Religion; a cancer of the mind

[IronFist_of_proletarians]

I just need to get this off my chest, my girlfriends mom is a fervent fundamental christian, seriously the most irritating person you could meet.

Everything she says has some religious connotation attached to it, she claims her life has been better since she accepted christ(yawn)5 years ago(she was a muslim). Well this woman has been unemployed for a year now, has no schooling further than grade 8, and apparently god is planning something special for her lol.

Her entire existence is centered around that imaginary guy in the sky, now im an atheist, and im about fed up with her nonsense, but my girl pulls me back when im about to snap.

any atheists have similar people in your life? ever just let go and give them a piece of your mind?

[CommieTroll]

Most of my family is like that but to a lesser extent, Y'know what they say, Religion is the opium of the people, it does make proletarian life more bearable but overall religious organisations are corrupt and abusive towards the proletariat

[Franz Fanonipants]

original sin is a real thing, comrade sorry

[Lenina Rosenweg]

First, there's no such thing as "original sin", the idea is illogical and reactionary. How are humans sinful for being human?

Having said that I have family members who are Christian fundamentalists. It can be irritating.While the message of Jesus appears to have been contradictory, there is a strong communist aspect to it. Give everything you own to the poor, kick the money lenders out of the temple, sell your clothing to buy weapons, looking it one way Jesus appears to have been quite the revolutionary.Its fascinating to speculate what might have really been going on during that time.

Anyway you will never be able to talk your girlfriend's mother out of her belief and you probably shouldn't even try.You may be able to gradually move her more to the left by emphasizing the radical aspects of Christianity.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

The problem isn't religion per se, it's religious fundamentalism. Evangelical Christianity is a movement which often has a fundamentalist component. This component consists in the belief that you must necessarily be right because you have the truth, and other perspectives are necessarily wrong. This encourages religious intolerance and an inability to see things from another perspective. But not all Christians are fundamentalist. There are plenty of Christians who are not suffering from a metaphorical "brain cancer", and are on the contrary very well educated, productive and sociable people. You may not agree with their theological perspective, but this is no reason to judge them as stupid.

You should try to consider why she was snagged by such a religiously fanatic movement and what it does for her personally-and don't be too cynical, try to see it from her perspective too. You will never help liberate the working class as long as you insult their most closely held views as stupid superstition.

[Nox]

Christian...Muslim...it doesn't matter

It's all the same fantasy to me, and it would be fine if people kept that fantasy to themselves, but unfortunately religion has had a very very negative effect on society for the last 2000 years :(

[Fulanito de Tal]

Muslims follow the teachings of Jesus.

[ComradeMan]

Her entire existence is centered around that imaginary guy in the sky, now im an atheist,

And your entire thread is based on a non-empirical metaphor.

[The Underdog]

What kind of 'God' would allow this? Would kind of 'God' thought it would be beneficial to give eight-year-old children Leukaemia? Would kind of 'God' would force good people to endure the deepest depths of despair and suffering out of no fault of their own? What kind of 'God' would just sit idly by while we rape and kill each other?

My arguments with Christians always end up in this loop. Why would 'God', an apparently omnipotent entity, the Creator himself, no less, allow such terrible things to happen? Why would he allow injustice, inequality, pain, death and degradation? For 'free will' (which still doesn't exist)?

The whole thing is fucking stupid.

[ComradeMan]

What kind of 'God' would allow this? Would kind of 'God' thought it would be beneficial to give eight-year-old children Leukaemia? Would kind of 'God' would force good people to endure the deepest depths of despair and suffering out of no fault of their own? What kind of 'God' would just sit idly by while we rape and kill each other?

My arguments with Christians always end up in this loop. Why would 'God', an apparently omnipotent entity, the Creator himself, no less, allow such terrible things to happen? Why would he allow injustice, inequality, pain, death and degradation? For 'free will' (which still doesn't exist)?

The whole thing is fucking stupid.

A Hindu (Shaivite) might answer...

You are locked in duality and attachments and overvalue the importance of humanity in the great scheme of things.

Check out the "aghori" sect on the Net or on Youtube (not for weak stomachs).

[Octavian]

What kind of 'God' would allow this? Would kind of 'God' thought it would be beneficial to give eight-year-old children Leukaemia? Would kind of 'God' would force good people to endure the deepest depths of despair and suffering out of no fault of their own? What kind of 'God' would just sit idly by while we rape and kill each other?

Within the confines of the religion most of those negatives are good. People killing each other is good and children dying is excellent. I mean they're going to heaven, which is eternal happiness so the faster the better.

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

again, if your wrong, you get to chill in hell with me and stalin, and lenin and marx and che and moa:thumbup:

[Lenina Rosenweg]

The most interesting people are in hell;Voltaire, Diderot, Marx, Lenin, Rosa Luxemburg,. Darwin, Hobbes, Shelley,Mary Wollstonecraft,DeSade, Robert Anton Wilson, Chen Duxiu,Wilhelm Reich and thousands of others.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

There has to be great music there as well; Elvis, Lennon, Cobain, Hendrix, Tupac, and of course....

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

The most interesting people are in hell;Voltaire, Diderot, Marx, Lenin, Rosa Luxemburg,. Darwin, Hobbes, Shelley,Mary Wollstonecraft,DeSade, Robert Anton Wilson, Chen Duxiu,Wilhelm Reich and thousands of others.
yea but there is also Hitler and all other fascists, talk about gang wars:p

[ckaihatsu]

You are locked in duality and attachments and overvalue the importance of humanity in the great scheme of things.


This is a dualistic statement itself since there is *nothing else* outside of humanity and the natural universe.

The only way to avoid "overvaluing" humanity is to *externalize* oneself into those things that are not humanity proper -- work, culture / religion, bourgeois politics, business, etc.

I think this is why religion serves the ruling class so well, because of this socialized externalization into pre-existing social rituals, easily managed by those steering the status quo.

[OhYesIdid]

I think this is why religion serves the ruling class so well, because of this socialized externalization into pre-existing social rituals, easily managed by those steering the status quo.

Indeed. You might say we live in a society-spectacle of some sort. Take cover!:tongue_smilie:
I think that, without religion, popular uprisings would be much more frequent and would have much more support. However...


this woman has been unemployed for a year now, has no schooling further than grade 8, and apparently god is planning something special for her lol.

yyyeah...I think you might want to show a bit more compassion for your fellow man. Also, this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustavo_Guti%C3%A9rrez).

[ckaihatsu]

a society-spectacle


Nice! Did you just make that one up yourself -- ?

= )





I think that, without religion, popular uprisings would be much more frequent and would have much more support.


We're far too insulated from the "bad trip", huh?

= )








Perhaps those who take a rougher-than-average existence very hard is more like how we *all* *should* feel, so that we'll immediately revolt en masse, huh -- ? -- !

(Just kidding -- I'm not into emotionalism.)

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

A Hindu (Shaivite) might answer...

You are locked in duality and attachments and overvalue the importance of humanity in the great scheme of things.

Check out the "aghori" sect on the Net or on Youtube (not for weak stomachs).

There is actually a dualist "school" of Kashmir Shaivist thought, but in the usual esoteric form of the philosophy it is seen as "non-different" from the monist form of Kashmir Shaivism.


This is a dualistic statement itself since there is *nothing else* outside of humanity and the natural universe.

The only way to avoid "overvaluing" humanity is to *externalize* oneself into those things that are not humanity proper -- work, culture / religion, bourgeois politics, business, etc.

I think this is why religion serves the ruling class so well, because of this socialized externalization into pre-existing social rituals, easily managed by those steering the status quo.

Except he was mentioning Shaivism, which is a monist type of non-dualism and as much of a philosophy as a religion (if it is possible to draw a solid distinction between the two anyhow). The more philosophical schools of Shaivism more or less rejected the structures which underpinned their contemporary Hindu society such as caste distinctions (certainly more than many if not most contemporary Hindu sects), and its followers devoted themselves to enlightenment and the contemplation of its highly esoteric philosophy, not social control of the masses.

If anything, the more common critique you see of those kinds of Hindu sects is that they are too reclusive and lead their followers to critique social norms without ever bothering to change them or think up an alternative. But they are certainly not a means of social control. On the contrary, heterodox sects of Hinduism are often a response to repressive social controls from orthodox sects, although the heterodox sects often got support from powerful political forces too.

Ritualistic religion, not contemplative religion, is the type which is more useful to the ruling classes since it offers quick "spiritual rewards" without actually helping the "flock" to understand the true meaning and significance of the whole affair. These mass rituals give powerful intellectuals a bully pulpit to basically inform their society how to think.



I think that, without religion, popular uprisings would be much more frequent and would have much more support. However...


There might be some truth to this, but religion also helps give particular communities a common cause as well as helping to dampen people's fear of death. As a result there have been religiously inspired uprisings in the past against repressive overlords. The first war for Mexican independence was started by a disgruntled priest who led an army of angry indigenous people against the Spanish, and the yellow turbans in China had Taoist origins.

At the same time though, you are correct to point out the "dulling" effects of the opiate. I think a bigger problem in the modern world, however, is consumerism, which is a far more addictive and destructive opioid if misused :P

[ckaihatsu]

If anything, the more common critique you see of those kinds of Hindu sects is that they are too reclusive and lead their followers to critique social norms without ever bothering to change them or think up an alternative.


Yeah, but now there's RevLeft for that...!


x D





At the same time though, you are correct to point out the "dulling" effects of the opiate. I think a bigger problem in the modern world, however, is consumerism, which is a far more addictive and destructive opioid if misused :P


Hmmmmmm, what's it called on the street?


= D

[Franz Fanonipants]

How are humans sinful for being human?


finite nature of mat'l existence &tc.

e: i find atheists understanding of religious thought is pretty much equal to people who watch a lot of history channel programming/fundamentalists.

[Octavian]

e: i find atheists understanding of religious thought is pretty much equal to people who watch a lot of history channel programming/fundamentalists.
I would say the same about religious people's understanding of logic and science. By the way you're wrong. http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/09/28/survey-atheists-know-more-about-religion-than-believers/

[Rafiq]

Religion is a reflection of material conditions.

If you don't like it try to change the conditions, spending time pointing out how fucked up it is won't get you any where.

[Beorc]

The problem isn't religion per se, it's religious fundamentalism...This encourages religious intolerance and an inability to see things from another perspective. But not all Christians are fundamentalist. There are plenty of Christians who are not suffering from a metaphorical "brain cancer", and are on the contrary very well educated, productive and sociable people. You may not agree with their theological perspective, but this is no reason to judge them as stupid.

...You will never help liberate the working class as long as you insult their most closely held views as stupid superstition.

This. All day.

I am not a Christian, but I know many who are fine people who don't judge others for not being Christian. You all need to stop making out any religious thought to be some kind of dark presence and understand that for many people religion can be a great thing.

Many people kill in the name of religion, yes. But these types of extremists would exist even if all religions were to disappear and the world was left with nothing but atheists. They would still find ways to be crazy and believe they are better than everyone else.

I find it especially entertaining that religions like Buddhism, Taoism, and various pagan faiths are being lumped in with this topic when they aren't nearly as dangerous as other religions. I used to be militant against religious thought, too back when my father died.

But then I came to the realization that we all need certain things to get us through the day, so as long as those things don't turn into irrationality that borders on schizophrenia, then who cares? Let it go.

I personally cannot believe in the idea that there is without a doubt nothing after this life. How awful that would be, that so many people who are disgusting excuses for human beings would simply die and escape punishment because they are rich.

I am a heathen, and I'm damn proud of it.

Hail Thor! Hail Sif! Hail our ancestors!

(Oh, and in case you were wondering: Thor and Sif are the two Norse gods who give the communists their symbol of the hammer and sickle because they are the patron gods of the working class and farmers.)

[Franz Fanonipants]

I would say the same about religious people's understanding of logic and science. By the way you're wrong. http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/09/28/survey-atheists-know-more-about-religion-than-believers/

aren't you basically baby rakhmetov comrade?

[NGNM85]

'Cancer of the mind.' I like it. Someone should put that on a t-shirt.

[ckaihatsu]

'Cancer of the mind.' I like it. Someone should put that on a t-shirt.


How about one that says

'I'm with religion'

and the arrow is pointing upwards, at the person's head

-- ?


x D

[ComradeMan]

Christian...Muslim...it doesn't matter

It's all the same fantasy to me, and it would be fine if people kept that fantasy to themselves, but unfortunately religion has had a very very negative effect on society for the last 2000 years :(

Because religion has only existed for the last 2000 years? Or there were no conflicts of religion before that period?

[NGNM85]

Religion is a reflection of material conditions.

If you don't like it try to change the conditions, spending time pointing out how fucked up it is won't get you any where.

That material conditions are an important factor, is without question, that they are the only factor, is, I think manifestly bogus. In terms of religious fanaticism, the United States has less in common with the rest of the Western world, which are much closer in terms of technological sophistication, standard of living, etc., than it does with Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, or Iran. Also, this fanaticism transcends class boundries.

It is also clear that some subset of religious people, mostly what would be called religious moderates, are susceptible to reason. Richard Dawkins' website, for example has hundreds of testimonials from former Theists.

So, clearly, it is possible to combat the Religious Right without fundamentally altering the underlying economic and political structure. That isn't to say that the underlying political and economic structure shouldn't be changed, quite the contrary, but that the two can be pursued independently. (And simultaneously.) Given the power and scope of the American Religious Right, which, for example, recently, introduced, as memory serves, 82 new bills restricting access to abortion, (Introduced primarily by the new 'Tea Party' freshmen, who were supposed to be different from the Evangelicals.) this is something we simply cannot afford to ignore.

[ckaihatsu]

That material conditions are an important factor, is without question, that they are the only factor, is, I think manifestly bogus. In terms of religious fanaticism, the United States has less in common with the rest of the Western world, which are much closer in terms of technological sophistication, standard of living, etc., than it does with Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, or Iran. Also, this fanaticism transcends class boundries.

It is also clear that some subset of religious people, mostly what would be called religious moderates, are susceptible to reason. Richard Dawkins' website, for example has hundreds of testimonials from former Theists.

So, clearly, it is possible to combat the Religious Right without fundamentally altering the underlying economic and political structure. That isn't to say that the underlying political and economic structure shouldn't be changed, quite the contrary, but that the two can be pursued independently. (And simultaneously.) Given the power and scope of the American Religious Right, which, for example, recently, introduced, as memory serves, 82 new bills restricting access to abortion, (Introduced primarily by the new 'Tea Party' freshmen, who were supposed to be different from the Evangelicals.) this is something we simply cannot afford to ignore.




That material conditions are an important factor, is without question, that they are the only factor, is, I think manifestly bogus.




It is also clear that some subset of religious people, mostly what would be called religious moderates, are susceptible to reason.




That isn't to say that the underlying political and economic structure shouldn't be changed, quite the contrary, but that the two can be pursued independently. (And simultaneously.)


This is an excellent and crucial thesis throughout, perhaps even one that can be instrumental in revitalizing a revolutionary initiative indefinitely.

Encouraging people to make a break from the strictures of religion is invaluable to enlightened political activity since the political outlook of *most* religion is overwhemingly subservient to the political status quo.

Revolutionaries can't afford to let the same kind of passivity creep into *our* consciousness -- perhaps tempted to relax into a predestination-like view that capitalism will automatically, inevitably do itself in, like a locomotive approaching bad rails ahead. We can't forget the *subjective* factor that enables us to enable ourselves, cooperatively and quasi-collectively.

[Nehru]

That material conditions are an important factor, is without question, that they are the only factor, is, I think manifestly bogus.

This is a very good point. Although religion is probably a reaction to material circumstances, it somehow continues to have some sort of independent existence and becomes a thing in itself. So sometimes it's necessary to treat religion as it is without making the usual excuses that material conditions, rather than religion, are responsible for various problems.

[ComradeMan]

This is a very good point. Although religion is probably a reaction to material circumstances, it somehow continues to have some sort of independent existence and becomes a thing in itself. So sometimes it's necessary to treat religion as it is without making the usual excuses that material conditions, rather than religion, are responsible for various problems.

What is it then?

[ckaihatsu]

This is a very good point. Although religion is probably a reaction to material circumstances, it somehow continues to have some sort of independent existence and becomes a thing in itself. So sometimes it's necessary to treat religion as it is without making the usual excuses that material conditions, rather than religion, are responsible for various problems.


I think there's something to be said for seeing religion as a cultural-existential *paradigm*, particularly for the individual. While given (current) material conditions may *support* and *encourage* the throwback regressive institution of religion, the same material conditions are not *dictating* that an individual subscribe to such fanciful ritualized beliefs.

This means then that the subjective factor is most definitely at play, and could be the decisive "swing vote" in how class struggle is determined during a period of capitalism in decay.

[Ocean Seal]

Can we stop making these threads over and over again?

[tradeunionsupporter]

I agree with this statement.

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

Everything she says has some religious connotation attached to it, she claims her life has been better since she accepted christ(yawn)5 years ago(she was a muslim).

Pffft, she left the cool club. I think though she is suffering from what many converts suffer from, over-compensation to mentally justify their conversion to themselves and prove they are serious. Not knocking her choice to convert, I just think converts of anything become over-zealous about it all and can't snap out of it, particularly Christians.


any atheists have similar people in your life? ever just let go and give them a piece of your mind?

Why do you care so much? What's it to you? Even if she's annoying, who cares, if you dig the girl your with you would do well to respect the moza. If she is ridiculous and over the top, who cares, it doesn't effect you or your life aside from having to be annoyed every now and again, just tune out and think of something else, what I'd do.

My original response to this thread before I read your post was, "religion is cancer of the mind? I was unaware I needed mental chemo therapy."

[Blackburn]

I like to think a lack of 'critical thinking' and too much pride are cancers of the mind.

A lot of the "new Atheists" or Dawkin-ists have a serious rot in the brain. They've made a new religion out of Atheism.

I respect a personal philosophical position, not some authoritarian (I'm right, you are wrong) ideological movement.

Maybe I just feel that way, because I was an Atheist before it was cool?

Or maybe I'm getting old :P

[Commissar Rykov]

I like to think a lack of 'critical thinking' and too much pride are cancers of the mind.

A lot of the "new Atheists" or Dawkin-ists have a serious rot in the brain. They've made a new religion out of Atheism.

I respect a personal philosophical position, not some authoritarian (I'm right, you are wrong) ideological movement.

Maybe I just feel that way, because I was an Atheist before it was cool?

Or maybe I'm getting old :P
Exactly, the reality is I never planned on bringing up being religious on these forums ever because it was a personal decision and has no relations to my politics. The only reason I have ever brought it up is because of the constant attacks against the religious calling us braindead, cancerous, zealots, unthinking husks, etc. The reality is people spend so much time, hatred and spewing vitriol at people for something that is none of their business it is disturbing. It is one thing to see these kinds of discussions by Fascists it is entirely something else to see this shit spewed on Revleft.

[ckaihatsu]

Exactly, the reality is I never planned on bringing up being religious on these forums ever because it was a personal decision and has no relations to my politics. The only reason I have ever brought it up is because of the constant attacks against the religious calling us braindead, cancerous, zealots, unthinking husks, etc. The reality is people spend some much time, hatred and spewing vitriol at people for something that is none of their business it is disturbing. It is one thing to see these kinds of discussions by Fascists it is entirely something else to see this shit spewed on Revleft.


Okay, your objection to such characterizations taken, and a tacit acknowledgement that *I* have not made any of that kind of aggressive insulting characterization, would you as a revolutionary political person find any objections to *these* characterizations of religion that I *have* made...? (If you would.)





I think there's something to be said for seeing religion as a cultural-existential *paradigm*, particularly for the individual.




throwback regressive institution of religion




fanciful ritualized beliefs.

[Commissar Rykov]

Okay, your objection to such characterizations taken, and a tacit acknowledgement that *I* have not made any of that kind of aggressive insulting characterization, would you as a revolutionary political person find any objections to *these* characterizations of religion that I *have* made...? (If you would.)
No none at all to be honest. I have no problem with being critical of religion especially organized religion as myself am as well. I find it becomes disturbing when it goes from critique to personal bashing and the like.

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

No none at all to be honest. I have no problem with being critical of religion especially organized religion as myself am as well. I find it becomes disturbing when it goes from critique to personal bashing and the like.

Agreed, there is a difference, I think a distinct one, between the critique of things, persons, events, ideas, interpretations, etc. involving religion and the personal attacks against all religious persons generally such as the ones you have mentioned like being a braindead, deluded husk of a person.

[Blackburn]

Exactly, the reality is I never planned on bringing up being religious on these forums ever because it was a personal decision and has no relations to my politics. The only reason I have ever brought it up is because of the constant attacks against the religious calling us braindead, cancerous, zealots, unthinking husks, etc. The reality is people spend so much time, hatred and spewing vitriol at people for something that is none of their business it is disturbing. It is one thing to see these kinds of discussions by Fascists it is entirely something else to see this shit spewed on Revleft.

Well...if the constant bannings around here shows us anything...is that sometimes the guy/gal that portrays themselves (imagewise) as the most militant leftist, tends to be on a knife-edge, easy switch, to being a full blown fascist...or worse... a Rightist Libertarian. :crying:

The real Leftist will be able to explain their position of Theism without the Dawkinian insults. When I say Dawkinian, I refer more to Dawkins Cultists than Dawkins himself.

Prior to the internet, in the early 90s, the way I explored theism/atheism philosophically was through books, debating school mates (catholic school).

But I must admit, back then I had no access to Americans and their 'Christian' cultural baggage.

Our Prime Minister is Atheist (I'm really fond of repeating that :)), and there is very little criticism of her for that. There are of course reactionary murmurs from old kooks, but by and large Australians dismiss those people as tools.

[ckaihatsu]

But I must admit, back then I had no access to Americans and their 'Christian' cultural baggage.

Our Prime Minister is Atheist (I'm really fond of repeating that :)), and there is very little criticism of her for that. There are of course reactionary murmurs from old kooks, but by and large Australians dismiss those people as tools.


Yeah, well, you can glow all you want about how pure and freethinking your nationalist identity is -- yours is the baby brother of the British Empire lineage, while *this* country (not personally identifying with it, though) has taken up the reins and has had to keep *some* kind of show going on for the world without missing a beat. Its cultural imperialists can be forgiven if they fall back to using warmed-over rehashed material at times....


= )

[Waltraute]

Dawkins interprets religion as "the necessary precursor to science", but he's insane.

[NGNM85]

Dawkins interprets religion as "the necessary precursor to science", but he's insane.

It's actually a fairly inoccuous truism. Religions are failed sciences. They were primarily created by primitive man as a means to explain and understand the universe, as well as reinforce social customs, mores, etc.

[tradeunionsupporter]

In my opinion the answer is yes.

[tradeunionsupporter]

I agree about religion.

[ckaihatsu]

It's actually a fairly inoccuous truism. Religions are failed sciences. They were primarily created by primitive man as a means to explain and understand the universe, as well as reinforce social customs, mores, etc.


Actually I have to qualify my thanks here -- the tricky part is that we don't have the luxury of smugly pointing to existing science as being purely objective. We know that its extant form is due to capitalist conventions of funding, support, and mainstreaming, all subject to the ongoing class war.

It's difficult to "see" outside of the only scientific paradigm we know, just as it's difficult to conceive of economics outside of the capitalist type. Nonetheless we do so for the latter, and we should at least *attempt* to do the same for the former, without abandoning a healthy skepticism in our investigations.

[NGNM85]

...

Eloquent in it's brevity.

[NGNM85]

Actually I have to qualify my thanks here -- the tricky part is that we don't have the luxury of smugly pointing to existing science as being purely objective. We know that its extant form is due to capitalist conventions of funding, support, and mainstreaming, all subject to the ongoing class war.

It's difficult to "see" outside of the only scientific paradigm we know, just as it's difficult to conceive of economics outside of the capitalist type. Nonetheless we do so for the latter, and we should at least *attempt* to do the same for the former, without abandoning a healthy skepticism in our investigations.

No offense, mac, but this is nonsense. Science is simply the strict application of reason. The fundamental nature of science is fixed, and absolute. It's the same for Marxists, Fascists, and dentists.

[ckaihatsu]

No offense, mac, but this is nonsense. Science is simply the strict application of reason. The fundamental nature of science is fixed, and absolute. It's the same for Marxists, Fascists, and dentists.


Okay, great, but let me put it *this* way -- the sum of all 7 billion people's attention through realtime is a *finite* quantity and is *not* omniscient. What gets paid attention to is influenced by the status quo while some avenues of investigation will necessarily remain untouched.

And isn't the whole of science supposed to be an endeavor of striving forth, in which new hypotheses are given form in order to then be tested by reason? In other words, whatever direction science is going in indicates areas that we *don't* know about *today*.

[bcbm]

http://i52.tinypic.com/2mbml5.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/view-source:http://i52.tinypic.com/2mbml5.gif)

please don't post these kind of images here it is considered spam. this is a verbal warning