This is not an attack, but it is pointless to argue/discuss with religious believers.

Remove all ads!

I'm sure you have heard of the expression "Garbage in, Garbage out". The studies you are fond of posting are relying on incredibly complex models that the slightest change could change the conclusions dramatically. While science can't predict the weather 48 hours in advance, or where a hurricane will hit, many people are more than comfortable in accepting as truth a far more complex model as gospel.

Answer me this "For how many centuries were there scientific studies published that showed the Earth was the center of the universe or that the Earth was flat?"

You will have to excuse my leap of faith that these studies are probably made up more of garbage and politics then actual scientific fact. Just a reminder I'm not discrediting that the Earth is getting warmer. I trust that scientists can read a thermometer. I just strongly doubt that we can pin the cause on anything. It was NOG who posted about Occam's Razor. Once again this is a leap of faith, but I am more willing to believe the Razor, that the simplist answer is probably the correct answer, then the more complex one that has a million variables. Once again, I blame the big ball of fire in the sky we call the sun as the primary reason for global warming. Mankind is probably a very distant second.

 

I just realized something which is why I like discussions of this kind.

kin hell, you actually have more respect for and a higher opinion of human beings than I do.

Again I have to make a disclaimer and admit that the following are general statements.

My personal feelings/thoughts/beliefs are that in general human beings need religion. They need to be directed, to be inspired to be better, coerced even. Carrot and stick treatment. Of course there are those who think beyond this and they end up the leaders.

Humanitarians I see as those who do think beyond this, who do recognize that we do need to have ethics and moral responsibility.

Now I realize the above is rather simplistic and I must admit rather hazy in my mind but I'm sure someone will arrive to correct and amplify.

All I ask is be gentle I'm still working it out in my mind and this is a great way to do it.

 

There actually is no proof that global warming is caused by humans, there is only proof that it is happening.

Take what you just cited. Lets examine the logic:

Premises:
1. Our computer model predicts that the Earth will get warmer.
2 the Earth has gotten warmer than our model predicted (is that a failed prediction then?)

Therefore
Humans directly contribute to global warming.

Notice that the conclusion only partly depends on the premises - ie the human part hasnt been proved. To prove that, you would need to prove that without humans, global warming would be much slower.

Which is difficult, seeing as the biggest producers of harmful greenhouse gases (excluding CFCs of course) are generally volcanos and other natural phenomena. And trees in the extreme latitudes have been shown to contribute to global warming by absorbing rather than reflecting sunlight.

Also, the Earth has been getting warmer for thousands of years. The Thames used to freeze over every winter, it hasnt done that for more than 200 years - well before the first major factory. Could humans have done that, even when our population was still (comparatively) small?

What about the fact that we once were in the grip of an ice age, and now we arent. is that proof of human intervention? or does it simply prove that the average temperatures of the earth fluctuate from time to time.

Its dangerous to look for evidence to support your conclusions. Rather look for conclusions from your evidence, you might see the truth.

 

@Drew: On Global Warming:
Nothing I have seen or heard so far really points me to believing humanity is to blame for global warming, or even that it is significanlty accelerated now from what it was 75 years ago. If this acceleration has only happened in the past 50 years, that only leads to more scepticism, as humanity has been putting out large quantities of greenhouse gasses for more than 50 years. On top of that, I'm still waiting for climatologists to tell us why the biggest 'hole' in the o-zone layer is over ANTARCTICA, where there have never been any CFC emissions (I'm pretty sure on that one).

Anyway, the last graphs I saw for global and local temperature changes over the past 50, 100, and 500 years did not show any noticable increase in the past 50 years from previous.

@Kin:

Actually, I was simply trying to point out that science can only prove a negative. Science can only ever prove that X ISN'T true, not that it is. That is why the standard for a scientific law is not that it has been proven true, but rather that it is generally accepted by the scientific community.

Ah, but do you discount the possibility that it has come from God (or a god or whatever)? IFF there is an absolute true universe, and any claims that are in opposition to this universe are simply wrong, regardless of what people believe or what evidence is presented, and iff there is some kind of supreme being that knows this absolute universe, and it divulges some of that knowledge to men, are you going to discount that knowledge entirely simply because it can't be scientifically proven? Now I'm not saying that you accept everything every nutjob tells you as the Word of God, but I am saying that you shouldn't silence their voices, either.

If you believe this, then I think you need to review your renesance sciences a little more. Gallileo was a devout christian and only opposed the Catholic Church because he saw that, in their near infinite deviations from the word of God, they had made a mistake. Michael Faraday, the one who discovered the connection between electricity and magnetism, was a christian. Throughout history, science, philosophy, logic, and technology have been advanced by people of faith, not in spite of their faith, and often because of it (also often without any connection to it). My faith in God has led me to question many facets of the universe, both physical and metaphysical, and apply logic to attempt an understanding. I will agree that those that claim absolute knowledge of a physical reality (the Earth is the center of the universe) need to have their claims carefully studied before their arguement is even heard, but that does not mean religion opposes logic or reason.

Oh how wrong you are! It seems you may need a little more study of these religions yourself. Many of them, especially the Bible, ENCOURAGE a logical examination and questioning of the tennets.

And here is the evidence of your own blind assumptions. You find these things to be obvious because you assume certain things to be true. Many of them aren't, and many others can't be proven one way or the other. When you present your arguements to those who are using other assumptions, they see your logic as faulty and your conclusions as wrong.

@Nakia:

Well, the first part I can understand easily. I love a good arguement, so long as harsh emotions are kept out of it. The second part, why they then get mad, I don't know. I've noticed many of these are started by people that seem new to AoDA, so I can only guess that they don't really know how big of a reaction they're going to get.

Proteus:
Some of your facts are a bit off, but you've summed up the gist of the argument very well. Honestly, scientists don't have a very good understanding of how the earth's temperature changes naturally, we know of litterally thousands of variables, and we have guessed at thousands more. To then predict changes and blame them on humanity is not only undependable, it is vain.

@Kin:Summation:
Over the past several posts, you seem to have developed a much calmer attitude. This helps considerably. I think the biggest problem is that you have generalized your complaints to, first, all religious people, and second, to religion in general. I think the people you actually have a problem with are those that take the word of their preacher (or priest or rabbi ro whatever) as absolute fact, and not as faith. Those that confuse the two are then confused when anyone else could not agree with them. I readily admit that, while I KNOW what I know, you all don't, and don't have any reason other than my word to believe me. I like to think my word is rather dependable, but I generally believe it is far, FAR too little to take such sweeping statements of absolute fact as I believe. The kind of people that put Galilleo in jail for presenting the heliocentric model do not represent religion, they represent fanaticism, something you can find in any and every group of humanity. There are fanatical atheists, agnostics, scientists, artists, historians, and even gun collectors (trust me on this one). They are also actually rather few and far between.

 

@NOG: Every climatologist in the world who has published a study on Global Warming in the last 15 years disagrees with you. Even the ones hired explicitly to disprove our involvement. If you think you know more about it than they do.....

 

And why is it that you have never provided a single link to anything even remotely showing that humans are to blame? We've had global warming discussions before, and you have never shied away from supporting your arguement with more than "because they said so".

I won't say I know more than they do, but I will say that my opinion of scientists in general, and those in particular fields in specific, has gone down quite a bit of late. Not so much because their math and science is bad, but more because they seem to reach the conclusions they want to regardless of the evidence they found. I have yet to see one actually publish evidence contradictory to his conclusions, but I have seen a number that published a great deal of wonderful data that lent not one iota of support to his conclusion.

 

OK I can lay Claim to a Truth
here it is..... I have calmed down.

I believe I have found a simple test of the viability of my premise.


I state strongly to the world that

"I hold my considered and rationalised beliefs to be The Truth....

...but In awareness of the fact that my belief structure is held within a self referencing internal dialogue with no exterior framework on which to test my belief system, I must always and instantly add and mean this following codicil...

...I may be wrong".
(end statement)


Now I have no interest in attacking any or all religion. I have no desire to see one gain ascendency over another, I only ask that you apply the following simple test.

NOG (I have looked at my motives, this is not an attack) I offer you the opportunity to prove my premise incorrect.

To do so it just requires you to make herein the full statement and codicil that I made above.

If you can (and I hope you can) you disprove my premise immediately.


If you find you cannot, because faith demands you cannot, I make no judgement on you, for who am I to judge.


The fact that any one of the True Faithful cannot(faith demanded default position) admit to the possible error of their world view (ie.their faithbased belief system),...is my point.

The fact that they are unable to see, or admit, that a Delivered Truth, (no matter what the supposed source), is every bit as questionable as anyone elses perceived reality or Claimed Inviolate Knowledge, ...is my point.

[ April 11, 2007, 09:07: Message edited by: kin hell ]

 

Kin, if I ever found external evidence that contradicted any part of the Bible, I would admit that section of the Bible to be incorrect, and my faith in it to be misplaced. If that section were a crucial piece, such as the virgin birth or the ressurection of Christ, I would admit that my whole belief system was questionable. If someone found the Tomb of Christ tomorrow and could somehow prove that the body in it was the Jesus spoken of in the Bible, I would no longer believe in the Bible and I would no longer pray to Jesus Christ. Not only that, but the Bible tells me as such (that I should not pray to Jesus if He isn't the Risen Son of God). Is that enough for you? I won't say my belief structure is entirely internal, but I will say it is largely internal, with only a few pieces referencing the external world. Because of that, it is possible to prove me wrong. Because of that, I may be wrong, but I will not believe I am until it is shown to me.

Does that satisfy you?

 

You can find hundreds if not thousands of inconsistencies of the Bible. if I remember correctly, no historian can prove that the Israelites were ever enslaved by the Egyptians (could be horribly wrong, but it was a similar important part of the Bible that there never has been any proof for).

Basically, what I'm saying is you must, in the past, encountered arguments against the Bible that were pretty solid. Yet you still believe. However, in your post above, you say that where you to encounter evidence that the Bible was incorrect, you would stop believing. I'm saying you probably already have, but your faith stops you from accepting it.

They can prove that the Earth has got warmer over time, they cant prove that humans are entirely responsible for it. Again, I ask you, how would you do so? As a scientist I'd love to see the methods they used, because I'm pretty sure their findings were taht the Earth has got warmer recently at a greater pace than its temperature usually changes, and the media turned that into:

"Run for your lives! The volcanos are going to explode, the ice caps are going to melt, and flood the cities, and destroy everything! And its us, we are only to blame!"

I dont doubt we have an effect, greenhouse gases are bad, but I think many people overestimate how bad that effect is, and underestimate how effective the Earth is at maintaining temperature.

Dont believe everything you hear.

 

I take my hat off to you NOG I thank you for going that far and that honestly.


Truthfully I understand that you have faith, good luck to you, I hope you are proven right in the end.

You have (and I know you dont need it or even probably want it, but I offer it) my respect.

In the matter of making the above statement, out of pure curiosity, why were you impelled to change the "statement"? I ask out of true exploration mate?

You and I can never agree as to The Truth as we perceive it, but that shouldn't stop us from being able to dissect our own thoughts/ motivations/ aims/ intents in what we say and do.

I totally and happily renounce this threads blunt initial title, and too, happily, reject the subsequent fine tuning of my premise. I have been proven wrong.

I have found a person of strong faith who was able to say from within that structure of belief, that because of the self-referencing unprovable nature of internal Knowledge, it is possible to err, it is possible to be wrong.
(I hope I have accurately expressed your meaning NOG)

I feel good, this isnt a gloat, I don't feel I have won a point (was never my studied intention), I truthfully for the first time in years have a sense that personal space, and faithbased belief systems may just be able to get by together.

You have a massive responsibility NOG to get out amongst your more rabid believers and inculcate them with some of your (dare I say it ...latent humanism haha.) You are a bloody rarity and again I thank you.

 

Well, there were a few reasons. First of all, as I said, my system is not entirely self-referencing. As such it can potentially be disproven. I also felt I had to apply it specifically to my beliefs (the Bible) or it wouldn't really mean much. Finally, I wanted you to hear it, not just in my post, but actually in my words.

If you believe this, then I am saddened by the poor representation of Christianity you have recieved. Most Christians are not blind. Most Christians do question things. Well, actually, most 'Christians' aren't really Christians. They go to church every sunday because it is trendy and they were brought up that way, but they know nothing of what the Bible actually teaches and they have never accepted Christ.

Anyway, the Bible does not teach a blind faith. It encourages us to question our faith and seek answers to the questions that arise. It tells us plainly that if any of the key beliefs of our faith are wrong, 'we (christians) are to be pittied above all men.' That was a quote from Paul, by the way. He was specifically speaking about the resurrection of the dead. His logic goes like this:

The fanaticism you fear is entirely contrary to the Bible, and those who follow it and claim to be Christians are not infact following the teachings of Christ at all, but those of modern men who seek power and, frequently, their own worship.

EDIT:
And yes, I am overjoyed to hear that I have earned some respect in your eyes.

 

But how could anyone possibly prove that conclusively?

Anyway, recently I saw a TV documentary, "The Lost Tomb of Jesus" I think it was called. It proposed that a certain tomb found in 1980 may in fact be the tomb of Jesus and some of his relatives. While not rock solid proof, it was interesting. Have you seen it?

 

The one thing I always think that is problematic with modern Christians, is believing the second coming.

Imagine this - a guy stands up and says he is the messiah. Everybody says, "How dare you insult our faith?"

He says one of two things. Either:
"I am the Son of God, and do not need to prove myself, if you guys dont believe in me you can all go to Hell." (almost literally)

Or

"Hey look I can do a miracle!"

to which the crowd responds:

"I saw David Copperfield make the statue of liberty disappear and David Blaine can levitate and revive dead flies and birds. What can you do?"

Personally I dont think anyone will ever declare themselves to be Jesus Christ, but I think someone in the future may declare themselves to be another messiah not necessarily related to Christianity at all.

 

@ Proteus-za

And I'm going to talk about you here NOG but not behind your back.

I agree with the probability that NOG has encountered arguments and seeming inconsistencies re: the accuracies of the bible.

I agree with you Proteus, that his/her faith has been strong enough to surmount those questions.

This is what Faith is.

But I really want to state that I believe implicitly that NOG was true to his/her word when he made (paraphrased) my test statement.

This is a person of Faith speaking his/her Truth in the World.

I suspect that NOG is a lucky person of near unshakeable Faith, and can give an assurance of being able to accept being proven wrong, while harbouring the unshakeable knowledge that he/she will never be faced with that event.

This is the nature of faith.

NOG, stating the "test statement", was enough for me.

If NOG and the rest of the believers(non- derogatorial catergorising)want to start to answer questions re:the seeming inconsistency of their belief structures, and the bible etc I would say that would almost be another thread & that at this moment of my ease (as opposed to my known to occur heated moments) I'd have to say go to it, I wish you the best, but I sorta got what I want.


Meanwhile the greedy rationalist side of me immediately requires me to point out that no-one actually addressed my earlier posted poser regarding free-will, and NOG please understand I am neither expecting or demanding an answer from you, I merely throw this out to the readers, as I am interested on how this conumdrum is seen. You too Proteus-za what are your thoughts?

Can I preface this quote below with the acknowledgement that it came from me in a rapid transient moment of spleen, I'm sure you can sense this in it's structure and push, Yet again I ask your goodwill to ignore the background hum and read the actual question involved. (presupposing anyone wants to.)

@ChickenIsGood

my mis-spelling of your name was deliberate, I know it is not ChickenIsGod, but I couldn't leave it alone in the context of this thread. My apologies.
re: Gog and Magog, are you saying that revelations is in the new testament? (been a long time for me )
if so are Gog and Mag in revelations too? or elsewhere.


@jaded empath

apologies completely accepted mate
thank you for perservering.I hope you haven't been disappointed with your re-invested time.

kin hell when he's at home, is a bloke Hi!

@Nakia

Thank you for your kind words.

I have nothing against you at all personally, but I despair of your idea that humans need religion.

I think it 'God' was an early answer to nebulous unanswerable questions. It exists only because the questions remain unanswerable and humans seem to need some sorta safety net.

Sure a lot of reasonable rules got attached along the way, and these are always emphasised when a defender is talking about the good of religion, but at the same time they also historically took pretty hardline positions to nonbelievers/women/slaves etc etc.

It is a sad consequence of humans' need for answers that they are open to believing ('cause they wish to or need to) people who get up and Proclaim they Know the Truth.
Organised religions all have people who got up and said they Know, and to top it off the claim that the Knowledge is Direct from God (because it is unprovable) is and has been a masssive tool of persuasion in the past.

We today are born onto this inheritance. Because there is no public coming back after death, any story about lifeafter death, and tied in reward system cannot ever be proven or disproven. It is in these intangile spaces that faith based structures thrive.

The fact they do thrive and infest, doesn't make them accurate in their knowledges, just shows the ability of the human brain to create out of pattern recognition the music of the fears.

Laying claim to The Truth is something politicians do.
Humans still vote these known to be liars into power. (I am not saying all politicians are liars so please dont slap me)
Why?
Lack of alternatives, hope for the best, willingness to suspend disbelief, the wish not to turn too cynical and what that cynicism says about the world. For all these reasons and more politicians who are not respected as a subset, still get voted in.

How much harder to rid ourselves of the other subset of humans who Claim Direct and Only Truth Knowledges when our inherited mindset, (and we've had 1,000s of years of practise)has been by default to respect and obey these Claimers.

I'm not sure but I'd prefer to believe that humans have got a chance of good life as humans.
Its hard enough as it is on this crowded planet without having illusory gods warring across the surface by proxy

This is part of my Truth, but what do I know, I could be wrong.

 

@Susipaisti:
If you're talking about the one I think you are,it is in the wrong part of Israel, has the wrong people in it, and is actually not from the right time period. You could be talking about something else, but just because a tomb has Mary, Joseph, James and Jesus in it doesn't mean it was Jesus of Nasereth. Those were all common names at the time. It would be like finding a crypt in upstate NY that had a Peter, a Paul, and a Mary in it and concluding it was the tomb of the band 'Peter, Paul, and Mary'. (Actually, I don't even think they're dead yet, so maybe not, but you get the idea.)

@Proteus:
You need to read Revelation again. When Jesus comes, He won't have to convince anyone, and it'll probably be too late to change your mind anyway. Anyone standing up and claiming to be the next Messiah is either lying or nuts. Either way, I'm not following them.

@Kin:
I'll get back to you on that one. I do have an answer, but I'm in a hurry atm, so later today.

 

kin hell, if we could prove that free will doesnt exist we could prove god doesnt exist, or at least not presently

if god knows everything that will ever happen, and all possibilities, then he has already reacted to them, since time has no meaning to him. so he isnt alive in that sense - everything happened to him in an instant, he responded, and will be heard from no more.

@kin hell, your Ugly character presents an interesting conundrum, but the simple answer to it would be to say that God gives us free will and can see the outcome of our decisions, but lets us choose none the less. In other words, he knows that if 2 people have a child, that child will be a monster. but he wont stop them.

there is another logical argument against god.

god is omniscient and all powerful.
he also has unlimited capacity to care.
if he is omniscient, omnipotent and caring, he would stop all suffering. either he doesnt know about all of the suffering (he isnt omniscient), he doesnt have the power (not omnipotent) or doesnt care.

I know what a Christian would say - that we benefit from hardship and that it is gods way of testing and improving us. I'd like to find the first idiot who said that and punch him.

My father died 7 years ago (in case you are wondering, I wasnt a christian before he died either). I would give all the knowledge and wisdom in the world to prevent that from happening. in other words, if god overs wisdom in exchange for suffering, its a very poor bargain.

@NOG yes you are right, I had forgotten revelations. Its an interesting story that, the rapture and all.

 

I find it strange that we are having a discussion on whether or not it is possible to have a discussion on a topic, which seems to be a rather self-fulfilling principle. That others have already pointed that out indicates to me that the irony of such an event was not lost on everyone.

There is one point I find rather strange however, it seems that kin has concluded that no one can know anything with absolute certainty. While that may be true in a very general sense, taken to its logical conclusion would result in an absurd existence for all of us. Imagine if we all lived our lives in such a way that we didn't know whether or not we would go to work tomorrow, or that our families would be at home when we got home from work. The truth is that we must make assumptions about the basic truths that surround our lives, much like jaded empath is pretty sure he will find a sandwich tomorrow morning in the refridgerator that his wife made for him to take to work. To do otherwise would mean we wonder around aimlessly - directionless, with lives devoid of all meaning. A more reasonable conclusion would be to do whatever works for you. While you may not have absolute truth, you can get pretty damn close - and living life within those parameters is all you can do.

 

Proteus's arguements and assumptions asside, let me put forth my perspective (laced with its own assumptions, but plausable assumptions are neccessary and even desired here):

Let's start at the beginning, with an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent God. This God is also infinitely just and infinitely good. He is not, however, infinitely benevolent, merciful, or forgiving. He may be very benevolent, merciful, and forgiving, but not infinitely. Anyway, this God, we'll just call Him God for now , creates a universe. It is a massive, intricate, beautiful universe with stars and galexies and waterfalls and trees and nebulae and everything else we find in nature, except man. No humanity yet, God hasn't gotten to that yet. Anyway, God makes this beautiful, magnificent, and perfect universe. The problem is that, while intricate, involved, and, most importantly, perfect, it is trivial. It's all just clockwork to God. He set the laws that govern the orbits of the planets, the formation of the stars, the life cycles of everything that lives, etc. Nothing interesting.

So, God decides to make something entirely different, something 'made in Our own image', as the Bible puts it. Now, since God can take any physical image He wants, and indeed takes a number throughout the Bible, this obviously isn't talking about a physical image. Rather this is a spiritual image. You see, this new creation is going to have a spirit like God's own spirit, one that is creative, independant, and most importanly, free to make choices, free to ignore the laws that God sets for it if it so wishes . In short, God makes Man. At this point, Man is also perfect, and God sets out His laws for Man, but these are now laws that Man can disobey. Man doesn't, though. After all, all Man knows is the will of God. As far as Man knows, that's all that is, so there isn't really any choice for man, no real free will. Well, along comes Evil. (Nevermind where it comes from, we'll get to that later.) Evil presents Man with another set of options, Man can disobey God and break His laws. God has a few choices here.
1: God can destroy Evil, and indeed could never let it be created in the first place.
2: God can allow Evil to make its proposition, but temporarily suspend Man's free will and force him to choose the will of God.
3: God can allow Evil to make it's proposition and allow Man to make his decision.

Option one, as already shown, doesn't allow Man to actually choose, thus there is no free will, and God want's free will in Man, so that one's out. Option two is very much the same. It allows the option to be presented, but prevents Man from actually choosing it, so Man still has no real choice or free will. So that one's out, too. Option three allows Man to have free will, and make a real decision, but it has consequences. God knows that Man will choose Evil, and since God is a just God, He will have to punish Man for breaking His laws. Still, it's the only option that allows for free will, and that's the whole point of this exercise, so God decides to allow Evil and Man to continue. Sure enough, Man chooses Evil over God, breaks His laws, sins, and God has to punish Man.

Here is where everything changes. You see, God had put Man in charge of all creation and, since Man ruled over all creation, all creation was effected by Man's decision. God changed the laws of nature as part of the punishment for Man, making things like terrible diseases, pain, and suffering. But remember that God is a merciful God. Not infinitely merciful, but He is merciful. As such, God finds a way to save Man from the worst of the punishment, the 'second death', or death of the soul. God takes that punishment on Himself, in the form of Jesus Christ. Now God is still a just God, so He won't force this on all Mankind, He will only offer it to him, free of charge, with no strings attached. Anyone who knows the truth about Jesus and accepts Him will be saved. Here's the thing, though, not everyone knows the truth about Jesus. Many of you are legitimately unsure about it yourself. So God makes a second standard for those that don't know. He says, 'I will judge them by what they DO know.' Now God's laws for Man weren't just written on a stone tablet over in the Middle-East, they were also inscribed on every one of our souls. The conscience is what tells us of them, if in a less precise way. Anyway, that means that all Mankind knows SOMETHING, and, even though all have sinned, they may genuinely try to obey them, or they may not. Now I don't know the details about God's judgement scheme, except that it will be just, because God is infinitely just, but I do fully expect to find many more than just christians in the Millenial Kingdom (see: "More on the Afterlife" if you want to hear more on that).

Anyway, that's the gist of it, and I'm sure there are some fine details to work out, but there you have the basics of it.

Oh, and as for where evil came from:
In the beginning, there was just God. God is the only thing that can genuinely create anything. Therefore, God must have created evil, directly or indirectly. Indirectly, it is possible that evil is just the choice that man made, in which case, man made evil. Or, if the angels are given a degree of free will, and Satan is literal, then Satan may have created evil. Whatever way it came about, it exists and God allows it, because it is the only choice other than Him.

Now as for war and murder and rape and all the terrible things that humanity does to itself, well, that's part of free will, the consequences of free will, so that's where that comes from.

 

The old teodicé problem eh? Now that's one I have yet to see a good answer for from the religious folks.