[stone monkey]

Dating methods are dead straighforward. The basic principle involves counting decay events... The issues with calibration are more of a problem but the methodologies used aren't actually especially hard to understand. You should learn about them; they're quite terrifically interesting.

Also dendrochronology can be used to take you back 26000 years BP, certain wooden artifacts can also be independently dated by this method.

The problem with the kind of "proof" that you're looking for is that it only serves as "proof" for you if it confirms something you think you already know.

[Gem Windcaster]

stone monkey;361404 said:

Dating methods are dead straighforward. The basic principle involves counting decay events... The issues with calibration are more of a problem but the methodologies used aren't actually especially hard to understand. You should learn about them; they're quite terrifically interesting.

Also dendrochronology can be used to take you back 26000 years BP, certain wooden artifacts can also be independently dated by this method.

The problem with the kind of "proof" that you're looking for is that it only serves as "proof" for you if it confirms something you think you already know.

I have to disagree with that, SM. I don't claim to know anything, that's your area.

As for dating methods, I know the basics of how they work. Hence my saying they are not as reliable as you would wish.

[Cause]

Gem Im going to try and be as clear as I can here. God cant be proved or disporved you say. Fine. However almost every god comes with a set of beliefs and philosphy associated with him. His religeon. This religeon than most often has some kind of holy book. It says alot of things. They can be proven wrong, they have been proven wrong. If the religeon a god stands on is shaky it calls the whole thing into suspicion. At best only one of the abrahamic religeons can be right, at worst all are wrong. Iether way at least 20% of the world is faithfuly living their lives and dying for nonsense. Therfore the gods they believe in must not exist.

Conclusions are therefore as follows. God does not exist. Only a small percentage of the world knows the real god. Their is a god and he cant care what we do with our lives and religeon is man made.

Also to question radioactive dating is equivelent to questioning that your computer is on in front of you when you read this. Radioactive isotopes have measurable half lifes. As population goes to infinity, which with atoms aint so hard, the statistics mean that on average that half life will be perfectly matched. You dont get more concrete. Also I should say it woul fall not into a theory, which is nothing to be embarresed by, but an actual fact. Carbon does take 5400 years I think it is to decay. Its as simple as that

I see you posted before me, please expalin what you see as the problem with the dating method. Whatever you do, do not mention sea animals

[Gem Windcaster]

First you say that you can prove that God doesn't exist, then you say that dating methods is irrevocably perfect.

Gimme a break.

Anyway, no way I am going into a discussion with you about the Bible. You don't know enough about it. And I certainly not going into a discussion about dating methods without reading up more on the subject.

Thanks for being a good sport though.

[stone monkey]

Gem Windcaster;361408 said:

I have to disagree with that, SM. I don't claim to know anything, that's your area.

Oh really?

Quote

As for dating methods, I know the basics of how they work. Hence my saying they are not as reliable as you would wish.

If you claim not to know anything, maybe you shouldn't be bandying around the k-word a couple of sentences later. It ruins the effect of the condescension... But that's merely semantics.


The reliability of the various dating methods is an issue, that's true. But that is why these things have error bounds. And IMO an explanation that tells you where it might be going wrong is a much better choice than one that says it can't be wrong.

ps

Quote

Anyway, no way I am going into a discussion with you about the Bible. You don't know enough about it.

How do you know that?

[Gem Windcaster]

stone monkey;361422 said:

If you claim not to know anything, maybe you shouldn't be bandying around the k-word a couple of sentences later. It ruins the effect of the condescension... But that's merely semantics.

I meant I just know the basics.

stone monkey;361422 said:

The reliability of the various dating methods is an issue, that's true. But that is why these things have error bounds. And IMO an explanation that tells you where it might be going wrong is a much better choice than one that says it can't be wrong.

Well, thank you for that.

stone monkey;361422 said:

How do you know that?

I don't, but it's a fair bet, from Cause's comments. It's not like I try to be condescending here. But if he actually knows something he needs to show it, just like i have to show what I know about dating methods to be taken seriously in a discussion about them. Hence me withdrawing from it.

[Cause]

Gem Windcaster;361418 said:

First you say that you can prove that God doesn't exist, then you say that dating methods is irrevocably perfect.

Gimme a break.

Anyway, no way I am going into a discussion with you about the Bible. You don't know enough about it. And I certainly not going into a discussion about dating methods without reading up more on the subject.

Thanks for being a good sport though.

I can prove every god but one does not exists yes. Are you aware how many gods are laughed at today which just a thousand years ago were worshiped? Zeus, Marduk, Thor?

Perfect? no. Perhaps I was being a bit strong, Ill admit to that. But to say you dont understand how they work, that you wont argue with me because you need to read up and than say you dont agree with them. Your either being deliberate in your control of the argument to reject anything you dont like or you keep changing the parametres. Get consistent or accept your rejecting all possible arguments you dont like.

On what do you base that I dont know enough about the bible? An athiest I may be but to reject something without understanding it is foolish. Try it. I have read it. I have studied it. I had to take studies in it at school. Out of a hundred students I missed out to one person in wiining the prize as best student in he subject. Ironic I know. I have read genesis, I have read 3000 years worth of though on whether its literal, or abstarct or vague or poetic.

Lastly try not to be so condescending. Its insulting coming from you.

[Gem Windcaster]

Cause;361444 said:

I can prove every god but one does not exists yes. Are you aware how many gods are laughed at today which just a thousand years ago were worshiped? Zeus, Marduk, Thor?

What's your point again?

Cause;361444 said:

Perfect? no. Perhaps I was being a bit strong, Ill admit to that. But to say you dont understand how they work, that you wont argue with me because you need to read up and than say you dont agree with them. Your either being deliberate in your control of the argument to reject anything you dont like or you keep changing the parametres. Get consistent or accept your rejecting all possible arguments you dont like.

Exactly the reason why I am not dicussing this subject. Maybe you should read my previous post again? Oh, and I don't reject anything just because I don't like it, I just don't take anything for truth just because you say so. Just get over it already.

Cause;361444 said:

On what do you base that I dont know enough about the bible? An athiest I may be but to reject something without understanding it is foolish. Try it. I have read it. I have studied it. I had to take studies in it at school. Out of a hundred students I missed out to one person in wiining the prize as best student in he subject. Ironic I know. I have read genesis, I have read 3000 years worth of though on whether its literal, or abstarct or vague or poetic.

Indeed. Then you know exactly why I don't agree with your opinion.

Cause;361444 said:

Lastly try not to be so condescending. Its insulting coming from you.

I haven't been a bit more condescending than you have. And again, if you read my previous post, I write that I am not trying to be condescending.

I tell you though, it's getting exceedingly hard not to, with you taking me for an idiot all the time.

I have the deepest respect for your beliefs and opinions; I don't understand why you can't show me the same curtesy; don't take my different views and opinions as a personal insult, because they're not.

[Terez]

Cold Iron;360964 said:

I think you just don't like what I'm saying, because surely it's clear by now.

It was never unclear. It's just not rational. It has little to do with not liking it, but at the same time, it has everything to do with it, because back when I liked the idea, it seemed rational to me. Later I realized that it only seemed rational in comparison to the religion I derived it from.

CI said:

The belief in the existence of a fat man who lives at the north pole who brings you presents in a sleigh is irrational. You have acknowledged the "concepts tied up with santa" and I will take that to mean you agree that these concepts exist. What I am saying is take the title "santa" away from the fat man and place it on the concepts. Suddenly you can smile and say with full confidence "I believe in santa" and know that you actually do, and that the fat man is simply an analogy of the true or real santa, an image that is taught to children who may have difficulty understanding the true nature of the concept due to their limited experience of life.

The point is that these concepts you're calling "santa" can best be described by other words. Calling them "santa" just confuses the issue, because it's arbitrary. Analogies are nice and all, but in the end, they're just analogies.

CI said:

Now do the same with the white bearded man in the sky. Take the title "god" away from the irrational entity that could not possibly exist, and apply it to the concepts that are applied to it, all the descriptions of god, attributes and actions that have been applied to it. "God smote Soddom" can mean that there is a supreme entity with vast destructive powers who directly destroyed a city, but this would seem to violate rationality. What else could it mean? Let's assume that three events led to the destruction of Soddom, X, Y, and Z. Now lets assume that these three events each had three more events that led to them, XA, XB, XC, YA, YB, YC, ZA, ZB and ZC. It has already become exceedingly difficult to say "this destroyed Soddom" because it was actually all of these 9 things, and the 27 things that led to them, and the 81 things that led to them. Now extrapolate that to an actual real life situation, where each event has an infinity of causes, do you really still have a problem with the phrase "God smote Soddom"? The problem with this phrase is your association of god with an irrational entity, release that and it ceases to be some meaningless excuse for anything that you can't explain but a meaningful description of what actually happened.

Why would I do this, though? I can come up with all sorts of explanations for what happened. Why should I assume that god destroyed Sodom? It makes much more sense to assume that a bunch of fag-hating crazies destroyed it (assuming that it actually existed in the first place - if it didn't, then it makes more sense to assume that the story was conceived as a way of justifying hatred, and the "don't look back"/pillar of salt part of it just drives the point home).

CI said:

What made you you? God.
What made the universe the universe? God.
What is the nature of existence? God.

God is reality itself, it is everything and nothing, it is both all around us and within us.

Now you ask why?

This is why.

Now that you believe (maybe you don't but I'm sure you followed my argument well enough to conceptualise the belief I'm talking about), you can do what you want with this concept, shaping it shapes you, you become the path you tread, you take on the attributes of whom you follow, and if you worship a loving god, you become a loving person.

Why can't I just strive to be a loving person with attributes that I admire without god? God is an arbitrary element in this argument.

CI said:

God is real. God is powerful.

Tell me you understand what I mean? (Because imo nothing I just said is irrational.)

The only irrational parts of what you said stem from your need to believe that god exists.

CI said:

- God is eternal: Deut 33:27; Isa 9:6; 1 Tim 1:17; Isa 44:6
- God is everywhere (omnipresent): Mk 5:10; Jude 6; Rev 20:1-3; 1 Ki 8:27; 2 Chron 2:6; 6:18; Isa 66:1; Acts 7:49; 17:27-28; Ps 139:7-13
- God is all knowing (omniscient): Ps 139:1-6; Job 42:2; Acts 2:23; 1 Tim 1:17
- God is all powerful (omnipotent): Gen 17:1; 35:11; Rom 13:1; 1 Tim 6:15; Rev 19:6
- God is invisible: Ex 33:20; John 1:18; 1 John 4:12; 1 Tim 6:16; Col 1:15; 1 Tim 1:17; Heb 11:27

At this point are you thinking... "Ahhh must be a supernatural entity" or are you thinking "Hmm... must be a conceptual analogy"?

One of these is obviously irrational, why choose it over the other? Did someone prove to you that is what those passages truly mean despite the irrationality?

No one has proved to me, or even made a good case for, the validity of the Bible, so why should I concern myself overmuch with interpreting it?

But to answer your question, or at least as close as I can come to answering it, the Bible clearly describes God as a sentient being that, at some time in the past, communicated with people. Yeah, those stories are obviously irrational and easily discarded. But despite this fact, you seem to believe that the people who wrote these stories know something we don't know. Why?

We don't have any good reason to believe that god exists. What makes you think that they did?

What is the purpose of the pantheistic analogy? Why do you have to have some concept of god being real to aspire to these lofty characteristics that you ascribe to god?

If you have a need to envision these lofty characteristics as something greater than yourself, then call a spade a spade. These lofty characteristics are greater than ourselves as individuals, because we can't make the world a better place alone. Only when great masses of individuals aspire to those same lofty characteristics does the world become a better place.

This whole "god" business is still arbitrary, and bringing it into the equation only sets people against each other. It has nothing to do with said lofty characteristics, and adds nothing to the reality of our world but contention. Admittedly, your beliefs are in and of themselves fairly benign. But that doesn't make them rational.

[Terez]

Now to get back to Gem:

Gem Windcaster;360588 said:

Well, what I am really saying is that my choice for believing is just as valid as the choice of being an atheist. But then, I still think it's all about the choice. We have different philosophical views here.

I don't really understand what you're getting at. Only certain people can make that choice? What I am saying is that I choose to have a certain mindset. Everything starts with a choice imo.

You say that as if there are no reasons behind your choices. Are your choices arbitrary? There are always reasons why we believe the things we believe. Choices might come to you as a weighing of pros and cons, and then a choice between them, but there are always reasons why we view either the pros or the cons as being more convincing. That's why I say belief itself isn't really a choice.

Gem said:

Terez said:

there are tons of Christians who accept the theory of evolution, and it's this along with the fact that very few atheists who do not (I don't know of any offhand, but I'll assume there are a few out there) that makes it extremely difficult to believe that there is no religious motivation behind your problems with the theory.

Of course there are religious motivations behind it! That doesn't make my arguments less valid though, which is what some in this thread seem to indicate. My faith doesn't stop me from thinking. The motivation for making a certain set of arguments are not important, the arguments are.

This is true, but none of your arguments have amounted to much more than the fact that certain aspects of the theory are not exact science. You haven't presented any arguments that validate your belief that the "conclusions drawn" are anything but entirely rational and logical hypotheses, and your only real reason for doubting those "conclusions" is your religious views, such as they are.

Gem said:

And come on, it's not like atheists don't have certain motivations as well when they argue for the theory of evolution. It's just easier to go "Your motvations are not pure - you blasphemer, you have insulted the atheist god!"

Well, aside from the fact that there is no atheist god, and no such thing as atheistic blasphemy, I don't see any motivations involved here. The theory of evolution is not a product of an atheist organization. It's a product of the work or archaeologists, geneticists, chemists, etc., many of whom have been religious people.

[Gem Windcaster]

Terez;361567 said:

Now to get back to Gem:
You say that as if there are no reasons behind your choices. Are your choices arbitrary? There are always reasons why we believe the things we believe. Choices might come to you as a weighing of pros and cons, and then a choice between them, but there are always reasons why we view either the pros or the cons as being more convincing. That's why I say belief itself isn't really a choice.

You believe in predestination then. I don't, I believe we can choose for ourselves what we believe in, and what 'path' to go. The reasons you speak of, they start with a chocie too, you see. Even the reason for making that choice starts with a choice. It's like the chicken and egg discussion - who comes first reason or choice?

Terez;361567 said:

This is true, but none of your arguments have amounted to much more than the fact that certain aspects of the theory are not exact science. You haven't presented any arguments that validate your belief that the "conclusions drawn" are anything but entirely rational and logical hypotheses, and your only real reason for doubting those "conclusions" is your religious views, such as they are.

I have never pretended that I have proved anything or validated anything, or presented arguments that I thought you would listen to. I have simply shared with you what I think about things. I am well aware that I can't convince you of anything. However, as far as you don't know my reasons why I believe what I believe and how I rationally came to this conclusion, it's the same for me with your rational conclusion. I can't see why you come to the conclusion that you do 'rationally'. I'd think that anyone of you could see what I see if you wanted to. It's the curse of having different views on things. It doesn't mean that neither you or me is irrational, or that our reasons for believing in a certain theory is irrational.

Terez;361567 said:

Well, aside from the fact that there is no atheist god, and no such thing as atheistic blasphemy, I don't see any motivations involved here. The theory of evolution is not a product of an atheist organization. It's a product of the work or archaeologists, geneticists, chemists, etc., many of whom have been religious people.

I was talking about the motivations an atheist has behind arguing for the theory of evolution. That has nothing to do with the people involved with creating the theory. And I have already said I don't want to be lumped together with others. I have my own reasons for what I believe. Please don't assume I've just accepted someone's elses word about God. I haven't. That notion I find insulting.

[Terez]

Gem Windcaster;361583 said:

You believe in predestination then. I don't, I believe we can choose for ourselves what we believe in, and what 'path' to go. The reasons you speak of, they start with a chocie too, you see. Even the reason for making that choice starts with a choice. It's like the chicken and egg discussion - who comes first reason or choice?

But that's exactly my point. Returning to Pascal's Wager, I can't just make a choice to believe in god because there are too many contributing factors to the fact that I don't believe in god, that have created my mindset. My mindset might change as time goes on, but you have to want to believe something to believe it, and my mindset won't allow me to want to believe in god, because my mindset is that it's irrational.

Gem said:

I was talking about the motivations an atheist has behind arguing for the theory of evolution. That has nothing to do with the people involved with creating the theory.

Sure it does. No one but scientists would be arguing about the theory of evolution if there weren't people trying to say it's flawed or even invalid for religious reasons, which have nothing to do with science. The people who have contributed to the evolution of the theory of evolution are people that are qualified to make hypotheses on the things that aren't exact science. What good reason do we have to doubt the overwhelming majority of people who are qualified to make these hypotheses, when it's clear that there was no religious motivation behind them?

Gem said:

And I have already said I don't want to be lumped together with others. I have my own reasons for what I believe. Please don't assume I've just accepted someone's elses word about God. I haven't. That notion I find insulting.

When did I lump you in with others? The only way that I can see that I have done any such thing is lumping you in with people who have problems with the theory of evolution for religious reasons, and I can't see how you don't fit into that group. The fact that everyone has different religious views is pretty irrelevant.

[Gem Windcaster]

Terez;361614 said:

But that's exactly my point. Returning to Pascal's Wager, I can't just make a choice to believe in god because there are too many contributing factors to the fact that I don't believe in god, that have created my mindset. My mindset might change as time goes on, but you have to want to believe something to believe it, and my mindset won't allow me to want to believe in god, because my mindset is that it's irrational.

Which means that you have made a choice somewhere along the line. I think we're stuck on semantics here. We're essentially saying the same thing.

Terez;361614 said:

Sure it does. No one but scientists would be arguing about the theory of evolution if there weren't people trying to say it's flawed or even invalid for religious reasons, which have nothing to do with science. The people who have contributed to the evolution of the theory of evolution are people that are qualified to make hypotheses on the things that aren't exact science. What good reason do we have to doubt the overwhelming majority of people who are qualified to make these hypotheses, when it's clear that there was no religious motivation behind them?

I'm not sure what you are saying here. There are other motivations beside religious. I don't make a judgment about having a motivation. Motivation is not inherently a bad thing, it's just that everyone has a reason for what they argue for - which is exactly what you have been saying too. A reason is a motivation. A motivation for an atheist to argue for the theory of evolution could for example be that they trust science and scientists and believe that science gives the answers they need - another motivation is that they don't agree with other 'theories' or claims - or they find it the most logical or whatever.

Terez;361614 said:

When did I lump you in with others? The only way that I can see that I have done any such thing is lumping you in with people who have problems with the theory of evolution for religious reasons, and I can't see how you don't fit into that group. The fact that everyone has different religious views is pretty irrelevant.

First you say that you don't lump me together, and then that you do? In fact, the biggest problems I have with theory of evolution is not because of my faith - I have repeatedly said that I think my faith and the theory could fit together - rather, my faith gives me a reason to look at the theory with more criticism than I otherwise would have, but that doesn't make me disregard the work of scientists. I just doesn't buy the conclusions they make because they say I should.

You simply have to trust that I know myself good enough to know the difference.

I think the reason you keep coming back to my faith as being the reason behind things, is because you don't think that an intelligent person can't say what I say without being brainwashed somehow or disregarding the work of scientists or not realizing that I see what I want to see or whatever is he most popular for the moment.

I think you just are going to have to accept that I am not doing any of those things, but simply having integrity enough to have a personal opinion about something and standing up for it. It's not the end of the world if an intelligent person disagrees with your precious theory. It is what it is. Accept it already.

[Dolorous Menhir]

Just another quick question Gem. I don't understand the distinction you are making between disbelieving evolution because of your faith and being led to disbelieve evolution by your faith.

That's a sliver of difference so thin I would call it, I don't know, arguing over semantics. You might even say you were essentially saying the same thing.

[Gem Windcaster]

Dolorous Menhir;361634 said:

Just another quick question Gem. I don't understand the distinction you are making between disbelieving evolution because of your faith and being led to disbelieve evolution by your faith.

That's a sliver of difference so thin I would call it, I don't know, arguing over semantics. You might even say you were essentially saying the same thing.

Oh, there's a big difference.

Let us assume for one moment that the theory of evolution really was proving that it happened that way. (this should be interesting, yes? ) How would it affect my faith? Why, in no way at all. I am not like all those crazy creationists that would go ballistic and go cry in a corner or whatever.

If the theory was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, I would still feel the way I do about christ, I would still believe that the Bible is true and all that jazz. The Bible doesn't necessarily contradict any points of the evolution except what/who started it all, so it's not really a problem for me.

It's what I've been saying all along, but you guys keep getting back at this. Please don't make me repeat myself again.

And Yes, my faith is irrational, but that's nobody's concern imo.

[Cougar]

For anyone in the UK interested Dawkins is doing a program on Darwin at 8pm on Monday on Channel 4 ( it should be available on 4OD sometime later I assume)

[Illuyankas]

Next Monday? Awesome. I do enjoy Dawkin's work, at least partly because he is a massive real-life troll.

Did anyone see those videos of his speech at a university near a Bible college, where loads of their students came in and tried to outlogic him during the Q&A? I'd post the link but it's in the favourites list on my currently broken PC.

[Terez]

Gem Windcaster;361632 said:

I'm not sure what you are saying here. There are other motivations beside religious. I don't make a judgment about having a motivation. Motivation is not inherently a bad thing, it's just that everyone has a reason for what they argue for - which is exactly what you have been saying too. A reason is a motivation. A motivation for an atheist to argue for the theory of evolution could for example be that they trust science and scientists and believe that science gives the answers they need - another motivation is that they don't agree with other 'theories' or claims - or they find it the most logical or whatever.

There aren't really any other theories that have anything to do with science, though. The claim against evolution is a religious one, and it has nothing to do with science.

Gem said:

First you say that you don't lump me together, and then that you do? In fact, the biggest problems I have with theory of evolution is not because of my faith - I have repeatedly said that I think my faith and the theory could fit together - rather, my faith gives me a reason to look at the theory with more criticism than I otherwise would have, but that doesn't make me disregard the work of scientists.

Who says that all the other people who question evolution because of their faith are all that different from you? You're assuming here that I'm trying to lump you in with crazy creationists and I'm not. In this case, you, and everyone else with beliefs similar to yours, and the crazy creationists all fall into the same category - people that question evolution because of their faith.

Gem said:

I just doesn't buy the conclusions they make because they say I should.

No one's saying you should. The core issue here, and the ONLY reason this is being discussed, is that there are a lot of people out there that think the theory of evolution shouldn't be taught in schools. Are you one of those people? If not, then why are you even interested in this debate?

Gem said:

I think the reason you keep coming back to my faith as being the reason behind things, is because you don't think that an intelligent person can't say what I say without being brainwashed somehow or disregarding the work of scientists or not realizing that I see what I want to see or whatever is he most popular for the moment.

The reason I keep coming back to your faith is, again, that there is no other reason for laymen such as me and you to seriously doubt the conclusions drawn in the theory of evolution.

[Bent]

Let me just say that I am proud of Gem for continuing the fight under such scrutiny. Also. I think Evolution is bullocks. If the theory of evolution is to be believed, we used to have tails. but they fell off. First of all when things evolve they continue to adapt and that doesn't mean they stop using bodyparts. Or else the appendix would have been discarded. Second, who here has sat down hard or fallen on their tail bone. IT HURTS! What is the benifit of losing said tail? how much pain would you go through not having a tail bone at all.

Lastly evolution is a THEORY! Not a science. I have no proof that God exists, You have no proof we evolved from sludge. Yet, those of you who believe in evolution talk about it like it was a proven fact? Anyway, Keep up the good work Gem, I hope this helped your cause a bit. As for the rest of you. here is a little known fact.

Elephants can stand for 2 days after they die....cool huh?

[Gem Windcaster]

Terez;361663 said:

There aren't really any other theories that have anything to do with science, though. The claim against evolution is a religious one, and it has nothing to do with science.

I still don't understand what you're getting at.

Terez;361663 said:

Who says that all the other people who question evolution because of their faith are all that different from you? You're assuming here that I'm trying to lump you in with crazy creationists and I'm not. In this case, you, and everyone else with beliefs similar to yours, and the crazy creationists all fall into the same category - people that question evolution because of their faith.

See my previous post for my answer regarding this. My faith would not be affected if the theory of evolution was proven without a shadow of a doubt.

Terez;361663 said:

No one's saying you should. The core issue here, and the ONLY reason this is being discussed, is that there are a lot of people out there that think the theory of evolution shouldn't be taught in schools. Are you one of those people? If not, then why are you even interested in this debate?

No, I am not one of those people. Are you throwing me out of the thread? I've been trying very hard to stop discussing in here, but you people keep dragging me back in.

Terez;361663 said:

The reason I keep coming back to your faith is, again, that there is no other reason for laymen such as me and you to seriously doubt the conclusions drawn in the theory of evolution.

I disagree. We should never take the scientists word for it. They serve the public, so we should really be critical of their work, because our society is build on their 'knowledge'. It should be interesting for you to know that I employ a similar and even harsher policy regarding religion.

Are we done here?