Thread: Why I'm Not an Atheist

I find it fascinating how alot of the time atheists (myself included) criticicize and and insult other beleif systems the same way
christains do...Hypocrocy much ?

But ya you have every right to beleive what you beleive man. "Atheist" and "Atheism" have become rather bloated terms and i can understand why you would not want to be associated with that.

As a Christian believer, I am quite content to let the Atheist believe whatever he or she wants. Many atheists I’ve dealt with only accept empirical evidence as proof for the existence of anything, like Universal Mind. “Logic and reason” are defined as a tantamount to empiricism. But what justifies this position? Where does that put us when we want to prove the existence of things like love, self-awareness, personal identity throughout the course of ones life, the mind or even the very concepts of logic and reason themselves, all of which are abstract entities? In a materialistic universe, these abstractions would be mere sensations caused by the reactions of nerve endings and chemicals in the brain. That is where Atheist must reside if held to their metaphysical truth claims. So my logical question is this. Could this be the one and only meaningful way? What I cannot understand is how does someone with a metaphysical narrative depicting humanity as a meaningless speck on a clump of dust in a vast universe, suddenly derive the concept of human dignity when it comes to protesting the arbitrarily disposing of some of the specks? I don’t have anything against them but Atheist naturally declares intelligent design to be a religious dogma, rather than a plausible conclusion of scientific inquiry. That seems to imply that “true science” can never ask the question. Is this occurrence to complex to be a result of chance or natural selection? I doubt reason by itself would ever allow such interrogative principle to be excluded by default from any other field of inquiry. This is one of the greatest double speaks performed by Atheist. An Atheist believes that science confines itself to a naturalistic explanation of events. This is understandable, can be considered logical and it’s fine as far as it goes. But, when the common Atheist claims that there is nothing in the universe exclusive to natural explanations, however they are arguing outside the realm of science, and have become purveyor’s of naturalistic philosophy. That is no longer a methodology of objective inquiry but a religious like, dogmatic assumption, upon which foundation only certain conclusions will be allowed to subsist.

I think much of the misunderstandings between atheists and theists are centered around unstated assumptions that one side or the other makes. The emotions that such debates often elicit suggest that there are fundamental issues that divide both groups even before the existence of a divinity is considered.

Everyone can usually agree that people are free to believe whatever they wish, as long as disagreements are respected. It is in the common case that disagreement is not respected that the trouble emerges.

As an example, some atheists believe religion is a bane on human progress, while some theists believe atheism is just the same threat, and it often derails any chance of consensus before a rational debate even begins.

LS you gotta stop assuming that this R/S forum is a direct representation of what goes on in real life. In real life, most of us atheists just "let others be." Can't say the same for the religious people I've know, though.

Many people go ahead and try to criticize peoples beliefs and ask why people can believe in what they do. But at the end of the day, why can't some people just be left alone to believe in what they want to believe?

This thread = Yay for ignorance, lest we shall debate our beliefs or be self-critical. Lest we shell engage in open-ended discussion - God forbid! Lest it shall be possible to be wrong.

All you're doing is talking about "forcing" opinions, a popular phrase used to dodge arguments, once one doesn't have anything more to say that contributes to the topic at hand.
In addition, it is impossible to force a belief onto someone, anyway. One person can only say something and the other person can react internally and externally. It is up to both sides individually to make use of the words spoken by the other side respectively.

Unfortunately, it is entirely nonsensical to say that "everyone should be able/have the right to believe whatever they want to believe". This is simply a given, because there are currently no mind-control devices in use. You do not need to say this. It is a display of a lack of arguments, nothing more.

In fact, this sentence is so superfluous, I usually just ignore it or point out to the other side that I would have preferred an actual argument rather than that "pearl of wisdom".

You should be aware that this position is nothing else than the position of naivety and mulishness.
It is to say "Well, you have a good point but you know what? Go fuck yourself, I don't give a shit."
To partake in a discussion about the subject at hand is to accept that one could be wrong. To say "Well, I have the right to still believe this despite your arguments" is not to accept the possibility that one could be wrong. It is to seal off your mind from the possibility of learning through discussion with others. That is the central meaning of religion - not giving a shit about what others think.

We should discuss our beliefs. Always. Simple.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Religious tolerance is inacceptable. No belief should ever be respected.

I can't prove it, and you cannot disprove it, you can only give me a logical answer based on what we know as of yet. We don't know what we may discover in the future, so i think that a logical answer based on the unlikeliness is a bit invalid. I have my own reasons for believing in what i believe.

Again, you are essentialy proposing that irrationality is acceptable.
No, you do not have your own reasons. Reasons are not proprietary. Quite to the contrary, they are virulent and contagious. Once you actually understand the argument presented by the opposite side, it is impossible for you to ignore its inherent truth.
If you say that a reason might be valid for you while being invalid for everyone else, you are again essentially shutting yourself off from the world.

I don't want to get into religious discussion, but to me it seems that you haven't understood the basic idea of atheism at all. Once you propose that something exists, you have to present evidence. Until you do this, it is irrational to even talk about the thing you propose exists. Actually, you can't even talk about it without having presented evidence first. The words "higher being" and "God" don't mean anything until you even know what you are talking about. And if you don't have evidence, you don't know what the word God means. Simple.
If I were to propose that "Zergtbal" exists without being able to say anything about it whatsoever, what does Zergtbal actually mean? Nothing. The same goes for God.

Everyone can usually agree that people are free to believe whatever they wish, as long as disagreements are respected. It is in the common case that disagreement is not respected that the trouble emerges.

This is wrong. It's exactly the other way around.
Disagreements should never be respected, they should be talked about. This is basic civilized human culture.

You know what happens when you are not able to have an open debate about an intellectual disagreement?
War.

You know why religious extremists fly planes into buildings? Because they think exactly like that. We can't talk with them about our intellectual differences. We can't have Bush and Bin Laden sit down peacefully and talk about whether God's name is "Yahweh" or "Allah". Thus, we have to bomb shit.
The end of words is the beginning of action. And religion is usually the end of words because we have to "respect" anything that has the "religion"-tag smacked on it.

I want to point out that the model of human interaction you propose is directly supportive of interpersonal hate and violent action taken because of it. It is a model more commonly used by children, who, as we all know, get into physical fights much more often.

That is why religious tolerance is inacceptable.

Just imagine, if, in a political debate, a candidate would simply reply to an argument by saying "It is my right to believe this so I will keep doing it".
He would present himself with the intellectual maturity of a 5-year old. Anyone would immediately understand that he only uses that sentence to conceal his lack of arguments.


Also, I want to add that "atheism" is not a philosophical position. It doesn't mean anything, because "God" doesn't mean anything. "Atheism" only makes sense within the boundaries of religion, by negating it. Instead, if being asked about labeling myself, I chose to use positive nouns such as naturalism, reason, science, empiricism, humanism etc.

That seems to imply that “true science” can never ask the question. Is this occurrence to complex to be a result of chance or natural selection?

Of course you can ask this question. Basic knowledge of the theory of evolution will answer it. Complexity is a human concept. You only think that humans are complex, because your brain evolved to consider life and humans the most complex of all things. However, complexity is a matter of subjective perspective, it's arbitrary. If anything, evolution can tell you that you are not to judge the complexity of something because you will inevitably fail to make a useful assessment due to being limited by the design of your brain in judging these things objectively. Subjectively considering something "too complex" is not an argument at all, unless you can specifically disprove the theory of evolution as it stands.

This is one of the greatest double speaks performed by Atheist. An Atheist believes that science confines itself to a naturalistic explanation of events. This is understandable, can be considered logical and it’s fine as far as it goes. But, when the common Atheist claims that there is nothing in the universe exclusive to natural explanations,

Science doesn't claim that. Science only describes that which is. You are the one claiming that science is missing something. The burden is on you to say what exactly is exclusive to natural explanation. Provide an example. Science will be glad to take it into consideration, if you can give a reason to do so. Provide only a shred of evidence for something that can not be explained by naturalistic science and BOOM Nobel Price for you. Quantum physics is already taken though.

however they are arguing outside the realm of science, and have become purveyor’s of naturalistic philosophy.That is no longer a methodology of objective inquiry but a religious like, dogmatic assumption, upon which foundation only certain conclusions will be allowed to subsist.

The reason science is naturalistic is because it is the only philosophical position that actually makes sense, given the parameters of our existence. It is due to the human interacting with its surroundings through a common set of senses and internally by thinking that once we interact at all, we are already doing so within the field of naturalism. By providing evidence to the contrary, you could change this. Though personally, I do believe that you will fail to do so.

Korittke, i'm sorry you wasted your time writing all that up, i'm not going to read it because i know exacty what it is. You see, this is what i'm talking about, can't you just leave me and my beliefs alone. If i want them criticizing or want them discussing, i'll ask alright. I know there was no direct approach on my beliefs, but you've broken it down, when i have asked that people not do it. Let me draw my own conclusions. Don't assume that i want your help, because i don't. I sometimes wonder if it is even help or whether you just feel satisfied by giving people criticism and feeling better about yourself. Meh, i don't know your motives, but either way, back off.

Mes - I know things are different in real life, but on here i find that people are rude, arrogant, and though i am against people pushing their beliefs onto others, i do not wish to have people push me around on here when i say nothing that is forcing my beliefs. Korittke proved my point, i knew someone would break it down like that. But i'm not going to take my time to read it because i know what the contents are already.

No offence, but i kind of felt ashamed to call myself an atheist at times. At the end of the day, i am not religious, so you cannot file me under the category of religious people forcing their beliefs on others. I am in between and unsure what to belief completely, i have some firm beliefs now, but i do not wish to share them because people are likely to criticize and break them down.

I'm still undecided as to what to do about all this, its hard to think straight because its so damn confusing.

Originally Posted by Lucid Seeker

Korittke, i'm sorry you wasted your time writing all that up, i'm not going to read it because i know exacty what it is. You see, this is what i'm talking about, can't you just leave me and my beliefs alone.

Well, you have a good point but you know what? Go fuck yourself, I don't give a shit.

Also, why did you write all that shit up if you'll just act like a little girl once you don't gain approval. Why not keep it to yourself instead of clogging up the forums. If you don't give a flying fuck what others think, release it as a book or in a blog that no one cares about. That way you won't get any responses. Great, huh?

But i'm not going to take my time to read it because i know what the contents are already.

It's called ignorance, look it up.

If i want them criticizing or want them discussing, i'll fucking ask alright. I know there was no direct approach on my beliefs, but you've broken it down, when i have asked that people not do it. Let me draw my own conclusions. Don't assume that i want your help, because i don't. I sometimes wonder if it is even help or whether you just feel satisfied by giving people criticism and feeling better about yourself. Meh, i don't know your motives, but either way, back off.

That's just ridiculous right there. First you say "what about you guys out there", I reply. You pose questions that are certainly not rhetoric, but you don't give a horse shit about answers I come up with. Then you say that you don't want any criticism or discussion like you're fucking Hitler or something. Then you say you want to draw your own conclusions. Yet you refuse to simply read a text, like it contains the date of your death. If you want to draw your own conclusions, how about you actually start letting criticism in. You'll not make any progress by sitting there and saying "I want to draw my own conclusions but God forbid I come in contact with something that I would have to think about while doing so".

Originally Posted by Korittke

Well, you have a good point but you know what? Go fuck yourself, I don't give a shit.

Also, why did you write all that shit up if you'll just act like a little girl once you don't gain approval. Why not keep it to yourself instead of clogging up the forums. If you don't give a flying fuck what others think, release it as a book or in a blog that no one cares about. That way you won't get any responses. Great, huh?

It's called ignorance, look it up.

Something tells me that your quite angered. I really am sorry you wasted your time typing that, i'm sure i'd be pissed if i had to write up all that.

Listen, the point of this thread was to hopefully discuss this kind of situation and some of the points i made. I never said they were good points, but i did state the purpose of this thread, and i also stated what i didn't want this thread to be, and that was a break down criticism of what i said and believe.

I'm not looking for approval, i'm looking for a mature conversation about this particular aspect of beliefs, and yet again, the points i made. I didn't ask for a violent response either, but if your going to give me one, i'd kindly ask you to not bother posting in this thread. I didn't ask you to post that response, in fact, maybe common sense would have told you to read the thread properly so that you know that i didn't want a broken down criticism.

Enough is enough, i forgive you for saying that stuff, but please, if you have nothing good to contribute, please don't post in here, i don't want it to be an argument thread.

I can't follow your stream of thought at all. Which beliefs do you want to talk about and which not?
Why not just mark your text with red and green so everyone knows which points you would like to be ignorant about and which points you would like to discuss. It would certainly help the topic.
Also, you're the one who gave a violent response. My call for you to go fuck yourself was merely the echo of the text I posted previously, in which I ascribe this meaning to the kind of response I got from you. Essentially, you pissed all over my face, not because it would matter to me personally whether someone reads the text or not but because you felt that you need to tell me to go fuck myself and my opinion.
All in all, I don't know what the purpose of the thread is - no. You make points, I reply. You ask a question, I try to answer. That's basically it. Seems not to work. How to do it differently?

I've said it before & I'll say it again.. I believe in God but I DON'T believe in religion. Also, I don't think that God is "outside" of us, it is my firm belief that God is "inside" each and every one of us, that's the only way I can make sense of the whole "we were all created in God's image" thing. For me God=Kharma, in the end the "judgement day" will only be self-reflection. Only each individual can know exactly what good and bad they did in their time here. I think it's going to be very hard for people who say they are of a religion and then spend their whole life "bending" the rules, like a Catholic who uses birth control for instance, their self-image in the end will be very skewed, when they look in the mirror they will see a sinner, regradless of if that activity is actually kharmically good or bad. Sucks to be those jerks.

I think most, if not all, religions are just fairy tales. Pure nonsense designed to keep people from acting badly, only it never seems to work out that way, don't even get me started on the "holiest" people on Earth.. the Muslims.

Also, I get a really good laugh out of seeing people who wear their religion on their sleeve (or on their head, as it were) announcing to the whole world "Hey lookit me! I believe a buncha silly nonsensical claptrap!) Hahahaha... too good. Twist up another turban there patka boy! LOL!!!

No offence, but i kind of felt ashamed to call myself an atheist at times. At the end of the day, i am not religious, so you cannot file me under the category of religious people forcing their beliefs on others. I am in between and unsure what to belief completely, i have some firm beliefs now, but i do not wish to share them because people are likely to criticize and break them down.

I have to sympathize with you there. As Mes said, people aren't usually so hostile in everyday life, but I think it can also be more difficult to discuss your beliefs to people who you know on a personal basis, so one might look to the forums as a place to discuss things in a more open environment.

If you can stand hostility in the forums without feeding it, you may find several people who are willing to discuss whatever is on your mind with you on a fair basis, but it's a test of patience.

Originally Posted by Korittke

I can't follow your stream of thought at all. Which beliefs do you want to talk about and which not?
Why not just mark your text with red and green so everyone knows which points you would like to be ignorant about and which points you would like to discuss. It would certainly help the topic.
Also, you're the one who gave a violent response. My call for you to go fuck yourself was merely the echo of the text I posted previously, in which I ascribe this meaning to the kind of response I got from you. Essentially, you pissed all over my face, not because it would matter to me personally whether someone reads the text or not but because you felt that you need to tell me to go fuck myself and my opinion.

I'm not going to argue with you over this okay.

Listen, i will make this crystal clear for you. In this thread i would like to draw in peoples views who have a similar mindset as mine. Phydeaux made a valid contribution like many others in here. I don't want people to break down my beliefs and criticize them, simply because i want to make up my own mind on things. I may appear to be closing myself off to it, but i know these explanations already. There are points where i would agree, but i don't see a problem with me maybe going beyond the bounds in terms of beliefs. They are doing nothing to affect you. So please, i'll ask nicely, leave criticism for another thread. Hopefully i have made myself clear.

Also, don't call me ignorant, don't tell me what you think i am based on what i put above, you don't know me at all and i find it insulting that your pretty much calling me stupid because i won't read your criticism. I know what the majority of it might say. Even if my beliefs do go against the laws of science and nature, why do you care so much? Leave me to myself, i am perfectly capable of thinking for myself and making my own decisions thank you. I want to work this one out myself. I really can't understand why you are making such an issue out of what i believe, i'm not forcing it on to you, in fact, i'm doing nothing to provoke you in terms of beliefs. Maybe i overreacted a bit in terms of swearing, and i am sorry for that. But don't you tell me what you think i am when you know hardly anything about me.

Now, for lack of other words, please get out of this thread unless you do have something to contribute. I realize you probably want the last word on things, but don't bother, because i'm not going to respond next time. Enough is enough.

R.D.735 i really appreciate your input, i agree with you though, i think a lot of it over the internet i that people feel they can be more hostile and rude towards people and get away with it. Discussion is not always an option, especially these people that believe that their opinion is right and dominates all others.

Back to Mes - I maybe am thinking into this too much, but i did know that things are different in real life, i am educated enough to know that, so please don't assume that i think that it mimics real life, because i don't, i am aware of how things are.

Originally Posted by Korittke

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Religious tolerance is inacceptable.

No belief should ever be respected.

I agree, and I'll start by not respecting your belief.

Originally Posted by Korittke

like you're fucking Hitler or something.

Godwin's law

Imagine if in a forum about economy (or RC cars, or politics, or biology, or Spanish or basically ANYTHING except religion), someone would put up his opinion on something and upon receiving critical replies, he would write "Can't you just leave me and by beliefs alone? If a certain belief brings me happiness, is it any wonder that i wouldn't want you attacking them?" And on top of that "I want to draw my own conclusions!"

It would be pretty funny. This is too.

And I didn't call you ignorant at all.

I agree, and I'll start by not respecting your belief.

That's step one. Step two is presenting a valid argument against it.

I take pride in fulfilling Godwin's Law. Always.

LS surely if you believe in a God of some form you were never Atheist anyway. I don't believe in God so i;d never say " I'm Ashamed to be a Christian these days". At best your Agnostic like you say, but if you actually have a view of God then you have a religious belief, which means your not Agnostic or Atheist, your a Theist in some form.

Anyway i think in forums things get more heated. I never really discuss religion unless something is said that annoys me. Say a Church service that sounds discriminative or hypocritical or something.

I may be wrong in my young age but i haven't really seen any Atheist activists. Say kicking over gravestones at Churches or spitting and attacking people going into religious buildings. However at some abortion clinics you will find such events, also when a child of parents is found to be homosexual, you will find this. Then taking it to the next level you will also find people blowing themselves up and killing many people who do not follow their faith. Although these events do not happen all the time( although the homosexual one is more common) I'm trying to get the message across that Atheists do not seem so aggresive when it comes to their life views.

Originally Posted by cuddleyperson

I may be wrong in my young age but i haven't really seen any Atheist activists. Say kicking over gravestones at Churches or spitting and attacking people going into religious buildings. However at some abortion clinics you will find such events, also when a child of parents is found to be homosexual, you will find this. Then taking it to the next level you will also find people blowing themselves up and killing many people who do not follow their faith. Although these events do not happen all the time( although the homosexual one is more common) I'm trying to get the message across that Atheists do not seem so aggresive when it comes to their life views.

It's a good point. There's really no reason to be intolerant or violent unless a holy book tells you to (or you are defective).

Originally Posted by Korittke

Well, you have a good point but you know what? Go fuck yourself, I don't give a shit.

WOW! one reply and the profanity is already out the bag! Saw this one coming however, whats the point in taking this person seriously?

very clever Ne-Yo, you would make a good politician. You do not quote him entirely as he says " it is to say". So he was saying that to nobody, still your clever quoting is genius. Those who do not read the entire thread and go near the bottom will believe Korittke has directly insulted someone.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

As a Christian believer, I am quite content to let the Atheist believe whatever he or she wants. Many atheists I’ve dealt with only accept empirical evidence as proof for the existence of anything, like Universal Mind. “Logic and reason” are defined as a tantamount to empiricism. But what justifies this position? Where does that put us when we want to prove the existence of things like love, self-awareness, personal identity throughout the course of ones life, the mind or even the very concepts of logic and reason themselves, all of which are abstract entities? In a materialistic universe, these abstractions would be mere sensations caused by the reactions of nerve endings and chemicals in the brain. That is where Atheist must reside if held to their metaphysical truth claims. So my logical question is this. Could this be the one and only meaningful way? What I cannot understand is how does someone with a metaphysical narrative depicting humanity as a meaningless speck on a clump of dust in a vast universe, suddenly derive the concept of human dignity when it comes to protesting the arbitrarily disposing of some of the specks? I don’t have anything against them but Atheist naturally declares intelligent design to be a religious dogma, rather than a plausible conclusion of scientific inquiry. That seems to imply that “true science” can never ask the question. Is this occurrence to complex to be a result of chance or natural selection? I doubt reason by itself would ever allow such interrogative principle to be excluded by default from any other field of inquiry. This is one of the greatest double speaks performed by Atheist. An Atheist believes that science confines itself to a naturalistic explanation of events. This is understandable, can be considered logical and it’s fine as far as it goes. But, when the common Atheist claims that there is nothing in the universe exclusive to natural explanations, however they are arguing outside the realm of science, and have become purveyor’s of naturalistic philosophy. That is no longer a methodology of objective inquiry but a religious like, dogmatic assumption, upon which foundation only certain conclusions will be allowed to subsist.

I stoped reading beyound the point where you said that you are a christain....JK

But Science relies on empirecal evidence and there has to be direct evidence of something to be considered fact. Science does not suggest there is no god at all but neither does it provide any evidence for it. As long as there is no evidence of a divine being then there is no place for such an idea in the realm of Science unless you can provide us with any sort of evidence that holds water for your beleif?

Simply stating that Humans are very complex creatures and have complex emotions is evidence of the methaphyichal is in no way proof of a divine being at all. Creationism likewise is not a science at all, Science operates on proof and evidence and Creationism which beleives in a "creator" provides no direct or hard evidence to substantiate its claim thus it is a Pseudo-Science much like Dianetrics which the cult of Scientology was founded on.

However i have to agree with you. When an atheist says "there is nothing in the universe exclusive to natural explanations" that is indeed very untrue. Like my Science teacher said. "In Science nothing is ever proven 100%" "In Science we never use the word proven"

Originally Posted by cuddleyperson

very clever Ne-Yo, you would make a good politician. You do not quote him entirely as he says " it is to say". So he was saying that to nobody, still your clever quoting is genius. Those who do not read the entire thread and go near the bottom will believe Korittke has directly insulted someone.

No insults? The real question is did you read his post?

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Religious tolerance is inacceptable. No belief should ever be respected

See for most christians these are not just beliefs they are a way of life and they are a part of people. I'm a Christian but because of my beliefs I I'm inacceptable and don't have the right to be respected? What's up with that?

By being an atheist, you prove God exists! Because, say God didn't exist, and thus the word God would never have entered our culture, and neither would any other word like allah or theo which is also God in a different language have existed. so, say, atheist have it by the right end, and God doesn't exists, they would have to change their name, because the name a-theo-ist includes the word God. Their believe is based on the word God. Wether they deny God, or accept him, God still defines them.

If God didn't exist, atheists wouldn't exist either.

Btw, give up on the science vs religion argument, because science and religion are the same. You just fail to see that truth.

No, theology.

A - The - ist.

Non-theist if you will.

That is a hell of a strawman though. Too bad it is of logical fallacy because there still is no proof or reason to believe in a deity as defined by any theology.

Originally Posted by Lucid Seeker

Korittke, i'm sorry you wasted your time writing all that up, i'm not going to read it because i know exacty what it is. You see, this is what i'm talking about, can't you just leave me and my beliefs alone. If i want them criticizing or want them discussing, i'll ask alright. I know there was no direct approach on my beliefs, but you've broken it down, when i have asked that people not do it. Let me draw my own conclusions. Don't assume that i want your help, because i don't. I sometimes wonder if it is even help or whether you just feel satisfied by giving people criticism and feeling better about yourself. Meh, i don't know your motives, but either way, back off.

Mes - I know things are different in real life, but on here i find that people are rude, arrogant, and though i am against people pushing their beliefs onto others, i do not wish to have people push me around on here when i say nothing that is forcing my beliefs. Korittke proved my point, i knew someone would break it down like that. But i'm not going to take my time to read it because i know what the contents are already.

No offence, but i kind of felt ashamed to call myself an atheist at times. At the end of the day, i am not religious, so you cannot file me under the category of religious people forcing their beliefs on others. I am in between and unsure what to belief completely, i have some firm beliefs now, but i do not wish to share them because people are likely to criticize and break them down.

I'm still undecided as to what to do about all this, its hard to think straight because its so damn confusing.

Wait, so you willingly come into the R/S forum, type up a bunch of rude things about atheists, and then expect no one to challenge your words because you wanna be left alone? .... That's great, but the logical choice for you would be to stay out of the R/S forum. It's really that simple. No one is going to hound you in other sections of the forum and challenge your beliefs. I really don't know what you're doing here...