Why people want to believe there is a god.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
[QUOTE][B]Why do I have to "earn" it?[/QUOTE]

​

[/B]

​

Because you are here partly to prove the integrity of your faith. If you could just have faith given to you one day it would be pointless.

​

[QUOTE][B]If one already believes in god than god doesn't have to appear to one since there is no need to prove god's existence to one who already believes.[/QUOTE]

​

[/B]

​

One thing that bothers me about atheism is the position that it is ok for you to not bother looking into religion because, if there is a God, you just assume that He will walk into your office one day and introduce Himself. Basically, it is an excuse to be lazy.

​

A common (and incorrect) belief amongst non-theists is that faith is something some people are born with and the rest have no hope. That's not true. The prophet Alma from the Book of Mormon:

​

[QUOTE][B]
But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words.

​

28 Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves?It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me.

​

29 Now behold, would not this increase your faith? I say unto you, Yea; nevertheless it hath not grown up to a perfect knowledge.

​

30 But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then you must needs say that the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. And now, behold, will not this strengthen your faith? Yea, it will strengthen your faith: for ye will say I know that this is a good seed; for behold it sprouteth and beginneth to grow. [/QUOTE]

​

[/B]

​

In context: Scriptures

​

My guess is that some of you are also walking around with incorrect definitions of faith. Faith is the "hope for things unseen" not necessarily perfect, absolute knowledge.

​

My guess is that Alma's experiment, being only a page or so long, is one of the primary reasons for the growth of the LDS church because it basically invites experimentation and removes excuses. There are many passages similar to this throughout the book.

​

By the way, something else you don't realize: you don't need a physical manifestation of God to know that God is there, you just need to feel the Holy Spirit. It will confirm what is true. But manifestations, with very few exceptions, only happen to the extremely faithful and usually then only in holy places (temples). God Himself does not dwell with unclean things so the odds are against you (and me). However it is the right of the very devout to behold Christ. The final thing I have to add to this post is that with great knowledge comes equally great responsibility, and even peril. The closest thing to Hell in Mormon worldview is the Outer Darkness, and only those who have seen Christ and then denied Him go there. I hate to disappoint you, but even the atheists here really aren't eligible for Hell though they will be held accountable for their own sins.

​

[This message has been edited by gene90, 09-03-2002]

---

So, Gene, do you believe that women, by nature of them being women, are not meant to be or are suited to be, leaders in your church?Also, do you believe, as my weeping friend told me, who converted to LDS while we were roomates in college, that she would not spend eternity with any of her family or friends, because none of us were LDS?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by gene90:
[B][QUOTE][B]So, Gene, do you believe that women, by nature of them being women, are not meant to be or are suited to be, leaders in your church?[/QUOTE][/B]It was inevitable that you would bring this up, probably before the equally inevitable commentary on polygamy. Last time you mentioned JS in a thread and I defended him I figured it would be then.

quote:

---

What you mean is, do I believe that women cannot hold the priesthood (women have repeatedly demonstrated profound leadership ability throughout the history of the church)?

---

Yes, but were these abilities honored and allowed to flourish to their fullest extent? Maybe they weren't "profound" enough to actually lead any men, or lead to Preisthood, perhaps.

quote:

---

If God, when he made men and women biologically different also felt that they should have different spiritual roles then I follow that wisdom and I will not apologize for it.

---

Ah, the justification for the second-class citizenship of women begins.

quote:

---

My personal opinion over women in the priesthood? I don't care if the First Presidency sent forth a declaration mandating it tomorrow, it is fine with me.

---

That is refreshing and altogether opposite to everything I know about LDS.

quote:

---

For thousands of years society has been mostly male-dominated and so priestly duties "naturally" fell to men, at least for the most part. As gender roles become less dominant in society it may very well be expedient to God that priesthood positions will be opened to women, and I would like to think that that will be. If that is the will of God, then, again, I make no apologies for it either. I will follow a female prophet just as I will follow a male prophet so long as they have the correct authority.

---

If God felt it is so "natural" for men to be dominant in the Church, then why is it OK for societal norms to change it now?You know what's creepy? My friend, when she converted, told me that the reason that it was OK with her that men were priests and women weren't was that "She wouldn't want to be". Then I saw some LDS women being interviewed on TV (Donahue, I think, it was a while ago) and when asked the same question, she said the exact same words; "I wouldn't want to be!" The rest of her explanation was very similar to the response my friend gave me; apparently, to be a good LDS woman is to not want to be in the Preisthood and to know your place.I have done some reading about women and LDS since, and this is a common occurrence; women are told what they should want and not want, and part of what they shouldn't want is to be in any position of authority over any man.If this is part of what you are not going to "apologize for" then I have a problem with that, I'm afraid.(Not that men have it much better wrt being told what to think and what to want, but they at least get to be the conduits for God's word.Isn't it funny how all-male conduits for God's word always seem to end up hearing God's edicts which require them to retain their power exclusively, and that it is societal pressures that end up forcing changes which improve's women's status in institutions like these?

quote:

---

(Women already receive revelation without any need for assistance from the Priesthood. However, a Prophet is the one priesthood holder at any give time who receives revelation and instruction for the church. The gift of prophecy exists only to serve the church at large but revelation helps whoever receives it)

---

Wellllll, OK, that's very nice and all, but so what? It's true just because you say so?

quote:

---

Also, do you believe, as my weeping friend told me, who converted to LDS while we were roomates in college, that she would not spend eternity with any of her family or friends, because none of us were LDS?

---

quote:

---

That remains to be seen. First people have the Earth life to convert. Then they get resurrected (Hmmmm, I guess that would pretty much settle the issue over whether or not God exists) and they have a thousand years over which their sins will be atoned for and they will be instructed. Then they will be assigned to their realms, and whether those assignments are permanent we do not know but from then on it doesn't look good for members and nonmembers sticking together.

---

What a cruel religion that would require someone to live their life loving their family and friends, yet believing that they will never see them in heaven. And LDS spends millions on TV commercials which promote "family". The only kind of family LDS recognizes, apparently, are the "right" kind of people. Oh, and instead of banning marriage to non-Mormons outright, they just made a rule which says that if you marry outside the faith, your marriage wouldn't be eternal. Sounds pretty manipulative to me. [QUOTE]Now, here is the crux of the matter. I assume you know that we are fascinated with genealogy, you may or may not know the reason. (If you know you're going to hear it anyway because I'm typing for the audience as well). The crux of the matter is that for a family to stay together in the end they must be sealed in a holy temple. This can be done with the living participants or it can happen vicariously. Right now we are researching our genealogies as far back as we can and performing as many ordinances as we can. During the millennial reign, through prophecy, the identities of all of our ancestors will be revealed and the work will continue until every family is sealed, all the way back to the very beginning. How many of those spirits *accept* the ordinance we do not know. If and when all the LDS prophecies come true I do not know how any spirit could possibly not know where the true church is. But considering that in the pre-existance we lost 1/3 of our fellow souls I am probably wrong. As for my nonmember friends and my family, I am not immediately concerned. I will try to set an example as best as I can but it will be up to *them* where they end up. I know that all souls will hear the doctrine before it is finished though they are best off hearing it now. [/B][/QUOTE]I have read of people who left the LDS church having a VERY hard time getting their children's names, etc., off of those lists.The truth is, I think that LDS engages in some questionable, cult-like recruiting practices (which I witnessed first hand) and religious practices and is a deeply sexist institution. It's secrecy scares me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
[B]Well I see that Schrafinator has continued her highly offensive assault on my personal religious beliefs.[/QUOTE]

​

Look, you brought them up here, Gene. I am critical, true, but I don't see why you would consider what I have written offensive.

​

[QUOTE][B]That is refreshing and altogether opposite to everything I know about LDS.[/QUOTE]

​

[/B]

​

quote:

---

I'm not terribly interested in what people "know" about the church considering how terribly unpopular the church is.

---

​

Why do you think LDS is so unpopular with feminists, Gene?

​

quote:

---

apparently, to be a good LDS woman is to not want to be in the Preisthood and to know your place

---

​

quote:

---

I wouldn't want the priesthood if it wasn't expected of me.

---

​

All those men "forced" into positions of leadership, descision making, and power. Sorry, that sounds a bit like "he doth protest too much".

​

OTOH, what about the LDS women who wanted/want to be priests, but weren't allowed? What about the men who didn't want to be priests but were required to anyway?

​

How does being "expected" to do something make you want to do that something, anyway?

​

[QUOTE][B]women are told what they should want and not want, and part of what they shouldn't want is to be in any position of authority over any man.[/QUOTE]

​

[/B]

​

LOL, love those second and third hand sources and commentary about the LDS from people who have never been members. I'll let you know if I ever get to be on a secret brainwashing committee.

---

So, are you telling me that ONLY those who are members of LDS, and who therefore accept and believe the doctrines and requirements, can be objective and critical observers of LDS? That doesn't make any sense, Gene.Besides, what I have read has been first-hand accounts of Mormon women who have left the church after being horribly abused by the men there.I have also watched and helped my friend deal with sexism in her church.You actually skirted the issue, though. Is it or is it not true that no woman is allowed to have any authority over any man in the Mormon faith? [QUOTE][B]If this is part of what you are not going to "apologize for" then I have a problem with that, I'm afraid.[/QUOTE][/B]Why should I apologize for following what I believe is right.[/QUOTE]Oh, I'm not asking you to apologize. I'm not even asking you to try to see the deeply sexist practices of your religion. I am just bewildered at this seemingly complete 180 turn you have undertaken and the reason you have left utterly behind.

quote:

---

I actually don't have an opinion over whether or not women should be in the priesthood but I do have an opinion that what comes from the prophet and scriptures is correct doctrine. Again, I'm not going to apologize because it does not fit your particular, personal, non-member worldview.

---

Again, why is a non-member a worse candidate for looking at things objectively? [QUOTE][B]If God felt it is so "natural" for men to be dominant in the Church, then why is it OK for societal norms to change it now?[/QUOTE][/B]

quote:

---

If the people in an age listen only to male prophets why send primarily females?

---

God didn't seem to care about societal norms in the matter of polygamy, though, at least not until they were seriously cracked down upon by the government.Let's see, polygamy goes againstsocietal norms, but it benefits male power retention, so we'll keep that, but not allowing women to be Prophets doesn't go against societal norms, and it doesn't benefit male power retention, so we'll keep that one too! [QUOTE][B]societal pressures that end up forcing changes which improve's women's status in institutions like these?[/QUOTE][/B]

quote:

---

ROTFL!!! "Societal pressures" dictate how God's church is to function? We should write our own scriptures just to make the institution politically correct? No it doesn't work that way.

---

No, you missed my point. By your own description, societal rules which have changed to afford women more social status might lead to changes in the church.My point is that the male-dominated institutions preserve the status-quo, while any change which results in the dominant group sharing power comes from societal pressure, NOT the dominant group....and isn't that funny how that happens? [QUOTE][B]It's true just because you say so? [/QUOTE][/B]

quote:

---

No it's true because the scriptures and the prophets say so (actually the scriptures imply it and the prophets currently interpret it as such) and we have a spiritual witness of both.

​

It isn't because I said so or because anybody else said so but ultimately it is that spiritual witness. This is why I make a distinction between members and non-members (or excuse me, members and "friends of the church"--even the ones that hate us).

---

So the spiritual witness of a non-member doesn't count. Insiders know the truth, eh? Yawn. Heard this a million times before, Gene, and not just from Mormons. It's the typical schtick of most religions. [QUOTE][B]The only kind of family LDS recognizes, apparently, are the "right" kind of people.[/QUOTE][/B]

quote:

---

To have a temple marriage you have to have high enough standards to be temple-worthy. Is that difficult for you to understand? Of course you don't have a testimony of the temple. There's that non-member thing again.

---

Remember my college friend who converted? When she got married, her mother and father, brother, and grandparents, uncles and aunts, and many of her friends weren't allowed to witness much of the ceremony; only his family was, because they were Mormon. The implication is clear; the "right" kind of family is LDS, and the other people weren't worthy.This is one of the cult-like practices, in my opinion. They convince the new recruits that the LDS family is the "real" family and that anyone who isn't LDS isn't really like them and isn't worthy to stand next to them, even during an important event like a marriage. My friend is her parent's only daughter, but they were not allowed to be with her. They won't be with you in heaven, either, because they aren't your "real" family. [QUOTE][B]The truth is, I think that LDS engages in some questionable, cult-like recruiting practices [/QUOTE][/B][QUOTE]Missionaries knock on doors and try to tell people about our doctrine. You might call that cult-like if you have absolutely no idea of what missionary work is. [/B][/QUOTE]Look, Gene, two people on my very small college campus were converted to LDS; my best friend and roomate, and another girl in our dorm.The young men who sat in our room and talked to my friend were nice enough, I suppose, but it's no mistake that both of the people who ended up converting were either social misfits (the other girl) or someone in horrible pain from childhood trauma, like my friend was.They both got into the church to escape their past and to let the religion dictate to them a formula for living so they didn't have to think about it anymore.The fact that the missionaries went for the weakest of the group isn't surprising.Why do you think it is that recruiters hang out on college campuses, anyway, and not the parking lots of other denominations or different religions? It's easier to nab someone who is in a stressful, transitional part of their life....just like you are, I suspect.Coincidence? I don't think so. Not at all.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 09-06-2002][This message has been edited by schrafinator, 09-06-2002][This message has been edited by schrafinator, 09-06-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
[QUOTE][B]In this they are very simular to the Amish as well in that it is set up to allow the males in the community full control of everyday life. Where the male is absolute ruler.[/QUOTE]

​

[/B]

​

I find it ironic that I am the only person here who actually has any first hand experience with "Mormonism" and yet I am surrounded by bigots who have no idea of what is going on and insist upon ruthlessly attacking my religion through the construction of strawmen.

​

Males don't have domination in LDS society, they drum into our skulls every week that men and women are to be equal in society. Since I have already mentioned this I'm starting to wonder who here is actually reading my posts.

​

Also the polygamists are not Mormons because they are not members of the church.

​

[QUOTE][B]Is it no wonder that they prefer isolation.[/QUOTE]

​

[/B]

​

ROTFL! "Prefer isolation"? We all lead everyday lives. Most Mormons back in the 1840s went west to escape GENOCIDE. That's why there are so many in Utah. It isn't because we just don't want to be around "friends of the church"--at least the ones that don't hate us enough to try to kill us.

---

Equal in society, but also in the religion?...or just in society?

[QUOTE]Oh really? And what "crimes against humanity" have our missionaries committed? [/B][/QUOTE]I'm with you on this, Gene. Mormon missionaries are generally very nice people.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:
Originally posted by gene90:

​

I have already explained how this has nothing to with physical evidence.

​

Exactly. You can't prove a negative.

​

Faith is all there is to this.

​

And that is why it is nothing.

​

Faith is enough and we have the Holy Spirit as well. Curious that you have had to resort to dishonesty in making your case.

​

Dishonest about what? Do you also believe in the toothfairy as well? Afterall, all you need is faith. Otherwise you can't say that there isn't a toothfairy, especially if one uses your "reasoning".
Your so-called "holy spirit" is no different than a belief in the toothfairy or the easter bunny if you don't have anything else besides your belief in its existence. In that anyone who suffers from delusion would be just as valid as your belief.

---

I have to object to this.If someone says "I believe because I believe", then I don't see the point of browbeating them further.I am challenging Gene on the sexist nature, hypocritical "family-first" stance of it's marketing campaign, and opportunistic recruitment practices of his religion.How he backs up his statements (with religious doctrine and verses) is problematic, because they are only valid if one belives in said doctrine and verses.I'm not sure what I'm saying here, but it seemt to be getting disrespectful.I'm as confused and dismayed as anyone by Gene's apparent departure from objectivity and reason. And remember, Gene, you brought it up, not any of us, so it's fair game. However, let's not be mean.

quote:

---

[QUOTE][B]In most cases there are outside and unrelated sources which do show that a certain event has occured. Do you have any?[/QUOTE]

​

[/B]

​

Yes. The Holy Spirit demonstrates the validity of the work. Of course there are more secular arguments in favor of its validity: Hebrew names, chiasmas, 11 witnesses, where JS got 70 pounds of gold, that Civil War prophecy, etc. But those don't mean as much to me as the spiritual witness and unless you manage to completely rule it out, rather than fighting back with bald assertions and circular arguments, I'm going to continue using that as the basis of my arguments.

---

Come ON, Gene! How do you expect anybody to respond to this?I have seen you skewer people for a better response than this in the past!"The holy spirit demonstrates the validity of the work???"...you have got to be kidding!I think that you are running some kind of psychological experiment on us and that you are going to be back to your old, excellently-logical, rational self as soon as it is over.I have no problem with someone having faith, but when Gene90 starts answering a request for outside and unrelated sources to verify an historical event with, "Yes. The Holy Sprirt demonstrates the validity of the work.", I have a hard time believing that he is not putting us on.It is too much of a change from how his brain worked for years and years.It is freaky.

quote:

---

[QUOTE][B]Or their accounts of it occured. There is no other accounts. and there is no evidence that they were "revised" either. [/QUOTE]

​

[/B]

​

Alright. Their accounts imply it occured. Where are the accounts that "prove" it did not occur?

---

Gene! Here you are using poor arguments again that you would NEVER have used before you "found religion".You know very well that historical events need to be corroborated by independent sources to be considered fairly likely that they happened.Lots of positive evidence supports a claim. Lack of disconfirming evidence does not lend validity to the claim, only positive evidence does.You know this. just like you know that the sky is blue, but yet you make the choice to reason poorly. How disappointing.If you want to simply "believe", then say so and be done.Please stop trying to justify your beliefs using poor logic. It is too sad a thing to watch.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 09-06-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:
Originally posted by schrafinator:

​

I have to object to this.

​

If someone says "I believe because I believe", then I don't see the point of browbeating them further.

​

What, you want to leave him in his ignorance and superstition?

​

I'm as confused and dismayed as anyone by Gene's apparent departure from objectivity and reason. And remember, Gene, you brought it up, not any of us, so it's fair game. However, let's not be mean.

​

​

Being mean would be in letting him spread such nonsence as truth. Truth is more than just a belief alone.

---

There are ways to make your points without disrespecting the person.Gene has been a part of this board way back when it was still on Yahoo, years ago. I am feeling protective towards him even as he confuses me and saddens me.Gene, look at this stiuation through our eyes. You were one way, for years and years, and now you have completely changed. You have changed most drastically in that you do not use the logic and critical thinking skills that we know you possess when it comes to your religion.The reason, I think, that you have drawn so much heavy fire is because, unlike most other religious/Creationist people who come here, we know that you understand logic and critical thinking. We know you understand/stood the danger of insider thinking. We know that you understand that one person saying "the Holy Spirit told me X, and it's true, because the Holy Spirit told me.", is logically unfeasible. We know that you know that euphoric religious experiences can be produced in people when electrodes stimulate certain parts of their brains.This is too much of a change, too fast. It's like your brain has checked out.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 09-06-2002]

[QUOTE]Maybe one of the requirements of "finding religion" is to have a lobotomy of the logic and reason centres of the brain?[/B][/QUOTE]OK, this it the "mean" part I am talking about. Try not to be mean.I'm not saying I disagree with you, but this situation is different. This is Gene, who used to blow me away with how bright he is and how well-informed he is in debate.Gene is still this person somewhere in there. One can't really unlearn critical thinking skills (at least I hope).

I don't know what's going on.I hope that it is an experiement he is engaged in to see how we all react.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:
Originally posted by schrafinator:

​

There are ways to make your points without disrespecting the person.

​

I don't suffer fools lightly. Plus I only have to respect a person's right to express their opinions. I don't have to respect the opinion itself.

​

This is too much of a change, too fast. It's like your brain has checked out.

​

I wouldn't be surprise in this sort of change from anyone who "Found the light" so to speak. Read the first post again and you'll see why.

​

[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-06-2002]

---

Saying that your opponent has had had a lobotomy is not pointing out any errors in logic or reasonng.It is saying that the person is fundamentally-flawed and is a personal insult.You are intelligent. You can figure out a way to get your ideas across without insults.

quote:

---

Things here got nasty when Schrafinator attacked my church based upon her opinions on how things "should be". Why she bothered is incomprehensible to me, as she is no member of the church and would not be personally affected by how we operate in any way, shape or form. In effect, the whole point is irrelevant. In fact whenver somebody mentions the concept of "making up" a theology she usually chimes in with Smith as an example. This seems strange, as if she has some sort of vendetta to carry out (maybe it goes back to college). I'll be wary of that in the future.

---

Actually, Gene, I think you might be confusing me with someone else, because I don't "usually" talk much about LDS at all.And you are utterly wrong about my not being affected by how your church operates. Didn't you read what I wrote about my best friend's conversion?Do I point out institutionalized sexism and mysogyny when I see it? Of course I do. I would not be following my conscience if I remained silent.Whether my critical thinking skills have been somehow "damaged" or erased I cannot be sure and can make no logical judgement without evidence (again: hint, hint). The way I see it is that I still think the same way I always did, with the same decision-making processes and the same logic (or perhaps lack thereof) that I used when I was arguing on your side in favor of naturalism either last week or four years ago. The only difference is that, for the very first time, I disagree with you and you have immediately responded to it as if I have (A) been damaged (B) had my account hacked (C) mysteriously unlearned a few years of first-hand experience in logical reasoning and debates in this medium or (D) am bored with the lack of YEC activity and am having a bit of fun. Your commentary on how I got where I am interests me because I am the same as I always have been, but now I see that your judgements are based not on how I reason or the quality of my arguments but on which side I am on. (If that was an experiment or a test I was conducting, you failed)[/QUOTE]Wow, Gene. You actually think you are using the same logic as you always have when you answer a request for independent historical evidence with "The holy spirit verifies it".That's amazing.------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
[QUOTE][B]As I had stated the early Christians didn't believe in a Hell as we now know the concept. To them it was either heaven or the grave.[/QUOTE]

​

[/B]

​

References to Hell can be found in the OT:

​

[QUOTE][B]Job 26:6
Hell is naked before him, and destruction hath no covering.[/QUOTE]

​

[/B]

​

Also: [QUOTE][B]Psalm 55:15
Let death seize upon them, and let them go down quick into hell: for wickedness is in their dwellings, and among them. [/QUOTE]

​

[/B]

​

Where did you get this idea that early Christians did not believe in Hell? Is the source any better than the one that with the genocidal Mormon missionaries, Shakespeare translating the KJV, and Jesus being a Roman celebrity?

---

The early Christians did not believe in Hell in the same way that many Christians today believe in Hell.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by blitz77:
[B]

quote:

---

Hmmm? Try going to any hospital or nurse ward some time. Ask the nurses about near death experiences. Most will tell you about near death experiences by patients. There are numerous books on the subject-by psychologists, doctors, etc. Ever read one?

---

Sure. Have have you read any books skeptical of the mysical nature of NDE's?Did you know that NDE-like experiences have been chemically-induced with ketamine?Read this:near-death experience (NDE) - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.comAn excerpt:"According to Dr. Jansen, ketamine can reproduce all the main features of the NDE, including travel through a dark tunnel into the light, the feeling that one is dead, communing with God, hallucinations, out-of-body experiences, strange noises, etc. This does not prove that there is no life after death, but it does prove that an NDE is not proof of an afterlife. In any case, the so-called "typical" NDE is not typical of anything, except the tendency of parapsychologists to selectively isolate features of a wide array of experiences and fit them to a paranormal or supernatural hypothesis."------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 09-10-2002]