h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Well is my little piece:

I don't believe in hell.
Heres why: The word hell is found in many Bible translations. In the same verses other translations read 'the grave' 'the world of the dead' and so forth. Other bibles simply transliterate the original languauge words that are sometimes rendered hell; thta is they express them with the words of our our alphabet but leave the words untranslated. Those words are the Hebrew she'ohl and the Greek equivalent hai'des which refer not to an individual burial place, but to the common grave of dead mankind; also the greek ge'en'na, which is used as a symbol of eternal destruction.

What the bible says about the state of the dead:
Ecclessiastes 9:5,10 The living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are concious of nothing at all... All that your hand finds to do, do with your power, for there is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in Sheol, the place to which you are going.
(So if they are conscious of nothing they obviously feel no pain.)

The Bible also makes no mention of a soul that survives the body to then go to hell. In fact Ezekial 18:4 says that the soul that is sinning, it itself will die. In other bibles this is rendered as the man or the person.
The concept of 'soul' meaning a purely spiritual, immaterial reality, seperate from the body... does not exist in the bible. (La Parole de dieu (Paris 1980) Georges Auzou, profesor of Sacred Scripture, Rouen Seminary France p. 128.)

So people who go to hell simply die, therefore both the righteous and the wicked go to hell, for it is simply a place of death. In fact Job prayed to God to protect him in hell. He would not have done this because he believed that he had sinned badly in fact he was known as a man blameless and upright, why would he choose to burn indefinately in hell?

Do people ever get out of the bible hell? Revelation 20:13,14 The sea gave up the dead which were in it and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them, and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. (So the dead will be delivered from hell. Notice also that hell is not the same as the lake of fire but will be cast into it)

So are the wicked eternally punished? The bible says that they will be eternally destoyed. (maththew 25:46, 2 Thess 1:9, Jude 7) The very idea of eternal torment does not fit with Gods personality. 1 John 4:8 says that he is Love. Surely a God of love would no more burn his creations eternally then we would burn a childs hand to punish them for a wrong doing? Furthermore Jeremiah 7:31 talks about how apostate Judeans put their sons and their daughters through fire. It goes on to say that this was not a commandment of God, it had not even come into his heart. How could He then turn around and do the same thing on a much larger scale?

As a coincidence, Semaj, I heard just this *second* a news item about how a second person has been charged in the murder of Holly and Jessica.
What a question! What my brother would say, is that God always answers prayers - sometimes the answer is 'no'. I know what he means - and I think that sometimes what seems like 'no' to us here-and-now, is a kind of 'yes'. I have a friend in her 30s who blew an aneurysm as few weeks ago, and I learned of what happened weeks later and went to see her in the Rehab unit. I have been praying for her, for her recovery *and* for her emotional state, which is very bad! To be honest, I didn't expect *any* improvement in her physical condition, but when I went to see her yesterday, a week later, she *had* had a physical improvement, tho' not a cure.
Another point I would make, is, that death is not the worst thing that can happen! God's will for someone may be their death - for them, and for their family - for reasons which will only become clear years later, if ever. But there may well be a reason! (I'm not saying that's necessarily the case with Holly and Jessica) We can't know.
In answer to the posting b4 yours, yes, I *do* believe in the Resurrection. There is evidence in favour of it, as against the Genesis accounts of Creation. I believe those accounts are myths in the literary sense of the word, and never meant to be taken factually!

Does anyone agree that the Roman Catholic Church is a clever mutation of the Roman Empire (political/religious from military/political)?

Yup, it certainly looks like it to me.

Hiya star...

"Absolutely fascinated by this ungoing discussion. If I am intruding, let me know"

Not at all, the more viewpoints the more interesting this is.

"One passage of your last entry really had me thinking"

Now that warms the cockles...

"...a world without science...was THIS world, until relatively recently. For over a thousand years after Christ, the Western world was primarily ruled by religion, and science did not exist."

It amazes me that you would mention "after Christ" as a recognition-point in time."

Purely arbitrary, I assure you, based on the fact that the Western calendar is the one we all understand and use. I also referred to William the Conqueror, since I assume most people can recall at least one of his dates and it comes close to a usefully round number of years ago.

"I realise that most of the World does, but that doesn't make it binding for everyone."

I agree - but if we're to have any basis for communication, certain basic assumptions in common are required, and a commonly understood calendar is one of them. Now I'm as dissatisfied as the next atheist that the calendar we all use is based on the miscalculated birth year of a prophet/messiah I don't believe in. But until the whole western world starts measuring dates from a TRULY significant event (August 6th 1945? July 20th 1969?) I'll stick to referring to the Christian calendar.

"I am sure you are aware that science in its earliest forms dates from a time far before "Christ" and I don't think it is necessary to point out the importance (to this very day) of quite a bit of the discoveries made before the Christian era."

True. But the relative positions of science and religion in influencing public policy have only switched within the last few hundred years. There's no point having science if religion takes precedence.

"I am sure you will agree that herbology, astronomy and psychology, to name only a few, are sciences and these subjects always have been a big part of the training within the Craft, Druidry,Shamanism and many more."

Absolutely. Astronomy, yes. Astrology, no. Many people don't know the difference, or think that astrology is a science. Herbology (at least what I know of it) has many of the characteristics of science. Psychology? I'm not sure that that counts as a science even now.

"one can hardly blame religion for the diseases which roamed the world for hundreds of years."

Why not? Those diseases were out there, causing misery and death, and religion did NOTHING. Like I said, prayer was offered as a cure for cholera. I absolutely blame religion for the illness or death of anyone told to look to gods for the cures to their troubles.

"first of all: we DON'T feed everyone do we?"

Correct. I'm glad and interested to note that you didn't say "we can't". Because we can, can't we? If we choose to. We choose not to, for reasons of politics, and that choice does not reflect well on us as a species.

"Secondly: are you so sure genetic manipulation of crops (another way of feeding people through science) is such a good thing?"

No, I'm not. And it seems to me that genetic manipulation of crops is less to do with feeding a mass of people and more to do with enriching a few. Then again, are you so sure that genetic manipulation is a BAD thing? And if so, how do you know that? How do you hope to have an informed opinion (which is, after all, the only kind of opinion which is any use) without proper scientific trials of these things? (and I know I'm being hopelessly idealistic here, too - the trials being performed in the UK are not, by my judgement, properly scientific, and the reasons for that are to do with profit. Bugger.)

"No Holocaust? Highly unlikely. The Holocaust, although "sold" as a religious issue had very little to do with it."

But in a world without religion, it could not have been sold that way. In a world without religion, where people do not have it driven into them every day since infancy that authority is not to be questioned, that kind of action would be much harder to sell. Also, if you want to get into history, why is the Jewish population vilified? And how do they come to be in positions of class, power and influence way beyond their proportion in the general population? Because, going back hundreds of years, Christians were forbidden by religious law from lending money. So if you wanted a loan, you had to go to a non-Christian, which in Western Europe at least, meant a Jew. Nobody likes people they owe money to. Nobody likes people who seem to be doing well with little physical effort, as would a moneylender. So resentment grew. This is of course a vast oversimplification - but it's a commonly given reason for one of the roots of anti-Semitism, and it simply could not have existed in a world without stupid religious rules like "if you're a Christian you're not allowed to lend money".

"No slavery? Again religion served its purpose here as an excuse;an excuse for economic and political gain, in other words: power."

And without the HUGE influence of religion, how long could that situation have been maintained? Could it even have got started? Slavers used the Bible to justify their actions - the Bible explicitly condones slavery in several places. Without that justification, would it even occur to an otherwise civilised man to enslave another?

"September 11th?Fundamentalism of any kind is wrong, but I am not even sure the deeper reason for this tragedy was religion."

If you had a world without religion, there'd be no concept of an afterlife. No Valhalla for the heroes to go to when they've completed their self-sacrificing task. No paradise of endless pleasure. Just nothing. How do you persuade someone to train for months and undertake great risk, in return for oblivion? That'd be some sales job, if there was no such thing as religions...

"In all honesty the imperialism of the Western world and the threat of globalisation may have had a large part in the anger coldness neccesary to plan and execute the attacks."

I agree. But would a rational, non-religious world consider globalisation to be a threat, and if so, to what?

"I will, as I said, always open to learn... "

Excellent. Me too. Thanks for responding...

H.

"No Holocaust? Highly unlikely. The Holocaust, although "sold" as a religious issue had very little to do with it."

Since when was it sold as religious?, seems to me it always had more to do with Eugenics. A science which branched out into Genetics and through major funding from The Rockerfella Foundation/Ford/Du Pont/Harrimans/Dillon Reed etc, the pseuedo-science of population control.Not so un-coincidencially, the same folks who provided the Capital Investment for the Third Reich.

Few thoughts on the God thing:-

There is a God. It exists within the Collective Human "Reality"

Reality is a product of the Individual "Awareness" and "God" exists within that framework.

"God" by effecting the actions of individuals can effect "Reality" as perceived by other individuals.

Therefore - God is Fact. (or at least as real as everything anything else in your head)

Maybe.

In my personal opinion every person that has ever lived long enough has taken one of three paths. All paths start the same:

First we try to understand the world. We take our conclusions, whatever they may be and we...

1) Try to do what we think is best.
2) Try to do what we think is best for ourselves.
3) Get lost somewhere between paths 1 & 2.

Everyone who choses path 1 deserves love and understanding, even if their views conflict with yours.

Everyone who choses path 2 deserves what they get.

Everyone on path 3 needs guidance and support, and if possible should be brought closer to path 1.

No view is right. But we all necessarily seek to surround ourselves with people who share our views.

There is no answer, only attempted solutions.

Marcus Aurelius

I saw this, and I saw red... (interesting, since the font was black... No, no! I meant it metaphorically, didn't I? Oh, I can't remember. Let's just continue, shall we?)

Psychology: not a science. That is the most insulting thing it could be possible to say to someone who seriously misjudged the content of his psychology course, finishing after two years with a better insight into the scientific method than anyone who ever took one or more of the so-called 'hard sciences'. So what: you work with rocks and chemicals and particles, psychologists work with brains and diseases and minds. By the end of those two years, I came to know the scientific method intimately. In a single lesson, I was expected to identify issues and search out potential confounding variables and evaluate methodologies with more rigour than I, or anyone else for that matter, was ever encouraged to employ in the course of two whole years of physics. Just read the recent, meticulously examined and criticised (I mean, these things are taken apart with toothpicks) studies on schizophrenia, or perhaps the rigidly applied diagnostic critera to which it is subject, and you might just begin to understand the care these people take in their work. They never give a diagnosis when there is more than the tiniest chance that it may be something similar, and categories are applied even to this. Physicists shift paradigms every century or less and there is uproar; psychologists don't blink an eyelid.

Another thing: could you kindly stop using the word 'Religion' (or 'Christians') when what you really mean is 'Catholics'? It gets really annoying at times. Sometimes, you mean another group: when you do, why don't you refer to it rather than to everyone who has any kind of religious belief? I'm getting mighty tempted to start saying '...and those scientists have pretty sick ideas - I mean, the Jewish Holocaust and ethnic cleansing, that's all because of genetics.' When I refer to scientists, I mean eugenicists. We all have to pussy foot around the failures of a few nasty skeletons in the closet of scientific objectivity, so will you please start extending the same courtesy to us religious types?

And the only reference to slavery I can find is in Philemon. It's not even a justification, it's just a poor, heartbroken apostle making a difficult decision about what to do with a slave whom he loves as a brother, and wishes dearly to help. He does not, anywhere, say that slavery is good - he simply implies that it happens, and we have to live with it.

I think good ol' Uncie Nick has a good point: unreal things are just as real as anything else, so long as we think they are. People should have the right to think what they want to, so long as it does not put others - or themselves - at serious risk. And, sometimes, people suffer from disorders like schizophrenia or depression (which, by the way, are largely genetic), and need a helping hand.

Which, by the way, would be a fourth path - not doing either. What do you think we ought to do for them, Aurelius?

That sounded awful! I'm sorry if I sounded a bit nasty - I'm just a mite annoyed at some stuff that's going on around me. Just hope that passion isn't offensive.

- Jordan

A word on reality in responce to Uncle Nick.

"Reality is a product of the Individual "Awareness" and "God" exists within that framework."

I disagree with the theory of 'Reality' which you put forward Uncle Nick. I know it's a well founded theory blah blah but it also doesn't really stand up to scrutiny in my opinion.

We are merely human and with the few senses that we have (including reason) the best we can ever hope for is to formulate a *perception* of reality. Each and every one of us has a different *perception* of reality based upon our individual experiences. But it is only this *perception* which changes for each individual. The object which we attempt to perceive is solid. Reality is what it is. The problem is that the our perceptions are flawed. None of us is quite right.

Therefore the arguement that 'God' exists merely because 'He' exists in some of our perceptions of reality is asking us to stretch the boundary a little too far beyond reason.

At least that's my view.

Marcus

Hi there Jordan,

A fourth path, hey? Ok, lets see.

Schizophrenia. Where a person's personality is divided? Well, I wouldn't describe that as doing neither path 1 nor path 2. I would imagine that they jump rather randomly between paths. Therefore they fit path 3. Of course I'm just taking a rather steriotypical view as I am not educated in psychology.

Depression. I had that. Clinical depression for 6 years. I was still able to determine between right and wrong as I saw them. Don't see that makes any difference there, really. However, you do tend to withdraw and lose hope when your depressed. Yes, you take a back seat from life. I see what you're getting at.

Thinking about it, yes, there are many people who opt out of the moral side of life. I'm not sure if this fits in path 3 or if we need to have a new path but as far as I'm concerned it still makes very little difference to the way they should be treated - with love, support, guidance.

Jordan, what's your point?

Marcus

Oh, and while I'm here may I just voice my support for Jordan's claim that Psychology is a true science. Thanks.

MA

Hiya Jordan!

"Psychology: not a science. That is the most insulting thing it could be possible to say"

And if I said that, I'd apologise. What I said was "I'm not sure it counts as a science, even now", and I said that for several reasons.

(1) I'm not sure, because I don't follow its progress as closely as I do other sciences
(2) My current understanding of it is that it is at a very early stage of its development as a science, much as, say, physics was in 1650, for instance. All I know of psychology (i.e. not much) suggests that it is making the painful transition from reasonably coherent set of old wives tales to concrete body of knowledge useful for making reliable predictions about reality. The fact that it is in this transitionary period may explain some of the caution you describe:

"...you might just begin to understand the care these people take in their work. They never give a diagnosis when there is more than the tiniest chance that it may be something similar"

"Physicists shift paradigms every century or less and there is uproar; psychologists don't blink an eyelid."

Which backs up what I would say about psychology being relatively early in its journey towards being a science in the accepted sense. If you're at the stage where you can upset the whole basis of your knowledge every couple of years, doesn't that say something about the maturity of your area of study? Paradigm shifts in physics are rare now because all the good ones happened three hundred or more years ago, and the body of knowledge solidified into a Newton's-Laws-shaped rock for two hundred years. Einstein put a bomb under that rock, and it TOOK a bomb to shift it. You imply psychology is still an insubstantial cloud of condensing smoke, blown left and right by competing interpretations of the evidence. It doesn't make it not a science, I accept that. I'm sorry for any implication it did. I think we think more alike about it than different, and I don't mean to belittle the subject or its study in the least.

"Another thing: could you kindly stop using the word 'Religion' (or 'Christians') when what you really mean is 'Catholics'?"

When I mean Catholics, I'll say Catholics. When I mean Christians, I'll say Christians. When I mean those who hold the Old Testment to be the Word of God, I'll say Judeo-Christians. And when I mean people who are required, if they profess true faith, to believe in a flat earth, I'll say "Religious people", with apologies to any non-Christian, non-Jewish, non-Muslim people out there, because when I say "religion" what I generally mean is "anything to do with Christianity, Judaism or Islam". I choose my words with care, and define them when asked. I don't think I've EVER meant "Catholics" when I've said "Christians". I could understand it if I'd said "what's wrong with Christians, eh, thinking their Pope is infallible?". But I haven't.

"When I refer to scientists, I mean eugenicists."

Is Eugenics science or politics? Discuss. (in fact I'm tempted to start another thread with that title...)

"We all have to pussy foot around the failures of a few nasty skeletons in the closet of scientific objectivity, so will you please start extending the same courtesy to us religious types?"

Science does not ask that you pussyfoot around its failures. It asks that you understand that it has repudiated them utterly.

Religion - Christianity, Islam, Judaism - asks that you pussyfoot around any number of rationalisations and exceptions and "interpretations" and mistranslations and allegories and does not admit what it doesn't know. Do you believe the Bible is the Word of God? Do you believe the world is a sphere?

"And the only reference to slavery I can find is in Philemon."

Then you haven't been looking very hard. I suggest a glance at Exodus Chapter 21 for starters. God has the whole Bible in which to condemn the barbaric practice of slavery. Instead...

"He does not, anywhere, say that slavery is good - he simply implies that it happens, and we have to live with it."

God doesn't say that rape is good, either. He implies that it happens, and that we have to live with it. Oh, hang on, he actually DOES imply rape is OK... Genesis 19:8, where Lot offers a crowd his daughters, preferring them to be raped than two people he doesn't know (who, unknown to him, are actually angels). What goes around comes around though, of course, because in verse 33 Lot's daughters get him drunk and rape him.

God, when inspiring those who wrote the Bible, had, over the course of those 66 books plenty of opportunity to condemn slavery, and didn't do it even once.

"I think good ol' Uncie Nick has a good point: unreal things are just as real as anything else, so long as we think they are."

Which makes Santa Claus and the tooth fairy JUST as real as your god to most four year olds. What's the difference?

"People should have the right to think what they want to, so long as it does not put others - or themselves - at serious risk."

Agreed. But how many wars have used religion as justification?

"That sounded awful! I'm sorry if I sounded a bit nasty - I'm just a mite annoyed at some stuff that's going on around me. Just hope that passion isn't offensive."

Not to me. What I said about psychology was poorly phrased, mea culpa. As for the rest, I need only look at my desk calendar for today. The pithy words of wisdom on there are, I kid you not, as follows:

"It's a pretty safe rule that the fellow who always agrees with you is not worth talking to".

H.

Hello again

Just wanted to add something that I see as clarification and many other people will probably see as a load of hogswash. But anyway...

Along with my earlier point on reality and our perceptions, I voice my support on Hoovooloo's point about Santa and the Tooth Fairy.

"unreal things are just as real as anything else, so long as we think they are" Well, no. That comment is a sandwich short of a picnic.

If I believe that Santa exists then he is just as real *TO ME* as chocolate is *TO YOU*. It doesn't necessarily tally that just because Santa is part of *MY* perception of reality, he is real. That's crazy. That's like saying, just because I start really believing in banana-aliens they're going to suddenly start existing.

I believe in many things that you might not. I might be wrong. You believe in God. You too might be wrong.

...and hello again ,

Couldn't help but come back on it: Every time some one uses the word "god", it is assumed that Christianity would be discussed. I don't think that was the case here (as a matter of fact I am quite sure). Could we agree that by religion we mean the mainstream worldreligions and all their aspects (I wouldn't want any Lutheran,Koptic Christian,Greek-Orthodox-Christian,Baptist,Methodist,a.s.o. to feel as if they have to react now or as if I purposely exclude them....) ..Please?
For the record: I feel that there doesn't have to be a rift between "us religious people "(I would prefer filosophy-orientated here, but let's not split hairs )and "them science-people".
Wither the power of the human mind is used in a strictly scientific way or as a part of a spiritual path, is not even such an issue, as long as it is used at all, at least to investigate ways and means to improve all life. (hey, give me a break here ok, I am a treehugger, what can I say...)If I can improve the life of existences around me by knowing my path and walking it, then I hold that just as important as the improvement the quality of life through...erm...say chemotherapy.

As for the question wither I have proof of the negative effects of genetic manipulation, well...no I don't, but neither do the scientists, or do they? 30 odd years ago science was sure that there wouldn't be any negative effects from "the pil". As it turns out the oestrogen in the pil doesn't break down all that easily and scientist now assume that the deteriarating quality of the human sperm is due to large amounts of oestrogen in our drinking water...that says something about "long-term-effects", does it not? As an inhabitant of this planet I am worried, aren't you?

In reply to the entries on "hell"...*sigh*.First of all: I don't believe in "hell", at least not as a place. Please take it for what it is: a way of scaring people into obedience. Even if the bible gives reference to it or not, that does not necessarily make it a real place. The bible is not to everyone "the Good book"of eternal and ultimate truth (sorry, it isn't to me).If I have learnt anything then it is that truth is only temporary, what was true today maybe proven wrong tomorrow (and that goes for science just as it goes for my filosophical path).
The place "where the dead rest": that concept is as old as the world itself; maybe to take some of the fear of death and dying away from people, maybe for some completely different reason,I don't really know, but I do know that many a culture (from way before the Christian era) had and still has there own form or name for the place where the dead go: Hades,Otherworld,Valhalla,Tir-na-n'Og,Nirvana and so on...

On a sarcastic note let me put on my robes, go dance under the moonlight and hug a tree...never know what I may come up with next...

Walk in Light /|Star*

I don't understand why you quote the Old testment (Until Christ died for us there was no reprieve from "Hell" then jump to Revelation in the new testament and ignore the many comments made about the promise of eternal life.

I think that probably "Hell" is what we make for ourselves by ignoring God's many warnings to know him and have faith. Sin is turning away from God and if you turn far enough you may end in hell. Not so much a punishment but just the consequences. Like if you drive a car with bald tires down the free way at excessive speed and a tire blows, you have an accident. While you may be hurt seriously or even killed it is basically the result of pushing the limit of you options. Jesus came to give us an example of how to treat each other (h2g2 talks about it too) and if we hear the warnings and listen we will be saved. Many these days hear the warning and are like the person with the bald tires and big engine, Ooops, now it's to late once the skid starts. But the New Testament tells us that Christ loves us and will even intervein in the skid. Hense no one know but you if you are saved or not and Hell is where you go if that is what you want to do.

Atheists are daredevils at heart.

"No Holocaust? Highly unlikely. The Holocaust, although "sold" as a religious issue had very little to do with it. History does make that one rather clear."

Nonsense. Religion had a big part to do with it. And here's how. 1900 years of explicit Catholic anti-semitism and a few hundred of explicit protastant anti-semitism gave rise to the bigotry that caused the Holocaust. Millions of Germans didn't turn round one day and say "Hey! Let's kill the Jews!". Germans, like most Christians in Europe had been told in the churches and in the homes that the Jews killed Christ, that they were damned because they didn't follow Christ etc. etc. Of course, not all Christians were anti-semitic (and took Jesus at face value when he said love thy neighbour), and the folks responsible for starting the Holocaust, the Nazis high command, probably weren't doing it for relegious purposes. BUT the environment created in Europe by the Church is what ALLOWED the SS to get away with it. Why didn't Pope Pius XII condemn it, despite having known about the persecution of the Jews (if not the actual ins and outs of the death camps)? Because he, and the Christian establishment were anti-semitic.

This kinda thing demonstrates the pointlessness of discussing whether God exists or not. Who cares what anyone believes in anyway? I can believe the moon is made of cheese if I want. The problem is when people decide that I should be made to suffer for my beliefs. Religious types should not be trying to distance themselves from events like the Holocaust. They should admit to themselves, and to others, "Having a belief-set such as mine, even fluffy and cuddly ones, and encouraging others to do so, creates an environment of elitism, distrust and hatred, no matter how well intended my actions".

He's not the Messiah!......He's a very naughty boy!

Follow the Gourd

Follow the Sandal

You don't have to follow anybody.

I'm not going to Hell, because I do not believe in such a place. Right? Even the CofE (which is what I'd by default be if I were organised-religious) has abolished it as a physical place.
Following on from the reality subject (not necessarily that if you believe in something, it begins to exist- can, open, worms everywhere...) since the soul (which goes to hell) is a construct of the brain/mind, it can only be affected by similar. Hence, hell has to be believed in, otherwise your soul cannot go there. (Course, you have to believe in a soul also... more worms.)
I am not 'ignoring God's warnings'. For a start, I've heard nothing as convincing as the fact that bad tyres probably are not a good bet, secondly I didn't opt to 'disobey' God or confound him or even to annoy Christians, but made a conscious decision to follow a path that I'm more comfortable with (more up my leyline, so to speak.)
Quandary- what of those who haven't ever come across God's apparent warnings? not so much now- those missionaries get around- but in the past before such things were spread. Seems a bit harsh to toss them into hell since it wasn't their fault and they could never have altered their situation.

"Therefore the argument that 'God' exists merely because 'He' exists in some of our perceptions of reality is asking us to stretch the boundary a little too far beyond reason."

I was really pushing towards the idea that because the 'God' thing has such an effect on the way that some individuals perceive reality and ultimatley on how they interact with and affect the fabric of the Universe. 'God' must be accepted as a 'Fact'

But that is not to suggest that 'God' is, in anyway, shape or form a thing that exists as an entity seperate from Human Perception. That really would be stretching it.

Father Christmas and God.

The only difference between Santa and God is that grown ups should know better

And on that note, and just before I go offline for a while, I must insert two weak attempts at humour -

(1) Did you hear the one about the dyslexic devil worshipper who sold his soul to Santa?

(2) Did you hear the one about the dyslexic agnostic insomniac, who'd lie awake at night wondering if there was a dog?

H.