It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

And Then They Call Our Minds Closed

page: 4
24
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
You think, ladies and gentlemen, that perhaps I exaggerate? I do not. If anything, I understate the case. For proof, voici this thread, currently experiencing high activity in the Space Exploration forum:

Someone Please Explain To Me - The Theory that Jupiter Ignited - while behind the Sun right now.

The fact is, Jupiter is (1) not behind the sun right now, which allows us to see for ourselves that (2) it hasn't caught fire, or turned into a star, or whatever the heck is supposed to have happened to it. All that is needed to learn the truth is to go out into the garden any time from half an hour after sunrise onwards and look east. Until the sun rises, you'll see Jupiter, low and ascending, beautiful and unchanged, just where you would expect to see it. And after the sun rises it will be evident that there is - ahem - only one star visible in the sky.

So you'd think nothing could be simpler to disprove than this unlikely - to say the least - theory. Only - well, go over to the thread and take a look at what's happening. It's carnage.


Here's where one of the problems lies, in my opinion.

We're not reading each others' posts.

I haven't checked that thread today, but I did take a look yesterday, and what I saw was:

the OP asks "Can someone tell me where this idea comes from?"

not

"Jupiter's behind the sun, is it going to explode?"

She got jumped on by a bunch of people making fun of her for thinking it was true – which she had never stated. "Where does this idea come from" is a really good question about a lot of rumors – they almost never are made up completely in one person's mind and then let loose on the world. There is usually some seed that gets developed – and that might be a very interesting story.

I was relieved to see that a couple people finally actually addressed the OP's question, and explained about the probes carrying plutonium and blah blah blah and how it's definitely not going to explode.

And that was a very satisfying answer to me, since I had started wondering a) where the idea came from in the first place, just like the OP wondered and b) why people were so upset with her for trying to find out.




posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by americandingbat
 

Good post, Dingbat.

My reaction was to other posters on the thread, not the thread starter. I think the part of my post you quote makes that fairly clear.

It's still going on. Here's a quote from the latest post on that thread:


I have more intelligence in my pinky than you have in your whole being.

The person who typed that is insisting, in the face of perfectly valid information being presented to him by people who obviously know what they are talking about - people with scientific training and an evident interest in the subject - that the Galileo probe could have caused Jupiter to undergo a fusion chain reaction and turn into a star.

Suggestions of 'disinformation agent' are also flying around.

It's Bedlam.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Oh, dear!!!

Almost spit up my beverage, that was so funny!

Since this is 'general conspiracy discussion'....well, I have nothing general to discuss.....darn!

oh! Closed minds!!! Well, I could go on about that for days....but instead, let's try this.

A one-year old Human child is open to EVERYTHING. I think most might agree with me there.

This continues, as the child learns and develops....and environments will influence her perception of things (or his)....but, once language gets into the mix....well!!! NOW there is the word NO! or, STOP THAT!

Or the worst ones...'What, are you stupid?'

And, of course to re-inforce, the occasional slap....it is commonplace for Human adults, through no fault of their own, to "bring up baby" the way they were brought up.

BUT....this is societal. Different cultures (my example might resemble an American upbringing), different mores imprinted on the children.

THIS is what 'closes' minds....no fault on the parents, they're doing the best they can....but every now and then a gem gets squeezed out....THESE free-thinkers should be cherished.

We have Newton, Galileo, and Einstein....and Hawking, just to name a few. There are many others....

EDIT to add....it's the real quandry, how to recognize the gems?

[edit on 2/17/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by americandingbat
 


With all due respect americandingbat, I was one of the original posters calling the theory bunk. You may not be referring to me in your post but in case you were, I personally never made fun of the author of the thread. I also made a point of clarifying this with him/her.

IMHO, I think the theory came from a conspiracy theorist who never did their homework... it just sounded like a good idea to them at the time. Many times throughout the thread, good members made everyone aware that Jupiter was not, in fact, behind the sun and gave valid reasons why Jupiter did not, or can not ignite. I even posted a link to Bad Astronomy.com where the scientific issues concerning this are addressed in full.

Did anyone go and check out those pages? It appears not. Quite often in such threads, a blind eye is turned on any science that may disprove the conspiracy/theory. Even after that point, I still have members asking me to post evidence that Jupiter did not, or can not explode.

I made a point of saying, I am not scientist but even after that point, I still had members saying, "so you think you're a scientist".

IMHO, the people that support these theories have an aversion to the truth which is in this case, evidence against their theory. They have proven time and time again that truth is not an obstacle and often resort to claims that all science is simply indoctrination, therefore none of it is true - ergo - fanciful imaginings apparently hold more weight and are more likely to be scientifically true - according to them.

Needless to say, I don't hold the same opinion.

IRM



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by InfaRedMan
With all due respect americandingbat, I was one of the original posters calling the theory bunk. You may not be referring to me in your post but in case you were, I personally never made fun of the author of the thread. I also made a point of clarifying this with him/her.


I just went back to check, and no you were not one of the posters I was referring to, at least on the first page of that thread. I have no problem with calling the theory bunk – I think it is bunk. My problem was mostly with those who derided the member who started the thread.

In an ideal world, I think that thread would have been posted, one or two people would have said the theory was bunk, then everyone would have left it alone until the OP came back and said "that's not what I asked, I asked where the theory came from".

Instead, between her first couple posts and this one partway down the first page, there are 12 posts with varying degrees of rudeness, humor, and information, all to say "it's impossible, it could never happen" and one post that says "whoa, back up. I don't think it did, but why are you jumping all over it". In my opinion, at least 6 of those posts were unnecessary and served only as a sort of shoulder-punching, back-slapping "look how funny we are and how dumb someone else is" party.


IMHO, I think the theory came from a conspiracy theorist who never did their homework... it just sounded like a good idea to them at the time. Many times throughout the thread, good members made everyone aware that Jupiter was not, in fact, behind the sun and gave valid reasons why Jupiter did not, or can not ignite. I even posted a link to Bad Astronomy.com where the scientific issues concerning this are addressed in full.


But by that point no one was addressing the original point of the thread – which was not whether or not it had or could happen, but where the idea that it could had originated. I think that thread degenerated so fast because everyone lined up on their side of the believer/skeptic line and started taking potshots without ever reading what the OP wanted to know.


Did anyone go and check out those pages? It appears not. Quite often in such threads, a blind eye is turned on any science that may disprove the conspiracy/theory. Even after that point, I still have members asking me to post evidence that Jupiter did not, or can not explode.


I have a kind of unusual pattern of posting here, so I do know both sides of this. And I do know the frustration of having pointed out an irrefutable truth that just gets ignored because people are so eager to bash the "sheeple".

That's why my quarrel wasn't with Astyanax either. I was just trying to point out a mechanism that I think is often at play in that sort of thread (both skeptic and believer-started), in which people get so focused on defying what they see as the opposition, that any middle ground gets lost. And the result all too often is that not everyone stays civil, and we risk missing something that might be interesting.


I made a point of saying, I am not scientist but even after that point, I still had members saying, "so you think you're a scientist".


As I said, I think part of the problem is that we don't read each others' posts



IMHO, the people that support these theories have an aversion to the truth which is in this case, evidence against their theory. They have proven time and time again that truth is not an obstacle and often resort to claims that all science is simply indoctrination, therefore none of it is true - ergo - fanciful imaginings apparently hold more weight and are more likely to be scientifically true - according to them.


We're gonna veer into metaphysics here, and Astyanax can verify that I get all weird when you start talking metaphysics
Heck, I even believe in magic (kinda-maybe). But I'm also an agnostic who believes that most of what NASA tells us is true, even if they don't tell us most of what they know.


Needless to say, I don't hold the same opinion.


This would be a terrible place if we all held the same opinions.


-adb

[edit on 2/18/09 by americandingbat]



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Zykloner
 


Zyk, I'm quite familiar with the rubber sheet with the heavy ball in the middle, and a smaller ball orbiting analogy...problem is, this explains three-dimensional objects operating in a (sort-of) two-dimensional theme.

(and, ignoring the fact that this model includes friction, with the small ball...AND, we are demonstrating on Earth, not in space.......it is a method to demonstrate, but not completely explain, how gravity may work...)


I know.
Its just that our "simple brains" think it is easier to understand "two" dimensions.
The rubber sheet also includes the dimension time.
I dont know about you but i think its hard to understand without the simplifying with the rubber sheet.
After all it was Einstein who made the analogy with the rubber sheet and i do belive he understood the full model. He also understood that most people cant.

Zyk



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 01:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Zykloner
 


Not sure it was Einstein, with the rubber sheet, in the Drawing Room...OK, lame joke....

Einstein's best contribution was his understanding of LIGHT....

I mean, this guy....he had no way to experiment, to guage the speed of light....he just intuitively knew, and through his math....what a brilliant mind!

Well, not intuitively, at first....but keen observation....led to his mathematics.

About 'closed' minds....doubt any of us were around in his era (I'm old, but not THAT old)....Einstein's math was immaculate, but the equations, and the results, were hard to take....even if they could be understood.



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 01:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Zykloner
 


Zy, the 'membrane', or simply 'brane' theory takes 'string' theory a bit further....AND it seems to help understand the 'four forces'.... to explain why 'gravity', as a force, is so much weaker than the other three forces.

One force....the attraction of a positron to an electron....VERY strong....again, though, they orbit and never touch....(well, behind closed doors....don't ask, don't tell!!!)

So....there is 'the strong' nuclear force, and the 'weak' nuclear force....and magnetism....all three trump gravity....so gravity is the wimp...and reason is...Ta Da!!! Maybe explained by 'brane' theory.

Gravity is really powerful, in alternate realities....and is filtered through 'branes' just so our reality can be 'just right'.

OK, sleep well, nighty nite!!

Not trying to make fun, but just wrapping my mind around this latest concept. Because, this is the physics du jour....and the math tends to support.

Darn!!! Just put me on the Starship, and THEN explain it to me in class...



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 02:38 AM
link   
reply to post by americandingbat
 


Instead, between her first couple posts and this one partway down the first page, there are 12 posts with varying degrees of rudeness, humor, and information, all to say "it's impossible, it could never happen" and one post that says "whoa, back up. I don't think it did, but why are you jumping all over it". In my opinion, at least 6 of those posts were unnecessary and served only as a sort of shoulder-punching, back-slapping "look how funny we are and how dumb someone else is" party.

Are we reading the same thread, Dingbat?

Only one of those posters displayed any real discourtesy in addressing the OP. That person is rather infamous for his or her abrasive style and may currently be indentified by a little red tag beneath the avatar. Apart from this member's (admittedly disagreeable) posts, Altered States and InfaRedMan were the only two 'sceptics' to address the thread starter directly in those twelve posts. They did so politely.

I saw no shoulder-punching or backslapping in those posts, except perhaps from the young member with the warn tag. Nobody took him up on it because he'd already annoyed the sceptics as well as the believers.

And as for the post that - according to you - says 'whoa, back up', what it actually says is


you are just so adamant that it’s not going to happen doesn’t mean it won’t does it open your mind a little bit its annoying when people are so close minded

This, ah, fellow is asking InfaRedMan to go back on a perfectly valid position because he doesn't like hearing it. He's not trying to make peace, he's complaining because a stupid theory he wants to believe in has been nobbled before it's even out of the starting-gate.

I liked your earlier post, but this one is just special pleading for Believers. You are a great deal more intelligent and clearly better educated than the space cadets making fools of themselves on the Jupiter thread, but your alignment is clearly with them and so is your bias.

InfaRedMan, as GrayFoxSolid started an entire thread to point out, is the one in this thread deserving of sympathy - not to mention ncghunter, whose helpfulness, restraint and courtesy throughout the thread have earned him a fortune in insults and accusations of fakery. These members gave of their knowledge to enlighten others. They did not do so gratuitously, but in answer to another member's question. They told the truth. They denied ignorance. What did they get in return?



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 04:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Zykloner
 


Zy, the 'membrane', or simply 'brane' theory takes 'string' theory a bit further....AND it seems to help understand the 'four forces'.... to explain why 'gravity', as a force, is so much weaker than the other three forces.

One force....the attraction of a positron to an electron....VERY strong....again, though, they orbit and never touch....(well, behind closed doors....don't ask, don't tell!!!)

So....there is 'the strong' nuclear force, and the 'weak' nuclear force....and magnetism....all three trump gravity....so gravity is the wimp...and reason is...Ta Da!!! Maybe explained by 'brane' theory.

Gravity is really powerful, in alternate realities....and is filtered through 'branes' just so our reality can be 'just right'.

OK, sleep well, nighty nite!!

Not trying to make fun, but just wrapping my mind around this latest concept. Because, this is the physics du jour....and the math tends to support.

Darn!!! Just put me on the Starship, and THEN explain it to me in class...



Read a bit about string theory, never read much about the brane theory though.
Thanks for the input.

If you want something to wrap your mind look into the Boltzman brain paradox/concept.en.wikipedia.org...

Zyk



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by TooManyHumans
 



My advice to you is give your opinion on things and leave it at that. You can try to explain your side of things but if people don't want to listen then thats all there is to it. Let them keep their fantasy because they are not gonna change.

Skeptics are a vital part to any good discussion but at some point you need to know when to walk away from the fanatical threads.


Good points! A * 4 U!

Doesn't it also include knowing your limitations? I find the dogmatic on all levels, at times attributing more credit than is due to their beliefs.

The ring wing fundamentalists and the atheist crowd have a lot in common in the sense that they only see their way. Yet, often knowledge may fall in-between. Yet both rant and call each other names and achieve nothing but being close minded.

I often get discouraged when there is no headway, no acknowledgment of truth if it goes against ones beliefs, even with good intellectual reasoning, but instead: constant disagreement.



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by MatrixProphet
 


ummmm...matrix, please expand on what a right wing consevative is....seems that was part of your last post....

Would love to hear your thoughts.....

oh and EDIT to add....the "right wing" and the 'atheisits'...oh, this should be golden!!!!

[edit on 2/18/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 12:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


That post is entirely on target. This thread is about how people choose a pet theory or system of beliefs and defend it against people who question it with faulty logic. I therefor submit that all of the people in the US that voted for Obama because he was going to change us and that change is good, had no logical ground to stand on and resorted to ad hominin attacks... or people who supported every choice that Bush made... are the same as conspiracy theorists who flame skeptics when they as logical questions and start debates.

I am sorry if this seems to over extend the OP, but I think this is perfectly applicable.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by americandingbat
 


Instead, between her first couple posts and this one partway down the first page, there are 12 posts with varying degrees of rudeness, humor, and information, all to say "it's impossible, it could never happen" and one post that says "whoa, back up. I don't think it did, but why are you jumping all over it". In my opinion, at least 6 of those posts were unnecessary and served only as a sort of shoulder-punching, back-slapping "look how funny we are and how dumb someone else is" party.

Are we reading the same thread, Dingbat?

Only one of those posters displayed any real discourtesy in addressing the OP. That person is rather infamous for his or her abrasive style and may currently be indentified by a little red tag beneath the avatar. Apart from this member's (admittedly disagreeable) posts, Altered States and InfaRedMan were the only two 'sceptics' to address the thread starter directly in those twelve posts. They did so politely.

I saw no shoulder-punching or backslapping in those posts, except perhaps from the young member with the warn tag. Nobody took him up on it because he'd already annoyed the sceptics as well as the believers.


I think we're reading the same thread, just from different angles.

If you take that one poster's contributions out of the first twelve responses, it becomes an entirely different thread. But that's not reality. Reality is that Altered States' and InfraRedMan's later posts get read in the context of the repeat discourtesy of that one poster and the comment by another poster that "Im constantly stunned at how people can believe this kind of crap at all."

Since the thread starter had not asked if it were possible for Jupiter to turn into a star, and no further poster had made a serious claim that such a thing was possible (I'm not counting, "well, we can wait and see" or "doesn't anything from the movies actually work" as serious claims that Jupiter had ignited), further discussion by skeptics of how it could never happen comes across as backslapping to me.




And as for the post that - according to you - says 'whoa, back up', what it actually says is


you are just so adamant that it’s not going to happen doesn’t mean it won’t does it open your mind a little bit its annoying when people are so close minded

This, ah, fellow is asking InfaRedMan to go back on a perfectly valid position because he doesn't like hearing it. He's not trying to make peace, he's complaining because a stupid theory he wants to believe in has been nobbled before it's even out of the starting-gate.


Actually, he says:


Hey man come on no offence but because you are just so adamant that it’s not going to happen doesn’t mean it won’t does it open your mind a little bit its annoying when people are so close minded

And so I don’t think it will happen either but im not saying that it won’t happen because I don’t know what will and won’t happen and neither do you


So how you get the idea he wants to believe in the theory is not clear to me. I read this post not as a demand that InfraRedMan go back on his position, but that InfraRedMan (among others) back off of the OP.


I liked your earlier post, but this one is just special pleading for Believers. You are a great deal more intelligent and clearly better educated than the space cadets making fools of themselves on the Jupiter thread, but your alignment is clearly with them and so is your bias.


That's not what they think when I defend skeptics


In this instance, my alignment is with reading each others' posts, and respecting each other regardless of intelligence, education, or belief.

From what it sounds like, that thread has become a complete train wreck. I'm trying to point out that it was already well on its way to trainwreckhood in the first 15 posts, and that much of that could have been avoided by answering the question that the OP asked instead of using it as an opportunity to argue against a theory that she only wanted to know the genesis of.

If I ask "what is the Biblical basis for the argument that homosexuality is a sin?" on this site, it is very likely that I will be treated to a 200-page thread on whether or not gay sex is a sin, how Jesus would have felt about the matter, and whether it has anything to do with Zionism or pedophilic priests.

If I'm very lucky, someone will point me to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, maybe to Leviticus, if I'm extraordinarily lucky even to some of the less literal passages that can be used pro or con this argument. But that's all I asked for.

It's not so bad when the OP's actual question gets answered before the sides show up to argue; in the case of the thread cited, the sides were lining up and no one had taken the trouble to even acknowledge the actual question asked, let alone answer it. No wonder tempers started flaring and defensiveness settings were on high so fast.


InfaRedMan, as GrayFoxSolid started an entire thread to point out, is the one in this thread deserving of sympathy - not to mention ncghunter, whose helpfulness, restraint and courtesy throughout the thread have earned him a fortune in insults and accusations of fakery. These members gave of their knowledge to enlighten others. They did not do so gratuitously, but in answer to another member's question. They told the truth. They denied ignorance. What did they get in return?


Perhaps InfaRedMan does deserve sympathy, but so does the OP.

And my posts have not been calls for sympathy for anyone, but for recognition of how often we all react before fully assessing what's been said.


[edit on 2/19/09 by americandingbat]



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 04:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by americandingbat

Perhaps InfaRedMan does deserve sympathy, but so does the OP.



Awwww Shucks! LOL!

Thanks for the sentiment but I'm not really one for sympathy. I'm big enough and ugly enough (just look at my avatar) to look after myself. I generally take verbal stabs from perfect strangers with a grain of salt.

The most humorous post on that thread was from another member (or alien
) who appears to pop veins in their forehead over the fact that I use smiley's a lot. Very telling of someone without a valid point to make. It did make me giggle though - so if he/she is reading this post... this ones for you mate -->



IRM



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



ummmm...matrix, please expand on what a right wing consevative is....seems that was part of your last post....

Would love to hear your thoughts.....

oh and EDIT to add....the "right wing" and the 'atheisits'...oh, this should be golden!!!!


Actually aside from my misspelling of ring = right
, I think I was pretty clear.

But for sake of argument I will expound a little further...

Atheists can have very closed minds when it comes to defining or classifying all "believers" those who believe in the existence of a power with consciousness...as religious. They use names such as calling you a "fundie" ignorant, blinded etc.

The right wing Christian judges everyone who don't believe as they do - "I'll pray for you!" "You are misguided." "The Lord is our Saviour." "You are not really Christian if you don't believe in the trinity, etc. etc."

Well guess what? I don't fit into either box! I am most aggressive against religion...ALL religion, and don't go by any labels including Christianity. Both groups have their fanatics. And I was whining about it, okay?


"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." - Thomas Paine



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by MatrixProphet
 


OK, Matrix....I get it now.

I think we're actually on the same page...(or at least in the same book).

Here's what an 'open' mind does: It takes everything in, considers it, and files it away for future reference.

Here's what a 'closed' mind does: It only lets in what it has already determined to fit its 'mindset' beforehand.

A 'closed' mind will not accept anything outside of its pre-determined parameters.

An 'open' mind will hear everything....and, yes, reject as ridiculous, certain things straight away....but still, will remember that bit of data, and keep it in 'mind'....because, like a jigsaw puzzle, every piece might eventually matter in the big scheme of things.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



Here's what a 'closed' mind does: It only lets in what it has already determined to fit its 'mindset' beforehand.

A 'closed' mind will not accept anything outside of its pre-determined parameters.

An 'open' mind will hear everything....and, yes, reject as ridiculous, certain things straight away....but still, will remember that bit of data, and keep it in 'mind'....because, like a jigsaw puzzle, every piece might eventually matter in the big scheme of things.


Yes, you get it. Both (atheists & evangelicals) use their guru's or popes and think that they have an open mind while they may be deluding themselves. Both absolutely KNOW that they are right. Only a few of each - I have found, are really willing to go beyond their comfort zones and truly discuss possibilities - brain storm the gray areas.



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 12:33 AM
link   
reply to post by MatrixProphet
 


Matrix....what an important concept!!!

An 'atheist', literally, "No God" and a 'theist', which is "having a god, or believing in a god"....compared to 'Agnostic', which is neither/nor.....

Since this thtead is about 'open' minds.....I think I have some free reign, I hope.....

Focusing on what I think this thread is steering towards, seems to be religion, and religious 'belief'.

If I'm wrong, then please steer me away in the right direction (whatever THAT means....)

Back to the Title.....an 'OPEN' mind.....(well, the opposite of 'closed', anyway....)

My mind opened up, years ago, because I learned to read, and discovered great Science Fiction....emphasis on the 'science' in my fiction.

As I expand on that concept, it seems I need to do more....this IS ATS, after all.....right????

'Open Minds' that 'deny ignorance'.....I added a few words, but the concept is, I think, undeniable.

There is a place for a 'closed mind'....because, that 'mindset' helps in demying every scientific endeavour.

The 'closed minds' help as a 'control'.....but, when revelations occur? Well, then that is wonderful!!!!! Because then minds open!!!!!

EDIT....still, as always...typos.'

I thought about adding more insight, but will wait to see what others have to contribute.....







[edit on 2/22/0909 by weedwhacker]

[edit on 2/22/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by MatrixProphet

Yes, you get it. Both (atheists & evangelicals) use their guru's or popes and think that they have an open mind while they may be deluding themselves. Both absolutely KNOW that they are right. Only a few of each - I have found, are really willing to go beyond their comfort zones and truly discuss possibilities - brain storm the gray areas.
I guess I'm safe then. i have no Pope or Guru, and I don't absolutely know anything, except that I don't absolutely know anything.

I identify myself as Atheist because Atheism is the closest general label I can apply to myself so everybody has an idea where I'm coming from. My theory and philosophy is very spiritual and open-minded, it just doesn't include a God. Doesn't mean I'm opposed to god or the theory of a God, it just mean I don't feel a God fit's into my personal beliefs at this time. My belief system is flexible enough to accept new information and give it a fair shake though.

Who else here can say the same?

[edit on 22-2-2009 by Gigatronix]



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join