Mageth

Why would a doctor need us to acknowledge the cancer in the x-rays? To validate himself? To comfort him; that he did not waste all that time and money at Tulane School of Medicine? Or, so that we can truly come to grips with reality and see our deficiency, our smallness, and come to him for the cure.

I don't see what that has to do with god's need or desire for glorification. In the first place, the doctor is not omnipotent, omniscient, etc; the doctor is not a god. The doctor hopefully doesn't do what she does for personal glorification. The doctor hopefully doesn't treat the cancer just so the patient can survive long enough to praise her name. Ideally, she does it out of altruistic compassion. And hopefully applies her doctoring skills regardless of whether or not the patient is curable or acknowledges her great medical skill. In any case, the doctor does not impose any sort of hell (punishment, separation, etc.) if the patient isn't cooperative or doesn't acknowledge the doctor.

As I mentioned just previously, if you created the Cosmos, we would do well to acknowledge this.

There's a difference between acknowledging and glorifying. I ask again, why would an omnimax god need or desire glorifying?

Cross Examiner

OK. I see it now. I had the wrong mental image. I'm glad you cleared that up though.

Well, sure. Unless they were inspired in which case they'd be playing with fire if they plagarized another's ideas and didn't cite properly in their bibliography. Voltaire, eat your heart out.

So you choose not to acknowledge God as creator, to not accept his authority as stated in His loveletter to humanity, to not believe on Christ as his plan for reconcilation (to undo the damage our free-wills have caused), and to rely on your self only, even to your seperation from Him eternally, since you loved Him not even a fraction during this "trial period"; could this seperation, this utter absense of the goodness of God, be a happy place? Eternal suffering, the mental and spiritual anguish likened unto an inextinguishable fire, is the realization that you've chosen poorly and now have yourself, and yourself only, for all eternity.

I cannot stress enough how important it is for you, the reader, to not make this mistake. Have a little faith, not even blind faith, but little faith in the evidence you have been supplied. Your little faith will be validated in full and you will enjoy the benefits of knowing God, here and now, there and later.

Psalm 34:8
Taste and see that the LORD is good; blessed is the man who takes refuge in him.

Mageth

So you choose not to acknowledge God as creator, to not accept his authority as stated in His loveletter to humanity,

You mean the one where he cursed mankind and nature, drowned the world, allowed Job's family and servants to be killed just to teach Job humility in the face of the "loving" god, gives laws that require killing of homosexuals, adulterers, and rebellious children, and where he requires blood-sacrifice of the innocent to excuse the wicked? Some friggin' loveletter.

...to not believe on Christ as his plan for reconcilation (to undo the damage our free-wills have caused), and to rely on your self only, even to your seperation from Him eternally, since you loved Him not even a fraction during this "trial period";

Speaking for myself: naah; I just lack belief in the imaginary Sky Daddy. I'll rely on myself, thank you, and not the cruel war-god of a primitive religion.

...could this seperation, this utter absense of the goodness of God, be a happy place?

I'm happy now, and every kind of god, and their "goodness" is absent. So I guess so.

Eternal suffering, the mental and spiritual anguish likened unto an inextinguishable fire, is the realization that you've chosen poorly and now have yourself, and yourself only, for all eternity.

You're teetering awfully close to Pascal's Wager here. What if you've chosen the wrong God, and Allah's Hell is your destination? Your god's no better than Allah, though, as both require "eternal suffering" for not "glorifying" them.

I cannot stress enough how important it is for you, the reader, to not make this mistake. Have a little faith, not even blind faith, but little faith in the evidence you have been supplied. Your little faith will be validated in full and you will enjoy the benefits of knowing God, here and now, there and later.

I haven't been supplied with any evidence of a god. Did I miss the meeting? Is there a mailing list? Did it get lost in the mail?

And you'd better be building up your faith in Allah; his hell sounds even worse than Yahweh's hell.

Psalm 34:8
Taste and see that the LORD is good; blessed is the man who takes refuge in him.

Is this intended as an example of mixing metaphors or something? That's all the use I can see in it. (And cannibalism is not my forte).

Cross Examiner

Ah. You've found the limitations of an anology found in the natural world used to describe the relation between the natural and the supernatural. I'll have to hide that Easter Egg in a better location next time

Hopefully not. Realistically speaking, no human is altruistic in his motives.

Or at least until the check from BlueCross comes. Mercedes Benz' don't grow on trees.

Ideally, communism is the best political-economic system.

Ego-stroking aside, can a doctor treat a cancer the patient refuses to see, to be treated for?

No, but he will allow the patient to call him a quack, even to disassociate himself completely from the physician, never again to be around one-another.

To acknowledge God is to glorify God. To extol His work in the universe and to give credit where credit is due. To extol His work of reconciliation and to give credit where credit is due. This all has a hidden benefit, the kind of benefit we derive from telling the truth for the sake of the truth. We are also bettered, we mature ethically. As such, extolling God for His work in creation and on the cross matures us spiritually and relationally. So God needs us to acknowledge Him in the same way He needs us, that is, just to be around us; He loves us. Just as I will one-day love my son, I will need him to acknowledge me as his father, for his own good, it is imperative if our relationship is to mature, not because I need my ego stroked. If so for me, even more so for my altruistic God and Father.

Cross Examiner

You mean after imperfection was willfully introduced into the world by it's stewards?

A world full of arrogant and evil God-haters, except one family that He kept for Himself since He loved His creation enough not to let it all end there but rather reconcile the creation back to Himself via His own self-sacrifical act?

Not to teach humility but to demonstrate for all-time, to all people (you included), that we can love God not only when he blesses us but also in adversity since pain, and even this life, is transitory and a mere shadow of the world to come.

Specifically to keep Israel as a beacon of light and as seperate from the insanely debased peoples around them (geographically) who permitted and even condoned every act under the sun; everything from homosexuality to offering infants as burnt offerings. Conversely, Christ did not advocate killing the adultress (another form of sexual imperfection) but rather showing mercy since all are sinful, as was His purpose. The deuteronomical laws, as you've referenced, had a specific purpose for keeping Israel pure, though the Jews rebelled against these laws periodically, as preparation for the coming of the Messiah. Understanding history is very important to the context of things. That is, when you don't truly understand the reason for things, things tend to seem arbitrary and cruel, don't they? I can certainly appreciate the confusion some have over such things.

You're referring to Jesus Christ? Yes, He was innocent. Yes, He died on my behalf. It was an exchange of grace, completely unmerited but charactaristic of a God so loving. Why did He have to die? I'll not pretend to understand fully because I don't. But then, there are many things I don't fully understand but place faith in, every day.

You probably lack humility (most do), not the imagination. Sky Daddy, cute. I've seen another call God a "sky-pixie", also cute. Kind of case-in-point though. Perceptions are very important. Cruel war-god? I prescribe a time out in nature, with a Bible and a sincere heart committed to just the smallest exhibition of faith, away from TV caricatures of God altogether. Some people say they wish theism was true, if they really did wish it, wouldn't they do this much?

You're happy? You have freedom. You have (hopefully) health, family and friends. Take these away, all this goodness that is afforded you, and in their stead put a knowledge that you'll never experience such goodness again but be left with your regret and your hate for God. This is just what I understand, in my natural and finite self, no doubt the anguish is worse.

I suppose, but is that a problem? I think his model, while overly simplistic, is not devoid of merit or wisdom.

Allah as revealed by the Q'uran and the Hadith etc.? Fortunately for me, Islam and Christianity are mutually exclusive. One of them is right on the places where they disagree, which are myriad. I don't want to go too deep but I've weighed the two and found biblical Christianity more evidential. Particularly when I consider the historiocity of the Resurrection and the denial of such in the Q'uran, it makes the decision easy.

You were at the meeting but denied you were there, you were on the list but threw away the letter. As stated before, you have creation, conscience, the Scriptures, other Christians, history, all the goodness you experience etc. It's all painting a big picture, a picture bigger than any one of these components by themselves that compel most when they examine them all honestly and in conjunction with one another to believe. You have ample reason to believe, will you though? Hardness of heart, pride, self-asssurance in your own strength. You can have them all, they will not help you.

Taste, sight, experience. Experience God's goodness. That is what the verse means. No flesh-eating required here. Cute though, you write alot of cute things.

What is your intention? Mine is evident, I want you, and other readers at infidels.org, to avoid eternity without God. This is why I write. Why do you argue? Is it just to be antagonistic? Or can you offer me something greater than I already have? Judging from your "happiness" as expressed to me so far, I'll need some more convincing that you have more of it than I.

Philosoft

No, I don't choose any of these things. I can't believe something because I want them to be true. I ask for a particular standard of evidence, one that God is obviously unwilling to meet. God could doubtlessly come up with a way to get me to believe, but it's apparent that my skepticism is more important. I didn't choose skepticism, at least in the sense that I had a skeptical epiphany one day. I am a product of my experiences, many of them beyond my conscious control. If that is somehow worthy of an afterlife of misery, so be it.

How would it change the situation I'm in now? Does God sneak into my head and plant happy thoughts when I'm not paying attention?

Why do I need this realization? I could haunt Disney World for eternity, blissfully unaware that God has abandoned me.

I'm not a big fan of faith. I don't have to have that kind of faith in anything else, yet when it comes to the fate of my eternal soul, I'm supposed to abandon the sense and reason that have served me so well? No thanks.

Mageth

Originally posted by Billy Graham is cool
Ah. You've found the limitations of an anology found in the natural world used to describe the relation between the natural and the supernatural. I'll have to hide that Easter Egg in a better location next time

Yup. Doctor-patient is a poor analogy for Creator/omniscient/omnibenevolent/omnipotent God-Created man.

Hopefully not. Realistically speaking, no human is altruistic in his motives.

This may come back to haunt you...

Ideally, communism is the best political-economic system.

Your analogy was meant to illustrate an aspect of a God to which, I assume, you would assign "ideal" motivations.

Ego-stroking aside, can a doctor treat a cancer the patient refuses to see, to be treated for?
...
No, but he will allow the patient to call him a quack, even to disassociate himself completely from the physician, never again to be around one-another.

Once again, doctor-patient is not a good analogy for God-man.

[b]To acknowledge God is to glorify God. To extol His work in the universe and to give credit where credit is due. To extol His work of reconciliation and to give credit where credit is due.[/i]

Umm, no. "Acknowledge" just means to recognize, at least in the way I normally use it. One could acknowledge god and curse him in the same breath. Is that glorifying god? Heck, even the bible says that demons recognize god. Do they glorify god in so doing?

This all has a hidden benefit, the kind of benefit we derive from telling the truth for the sake of the truth.

OK, the truth: your Christian god does not exist. It's all a myth.

Wow, that felt good.

We are also bettered, we mature ethically.

The bleak, violent history of the Christian Church stands in stark contrast to that statement.

As such, extolling God for His work in creation and on the cross matures us spiritually and relationally.

Spiritually? Hmm, no spirit here. Relationally? How is one acknowledging that one is a worthless sinner, and can only be made worthy by the blood of an innocent man being crucified, supposed to help one's relations? It's a barbaric concept of a primitive mythos.

So God needs us to acknowledge Him in the same way He needs us, that is, just to be around us; He loves us.

I still don't get how an omnimax god could possibly need anything. And you haven't helped in answering that yet, that's for sure.

Just as I will one-day love my son, I will need him to acknowledge me as his father, for his own good, it is imperative if our relationship is to mature, not because I need my ego stroked. If so for me, even more so for my altruistic God and Father.

And if your son doesn't acknowledge you just as you like, doesn't glorify your name, I suppose you'll willingly send him (or let him) go to eternal suffering, as your supposedly "altruistic" god is willing to do to his creations?

I doubt if you would; I sure as hell wouldn't. Despite the fact that comparing a human-human relationship to a god-human relationship is not a good comparison, this does illustrate one thing: us humans are capable of being more "altruistic" than your primitive religion's mythical, bloodthirsty god is made out to be.

Barbaric.

Golgo_13

This reminds me of a question from ol' Winace's theist questionnaire. It went a little sumthin' like this:

If people who have never heard the Gospels are judged on their relative merits, many morally objectionable results, such as infants, third-world tribesmen or honestly mistaken people unfairly going to hell, are removed. If that is the case, people who have heard the Gospels, however, will be judged mainly by whether or not they accepted them. The theological implications are entirely shocking: if you're basically a good person, the main effect hearing the story of Jesus will have is increase your chances of going to Hell, should you reject it. Conversely, if you're a very evil person, hearing the Good News will only increase your chances of going to Heaven, should you accept it. Suppressing Christianity may thus paradoxically result in more good souls being saved and more evil ones being condemned, which is more in line with our own values of fairness. Given this stunning possibility, could completely refusing to evangelize Christianity itself, instead promoting a just ethical code, actually be the morally right thing to do, despite the possible consequences to your own salvation?

Mageth

You mean after imperfection was willfully introduced into the world by it's stewards?

Newsflash: the creation account in Genesis is a myth. There was no six days of creation. There was no Eden. There was no Adam and Eve. There was no Tree. There was no talking serpent. No one ate a forbidden fruit. There was no original sin. These are all metaphorical motifs in a myth for all of which one can find parallels in many if not most of the world's other creation myths (though eastern myths typically, and thankfully, don't include the "fallen nature/fallen man" bit).

A world full of arrogant and evil God-haters, except one family that He kept for Himself since He loved His creation enough not to let it all end there but rather reconcile the creation back to Himself via His own self-sacrifical act?

Another newsflash: the flood account is another myth.

Self-sacrificial? What do you mean? God didn't die on the cross. Can you kill god? A man died on the cross. Remember his last words? "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?" If god was there, he left before the going got rough. God wasn't man enough to die for man. He tricked a surrogate into doing it for him.

Not to teach humility but to demonstrate for all-time, to all people (you included), that we can love God not only when he blesses us but also in adversity since pain, and even this life, is transitory and a mere shadow of the world to come.

I'm sorry, I couldn't love any god that would kill all my family just to show me what a biiig god he was and how much I should love him in adversity. That doesn't make any friggin' sense. It's barbaric, actually.

Specifically to keep Israel as a beacon of light and as seperate from the insanely debased peoples around them (geographically) who permitted and even condoned every act under the sun; everything from homosexuality to offering infants as burnt offerings.

That's how the myth goes, but were the local tribes any more barbaric than the Israelites? What about all the men, women, children, infants and livestock that God ordered them to kill (or sometimes take as slaves) from all those "barbaric" tribes? And stoning adulterers, homosexuals, and even rebellious children to death isn't exactly what I'd call a "beacon of light".

So which is more "debase" in your eyes, homosexuality or killing a homosexual for his sexual orientation? Which is worse, sacrificing an occasional child or killing all the women and children in a city you capture? (hint: they're both deplorable, despicable, barbaric acts).

Conversely, Christ did not advocate killing the adultress (another form of sexual imperfection) but rather showing mercy since all are sinful, as was His purpose.

And Christ also said that he did not come to do away with the Law.

The deuteronomical laws, as you've referenced, had a specific purpose for keeping Israel pure, though the Jews rebelled against these laws periodically, as preparation for the coming of the Messiah. Understanding history is very important to the context of things.

Then you should learn to distinguish history from myth. The Creation account and the Flood are both myth. Most if not all of the story of the Exodus is myth. The story of Moses is at best a legend, with magical bits added to make him heroic. Including the bit about god handing him the tablets. The same goes for the story of Jesus, BTW; a legend liberally sprinkled with mythical, metaphorical bits, such as the virgin birth, the miracles, the resurrection, the divinity.

That is, when you don't truly understand the reason for things, things tend to seem arbitrary and cruel, don't they?

Umm, it's your religion that thinks nature and man are hopelessly corrupt, that a God imposed draconian laws on mankind that make him seem a bit obsessed with sexual "impurities," and that blood-sacrifice is required to appease the wrath of the tribal war-god you worship. Your religion is arbitrary, cruel, and a divisive force in the world, and has been for centuries.

I recognize myth when I see it. Man and nature are not corrupted by sin, things are not hopeless, no blood sacrifices are required, no cruel, bloodthirsty war-god needs to be feared or appeased. I can live my life free, happy as a human, and can recognize the potential in myself and the human race. Yes, I can be proud and self-assured without fear or guilt.

I can certainly appreciate the confusion some have over such things.

The confusion comes when people interpret what was written as myth as real history. The confusion comes when one tries to apply a primitive, mythical religion based on a tribal war-god invented to justify a violent nation's atrocities against its neighbors. It's time the world was rid of such ridiculous, primitive superstitions.

You're referring to Jesus Christ? Yes, He was innocent. Yes, He died on my behalf. It was an exchange of grace, completely unmerited but charactaristic of a God so loving. Why did He have to die? I'll not pretend to understand fully because I don't. But then, there are many things I don't fully understand but place faith in, every day.

As I said, god didn't die, unless you think your god can be killed. If it happened at all, it was just a man that died. And the way the myth goes, he didn't really die anyways; he popped up a couple of days later, better than ever.

But if God did die, what you have is god sacrificing himself to himself to save us from himself. Sounds kinda silly when you put it that way, doesn't it?

It would have been a lot more impressive and altruistic of god to really die for us (meaning stay dead). More impressive than having a man "die" for us, and then fixing him up better than ever.

You probably lack humility (most do), not the imagination.

The reason I rely on myself is because there's no God to rely on; it has nothing to do with the level of humility I possess. And I have a good imagination; it's credulity that I lack. Perhaps some day you'll get your imagination and credulity under control and learn to separate myth from history.

Sky Daddy, cute. I've seen another call God a "sky-pixie", also cute. Kind of case-in-point though. Perceptions are very important. Cruel war-god? I prescribe a time out in nature, with a Bible and a sincere heart committed to just the smallest exhibition of faith, away from TV caricatures of God altogether. Some people say they wish theism was true, if they really did wish it, wouldn't they do this much?

If wishes were horses then all men would ride. Unfortunately, god is not like Tinkerbell.

By the way, I spent the first 45 years of my life as a believer, soaking it all in, reading the bible and going to church, before I learned to separate myth from history, so don't start preaching to me about studying the bible, having a "sincere heart", and getting away from TV caricatures of God. It makes you look like the typical self-rigteous, and a bit ignorant, theist that comes here thinking we atheists have never heard our thought much about your particular mythology. My wife, parents, and all but one of my siblings are believers. My father, brother, several uncles and cousins are all ministers. I'm a lone atheist in a sea of believers.

You're happy? You have freedom. You have (hopefully) health, family and friends. Take these away, all this goodness that is afforded you, and in their stead put a knowledge that you'll never experience such goodness again but be left with your regret and your hate for God.

I don't have any hate for god. Another thing theists often ignorantly accuse us atheists of. Why would I hate something that doesn't exist?

But I assume here that you're pointing me towards how I'll feel in the afterlife. Well, another newsflash: this life is all you're gonna get. It's much better if you live it free of superstition. And carrot-stick Pascal Wager stuff has absolutely no effect on me, so don't waste your breat with it.

This is just what I understand, in my natural and finite self, no doubt the anguish is worse.

And you worship a god that set the system up so that most people will experience such anguish? Barbaric.

I suppose, but is that a problem? I think his model, while overly simplistic, is not devoid of merit or wisdom.

Then you are going to convert to Islam and serve Allah?

Allah as revealed by the Q'uran and the Hadith etc.? Fortunately for me, Islam and Christianity are mutually exclusive. One of them is right on the places where they disagree, which are myriad.

You leave off the obvious alternative possibility: both of them are wrong.

I don't want to go too deep but I've weighed the two and found biblical Christianity more evidential. Particularly when I consider the historiocity of the Resurrection and the denial of such in the Q'uran, it makes the decision easy.

So you choose one myth over another based on an obviously metaphorical resurrection account, similar accounts of which one can find in many other of the world's mythologies? Wow, I'm impressed. I urge you to learn to separate myth from history.

Actually, the fact that Islam recognizes that the resurrection account is a myth impresses me more. At least they got something right.

You were at the meeting but denied you were there, you were on the list but threw away the letter.

Umm, no, I've been here all along, at my desk, going through the evidence. If there was a meeting or a memo, someone forgot to let me know.

As stated before, you have creation,

The Genesis account is an obvious myth. Other than that, I've seen absolutely nothing in the universe that requires a supernatural explanation.

conscience,

which is an emergent, natural phenomenon of our brains...

the Scriptures,

unreliable historical accounts, contradictions, legends and myths, cruel acts and cruel laws, blood-sacrifice and symbolic cannibalism to appease a vengeful, wrathful tribal war-god, eternal suffering in hell for most humans who don't cover themselves in the blood of the sacrifice...I'm way less than impressed. I'm appalled, actually, that anyone still believes that stuff.

other Christians,

The fact that others believe a myth does nothing to verify the authenticity of the myth, no matter how many of them believe it...

history,

You mean like the Inquisition? The Thirty Years' War? Church history tends to follow the OT pattern, not the NT pattern. Perhaps Judaism is the right path, based on Church history.

all the goodness you experience etc.

I don't need god to be good, and so obviously don't need god to account for goodness I experience.

It's all painting a big picture, a picture bigger than any one of these components by themselves that compel most when they examine them all honestly and in conjunction with one another to believe.

Well, I did examine them all honestly, and in conjuntion, and my conclusion is that the bible is largely myth with a few embellished legends and a dash of history here and there if one can discern what it is, that the biblical God does not exist (thank the stars), and that nature doesn't need a supernatural explanation. Another one of those patently false theistic mantras we get all the time around here: "If you'll just honestly look around you, you'll believe! How could you not? I did!"

You have ample reason to believe, will you though? Hardness of heart, pride, self-asssurance in your own strength. You can have them all, they will not help you.

My heart's not hard, I'm not particularly proud, but if I have something to be proud about, so what? And....self-assurance is a bad thing? Another memo I missed, I guess.

Anyway, that's just another one of those ridiculous theistic mantras we get around here all the time. "You don't believe because you're PROUD! Your HEART is HARD! You're....gasp...SELF-ASSURED!" You forget, I don't buy into that sinful, corrupted, rebellious man bit. It's been a stone around man's neck for too long, and it's time we rid ourselves of it. The reason I don't believe is, plain and simple, because there is no reason for me to believe - there is no evidence to suport the existence of the bloodthirsty tribal war-god, and his alleged book is largely myth that's been misinterpreted as history.

And I'd damn well better use the tools I actually have to help myself, because there ain't no God out there that's gonna do anything for me.

Taste, sight, experience. Experience God's goodness. That is what the verse means. No flesh-eating required here. Cute though, you write alot of cute things.

Why thanks. But It's hard to taste, see, and experience something that doesn't exist.

But you're wrong; your primitive religion is based on blood-sacrifice and the ritualistic, if symbolic, consumption of the blood and flesh of the sacrificial victim. This is the 21st Century, after all; it's high time we abandoned such 2000+-year-old superstitious nonsense.

What is your intention? Mine is evident, I want you, and other readers at infidels.org, to avoid eternity without God. This is why I write.

Well, I've already got that covered; your belief is a myth, there is no afterlife, so you don't have to worry about any eternal state I may end up in. And that frees me up to enjoy this life.

Remember earlier when I said "This may come back to haunt you..."?

You may recall that you said: "Realistically speaking, no human is altruistic in his motives. "

So what are your true motives for coming here, then?

Why do you argue? Is it just to be antagonistic? Or can you offer me something greater than I already have?

No, it's not just to be antagonistic. What I've expressed above I honestly believe; your religion (and many of the other major religions of the world) are based on primitive, debasing, divisive, war-causing bloodthirsty mythologies that it's way past time we rid ourselves of. What you already have is not worth having - it degrades humans, labeling humans and nature corrupt, and condemns the majority of humans that have ever lived to a not-so-pleasurable, apparently eternal, afterlife. Further, it fosters an us vs. them mentality that has been the scourge of humanity for centuries if not millenia. Your religion was based on the Old Testament, a mythology built around a fearful, wrathful, tribal war-god invented to justify the tribe's us vs. them agression. The history of Christianity (and Islam, BTW, which was also based on the OT) has shown that the vestiges of that tribal war-god mythology are still around, no matter what Christians claim, and the exclusive, divisive nature of these religions are a major cause for much of the unrest, terrorism, evil, and war we see in the world today.

You want something greater than you have? Atheism. Agnosticism. Mysticism. Universal Unitarianism. Deism. Buddhism. Jainism. Taoism. Shintoism. Heck, the Good Side of the Force. Read Joseph Campbell (I'd highly recommend this to any theist or non-theist; for theists, Thou Art That should be an eye-opening book). Take your pick. The Abrahamic religions are at the bottom of the barrel, so you couldn't do much worse with anything you choose.

Judging from your "happiness" as expressed to me so far, I'll need some more convincing that you have more of it than I.

(Why the quotes, BTW? Are you assuming I'm lying or something?)

It's obviously absurd for you to make any kind of judgment of my happiness based on a few posts on the Web, and even more absurd to compare your happiness with my happiness. I'm sure you're quite happy believing in your mythology; I'll trust you on that. Good for you to be so happy.

Just don't assume everyone else is obviously not really happy and can only find true happiness if they too only believed the same myths you do. The fact is that many people don't need to believe a mythology to be happy and satisfied with their lives.

I lived believing your mythologies for a looong time. And it sure feels good to be intellectually free of the bondage of those superstitions. Please trust me on that (you seem to have a tendency to assume I'm not being honest for some reason) .

Now, was that cute enough for you?

Mageth

Welcome, Golgo_13.

And that's a very good observation. I'll have to remember that one...