captain_stan 0 #1 October 26, 2011 It's time somebody spoke up for the agnostics. I'm not convinced that a rational mind can choose to believe or not when it cannot be proved or disproved. Yeah, I know the argument about the tooth fairy or Santa Clause--they can't be fully disproved yet rational adults still don't believe in them. OK, but organized religion has created gods and presented them to us in a very specific, usually human-image, omnipotent form. It's rational enough to discount such fantastic images and argue that they don't exist. Indeed, most atheism as I know it is a backlash against these established religions--OK, a worthy enough cause, but one with a bias. OTOH, an agnostic might allow for the possibility that god(s) could still exist that are not even close to any description that any religion has ever provided. Albert Einstein allowed that god could be the universe itself and Ben Franklin believed that god was an element of nature. A rational mind might indeed admit that these are at least possibilities. Fellow agnostics, please weigh-in! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites winsor 236 #2 October 26, 2011 Quote It's time somebody spoke up for the agnostics. I'm not convinced that a rational mind can choose to believe or not when it cannot be proved or disproved. Yeah, I know the argument about the tooth fairy or Santa Clause--they can't be fully disproved yet rational adults still don't believe in them. OK, but organized religion has created gods and presented them to us in a very specific, usually human-image, omnipotent form. It's rational enough to discount such fantastic images and argue that they don't exist. Indeed, most atheism as I know it is a backlash against these established religions--OK, a worthy enough cause, but one with a bias. OTOH, an agnostic might allow for the possibility that god(s) could still exist that are not even close to any description that any religion has ever provided. Albert Einstein allowed that god could be the universe itself and Ben Franklin believed that god was an element of nature. A rational mind might indeed admit that these are at least possibilities. Fellow agnostics, please weigh-in! Agnostics are those who can't quite put it together. Atheists are those who, upon consideration of one fairy tale or another, call bullshit. As far as counterpoints to organized religion go, many exist. For starts you have the Church of the Subgenius, the Invisible Pink Unicorn and the Flying Spaghetti Monster - all of which are amusing (as opposed to organized religion, which is uniformly humorless). BSBD, Winsor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites captain_stan 0 #3 October 26, 2011 QuoteAgnostics are those who can't quite put it together. Or maybe we just don't have enought blind passion to be an atheist or evangelist. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 4 #4 October 26, 2011 QuoteAlbert Einstein allowed that god could be the universe itself . . . No. This is wrong. http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_einstein.htmlquade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites CanuckInUSA 0 #5 October 26, 2011 I definitely do NOT believe in any man made religions, but I can NOT say that the Universe has no creator. The Universe and it's origins are beyond my comprehension. Therefore I continue to be a confused agnostic who will not commit to either side. However I will say, if we are alone in the Universe (as some worshipers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster says that we are), it is an awful waste of Space. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 4 #6 October 26, 2011 QuoteHowever I will say, if we are alone in the Universe (as some worshipers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster says that we are), it is an awful waste of Space. You are confusing thoughts about the Flying Spaghetti Monster with a line said by Jodie Foster in the movie Contact.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #7 October 26, 2011 QuoteQuoteAlbert Einstein allowed that god could be the universe itself . . . No. This is wrong. http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_einstein.html From your link: “I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.” That seems to fit the premise of stan's post.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 4 #8 October 26, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteAlbert Einstein allowed that god could be the universe itself . . . No. This is wrong. http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_einstein.html From your link: “I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.” That seems to fit the premise of stan's post. Einstein, like Spinoza, is clearly talking about a metaphorical god, not an actual one. A poetic notion of god found in the beauty of nature.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #9 October 26, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAlbert Einstein allowed that god could be the universe itself . . . No. This is wrong. http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_einstein.html From your link: “I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.” That seems to fit the premise of stan's post. Einstein is clearly talking about a metaphorical god, not an actual one. A poetic notion of god. Which is more or less what stan said, as well.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 4 #10 October 26, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAlbert Einstein allowed that god could be the universe itself . . . No. This is wrong. http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_einstein.html From your link: “I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.” That seems to fit the premise of stan's post. Einstein is clearly talking about a metaphorical god, not an actual one. A poetic notion of god. Which is more or less what stan said, as well. Nawww . . . Stan, by being agnostic, is clearly holding out hope for an actual being. That god "may be real." That there may be some intelligence behind the design.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #11 October 26, 2011 QuoteEinstein is clearly talking about a metaphorical god, not an actual one. A poetic notion of god. so what? how an individual chooses to view or personify the metaphor is silly since it's up to the individual My agnosticism is pretty much based on not really caring enough to enter the realm of idiocy involved when atheists and religious types debate such an empty issue. Except for personal entertainment, anyway. I don't want anyone to think I'm an 'atheist' any more than I'd want anyone to think I'm a fundamentalist. You get the exact same look - "oh crap, will I have to listen to their little speech then?" ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Marinus 0 #12 October 26, 2011 Quote Agnostics are those who can't quite put it together. Atheists are those who, upon consideration of one fairy tale or another, call bullshit. You might want to read a bit about agnosticism, I suggest the wikipedia page on it for starters. Most agnostics I know have no problem calling religion BS, they just don't reject the possibility (however small that possibility might be) of a god/creator/whatever. US atheists should really learn to be more laid back about their "brothers and sisters" in disbelief, because agnosticism is usually practically the same as atheism. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Coreece 190 #13 October 26, 2011 QuoteAlbert Einstein allowed that god could be the universe itself and Ben Franklin believed that god was an element of nature. A rational mind might indeed admit that these are at least possibilities. Sometimes I wonder if dark matter is some type of small physical aspect of the Spirit of God...It's invisible, omnipresent...maybe even omnipotent? Omniscient? I suppose if it was, science would never be able to know it as God, that is unless the dark matter started speaking to the scientists...even then, most people would probably just consider them a bunch of desperate scientist that spent too much time down that rabbit hole in Minnesota and have simply gone mad... “If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.” -C.S. Lewis, Mere ChristianityYour secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites CanuckInUSA 0 #14 October 26, 2011 Quote by being agnostic, is clearly holding out hope for an actual being. As an agnostic I don't view it as "holding out hope". If I was holding out hope, I would be religious. As an agnostic in it's simplest term, "I just don't know". There are some religious people who come off as arrogant, but most of them are just operating under blind faith. However, atheists do come off as arrogant. Simply amazing how atheists know that there is no creator(s) of the Universe. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 4 #15 October 26, 2011 Quoteso what? how an individual chooses to view or personify the metaphor is silly since it's up to the individual My agnosticism is pretty much based on not really caring enough to enter the realm of idiocy involved when atheists and religious types debate such an empty issue. Except for personal entertainment, anyway. I don't think so. Especially in the case of Einstein. Read his words and you should see he clearly didn't believe in any god creating the universe, but by calling himself "agnostic" it allowed him to continue the conversation with the overwhelming number of people that, at the time, continued to believe. To me, one of the more brave things I've seen in recent time was Stephan Hawking coming right out and saying there's no place in the universe for god to exist.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andrewwhyte 1 #16 October 26, 2011 Agnostics are to Atheists what Unitarians are to the rest of the theists; they (dis)believe, but they don't (dis)believe in much. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 4 #17 October 26, 2011 Quote“If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.” -C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity Quoting C.S. Lewis isn't going to get you very far in the conversation. It's about as effective as quoting J.K. Rowling or L. Ron Hubbard.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #18 October 26, 2011 Sure, he's just acknowledging the balance of nature as something special. again, so what - you also have people that 'worship' nature, etc - you still have people that believe in a spiritual aspect of "karma" it's still a faith, it's still just as silly, and it's still just as harmless and doesn't matter once you get past the goofy belief bit - some people are better people because of it, some aren't. So it's a non-starter Take "karma" - atheists throw that term out a lot. It's just as silly. The idea that actions have effect is just fine, to apply some silly spiritual term to it is a form deification - even as dilute as that is. And I say - so what? just be consistent. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites captain_stan 0 #19 October 26, 2011 Quote because agnosticism is usually practically the same as atheism. Think of us as slackers who are almost, but not quite, up to your level of disbelief. I'd be comfortable enough being labeled a "backsliding atheist" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Marinus 0 #20 October 26, 2011 Quote Nawww . . . Stan, by being agnostic, is clearly holding out hope for an actual being. That god "may be real." That there may be some intelligence behind the design. I think many agnostics just don't care. Also, if you think the existence of a god should automatically give bald monkeys on a rock that circles a run of the mill star hope, you just lack fantasy. But then again atheists of your specific subtype usually lack fantasy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 4 #21 October 26, 2011 QuoteTake "karma" - atheists throw that term out a lot. I think you're thinking of Hindus.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Marinus 0 #22 October 26, 2011 Atheism is agnosticism with an exclamation mark. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites captain_stan 0 #23 October 26, 2011 QuoteStan, by being agnostic, is clearly holding out hope for an actual being. That god "may be real." WTF do you know about what I hope? You're nothing more than a weak attempt to redefine what I have said to make it fit your agenda. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Coreece 190 #24 October 26, 2011 QuoteQuote“If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.” -C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity Quoting C.S. Lewis isn't going to get you very far in the conversation. It's about as effective as quoting J.K. Rowling or L. Ron Hubbard. Or quoting the Bible for that matter? These are just things that I've been thinking and reading lately...I find them interesting and relevant. I suppose others will to... Have a nice day...Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #25 October 26, 2011 QuoteQuoteTake "karma" - atheists throw that term out a lot. I think you're thinking of Hindus. 350 mentions in SC...who knew we had so many Hindus in the ranks?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 1 of 5 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
winsor 236 #2 October 26, 2011 Quote It's time somebody spoke up for the agnostics. I'm not convinced that a rational mind can choose to believe or not when it cannot be proved or disproved. Yeah, I know the argument about the tooth fairy or Santa Clause--they can't be fully disproved yet rational adults still don't believe in them. OK, but organized religion has created gods and presented them to us in a very specific, usually human-image, omnipotent form. It's rational enough to discount such fantastic images and argue that they don't exist. Indeed, most atheism as I know it is a backlash against these established religions--OK, a worthy enough cause, but one with a bias. OTOH, an agnostic might allow for the possibility that god(s) could still exist that are not even close to any description that any religion has ever provided. Albert Einstein allowed that god could be the universe itself and Ben Franklin believed that god was an element of nature. A rational mind might indeed admit that these are at least possibilities. Fellow agnostics, please weigh-in! Agnostics are those who can't quite put it together. Atheists are those who, upon consideration of one fairy tale or another, call bullshit. As far as counterpoints to organized religion go, many exist. For starts you have the Church of the Subgenius, the Invisible Pink Unicorn and the Flying Spaghetti Monster - all of which are amusing (as opposed to organized religion, which is uniformly humorless). BSBD, Winsor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
captain_stan 0 #3 October 26, 2011 QuoteAgnostics are those who can't quite put it together. Or maybe we just don't have enought blind passion to be an atheist or evangelist. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #4 October 26, 2011 QuoteAlbert Einstein allowed that god could be the universe itself . . . No. This is wrong. http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_einstein.htmlquade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #5 October 26, 2011 I definitely do NOT believe in any man made religions, but I can NOT say that the Universe has no creator. The Universe and it's origins are beyond my comprehension. Therefore I continue to be a confused agnostic who will not commit to either side. However I will say, if we are alone in the Universe (as some worshipers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster says that we are), it is an awful waste of Space. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #6 October 26, 2011 QuoteHowever I will say, if we are alone in the Universe (as some worshipers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster says that we are), it is an awful waste of Space. You are confusing thoughts about the Flying Spaghetti Monster with a line said by Jodie Foster in the movie Contact.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #7 October 26, 2011 QuoteQuoteAlbert Einstein allowed that god could be the universe itself . . . No. This is wrong. http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_einstein.html From your link: “I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.” That seems to fit the premise of stan's post.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #8 October 26, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteAlbert Einstein allowed that god could be the universe itself . . . No. This is wrong. http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_einstein.html From your link: “I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.” That seems to fit the premise of stan's post. Einstein, like Spinoza, is clearly talking about a metaphorical god, not an actual one. A poetic notion of god found in the beauty of nature.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #9 October 26, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAlbert Einstein allowed that god could be the universe itself . . . No. This is wrong. http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_einstein.html From your link: “I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.” That seems to fit the premise of stan's post. Einstein is clearly talking about a metaphorical god, not an actual one. A poetic notion of god. Which is more or less what stan said, as well.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #10 October 26, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAlbert Einstein allowed that god could be the universe itself . . . No. This is wrong. http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_einstein.html From your link: “I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.” That seems to fit the premise of stan's post. Einstein is clearly talking about a metaphorical god, not an actual one. A poetic notion of god. Which is more or less what stan said, as well. Nawww . . . Stan, by being agnostic, is clearly holding out hope for an actual being. That god "may be real." That there may be some intelligence behind the design.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #11 October 26, 2011 QuoteEinstein is clearly talking about a metaphorical god, not an actual one. A poetic notion of god. so what? how an individual chooses to view or personify the metaphor is silly since it's up to the individual My agnosticism is pretty much based on not really caring enough to enter the realm of idiocy involved when atheists and religious types debate such an empty issue. Except for personal entertainment, anyway. I don't want anyone to think I'm an 'atheist' any more than I'd want anyone to think I'm a fundamentalist. You get the exact same look - "oh crap, will I have to listen to their little speech then?" ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marinus 0 #12 October 26, 2011 Quote Agnostics are those who can't quite put it together. Atheists are those who, upon consideration of one fairy tale or another, call bullshit. You might want to read a bit about agnosticism, I suggest the wikipedia page on it for starters. Most agnostics I know have no problem calling religion BS, they just don't reject the possibility (however small that possibility might be) of a god/creator/whatever. US atheists should really learn to be more laid back about their "brothers and sisters" in disbelief, because agnosticism is usually practically the same as atheism. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #13 October 26, 2011 QuoteAlbert Einstein allowed that god could be the universe itself and Ben Franklin believed that god was an element of nature. A rational mind might indeed admit that these are at least possibilities. Sometimes I wonder if dark matter is some type of small physical aspect of the Spirit of God...It's invisible, omnipresent...maybe even omnipotent? Omniscient? I suppose if it was, science would never be able to know it as God, that is unless the dark matter started speaking to the scientists...even then, most people would probably just consider them a bunch of desperate scientist that spent too much time down that rabbit hole in Minnesota and have simply gone mad... “If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.” -C.S. Lewis, Mere ChristianityYour secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #14 October 26, 2011 Quote by being agnostic, is clearly holding out hope for an actual being. As an agnostic I don't view it as "holding out hope". If I was holding out hope, I would be religious. As an agnostic in it's simplest term, "I just don't know". There are some religious people who come off as arrogant, but most of them are just operating under blind faith. However, atheists do come off as arrogant. Simply amazing how atheists know that there is no creator(s) of the Universe. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #15 October 26, 2011 Quoteso what? how an individual chooses to view or personify the metaphor is silly since it's up to the individual My agnosticism is pretty much based on not really caring enough to enter the realm of idiocy involved when atheists and religious types debate such an empty issue. Except for personal entertainment, anyway. I don't think so. Especially in the case of Einstein. Read his words and you should see he clearly didn't believe in any god creating the universe, but by calling himself "agnostic" it allowed him to continue the conversation with the overwhelming number of people that, at the time, continued to believe. To me, one of the more brave things I've seen in recent time was Stephan Hawking coming right out and saying there's no place in the universe for god to exist.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #16 October 26, 2011 Agnostics are to Atheists what Unitarians are to the rest of the theists; they (dis)believe, but they don't (dis)believe in much. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #17 October 26, 2011 Quote“If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.” -C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity Quoting C.S. Lewis isn't going to get you very far in the conversation. It's about as effective as quoting J.K. Rowling or L. Ron Hubbard.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #18 October 26, 2011 Sure, he's just acknowledging the balance of nature as something special. again, so what - you also have people that 'worship' nature, etc - you still have people that believe in a spiritual aspect of "karma" it's still a faith, it's still just as silly, and it's still just as harmless and doesn't matter once you get past the goofy belief bit - some people are better people because of it, some aren't. So it's a non-starter Take "karma" - atheists throw that term out a lot. It's just as silly. The idea that actions have effect is just fine, to apply some silly spiritual term to it is a form deification - even as dilute as that is. And I say - so what? just be consistent. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
captain_stan 0 #19 October 26, 2011 Quote because agnosticism is usually practically the same as atheism. Think of us as slackers who are almost, but not quite, up to your level of disbelief. I'd be comfortable enough being labeled a "backsliding atheist" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marinus 0 #20 October 26, 2011 Quote Nawww . . . Stan, by being agnostic, is clearly holding out hope for an actual being. That god "may be real." That there may be some intelligence behind the design. I think many agnostics just don't care. Also, if you think the existence of a god should automatically give bald monkeys on a rock that circles a run of the mill star hope, you just lack fantasy. But then again atheists of your specific subtype usually lack fantasy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #21 October 26, 2011 QuoteTake "karma" - atheists throw that term out a lot. I think you're thinking of Hindus.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marinus 0 #22 October 26, 2011 Atheism is agnosticism with an exclamation mark. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
captain_stan 0 #23 October 26, 2011 QuoteStan, by being agnostic, is clearly holding out hope for an actual being. That god "may be real." WTF do you know about what I hope? You're nothing more than a weak attempt to redefine what I have said to make it fit your agenda. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #24 October 26, 2011 QuoteQuote“If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.” -C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity Quoting C.S. Lewis isn't going to get you very far in the conversation. It's about as effective as quoting J.K. Rowling or L. Ron Hubbard. Or quoting the Bible for that matter? These are just things that I've been thinking and reading lately...I find them interesting and relevant. I suppose others will to... Have a nice day...Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #25 October 26, 2011 QuoteQuoteTake "karma" - atheists throw that term out a lot. I think you're thinking of Hindus. 350 mentions in SC...who knew we had so many Hindus in the ranks?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
