Soz the fault was on my behalf..What I meant to say was I was raised catholic, just shortening it out by saying I was born as a catholic sorry for the misunderstanding.Do you believe in God?
- Thread starter Darkblade
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Soz the fault was on my behalf..What I meant to say was I was raised catholic, just shortening it out by saying I was born as a catholic sorry for the misunderstanding.
I think that I know what you are trying to say, it's hard to explain, but i think that i get what you mean.
I'm fairly open-minded when it comes to new ideas and theories and philosophies, most of my friends think that I'm mad, but it all comes down to the fact that you never know! There is no proof, and I think, Why not? Why can't there be a being out there that is greater than us? Why can't ghosts exist? etc.
At the end of the day, I don't know if I believe in God or not. Technically, I am catholic, as I have been baptised and made my communion and confirmation and go to a catholic school etc. but I didn't really get a choice, as my whole family was. I can't say that I agree with everything they teach though, and generally think that the whole 'organised religion' deal is a bit dodgy... People should believe what they want to believe, and follow their religious path in whatever way they feel right, without all of these rules and rituals and so on. But that's just me though, I have nothing against people who go to church and follow every rule of their religion, that's their choice, as long as they are happy.
Anyhoooo, I'm probably rambling now so I'll shut up =D
dimmufan
Tauren Hunter
I have a problem with those christain people, who go to the places in Africa and South America where native tribes of people who've never heard of religion, that try and convert these people into the christain faith. These people have lived for centuries with no contact with the world that surrounds them. These christains come in and tell them that they are all going to this dreadful place called hell if they don't change their way of life and follow the christain god. I say leave those people alone and let them live their lives in peace the way they have done so for as long as they can remember. These christains shouldn't go around forcing their beliefs on other people.
SECONDED. One has no right to impress their ideas upon another. Those that do are just douches and make their religion look bad. Especially when they have no proof behind the 'Going to hell' claims. It's like saying "If you don't drive down THAT road, your going to have your car run over." =\ Stupid, right?
The Phantarch
The guardian of candour
No doubt about that. Considering the substantial lack of evidence outside of the religious texts, it would be like me trying to impose on everyone that the world came about by accident from the sweat of a pan-dimensional space giant's armpit. It is lunacy. People ask me "Do you think that this life is completely random?" The answer to that question is obviously 'No' as we are controlled by a number of determinisms in our life (both naturally occurring and imposed on us by society). That in itself is not definitive proof of God. Also the Bible, in particular, (from my knowledge) contradicts itself in so may ways. It says that God created man in his image but that can't be so as the idea is that he is omnipresent and thus must be amorphous, unless there are a multitude of him but that can't be as it says in the Bible there's only one God. That is one of the more obvious flaws, considering it's supposed to be God's word and God is supposed to be infallible, oh look another contradiction. Madness.
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2007
- Messages
- 13,511
- Location
- Manchester
- Gil
- 223
- FFXIV
- Bambi Branford
- FFXIV Server
- Lamia
I think I stopped believing in God about the same time I stopped believing in father chrismas- as stupid as that sounds.....
but no, i definately do NOT believe in god. I believe in science & cold hard fact. Then theres the whole different religions around the world. They all have their own beliefs and gods, yet 'our god' is supposed to be the one who created it all. I don't think so
but no, i definately do NOT believe in god. I believe in science & cold hard fact. Then theres the whole different religions around the world. They all have their own beliefs and gods, yet 'our god' is supposed to be the one who created it all. I don't think so
The Phantarch
The guardian of candour
It's not actually that stupid (your first point).
I can't be bothered with religion either. If there's a flaw in the logic then it cannot be so. Link to my other points. It is as simple as that.
The Big Bang theory, is just that a theory.
I honestly don't consider that theory legitimate to be honest.
Neither do I consider the fact "god" created the world in seven days to be plausible
I honestly don't consider that theory legitimate to be honest.
Neither do I consider the fact "god" created the world in seven days to be plausible
I'm learning about Evolution right now in bio, and my friend who sits next to me keeps saying things like 'what a load of crap', which is really annoying.. I mean, sure, she is entitled to her own opinion as is everybody and she doesn't have to believe in it if she doesn't want to, but I wish she would keep her feelings to herself instead of constantly saying how ridiculous the theory of evolution is. I personally think that it makes a lot more sense than creationism 'god flicked his wand and bobs yer uncle, life'.
How did humans really come into existence? This question is indeed what has lead me to believe in creation instead of the randomness of the "the theory of evolution". When anyone logically considers the positions taken from either side, it indeed is "science" and logic which tilts the pointer in the direction of creation. Yet it seems strange that in the culture of western civilization the only explanation for the origin of life you will find in public school and university textbooks is the theory of evolution. Yet, no scientific evidence (empirical) supporting the theory of evolution has emerged since Charles Darwin popularized it in 1859.
The question is therefore, if there is no further support or new empirical evidence offered in 150 years sense the inception of this theory why is no alternative theory taught? The answer is obvious. Other theories are not politically acceptable, and the authors, book publishers, and boards do not have all the facts, and present theory as such, and it is blindly accepted as such. One would be surprised to find out just exactly how many people believe that the age of the earth and fossil records have been "scientifically" proven as "ABSOLUTE". And it is really far from being "proven" and validated as absolute knowledge of the truth....which is by formal definition, SCIENCE. What we are dealing with then is "PSEUDO SCIENCE", not Science Actual.
The problem being that the "empirical evidence" many present as the proof of evolution is simply not applied correctly and honestly. The empirical evidence of "micro evolution" does not actually promote "abiogenesis"(The origin of life springing from the randomness of nature), the position taken by macro evolution and Darwinists. Darwin's hypothesis guessed that given enough time that animals would evolve or "change". This was not a surprising discovery, as anyone can examine different varieties of plants or animals to see how both have developed "superior" changes within the same species. As anyone can examine different varieties of roses or cats to see this. This process of changing an organism's appearance is correctly called "micro evolution" with an "i" and is not what we make reference to in the "theory of evolution". After a series of micro evolutionary changes, a frog for instance, may be larger or changed in color, but it is still a "FROG".....not something entirely different, such as a fish or a lizard, due to the fact that it was created or programed with these DNA traits in its DNA structure or signature of foundation.
The textbooks actually make the claim that mankind came into existence by a two step process. 1) 10 plus billion years of accidental, random atomic collisions resulted in the formation of some simple form of life. They call this process "abiogenesis". 2) They use Darwin's theory, stating that this simple life evolved over the next 3 plus billion years into plants, animals, and eventually humans that we see today.....using the long term effects of MIROEVOLUTONARY changes (in hypothesis only, without empirical support).....Scientisits call this process of developing new life forms "MACROEVOLUTION" (notice the difference in actual theories of conception?)
When both of these processes put together their theories (one offered with empirical evidence and the other only with a hypothesis), the public at large and the scientific community think the "theory of evolution" is a valid empirically proven scientific methodology of "PROOF". But, is it?
For example, if you observe a discussion between two people regarding whether the Bible's creation account or the theory of evolution is correct, they will not be( or should not be) debating whether a species of clam can develop larger ridges in its shell, a MIRCOEVOLUTION TOPIC NOT A MARCOEVOLUTION TOPIC. The subject of debate should be, "where did life come from?" and "did we descend from apelike ancestors, as claimed by Mr. Darwin as a "valid theory"....without empirical proof.
These are abiogeneses and marcoevolution topics, respectively different from each other. There is no empirical (reproducible and testable) proof for abiogenisis or macro evolution, but there is support in SCIENCE ACTUAL for the theory of microevolution. Therefore if someone attempts to justify the theory of evolution by showing how microevolution works, they are changing the topic and not proving anything.
As a proof of MACROEVOLUTION, many scientists turn to a lengthy, yet sophisticated discussion about changes in DNA from generation to generation....but, be aware that this is still an unprovable jump in logic, since DNA changes are a "microevolution" topic....not scientific proof of "abiogenesis", "macroevolution", or the theory of evolution, as none of these can be "empirically" linked to "microevolution".
So to claim the "EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE" of the "THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION" and the explanation for the "ORIGIN OF SPECIES" offered by Darwinism is "ABSOLUTE" is simply an EMPIRICALLY PROVEN FALSEHOOD. 54
The question is therefore, if there is no further support or new empirical evidence offered in 150 years sense the inception of this theory why is no alternative theory taught? The answer is obvious. Other theories are not politically acceptable, and the authors, book publishers, and boards do not have all the facts, and present theory as such, and it is blindly accepted as such. One would be surprised to find out just exactly how many people believe that the age of the earth and fossil records have been "scientifically" proven as "ABSOLUTE". And it is really far from being "proven" and validated as absolute knowledge of the truth....which is by formal definition, SCIENCE. What we are dealing with then is "PSEUDO SCIENCE", not Science Actual.
The problem being that the "empirical evidence" many present as the proof of evolution is simply not applied correctly and honestly. The empirical evidence of "micro evolution" does not actually promote "abiogenesis"(The origin of life springing from the randomness of nature), the position taken by macro evolution and Darwinists. Darwin's hypothesis guessed that given enough time that animals would evolve or "change". This was not a surprising discovery, as anyone can examine different varieties of plants or animals to see how both have developed "superior" changes within the same species. As anyone can examine different varieties of roses or cats to see this. This process of changing an organism's appearance is correctly called "micro evolution" with an "i" and is not what we make reference to in the "theory of evolution". After a series of micro evolutionary changes, a frog for instance, may be larger or changed in color, but it is still a "FROG".....not something entirely different, such as a fish or a lizard, due to the fact that it was created or programed with these DNA traits in its DNA structure or signature of foundation.
The textbooks actually make the claim that mankind came into existence by a two step process. 1) 10 plus billion years of accidental, random atomic collisions resulted in the formation of some simple form of life. They call this process "abiogenesis". 2) They use Darwin's theory, stating that this simple life evolved over the next 3 plus billion years into plants, animals, and eventually humans that we see today.....using the long term effects of MIROEVOLUTONARY changes (in hypothesis only, without empirical support).....Scientisits call this process of developing new life forms "MACROEVOLUTION" (notice the difference in actual theories of conception?)
When both of these processes put together their theories (one offered with empirical evidence and the other only with a hypothesis), the public at large and the scientific community think the "theory of evolution" is a valid empirically proven scientific methodology of "PROOF". But, is it?
For example, if you observe a discussion between two people regarding whether the Bible's creation account or the theory of evolution is correct, they will not be( or should not be) debating whether a species of clam can develop larger ridges in its shell, a MIRCOEVOLUTION TOPIC NOT A MARCOEVOLUTION TOPIC. The subject of debate should be, "where did life come from?" and "did we descend from apelike ancestors, as claimed by Mr. Darwin as a "valid theory"....without empirical proof.
These are abiogeneses and marcoevolution topics, respectively different from each other. There is no empirical (reproducible and testable) proof for abiogenisis or macro evolution, but there is support in SCIENCE ACTUAL for the theory of microevolution. Therefore if someone attempts to justify the theory of evolution by showing how microevolution works, they are changing the topic and not proving anything.
As a proof of MACROEVOLUTION, many scientists turn to a lengthy, yet sophisticated discussion about changes in DNA from generation to generation....but, be aware that this is still an unprovable jump in logic, since DNA changes are a "microevolution" topic....not scientific proof of "abiogenesis", "macroevolution", or the theory of evolution, as none of these can be "empirically" linked to "microevolution".
So to claim the "EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE" of the "THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION" and the explanation for the "ORIGIN OF SPECIES" offered by Darwinism is "ABSOLUTE" is simply an EMPIRICALLY PROVEN FALSEHOOD. 54
Something that I'd actually like for people to practice more often. -.-
Keep yer mouth shut when you don't know anything about the topic at all. Just like all of us here debating when neither side can actually prove which side of the creation debate is absolute.
Well, ACF is dying, so I'll take my arguments here. Rather interesting arguments you guys are putting up.
I do not believe in God. I'm not saying there isn't some higher power out there, I have yet to find a piece of evidence that completely, not partially, disproves his existence. I think that yes, there may be something out there, but no, I don't think it is YHWH, Brahma, Ra, etc. Human deities are far too flawed to be considered true gods.
But, I'll start off by making points that completely show (in my own humble opinion) that YHWH does not exist, since from what I've gathered from this thread, we are specifically arguing against Jehovah.
Firstly, mercy. How in bloody hell is YHWH merciful, people? He smites, he kills, he damns, etc. I'll come out and say it right now, that if I were religious, my philosophy would be as such:
"Old Testament God is badass, New Testament God is a wimp."
But seriously, he claims perfection, or so Christian, Jewish, and Islam claim him to be, and he is the most imperfect being I've ever seen. Seriously, he's the biggest damn hypocrite that I have layed mental thought on. He claims to be a kind God, a nice guy and all, and then goes and makes Commandment #1: "Thou shalt have no other Gods than me."
WTF! I'm sorry for the swear, but if he is so kind and merciful, wouldn't he allow people to believe what they believe, and then help them in heaven (which, FYI, was something Jewish people adopted from the Zoroastrians during their liberation by the Persian Empire, and is not inherently an Abrahamic (sp?) faith)? Wouldn't he be kind and merciful, and not damn every soul who believed in blue space-whales (one of Ryushikaze's preferred examples) instead of him? Oh yeah, real merciful there
Next argument - his 'perfection.' People in monotheistic religions gnerally have NO idea how much of a paradox perfection really is. You can't be perfect, it's impossible. If you were perfect, you would have nothing to improve on, which would automatically warrant the class of imperfection. As a result of this, he becomes imperfect!
Believe me, no matter how much this seems like circular logic, it isn't. It's not "He's imperfect because he's imperfect." It's "He's imperfect because perfection is an impossibility." No matter what you do, there is always someone better than you, regardless of whether you are a God or not; it's a law of the universe.
Argument number 3 - Creation. You know what, Princess Aighurhmnw, your friend is bullshitting you. According to the Catholic religion, evolution IS accepted. The Pope even went out and said that Evolution was true. How it works, I don't know, but your friend, if Catholic, is not really following the religion, is she :\ Even then, if she were Lutheran, Protestant, Anglican, etc., she'd know that ALL MAJOR CHRISTIAN DENOMINATIONS SUPPORT EVOLUTION! Your friend aint very religious :\
But, getting back to the Creationism theory, it is, in my opinion, a load of...there is no word for it. If creation and evolution go hand in hand, does that mean the YHWH is an ape
Well, we were apes. Hell, maybe he's an amoeba! We were all one-celled organisms at one point, so that means that if we were made in his image, he looks like an amoeba! YAY! A GOD THAT WE CAN SQUISH!
Just because I think I'm starting to rant now, I'm going to stop. I'll bring in more arguments later, but I'll stop now before I start to flame...
I do not believe in God. I'm not saying there isn't some higher power out there, I have yet to find a piece of evidence that completely, not partially, disproves his existence. I think that yes, there may be something out there, but no, I don't think it is YHWH, Brahma, Ra, etc. Human deities are far too flawed to be considered true gods.
But, I'll start off by making points that completely show (in my own humble opinion) that YHWH does not exist, since from what I've gathered from this thread, we are specifically arguing against Jehovah.
Firstly, mercy. How in bloody hell is YHWH merciful, people? He smites, he kills, he damns, etc. I'll come out and say it right now, that if I were religious, my philosophy would be as such:
"Old Testament God is badass, New Testament God is a wimp."
But seriously, he claims perfection, or so Christian, Jewish, and Islam claim him to be, and he is the most imperfect being I've ever seen. Seriously, he's the biggest damn hypocrite that I have layed mental thought on. He claims to be a kind God, a nice guy and all, and then goes and makes Commandment #1: "Thou shalt have no other Gods than me."
WTF! I'm sorry for the swear, but if he is so kind and merciful, wouldn't he allow people to believe what they believe, and then help them in heaven (which, FYI, was something Jewish people adopted from the Zoroastrians during their liberation by the Persian Empire, and is not inherently an Abrahamic (sp?) faith)? Wouldn't he be kind and merciful, and not damn every soul who believed in blue space-whales (one of Ryushikaze's preferred examples) instead of him? Oh yeah, real merciful there
Next argument - his 'perfection.' People in monotheistic religions gnerally have NO idea how much of a paradox perfection really is. You can't be perfect, it's impossible. If you were perfect, you would have nothing to improve on, which would automatically warrant the class of imperfection. As a result of this, he becomes imperfect!
Believe me, no matter how much this seems like circular logic, it isn't. It's not "He's imperfect because he's imperfect." It's "He's imperfect because perfection is an impossibility." No matter what you do, there is always someone better than you, regardless of whether you are a God or not; it's a law of the universe.Argument number 3 - Creation. You know what, Princess Aighurhmnw, your friend is bullshitting you. According to the Catholic religion, evolution IS accepted. The Pope even went out and said that Evolution was true. How it works, I don't know, but your friend, if Catholic, is not really following the religion, is she :\ Even then, if she were Lutheran, Protestant, Anglican, etc., she'd know that ALL MAJOR CHRISTIAN DENOMINATIONS SUPPORT EVOLUTION! Your friend aint very religious :\
But, getting back to the Creationism theory, it is, in my opinion, a load of...there is no word for it. If creation and evolution go hand in hand, does that mean the YHWH is an ape
Well, we were apes. Hell, maybe he's an amoeba! We were all one-celled organisms at one point, so that means that if we were made in his image, he looks like an amoeba! YAY! A GOD THAT WE CAN SQUISH!Just because I think I'm starting to rant now, I'm going to stop. I'll bring in more arguments later, but I'll stop now before I start to flame...
Dagolu
The Last Illusion
My beliefs are simple:
The world exists.
At one point, a large number of lucky circumstances came together to make it.
If whatever originally set the universe in motion exists, it doesn't care about the individual person, just the large scale of things.
Ignore the literal messages in the Bible, just understand the basic message (be a nice person)
Don't criticize other people for their beliefs.
it's that simple. All religions work around those last two basic principles
The world exists.
At one point, a large number of lucky circumstances came together to make it.
If whatever originally set the universe in motion exists, it doesn't care about the individual person, just the large scale of things.
Ignore the literal messages in the Bible, just understand the basic message (be a nice person)
Don't criticize other people for their beliefs.
it's that simple. All religions work around those last two basic principles
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2007
- Messages
- 4,919
- Age
- 35
- Location
- A bunker in Munich
- Gil
- 0
- FFXIV
- Unban James, he is innocent
- FFXIV Server
- Ultros
old testament= jewish god
new testament= christian god.
its not conscious, it isnt a thing its an event that happened.
were wernt made, its a fluke that we even exist. the probability of getting all the amino acids in the right order to form the proteins needed for life are almost zero.
- Joined
- May 30, 2008
- Messages
- 3,325
- Age
- 35
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
- Gil
- 0
- FFXIV Server
- Coeurl
I do believe in God, and I am deeply saddened to see how many of you do not, the Bible isn't a fictional story, and God is fictional either.
There is a god, and he did send his only son, Jesus, to earth to die on the cross for our sins, so that if we believe in him, as our lord and saviour, we shall not parish, but have everlasting life (eternal life in heaven after passing away from Earth).
Earth, and the whole universe, didn't just happen, God himself created it, and that is one of the many things you people will not believe, but he can do anything, just because we can't, doesn't mean he can't, our imperfect bodies cannot anywhere near compare to him.
If you all can't already tell, I am a Christian, and don't have a doubt in my mind about Jesus or God, they both exist, and anyone that will believe in him and ask forgiveness of their sins, can be saved, and receive the wondrous gift of eternal life, a life without pain, sadness or troubles.
I won't be stopping here, but I'll post this, before continuing further, this is food for thought, think about it.
I know many of you are so set with believing that God doesn't exist, that convincing you that he does (which is the truth, whether you choose to believe it or not is your choice) would prove very difficult, but I pray that you will, with time, come to realize the truth that is right in front of you now.
There is a god, and he did send his only son, Jesus, to earth to die on the cross for our sins, so that if we believe in him, as our lord and saviour, we shall not parish, but have everlasting life (eternal life in heaven after passing away from Earth).
Earth, and the whole universe, didn't just happen, God himself created it, and that is one of the many things you people will not believe, but he can do anything, just because we can't, doesn't mean he can't, our imperfect bodies cannot anywhere near compare to him.
If you all can't already tell, I am a Christian, and don't have a doubt in my mind about Jesus or God, they both exist, and anyone that will believe in him and ask forgiveness of their sins, can be saved, and receive the wondrous gift of eternal life, a life without pain, sadness or troubles.
I won't be stopping here, but I'll post this, before continuing further, this is food for thought, think about it.
I know many of you are so set with believing that God doesn't exist, that convincing you that he does (which is the truth, whether you choose to believe it or not is your choice) would prove very difficult, but I pray that you will, with time, come to realize the truth that is right in front of you now.
No I'm sorry, simply stating God exists and praying for me does nothing to either prove or support the notion that God exists.
Of course, you're free to believe that God exists, but if other people do not, or choose a different religion, that is their choice, and I respect their decisions--so long as they do the same to others as well.
But, there is something we can do that God cannot. We can create buildings that we cannot lift. If God could do this, then it contradicts the statement that God is omnipotent, because if he could not lift buildings, then there is something he cannot do.
Of course, you're free to believe that God exists, but if other people do not, or choose a different religion, that is their choice, and I respect their decisions--so long as they do the same to others as well.
But, there is something we can do that God cannot. We can create buildings that we cannot lift. If God could do this, then it contradicts the statement that God is omnipotent, because if he could not lift buildings, then there is something he cannot do.
- Joined
- May 30, 2008
- Messages
- 3,325
- Age
- 35
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
- Gil
- 0
- FFXIV Server
- Coeurl
I didn't say I was finished, I, in fact, stated I wasn't finished, but would post what I had already wrote first, since it already was of decent length.
And of course God can lift buildings, it'd be as easy for him as it would be for us to lift a 1 pound weight.
Before I continue, I need to now whether you have read the Bible or not, and if you have, what are the three most significant events in the bible, that you do not believe?
And of course God can lift buildings, it'd be as easy for him as it would be for us to lift a 1 pound weight.
Before I continue, I need to now whether you have read the Bible or not, and if you have, what are the three most significant events in the bible, that you do not believe?
I'm not a religious person at all and I find just about every aspect of religion laughable. Sure, it encourages people to do well in life and gives them basic principles to follow in order for them to become better people, but religion also blinds them, it makes people ignorant. I find it very hard to believe that one man built the world and everything that inhabits it in seven days, as I find omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience and omnibenevolence impossible. I belive that an extraordinary set of events triggered something and everything evolved into what it is now.
In short: I do not believe in God or any other form of deity that is deemed a "creator". I believe solely in science and what it theorises with regards to the "big bang" theory.
I believe that science will soon prove all religions false.
In short: I do not believe in God or any other form of deity that is deemed a "creator". I believe solely in science and what it theorises with regards to the "big bang" theory.
I believe that science will soon prove all religions false.
Then you can post these thoughts in a separate thread, since this is about whether or not you believe in God, not why you should believe in God (and I doubt this forum is meant for proselytizing anyways).
That obviously wasn't the point though.
I have read enough to know that nothing it says may be taken seriously.
I don't believe in the contradictions, and the idea of believing in contradictions are ridiculous anyways, and I don't believe in the scientific inaccuracies, nor do I believe in such terrible things as intolerance, slavery, racism, discrimination against homosexuals, violence or jealous Gods forcing us to do things against our own wills. You may believe that buying the idea of a metaphor makes these things seem less inconsistent, but it makes them more ambiguous--in other words, an unclear message is unfit to dictate how we should live our lives, much less what should be accepted as scientifically accurate.
If ever there was anything "good" about the bible, it would be so unoriginal as to have lost all meaning in a sea of nonsense. That truly is my opinion of the bible, but I am not asking you to like it or change it.
- Joined
- May 30, 2008
- Messages
- 3,325
- Age
- 35
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
- Gil
- 0
- FFXIV Server
- Coeurl
Wow, that is the saddest thing I've ever heard, so this is what people believe? You think some cosmetic dust or some scientific crap like that formed and created what is known as Earth?
Not meaning disrespect, you are free to believe what you will, but I don't believe it's all everything-science.
I understand that at times, when one tries to convince others of something, when it come to religion, it can get pretty ugly, and I don't want any trouble, so if you people won't be at all open minded to other possibilities other than just what you believe, so be it, it seems no one will be changing their minds, I just hate to think of what awaits...
Not meaning disrespect, you are free to believe what you will, but I don't believe it's all everything-science.
I understand that at times, when one tries to convince others of something, when it come to religion, it can get pretty ugly, and I don't want any trouble, so if you people won't be at all open minded to other possibilities other than just what you believe, so be it, it seems no one will be changing their minds, I just hate to think of what awaits...