Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Frazzled wrote:
As noted above, who the cares? If I'm wrong I haven't lost anything . If atheists are wrong, they are ed.
Do you really think that God can't detect sincerity, Pascal?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:
Wouldn't it be fair to say that people that have faith require no proof, so that's not the best analogy to use?
I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
However, I would say that the scientists do not have faith. They merely believe that they are correct, and so seek to prove, or disprove that belief. Men of faith seek neither.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/09/04 21:10:34
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Frazzled wrote: As noted above, who the cares? If I'm wrong I haven't lost anything . If atheists are wrong, they are ed.
Pascal's wager? - deeply unimpressive.
How so?
Doesn't take into account the possibility that both atheism and Catholicism are wrong, and the real gods are those of the ancient Egyptians. That's right, Genesis is wrong, the world came into being via an act of autofellatio. Have fun being eaten by Ammut!
Of course, that's wrong, too. The REAL creator is Eris, and her consort the Flying Spaghetti Monster. May you be touched by His noodly appendage. Ramen.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/09/04 21:17:04
Frazzled wrote:
As noted above, who the cares? If I'm wrong I haven't lost anything . If atheists are wrong, they are ed.
Without even mentioning the several thousand religions in the world, i will merely say.... eh?
Why do you think religion is so prickly?
If it actually contained a modicum of sense, it wouldnt matter if i blasphemed, nobody would care, its truth could never be dimmed, it's pure light would shine through!
It wouldnt matter what people like me said. It would all be irrelevant. It would pale in the light of truth and fact and light!
If you slag off Man utd to a fan, they dont care if you say "they suck" or "they are gak" because they know otherwise. (they win lots)
Religion doesnt work like you would expect though. It aint confident.. It's ultra defensive, its ultra prickly. It NEEDS to be prone to getting "bashed" because it cant hide that after 2000 years to make a case there is nothing there. It cant stand up to scrutiny, its about as substantial as a merangue.
Im genuinelly stunned that a grown man (who i agree with 90% of the time) actually thinks that pascals wager is a decent argument when there has been several million religions over the years.
If "god" is Krishna, wont he like me more than you?
We are arming Syrian rebels who support ISIS, who is fighting Iran, who is fighting Iraq who we also support against ISIS, while fighting Kurds who we support while they are fighting Syrian rebels.
Ho hum, its been toned down by the Beeb. In the original the Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists and Moslems were all in hell. 'The Trans-meditationalists were right.'
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Frazzled wrote:It don't mean gak. He's a physicist. He doesn't know how life started, any more than a physicist knows how to build a house.
This isn't about the origin of life, this is about the origin of the universe, which is a subject that a physicist is very much qualified to discuss.
As noted above, who the cares? If I'm wrong I haven't lost anything . If atheists are wrong, they are ed. And none of it, none of it, helps me buy my next cup of coffee.
Pascal's wager is pretty much the epitome of the false dichotomy, yay for fallacious reasoning.
Mr Mystery wrote:But for those who seek to discredit Darwin's theory in the name of Religion, how would doing so validate their own belief in a divine creator of all things?
It wouldn't. All that would happen is that the Theory of Evolution (Via Natural Selection, blah blah blah) would be replaced with a more up to date version that fits the new evidence. Considering that the theory has been updated numerous times as new evidence comes to light, you'd think the creationists would figure out that it's not working. But then again, these are the people saying that bananas are proof of a kind and loving god, conveniently ignoring the pineapple, which is definite proof that, if there is a god, he hates us and wants us to die in the most painful fasion possible.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I can approach this as an outsider. I grew up in a private christian school so guess how much science I learned?
Probably as much as I learned at public school.
mattyrm wrote:Stephen Hawking...
[long list of awards]
Is overated because some dude on the internet said so?
No, what people are saying is that many of Stephen Hawking's peers - that is, people who are professional physicists and mathematicians, highly esteemed in the field themselves - think that he's overrated. A genius certainly, but nonetheless an overrated one (which isn't too unusual when most of his detractors are geniuses as well).
Also, having a long list of awards doesn't make for very good evidence that a person isn't overrated. Logically, an overrated person would have more awards than they deserve.
Awesome.
Overated how?
Overrated in the sense that when Stephen Hawking makes a statement about something which is heavily contested amongst high-level physicists, those who disagree with him aren't given adequate consideration by the public/the media.
I should note that I don't actually know that he is overrated, I don't know enough about physics to say. It doesn't necessarily seem, however, an outrageous or presumptuous position to have.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vene wrote:
As noted above, who the cares? If I'm wrong I haven't lost anything . If atheists are wrong, they are ed. And none of it, none of it, helps me buy my next cup of coffee.
Pascal's wager is pretty much the epitome of the false dichotomy, yay for fallacious reasoning.
A quick counter is just to make a wager of your own. Let's say that Baal may exist, rather than god, and while he likes atheists fine, he hates Christians (because the bible keeps bashing him), and will inflict infinite torment on them. Since we're ignoring the probability of either being existing, both Pascal's and Orkeo's wager should be taken into consideration equally, and both are rendered null.
(Or better yet, you could just declare that God likes atheists okay but hates people who say they believe in him just so they benefit from Pascal's wager.)
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2010/09/04 21:55:47
Anuvver fing - when they do sumfing, they try to make it look like somfink else to confuse everybody. When one of them wants to lord it over the uvvers, 'e says "I'm very speshul so'z you gotta worship me", or "I know summink wot you lot don't know, so yer better lissen good". Da funny fing is, arf of 'em believe it and da over arf don't, so 'e 'as to hit 'em all anyway or run fer it.
Frazzled wrote:
As noted above, who the cares? If I'm wrong I haven't lost anything . If atheists are wrong, they are ed.
Without even mentioning the several thousand religions in the world, i will merely say.... eh?
Why do you think religion is so prickly?
Here you are pushing all religion into one no less than Frazzie did. Are they all prickly? Is atheism any less prickly in your opinion?
mattyrm wrote:
If it actually contained a modicum of sense, it wouldnt matter if i blasphemed, nobody would care, its truth could never be dimmed, it's pure light would shine through!
It wouldnt matter what people like me said. It would all be irrelevant. It would pale in the light of truth and fact and light!
Perhaps this is true. I certainly beleive it is so.
mattyrm wrote:
Religion doesnt work like you would expect though. It aint confident.. It's ultra defensive, its ultra prickly. It NEEDS to be prone to getting "bashed" because it cant hide that after 2000 years to make a case there is nothing there. It cant stand up to scrutiny, its about as substantial as a merangue.
Depends on who you see. many religious people are confident. Ghandi is a good example. Also where do you get the 2000 years from unless you are honing in on Christianity. Matty, you are not being consistent if your argument against occams razor is to look at the diversity of faiths.
In any respect you are looking at the qualityies of God, though the qualityies of people. Of course lplenty of theists will get it out and out wrong, be hypocritical etc, that because we are all humans. You dont hear about the honest ones, the vast majorirty of priests and congragations who are not on the take or do not kiddie fiddle. However even they, us, have our rough edges.
People are prickly, not religions, its not usually religion that makes them prickly if they are, it's humanity that does that. Dissent, envy, greed and crime are part of the make up of man any societal group will attract some of the wrong people. Some more than others. Most fanatics are not true members of the faiths they agitate over, most but not all faiths have a beneficial core message. What drives people to evil is not the message or the God behind it but the application.
mattyrm wrote:
Im genuinelly stunned that a grown man (who i agree with 90% of the time) actually thinks that pascals wager is a decent argument when there has been several million religions over the years.
If "god" is Krishna, wont he like me more than you?
So Matty, do you think Pascals Wager is a 'childs' philosophy? If your wisdom exheeds that of Pascal should you not at least first show yourself to be wise.
As for claiming Krshna would honour you more, should you not embrace the ways of Buddha or Hindu before you can make that comment. Most religions (Catholics and to some extent Moslems might be an exception here) do not put a follower of a foreign faith on a lower value to one who rejects all faith, in general faith is looked at by testing for positive.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vene wrote:
Frazzled wrote:It don't mean gak. He's a physicist. He doesn't know how life started, any more than a physicist knows how to build a house.
This isn't about the origin of life, this is about the origin of the universe, which is a subject that a physicist is very much qualified to discuss.
Actually I would question anyones 'qualification' to make comments on the origins of the universe, we can all discuss it though.
Vene wrote:
Pascal's wager is pretty much the epitome of the false dichotomy, yay for fallacious reasoning.
Care to back that up?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orkeosaurus wrote:
mattyrm wrote:Stephen Hawking...
[long list of awards]
Is overated because some dude on the internet said so?
No, what people are saying is that many of Stephen Hawking's peers - that is, people who are professional physicists and mathematicians, highly esteemed in the field themselves - think that he's overrated. A genius certainly, but nonetheless an overrated one (which isn't too unusual when most of his detractors are geniuses as well).
Also, having a long list of awards doesn't make for very good evidence that a person isn't overrated. Logically, an overrated person would have more awards than they deserve.
Steven Hawking's greatest contriution is his eloquent challenge to preconceptions on disability. Steven Hawking says more for equal rights by not mentioing them than all the PC brigade do by howling together.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2010/09/04 22:01:33
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I can approach this as an outsider. I grew up in a private christian school so guess how much science I learned?
Probably as much as I learned at public school.
mattyrm wrote:Stephen Hawking...
[long list of awards]
Is overated because some dude on the internet said so?
No, what people are saying is that many of Stephen Hawking's peers - that is, people who are professional physicists and mathematicians, highly esteemed in the field themselves - think that he's overrated. A genius certainly, but nonetheless an overrated one (which isn't too unusual when most of his detractors are geniuses as well).
Also, having a long list of awards doesn't make for very good evidence that a person isn't overrated. Logically, an overrated person would have more awards than they deserve.
Awesome.
Overated how?
Overrated in the sense that when Stephen Hawking makes a statement about something which is heavily contested amongst high-level physicists, those who disagree with him aren't given adequate consideration by the public/the media.
I should note that I don't actually know that he is overrated, I don't know enough about physics to say. It doesn't necessarily seem, however, an outrageous or presumptuous position to have.
That has nothing to do with Hawking or science, it is popular media at work.
Orlanth wrote:Steven Hawking's greatest contriution is his eloquent challenge to preconceptions on disability. Steven Hawking says more for equal rights by not mentioing them than all the PC brigade do by howling together.
True. I'd say he's also done a lot to increase the popularity of physics (and science/intellectual work in general) among the general population.
He's a ham, but I think there are definitely good things that come from it. I'd much rather see him in the spotlight than most celebrities.
Anuvver fing - when they do sumfing, they try to make it look like somfink else to confuse everybody. When one of them wants to lord it over the uvvers, 'e says "I'm very speshul so'z you gotta worship me", or "I know summink wot you lot don't know, so yer better lissen good". Da funny fing is, arf of 'em believe it and da over arf don't, so 'e 'as to hit 'em all anyway or run fer it.
Orlanth wrote:
Steven Hawking's greatest contriution is his eloquent challenge to preconceptions on disability. Steven Hawking says more for equal rights by not mentioing them than all the PC brigade do by howling together.
Well, that, and Hawking radiation.
Though there is an argument that he ascended to his position because of his unique personal qualities; ie. he got his job because he's disabled, not because he's the best physicist in the world.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
I wont get into an argument at the mo Orlanth cos ive just got in from the boozer, im leathered, and i think your a stand up chap.
I do think you religious folks are a bit bonkers though.
We are arming Syrian rebels who support ISIS, who is fighting Iran, who is fighting Iraq who we also support against ISIS, while fighting Kurds who we support while they are fighting Syrian rebels.
Kilkrazy wrote:That has nothing to do with Hawking or science, it is popular media at work.
My understanding of the issue is that the physicists who are critical of Hawking in this context believe that it actually is the fault of Hawking, in part. Essentially, they say that Hawking very much enjoys his popularity, and tries to extend it to whatever degree he can, an activity that his rivals don't have as much of an interest in doing.
This is also what leads to him publishing books that laymen have an easier time reading. (And, once again, this may well be a good thing for the field. However, I can see why a person who contests Hawking's theories but has no interest in trying to reach out to people outside of the field may feel frustrated by Hawking, and consider him to be overrated.)
Anuvver fing - when they do sumfing, they try to make it look like somfink else to confuse everybody. When one of them wants to lord it over the uvvers, 'e says "I'm very speshul so'z you gotta worship me", or "I know summink wot you lot don't know, so yer better lissen good". Da funny fing is, arf of 'em believe it and da over arf don't, so 'e 'as to hit 'em all anyway or run fer it.
Orlanth wrote:Steven Hawking's greatest contriution is his eloquent challenge to preconceptions on disability. Steven Hawking says more for equal rights by not mentioing them than all the PC brigade do by howling together.
True. I'd say he's also done a lot to increase the popularity of physics (and science/intellectual work in general) among the general population.
I'd argue that that's his greatest achievement. The latest edition of A Brief History of Time is very well written, to the point that your average layman can probably understand it, and the man's pretty much the iconic physicist, barring Einstein.
Frazzled wrote:It don't mean gak. He's a physicist. He doesn't know how life started, any more than a physicist knows how to build a house.
This isn't about the origin of life, this is about the origin of the universe, which is a subject that a physicist is very much qualified to discuss.
Actually I would question anyones 'qualification' to make comments on the origins of the universe, we can all discuss it though.
Um, yeah, about that, we can bloody look back in time due to the speed of light. There's also predicted consequences of the big bang theory, things like how everything in the universe should be moving away from everything else (redshift) and there should also be a little thing called cosmic background radiation. Neither of these effects would make sense without the big bang. This isn't really a matter of discussion anymore, this is very solid physics.
Vene wrote:
Pascal's wager is pretty much the epitome of the false dichotomy, yay for fallacious reasoning.
Care to back that up?
Orkeosaurus wrote:A quick counter is just to make a wager of your own. Let's say that Baal may exist, rather than god, and while he likes atheists fine, he hates Christians (because the bible keeps bashing him), and will inflict infinite torment on them. Since we're ignoring the probability of either being existing, both Pascal's and Orkeo's wager should be taken into consideration equally, and both are rendered null.
(Or better yet, you could just declare that God likes atheists okay but hates people who say they believe in him just so they benefit from Pascal's wager.)
Basically, it assumes there are only two possibilities in a universe with infinite possibilities, as such, a false dichotomy.
Well there’s a grab bag of different topics to pick up on here.
I understood Hawking did some pretty good theoretical work on black holes back in the day.
It is pretty common for theoretical physicists and mathematicians to burn out in their 30s or early 40s. That shouldn’t tarnish the lustre of their record.
Popularising science is a good thing if good science is popularised.
From what I’ve heard, an awful lot more copies of A Brief History of Time were sold than read.
Applications for A Level sciences and degrees have been declining for years in the UK. They have been up in the past couple of years -- whether that has anything to do with Hawking I don’t know.
As for him being regarded as overrated by fellow scientists, since he can’t be rated by non-fellow-scientists if physicists think he is over-rated it is tautological that he isn’t.
If scientists who have absolutely no interest in general popularity think Hawking’s public profile is too high, they are probably lying about having no interest in popularity, and are just jealous.
Hawking is no oil painting, and has less charisma in his voice than Davros, the creator of the Daleks.
Orkeosaurus wrote:My understanding of the issue is that the physicists who are critical of Hawking in this context believe that it actually is the fault of Hawking, in part. Essentially, they say that Hawking very much enjoys his popularity, and tries to extend it to whatever degree he can, an activity that his rivals don't have as much of an interest in doing.
This is also what leads to him publishing books that laymen have an easier time reading. (And, once again, this may well be a good thing for the field. However, I can see why a person who contests Hawking's theories but has no interest in trying to reach out to people outside of the field may feel frustrated by Hawking, and consider him to be overrated.)
I think this a general criticism of any member of a technical field that writes for laymen. I know from first hand experience that there is a huge divide in the philosophical community regarding whether or not philosophy should be brought to the general public, and I also know that political scientists who write non-technical articles are looked down upon by many in the field.
Another, more specific, example is Sam Harris. He is, first and foremost, a polemicist, but he is also a neuroscientist. As a result, there are many prominent neuroscientists who frown upon his work; which is basically an attempt to prove that the religious mind is not a sane one.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Kilkrazy wrote:since he can’t be rated by non-fellow-scientists
How did you come to this conclusion?
if physicists think he is over-rated it is tautological that he isn’t
Even presupposing that only physicists can "rate" him, you're now equating some physicists with all physicists.
And do you actually believe that the physicists in question are incapable of elementary logic, and think that Hawking is simultaneously hated and loved by all of his peers?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2010/09/04 23:44:05
Anuvver fing - when they do sumfing, they try to make it look like somfink else to confuse everybody. When one of them wants to lord it over the uvvers, 'e says "I'm very speshul so'z you gotta worship me", or "I know summink wot you lot don't know, so yer better lissen good". Da funny fing is, arf of 'em believe it and da over arf don't, so 'e 'as to hit 'em all anyway or run fer it.
Kilkrazy wrote:since he can’t be rated by non-fellow-scientists
How did you come to this conclusion?
if physicists think he is over-rated it is tautological that he isn’t
I'll echo this question in a more specific manner. How is it a tautology to suppose that Steven Hawking isn't overrated because some physicists think that he is?
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Science and religion do not discredit one another, in my belief. Rather, science validates religion and religion also validates science.
The creation story is roughly centered around what would concievably happen in evolution. And genesis is centered around evolution, there being two humans to start the human race.
Doctadeth wrote:Science and religion do not discredit one another, in my belief. Rather, science validates religion and religion also validates science.
The creation story is roughly centered around what would concievably happen in evolution. And genesis is centered around evolution, there being two humans to start the human race.
As long as you read Genesis as a metaphor, this is true. It's when you start reading the bible (or any holy book, really) literally that you start running into problems. For instance, Genesis has two creation stories, which directly contradict each other. It also fails to hold true to basic scientific rigor, what with the universe being a paltry 6000 years old, and the fact that bats aren't birds.
There are also issues regarding the meaning of the word 'universe'. For example, theoretical physicists don't use it as laymen do; tending to reference all that is consistent with a given set of physical laws.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Doctadeth wrote:Science and religion do not discredit one another, in my belief. Rather, science validates religion and religion also validates science.
The creation story is roughly centered around what would concievably happen in evolution. And genesis is centered around evolution, there being two humans to start the human race.
As long as you read Genesis as a metaphor, this is true. It's when you start reading the bible (or any holy book, really) literally that you start running into problems. For instance, Genesis has two creation stories, which directly contradict each other. It also fails to hold true to basic scientific rigor, what with the universe being a paltry 6000 years old, and the fact that bats aren't birds.
To be fair, Genesis doesn't directly say that the universe is only 6000 years old. That number is just something that young earth creationists have hypothesized from putting together the list of ages and lineages in Genesis. And what's that bit about bats? What are you getting at with that? Bats aren't even mentioned, are they?
Doctadeth wrote:Science and religion do not discredit one another, in my belief. Rather, science validates religion and religion also validates science.
The creation story is roughly centered around what would concievably happen in evolution. And genesis is centered around evolution, there being two humans to start the human race.
As long as you read Genesis as a metaphor, this is true. It's when you start reading the bible (or any holy book, really) literally that you start running into problems. For instance, Genesis has two creation stories, which directly contradict each other. It also fails to hold true to basic scientific rigor, what with the universe being a paltry 6000 years old, and the fact that bats aren't birds.
To be fair, Genesis doesn't directly say that the universe is only 6000 years old. That number is just something that young earth creationists have hypothesized from putting together the list of ages and lineages in Genesis. And what's that bit about bats? What are you getting at with that? Bats aren't even mentioned, are they?
It's in Leviticus:
Leviticus 11:13-19:
"These, moreover, you shall detest among the birds; they are abhorrent, not to be eaten: the eagle and the vulture and the buzzard, 14and the kite and the falcon in its kind, 15every raven in its kind, 16 and the ostrich and the owl and the sea gull and the hawk in its kind, 17and the little owl and the cormorant and the great owl, 18and the white owl and the pelican and the carrion vulture, 19and the stork, the heron in its kinds, and the hoopoe, and the bat."
Personally, I love this bit from Genesis:
Genesis 30:30-39:
"Jacob, however, took fresh-cut branches from poplar, almond and plane trees and made white stripes on them by peeling the bark and exposing the white inner wood of the branches. 38 Then he placed the peeled branches in all the watering troughs, so that they would be directly in front of the flocks when they came to drink. When the flocks were in heat and came to drink, 39 they mated in front of the branches. And they bore young that were streaked or speckled or spotted."
Click this link and exit out of it.
You don't have to watch the video if you dont want to. Comment if you liked the video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmYAD2ZroO0
Vene wrote:Personally, I love this bit from Genesis:
Genesis 30:30-39:
"Jacob, however, took fresh-cut branches from poplar, almond and plane trees and made white stripes on them by peeling the bark and exposing the white inner wood of the branches. 38 Then he placed the peeled branches in all the watering troughs, so that they would be directly in front of the flocks when they came to drink. When the flocks were in heat and came to drink, 39 they mated in front of the branches. And they bore young that were streaked or speckled or spotted."
My personal favorite has to be biblical cosmology. It is fun.
Doctadeth wrote:Science and religion do not discredit one another, in my belief. Rather, science validates religion and religion also validates science.
The creation story is roughly centered around what would concievably happen in evolution. And genesis is centered around evolution, there being two humans to start the human race.
As long as you read Genesis as a metaphor, this is true. It's when you start reading the bible (or any holy book, really) literally that you start running into problems. For instance, Genesis has two creation stories, which directly contradict each other. It also fails to hold true to basic scientific rigor, what with the universe being a paltry 6000 years old, and the fact that bats aren't birds.
To be fair, Genesis doesn't directly say that the universe is only 6000 years old. That number is just something that young earth creationists have hypothesized from putting together the list of ages and lineages in Genesis. And what's that bit about bats? What are you getting at with that? Bats aren't even mentioned, are they?
It's in Leviticus:
Leviticus 11:13-19:
"These, moreover, you shall detest among the birds; they are abhorrent, not to be eaten: the eagle and the vulture and the buzzard, 14and the kite and the falcon in its kind, 15every raven in its kind, 16 and the ostrich and the owl and the sea gull and the hawk in its kind, 17and the little owl and the cormorant and the great owl, 18and the white owl and the pelican and the carrion vulture, 19and the stork, the heron in its kinds, and the hoopoe, and the bat."
Personally, I love this bit from Genesis:
Genesis 30:30-39:
"Jacob, however, took fresh-cut branches from poplar, almond and plane trees and made white stripes on them by peeling the bark and exposing the white inner wood of the branches. 38 Then he placed the peeled branches in all the watering troughs, so that they would be directly in front of the flocks when they came to drink. When the flocks were in heat and came to drink, 39 they mated in front of the branches. And they bore young that were streaked or speckled or spotted."
Hah, that's pretty funny about bats in Leviticus. I don't personally really think it's that big of a problem though, or that it invalidates Christianity or something just because their system of animal classification wasn't as refined as the one we use today. And besides, the Bible isn't a scientific text, the truth is no one should really be looking to the Bible for answers to scientific questions.
cares? If I'm wrong I haven't lost anything . If atheists are wrong, they are 
