What is faith?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-02-2013, 02:17 PM
RE: What is faith?
Someone has used the analogy of sports before and I can't remember who, but that is a mute point. And this is about the definition of what faith is and is not. That would be kind of be the point of why I started the thread. As Kim surmised, beliefs can be based off of numerous ways of thinking. And faith is essentially a belief due to a lack of thinking and a lack of evidence. It is the belief held by those individuals of the early iterations of the genus Homo who lacked a reason to believe but held onto their beliefs because they seemed to confer some benefit as opposed to not holding those beliefs.

And trajectories can change as a result of outside forces acting upon them. I.E. changes in selection pressure resulting in a change in trajectory. Evolution does cause directional changes, i.e. directional selection. Evolution is not a chaotic process. And just because I say trajectory, does not mean that there is an implied endpoint or end result that it is heading towards. A number line is infinite, as is a trajectory, as is the possibility of evolutionary change.

And when I say "move forward" I suppose I am using it in an ideological sense that we continue to progress as a species and not digress to the infancy of our species. The infancy where we believe because our tribal leaders tell us to and we don't think for ourselves. I.E. believing what they say based on undeserved and misplaced trust, without demanding proof. Ergo, faith.

Is this place still a shithole run by a dumbass calvinist?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2013, 09:38 AM
RE: What is faith?
Hey, BD.

Please believe me that my response isn't some kind of angry hack job.
I'm neither angry with you or out to discredit you. I simply disagree
with some of the things you are saying. I don't intend for anything to
be personal, but if you feel that way, please let me know and I'll be
happy to participate in resolving the issue.

Quote:And this is about the definition of what faith is and is not. That would be kind of be the point of why I started the thread.

You said:
Quote:I don't understand faith, and I contend that no one else does either.

So:
1 - If you don't understand faith, then why are you telling me exactly what it is?
2 - If you knew what faith was, why did you ask "what is faith?" and why did you say you didn't understand?
3 - If you just wanted others to read and accept your view, why didn't you call this thread "Kneel Before Zod?"





Quote:And faith is essentially a belief due to a lack of thinking and a lack of evidence.

Lack of thinking? That's just silly. It's also bigoted.

Quote:It is the belief held by those individuals of the early iterations of the genus Homo
who lacked a reason to believe but held onto their beliefs because they
seemed to confer some benefit as opposed to not holding those beliefs.

The above quote doesn't really make a whole lot of scientific sense.

Quote:And trajectories can change as a result of outside forces acting upon
them. I.E. changes in selection pressure resulting in a change in
trajectory. Evolution does cause directional changes, i.e. directional
selection. Evolution is not a chaotic process. And just because I say
trajectory, does not mean that there is an implied endpoint or end
result that it is heading towards. A number line is infinite, as is a
trajectory, as is the possibility of evolutionary change.

I still feel that you're just dressing up the idea of heading somewhere differently.

Evolution is like a drunk on a sidewalk. The sidewalk represents the timeline. As the drunk stumbles forward, he travels forward in time. The gutter is non-existence. The first inch of adjacent sidewalk is minimum complexity; the entity cannot be less complex and still exist. The wall is maximum complexity; the entity is too complex to continue functioning. The drunk stumbles back and forth between the gutter and the wall as he walks down the sidewalk. Sometimes reducing complexity, sometimes maintaining, sometimes increasing complexity. The common misunderstanding is that evolution is a process of amelioration, that we are headed to a place of increased complexity. That is not the case. We could just as easily maintain or lose complexity and we would still very much be evolving.

So this idea of moving "forward" either biologically or culturally (the two evolving systems on this planet) simply doesn't hold. On top of that, the metric that you're using to measure "forward" is, as we've established, ideologically biased.

Quote:I.E. believing what they say based on undeserved and misplaced trust, without demanding proof. Ergo, faith.

Here we have the conflation of two things IMO. Faith and power.

I can have faith in something after a long process of thought. It doesn't require me to be some passive fool.

For example, the Amish have a period called Rumspringa in which youth leave the community to experience the outside world. They drink, fuck, do all kinds of wild shit. Then, if of their own volition they decide to return to the community and embrace their religion, they do so. If not, they do whatever catches their fancy. So among the Amish, committing to the church is very much a voluntary process that is only achieved after careful consideration.

Power has three aspects: coercion, authority and influence. When people believe without question, that is the result of the exertion of influence. If they believe because they believe the person has the right to tell them, that's the exertion of authority. If they believe because they're threatened with harm if they don't, then that's the exertion of coercion.

We have a system that encompasses both secular and religious groups that facilitates the accumulation of power at the top. In fact, it cannot function without that accumulation of power. Faith, IMO, is not the thing that you are concerned about. Power is.

For example, the US invaded Iraq under the pretense that Saddam Hussein had something to do with the attacks on September 11th, 2001 and under the pretense that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (which it did, the US sold them the mustard gas they used on Kurdish civilians, but more importantly...) that posed a direct threat the the United States. Of course we all know, now at least, that both of those assertions are utter horseshit and that everyone was duped deliberately. But how influential were those two notions at the time? They allowed the Bush administration to influence government, the populace and foreign governments to support an invasion of Iraq. Faith had nothing to do with any of that. Unless you want to talk about having faith in your leaders, but then that blows open the idea that faith has only to do with religion.

As far as what faith is, I don't disagree that it can be belief without proof, or belief in doctrine. For sure it can mean that. It can also be a part of the mechanism that supports the exertion of influence, "Just have faith in this doctrine and by extension, in what we're asking you to do!" I just think that that represents a narrow band of a larger spectrum and that there is an obvious and identifiable ideological struggle in play here that benefits from restricting the definition of faith in that way.

I NEVER let religion off the hook, it has plenty to answer for. But faith, when looked at in it's broader sense, is an important and universal part of the human experience and it can be a profoundly powerful thing accessible not just by the religious, but by everyone. But faith and even intuition, are viewed as threats to the hegemony of science, so they are being defined into absurdity in order to eliminate that threat. But in doing so, we are condemning an important and inescapable part of our being to the abyss. We're stronger with those things than without them. There's no reason why we can't have science, reason, empiricism, faith and intuition share a place in our daily lives. Anyone who says otherwise is selling something.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2013, 09:53 AM
Re: What is faith?
I attempt to keep emotions out of my responses, so don't worry. But if you offend me, so what? You are entitled to offend, damn my emotions or sense of entitlement to whine about it.

I'm mobile so I'll read through this once I get back to a computer screen.

Is this place still a shithole run by a dumbass calvinist?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2013, 10:24 AM
RE: What is faith?
(06-02-2013 09:38 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, BD.

Please believe me that my response isn't some kind of angry hack job.
I'm neither angry with you or out to discredit you. I simply disagree
with some of the things you are saying. I don't intend for anything to
be personal, but if you feel that way, please let me know and I'll be
happy to participate in resolving the issue.

Quote:And this is about the definition of what faith is and is not. That would be kind of be the point of why I started the thread.

You said:
Quote:I don't understand faith, and I contend that no one else does either.

So:
1 - If you don't understand faith, then why are you telling me exactly what it is?
2 - If you knew what faith was, why did you ask "what is faith?" and why did you say you didn't understand?
3 - If you just wanted others to read and accept your view, why didn't you call this thread "Kneel Before Zod?"





Quote:And faith is essentially a belief due to a lack of thinking and a lack of evidence.

Lack of thinking? That's just silly. It's also bigoted.

Quote:It is the belief held by those individuals of the early iterations of the genus Homo
who lacked a reason to believe but held onto their beliefs because they
seemed to confer some benefit as opposed to not holding those beliefs.

The above quote doesn't really make a whole lot of scientific sense.

Quote:And trajectories can change as a result of outside forces acting upon
them. I.E. changes in selection pressure resulting in a change in
trajectory. Evolution does cause directional changes, i.e. directional
selection. Evolution is not a chaotic process. And just because I say
trajectory, does not mean that there is an implied endpoint or end
result that it is heading towards. A number line is infinite, as is a
trajectory, as is the possibility of evolutionary change.

I still feel that you're just dressing up the idea of heading somewhere differently.

Evolution is like a drunk on a sidewalk. The sidewalk represents the timeline. As the drunk stumbles forward, he travels forward in time. The gutter is non-existence. The first inch of adjacent sidewalk is minimum complexity; the entity cannot be less complex and still exist. The wall is maximum complexity; the entity is too complex to continue functioning. The drunk stumbles back and forth between the gutter and the wall as he walks down the sidewalk. Sometimes reducing complexity, sometimes maintaining, sometimes increasing complexity. The common misunderstanding is that evolution is a process of amelioration, that we are headed to a place of increased complexity. That is not the case. We could just as easily maintain or lose complexity and we would still very much be evolving.

So this idea of moving "forward" either biologically or culturally (the two evolving systems on this planet) simply doesn't hold. On top of that, the metric that you're using to measure "forward" is, as we've established, ideologically biased.

Quote:I.E. believing what they say based on undeserved and misplaced trust, without demanding proof. Ergo, faith.

Here we have the conflation of two things IMO. Faith and power.

I can have faith in something after a long process of thought. It doesn't require me to be some passive fool.

For example, the Amish have a period called Rumspringa in which youth leave the community to experience the outside world. They drink, fuck, do all kinds of wild shit. Then, if of their own volition they decide to return to the community and embrace their religion, they do so. If not, they do whatever catches their fancy. So among the Amish, committing to the church is very much a voluntary process that is only achieved after careful consideration.

Power has three aspects: coercion, authority and influence. When people believe without question, that is the result of the exertion of influence. If they believe because they believe the person has the right to tell them, that's the exertion of authority. If they believe because they're threatened with harm if they don't, then that's the exertion of coercion.

We have a system that encompasses both secular and religious groups that facilitates the accumulation of power at the top. In fact, it cannot function without that accumulation of power. Faith, IMO, is not the thing that you are concerned about. Power is.

For example, the US invaded Iraq under the pretense that Saddam Hussein had something to do with the attacks on September 11th, 2001 and under the pretense that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (which it did, the US sold them the mustard gas they used on Kurdish civilians, but more importantly...) that posed a direct threat the the United States. Of course we all know, now at least, that both of those assertions are utter horseshit and that everyone was duped deliberately. But how influential were those two notions at the time? They allowed the Bush administration to influence government, the populace and foreign governments to support an invasion of Iraq. Faith had nothing to do with any of that. Unless you want to talk about having faith in your leaders, but then that blows open the idea that faith has only to do with religion.

As far as what faith is, I don't disagree that it can be belief without proof, or belief in doctrine. For sure it can mean that. It can also be a part of the mechanism that supports the exertion of influence, "Just have faith in this doctrine and by extension, in what we're asking you to do!" I just think that that represents a narrow band of a larger spectrum and that there is an obvious and identifiable ideological struggle in play here that benefits from restricting the definition of faith in that way.

I NEVER let religion off the hook, it has plenty to answer for. But faith, when looked at in it's broader sense, is an important and universal part of the human experience and it can be a profoundly powerful thing accessible not just by the religious, but by everyone. But faith and even intuition, are viewed as threats to the hegemony of science, so they are being defined into absurdity in order to eliminate that threat. But in doing so, we are condemning an important and inescapable part of our being to the abyss. We're stronger with those things than without them. There's no reason why we can't have science, reason, empiricism, faith and intuition share a place in our daily lives. Anyone who says otherwise is selling something.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Alright, I never intended to assert that faith is only a concept of religion or religious thinking. Political ideologies are often accepted on faith because people will take the "truth" of what is being said to them at face value without thinking about it or criticizing it.

What I mean by titling the thread "What is faith" was to be a bit rhetorical. My inability to comprehend what faith is, is based on the fact that I don't think people who claim to have faith, really do. So, when I say that someone who has actual faith is of a belief without thinking about it, I am not trying to be bigoted, but I am trying to say that they really don't accept whatever they are claiming based on faith. Because they will look for evidence, reason, ration, and logical arguments to justify it. And that is either not faith, or not having faith in the concept of faith.

So, I don't understand what people really mean when they say 'faith' because I don't think they really know. My guess is that it is a word and a concept they are told is a virtue. Something that if they have (primarily related to religion but this certainly applies to politics too), they are told is a good thing. So they claim they have it, but they don't really accept the proposition on it alone, and if you don't accept it off of faith alone, then it isn't faith.

We can go back to the analogy of your hockey player friend. He did not really have faith he would be an NHL player, otherwise the hard work and dedication he put in to be like professional hockey players would have been deemed unnecessary. He knew that getting there would mean lots of hard work, practice, dedication, and commitment to himself and his dream. Those are actions and a positive mindset, but not faith.

My example of early members of the genus Homo having the beginnings of what we would call faith may not have been explained well. It is a social adaptation for group survival. It is the experiment of taking 3 monkeys (we are just monkeys in shoes after all) and putting them in a room with a ladder and a bunch of bananas hanging above the ladder. The first monkey that goes for the bananas gets sprayed until he gives up. Another monkey tries and the first stops him. You replace the 1st monkey with a new monkey and the 2nd will stop any of them from climbing the ladder, etc, etc until none of the original monkeys remain but none dare try after the bananas, despite having no reason not to.

We value knowledge. Why? Because it improves our chances of survival. Even knowledge that might be wrong, but is based on a valid observation, can improve our chances of survival. Our early ancestors made observations about predators and weather and other natural occurrences that they explained as best they could. These explanations kept them from venturing into the dark away from the group or inside shelter during a storm. The group benefited even though most of them had probably never experienced a reason why this would be so. The beginnings of faith would then be to accept the knowledge given by the group or a group leader as true because it confers some survival advantage. But we now live in a time where faith is a mute point, since we all have the ability and background knowledge necessary to explain why we do certain things but don't do others. Faith, I contend, is no longer necessary.

As for the random walk for evolution, I completely agree. It is essentially a random walk but complexity isn't the gutter. The gutter does not really exist (boundary conditions are a myth). Evolution stumbles along, but it has a direction and that direction has a trajectory, we just lack any ability to comprehend it. That still does not mean there is an endpoint because, just like the character Griffin points out, there are conditions that may arise that will alter the drunk's course and either send him into a gutter that has been newly formed (climate change, asteroid impact, volcanic eruption) and he goes extinct, or the direction of his stumble changes (which means either the gradual change or stasis becomes interrupted. This is punctuated equilibrium). Just because we lack the ability to see into the future, does not mean that there is no direction into it, there are just a near infinite set of possibilities and saying anything about infinity is basically useless. So, while species may have directions to their evolution, we can't predict it, because other chaotic factors influence evolution (like climate, solar events, etc). And directions change, just like the drunk.

And I dislike power no matter what it is coupled with, unless that coupling is with a system of checks and balances that can remove the power if abused. I can't remember if I said it on this thread or not but, as long as someone keeps their personal beliefs personal, I don't care what they believe. So an individual can certainly survive and coexist with all of those things, but our society has already shifted away from faith as something beneficial to the group. Reason has replaced it, and we no longer accept it (or those of us who stop and think about) in public policy or social justice. We leave it out of science and we keep it out of our classrooms. Because understanding is more important.

Is this place still a shithole run by a dumbass calvinist?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2013, 10:45 AM
RE: What is faith?
Having stated: Faith seems to be the choice between reasoned doubt and unreasoned trust. But I don't really know.
I have to explain, I'm only an observer, not a practitioner. I'm on the outside looking in.

If something causal throws choice in either direction, so be it; this equation is as subject to evolution as anything else.
However, choice behaves in part according to internal thought and external behavior. Often it becomes a struggle between the one conscience and many behaviors. Meme overload.

I marvel at this kind of overload; historically it has produced some catastrophic and quite bloody events.
I often think it futile to plead any case for humanity. However, I do think it is time to get a grip on ourselves or we may get what we deserve. Drinking Beverage

I think in the end, I just feel like I'm a secular person who has a skeptical eye toward any extraordinary claim, carefully examining any extraordinary evidence before jumping to conclusions. ~ Eric ~ My friend ... who figured it out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2013, 11:14 AM (This post was last modified: 06-02-2013 11:30 AM by PleaseJesus.)
RE: What is faith?
Late to the party but,

Faith = Trust. "I have faith in my friends, I have faith in my grandma."

Blind Faith = Ignorant trust. "I have faith I can fly by flapping my arms."

Biblical Faith in Jesus = Reasoned trust. "I have faith I can fly on a plane from the Delta airline fleet."

The issue that has been commented on, the zeal for born again Christians to marry reason to faith, is the desire to make all faith decisions based on evidentiary reason. For example, should I accept a particular job offer? Data - The job requirements conflict with God's revealed will in the scriptures. Do not accept this job or if no conflict with scripture, accept it. Trust or faith decisions become binary and simple in some, not all cases. Life gets smoother...

Fornication, e.g., is not the biblical pattern for a happy marriage and lack of venereal disease. Abstinence, the biblical pattern, leads to an obvious greater chance of fidelity in marriage and lack of disease, etc. The same with fidelity within marriage versus adultery. “A faithful spouse” doesn’t cheat. “A faithful witness” tells the truth and is trustworthy.

What I find curious, however, is this, and it appears even on this thread, when people state there is no evidence for the truth of Christianity. Sorry, but despite our openness and willingness to share the always good news of Jesus’s death and resurrection so that trusting Him we have eternal life instead of perishing, there are elements of Christianity that make it a mystery religion. For example:

Who is the man that fears the Lord? Him shall He teach in the way He chooses. 13 He himself shall dwell in prosperity, And his descendants shall inherit the earth. 14 The secret of the Lord is with those who fear Him, And He will show them His covenant. 15 My eyes are ever toward the Lord, For He shall pluck my feet out of the net. – Psalm 25:11-15

Many times, many of those statements have come true for me. I have evidence that satisfies me. Can those statements come true for someone who is currently a freethinker and was never born again?

If you think in relative manner you’d have to say, “Christianity is true for Christians.” If you think about it in a scientific manner you ought to say, “Hypothesis: Christianity is true (or false)… I’d have to observe it in nature or else reproduce it in a controlled environment.” Since the Bible is clear in this matter, no non-Christian can see Jesus working or make Jesus work against their own free will to be a disbeliever.

I guess my question for readers is, “Shouldn’t you redact your assertion that there is no evidence for Jesus to: Christians say they possess evidence that is forbidden to me as someone who is not interested in trusting Jesus?”

We can then move from there to have you say, “How convenient!” but then, the Bible asserts that this mystery religion is only fully revealed to its adherents. Again, convenient but we want to be consistent here.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2013, 11:30 AM
RE: What is faith?
Hey, BD.

Quote: So, when I say that someone who has actual faith is of a belief without
thinking about it, I am not trying to be bigoted, but I am trying to
say that they really don't accept whatever they are claiming based on
faith. Because they will look for evidence, reason, ration, and logical
arguments to justify it. And that is either not faith, or not having
faith in the concept of faith.

Everyone's faith is tested at times. Doesn't mean it isn't there or it won't survive.

Quote:So, I don't understand what people really mean when they say 'faith'
because I don't think they really know. My guess is that it is a word
and a concept they are told is a virtue. Something that if they have
(primarily related to religion but this certainly applies to politics
too), they are told is a good thing. So they claim they have it, but
they don't really accept the proposition on it alone, and if you don't
accept it off of faith alone, then it isn't faith.

I can't get behind this idea.

I was involved pretty heavily in the protests at the Summit of the Americas in Quebec City back in 2001. It was the height of the anti-globalisation movement (which was summarily crushed along with all other questioning and dissent on September of the same year). And report after report suggested that of the 75 000 or so protesters on the street, most of the "kids" didn't even understand what they were protesting against. Exfuckingscuse me? That's patently ridiculous. They go out of their way, go to another city, square off against the largest police deployment in Canadian history (at the time, it's since been shattered) and they don't know why they're there? BS. It was simply a way to dismiss them.

I feel the same thing here. I think that people have far more intimate relationships with their faith than you give them credit for.

Sure, there's the credulous everywhere. But the idea that the majority of some six billion faithful people world wide just don't have a clue seems nonsensically reductive and dismissive to me.

Quote:He did not really have faith he would be an NHL player, otherwise the
hard work and dedication he put in to be like professional hockey
players would have been deemed unnecessary. He knew that getting there
would mean lots of hard work, practice, dedication, and commitment to
himself and his dream. Those are actions and a positive mindset, but not
faith.

Dedication and commitment to himself and his dream is not faith? We live on different planets.

Having faith doesn't mean sit there like a lump and don't do anything and everything will be handed to you. Like, it just straight up doesn't.

LOL. Your monkey story didn't exactly clarify things for me, brother. Try again?

OK, I'm going to stop you right there because I never said complexity is the gutter. Re-read what I wrote... Actually, now that I read the rest of what you wrote, you pretty savagely mixed metaphors there. That's of no value to either of us.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2013, 11:35 AM
RE: What is faith?
(06-02-2013 11:14 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  I guess my question for readers is, “Shouldn’t you redact your assertion that there is no evidence for Jesus to: Christians say they possess evidence that is forbidden to me as someone who is not interested in trusting Jesus?”
Once upon a time I was a Catholic who went to church every day, prayed every day (including the Rosary), and was seriously considering becoming a priest. I was literally living my life for Jesus because I believed this life was irrelevant except as a means to serve Jesus and earn entrance to Heaven. The way I saw it at the time, I had more faith than the average Christian I saw around me. So many were just going through the motions and staying pretty uninvolved except maybe to go to church every week. Certainly at that time, the evidence by your view was not forbidden to me. Yet, ultimately I recognized that there was no truth in it and eventually I became an atheist.

Next. Drinking Beverage

Silence is only golden when it's not synonymous with a failure to speak out against injustice.

"We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes." --Gene Roddenberry
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Impulse's post
06-02-2013, 11:55 AM (This post was last modified: 06-02-2013 12:08 PM by Lucius.)
RE: What is faith?
After reading the responses to this thread, and doing a bit of reading, I have concluded that there are, in a sense, two ways of defining the term "faith". There is the definition entwined in religion that, to me anyway, refers simply to belief in the absence of scientific evidence and then there is the generalised definition of "faith" which refers to the confidence which we place on, say, others which is based on previous experience(s).

(06-02-2013 11:14 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  I guess my question for readers is, “Shouldn’t you redact your assertion that there is no evidence for Jesus to: Christians say they possess evidence that is forbidden to me as someone who is not interested in trusting Jesus?”

Could you please elaborate on "forbidden"? If this "evidence" you speak of is indeed forbidden, why then do Christians always try to exercise conversions on others? This is rather contradictory, don't you think? And one more thing, you mentioned "forbidden to me as someone who is not interested in trusting Jesus". How do you know for a fact that I am uninterested in trusting in Jesus? How would you know if any non-believer is truly uninterested? Just to share with you, I have attended church regularly at one point in my life. I have also participated in Sunday school and in Friday cell group meetings. Personally, I have always wanted to find out what it is that makes religious individuals believe with such a passion but also with such blind faith.

Regards,
Lucius

"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Lucius's post
06-02-2013, 12:27 PM
RE: What is faith?
(06-02-2013 11:55 AM)Lucius Wrote:  After reading the responses to this thread, and doing a bit of reading, I have concluded that there are, in a sense, two ways of defining the term "faith". There is the definition entwined in religion that, to me anyway, refers simply to belief in the absence of scientific evidence and then there is the generalised definition of "faith" which refers to the confidence which we place on, say, others which is based on previous experience(s).

I like your definition Lucius and I'm liking this particular thread quite a bit. Although I think these two concepts faith and confidence get confused quite often. It seems your definition leans more toward faith as a type of "a priori confidence" (a priori: being without examination or analysis : formed or conceived beforehand) whereas I think those in the religious community take it a step further into "a priori certainty" because they may not have anything conclusive that proves their point, whether it's about life after death or the beginning of the universe(or any other popular religious position), but they're quite certain that they KNOW the answer based on their faith.

Talent hits the target no one else can hit, while genius hits the target no one knew existed.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hennepin's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: