[Bobboau]

in grade school I was diagnosed with a plethora of learning disabilitied, dislexia, ADD, ect... after I realised there was a reason for why I was haveing a hard time in school and after getting shiped off to the 'specal' classes, I took on an aditude of general defeitism, and I used the fact that I knew I had a deficency as an excuse not to try, I would flat out not do homework, not care, ect... then I got into highschool, and because it was a private school and I was fearfull of returning to public schools (oh, didn't mention, tormented, horably by the other students in the public schools) I began to take on the personality I have now of all people are self made, forced myself to take on the regular material and I went from about a fourth grade level of education and caught up in less than a semester, even with my 'learning disabilities', I have to date taken nearly every advanced math course at my school (exept difeq simply because I think I know enough calculus to do the things I want to do, and linear algebra, simply because it's got a horable time slot (though I atcualy WANT to take it)). it has never occered to me that this may have been due to devine intervention, especaly because this was the point in my life I also began becomeing stonchly atheist (in fact that was part of the trigger that led to my change in personality and takeing personal responcibility for myself), I simply think that if people are sufficently motivated they can make extrordinary changes to there lives.

I should also note that when I was in grade school I was constantly physicaly sick, there wouldn't be a week go by without me leaveing school because I was vomiting. this stoped at about the same time as everything else, I don't credit God for any of it, I never had, that is the antithesis of my aditude, it was me, my will power alone that brought about the change in my life, and continues to do so to this day, I have experienced things that I know other people would have consitered miraculus, but I never EVER felt there was anything supernatural going on.

[aldo_14]

Yeah, but Tim and Scott are both good friends who have no reason to embellish or be dishonest about it - it would be completely out of character for them to do so.  And even if most of these are secondhand, the asthma healing is firsthand: it happened to me.  I had asthma before, and now I don't.

Oh, I never said they'd be dishonest about it.  But if people want to believe, then they find ways, and that's why I'm wary of any 3rd party experience of this sort.  The consideration of other possibilities sits by the wayside in favour of what reinforces their belief (because that feels good to them, yeah?) and at the same time perhaps skews their memory ever-so-slightly in a supporting direction. The milk-statue thing is really a perfect example, I guess.

You don't have to speculate.  Do you really think science knows every thing there possibly is to know about the universe?  You can believe me, and conclude that I'm telling the truth; or you can believe that I'm accurately reporting what I saw and chalk it up to one of science's unexplained mysteries.  Or you can call me a liar.  Your choice.

Neither, actually.  I genuinely don't have the data to speculate as to what happened, and whether there was any embellishment - unintentional or otherwise.  I certainly don't believe you're a liar; there's no point, really, on the internet.

I would think they are.  Otherwise, when presented with a miracle, you would, by habit, always conclude that there must be some other explanation.

But does that make them more of a miracle or you less rational in observing them?

Quite a lot of them.  Many, are, of course frauds, but the legitimate ones always stand up to scrutiny.  The problem with legitimate ones, though, is that many times a disbelieving investigator will state a priori that miracles do not happen and refuse to seriously examine it based on that justification.

I would presume so; that question didn't come up.  As for how death was pronounced, it was by the attending physician who flat-out refused to re-examine her after she had come back to life.  I can email Scott for more details.

EEG?  Or cardiogram?

Well, I think the absence of disease would be crucial in a determination.  Although that physician IMO is absolutely at fault for refusing to re-examine.  Regardless of your position on miracles, he/she has a duty of care to examine a patient.  Moreso if you don't believe in miracles.  I think, though, this is one of those things where it's again kind of hard to determine what happened from this sort of position - for example I don't know the characteristics of the disease and if they would lend to this type of situation (not sure I'd be qualified to judge even if I did).

Well, it was established that I had asthma initially, as I had been going to see an asthma specialist for a year or two beforehand.  I haven't been back since, because those visits are expensive, but my mom (who is a nurse) concluded, based on my cough and the way I was breathing, that it had been cured.  My dad hasn't wanted to discuss it.

Ok.... um, to be honest I think you should get it checked, but I understand the vagarities of a paid health service.  Rather than any sort of attempt to disprove or knock it, consider it as the opportunity for pretty strong evidence of your position to go and get a clean bill of health.

As for personal testing, I do that all the time, even now, because it's so remarkable that I can't fully believe it myself. I can breathe all the way in and all the way out, whereas before I could only breath partway before I "snagged" on something and started coughing.  And I can do exercise and sports without having to stop every few minutes to catch my breath, whereas I couldn't do that before.  Also, cold weather is particularly problematic for asthma sufferers, especially when combined with even light activity.  Now the very first thing I did after the seminar was run (three blocks, uphill, in 50 degree weather) to where the rest of my friends were having dinner, and I arrived without any problems whatsoever.  So that convinced me pretty firmly.

Well, good for you

The problem is that the human mind is great at convincing itself of all sorts of things, even when presented with evidence that clearly contradicts it.  It happens for people believing miracles that are fraudulent, but it also happens for people disbelieving miracles that are genuine.

(without wishing to discuss the incidence of actual miracles, if any)

Perhaps, but rational thought processes do dictate a massive degree of skepticism is only right; for one thing the concept of an entirely unpredictable world (in the sense of miraculous inexpliability) is an incredibly dangerous one for any sort of evolved thinking mind within our 'predictable' world (i.e.  relatively known laws).

I agree with vyper that i don't think there is anything inexplicable about the universe; a thousand years ago gravity was inexplicable.  200 years ago, you could probably terrify people with a TV, etc. What is interesting to me is whether these things actually, genuinely happen in a miraculous way or whether it is in the eye of the beholder.  It may be that rational scepticism prevents investigation of these things, but on the other side I'd imagine if there was any documented proven miraculous event we'd hear a lot more of it.

That was kind of beside the reason why I asked, though.  What I was wondering is, did you have any specific miraculous experience (first, second, third, etc+ hand) that would lead to the conclusion that a blastocyst is regardable as human (again within the context which we use to award human rights and values to a person).  To me, I've not seen anything that says so; whilst you may reaffirmed your faith, I don't think that is sufficient grounds for imposition of a viewpoint.  It's for 2 reasons mainly.  Firstly, these aren't miracles of direct relation to this subject.  Secondly, I think the bible is massively interepretative, because the literal reading of much of it is already contradicted by investigation; things like most of Genesis, or pi=3.  Even if there was a God who dictated the bible bit-by-bit directly or through manipulating events - and that's possibly something beyond the scope of this arguement - I doubt the bible could be the literal word of God rather than a paraphrase intended for an audience of 2,000 years ago.

[Grug]

I hereby dub Goober "Ned Flanders".

[aldo_14]

Hehe.  This was well timed.

[Goober5000]

[q]Do you really think science knows every thing there possibly is to know about the universe?[/q]

No, but I refuse to accept that there are things science cannot eventually explain about the universe.

I think you're going to be disappointed then. Have you ever heard of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem?  It turns out that for any system of sufficient complexity (the universe, for example), there will be true statements you can make about it that you cannot prove are true.

Why? If there is a god, and he actually cares for what people do and think (and he is benevolent, which is somewhat confusing), one would think he would act on the intention of the prayer, not the religious dogma followed by the person praying.

I think this is true to a certain extent - but only to a certain extent.  If you're uncertain about things and just tossing out a prayer to any god that might be listening, I think God will step in and give you the benefit of the doubt.  If on the other hand you're very specific and intentional in praying to a particular god, I would expect only that god, and no other, to answer.

I would think they are.  Otherwise, when presented with a miracle, you would, by habit, always conclude that there must be some other explanation.

But does that make them more of a miracle or you less rational in observing them?

I'm not sure what you're driving at here, but I think it's worse to ignore bona fide miracles than to pretend miracles exist where they don't.  If something inexplicable or fradulent happens, and you ascribe it to a miracle, you're merely ignorant or guillible.  On the other hand, if a bona fide miracle happens and you refuse to acknowledge it, you're being irrational.

EEG?  Or cardiogram?

Still waiting for an email response here.

Perhaps, but rational thought processes do dictate a massive degree of skepticism is only right; for one thing the concept of an entirely unpredictable world (in the sense of miraculous inexpliability) is an incredibly dangerous one for any sort of evolved thinking mind within our 'predictable' world (i.e.  relatively known laws).

Two things here.  First of all, "miracle" goes above and beyond the natural, that's why it's called "supernatural".  The universe functions according to a set of rules, but a miracle comes from "beyond" the universe and therefore overrides those rules.  That doesn't mean the universe is less reliable, only that it was temporarily pre-empted by something with a higher priority.

Second of all, I thought it was interesting that you used the phrase "evolved thinking".  The brain evolved in several stages: reflex, then the lizardlike "autopilot", then animal reasoning, and finally religion.  Since religion was the most recent thing to evolve, that would seem to imply that it fulfills a higher evolutionary purpose than reasoning.  And that would imply that athiests aren't operating at full evolutionary capacity - that religious humans are more highly evolved than nonreligious ones.

That would seem to make intuitive sense IMHO - communicating with God confers a significant evolutionary advantage.

It may be that rational scepticism prevents investigation of these things, but on the other side I'd imagine if there was any documented proven miraculous event we'd hear a lot more of it.

I don't know about that, but I do know that there's a lot of documentation out there.  You just have to look for it.  "Surprised by the Power of the Spirit" by Jack Deere is a book I'm reading right now that talks about it in detail.  It's written by a converted skeptic.

That was kind of beside the reason why I asked, though.  What I was wondering is, did you have any specific miraculous experience (first, second, third, etc+ hand) that would lead to the conclusion that a blastocyst is regardable as human (again within the context which we use to award human rights and values to a person).  To me, I've not seen anything that says so; whilst you may reaffirmed your faith, I don't think that is sufficient grounds for imposition of a viewpoint.

Well here we come to the implications.  My justification is that if the Bible makes a number of statements on a variety of topics, and I can verify many of those statements through my own experiences, I should accept its authority on the statements I cannot verify.

EDIT: It's a funny coincidence that my friend replied just as I posted. Here's what he had to say:

the #1 resource: "Only Love Can Make a Miracle" by Mahesh Chavda.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0971498601/sr=8-1/qid=1144867103/ref=sr_1_1/002-8474643-4014405?%5Fencoding=UTF8
$9 and it includes a picture of the official death certificate of a little boy raised from the dead.  witnessed by tens of thousands, raised from the dead in Jesus name.

#2 resource:
http://www.aglimpseofeternity.org/testimony.htm#Ambulance

#3 resource....
http://home.earthlink.net/~daysofnoah/downloads/audio/
i would recommend corey russel's testimony (about a 10 minutes mp3).  that will shake them up a bit.

frankly, challenge them to ask God if He's real.  He will answer any sincere inquirers.  He promised it: psalm 17:6.  I don't know when He will, but He will.  =)

...

as for dawn's mom, the real fast version is:  she died in a hospital... she was diabetic and didn't know it.  her blood-sugar went to 5000, if i remember correctly.  dawn was medical power of attorney.  her mom's body had shut down...kidneys were destroyed, brain-dead, etc.  the doctors told dawn it was time to unplug her mom from life-support.  she said, "not yet" went in and worshiped, praising Jesus for several hours.  her mom's eyelids started to flutter.  dawn ran and told the neurologist, who berated her.  the doctor decided to prove to Dawn that her mom was dead and couldn't ever come back.  she did a bunch of tests proving it and sure enough, her mom was pretty toast.  but dawn went back, worshiped more, and her mom came back to life.  in fact, she was out of the hospital within a month.  i mean, God totally healed her internal organs too--  kidneys, etc.  dawn never saw that doctor again.

i want to be humble in all these suggestions, ask God and HE will lead you how to respond.  listen, listen, listen!  it's so important that we spend lots of time wth Him and listen.

[aldo_14]

I think you're going to be disappointed then. Have you ever heard of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem?  It turns out that for any system of sufficient complexity (the universe, for example), there will be true statements you can make about it that you cannot prove are true.

Godels incompleteness theorems were applied to mathematics, not universally though.  Specifically;

For any consistent formal theory that proves basic arithmetical truths, it is possible to construct an arithmetical statement that is true 1 but not provable in the theory. That is, any consistent theory of a certain expressive strength is incomplete.

For any formal theory T including basic arithmetical truths and also certain truths about formal provability, T includes a statement of its own consistency if and only if T is inconsistent.

I believe it's the former you're referring to, and the problem is that there's a misconception in FOL terms; namely the size of the set applied to.  If we take the whole universe, then it applies.  But if we apply it to a subset of knowledge which is known to be finite, it does not.  So the question is not whether there are unknowables, but whether we can create finite sets of knowables in respect to scientific theorem.

I'm not sure what you're driving at here, but I think it's worse to ignore bona fide miracles than to pretend miracles exist where they don't.  If something inexplicable or fradulent happens, and you ascribe it to a miracle, you're merely ignorant or guillible.  On the other hand, if a bona fide miracle happens and you refuse to acknowledge it, you're being irrational.

Define bona fide, though.  You said earlier that you wouldn't apply current scientific knowledge to judge humanity - so why use it to decide a miracle is a genuine religious miracle rather than something which is beyond current knowledge?

Two things here.  First of all, "miracle" goes above and beyond the natural, that's why it's called "supernatural".  The universe functions according to a set of rules, but a miracle comes from "beyond" the universe and therefore overrides those rules.  That doesn't mean the universe is less reliable, only that it was temporarily pre-empted by something with a higher priority.

By implication, anything that affects us in any observable way has become part of the natural universe.  The very existance of the supernatural is by nature wholly subjective.

Second of all, I thought it was interesting that you used the phrase "evolved thinking".  The brain evolved in several stages: reflex, then the lizardlike "autopilot", then animal reasoning, and finally religion.  Since religion was the most recent thing to evolve, that would seem to imply that it fulfills a higher evolutionary purpose than reasoning.  And that would imply that athiests aren't operating at full evolutionary capacity - that religious humans are more highly evolved than nonreligious ones. Big grin

That would seem to make intuitive sense IMHO - communicating with God confers a significant evolutionary advantage.

That would be incorrect.  For one thing, AFAIK there is not a part of the brain that physically codifies for religion, and if there were we wouldn't be seeing it decline so rapidly the way it has in many Western societies (the population is simply too large, plus there isn't really a survival benefit for it to be selected).

Religious belief would be an extension of things like imagination and artistry from a purely evolutional dint.  In a non-secular society, religion - especially at a high level of influence - has high advantages in sexual selection terms; it gives status, power and respect, all of which would be of an advantage when it comes to mate choice.  Religion also has another sexual advantage - it's story telling.  One of the principal theories for the evolution of language is that it's beneficial for sexual selection; it indicates intelligence, fitness, and it's very hard to fake.  So a good storyteller would be sexually attractive for demonstrating the traits of intelligence; something we can see in pretty much all society, even if transposed (i.e. actors in modern day society).  And the adoptation of other stories would be a good way to 'cash in' on that.

Remember that humans are naturally polygamous, and the monogomous concept of modern religion (well, some of them) is unlikely to be what we'd find in the earliest hunter-gatherer societies.  Additionally, religion can be interpreted as a societal evolution used as method to impose order on society, or as a method for comprehending the unknowns of the universe and satisfying the human psyches' inquisite aspects prior to a methodology for more detailed investigation.

Well here we come to the implications.  My justification is that if the Bible makes a number of statements on a variety of topics, and I can verify many of those statements through my own experiences, I should accept its authority on the statements I cannot verify.

What about the statements proven false?

the #1 resource: "Only Love Can Make a Miracle" by Mahesh Chavda.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0971498601/sr=8-1/qid=1144867103/ref=sr_1_1/002-8474643-4014405?%5Fencoding=UTF8
$9 and it includes a picture of the official death certificate of a little boy raised from the dead.  witnessed by tens of thousands, raised from the dead in Jesus name.

#2 resource:
http://www.aglimpseofeternity.org/testimony.htm#Ambulance

#3 resource....
http://home.earthlink.net/~daysofnoah/downloads/audio/
i would recommend corey russel's testimony (about a 10 minutes mp3).  that will shake them up a bit.

Ok, I didn't look at the 3rd (and I'm loathe to read what would be rather biased sources for the other 2), but;

I don't know who Mahesh Chavda is.  So I don't know the veracity of any claims he makes, although it's interesting to see he makes a carrer from it going by amazon.  I would note that it's not hard to get a death certificate, though; for example, here is a site purporting to have them by order for US (although this was apparently in Zaire, and I doubt they have better document control than the US - slip a fiver to the local coroner more like).  There have been documented cases of people forced or co-erced into faking illness for these types of meetings, though.  Certainly what I'd guess to be a rather religiously feverent location wouldn't be too inquisitive; and it's amazing how little research is done when you'd think they'd be eager for it.

The 2nd one; doesn't give details on the pronouncement of death.  It's really kind of vague in that sense, actually.  Although it's been studied (recently, actually) and indicated that near-death visions are the result of the REM part of the brain becoming activated aka REM intrusion; this is still ongoing research (rather hard to test, obviously), but there is already the beginnings of an explanation for that (plus his documented thoughts in the ambulance would support the thematic content of what would be a 'pseudo' dream). As I said, though, it is early in terms of what they've found (even they emphasise it's not so much ruling any spiritual factor - albeit if they did they'd probably get funding pulled the way the US seems to be going), so it's not clear what the trigger is for such a thing, why it is selective and if it is related to immenent death or some coincidental 'impulse' type thing.

It's hard to really evaluate without much factual medical data (re what the latency for antivenom effectiveness would be for example).  I'm guessing it wasn't Chironex Fleckeri venom, as you wouldn't suvive long enough to get onto the ambulance.  It could be Irukandji Syndrome, caused by Carukia Barnesi; that kicks in about 5-120 minutes (30 average), although that causes unbearable pain and thrashing about which isn't indicated, although that doesn't mean it didn't occur if he was hallucinating (note; there's a bit of a mistake already in what that page says about box jellyfish; C.Barenesi stings aren't usually fatal; and C.Fleckeri, the jellyfish he clearly implies stung him, is not known to have a habitat extending that far east - I've seen that ?deliberate? error in several articles).  I'm not sure, but I know Irukandji symptoms can occur and then wear off after a period of time; what I'm trying to identify is whether paralysis is a known symptom (the Irukandji jellyfish does paralyse prey, but I'm not sure about stung humans).

Also, IIRC there are several type of box jellyfish with different venom, and known to be several unknown/undiscovered (i.e. not formally classified but implicated in stingings) species. I'm not sure this was Irukandji, anyways; I'm neither a doctor nor marine biologist.

The end of that page is quite odd; he doesn't explain what the doctor was doing with his leg & a scalpel.  Clearly it wasn't an autopsy - wrong place to start, and a known COD, and I'm wondering if that meant treatment was ongoing.  What he interpreted as fear in the doctors eyes, and nurses jumping away from the doorway could be surprise in the former and the slight feeling of shame (being rather rude to observe someones life or death struggle) in the latter; I doubt you'd be in a position to be read people that well post near-death experience (it's kind of vague on how death was pronounced; the only scientific comment on it - or rather that looked like it was on it, as searching revealed articles saying he was diving or surfing at the time- I found was report on the sting, and a note the locals were 'surprised' he survived).

So my rather tiring search has raised several questions; why are there 2 different stories?  Why, if he was formally pronounched dead, would someone be cutting at hislegs? Why does that page link to a jellyfish that doesn't even go near Mauritius (and the only alternate I can find is one with no known anti-venom to administer)?

3rd one; I'm kind of already listening to something.  Idlewild, at the mo.

frankly, challenge them to ask God if He's real.  He will answer any sincere inquirers.  He promised it: psalm 17:6.  I don't know when He will, but He will.  =)

Is God real?

I say no.  Prove me wrong - I'm a skeptic.  (would God use a non-obvious sign for someone insistent upon objective evidence?  That'd seem a bit daft but mysterious ways and soforth - although aren't those really excuses anyways)

More importantly, does God get ADSL?

...

as for dawn's mom, the real fast version is:  she died in a hospital... she was diabetic and didn't know it.  her blood-sugar went to 5000, if i remember correctly.  dawn was medical power of attorney.  her mom's body had shut down...kidneys were destroyed, brain-dead, etc.  the doctors told dawn it was time to unplug her mom from life-support.  she said, "not yet" went in and worshiped, praising Jesus for several hours.  her mom's eyelids started to flutter.  dawn ran and told the neurologist, who berated her.  the doctor decided to prove to Dawn that her mom was dead and couldn't ever come back.  she did a bunch of tests proving it and sure enough, her mom was pretty toast.  but dawn went back, worshiped more, and her mom came back to life.  in fact, she was out of the hospital within a month.  i mean, God totally healed her internal organs too--  kidneys, etc.  dawn never saw that doctor again.

Well, i can't say much on this.  I'd need to know a lot more than I do, to be honest, both in terms of specific medical background and, er, being a doctor (at the very least it'd look like a test screwup).  The thought of a neurologist 'berating' anyone seems a bit odd.

Although there is documented (complete) recovery from a hypoglycemic coma (this was due to intentional overdose), although it was in something like the Endocrinologist (Dec 2004) which I can't say I have backissues for.

This is obviously prying, but is she still diabetic?

i want to be humble in all these suggestions, ask God and HE will lead you how to respond.  listen, listen, listen!  it's so important that we spend lots of time wth Him and listen./

You make him sound like my Dad.

[Ford Prefect]

Are you real?

I say no-- prove me wrong. (I'm a solipsist.)

[Goober5000]

I think you're going to be disappointed then. Have you ever heard of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem?  It turns out that for any system of sufficient complexity (the universe, for example), there will be true statements you can make about it that you cannot prove are true.

Godels incompleteness theorems were applied to mathematics, not universally though.

No, I'm pretty sure it can apply to any system.  Basically, we can't construct a complete and accurate model of the universe, because we are in the universe.  So there will be things about the universe that we can never model.

See this page for example:

In any case, what does it mean that a symbolic system based on deriving truth from axioms is incomplete? Could we make a complete system? The only way I can see to do that would be to include an infinite number of axioms, which deterministicly describe all happenings in the past, present and future. This would only work in a deterministic universe, and it would be difficult to draw a distinction between the data of this 'complete' system and reality itself.

Thinking of the data required is perhaps the right direction to move in: it is the reason the symbolic system is incomplete. The symbolic systems we use to describe the universe are not separate from the universe: they are a part of the universe just as we are a part of the universe. Since we are within the system, our small understandings are 'the system modelling itself' (system meaning reality in this case). Completion of the model can never happen because of the basic self-referential paradox: the model is within the universe, so in effect the universe would have to be larger than itself. Or you can view it iteratively: the model models the universe. The universe includes the model. The model must model itself. The model must model the model of itself.. ad absurdum.

I'm not sure what you're driving at here, but I think it's worse to ignore bona fide miracles than to pretend miracles exist where they don't.  If something inexplicable or fradulent happens, and you ascribe it to a miracle, you're merely ignorant or guillible.  On the other hand, if a bona fide miracle happens and you refuse to acknowledge it, you're being irrational.

Define bona fide, though.  You said earlier that you wouldn't apply current scientific knowledge to judge humanity - so why use it to decide a miracle is a genuine religious miracle rather than something which is beyond current knowledge?

A bona fide miracle is a real miracle as opposed to a fradulent or fake one.  You witness it, but you can't reproduce or explain it.  In that sense science doesn't help you.  But you know that it happened.

Two things here.  First of all, "miracle" goes above and beyond the natural, that's why it's called "supernatural".  The universe functions according to a set of rules, but a miracle comes from "beyond" the universe and therefore overrides those rules.  That doesn't mean the universe is less reliable, only that it was temporarily pre-empted by something with a higher priority.

By implication, anything that affects us in any observable way has become part of the natural universe.  The very existance of the supernatural is by nature wholly subjective.

It sounds like you're trying to figure out a way for the supernatural to somehow be generated from the natural.  That can't happen, any more than I can create a three-dimensional object in a two-dimensional universe.  Furthermore, any such three-dimensional object can interact in two dimensions without being constrained by those two dimensions.

That would be incorrect.  For one thing, AFAIK there is not a part of the brain that physically codifies for religion, and if there were we wouldn't be seeing it decline so rapidly the way it has in many Western societies (the population is simply too large, plus there isn't really a survival benefit for it to be selected).

The capacity for religion is there, even if it's not being used.  I don't think any athiest is mentally incapable of being religious; they simply choose not to.

And if God exists, there most certainly is a survival benefit to it.  God pays attention to those who pay attention to him.

Religious belief would be an extension of things like imagination and artistry from a purely evolutional dint...

I don't think so.  When you paint a picture or tell a story, you don't believe it's true.  You may immerse yourself in your work; you may go to great imaginative and creative depths to find your material; but in the end it's just another thing you created and you wouldn't think it's part of your reality.  But religious people really believe that their religion is real.  That represents a fundamental shift in perception.  What possible extra advantage could that shift in perception confer if it was not in fact real?

Well here we come to the implications.  My justification is that if the Bible makes a number of statements on a variety of topics, and I can verify many of those statements through my own experiences, I should accept its authority on the statements I cannot verify.

What about the statements proven false?

Usually that's a matter of interpretation.  On the pi = 3 thing, for example, measuring a bowl with only your hands is inherently imprecise, especially if the bowl isn't perfectly circular.

Ok, I didn't look at the 3rd (and I'm loathe to read what would be rather biased sources for the other 2), but;

[snip]

Okay, for every miracle I've cited in this thread, you've proceeded on the assumption that it was false and then tried to compile data to support your assumption.  What's wrong with taking them at face value?  You can't prove them false on the limited information you have (neither can you prove them true, for that matter).  Or what's wrong with even saying, "Okay, these are some things I don't know what to do with, so I'm going to say the jury is still out on them"?

You've previously stated that you don't believe in miracles.  Now I've offered some evidence to challenge that position.  Yet, instead of conceding that your position is no longer as certain as you previously thought, you say my evidence or interpretation must be flawed.  That's an argument a priori, as Kazan would point out in my position, and it's a logical fallacy.

Is God real?

I say no.  Prove me wrong - I'm a skeptic.  (would God use a non-obvious sign for someone insistent upon objective evidence?  That'd seem a bit daft but mysterious ways and soforth - although aren't those really excuses anyways)

God isn't obligated to jump through your hoops though.  No relationships work out well if one party just sits back and dumps all obligations on the other.  If you really want to find out, then try looking.  He isn't hard to find.

This is obviously prying, but is she still diabetic?

I would assume not, if all her organs were healed.

i want to be humble in all these suggestions, ask God and HE will lead you how to respond.  listen, listen, listen!  it's so important that we spend lots of time wth Him and listen.

You make him sound like my Dad.

Why, is your dad a Christian?

[Ford Prefect]

As much as I would like to get involved in this, I'm not going to, as it would just add more to a series of lengthy posts. However, I feel I must point out that an argument a priori is not necessarily a logical fallacy. There are entire philosophical schools of thought based on a priori lines of reasoning, (including any argument that asserts the existence of God.) And if Kazan was using that as means of discrediting opposing arguments, then a pox on his house.

[Bobboau]

~'listen and wait for got to lead you, if you beleive in him he will show you the way, all you have to do is accept him as your savior and you will see the miricles in every ray of sun'~

when I was a small child I thought the world was populated by monsters, I was very fearful of them and I thought, no, knew they were lerking in every dark corner, under every bed, my conviction in there exsistance was such that I actualy saw them on numerous occasions, everything from optical illusions (stareing into darkness and seeing a dark cloud of dim staticy stuff wich I know know to be random fireing of light receptors in my eye) to halucinations (glowing eyes rushing at me under my bed, the gostbusters gagoyl cuming up along the side of the bed).

the point is the stronger you beleive something is true, the more you will see it irrespective of weather it is or is not there. I can not accept any god whom requiers me to beleive in him before being so grachious as to give me the slightest hint of it's exsistance. and I sure as hell am not going to take someone elses word on it, especaly in a mater of life and death.

[Mefustae]

A bona fide miracle is a real miracle as opposed to a fradulent or fake one. You witness it, but you can't reproduce or explain it. In that sense science doesn't help you. But you know that it happened.

I don't know about you, but i'd trust what science can tell me over what I perceive with my human senses, which are quite flawed as they are in all humans. Thus, as science can't help in this situation, I find myself prompted to disregard the "miracle", however convincing it may be.

The capacity for religion is there, even if it's not being used. I don't think any athiest is mentally incapable of being religious; they simply choose not to.

I totally agree with this. Regardless of how atheistic you are, there is always a capacity for religion.

I don't think so. When you paint a picture or tell a story, you don't believe it's true. You may immerse yourself in your work; you may go to great imaginative and creative depths to find your material; but in the end it's just another thing you created and you wouldn't think it's part of your reality. But religious people really believe that their religion is real. That represents a fundamental shift in perception. What possible extra advantage could that shift in perception confer if it was not in fact real?

Say what? You're saying the distinction between being imaginitive & creative and religion is that you don't believe? My mate's little brother would swear on his life that Santa is real, does that make it real? Does that belief hold some sort of advantage for him? If I can't quite remember something, I often find myself inadvertantly filling in the gaps with little exaggerations and soforth that I could swear were real. Hell, i've been recounting an event only to have someone else contradict it, and I would still bet my life that my version of the story is right. Does that make it real? If I convinced myself that the Flying Spaghetti Monster was real, and he had touched my soul with his noodly appendage, does that mean there could actually be an invisible clump of pasta floating around the universe?!

Religion is just a story passed down through generations, that slowly evolves past the realm of folk-lore and into the world of fact, where you've got people swearing their lives by that story. Humans can believe anything that want to, but simple belief doesn't make for reality.

Usually that's a matter of interpretation. On the pi = 3 thing, for example, measuring a bowl with only your hands is inherently imprecise, especially if the bowl isn't perfectly circular.

So, how are we to know which parts of it to take literally and which to take figuratively. I don't know about you, but if i'm going to live my life by a book, i'd prefer something more concrete. It's entirely your perogative to believe it of course, but i'm just saying...

Okay, for every miracle I've cited in this thread, you've proceeded on the assumption that it was false and then tried to compile data to support your assumption. What's wrong with taking them at face value? You can't prove them false on the limited information you have (neither can you prove them true, for that matter). Or what's wrong with even saying, "Okay, these are some things I don't know what to do with, so I'm going to say the jury is still out on them"?

You've previously stated that you don't believe in miracles. Now I've offered some evidence to challenge that position. Yet, instead of conceding that your position is no longer as certain as you previously thought, you say my evidence or interpretation must be flawed. That's an argument a priori, as Kazan would point out in my position, and it's a logical fallacy.

The same could be said for you. You've obviously approached these "miracles" under the mind-set that there are miracles, and thus you accept these strange events as a miracle on face-value alone. When Aldo comes up with contradictions and evidence against your miracles, you instantly jump to their defence, not even conceding that 'hey, these might be frauds, you've got a point'.

God isn't obligated to jump through your hoops though. No relationships work out well if one party just sits back and dumps all obligations on the other. If you really want to find out, then try looking. He isn't hard to find.

So, he's not obligated to 'jump through hoops' for someone like Aldo [even though it wouldn't really require much to convince someone of the existance of a divine being], but when you start mumbling into your palms, he's there in no time to cure your asthma. What makes these sick people you've talked about in your "miracles" so special? Do they have some sort of divine purpose in life? Are they decendants of David? I want to know why your God will appear to heal people like you, no questions asked, and yet leave thousands upon thousands upon thousands of innocent souls to die pointlessly in ways more horrific than you can imagine? I know it's the basic 'if God's so good, why do bad things keep happening' arguement we've all heard a thousand times before, but it's a valid point, damnit! Why did your friend's mother get to come back to life, when some 5-year old in Africa still gets to die in tremendous pain from lack of clean drinking water?

It boggles the mind how people like you can completely disregard all the strife, horror and turmoil in the world, look to a single, strange event, trumpet it as a miracle, and dance around the streets yelling 'God is great! He's so kind for this one thing! God is love!'.

[Bobboau]

there are faces in this picture, how many can you find?

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Turambar]

very nice Bobbau

if youre looking for faces, you'll find faces all over the place





unfortunately, this rule does not apply to talent at a dave matthews concert

[aldo_14]

No, I'm pretty sure it can apply to any system.  Basically, we can't construct a complete and accurate model of the universe, because we are in the universe.  So there will be things about the universe that we can never model.

But we don't necessarily need to model the entire universe.

A bona fide miracle is a real miracle as opposed to a fradulent or fake one.  You witness it, but you can't reproduce or explain it.  In that sense science doesn't help you.  But you know that it happened.

Science helps by observing and documenting; in essence proving it is inexplicable by providing the information to assess the possibilities and only then decide on inexplicability.

[q]It sounds like you're trying to figure out a way for the supernatural to somehow be generated from the natural.  That can't happen, any more than I can create a three-dimensional object in a two-dimensional universe.  Furthermore, any such three-dimensional object can interact in two dimensions without being constrained by those two dimensions.
[/q]

Nope. What i'm thinking is, anything capable of interacting with a naturally observable universe will have some naturally observable characteristics as a result of that natural interaction.  But, IMO, the supernatural is simply 'the bit science hasn't reached yet', in the same way as the laws of gravity would be supernatural before Newton.

The capacity for religion is there, even if it's not being used.  I don't think any athiest is mentally incapable of being religious; they simply choose not to.

And if God exists, there most certainly is a survival benefit to it.  God pays attention to those who pay attention to him.

The capacity of aetheism is there.  It's completely without foundation - both biologically and statistically - to suggest a physical cause for religion or otherwise.  As a survival benefit, it'd be very inconsistent; God has always been seen as non-interventionist to explain why 'bad things happen to good people'.  More so, it's rather disturbing and quasi eugenical to suggest religion is some advanced evolutionary feature - even contradictory when you consider that the Catholic church has resisted a number of the more important scientific advances as challenging their orthodoxy.  If anything, human evolution is best characterised through the ability to adapt and learn, something a set of firm codifications would actively suppress.

I don't think so.  When you paint a picture or tell a story, you don't believe it's true.  You may immerse yourself in your work; you may go to great imaginative and creative depths to find your material; but in the end it's just another thing you created and you wouldn't think it's part of your reality.  But religious people really believe that their religion is real.  That represents a fundamental shift in perception.  What possible extra advantage could that shift in perception confer if it was not in fact real?

Advantage?  It's simple; conviction and honesty.  No-one likes a fraud, and sexual selection is all about legitimate, hard to fake signs.  If religious belief was of sexual advantage - and remember this is primitive human evolution - then it'd be of more compelling if it was legit.  By imposing religious restrictions, as well as testing faith it tests the 'religious value' or virtue of the individual in respect to sexual selection.

Moreso, we're not talking about conscious evolution here - people don't tell stories, write books, etc, to get laid; it just happens to be a selection benefit that stimulated the further development (or rather, the selection of) that type of imagination. It's also advantageous in the sense of mental security (psychologically) to have convictions and sureties, as a sort of mental bedrock, particularly in historical times when the world was a genuinely inexplicably dangerous place.  Finally, if we take religion as a method of imposing societal regulation, it's of benefit in that sense, and propagated because society shuns those who don't conform to it.

Although this is rather mixing the notions of evolved capacity and societal takeup.  All we needed to evolve was the cognitive functions that led to the possibility of religion (or really, the possibility and benefit of storytelling).  True belief would be a consequence of societal pressure rather than physical evoltion.  Think of it this way; storyteller gets laid, cognitive ability to storytell propagates.  Storyteller creates religion, religion is advantageous to storyteller or that society, religion propagates through society (guessing about it, i'd imagine religion would become disadvantageous in sexual selection terms after a certain critical mass, when everyone was devout and thus there was no descriminatory value).

Although, frankly, if God was to intervene and make belief a survival advantage, why not just do so directly and skip the whole evolution thing?

[q]Usually that's a matter of interpretation.  On the pi = 3 thing, for example, measuring a bowl with only your hands is inherently imprecise, especially if the bowl isn't perfectly circular.[/q]

Even when other, older societies (such as the Egyptians, although IIRC the Indians had the most accurate) are and were known to have more accurate values?

[q]
Okay, for every miracle I've cited in this thread, you've proceeded on the assumption that it was false and then tried to compile data to support your assumption.  What's wrong with taking them at face value?  You can't prove them false on the limited information you have (neither can you prove them true, for that matter).  Or what's wrong with even saying, "Okay, these are some things I don't know what to do with, so I'm going to say the jury is still out on them"?

You've previously stated that you don't believe in miracles.  Now I've offered some evidence to challenge that position.  Yet, instead of conceding that your position is no longer as certain as you previously thought, you say my evidence or interpretation must be flawed.  That's an argument a priori, as Kazan would point out in my position, and it's a logical fallacy.
[/q]

The problem is, you've offered incomplete evidence. 

Look at my position on the 2 'documented' cases; the first link is a guy who makes a living selling stories of miracles, with no independent evidence, and where AFAIK the miracle took place in Zaire (a country where I would expect it to be rather easy to fake).  I don't thinks there's been a single mention ever of a miracle failing at these types of mass events, and that alone raises an alarm bell. 

The 2nd case is also incomplete.  Even the type of jellyfish is unknown; and the link is to a type that doesn't even range to the area it took place.  Moreso, it's inconsistent - he's pronounced dead and yet he wakes up still apparently being treated, for example, plus it's unclear what the external physical symptoms were (comatose  or.  This is not doubting he believes what he experienced, but as a neutral event from a rational eye - vastly insufficient.

Put it this way - the jury doesn't go out until it hears all the evidence.  I'm not asking for much, after all - just documentation from someone without a personal stake, like book sales or fame from being paraded on faith newspapers.

[q]God isn't obligated to jump through your hoops though.  No relationships work out well if one party just sits back and dumps all obligations on the other.  If you really want to find out, then try looking.  He isn't hard to find.[/q]

Y'know, I did go to church.  I went to Sunday school.  I was an agnostic for a while, really, up till a few years ago when i actually read a few bits of the bible for an arguement like this.  I've never seen any consistent and logical evidence for an omniscent/omnipotent diety, let alone a beneficial one.  Don't assume that because I don't believe in a religion i'm not capable of it, that - to paraphrase an earlier argeument - my brain isn't sufficiently evolved to do so.  Perhaps i just looked about, saw a few million terrible things, people motivated to do more terrible things by religion, a few people cashing in on misery, and thought 'nae chance'. 

Because I can't explain a God that'd heal one poor sod yet let 500,000 more die in a Tsunami, y'know?

[q]I would assume not, if all her organs were healed.[/q]

Well, that to me seems rather confusing.  Diabetes as an illness doesn't connotate organ damage in the sense of hypoglacemia (which can be fully recovered from); type 1 is usually caused by the immune system killing B-cells in the pancrea, and type 2 by tissue insulin resistance, neither of which IMO constitute 'damage' in that sense.  Although i mentioned a complete recovery case earlier, but i don't know the details of that one either (just the paragraph header), so I can't say if it involved type 1 or 2 (I think 1 is more connotated with hypoglacemia, not sure) and whether it involved recovering from diabetes itself (albeit, apparently diabetes in type 1 case can be caused by a combination of environmental factors and genetic susceptibility, so i don't know if it can feasibly 'cure itself' in certain cases, so it's admittedly rather a moot question).

[q]You make him sound like my Dad.[/q]

No, he just moans a lot.

[Goober5000]

I can not accept any god whom requiers me to beleive in him before being so grachious as to give me the slightest hint of it's exsistance. and I sure as hell am not going to take someone elses word on it, especaly in a mater of life and death.

Well, God would argue that he's given us plenty of hints of his existence already; we just take them for granted.

I don't know about you, but i'd trust what science can tell me over what I perceive with my human senses, which are quite flawed as they are in all humans. Thus, as science can't help in this situation, I find myself prompted to disregard the "miracle", however convincing it may be.

Well, the scientific method is basically observe, theorize, test, repeat.  You're supposed to modify your theories based on your observations, not the other way around.

Religion is just a story passed down through generations, that slowly evolves past the realm of folk-lore and into the world of fact, where you've got people swearing their lives by that story. Humans can believe anything that want to, but simple belief doesn't make for reality.

So maybe it doesn't work correctly 100% of the time.  Regardless, I think it's notable that we have this capability.

The same could be said for you. You've obviously approached these "miracles" under the mind-set that there are miracles, and thus you accept these strange events as a miracle on face-value alone. When Aldo comes up with contradictions and evidence against your miracles, you instantly jump to their defence, not even conceding that 'hey, these might be frauds, you've got a point'.

You've got that precisely backwards.  As I said before, for a long time I didn't believe major miracles happened in the modern world.  They happened in the Bible, and that was cool, but God doesn't work that way any more for whatever reason.  That was my firm position for a long time.  Then I started seeing odd things that challenged that position and hearing from people who were seeing miracles themselves.  I was still very skeptical, but trying to keep an open mind about it.  And then finally I saw one for myself.

When you're completely healed of asthma, by people who are speaking in tongues, while feeling a strangely exhilirating bubbly feeling in your chest, and all the while the three of you are giggling uncontrollably like little kids, it's hard to pass that off as anything but a genuine miracle.

So, he's not obligated to 'jump through hoops' for someone like Aldo [even though it wouldn't really require much to convince someone of the existance of a divine being], but when you start mumbling into your palms, he's there in no time to cure your asthma. What makes these sick people you've talked about in your "miracles" so special? Do they have some sort of divine purpose in life? Are they decendants of David? I want to know why your God will appear to heal people like you, no questions asked, and yet leave thousands upon thousands upon thousands of innocent souls to die pointlessly in ways more horrific than you can imagine? I know it's the basic 'if God's so good, why do bad things keep happening' arguement we've all heard a thousand times before, but it's a valid point, damnit! Why did your friend's mother get to come back to life, when some 5-year old in Africa still gets to die in tremendous pain from lack of clean drinking water?

A valid point.  A very valid point.  As far as I know, that's totally on account of the sin problem.  God would love to reveal himself to everybody, but that would mean an immediate Game Over.  In order to give everyone a fair chance to decide for themselves, he conceals himself.  He can only intervene to the extent that people come to him.

In the same way, he can only exert his power through the people that serve him.  Think of light that's too powerful to be seen except through mirrors - but most of the available mirrors are too cloudy.  If you want more light, there are only two solutions: clean the mirrors, or get more mirrors.  So when disasters happen, don't blame God for not exerting his power - blame mankind for not allowing him enough mirrors, and blame the Christians for not keeping their mirrors cleaner.

It boggles the mind how people like you can completely disregard all the strife, horror and turmoil in the world, look to a single, strange event, trumpet it as a miracle, and dance around the streets yelling 'God is great! He's so kind for this one thing! God is love!'.

I'm doing nothing of the sort.  All the trouble in the world is due to sin, and no Christian should minimize its lure, its power, or its impact.  Optimism in the face of sin is only possible if you realize that God is more powerful than it.  Eventually, everything will be set right.

But we don't necessarily need to model the entire universe.

Then we must concede that science cannot fully explain it. So if it's impossible to fully explain the natural universe, how can we hope to explain the supernatural?

Nope. What i'm thinking is, anything capable of interacting with a naturally observable universe will have some naturally observable characteristics as a result of that natural interaction.

Fair enough.  But those characteristics, because they have a supernatural cause, will not be explicable by a natural cause.

But, IMO, the supernatural is simply 'the bit science hasn't reached yet', in the same way as the laws of gravity would be supernatural before Newton.

No; you're confusing "science currently doesn't know the answer" with "science cannot know the answer".  Granted, it's not always easy (especially from a subjective viewpoint) to tell the difference, but the difference is there.

[q]Usually that's a matter of interpretation.  On the pi = 3 thing, for example, measuring a bowl with only your hands is inherently imprecise, especially if the bowl isn't perfectly circular.[/q]

Even when other, older societies (such as the Egyptians, although IIRC the Indians had the most accurate) are and were known to have more accurate values?

The context of that passage is not a mathematical treatise; it's a description of temple artifacts.  Strict accuracy wasn't needed; 3 is an acceptable "rounding off" of pi.

That passage isn't even making a proclamation (e.g. "Thus saith the Lord: The measurement round a circle shall be exactly thrice its span").  It's describing something a certain person did.

The problem is, you've offered incomplete evidence.

Well, over the internet is a far cry from seeing it in person.

Look at my position on the 2 'documented' cases; the first link is a guy who makes a living selling stories of miracles, with no independent evidence, and where AFAIK the miracle took place in Zaire (a country where I would expect it to be rather easy to fake).  I don't thinks there's been a single mention ever of a miracle failing at these types of mass events, and that alone raises an alarm bell.

He's a full-time missionary - his stories are about the only thing he can sell.  He still has to make a living.

And if he was just a shyster looking to make a quick buck, why on Earth is he doing it in a third-world country?  There's no shortage of televangelists willing to defraud Americans out of their cash, for example.  Why go to Zaire?

Put it this way - the jury doesn't go out until it hears all the evidence.  I'm not asking for much, after all - just documentation from someone without a personal stake, like book sales or fame from being paraded on faith newspapers.

What sort of personal stake do I have in telling you this?

Y'know, I did go to church.  I went to Sunday school.  I was an agnostic for a while, really, up till a few years ago when i actually read a few bits of the bible for an arguement like this.  I've never seen any consistent and logical evidence for an omniscent/omnipotent diety, let alone a beneficial one.  Don't assume that because I don't believe in a religion i'm not capable of it, that - to paraphrase an earlier argeument - my brain isn't sufficiently evolved to do so.  Perhaps i just looked about, saw a few million terrible things, people motivated to do more terrible things by religion, a few people cashing in on misery, and thought 'nae chance'.

Well, compare that to people who try a diet for three days with no observable results and conclude it doesn't work.  Or, if you thought there was buried treasure in your backyard, would you dig a few holes and conclude it wasn't there?  Instant gratification nowadays has dulled us to the things that actually require hard work.

[Grug]

God eh? >..>

If god loves us all and wants us all to be in heaven, then why don't we all go straight to heaven?
We have to make our own choice in order to follow him hmm?
Is he not omnipresent, all powerfull, and all knowing?
Can he not create a way for all mankind to both have freedom of choice and go to heaven?
I mean we're talking about a being beyond our comprehension here, can do anything he wants in an  instant.
Why can't he just instantaneously create a way for us to choose of our own will and go straight to heaven?
I mean everyone too. Every last human on earth. All in heaven. Why not?
If not, then he is not all powerfull is he.
If not, he is not all generous is he .
If not, he is not so compassionate after all is he.
If not, maybe, just maybe he doesn't exist in the form as the bible perceives him to be, as all powerfull and all knowing, and loving.

[Ghostavo]

God eh? >..>

If god loves us all and wants us all to be in heaven, then why don't we all go straight to heaven?
We have to make our own choice in order to follow him hmm?
Is he not omnipresent, all powerfull, and all knowing?
Can he not create a way for all mankind to both have freedom of choice and go to heaven?
I mean we're talking about a being beyond our comprehension here, can do anything he wants in an  instant.
Why can't he just instantaneously create a way for us to choose of our own will and go straight to heaven?
I mean everyone too. Every last human on earth. All in heaven. Why not?
If not, then he is not all powerfull is he.
If not, he is not all generous is he .
If not, he is not so compassionate after all is he.
If not, maybe, just maybe he doesn't exist in the form as the bible perceives him to be, as all powerfull and all knowing, and loving.

I assume you mean this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil

[Grug]

God eh? >..>

If god loves us all and wants us all to be in heaven, then why don't we all go straight to heaven?
We have to make our own choice in order to follow him hmm?
Is he not omnipresent, all powerfull, and all knowing?
Can he not create a way for all mankind to both have freedom of choice and go to heaven?
I mean we're talking about a being beyond our comprehension here, can do anything he wants in an  instant.
Why can't he just instantaneously create a way for us to choose of our own will and go straight to heaven?
I mean everyone too. Every last human on earth. All in heaven. Why not?
If not, then he is not all powerfull is he.
If not, he is not all generous is he .
If not, he is not so compassionate after all is he.
If not, maybe, just maybe he doesn't exist in the form as the bible perceives him to be, as all powerfull and all knowing, and loving.

I assume you mean this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil

Well, interesting read. But I came up with that stuff from discussions between friends.
One of which was a hardcore christian for 9 or so years. He always argued the points similar to goober. But he started asking questions the church couldn't answer. One's similar to above.
I think he's a bit of a Paegen or something now-a-days.

My point is, if god is the big Mr CanDoWhatever, why hasn't he.

[Ford Prefect]

Indeed. I challenge anyone to read St. Augustine and then tell me that theodicy is not the most absurd line of inquiry ever devised by human thought.

This debate is cyclical. God is an emotion; those who want to assign it empirical validity will do so, and the reasons why some do this and others do not encompass so many spheres of culture, psychology, philosophical anthropology, and personal experience that the battleground for this question becomes nothing short of chaos theory. It's a point of contention about which one could write volumes.

[Grug]

Indeed. I challenge anyone to read St. Augustine and then tell me that theodicy is not the most absurd line of inquiry ever devised by human thought.

This debate is cyclical. God is an emotion; those who want to assign it empirical validity will do so, and the reasons why some do this and others do not encompass so many spheres of culture, psychology, philosophical anthropology, and personal experience that the battleground for this question becomes nothing short of chaos theory. It's a point of contention about which one could write volumes.

Pretty much.

I don't want to bash belief's. But I can't help it. I've seen it abused all my life. The few good people I know who are fairly religeous are exactly that, good people first, religeon second. When people put religeon first... I find they often become bigots to those not of there similar beliefs... >..>