Thread: Your Religious Profile

Basis: libertarianism, taoism/jedi, sith
Basically the philosophies of freedom, balance, and excellence.

Basic philosophy:
There are certian, natural laws that govern the universe. When these laws are disrupted, chaos ensues. One way to achieve a balanced state is to follow basic principles that follow this broad scope of universal laws. I hold this path to be one which is driven by individual freedom.

This philosophy allows me to explain just about any situation.

I cannot know anything but my own existance and thoughts, so I'm an agnostic when it comes to religion. Even if I saw a god, I would not know of his/her/its existance, but I would believe he/she/it existed. Because of this I have an open mind, as I do not completely dismiss a possibility.

Again, i could go on forever, but i think this will give you the basic outline of it. PM if you want more.[/b]

<div align="center">NO MORE

Originally Posted by King

I cannot know anything but my own existance and thoughts, so I&#39;m an agnostic when it comes to religion. Even if I saw a god, I would not know of his/her/its existance, but I would believe he/she/it existed. Because of this I have an open mind, as I do not completely dismiss a possibility.
[/b]

Don&#39;t you dismiss the possibility of knowing the existance of any deity by your agnosticism?

Originally Posted by Merlin38

Don&#39;t you dismiss the possibility of knowing the existance of any deity by your agnosticism?
[/b]

Nope, I don&#39;t. But I can&#39;t be bothered typing "I believe" in front of everything.

Basis: Wiccan based... still slightly unknown
Theology: Mother Nature has given us this wonderful world full of life. We should embrace it and harm none intentionally. The world is full of mysteries and things that we cannot ant will never be able to solve. We should embrace it however and accept it. Ghosts, spirits, things of that nature intigue me... a semi-passion. I do what I can to protect the planet we live on as well as admire those who do the same. But I am no one who is completely over taken by my beliefs. I like to hear others opinions on the matter. Debate is my favorite subject, but I will NEVER put anyone down for how they believe.

I am an athiest, but have an open mind. I have no problem listening to the rants of other people about their religion as long as they don&#39;t mind listening to me rant about the nonexistance of my religion. I cannot adimately state that there is no God, for I do not know. I merely assume that there is none, because having once been Christian, I can reason away the majority of the things that "happened" in the Bible, and be pretty sure that they never happened. If it was ever proven that they did occur, I would have no problem changing my philosophy. I also believe in ghosts and aliens, though most people would deam those types of things as silly, but there is actual proof of their existance, at least as far as I am concerned, for I have actually seen a ghost. As for aleins, its just more probable that they exist than that they don&#39;t.

I for the most part agree with Hard As Nails, just with less caps perhaps

I personally think an open mind is one of the biggest virtues someone can have. And religion clouds minds, it fundamentally changes the mind in a way it is paralyzed to use proper logic.

Although some religions are useful in freeing people from even more indoctrinated religions.

I&#39;m a christian.

Basic Philosophy:

God made the universe and everything. When he made us he had a personal relationship with us and would commune with us daily. But then we were seperated from God by sin. God loves us so much he sent Jesus to die for our sinfulness so that whoever of us believed in him would be able to once again have a personal relationship with him on earth and then for an eternity in heaven.

Atheist, but if definitions are applied strictly, agnostic. High possibility of no god-like being that plays an active part in the universe. Extremely high possibility that the Judeo-Islamic God does not exist. A god may or may not have created the universe, but that is immaterial.

Also, I don&#39;t find too much religious debate relivent, since I have a perfectly understandable model of the world as it is, and it does not include a god.

I find no need to defend my opinions on the universe, because they are based on fact and not belief, and I am secure in their truth.

I do have a problem, however, with people lying being hypocritical, and speaking as if they know when they don&#39;t. Do this and I will pounce on you like a hungry pit-bull on a wounded rabbit.

... sorry to those of you who like rabbits, it was an unpleasant image.

I believe there is something out there that is incomprehensible in physical terminology, any attempt to understand it will create confusion and argument, physics do not apply. We can only hope to understand it and in doing so we may reach the next level of our existence. I refuse to believe I&#39;m just gonna turn to dust and that will be the end of me.

As for what ticks me off is the blatant disregard for what others believe.

If you dare answer these questions:

1.) Do you fully understand every Scientific Theory?
2.) Is Einstein&#39;s equation(E=MC²) not one of the cornerstones of physics?
3.) Do you even know how Einstein formulated his equation(E=MC²).
4.) Why do so many believe all the scientific studies they hear about but yet they have no clue how to derive E=MC²?
5.) How many of the people that attack religion can even understand all of the Sciences they base their opinions on? One might even say well so and so did this study or discovered this and that. So what&#33; Can they reproduce any of those results themselves? Believing what someone else says without being able to produce the those same results is just as much a leap of faith as believing in a religion.
6.) What if they did know and understand all of the Sciences? Would they be hanging around on a dream forum posting attacks against religion? I doubt it.

Being closed minded as some have called religious people is a two way street my friend.

My Beliefs and Theories:

Why Atheism?
I am a True Atheist, and I love it.
I do not believe in any God, nor in any other "governing force". Simply because we do not have any thread of evidence. As for the beginning of the universe: I do not know, NOBODY knows. That&#39;s why they&#39;ve/we invent Gods or "Governing Forces": To explain that which we cannot explain (and possibly never will). I do not believe in life after death; again because we have no evidence. I do not believe in psychic stuff; because we have no evidence.

About the afterlife: I have heard an enormous amount of people say: "I refuse to believe there is nothing else out there. I refuse to believe I&#39;m going to turn to dust and that&#39;ll be the end of me" (see above poster (note that I am not attacking you, Tekdawg... I&#39;m just trying to make a point here ). It&#39;s a "argument from personal incredulity", They say it isn&#39;t true (or that they believe it isn&#39;t true, in the above case), simply because they find it highly unlikely or unprobable (or because they personally don&#39;t like it). The person is asserting that a proposition must be wrong because he or she is unable or unwilling to fully consider that it might be true, or is unwilling to believe evidence which does not support his or her preferred view.

I am not an Agnostic for the following reason: Agnoscism says that they do not know whether there is a God, or whether there isn&#39;t. But there is one flaw: If you say that, then you could also say Pink Unicorns, or Gnomes exist. Because who can prove that they don&#39;t exist? You will never be able to know. Thus, you are an Agnostic. Then why aren&#39;t Gnomes or Pink Unicorns considered truths? The reason is simple: Because there is not a single piece of evidence to support my claims. And behold: This is where I want to have you guys think about: Is there ANY thread of evidence to support the claim that God exists? The answer is: No. Then why are there so much people that DO? I, personally think that this is a combination of history and what I like to call "spinning" (for a temporary lack of better term in english).

About the history:

Remember the Middle Ages? Just before this particular period of time, Christianity slowly growed, and when the Middle Ages arrived, People were raised with this belief. They believed in it because they were fed from the Bible from birth. The church ruled. This caused them to believe. And now still: People are raised with Christianity, they are effectively "programmed" (remember all those commercials on TV or wherever, that say that you have to teach stuff to your child at lower ages? That&#39;s because you can effectively pour information into a child, which they will believe. I think the same can be applied to religion: if you "teach" your child religion, they WILL believe it. And thus, they believe in this particular belief. Same with almost every other religion.

A more recent example to show how much "being raised in a particular belief" may cause, look at the Nazi&#39;s (please not that i do NOT compare religion or Christianity to Nazism): they told their children, time and time again, that jews are the evil of the world (again: these are NOT my words. I do not have anything against Judaism). And said children were effectively programmed: they grew to hate jews, and blindly followed this ideology.

And another example (one we probably all know about): Santa Clause. Enough said.

About the spinning:

"Spinning" is my word for having a goal to prove (for example the Christian God), by using and manipulating other statements to fit their needs, and to sound more believable. One example I have seen of this is a piece from a book stating that "Cogito Ergo Sum" (by Descartes, of course), is wrong. The author says that he made the most "fundamental" error one can commit: Descartes says that "I think" equals to "I am", and that he equals this "thinking" to "identity". effectively manipulating Descartes&#39; claim. (as Descartes did not say ANYTHING about "I think, there for I am". He did not say that there was an identity of some sort, he said that "There is thinking, and therefor, there is active mind". Active mind is NOT an identity whatsoever. And thus, he has used Descartes&#39; theory to make himself sound more convincing.
Some Christians do the same thing, resulting in more faith.


WHY I&#39;M "PISSED OFF" ALL THE TIME:

(Please do note that I am NOT pissed off, nor get pissed off, ever, about superfluous things such as religion.)

But if I were to choose a reason why I&#39;m against religion so much, I&#39;d have to say what everyone says: It closes people&#39;s minds. It makes them dependant of their religion. They will not believe anything else, nor will they even consider others&#39; words that contain important statements about their religion; they will spin right around these arguements (also see: spinning above), and turn them into one of their own. They will not

In regard to the Christian God: I hate that they have to "threaten" people in order for them to "obey": "Believe this, or you will burn a thousand degrees in hell.... FOREVER&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; "... I find it weak and plain sad. That, and many other issues which you are easily able to find in whatever Atheism vs. Christianity thread you choose around here.

I have a beautiful quote from wherever. I had in my signature a few days ago... I love it. It goes like this:
"There was a time when religion, the church, and God ruled... This time is now known as the Dark Ages."




MY PHILOSOPHY:
What you&#39;ve all been waiting for:

WE ARE ALONE... there are no Gods, just us: Me, you, and everything else we can see. Let&#39;s keep it that way; let&#39;s focus on the things we CAN see; let&#39;s make things better, and worry about here and now, instead of some transcendental entity or an afterlife.







(OK... I admit: I got a bit carried away. I wasn&#39;t really trying to write an entire essay on the subject, but hell... It was fun to do... I could as well have created a thread. But still: what&#39;re your thoughts about this post? Discuss&#33; (if you will))

Oh: and to the poster above (tekdawg, if I remember correctly): Scientific arguements do not have anything to do with religion. You are fully able to discuss religion without knowing the meaning of "E=MC^2"... or whatever scientific theory. Your arguement is that, because they cannot produce the results pointed out in various tests themselves, they do not have the right to argue about said subject (let alone post these results as an arguement for their claims). Simply because "this is as much a leap of faith as believing in a religion". This is of course, bollocks. Religion and Science are two different things: the one containing faith and belief, and the other containing facts, PROVEN FACTS. Proven facts do not require faith to be believable: as they are PROVEN. THEY ARE TRUE. And THUS, they CAN be used as arguements against a belief. (And again: This is no attack on you, whatsoever... just trying to make a point).

You had a comment on why you disregard other people&#39;s view of the afterlife, but what is your own view?

So you believe without a doubt that there is nothing out there beyond our comprehension? How is that not closed minded. If you say that isn&#39;t closed minded then your a liar. And don&#39;t start spouting random facts, instead give the the exact facts that prove there isn&#39;t anything out there. And don&#39;t say the burden of proof is on me because I wasn&#39;t trying to convince anyone in my post. I was pointing out that being closed minded is present in non-belief just as much as it is in belief.

Were you responding to my post? I didn&#39;t say that everything is within our comprehension. Obviously, there are some things that humans don&#39;t understand. Since we are on that topic, I believe that humans do have the capability to understand any situation, given time. I&#39;m not sure how you could classify the belief in man&#39;s ability to expand his mind &#39;close-minded&#39;.

Originally Posted by Merlin38

Were you responding to my post? I didn&#39;t say that everything is within our comprehension. Obviously, there are some things that humans don&#39;t understand. Since we are on that topic, I believe that humans do have the capability to understand any situation, given time. I&#39;m not sure how you could classify the belief in man&#39;s ability to expand his mind &#39;close-minded&#39;.
[/b]

No, it was a response to the one before yours. I had opened a window to write a response to the one before yours and left the room for a short time before I finished writing it. I guess you made a post while I was away from the computer. I should have put his name at the beginning but at the time I didn&#39;t think there was another post after his.

But what I mean by beyond our comprehension, is thinking in physical terminology. It&#39;s kinda like 1st grader trying to understand Physics.

Originally Posted by tekdawg

So you believe without a doubt that there is nothing out there beyond our comprehension? How is that not closed minded. If you say that isn&#39;t closed minded then your a liar. And don&#39;t start spouting random facts, instead give the the exact facts that prove there isn&#39;t anything out there. And don&#39;t say the burden of proof is on me because I wasn&#39;t trying to convince anyone in my post. I was pointing out that being closed minded is present in non-belief just as much as it is in belief.
[/b]

The reason you see me as having a closed mind is because I am an atheist.

A closed mind has already made up his mind regardless of evidence or data. They believe so much in something they cannot effectively, and logically think about the alternative. Being an Atheist, I HAVE effectively and logically thought about theism. I still do whenever I come across something a Theist has posted, I am able to think about it regardless of my own belief.

This makes me open minded. The fact is that because I think logically and effectively thought about theistm, I come to these things called "conclusions". Mine being that there is no God.

Which makes me an Atheist.

Yet, that still doesn&#39;t make me more or less open minded than I am.

So: I am not a liar.



To your second point: About the burden of proof:
I cannot prove something does NOT exist. I say that there is nothing else because there is no proof that something DOES exist, thus I am pretty sure that there isn&#39;t anything out there.

example:
Someone comes up to you saying: "Pink Unicorns exist"
So you say: "Can you prove it does?"
And he says: "You cannot prove that they do NOT exist, so they must exist"
(this is, again, a logical fallacy)

If you make a claim that something does exist... you must be able to prove it, or else your entire claim falls apart. If that is true, than you can say anything and say that it&#39;s true.

So technically: the "burden of proof" DOES, indeed, lie with theists (who say that some kind of god DOES exist). THEY claim something exists, and therefore THEY should prove that something exists.




If I say to you I have faeries in my house, but that they are invisible for everyone except for me.
This is perfectly true, because you cannot disprove that.

Now is the above statement true? I&#39;d like an answer on that question.




P.S.: I look forward to your answer, Tek(I can call you that... right?)... I really like this conversation...



@merlin:
I did have something about that in my post...
But if you want it again then here it is:

I do not believe in any kind of afterlife. I think the only thing up there are neurons and electricity... And whenever we die... the same thing happens as the thing that happens with a lightbulb: It simply stops shining...
So: I think that we DO only become ashes and dust and everything when we die... No wishful thinking here

I&#39;m either too cowardly or optimistic to accept that viewpoint. Thanks for the reply. I must have missed it in your origional post.

Originally Posted by CryoDragoon

The reason you see me as having a closed mind is because I am an atheist.

A closed mind has already made up his mind regardless of evidence or data. They believe so much in something they cannot effectively, and logically think about the alternative. Being an Atheist, I HAVE effectively and logically thought about theism. I still do whenever I come across something a Theist has posted, I am able to think about it regardless of my own belief.

This makes me open minded. The fact is that because I think logically and effectively thought about theistm, I come to these things called "conclusions". Mine being that there is no God.

Which makes me an Atheist.

Yet, that still doesn&#39;t make me more or less open minded than I am.

So: I am not a liar.
To your second point: About the burden of proof:
I cannot prove something does NOT exist. I say that there is nothing else because there is no proof that something DOES exist, thus I am pretty sure that there isn&#39;t anything out there.

example:
Someone comes up to you saying: "Pink Unicorns exist"
So you say: "Can you prove it does?"
And he says: "You cannot prove that they do NOT exist, so they must exist"
(this is, again, a logical fallacy)

If you make a claim that something does exist... you must be able to prove it, or else your entire claim falls apart. If that is true, than you can say anything and say that it&#39;s true.

So technically: the "burden of proof" DOES, indeed, lie with theists (who say that some kind of god DOES exist). THEY claim something exists, and therefore THEY should prove that something exists.
If I say to you I have faeries in my house, but that they are invisible for everyone except for me.
This is perfectly true, because you cannot disprove that.

Now is the above statement true? I&#39;d like an answer on that question.
P.S.: I look forward to your answer, Tek(I can call you that... right?)... I really like this conversation...
@merlin:
I did have something about that in my post...
But if you want it again then here it is:

I do not believe in any kind of afterlife. I think the only thing up there are neurons and electricity... And whenever we die... the same thing happens as the thing that happens with a lightbulb: It simply stops shining...
So: I think that we DO only become ashes and dust and everything when we die... No wishful thinking here
[/b]

The burden of proof lies with whoever makes an assertion, no matter which way it goes. As long as you can&#39;t prove me wrong, I may be right. That we have never proved it does not disprove it. It goes both ways.
It is quite possible to prove that something does not exist. Even prime numbers greater than 2 do not exist. My wife does not exist - I&#39;m not married.

So then the faeries in my house exist, right?

Originally posted by CryoDragoon
The reason you see me as having a closed mind is because I am an atheist.

A closed mind has already made up his mind regardless of evidence or data. They believe so much in something they cannot effectively, and logically think about the alternative. Being an Atheist, I HAVE effectively and logically thought about theism. I still do whenever I come across something a Theist has posted, I am able to think about it regardless of my own belief.

This makes me open minded. The fact is that because I think logically and effectively thought about theistm, I come to these things called "conclusions". Mine being that there is no God.

Which makes me an Atheist.

Yet, that still doesn&#39;t make me more or less open minded than I am.

I never said whether or not you were and atheist, nor that you have a closed mind. I asked 2 questions: 1st

Originally posted by tekdawg+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tekdawg)</div>

So you believe without a doubt that there is nothing out there beyond our comprehension?[/b]

(the word so was suppose to be do, but it was still put forth as a question) 2nd<!--QuoteBegin-tekdawg
How is that not closed minded.

this was meant to be ignored if the answer to the 1st one was "no". Then the next part of my post

Originally posted by tekdawg+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tekdawg)</div>

If you say that isn&#39;t closed minded then your a liar.[/b]

The word liar was a bit crude and I apologize for wording it that way, I was just disclosing my belief that it would be false to say that believing there isn&#39;t anything incomprehensible had you answered yes to the 1st question. After that all the statements are based on a yes answer to the 1st question. Then I ended it by stating that in my 1st post I was not trying to convince any one of my belief and there are closed-minded people on both sides of the issue. Now you have brought GOD into mix which is a twist on the conversation because I haven&#39;t mention any deity in any of my posts. Pardon me if I ignore this because it has nothing to do with what I believe.

These are my definitions of opened and closed minds:
(Open Minded): Some one who is open to possibilities and new ideas. There are things we will never know.
(Closed Minded): Someone who is not open to new ideas and rejects any possibilities except those that are proven by their set of facts. If there are no facts to prove something does or does not exists they dismiss it.

<!--QuoteBegin-CryoDragoon

To your second point: About the burden of proof:

Someone comes up to you saying: "Pink Unicorns exist"
So you say: "Can you prove it does?"
And he says: "You cannot prove that they do NOT exist, so they must exist"
(this is, again, a logical fallacy)

If you make a claim that something does exist... you must be able to prove it, or else your entire claim falls apart. If that is true, than you can say anything and say that it&#39;s true.

So technically: the "burden of proof" DOES, indeed, lie with theists (who say that some kind of god DOES exist). THEY claim something exists, and therefore THEY should prove that something exists.
If I say to you I have faeries in my house, but that they are invisible for everyone except for me.
This is perfectly true, because you cannot disprove that.

Neither of those disprove what I believe:
The unicorn is a physical object thus eliminating it as proof because it can be defined with a physical definition.(see first sentence in the quote below)
If the faery is invisible to me I can not prove whether it is there or not, nor can you. Whether or not your faery exists is irrelevant because I can&#39;t prove it isn&#39;t there, nor can you prove that it is there. If your asking me to prove that I have seen what I believe, you need to reread my original post. There is nothing in my original post that suggests I have seen or understood anything. These examples seem to based on an assumption that my belief has something to do with a deity.
I don&#39;t claim to know what is out there, that&#39;s why I said "hope to understand".(this is in bold in the quote below)

Originally Posted by tekdawg

this is the 1st part of my original post
I believe there is something out there that is incomprehensible in physical terminology, any attempt to understand it will create confusion and argument, physics do not apply. We can only hope to understand it and in doing so we may reach the next level of our existence. I refuse to believe I&#39;m just gonna turn to dust and that will be the end of me.[/b]

There is nothing in this that suggests a deity nor any understanding. As for the after life, yes my body will most likely turn to dust assuming there isn&#39;t something invented to prevent my death. But if I chose not to believe turning to dust will be the end of me, that&#39;s my opinion. There&#39;s nothing that suggest I am saying anyone else&#39;s belief is wrong either.

Originally posted by CryoDragoon

Now is the above statement true? I&#39;d like an answer on that question.
P.S.: I look forward to your answer, Tek(I can call you that... right?)... I really like this conversation...
....

I do not believe in any kind of afterlife. I think the only thing up there are neurons and electricity... And whenever we die... the same thing happens as the thing that happens with a lightbulb: It simply stops shining...
So: I think that we DO only become ashes and dust and everything when we die... No wishful thinking here

The question has already been anseered, and yes tek is fine.
As for your belief about death I accept that you believe that, I&#39;m won&#39;t say it&#39;s wrong but at this time I only agree with the body turning to dust part.

OK... so our definitions of open and close mindedness are a bit off...

Since I am not that good at formulating my definition myself... I have snatched them from Urban Dictionary

Open-mindedness:
Open-mindedness is that you are always willing to listen, hear, and contemplate about a view contradicting to your view, even if you think you are right. You should be able to think rationally and effectively (without presumptions), and come to a conclusion.

In short:
When you have an open mind, you are able to listen to others and you contemplate more than one viewpoint fairly, while holding your own stance on a particular topic.


Close Mindedness, on the other hand, simply dismisses that view immediately, simply because it contradicts to your particular viewpoint. When you&#39;re closed-minded, you are intolerant of the beliefs and opinions of others, and stubbornly unreceptive to new ideas.


Since I am able to do the stuff listed under "open-mindedness", I am able to conclude that I am, indeed open-minded.

But yes... Under your definition of whatever-mindednesses... I am, indeed, a close-minded person...

(By the way: does your dictionary say anything about close- and open-mindedness? I couldn&#39;t find it anywhere in mine (Oxford dictionary, for the record...)(could be my fault though... (probably is...)))


Oh&#33; Just to clear stuff up: the word "Liar" is not crude at all: if you lie... you are a liar... simple as that...
so:
-By my standards... I&#39;m not a liar...
-By yours... I am ... and a close minded one on top of that&#33;

But that&#39;s not what this is about... is it?



THE BURDEN OF PROOF:

Neither of those disprove what I believe:
The unicorn is a physical object thus eliminating it as proof because it can be defined with a physical definition.(see first sentence in the quote below)
If the faery is invisible to me I can not prove whether it is there or not, nor can you. Whether or not your faery exists is irrelevant because I can&#39;t prove it isn&#39;t there, nor can you prove that it is there. If your asking me to prove that I have seen what I believe, you need to reread my original post. There is nothing in my original post that suggests I have seen or understood anything. These examples seem to based on an assumption that my belief has something to do with a deity.
I don&#39;t claim to know what is out there, that&#39;s why I said "hope to understand".(this is in bold in the quote below)[/b]

True... And yes... Those were a bit strange examples... But that what you answered to was not my question:

My question is: If I say something exists... then should I prove that it does, or should YOU prove that it doesn&#39;t?

I did not ask whether we are able to prove it... I asked WHO should prove it.

I hope we both agree that if I say something exists... I should prove it does... Not you...

There is nothing in this that suggests a deity nor any understanding. As for the after life, yes my body will most likely turn to dust assuming there isn&#39;t something invented to prevent my death. But if I chose not to believe turning to dust will be the end of me, that&#39;s my opinion. There&#39;s nothing that suggest I am saying anyone else&#39;s belief is wrong either.[/b]

True... I guess I was getting abit carried away there... And therefore: I apologise...


Yeah...

I think I&#39;m done for now...

I look forward in hearing from you soon

-Me

I&#39;m not familiar with the Urban Dictionary. The one I saw online seemed to be a collection of personal viewpoints.
The only dictionary I have at the moment(had to dig it out of the closet)is an old college dictionary printed in 1969, I got it from my eight grade science class. I checked it after reading your last post and it has open-minded but not close(d)-minded: (*open-minded* - having or showing a mind receptive to new ideas or arguments.)

Originally posted by CryoDragoon
Open-mindedness:
Open-mindedness is that you are always willing to listen, hear, and contemplate about a view contradicting to your view, even if you think you are right. You should be able to think rationally and effectively (without presumptions), and come to a conclusion.

I agree with the first sentence, but not the second. The second sentence is open for interpretation. The definition would rely on what the person thinks is rational, which is a contradiction to being open-minded.

As for the burden of proof or being close-minded I agree with Brilliand&#39;s post

Originally Posted by Brilliand

The burden of proof lies with whoever makes an assertion, no matter which way it goes. As long as you can&#39;t prove me wrong, I may be right. That we have never proved it does not disprove it. It goes both ways.
.......[/b]

the part in bold is the key to why there are also closed minds on the disbelief side.

I guess that all for now.

P.S

Originally Posted by Brilliand

So then the faeries in my house exist, right? [/b]

If you want to believe in faeries then more power to you. I won&#39;t stand in your way.