There is no God. by oldenglanddry

Tat Moh had some good ideas himself.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 11, 2006 3:27 AM

NANITE1018

"Quote:
Originally posted by nanite1018:
I also think everyone has to believe in some ideal, i just wish people believed in more rational and backed-by-evidence ideals.
Is that an ideal you believe in: a world where only rational and evidence-based ideals exist? And is this ideal itself rational and evidence-based?

I like vanilla ice cream. I wished everybody else also likes vanilla ice cream. It's an ideal that keeps me going in tough times.

Is that rational? Is it evidence-based? See, my point is that what you wish for, what you need to believe in, what keeps you going, DOESN'T HAVE to be rational and evidence based. Your inspiration can be whatever you want, even if it seems silly to other people. It's not for others to judge.

Science, BTW, is not religion's competitor. They are not mutually exclusive. There are plenty of scientists who are devoutly religious. I'm a scientist myself. My husband is a scientist. God is very important to both of us.

-------
"Maybe she's a lazy hooker. They can't all have hearts of gold and good work ethics." -- Jaye in Wonderfalls"

When i said that, i meant i wish people were more rational. I believe in a better world, and i can't see a reason why someone wouldn't. I can't understand how someone could hate someone just because they are of a different skin color or religion. Those things i can't understand, and will never understand, becuase they don't make any sense to me whatsoever.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 11, 2006 3:35 AM

NANITE1018

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
Quote:
Originally posted by nanite1018:
Chris, you may very well not exist. How do i know? I have no proof.

Obviously but my point is that you don't have evidence either, a point you clearly disagree with. I probably shouldn't side track us by explaining why but since I brought it up I'll give it at least one shot.

Quote:
But you claim to be someone, you don't appear to be lying,

with you so far.
Quote:
and all of the evidence (the background, the posts, everything) backs the hypothesis that you are an actual person.

And that’s where you lose me.
Quote:
Now I have two hypotheses, one that you are an individual, the other that you are a creation, an imaginary person created by someone else.

This seems to me a lot like god, so maybe talking about this isn't as off topic as I thought. Then again it could also sound like aliens.

There are two possibilities:
I am/god is/aliens are an actual individual/actual individuals the other is that I am/god is/aliens are a creation, an imaginary entity/entities created by someone else.

In all three cases I have a long series of actions attributed to the thing in question, and in all three cases there are other explanations for those things ranging from hoax to the planet Venus.

Quote:
Occam's Razor dictates that if you have two hypotheses that both explain the data equally well than the one with fewer assumptions is most likely true.

In fact it makes no statement about which one is most likely true, all that it does say is, "Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem," (though sometimes the spelling varies as I've also seen, "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate," and a couple of others) which is very different. I mean when you read what it actually says it is talking about what should be done when creating a theory, it doesn't even mention the truth or accuracy of said theory.

Then we move from that to saying the theory that is more in line with the idea that we don't multiply entities sine neccesitate is the one that science will accept. It does not say the other is wrong because if there were a way to know the other was wrong we wouldn't need the thing to make the decision. It does not even say the other is more likely to be wrong.

I bring this up because a lot of people get this confused, Occam's Razor is a way of choosing which theory is more scientific, not which theory is more likely to be correct. It is in no way related to truth.

This has no bearing on the rest of the conversation, but I couldn't just sit back and let you go on having an incorrect version of the razor, I'd feel bad about myself for not correcting a friend before an asshole came along and insulted you about it.

Einstein actually felt the need to point out that the simplest thing is not necessarily the most correct when he said about his theory of Relativity, "In my opinion the theory here is the logically simplest relativistic field theory that is at all possible. But this does not mean that nature might not obey a more complex theory." He, of course, went on to say, "In my view, such more complicated systems and their combinations should be considered only if there exist physical-empirical reasons to do so."

That is what the Razor is all about, more complex theories might be true, and the Razor does not say they stand any less of a chance of being true, but even so they will be rejected until there is reason to accept them. The difference between acceptance and truth is important, at least from my perspective.

Quote:
Now, what does that mean for this case? Well theory 1 has one assumption: there's someone who is christhecynic out in the world, and no one else is involved with the posts, you represent one person. The other requires that there be someone else, who desires to be able to say things without people knowing it was them AND that they created an elaborate back-story and POV and style of writing that appears to come from some individual person. Which has fewer assumptions?

To be totally honest, to me, the second one does. That one says someone created a hoax, you could break down the methods of the hoax if you wanted and call each one an assumption, but that leaves me with a bitter taste in my life, as if we took inertia, “an object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in uniform motion unless acted on by a force,” and then said that, since it covers all objects in the universe, each individual object in the universe represents one assumption in the theory.

I tend to think that a universal, that being, "All things in/about ____ are such an such," as a single assumption. So, "Chris the Cynic is a hoax," roughly translates to, "All things about Chris the Cynic are hoaxes," which I would call a single assumption covering back story (which really isn’t too elaborate, how much have I told you about myself?) point of view and style of writing. Just like assuming I exist and am who I say I am covers back story, point of veiw, and style of writing.

Clearly you disagree.

And that assumption doesn't require anything about the person doing the faking, it need not even be a person though I would agree that believing there is a hamster pretending to be me typing this up would multiply entities unnecessarily. Typing hamster is a big assumption.

The on the other hand what do you need to do to believe that there is a me in the world. Well first off there must be a person to whom the account of christhecynic belongs as a main account, that's assumption one. Second that person must be giving an accurate representation of himself in his posts, assumption 2. And third that person must still be around and doing it, i.e. it isn't a simple, "Hey, he left his computer with, "Log me in automatically, I'm gonna use this account to research the, 'Internet Theology,' paper I'm going to spend the next three years writing," or whatnot. That third one might not seem like a big deal but it is an important one. If I were to drop dead and my friend Alex were to take over the account and pretend to be me, which is the kind of thing he might do, the only Chris the Cynic who would exist would be in the form of the question, "What would Chris say?" in his mind.

So to recap, to believe I don't exist we assume:
1 It's a hoax
To believe that I do exist we say:
1 There is a person who has this as a main account.
2 That person is honest about themselves and their beliefs (in other words background and point of view).
3 That person is still the one using the account.
(I suppose you could say still around, I mean if someone else is typing this in my name while I’m out getting lunch I still exist, but if someone else is typing this in my name and I no longer hold any of these beliefs or anything that connects me to the personality of Chris the Cynic I don’t exist in the way most people think and if the one who believed these things is actually dead and someone else is typing this I think we can be fairly sure that Chris the Cynic doesn’t exist the way most think.)

Quote:
Obviously it's choice one, therefore the most likely explanation for the data is that you are an actual individual.

There's that, "most likely," again. Occam's Razor doesn't distinguish based on levels of likely, instead on levels of usefulness.

It is useful to accept the theory with the least assumptions if it is indistinguishable from the one that makes more in testable ways, that is that they agree with the same evidence and predict the same things.

It is no more useful to accept any of the other theories, which, while they are equal in terms of agreeing with evidence and predictions, require more assumptions. Since it is no more useful, and it is more bulky, the theory as a whole is less useful (you can think of it as a use-assumption ratio if you like.)

Nothing about likely.

-

Slightly more on topic the reason that you lost me is that what I just read seemed to say:
It is more likely to believe in something's existence than a hoax when there is inconclusive evidence attributed to it. (Note that when I say, “inconclusive evidence,” I do not mean a lack of evidence I mean that there is in fact evidence however that evidence falls short of conclusive evidence, nothing to poke for example.)

I'm not going to try an analogy because I'm almost entirely sure I misunderstood. I would like you to elaborate though, on the other hand since this is off topic maybe you shouldn't. It's up to you I guess.

Quote:
So i accept the hypothesis that you are an individual person, not some dummy account or an imaginary person or something;

I'm glad you do, someday I'm going to say that and someone's going to say, "You don't exist, you're just ..." whatever. And that might be an annoying day, but I will have met someone who doesn't take things for granted, and that might be interesting.

Quote:
until such time as contradictory evidence arises (i couldn't think of anything that would though).

I couldn't either, guess that makes me non-falsifiable.

Quote:
I can't prove it, but i think it's true based on the evidence.

I guess I misunderstood what you were saying then, I thought you were saying, "I can't believe a thing without evidence of its existence," and now I think what you meant was, "I can't believe a thing without evidence that might support its existence." I know the difference seems small, and is small, but it’s a difference none the less.

If I got that right then I'm glad you cleared it up. Though if that is the case I wonder where you draw the line on supporting existence.

I mean if thirty people all told you a blond guy just walked through the room while you were out I think you would, naturally, believe it to be true unless you had reason to think otherwise. But if those same thirty people all said god just walked through the room I'd think you would, quite naturally, not believe them.

(If that's not true then sorry, my oops.)

Yet if we assume these people are capable of telling the difference between god and something else (they might not be) then you have the same evidence for both cases.

Or if you read something that says, "Depressing and pointless, here is a classic chris the cynic short," you'd probably believe that I wrote it, though you might wonder about why in some cases I capitalize my name and in others I don't. If, on the other hand, you read something that says, "This was written by God/Jesus/Jo-Jo of the Fourth Planet/King Arthur/Alexander the Great," you might be a bit more skeptical even if it was one that you know exists.

(Again, if that's not true then sorry, my oops.)

Yet again you have the same evidence both ways, a simple claim of authorship within the work itself.

Personally I distinguish based on what makes sense, which is very non-scientific. If I have equal evidence for two things but one simply makes sense and the other seems outlandish I'll be more inclined to accept the evidence for simply based on, "There's no reason not to believe it," and point out how flimsy the evidence is for the other because it isn't enough to convince me.

For example when I see online a story that is supposed to have been written by Innocence Maintained I tend to think she did indeed write it, unless I have reason not to, in spite of the fact that if I were to see online a story that is supposed to have been written by god I tend to reject that idea due to lack of proof when both have the same amount of evidence for them.

Do you work the same way or do you have a more logical, or at least less subjective, way of evaluating your evidence?

Sorry about my misunderstanding. Although it still makes more sense to pick the hypothesis that you are an individual person who actually exists, becuase it's the simpler explanation and is generally more useful (Occam's Razor) until such time as it is necessary to change the hypothesis based on evidence (like if you said one day that your birthday was on the seventh of october and then a week later said it's on the nineteenth of June). That kind of thing.

Now, as to your interpretation of what i said. And the thing about equal evidence.

30 people say that a blond guy just walked through the room, a lot of supporting evidence. I believe it because it's not unreasonable. 30 people say God just walked through the room. I don't believe them. Why? is what you ask me.

The answer is summed up in Carl Sagan's wonderful quote (although i can't remember if it's extraordinary or remarkable, i'll use extraordinary): "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Meaning the amount of evidence necessary increasing in proportion with the remarkable-ness of the claim. Blond guy walks through room: pretty ordinary, doesn't take much for me to believe it. God walks through room: pretty damn remarkable, requires more evidence than people's word or even small physical evidence. Need videotape and stuff like that.

That's why i think you are a person, the more complex and more remarkable theory is that someone can create a hoax that is internally self-consistent and keep it up for a long time. Why believe something more remarkable or more complex when there is no need for it?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 11, 2006 4:29 AM

MAL4PREZ

Quote:
Originally posted by DukKati:
What strikes me as funny is people who don't believe in God can be convinced He exists, thus they then know Satan exists

Whoa DukKati! Hold up there! I really don't understand where your logic comes from!

> people who don't believe in God can be convinced He exists

Is this a general rule? I'm thinking... not so much. People who believe anything can be convinced of anything, if you talk at enough people for long enough. But it works both ways!

> thus they then know Satan exists

This is a your personal belief, that God exists=Satan exists, and is not a universal truth.

Also, your assumption there is a good God and an evil Satan would be part of your own personal belief system. Again, not a universal truth. Certainly not in a discussion between atheists and religious folk!

-----------------------------------------------
I'm the president. I don't need to listen.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 11, 2006 5:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Tristan:
Free will is god granting humans a choice in every aspect of their lives. This is completely unlike pre-destination, where everything is writ, nothing you do can change your destiny. Assuming free will exists, and humans do bad things that are blamed on this concept, from where does it originate?

According to some, god created all things. This means everything, am I right? This would include thought and deed; all possible outcomes to everything a human is faced with has to have been created by god. If this is in fact true, there is no "free will"; humans just have a pool of pre-made decisions to draw from...good or evil, they have been created by god.

Hey Tristan,

I'm going to attempt to answer your question. I bolded the area of your statement that I want to address. Your supposition is that since God created everything, he also created the thought and actions of humankind. Basically, that life is a "choose your own adventure" book that God wrote. I think that is false.

To start, I think action (deed) rises out of thought (in the majority of cases), so we really are dealing with the question of whether or not God created all the thoughts of humankind. Is that agreeable?

Then the question becomes could God create the process without creating the outcome. I think the answer is yes. Even man is working on creating processes and not the outcomes, with things such as artificial intelligence. Admittedly the outcomes of A.I. currently fall within a pool of possible responses, but the nightmare is that the outcomes will truly become unknown. (Just look at movies like A.I., I, Robot, for that evidence). God is the ultimate creator, if man is approaching the ability to create intelligence, how much more able is God?

***************
"My feelings are changeable but intense" Anya (season 7 Buffy)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 11, 2006 6:04 AM

TRISTAN

Hey, RugBug!
Thanks for the repsonse. I guess a "Choose your own adventure book" does kind of sum it up, eh?

If god did not create the outcomes, though, from where do they spring? This question is based on the assumption of Christians (again, this is a gross generalization, it is not aimed at anyone in particular) that god created all things. The outcomes would have to spring from somewhere, and as god is the creator of all things... Does that make sense? Man is working on processes without working on the outcome, but we are Man, therefore we are less than god. We may be able to theorize possible outcomes, but the certainty is not there. That can be said for all things we endeavour to do, though. My big issue is still the "creation of all things"...if you (the "royal" you) do not think god created all, then from where does the rest spring?
Curiosity drives me.

______________________________________

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 11, 2006 6:25 AM

CHRISTHECYNIC

This is just a little thinking out loud sort of thing, but when it comes to whether or not god creating all things means god created evil I think the problem might be how people define thing.

Imagine I'm god, not necessarily the god, a god will do just fine, and I decide I'm going to create life. So I create a sun to give energy, and an earth to give raw materials, and plants to convert that energy into apples and raspberries. Then I create people to enjoy themselves there. Now as a god I'm pretty smug because I've created a place where no one suffers, the fruit is made to be eaten and doing so doesn't hurt the plant, there's enough food to go around so no one goes hungry, nothing must suffer for anything else to live, and I made the climate nice so there is no need for killing the plants to make shelter or make clothing out of fig leaves or whatnot.

It's all apples and raspberries, good times. But, thinking it would be useless to have mindless automatons eating apples and raspberries I did two things, first I made the act of eating pleasurable in addition to necessary. I made the food taste good. The other thing I did was I gave the people brains so they could talk about stuff like true love and the potential drawbacks of having a diet consisting of only two foods.

Then one of them uses his or her brain to say that if some apples and raspberries are good more must be better, the idea catches on, now everyone is eating more than they need to stay alive, some exercise to keep their weight down and others just get fat, but the problems is that I was only counting on people saying alive, not feasting. There isn't enough for everyone to have extra. In fact with everyone trying to take extra the ones last in line aren't even getting enough.

So now we've got a problem, the ones who won't stand up and fight for their raspberries are starting to waste away, and other people are hoarding the fruits so they can be traded for favors later on, greed, hunger and exploitation have been introduced into the world.

Damn, I'm a crap god.

So now the raspberry wars are going on, people are talking about the problem of evil and I'm considering the value of things that can't think for themselves. Maybe next time I'll create a watch, the cogs won't get greedy and horde food, then again the cogs won't do anything interesting either.

-

My question is simple. In that situation did the god, me, create all things? Did the god create evil? (Let's say, for the sake of argument, that greed, exploitation and hunger are evil).

Certainly in my little hypothetical world of apples and raspberries everything you can poke was created by god, the sun, the earth, the air that I didn't mention but which was present, the plants, the people, every subatomic particle, so in that sense all things were created by god.

On the other hand evil was not directly created by god, it was indirect, the potential for evil was created by god but evil itself came about on it's own. So does the fact that god did not create evil directly mean that god didn't create all things?

I'm starting to feel that I shouldn't have written the little story thing in first person because if I say, "So does the fact that I did not create evil directly mean that I didn't create all things?" it sounds silly, but if I don't it seems odd considering the context.

-
--
-

I think there is also a question of what is evil, for example if we assume there is a god, and that god can do anything, then god could just step in right now and make everyone hug and be friends, all enemies will have their personalities adjusted so that they'll be allies, all differences will be evened out, and everyone will always think and do exactly what god wants them to think and do. All will be good from here on out and there will be no more evil, no more suffering, no more bad.

Does that actually sound good to anyone? To me that, which amounts to the total destruction of freedom on a level no previous dictator even came close to touching, seems quite a bit evil.

In fact forcing people to think what you think and do what you want them to, even if you're right, seems evil no matter what. The alternative is to let them think for themselves which could, and often does, amount to allowing horrible things to happen.

-

On a side note, every translation I have read (can't read Hebrew, sorry) says that the reason Pharaoh didn't let the people go was that, "God made Pharaoh's heart hard." Which always seemed like a horrible thing to do to me because it means that what happened amounted to, "Unless you do what I tell you I'll hurt you. By the way you can't do what I tell you," which just seems wrong to me.

-
--
-

One last thing.

While evil, with its slippery relativistic definitions, probably doesn't need to exist I think suffering, pain, and all of that stuff does. There have been studies ranging from who commits suicide most often to how heavy various people think a nickel is that have tried to determine how having and not having effect people. I know the results of almost none of them, but in spite of that lacking I'm fairly sure that I'm right when I say that to really appreciate something you have to lose it.

Someone who has always been comfortable doesn't appreciate comfort as much as someone who has never had it until now, but neither one seems to understand how good it is as much as someone who was comfortable, had that snatched away from them (especially if the method of losing it was particularly painful in itself) and then got it back.

Even if you don't go through the get it, lose it, get it back thing if you really want to understand the good in life I think you need to feel the bad. I've certainly noticed that those who suffer the most seem to have the ability to attain far greater joy (if they ever find something to be happy about), where those who have virtually eliminated pain and struggle from their lives seem to have also suppressed happiness and fulfillment.

If I try to imagine a heaven where everything is provided to you and you never want for anything it doesn't seem very heavenly to me. Sort of like if you were on a sports team that literally couldn't lose, where's the fun in winning? A lot of people would think of that as Hell, I have a feeling most chess players would rather be consistently losing to Bobby Fisher than in a situation where no matter what they'd win.

Of course losing a chess game isn't the same as losing a loved one, but that loss is still constructive; if you knew that those you cared about would always be there you might never get around to saying what needed to be said, and you might take their presence for granted rather than truly appreciating it. Death is something that brings us together with those we still have.

I could go on, I did go on, but I really only meant this to be a footnote sized thing at the end of a post and as such I don't think I should make this post go on as long as I was going, even cutting it off here is leaving it far larger than intended.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 11, 2006 6:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by DukKati:

If there is no God then there is no Satan.

So if no God then no good.

If no Satan then no bad.

So if no bad and no good then where are we at?

I have to take issue with part of this statement. You are presupposing that God is wholly good, when there is an abundance of Biblical evidence to suggest otherwise. Furthermore, a Satanist would see Lucifer as good and God as bad. One man's angel is another man's demon. It's a question of relativity. To a Satanist, God's demand for obedience is unbearable, as it was unbearable for Lucifer; hence, the only commandment in Satanism: "Do what thou will, that shall be the whole of the Law."

However, you are right about one thing: if no God, then no Satan. Lucifer is a construct of the Abrahamic religions, and as far I as am concerned, they can keep him.

Also, it's rather an erroneous concept to think that without God and Satan we would have no good or evil. Good and evil existed long before the rise of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and will exist long after these religions diminish and disappear.

Morbid and creepifying I got no problem with, so long as you do it quiet like.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 11, 2006 6:38 AM

CHRISTHECYNIC

Just as a warning, this post has nothing to do with god.

Quote:
Originally posted by nanite1018:
The answer is summed up in Carl Sagan's wonderful quote (although i can't remember if it's extraordinary or remarkable, i'll use extraordinary): "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Meaning the amount of evidence necessary increasing in proportion with the remarkable-ness of the claim.

I really need to get a list of his quotes, I don't agree with some conclusions he draws (obviously), but a lot of one liners I agree with in totality. That's one of them, when it comes to trying to prove a thing at any rate.

The problem is that it means that some claims are too extraordinary to get evidence to match and also that it leaves you (and me) in a place where it's very easy to trick us. I once met someone called Todd, I still know him, I think it was three years before I found out that, though he was and still is called Todd, when he told me his name was Todd he was lying.

All he had to do was tell people his name was Todd and, because the claim was so mundane that most people don't require proof, everyone was fooled. Obviously some people must have been around him when he was doing something where he had to use his real name, and someone probably looked at his driver's license, but for the most part people believed and it was just a show of how easy it is to fool people on a random whim. (Actually it wasn't quite a random whim but it's not worth going into in depth.)

Of course that's not reason to check whenever someone tells you their name because for me it's not just that, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," it's also that mundane claims aren't worth the effort. For example, if I were fooling you what would that mean to you? For me it might mean a waste of a lot of time or a lot of research data or something else I can't think of at the moment, but for you it doesn't really have an effect.

I was just wondering if it was the same way for you and the answer seems to be, "Sort of." Thanks for indulging me, by the way.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 11, 2006 6:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:

One last thing.

While evil, with its slippery relativistic definitions, probably doesn't need to exist I think suffering, pain, and all of that stuff does. . . Someone who has always been comfortable doesn't appreciate comfort as much as someone who has never had it until now, but neither one seems to understand how good it is as much as someone who was comfortable, had that snatched away from them (especially if the method of losing it was particularly painful in itself) and then got it back.

Even if you don't go through the get it, lose it, get it back thing if you really want to understand the good in life I think you need to feel the bad. I've certainly noticed that those who suffer the most seem to have the ability to attain far greater joy (if they ever find something to be happy about), where those who have virtually eliminated pain and struggle from their lives seem to have also suppressed happiness and fulfillment.

Holy

, CTC. We're in complete agreement with each other.

Morbid and creepifying I got no problem with, so long as you do it quiet like.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 11, 2006 6:54 AM

YINYANG

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.

::takes a cookie from msg::

Thank you much-ly for the cookie!

---

Go to http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/ and vote Firefly!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 11, 2006 6:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by misbehaven:
Good and evil existed long before the rise of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and will exist long after these religions diminish and disappear.

I disagree. If the god of the Jews and Christians is actually the god he claims to be, there was no "before." Yes, there was good and evil before those religions were organized and given names, but that doesn't mean good existed before their God.

***************
"My feelings are changeable but intense" Anya (season 7 Buffy)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 11, 2006 7:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by misbehaven:

Good and evil existed long before the rise of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and will exist long after these religions diminish and disappear.

Quote:
I disagree. If the god of the Jews and Christians is actually the god he claims to be, there was no "before." Yes, there was good and evil before those religions were organized and given names, but that doesn't mean good existed before their God.

I'm not sure we're in disagreement with one another. It would seem to me, that what you're saying falls into the realm of a relative statement, as "their God" isn't necessarily everyone else's God. Truly, if you're a follower of the three Abrahamic based religions, then good begins with God; however, if you are a follower of one of the world's many other religions or you are not a religious person, then good does not begin with "their" concept of God.

Morbid and creepifying I got no problem with, so long as you do it quiet like.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 11, 2006 7:28 AM

CHRISTHECYNIC

Quote:
Originally posted by RugBug:
Quote:
Originally posted by misbehaven:
Good and evil existed long before the rise of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and will exist long after these religions diminish and disappear.

I disagree. If the god of the Jews and Christians is actually the god he claims to be, there was no "before." Yes, there was good and evil before those religions were organized and given names, but that doesn't mean good existed before their God.

While I agree that if the god claimed by those religions exists it would be impossible for good and evil to predate him I think that the real issue is being missed.

misbehaven was responding to a post that said without God there is no such thing as good and without Satan there is no such thing as evil. While I, like you, disagree with the reasoning used I think that the larger point is correct.

The idea that without God and Satan there would be no good and evil is limited to a few groups of thought. If you say, "Raping someone is evil," I, personally, don't think you need God to back you up. Of those Christians who I know well enough to speak for none would say, "If there is no god then rape is not evil." I know that there are people who disagree (obviously none among those I know that well) but just the fact that some think that way means that even among those who believe in God and Satan the idea that they are required for good and evil is not universal.

Certainly on the other side there are many atheists who will tell you that good and evil do exist even though they are convinced that God and Satan do not. There are also members of religions that have no Satan who believe in good and evil and even religions without a wholly good god who believe in good and evil.

Obviously I can't prove that good and evil exist independently of God, there isn't even a universal agreement for what they are. But I think the concepts and applications of good and evil are independent of the existance of God and Satan. I suppose if you said, "Good is that which God desires and Evil is the means by which Satan tries to thwart that," then an argument could be made, quite well, that good and evil are dependant on God and Satan but that is a very limited, very narrow, way to define good and evil and not very helpful.

What I mean by, "not very helpful," is that if you were you say, "Good is that which God desires," then that doesn't actually tell you what good is, you need to then say, "God desires that you do this, this and this," so isn't it easier to say, "Good is doing this, this and this," and more to the point isn't it more helpful to have the entire defintion of good in one place?

-

I guess the real question is, if you believe something is evil would you still believe it to be evil if you believed there is no god?

Apparently DukKati's answer is very different from my own.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 11, 2006 7:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by misbehaven:
Quote:
Originally posted by misbehaven:

Good and evil existed long before the rise of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and will exist long after these religions diminish and disappear.

I'm not sure we're in disagreement with one another. It would seem to me, that what you're saying falls into the realm of a relative statement,

Well, were only in disagreement when you make your relative statement sound like fact.

You can't disprove God, I can't prove him, therefore, both of our statements are relative.

***************
"My feelings are changeable but intense" Anya (season 7 Buffy)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 11, 2006 7:59 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I have to get back to work. But here is an answer based on a child of a co-worker. That child was born with a severe midline defect (not just spina bifida or cleft palate, but brain, internal organs etc). She had an estimated life span of 18-24 months. Her parents loved her dearly, and cared for her with attention, diligence, tenderness, and even a certain amount of hope. What made me cry at work (one of the few times in my life I ever did) was seeing her photo at 18 mos, all dressed up in a beautiful little dress with her hair combed and put up in a little bow, held up by pillows as she couldn't sit up. It seemed so - hopeful. And at the same time futile. Though she was fortunate enough to be born into a loving family with adequate resources, nothing her parents could do could take away her intrinsic physiological and neurological suffering. She eventually did die at 24 mos, never having relief, and never having the time (or mental ability) to draw moral lessons. Her losses were, as I see it, both physical and moral

Been away fomr the thread for a while (Of course there is no god. Why are we still talking about this?) but in reading thru the posts I have to say ths made me cry too. What a pity.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 11, 2006 8:05 AM

BLUEFLAME

look around you; everything is a seething mass of creatures milling about on a rock in space.(Even the rock itself is a collection of vibrating minuscule particles) Every cm of skin is occupied by millions of monstrosities (u should really go to the appropriate site if u haven't seen them yet.When u die tons of creatures die with u, billions leave the sinking ship, innumerable atoms and molecules form new alliances.
Indeed we are all an insane collection of seperate organisms walking around poking our noses.
If there's a god (one of gazillion options) why would he look like us? That's a lot of pretention i say. As prove u come to me with a book that has been rewritten over and over again for over 2000 years? The only thing religieus people want is to enforce stupid rules on us and make us feel scared and guilty (thanks Mal). I don't believe in a dear and fluffy lord and i certainly don't need 'him' to tell me what to do. The word of jezus is love, i think that's a damn good filosophy and indeed i do love our precious blue pearl in space and all the funny creatures that live to experience it, and occasionally i even love those bastard human mongrels that think the universe turns around them alone. But mostly i just hate their stinkin egoism and rotten pretention.
And indeed it will all end in a few decennia cause we just can't stop eating up our mother planet. So i think S.F. is just a beautifull dream we have and share with the coolest people on earth: the nerds. ''IN THE FACE BUSH!'' AND JEZUS WAS A NERD!!''

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 11, 2006 8:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by RugBug:

Well, were only in disagreement when you make your relative statement sound like fact.

You can't disprove God, I can't prove him, therefore, both of our statements are relative.

Quote:
Orginally posted by misbehaven:

Also, it's rather an erroneous concept to think that without God and Satan we would have no good or evil. Good and evil existed long before the rise of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and will exist long after these religions diminish and disappear.

It's true I can't disprove the existence of God, but that doesn't negate that good and evil can exist independently of those religions. And, in the context of this particular conversation, I don't think I was trying to disprove the existence of God one way or the other, rather I was trying to illustrate that not everyone shares the same concept of God, nor do they necessarily understand good and evil the same way.

Morbid and creepifying I got no problem with, so long as you do it quiet like.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 11, 2006 8:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by misbehaven:

Quote:
Originally posted by RugBug:

Well, were only in disagreement when you make your relative statement sound like fact.

You can't disprove God, I can't prove him, therefore, both of our statements are relative.

Quote:
Orginally posted by misbehaven:

Also, it's rather an erroneous concept to think that without God and Satan we would have no good or evil. Good and evil existed long before the rise of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and will exist long after these religions diminish and disappear.

It's true I can't disprove the existence of God, but that doesn't negate that good and evil can exist independently of those religions.

Quote:
Originally posted by misbehaven:
And, in the context of this particular conversation, I don't think I was trying to disprove the existence of God one way or the other, rather I was trying to illustrate that not everyone shares the same concept of God, nor do they necessarily understand good and evil the same way.

that's a given, isn't it? There is no need for illustration.

But there is a truth out there (let's just take a moment and harken back to the glory days of the X-files. Sigh. Okay, done now.

) and the answer to 'Can there be good without God and evil without Satan?' lies with that truth. Furthermore, that is not a truth we know at this point in time. So my statement is relative, just as your statement is relative.

Now, if God as defined by Judaism and Christianity (sorry, can't add Islam as that is NOT the same god) ends up being truth, can people who don't believe in that truth still experience good and evil (i.e. "without God there is no good)?" Of course. 2+2 is still 4 whether you believe it is or not.

***************
"My feelings are changeable but intense" Anya (season 7 Buffy)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 11, 2006 8:37 AM

DUKKATI

I have to have universal truths to keep me sane.

If I didn't have universal truths I would have to post extended length diatribes trying to keep my self convinced that there are no universal truths.

YES I do live in absolute truth when Im wrong Im wrong and when Im right Im right.

I would be in prison for numerous reasons if I didnt have unversal truths.

God created Satan (the most beautiful angel he ever created)and gave him charge over certain things. Satan wanted to take God's place on the throne.Satan tried ,God busted him. Satan is now doing his best to drag down God's greatest creation "MAN.

Its all there in the Bible...King James Version...
not the watered down nicey nice new world versions.

----------------------------------------------

I've been through the system.
It don't work.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 11, 2006 8:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by RugBug:
Um, yes. They are seperate entities. They, however, are not absolutes.

Erm hey that's some pretty schizophrenic stuff there! So with you your right hand really doesn't know what you left hand is doing

What I meant is your right and left sides aren't separate beings, they are parts of the same being

Quote:
Which may be where you're trying to go with this? Is that what you've been trying to say? That good and evil are relative?

Sort of. From our narrow singular view we could see something as evil but does that mean that from god’s infinite point of view that thing is also evil? Is the concept of good and evil being relative all that strange? A serial killer kills five people and they are evil, a soldier kills five people and they are a hero.

Quote:
Really? If originally free will was the choice to follow God or not follow him, how was free will not present in the Garden of Eden? They followed, then decided not to.

And they were kicked out. How can they be said to have free will if the moment they exercise it they are punished?

Quote:
So, from there:

Coin=God
One side=good
Other side=evil

Can you please explain the meaning you intended that I so obviously missed.

Ahh, poorly stated on my part, that evil isn't necessarily evil, that things we see as evil may have a purpose that in the long run improves the human condition and is good, though I'm finding my thoughts hard to put in writing at the moment...

Quote:
Hrmmm, you know, you're right. Lots of the old Testament has God raining down with the suffering. Even the Jews wandered in the desert...that probably wasn't too fun. In most cases, the people were given a warning to avoid the suffering and chose to ignore it. The Egyptians were warned to "let my people go" or the plagues would befall them. They made a choice. IMO, that is very different from the suffering that goes on today. God isn't sitting up there and telling some woman 'if you don't behave, I'm going to send some man over who will rape you.' So maybe someone who is Jewish can answer you about old testament suffering.

The suffering caused by a rapist or similar is man made though isn't it? My thoughts were that the actions we prescribe to the devil most of the time could be those of god working in those mysterious ways of gods?

Quote:
Now, if God as defined by Judaism and Christianity (sorry, can't add Islam as that is NOT the same god)

Erm, since when?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 11, 2006 8:48 AM

BLUEFLAME

Snails believe that one day the great snail that created them all to his image will come to earth and punish all the evil snails. Then he will turn the multiverse into a huge puddle of slime where the snails can munch their salads for ever and ever. Of course not the evil snails; they will end up on planet earth where they will be overrun by cars over and over again to their infinite doom! whahahahah!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 11, 2006 8:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I have to get back to work. But here is an answer based on a child of a co-worker. That child was born with a severe midline defect (not just spina bifida or cleft palate, but brain, internal organs etc). She had an estimated life span of 18-24 months. Her parents loved her dearly, and cared for her with attention, diligence, tenderness, and even a certain amount of hope. What made me cry at work (one of the few times in my life I ever did) was seeing her photo at 18 mos, all dressed up in a beautiful little dress with her hair combed and put up in a little bow, held up by pillows as she couldn't sit up. It seemed so - hopeful. And at the same time futile. Though she was fortunate enough to be born into a loving family with adequate resources, nothing her parents could do could take away her intrinsic physiological and neurological suffering. She eventually did die at 24 mos, never having relief, and never having the time (or mental ability) to draw moral lessons. Her losses were, as I see it, both physical and moral.

I don’t see the moral loss? I mean an obvious physical loss but not a moral one.

Or (and here I will dip into a bit of eastern philosophy) in Karmic resurrection if you choose a body with a disability it shows your soul is mature and 'good'. So your colleague’s child here was in fact extremely strong morally in being willing to bear such an affliction.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 11, 2006 9:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by misbehaven:

And, in the context of this particular conversation, I don't think I was trying to disprove the existence of God one way or the other, rather I was trying to illustrate that not everyone shares the same concept of God, nor do they necessarily understand good and evil the same way.

Quote:
Originally posted by RugBug:

that's a given, isn't it? There is no need for illustration.

Obviously, it's not a given among everyone. And since it is directly related to what I was saying, I thought it might be helpful.

Quote:
Originally posted by misbehaven:

Good and evil existed long before the rise of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and will exist long after these religions diminish and disappear.

As for the relativity of our statements, I'm still not sure we disagree, becuase I never said mine was a fact, as you noted yourself, ". . .you make your relative statement sound like fact." Regardless of how it may have sounded to you, it is clearly only my opinion.

Quote:
Originally posted by RugBug:

Now, if God as defined by Judaism and Christianity (sorry, can't add Islam as that is NOT the same god) ends up being truth, can people who don't believe in that truth still experience good and evil (i.e. "without God there is no good)?" Of course. 2+2 is still 4 whether you believe it is or not.

I never said people who didn't believe in that truth were incapable of experiencing good and evil. In point of fact, I said good and evil exist independently of that truth, which is especially important if you don't believe in that truth. Now, whether you choose to acknowledge Islam as one of the Abrahamic religions or not, it still remains one. If you're intent on separating it from Christianity, then you better remove Judaism as well. Because the God of the Old Testament is no more the God of the New Testament, than the God of the Quaran is the God of the New Testament. Nevertheless, all three of these religions are based in the Abrahamic tradition. That is to say, their roots are all the same.

Morbid and creepifying I got no problem with, so long as you do it quiet like.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 11, 2006 9:12 AM

MAL4PREZ

Quote:
Originally posted by DukKati:
I have to have universal truths to keep me sane.

You believe what you like, absolutely! But what I mean by universal truth is something that everyone is going to agree with. ie - the sky is blue. OK, some people are colorblind or blind, but for most folks who see, this is the Truth. The universal truth.

Some things that are truths for you, for example:

Quote:
God created Satan (the most beautiful angel he ever created)and gave him charge over certain things. Satan wanted to take God's place on the throne.Satan tried ,God busted him. Satan is now doing his best to drag down God's greatest creation "MAN.

Is something YOU believe, but I don't, and there's no particular reason I should. It's not universal.

This is the danger I see in religion, that there is sometimes a lack of understanding that something that works for you may not work for me. And that's really okay!

So DukKati - you can't expect all your "God is good" etc logic to apply to my thought process and my world view, no matter which book it's written in.

Quote:
Its all there in the Bible...King James Version... not the watered down nicey nice new world versions.

Sorry guy, but this means nothing to me. Just saying "the Bible says so" is not proof of anything for me, nor for a lot of others. Expecting that it should be will lead to nothing but frustration and strife.

I think this topic is worthy of a new thread. Is OLDENGLANDDRY (the thread starter) still around? This one's gotten too long!

-----------------------------------------------
I'm the president. I don't need to listen.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 11, 2006 9:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by RugBug:
Um, yes. They are seperate entities. They, however, are not absolutes.
Erm hey that's some pretty schizophrenic stuff there! So with you your right hand really doesn't know what you left hand is doing

What I meant is your right and left sides aren't separate beings, they are parts of the same being .

So you got me.

But I will say that you got me when you switched from the concepts of right and left to the physicality of right and left.

Yes, my right and left sides are part of the same being. But, that doesn't make my right hand my left, or my left hand my right. My right hand is my right hand and nothing you do will make it my left hand. (The relativity of right and left is determined by perspective...and leads to all the confusion of "your right or mine?")

But in all that, we are talking man. God is not just some Super Man. He is god. He is not bound by the rules that bind us ('cause you know, it would be rule cool if I could create matter or know all)

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by RugBug:
Which may be where you're trying to go with this? Is that what you've been trying to say? That good and evil are relative?
Sort of. From our narrow singular view we could see something as evil but does that mean that from god’s infinite point of view that thing is also evil? Is the concept of good and evil being relative all that strange? A serial killer kills five people and they are evil, a soldier kills five people and they are a hero.

No, it's not all that strange. But that relativity can't be applied to all things.

Whether or not God can use 'evil' for his purpose is different that saying that God is evil.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by RugBug:
Really? If originally free will was the choice to follow God or not follow him, how was free will not present in the Garden of Eden? They followed, then decided not to.
And they were kicked out. How can they be said to have free will if the moment they exercise it they are punished?

There are consequences for actions. God never said there wasn't. That doesn't negate the fact that the decision was of their own volition.

Let's see, Garden of Eden was a place of communion/relationship with perfect God. Perfect God cannot be in the presence of imperfection. But Adam/Eve had the choice of imperfection and took God up on it. God had to remove them from his presence, thus they were expelled from the Garden. That's consequence. If they had chosen otherwise, the consequence would have been continued relationship with God in the Garden.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by RugBug:
So, from there:

Coin=God
One side=good
Other side=evil

Can you please explain the meaning you intended that I so obviously missed.

Ahh, poorly stated on my part, that evil isn't necessarily evil, that things we see as evil may have a purpose that in the long run improves the human condition and is good, though I'm finding my thoughts hard to put in writing at the moment...

Whether or not God can use 'evil' for his purpose is different that saying that God is evil or causes evil. That good can come from evil doesn't turn evil to good.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by RugBug:
Now, if God as defined by Judaism and Christianity (sorry, can't add Islam as that is NOT the same god)
Erm, since when?

Since always? My understanding of Allah is that he is not the God and father of Jesus (who's deity is denied). Also, Allah is totally removed from men, is responsible for evil as well as for good, and is not the god who love the world enough to sacrifice his only son. Allah is completely distant from man. He also requires acts to prove faith and there is never assurance that you've done enough acts to appease him. Thusly, by character definition, he is not the same.

To be fair, the God of Judaism isn't exactly the God of Christianity. Christians belive he is, and that the New Testament is fulfillment of the Old. But Judaism rejects that YHWH is the father of Christ as well as rejecting the deity of Christ. Therefore, I can say it's the same God, but that statement is offensive to followers of Judaism.

misbehavin: to say that the roots are the same, does not mean it is the same. Let's take a FF example. Joss created Mal; Defines who he is, gives him shape. Then a fic writer takes that character and not only adds to it, but changes the very core motivations, actions, desires, etc. Is it still Mal? Or has a new character, that looks like Mal and is born of the same roots, been created. If you and I saw this new Mal on Firefly, we would've cried foul. Similar roots does not mean same.

***************
"My feelings are changeable but intense" Anya (season 7 Buffy)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 11, 2006 9:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by DukKati:
Its all there in the Bible...King James Version...
not the watered down nicey nice new world versions.

And DukKati: Let's just say that there are
many more accurate and academic translations than the King James Version. NRS and Oxford amoung them....

***************
"My feelings are changeable but intense" Anya (season 7 Buffy)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 11, 2006 9:48 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Citizen,

I picked that particular example because I didn't want to get into any very personal ones.

Still avoiding personal ones, I will present a hypothetical one instead, based on many composites of real ones: a child is born with a neurological disability. This disability causes physical and neurological stress. (When one's brain is faulty, it makes every second of every day stressful in the full sense of the word.) The stress forms the child into a fractious personality. The parents, at wits end, devolve into abusive parents. Typically the mother abuses that child who requires extraordinary amounts of care, while the father abuses that child who seems rebellious.

Here we have one slightly physically damaged child, and three people morally damaged as a result (where moral damage is loss of empathy and compassion.)

Excluding the karmic cycle (as provable to me as god - which is - not at all), the only lesson I get from this is "heaven and earth are not humane".

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 11, 2006 10:02 AM

YINYANG

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.

Quote:
You believe what you like, absolutely! But what I mean by universal truth is something that everyone is going to agree with. ie - the sky is blue. OK, some people are colorblind or blind, but for most folks who see, this is the Truth. The universal truth.

Existentialism states that there are no universal truths. For something to be a universal truth EVERYONE has to believe it. So, in your example, even the blind have to believe that the sky is blue (which, I think, would be rather difficult, as they may not have any notion of color).

Can't somebody just start a new thread? It's really not that hard. Please?

---

Go to http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/ and vote Firefly!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 11, 2006 10:16 AM

Originally posted by RugBug:

Quote:
misbehavin: to say that the roots are the same, does not mean it is the same. Let's take a FF example. Joss created Mal; Defines who he is, gives him shape. Then a fic writer takes that character and not only adds to it, but changes the very core motivations, actions, desires, etc. Is it still Mal? Or has a new character, that looks like Mal and is born of the same roots, been created. If you and I saw this new Mal on Firefly, we would've cried foul. Similar roots does not mean same.

Islam may not recognize the divinity of Christ, but then, as you noted, neither does Judaism. Unless, of course, they're Messianic Jews. But the God of Islam, to a Muslim, is very much the creator God found in the book of Genesis. In much the same way that the Devil is the Luciferian figure of the Old Testament for them as well. So, yes the roots are important, because it is the varying interpretations of God and Allah that provides the distinction, not the roots.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 11, 2006 10:22 AM

Hows this:
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=23012

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 11, 2006 11:00 AM

NANITE1018

Here's my problem with religion: there's no evidence to support it; other than people's word. Unfortunately, that's not good enough. This type of thing is so remarkbable, so important, that you can't just take people's word for it; which is what you're doing when you believe the Bible is true.

I grant there probably was a Jesus of Nazareth who was a philosopher/religious type. But i don't think he came back from the dead. And i don't think he turned water into wine. And you can't say i shouldn't because you can't point me to any real evidence other than someone's say-so. And say-so has no place in rational investigation toward the truth.

Now, if someone can give me real evidence there is a God, then that's wonderful; and i'd accept there was one (tentatively, until i find some other, simpler explanation). But until then, i don't think God exists, for as Laplace said to Napoleon when asked why he didn't include God in his treatise on celestial mechanics: "I found no need of that particular hypothesis."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 11, 2006 11:13 AM

Reply here:
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=23012&m=358831#358831

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 11, 2006 11:46 AM