Mike Hough wrote:
> This reminds me of something I read regarding the idea that the universe is 
> infinite. It was argued that although the universe is infinite, there can 
> still be a finite number of the possibilities in the infinite universe. Had 
> trouble wrapping my mind around that one. 

Huh, that is a bit of an odd concept.  I guess I would have to read it 
as "infinite but repeats eventually", in which case how would you ever 
tell if it's repeating or just finite and spherical (or some other 
closed topology)?

Do you have a link?  You got me all curious!

Post a reply to this message

Kevin Wampler wrote:
> Do you have a link?  You got me all curious!

Reminds me of a SF story I read once where the protagonist decides he's 
going to walk, and after a surprisingly short time he comes to another 
neighborhood that's almost exactly like his own, and another, meeting the 
same people in the same places each time, until he gives up and goes off to 
be Soylent Green, deciding there's nothing more to be seen in the society 
designed by the man who invented wallpaper. :-)

Bonus points if anyone can give me a pointer to the story!

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
   unable to read this, even at arm's length."

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
>
> On a side note, recent research has shown that when "thinking about
> god", we do so in the same way that we would think about, "What would
> the neighbor do, if I took his news paper." I.e., we imagine what would
> would do as such a thing, and draw attributions from that. Which is of
> course, why gods never "reveal" to people things that contradict their
> own prejudices, tell them to do things they didn't one some level want
> to do, or otherwise add anything useful to the conversation. One might
> as well be watching someone employ the so called "solicited
> communication" method, by which people convince themselves that their
> own "helping" of an autistic child is "really the child", and not, as
> evidence shows, the parent/practitioner themselves expressing their own
> "knowledge" and understanding through the medium.
>
> In other words, the moment we went from general, "The other ape may
> steal my food.", to, "I would steal his food, so he is probably plotting
> to steal mine.", we "invented" god to fill in the gaps where the world
> acted against or for us, as an explanation for why things seemed to
> either go right, or wrong, for us. Call it, another nail in the coffin
> of the idea that design was involved from something else's side of the
> equation. ;)
>



Oh my, they've just scientifically proven  Hebrews 8:10!


Intelligent Design **is** loopy.  The Old Earth Creationists I subscribe to,
folks who look for religious inferences in the scientific observations around
us,  say that ID is loopy.

Back to your proof above. Philosophy will always find a way around scientific
data.  I once read about men's reactions to learning that men were
psychologically wired to be filled with lust at most of the women that passed
them by.
Some men said, "Hey, I'm WIRED this way!  Party!!" and used it as justification
to be promiscuous.
Other men said, "Oh, that's just my hormones! Whew! So I'm really not *more* in
love with that blond at that next table than I am with my own wife. I can
relax."

If you're biased against finding a god, you'll be able to come up with
philosophical ruses all day long.

Post a reply to this message

Sorry, it was some time ago and it was just some random article that I came 
across. I think the basic idea is that the universe is infinite but most of 
it is empty, so there is a limited amount of "stuff" in the universe. But 
that still implies that infinity is a finite quantity which doesn't make 
sense. Maybe I wasn't fully grasping the concept.

Mike


"Kevin Wampler" <wam### [at] uwashingtonedu> wrote in message 
news:49baea1a$1@news.povray.org...
> Mike Hough wrote:
>> This reminds me of something I read regarding the idea that the universe 
>> is infinite. It was argued that although the universe is infinite, there 
>> can still be a finite number of the possibilities in the infinite 
>> universe. Had trouble wrapping my mind around that one.
>
> Huh, that is a bit of an odd concept.  I guess I would have to read it as 
> "infinite but repeats eventually", in which case how would you ever tell 
> if it's repeating or just finite and spherical (or some other closed 
> topology)?
>
> Do you have a link?  You got me all curious!

Post a reply to this message

gregjohn wrote:
> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
>> On a side note, recent research has shown that when "thinking about
>> god", we do so in the same way that we would think about, "What would
>> the neighbor do, if I took his news paper." I.e., we imagine what would
>> would do as such a thing, and draw attributions from that. Which is of
>> course, why gods never "reveal" to people things that contradict their
>> own prejudices, tell them to do things they didn't one some level want
>> to do, or otherwise add anything useful to the conversation. One might
>> as well be watching someone employ the so called "solicited
>> communication" method, by which people convince themselves that their
>> own "helping" of an autistic child is "really the child", and not, as
>> evidence shows, the parent/practitioner themselves expressing their own
>> "knowledge" and understanding through the medium.
>>
>> In other words, the moment we went from general, "The other ape may
>> steal my food.", to, "I would steal his food, so he is probably plotting
>> to steal mine.", we "invented" god to fill in the gaps where the world
>> acted against or for us, as an explanation for why things seemed to
>> either go right, or wrong, for us. Call it, another nail in the coffin
>> of the idea that design was involved from something else's side of the
>> equation. ;)
>>
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my, they've just scientifically proven  Hebrews 8:10!
> 
> 
> Intelligent Design **is** loopy.  The Old Earth Creationists I subscribe to,
> folks who look for religious inferences in the scientific observations around
> us,  say that ID is loopy.
> 
> Back to your proof above. Philosophy will always find a way around scientific
> data.  I once read about men's reactions to learning that men were
> psychologically wired to be filled with lust at most of the women that passed
> them by.
> Some men said, "Hey, I'm WIRED this way!  Party!!" and used it as justification
> to be promiscuous.
> Other men said, "Oh, that's just my hormones! Whew! So I'm really not *more* in
> love with that blond at that next table than I am with my own wife. I can
> relax."
> 
> If you're biased against finding a god, you'll be able to come up with
> philosophical ruses all day long.
> 

Snort.. No one is biased "towards" finding one, they have to be taught 
to believe in them. Mind, we invent them all the time as a child. The 
tree creature that scratches the window, the monster hiding under the 
bed, the strange shadow the follows you around, etc. We invent things 
that we "imagine" control some aspect of the world around us all the 
time. Then someone tells us to, "grow up, the only *real* one is this 
one that controls the universe and everything in it. Oh, and only *our* 
all powerful, all seeing, able to do anything, version is the *right* 
one." Truth is, everyone starts out an atheist. You only believe in god, 
instead of the "forest spirits", or some other entity(ies), because that 
is what people "told you" where the correct answer, and because, unlike 
some of us, you refuse to accept the logical, non-philosophical, 
conclusion that if the monster under the bed doesn't steal your socks, 
maybe some god doesn't spend time watching you pee either.

See, the sort of people that used the, "I am wired that way", argument 
fail on two counts - 1. They presume that what ever they read on the 
subject is the "final" answer, and its never the final answer. 2. That 
"wired" means you can't change the wiring, which is only "partly" true. 
You can make someone a sociopathic chauvinist, or someone so 
pro-feminist that they can't think for themselves, and everything 
between, with the same "basic" wiring. Anyone reading anything else from 
it is as big a fool as the people that insist that anyone alive has an 
internally consistent, rational, believable, and not-totally-pointless 
definition of what a god is, and which one is the right one. Its all 
philosophical fung shui, everyone arranging the funiture to match what 
they imagine is the best design for their own desires, insisting that, 
because they once read some place that wind chimes relax people, that 
they even know what that means, and that they are using "logic" (or 
worse, science) to reach their conclusions. In reality, what they are 
using has jack to do with science at all. Its an abuse of it.

Look, here is the thing. People constantly say they "know" god exists. 
Some of them point at old books, which more and more scholars admit 
constitute "no" evidence at all, and are wrong as often as they get 
anything right. Some people point at the number of people that "believe" 
in it, while failing to grasp that this is only proof that you can teach 
people to believe anything, if everyone else already believes it as 
well. If you where born in the time of Greece, no one would be babbling 
about the Christian god as the "right one", at all. They would either 
insist you where nuts, because there are many of them, or that you where 
totally insane, because the "real" god was one of a long list of them.

Many people point to personal experience and "knowledge" of god really 
existing. But, here is the problem: If people all *universally* think 
about god the same way they do Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, or their 
imaginary friend, is, "thought about", "experienced", and "see he/she/it 
to act in the world", then you just lost "personal experience" as any 
kind of valid measure for such a beings existence. Its basic logic. You 
can't claim that something is "real", because the experience of it is 
qualitatively different that "fake" experiences, if every single 
"non-personal" measurement of the experience says, "No, in point of 
fact, you are treating the experience exactly the same as if you where 
imagining some non-real person's actions, under circumstances such as 
someone asking you the question, 'What do you think someone else would 
do in this situation.', and even less so if the *response* you get in 
your head is also *indistinguishable* from asking, 'What would Zippy, 
your imaginary best bunny friend, do in this situation.'"

Point being, I would love to have you explain to me what "valid" 
criteria you imagine would "prove" that your experience of what ever god 
you believe in is "real". And how that experience isn't at all 
"questionable", should it turn out that the thought processes are 
identical to that of imagining "anyone" real or imaginary, solving a 
problem, or taking some action. And, more to the point, what such 
evidence would be, which isn't "precisely" what you accuse me of doing, 
"Philosophically reaching the conclusion I want to, based on a previous 
bias to look for it."

Oh, and claiming this is, quite frankly, insulting anyway. I spent 20 
years of my life "looking for" a reason to believe in god, with the 
presupposition that miracles do happen, some sort of "real" magic 
existed, and that spirits, souls, ghosts, etc., where possibly real. All 
I found was con artists, liars, made up stories, testimony from people 
who changed their stories over time, to make them more believable, and 
an endless list of fake miracles, alternative, and more rational 
explanations, etc. Not once did I *ever* find a *reason* to believe in 
any of it. If I have a bias today against finding such a thing, its due 
to 20 years of *failing* to find any in the first place. And, I know 
other people that have spent more than that **believing** whole 
heartedly in this stuff, who eventually found themselves confronted with 
the glaring realization that something about the real world didn't "fit" 
what they where biased to see, and suddenly found themselves reexamining 
"everything", only finding that nearly everything they believed in had 
holes, gaps, errors, factual omissions, out right lies, etc.

In truth, atheist that "convert" to faith never got to their "starting 
point" by thinking about anything. Its like having money. Some people 
are privileged to be bored into it, and become Paris Hilton. Such an 
"atheist" would join up with the first cult, that made them feel more 
"wanted" than they already are, at the drop of a hat, because they 
"never" once thought about why they reached their conclusion, or so much 
as saw anything about religion more complicated than old movies and the 
occasional lame cartoon. Some are actually the supposed "angry" people, 
who unable, or unwilling, to be angry at the idiots making their life 
miserable, opt to be angry at what they can rant and whine at, and 
pretend to attack, without being arrested for it, they way they would be 
if they beat the heck out of their neighbor. You can think of this sort 
as the same type of moron that takes out 12 credit cards, then uses them 
to pay off each other. They don't know what they believe, they don't 
know what they are doing, and they don't have a clue what the 
consequence of their dumb behavior is going to do to them, not the least 
being that they will probably join up with the first group of people 
willing to help them "fix" their problem. Some however end up with 
money, either inheriting it, or winning the lotto, or the like, and they 
*actually* spend the time trying to figure out what to do with it. Still 
others spend a **lot** of time working *really* hard at it, and get 
people telling them, "Man, why are you buying that atheist salad! 
Everyone knows you should buying a McChurch!", because, you know, 
spending a few hours each week listening to someone else "tell you" what 
something says, and occasionally reading the "nice" parts, is the same 
as spending 30+ years (in some cases) reading "every page" without bias, 
reading dozens of other religious texts, reading humanist documents, 
reading science, and coming to the conclusion that McChurch is roughly 
the same thing as McDonald's. A cheap, poor, and low quality, imitation 
of the real world.

But, yeah.. I am sure even the ones that "used to be" priests where all 
"biased" against finding a god any place, and suggesting so isn't 
insulting at all.

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:

>> McChurch is roughly the same thing as McDonald's.

That's cool.

>> All I found was con artists, liars, made up stories,
>> testimony from people who changed their stories over time,
>> to make them more believable, and an endless list of fake
>> miracles, alternative, and more rational explanations, etc.
>> Not once did I *ever* find a *reason* to believe in
>> any of it.


I don't doubt this for a second. I'm guessing this is the majority of the
religion that has enough cash to buy TV programs or networks.

But back then were you really the type who was looking for TV-style miracles?
I'd bet I would have disagreed with you more back then when you were carrying
your bible on Sundays.



>>  Truth is, everyone starts out an atheist.

I heard there's some article out this year "proving" that everyone starts out as
a theist, that you're wired to be one of some sort. (Of course, some make a
pro-religious philosophical spin and say God of Bible literally wrote on our
hearts; others make an anti-religious philosophical spin and say religious
thoughts are exclusively genetic tendencies in our brain chemistry.)  It seems
that you posited a philosophical spin as scientific fact-- "everyone starts out
as an atheist."  Of course this one article in the science journals isn't the
final answer, but it shows your position is weak.


>> old books, which more and more scholars admit
>> constitute "no" evidence at all,

Those are the most loopy ones of all.  I saw the PBS show "Christianity before
Paul," where they interviewed the Jesus Seminar.  They said something like, the
bible said Jesus' family was poor, but we've found archaeological evidence that
Bethlehem was a rich thriving town, and it wasn't even in Bethlehem!  I say on
the contrary, the bible also says that Jesus' family gives the offering allowed
for a poor family-- but you'd have to know about the OT laws to catch that fact
when you read it today. And the ruins of a great trading center doesn't make
for Jesus not being poor.  Now God could have sent a Messiah from the richest
family on earth-- that's not the point.  It just shows that you can spin the
stones any way you want.  There's scholarship on both sides.

Post a reply to this message

gregjohn wrote:
> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> 
>>> McChurch is roughly the same thing as McDonald's.
> 
> That's cool.
> 
>>> All I found was con artists, liars, made up stories,
>>> testimony from people who changed their stories over time,
>>> to make them more believable, and an endless list of fake
>>> miracles, alternative, and more rational explanations, etc.
>>> Not once did I *ever* find a *reason* to believe in
>>> any of it.
> 
> 
> I don't doubt this for a second. I'm guessing this is the majority of the
> religion that has enough cash to buy TV programs or networks.
> 
> But back then were you really the type who was looking for TV-style miracles?
> I'd bet I would have disagreed with you more back then when you were carrying
> your bible on Sundays.
> 
TV style miracles? What does that even mean? The Biblical miracles are 
ridiculous enough without TV style ones. In fact, most of the TV style 
miracles always have been the sort of BS, "Oh, 5,000 people spent years 
perfecting the hospital bed, IV drips, medications and surgeries used to 
save you, isn't it just a *miracle* that god kept you alive, while so 
many other people died before!" Uh, no, not 20 years ago when this was 
the common response when you asked most people what "miracles" where, 
and even less so today. It cheapens a word that was already cheapened by 
the fact that its original meaning was indistinguishable from "And Zues 
came down in the form of a swan to seduce the maiden." Its like everyone 
decided that clown shoes where really silly, but not because they are 
over sized and hard to walk in, but rather because they where the wrong 
color. Point out that they are just as silly if they are not fire engine 
orange with purple polka dots and watch out, all the "clown shoeist" 
will cry about how unfair you are about their choice in shoes.

>>>  Truth is, everyone starts out an atheist.
> 
> I heard there's some article out this year "proving" that everyone starts out as
> a theist, that you're wired to be one of some sort. (Of course, some make a
> pro-religious philosophical spin and say God of Bible literally wrote on our
> hearts; others make an anti-religious philosophical spin and say religious
> thoughts are exclusively genetic tendencies in our brain chemistry.)  It seems
> that you posited a philosophical spin as scientific fact-- "everyone starts out
> as an atheist."  Of course this one article in the science journals isn't the
> final answer, but it shows your position is weak.
> 
No it doesn't. Belief in "god" isn't the same as believing that there 
might be a scary monster hiding the in the bushes, instead of just the 
wind blowing them. The whole point of being able to "make up" stories 
about what is "making" things happen around you is that, early on, a 
primitive form of this would keep you from getting eaten by something 
that "was" hiding in the bush. The problem is, we now make up stuff that 
thinks, acts, has the power to make things happen, and all the other 
attributes "we have", and imagine that hiding in the bushes instead. You 
need the former, the later is just pointless and misleading. Show me 
someone "born" with a belief in your or any other "specific" god, who 
wouldn't be just as happy believing in multiple gods, or tree spirits, 
or elves, or fairies in the garden, or just growing up and realizing 
that none of them are any more reasonable than imagining that the 
presents show up under the tree due to a jolly fat man in a red suit, 
and we will talk. Otherwise, all this proves is that people make stuff 
up, based on their **own** abilities, which they imagine think like, act 
like, react like, and possibly even "look like" themselves, most of the 
time. It still, even if you wanted to imply that it suggested god, 
requires that you explain "which one", and "how do you know, given that 
any god you can imagine is ***just like you***, only able to leap tall 
buildings in a single bound (oh, sorry, wrong fictional character...)."

>>> old books, which more and more scholars admit
>>> constitute "no" evidence at all,
> 
> Those are the most loopy ones of all.  I saw the PBS show "Christianity before
> Paul," where they interviewed the Jesus Seminar.  They said something like, the
> bible said Jesus' family was poor, but we've found archaeological evidence that
> Bethlehem was a rich thriving town, and it wasn't even in Bethlehem!  I say on
> the contrary, the bible also says that Jesus' family gives the offering allowed
> for a poor family-- but you'd have to know about the OT laws to catch that fact
> when you read it today. And the ruins of a great trading center doesn't make
> for Jesus not being poor.  Now God could have sent a Messiah from the richest
> family on earth-- that's not the point.  It just shows that you can spin the
> stones any way you want.  There's scholarship on both sides.
> 
There is no contemporary evidence, ***from his own time***, that he even 
existed at all. Everything, and I mean everything, about him shows up 
50-100 years later, and all of it either suspiciously matches times, 
places and events also attributed to Titus Flavius' campaigns against 
Jewish people, roughly 50 years or so "after" Jesus was supposed to be 
around, or looks a awful lot like prior mythologies. Mind, so does the 
OT, if you study older religions that it, most of them contradictory not 
in "details", but in which, and how many, gods where involved (instead 
of just assuming it is the oldest). Do you know, for example, that while 
El is used in later cultures to refer to merely "godlike things", the 
word is "originally" more like Zues, and that El had three sons, one of 
them known as Yahweh. I.e., they are not even the "same" gods? Seems 
like a pretty big thing to mess up... And, this is from here:

http://www.biblicalheritage.org/God/el-goi.htm

Its not surprising that there are massive discrepancies in the NT, which 
was pieced together by comity years after the supposed events, using 
source documents that all, so far, can't be traced back farther than 50 
years "after" the events, when even the OT isn't consistent in any way 
either. It smacks of "invented" religion, and its hardly helped by the 
fact that the Flavians where the "first" converts to Christianity, and 
one of their own claimed to be "appointed" as the second ever "Pope" by 
one of the supposed disciples, while the same persons brother had his 
Jewish history chronicler busy trying to make him look like the second 
coming of the same mythical figure. You would think, if the "Pope" at 
all objected to this, you might have found "something" denouncing the 
comparison, denying Titus' divinity, or accusations against Titus' 
father, who was among the first of the Roman emperors to start calling 
themselves "living gods". Seems to be a bit of Egyptian conceit in their 
some place, but it did make Titus the "son of god", which again, if the 
first/second (depend if you believe some disciple did make him one) 
official "Pope" had any objection to... there doesn't seem to be a lot 
of evidence of it.

Until someone finds something, **anything** suggesting that more than a 
fairly common names shows up on Jesus from his own supposed time, you 
might as well be arguing that Freddy Kruger couldn't possibly have been 
able to make the knife claws he uses to kill people in the movies, for 
all it makes any sense to ask about, "Was Jesus really poor?" We know 
more about "other" carpenters from the time period, including where they 
lived, from documents, tools, official records, etc., in the same area, 
than we have for the supposedly most famous carpenter in history. In 
fact, we know as much, of more about virtually every other god, or 
son/daughter of one, from virtually every other religion in the world 
than we do the one you think is the only "real" one.

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> There is no contemporary evidence, ***from his own time***, that he even 
> existed at all.

I was watching a documentary a couple months ago where they were talking 
about Flavius and all that, and why Flavius was trying Jesus, and pointing 
to the head priest (or whatever) of the time, talking about how the head 
priest wouldn't have like Jesus, yadda yadda, how he probably knew about 
Jesus and accused him of ... wait a minute, "probably"? Meaning there's no 
actual documentation that the priests of the city where Jesus was crucified 
ever mentioned Jesus' name?  Amazing what people will paper over in support 
of a point.

Me, I just don't understand the point of looking for historical or 
scientific evidence of that in which you're supposed to have faith. I didn't 
think that's how it was supposed to work.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
   unable to read this, even at arm's length."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> There is no contemporary evidence, ***from his own time***, that he 
>> even existed at all.
> 
> I was watching a documentary a couple months ago where they were talking 
> about Flavius and all that, and why Flavius was trying Jesus, and 
> pointing to the head priest (or whatever) of the time, talking about how 
> the head priest wouldn't have like Jesus, yadda yadda, how he probably 
> knew about Jesus and accused him of ... wait a minute, "probably"? 
> Meaning there's no actual documentation that the priests of the city 
> where Jesus was crucified ever mentioned Jesus' name?  Amazing what 
> people will paper over in support of a point.
> 
> Me, I just don't understand the point of looking for historical or 
> scientific evidence of that in which you're supposed to have faith. I 
> didn't think that's how it was supposed to work.
> 
Ah, but its fairly close to impossible to remain "sane" and not attempt 
to provide justification for why something you believe is true. All of 
them do it, from the ID movement, who try, while ignoring vast swaths of 
evidence to the contrary, to attribute every hang nail an animal gets to 
"divine guidance", to those trying to explain belief in god in general, 
while ignoring the vast chasm between what is "known", and what isn't, 
in an attempt to make it seem like they have all sorts of "evidence" for 
it, when in fact its... kind of like the list of "cures" one group of 
them came up with in their anti-ES stem cell gibberish. They definitely 
list 78 cases. The problem is that a small handful are "experimental", 
and are not used to cure "jack" in the real world, and the rest are like 
70+ of this:

1. Patient A had H cancer, which required radiation treatment S, after 
which their own adult "bone marrow" stem cells where used to rebuild 
their immune system.

2. Patient B had I cancer, which required radiation treatment T, after 
which their own adult "bone marrow" stem cells where used to rebuild 
their immune system.

3. Patient C had J cancer, which required radiation treatment U, after 
which their own adult "bone marrow" stem cells where used to rebuild 
their immune system.

4-70+ (same thing)

In not one of the non-experimental examples given was the stem cells 
used to "cure" the disease they started with. They where used to cure 
the disease "caused by curing the original disease". But, you have to 
hand it to them, they did find ***one*** disease that adult stem cells 
*can* cure. Too bad its one created by curing 70+ other, unrelated, 
conditions. lol

Its this sort of thing they do all the time. That and "circular" 
referencing. There is nothing like reading some comment about how person 
A said something profound about god, which thus proves the Bible, only 
to find that they where quoting person B, who quoted person C, who in 
turn quotes a Biblical passage...

The only people I know of that have "faith" without "evidence" in any of 
it, are the sort that even most Christians don't want to deal with, 
unless its from the other side of thick glass, with the padded walls on 
the side where the "faithful" are. None of them value "blind faith" in 
anything, other than religion, and most of them spend almost all their 
time then complaining that they can't tell the difference, when 
confronted with someone that says, "Yeah, but my faith that I will wake 
up tomorrow is based on, you know.. the fact that I 'have' all the prior 
times, which is *not* the same as what you people keep babbling about, 
and even you admit that you don't use the kind of faith you talk about 
for *anything*, including, based on your actions, what you claim *is* 
that kind of faith."

Its, like someone that persistently tells you that everything blue in 
the entire universe is "blue", until confronted with a pair of blue 
genes, at which point they "insist" that in that case they are in fact 
"orange". Huh?!?

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message