]

What you've done is come to believe a super-human (who can do many supernatural things no other human can) who cares for us and does this and does that, but have shown no evidence for me or yourself other than "he does things I like".

I have plentiful evidence for myself that Jesus Christ is God and have already told you what it is. I never posted the words "he does things I like", so you're lying when you try to pin that quote on me. Anybody who's read my posts can see what I actually wrote, so you won't accomplish much by lying other than making yourself look dishonest.

And so far all your justifications have been nonsensical.

Please help me out here if I am missing something.

I think what you're missing is that there's no particular reason why I should care about your personal opinions. I live my life trying, as best I can, to imitate Christ; I make no attempt to please any anonymous internet user. If you think my justification for believing in Christ is nonsensical, that's irrelevant to me.

 

[directorrico]

I have plentiful evidence for myself that Jesus Christ is God and have already told you what it is. I never posted the words "he does things I like", so you're lying when you try to pin that quote on me. Anybody who's read my posts can see what I actually wrote, so you won't accomplish much by lying other than making yourself look dishonest.


I think what you're missing is that there's no particular reason why I should care about your personal opinions. I live my life trying, as best I can, to imitate Christ; I make no attempt to please any anonymous internet user. If you think my justification for believing in Christ is nonsensical, that's irrelevant to me.

Your justification for a belief in a superhuman is nonsensical; not the fact that you are living your life imitating a good role model.

The only beef I have with theists are when they justify their wrongdoings (not saying you or anyone in this thread has done so) by appealing to revelation. Hating on homosexuals, not allowing children to explore science, not giving their children contemporary medicine but relying on faith healing, not letting couples use condoms, etc.

If a theist can justify their belief in a God with proper evidence then I'm all for it.
I've read your evidence and all you've demonstrated was an appeal to others and scripture.

 

[AlexBP]

The last line of that paragraph is in contradiction to the first, and evades rather than answers the question.

In the first line I asked a rhetorical question intended to demonstrate that if any person accepts sense data, then he or she also accepts that isn't just his or her brain playing tricks on him or her. All of us accept sense data; therefore all of us believe that at least some of our experiences are not merely the brain playing tricks on us. In other words, all of us are not solipsists, and my last sentence affirmed that I am not a solipsist. Thus the first and last sentence of my paragraph are in total agreement with each other.

To rephrase the question asked of you, how do you know that your "religious" experience is genuine, rather than your brain "playing tricks on you"?

Until someone provides a convincing reason why I should believe that it's my brain playing tricks on me, I will believe that it's genuine. Likewise when I experience a computer screen in front of my face and a keyboard underneath my fingertips, I believe that they are genuine until some provides a convincing reason to believe that it's my brain playing tricks on me.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I don’t believe that miracles are proof that a person is ‘God’ or whoever it is they claim to be. Supernatural occurrences also occur in other religions/the occult. But I mentioned miracles as a possible reason why people who witnessed these events decided to follow Jesus rather than dismissing Him as a deceiver or a mad man. But I agreed it doesn’t mean that kind of reasoning is necessarily correct and people can get deceived with the supernatural. The reason I personally follow Jesus is not because I’ve seen any miracles or that I’m hoping for a miracle such as healing. And I’m sure people would follow other religions for other reasons apart from miracles too.

Still, the trilemma was the only thing I was arguing against.

But my stumbling block in your argument is trying to imagine the possibility that Jesus made a mistake in thinking he was God. One reason is because I think cracks would appear somewhere in His teachings but on the contrary I see the opposite in his teachings – nothing but true perfection. A perfect person doesn’t make mistakes.

Well, are his teachings perfect? Is this conclusion a posteriori, or is it, as I suspect, a priori?

Some of his teachings are quite good - Love your neighbour as yourself, for instance, has long been hailed as a good ethic. But the teaching that non-believers will suffer for eternity simply because they're non-believers (and not because of any immoral action that might warrant punishment), is very disturbing.

You mentioned about Lewis addressing those who broadly agree with the gospel except for the supernatural stuff. You may mean teachings such as ‘Love your neighbour’. There is actually very little that Jesus taught that I think an atheist would accept as being accurate as its full of references to the spiritual world.

Nevertheless, "Love your neighbour" is one of them.

Also a lot of Jesus teachings are full of warnings and are very difficult even for believers to hear. Sadly many churches do not teach the difficult parts so unless people read it themselves they will have little exposure.

That's why I'm not one of those people who considers Jesus to be a particularly good moral teacher. Some of what he said is very good, some is spiritual advice so doesn't apply to me, and some is quite dubious.

 

[Davian]

The last line of that paragraph is in contradiction to the first, and evades rather than answers the question.

To rephrase the question asked of you, how do you know that your "religious" experience is genuine, rather than your brain "playing tricks on you"? Do you have anything convincing?

In the first line I asked a rhetorical question intended to demonstrate that if any person accepts sense data, then he or she also accepts that isn't just his or her brain playing tricks on him or her. All of us accept sense data; therefore all of us believe that at least some of our experiences are not merely the brain playing tricks on us. In other words, all of us are not solipsists, and my last sentence affirmed that I am not a solipsist. Thus the first and last sentence of my paragraph are in total agreement with each other.

Only if you, in retrospect, say that you were being rhetorical.

And, as I said, you did not address the questions at hand.

Until someone provides a convincing reason why I should believe that it's my brain playing tricks on me, I will believe that it's genuine. Likewise when I experience a computer screen in front of my face and a keyboard underneath my fingertips, I believe that they are genuine until some provides a convincing reason to believe that it's my brain playing tricks on me.

So, to the question "Do you have anything convincing?", your answer would be "No"?

 

[nebulaJP]

Yes.

One of the classic examples in QM 101 is to model billiard balls as quantum particles and explain why they don't 'tunnel' through other balls to get into the pocket. The reason is one of scale: billiard balls do have a probability of tunnelling to any point in space (this is as simple as plugging in the coordinates, r, into the equation, and out pops the probability), but the probability of them tunnelling anywhere more than a billionth of their radius away is remote indeed. Electrons, meanwhile, can be expected to tunnel quite far away, relative to the size of an atom.

Diamonds are nothing more than a particular aggregate of carbon atoms. Since carbon atoms are quantum mechanical, so too is the diamond (holism be dаmned). It is usually too mathematically hideous to model macroscopic diamonds using QM, so we usually use a very good approximation - classical mechanics. Nevertheless, not all macroscopic behaviour can be explained with CM, such as this peculiar macroscopic entanglement effect. It's also been done with buckyballs.

(I'd also be wary of scientific journalism; while New Scientist is a great magazine, macroscopic entanglement most certainly doesn't force a coin showing 'heads' to flip over and show 'tails' )

In the digital camp the billiard ball is a program entity with a new instance or existence frame generated every plank time. So it can pass through a wall if one instance is on one side of the wall and the next frame is on the other side. It doesn't exist continuously, it's a series of still frames or instances.

You are saying a billiard ball has an inherent existence. By inherent I mean its existence doesn't depend on anything outside of the universe. If it inherently exists then don't you think it should exist continuously and not have a small probability of tunneling through a wall?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

In the digital camp the billiard ball is a program entity with a new instance or existence frame generated every plank time. So it can pass through a wall if one instance is on one side of the wall and the next frame is on the other side. It doesn't exist continuously, it's a series of still frames or instances.

That's certainly one way time and tunnelling could work.

You are saying a billiard ball has an inherent existence. By inherent I mean its existence doesn't depend on anything outside of the universe.

What do you mean by 'depend'?

If it inherently exists then don't you think it should exist continuously and not have a small probability of tunneling through a wall?

1) QM doesn't imply discrete time.
2) Continuous time doesn't preclude quantum tunnelling.
3) Tunnelling is a readily-observed phenomenon and the basis of technology like Scanning Tunnelling Microscopy. If continuous time cannot coexist with quantum tunnelling, then so much for continuous time.

 

[AlexBP]

So, to the question "Do you have anything convincing?", your answer would be "No"?

What I have spoken, I have spoken, as Pontius Pilate once said.

Your justification for a belief in a superhuman is nonsensical

As I just said, I don't care if you think my justification is nonsensical. I'm more than happy to engage in a dialogue regarding any almost anything worthy of discussion, but it's clear that you're only here to hurl spitwads rather than to engage in intellectual debate. Hence I don't imagine I'll be posting in this thread again. Good day.