The Atheist - Agnostic - Non religious thread

A running dog....!!!! easily..:!!!

Mr ProgFreak wrote: jampa17 wrote:   Progfreak again... maybe you didn't learn well the religion class and that's your angry problem... Catholic church do not believe that only by been catholic you will be saved... Benedict XVI, before he get elected Pope stated in one of his Catethism -don't if it's spelled well- that Jewish were saved because of their believe in the Messiah, is not a matter if they do not believe in Jesus but their faith and believing in the Messiah make them saved... as well as the middle east religion -don't know how to call it in english...- and just like Henry put above, what the Catholic church said is that everyone will be saved by Jesus, even if you don't reconigze him as son of God... it's a balance between faith and actions... but only the good actions are not enough... I'm just telling you what is the formal posture of catholics... not the mainstream you are talking about... I never had religion class ... in Germany children aren't forced to take them, every school has ethics classes for those who don't follow the major religions in our country (Catholicism and Evangelism). But what if I don't believe in any God or messiah ... will I still be "saved" then? What good is all the praying and believing then if every good person gets saved?

My computer don't reproduce those videos man... I've been telling you... and I'm sure you don't believe us... and that's fine... you see... now we get to the same level... you don't believe and I do... that's fine for me... I don't say your'e wrong and I'm right... I just believe in God... someday we will know... shame that we will not speak to each other when we finally discover the true... too late...

Mr ProgFreak wrote: ^ I think that God is imaginary. Religious people who pray and talk to their God may very well think that he's answering them, but IMO they're delusional. I know, I can't look inside their head and prove it like that. But what I can do is look at how God is described by the religions, and compare that to reality. Maybe you (or others believers) would like to try to answer those questions?

Ooohh...sounds like fun. 

I'll just start by saying many of these questions assume things about God based on traditional (and quite frankly, lazy) misconceptions, and not on the biblical description of God.

These questions allow me (nay, require me) to assume that the Christian God exists, and that the Bible is God's Word.

Although most of them boil down to "Gee, bad things happen," I'll tackle them one by one.

That said, here we go:

1. Why won't God heal amputees?

This question assumes that miracles violate scientific causation.  I don't believe that is the biblical definition of a miracle (as I've said a hundred times elsewhere).

Either way, God choosing not to heal someone doesn't mean He doesn't exist.  Maybe God doesn't want to heal amputees.

2. Why are there so many starving people in the world?

The preliminary comment assumes "God answers our prayers."  It also assumes that God is "ignoring prayer" just because they don't get "answered" in the fashion we would expect (i.e., we get what we ask for).  God is not a wishing well, and prayers aren't pennies.  People starve because the world is under a curse, and God never promised to feed everyone (Genesis 3).  Nay, God, speaking through Christ, assures us that the poor will always be among us.

3. Why does God demand the death of so many innocent people?

This question and subsequent explanation uses so many loaded terms I'm not sure where to begin.

It's simple.  If God exists, He gets to decide what is right and wrong and what the punishments are for breaking His laws.  He's the supreme rule maker.

In other words, if God said, "You shall not eat broccoli on Monday.  If you do, you will be put to death," then who am I to argue against that?  I can say the law doesn't make sense, or that my eating broccoli doesn't harm anyone, but so what?  God made the law, and can snuff me out for violating it.  It's one of the perks of being God, I suppose.

Then the narrator calls capital punishment "murder," which is a very questionable word choice. 

The narrator also uses the word "innocent" in describing people, but then rolls out with a list of crimes these people were being destroyed for- therefore they are not innocent, are they- at least in God's opinion, and what God opines is fact.

Finally, the narrator calls them "trivial" matters.  Trivial to whom?

So the whole argument is based on loaded language.

4. Why does the Bible contain so much anti-scientific nonsense?

I'm going to gloss over this since we've sort of run this subject into the ground in another thread (and to no avail).  I'll just point out that all the narrator makes statements but doesn't prove them.  For example, "God did not create Adam from dust like the Bible says."

How does he know that?

5. Why is God such a huge proponent of slavery in the Bible?

God isn't a "huge proponent" of slavery.  This makes it sound like one of God's main goals is to spread the use of slaves...it isn't.

Again, the narrator argues against God based on a moral system that assumes God doesn't exist.  What is the point of that?

It basically amounts to, "I don't like slavery, and God allows slavery, so God doesn't exist." 

Then the narrator actually asks, "Why do all intelligent people abhor slavery and make it completely illegal?"

There we are with yet another loaded term ("intelligent").  This means that someone can be a member of MENSA, write journal articles on quantum physics, and win a Nobel prize in literature...but the person is not intelligent because he believes slavery is immoral.  This implies that anyone who has ever tolerated slavery is unintelligent.

Slavery is such a nasty concept now because of it being race-based in America and elsewhere...but in ancient cultures, slavery was an important, needed part of society.  If you were impoverished, there was no governmental welfare system to bail you out.  In Rome, some people (even people who were somewhat well-off) sold themselves into slavery so they could be provided for and even move up into society (if the slaveholder was of any status).  It was a way to survive.

Please don't twist my words into saying I advocate slavery, because surely much slavery in the history of the world was awful.

Also, I should point out that a slave to a Hebrew was only allowed to be a slave for seven years at most.  After the expiration of seven years, the slave was to be set free (in accordance with God's law), unless the slave loved his master and wanted to be a slave for life.  This happened fairly often.  Furthermore, God's law required slaveholders to take care of their slaves and treat them well- something many other institutions did not require.

6. Why do bad things happen to good people?

Again, we're faced with more loaded terms (how is the narrator defining "good" and "bad?").  He certainly isn't using biblical definitions...according to the Bible, "There is no one righteous" (Romans 3:10), and the only person to serve as an exception is Jesus Christ.

So using biblical definitions, all we have to do is figure out why bad things happened to Christ.  I'll be glad to answer that if anyone cares.

7. Why didn't any of Jesus' miracles in the Bible leave behind any evidence?

I would ask, "Why do they have to?"  There's no evidence that I brushed my teeth ten years ago (to look at my teeth, one might make the assumption that I didn't!), but that isn't proof that it didn't happen.

This is an argument from silence, plain and simple.

8. How do we explain the fact that Jesus has never appeared to you?

Why...is this something we need to explain?

"If you pray for Jesus to appear, nothing happens."  Again, this is because Christ isn't a genie who has to obey my prayers.  I feel kind of silly even having to say this.

9. Why would Jesus want you to eat his body and drink his blood?

Apparently our narrator has never heard of metaphor, a very common method of rabbinical discourse.

10. Why do Christians get divorced at the same rate as non-Christians?

This is the only question I want to know the answer to as well.  Christians should not be getting divorced except for the reasons Christ laid out.

But the fact that they do doesn't show that God doesn't exist, though.

__________________________


I don't think I've had to come up with any "strange, convoluted" explanation for any of these.  And I have done so completely operating within the assumptions the 10 questions have allotted me (that the Christian God exists and that the Bible is God's word).

Who says A.I. can't have a sense of humor?

Epignosis wrote: Ooohh...sounds like fun.  I'll just start by saying many of these questions assume things about God based on traditional (and quite frankly, lazy) misconceptions, and not on the biblical description of God 3. Why does God demand the death of so many innocent people? This question and subsequent explanation uses so many loaded terms I'm not sure where to begin. It's simple.  If God exists, He gets to decide what is right and wrong and what the punishments are for breaking His laws.  He's the supreme rule maker. In other words, if God said, "You shall not eat broccoli on Monday.  If you do, you will be put to death," then who am I to argue against that?  I can say the law doesn't make sense, or that my eating broccoli doesn't harm anyone, but so what?  God made the law, and can snuff me out for violating it.  It's one of the perks of being God, I suppose.

Then why worship him?

But yeah, those questions were pretty weak. Sorry, Mike. :/

^ yes, but only if you convert to our non-religion. 

Edited by Slartibartfast - December 03 2009 at 12:52

Epignosis wrote: 1. Why won't God heal amputees? This question assumes that miracles violate scientific causation.  I don't believe that is the biblical definition of a miracle (as I've said a hundred times elsewhere). Either way, God choosing not to heal someone doesn't mean He doesn't exist.  Maybe God doesn't want to heal amputees.

So God either can't or doesn't want to perform miracles that violate causations? You're on the road to Deism there. In any case, I'm pretty sure that most Christians don't think that God simply doesn't like amputees and chooses to ignore their prayers. Faith healing has always been one of the things that can be used to convert people to religion.

Epignosis wrote: 2. Why are there so many starving people in the world? The preliminary comment assumes "God answers our prayers."  It also assumes that God is "ignoring prayer" just because they don't get "answered" in the fashion we would expect (i.e., we get what we ask for).  God is not a wishing well, and prayers aren't pennies.  People starve because the world is under a curse, and God never promised to feed everyone (Genesis 3).  Nay, God, speaking through Christ, assures us that the poor will always be among us.

No, it's commonly taught in various Christian religions that God answers your prayers. I think it's also a good assumption that right now in this very moment there are hundreds or thousands of Christians praying to their God to end the hunger in the world. Please keep in mind that I don't believe in any of that anyway - the point in the video is that many people keep on praying in spite of the knowledge that there are many others who have far more serious problems, and they aren't answered either.

Epignosis wrote: 3. Why does God demand the death of so many innocent people? This question and subsequent explanation uses so many loaded terms I'm not sure where to begin. It's simple.  If God exists, He gets to decide what is right and wrong and what the punishments are for breaking His laws.  He's the supreme rule maker.

So you're essentially saying that God might simply be a malevolent, sadistical bully. A good explanation, but again not something that a Christian would say. As Neal Morse put it: "Father of Forgiveness".

Epignosis wrote: 4. Why does the Bible contain so much anti-scientific nonsense? I'm going to gloss over this since we've sort of run this subject into the ground in another thread (and to no avail).  I'll just point out that all the narrator makes statements but doesn't prove them.  For example, "God did not create Adam from dust like the Bible says." How does he know that?

Because evolution and natural selection offer a far more credible and consistent explanation.

To be honest: I don't understand you at all ... one moment you're taking the old testament literal to the letter, then you complain that nobody keeps in mind that the bible should not be taken literal. You can't have your cake and eat it too!

Epignosis wrote: 5. Why is God such a huge proponent of slavery in the Bible? God isn't a "huge proponent" of slavery.  This makes it sound like one of God's main goals is to spread the use of slaves...it isn't.

It says quite clearly that people should have slaves.

Epignosis wrote: Again, the narrator argues against God based on a moral system that assumes God doesn't exist.  What is the point of that? It basically amounts to, "I don't like slavery, and God allows slavery, so God doesn't exist."

It's more along the line of  "most modern Christians abhor slavery. God promotes slavery. How does that compute with your religious belief system?".

Especially in discussions about evolution vs. creationism religious people often argue that what separates humans from animals is their soul, "inserted" by God, which provides the sense of morality that animals lack. In that context, the question is quite valid.

Epignosis wrote: Then the narrator actually asks, "Why do all intelligent people abhor slavery and make it completely illegal?" There we are with yet another loaded term ("intelligent").  This means that someone can be a member of MENSA, write journal articles on quantum physics, and win a Nobel prize in literature...but the person is not intelligent because he believes slavery is immoral.  This implies that anyone who has ever tolerated slavery is unintelligent.

I agree with you here that the word "intelligent" is not really suitable in that context. "Civilized" would be more appropriate.

Epignosis wrote: Slavery is such a nasty concept now because of it being race-based in America and elsewhere...but in ancient cultures, slavery was an important, needed part of society.  If you were impoverished, there was no governmental welfare system to bail you out.  In Rome, some people (even people who were somewhat well-off) sold themselves into slavery so they could be provided for and even move up into society (if the slaveholder was of any status).  It was a way to survive. Please don't twist my words into saying I advocate slavery, because surely much slavery in the history of the world was awful.

Again, this is a case of cherry picking. You *are* advocating slavery, apparently as long as it isn't race-based. I don't have to twist your words, even in the last sentence you say that not all, but only "much" slavery in the history of the world was awful - so some slavery was not awful in your opinion. Please, at least stand by it.

Epignosis wrote: Also, I should point out that a slave to a Hebrew was only allowed to be a slave for seven years at most.  After the expiration of seven years, the slave was to be set free (in accordance with God's law), unless the slave loved his master and wanted to be a slave for life.  This happened fairly often.  Furthermore, God's law required slaveholders to take care of their slaves and treat them well- something many other institutions did not require.

But you don't advocate slavery ...

Epignosis wrote: 6. Why do bad things happen to good people? Again, we're faced with more loaded terms (how is the narrator defining "good" and "bad?").  He certainly isn't using biblical definitions...according to the Bible, "There is no one righteous" (Romans 3:10), and the only person to serve as an exception is Jesus Christ. So using biblical definitions, all we have to do is figure out why bad things happened to Christ.  I'll be glad to answer that if anyone cares.

So you're essentially saying that God doesn't care whether people are doing good things or bad things, because in his mind they're all sinners? That makes him a misanthrop ... again not exactly what religious people usually think about their "Father".

Epignosis wrote: 7. Why didn't any of Jesus' miracles in the Bible leave behind any evidence? I would ask, "Why do they have to?"  There's no evidence that I brushed my teeth ten years ago (to look at my teeth, one might make the assumption that I didn't!), but that isn't proof that it didn't happen. This is an argument from silence, plain and simple.

And your point is flawed, because brushing your teeth is hardly a miracle. The more improbable an incident is, the more evidence is required. Didn't you watch the clip about the baloney detection kit?

I'm beginning to think that from your point of view the Bible looks like a piece of swiss cheese ... with the holes moving and changing size so that it fits your needs.

Epignosis wrote: 8. How do we explain the fact that Jesus has never appeared to you? Why...is this something we need to explain? "If you pray for Jesus to appear, nothing happens."  Again, this is because Christ isn't a genie who has to obey my prayers.  I feel kind of silly even having to say this.

Still, many religious people claim that Jesus appeared to them, and such stories are often cause for others to consider believing. A whole new religion was created solely on the concept (Mormons).

Epignosis wrote: 9. Why would Jesus want you to eat his body and drink his blood? Apparently our narrator has never heard of metaphor, a very common method of rabbinical discourse.

Most religious people don't really believe in this, I know. Which makes it another example of cherry picking. It's just another item on the ever growing list of things that the Bible (or other scripts) says but can't be taken seriously. The whole point of this 10 item list is to show religious people that on the one hand all these things are ridiculous, but on the other hand they still keep believing in the whole concept.

Epignosis wrote: 10. Why do Christians get divorced at the same rate as non-Christians? This is the only question I want to know the answer to as well.  Christians should not be getting divorced except for the reasons Christ laid out. But the fact that they do doesn't show that God doesn't exist, though. __________________________ I don't think I've had to come up with any "strange, convoluted" explanation for any of these.  And I have done so completely operating within the assumptions the 10 questions have allotted me (that the Christian God exists and that the Bible is God's word).

Please forgive me when I say that I still find your posts strange. You're a rhetorical eel!

Briefly:

Mr ProgFreak wrote: Epignosis wrote: 1. Why won't God heal amputees? This question assumes that miracles violate scientific causation.  I don't believe that is the biblical definition of a miracle (as I've said a hundred times elsewhere). Either way, God choosing not to heal someone doesn't mean He doesn't exist.  Maybe God doesn't want to heal amputees. So God either can't or doesn't want to perform miracles that violate causations? You're on the road to Deism there. In any case, I'm pretty sure that most Christians don't think that God simply doesn't like amputees and chooses to ignore their prayers. Faith healing has always been one of the things that can be used to convert people to religion. As always, you miss the point.  I'm not on the road to Deism simply because I don't believe that God is a genie who is required to respond to people.  The Bible doesn't teach that...and just because millions of people think of God that way doesn't mean the Bible presents Him as such.  I think you would do well to ask why God would heal anybody in the first place. Epignosis wrote: 2. Why are there so many starving people in the world? The preliminary comment assumes "God answers our prayers."  It also assumes that God is "ignoring prayer" just because they don't get "answered" in the fashion we would expect (i.e., we get what we ask for).  God is not a wishing well, and prayers aren't pennies.  People starve because the world is under a curse, and God never promised to feed everyone (Genesis 3).  Nay, God, speaking through Christ, assures us that the poor will always be among us. No, it's commonly taught in various Christian religions that God answers your prayers. I think it's also a good assumption that right now in this very moment there are hundreds or thousands of Christians praying to their God to end the hunger in the world. Please keep in mind that I don't believe in any of that anyway - the point in the video is that many people keep on praying in spite of the knowledge that there are many others who have far more serious problems, and they aren't answered either. For the 1100th time, just because something is "commonly taught in various Christian religions" does not make it true. You can either argue against me and what I have said, or you can argue against the misconceptions other people have.  I argue against the latter myself, so what's the point of this discussion? I could tackle your evolution thread this way if you'd prefer: "Mike, evolution is a ridiculous idea.  Thousands of people are saying we evolved from monkeys.  Yet monkeys are still here!  Nice one, science." Epignosis wrote: 3. Why does God demand the death of so many innocent people? This question and subsequent explanation uses so many loaded terms I'm not sure where to begin. It's simple.  If God exists, He gets to decide what is right and wrong and what the punishments are for breaking His laws.  He's the supreme rule maker. So you're essentially saying that God might simply be a malevolent, sadistical bully. A good explanation, but again not something that a Christian would say. As Neal Morse put it: "Father of Forgiveness". Again, you using your moral compass (wherever it comes from) to judge God- that will do you no good to answer what I've said: If God is Creator, God gets to make the rules and may, if He chooses, destroy those who rebel. By the way, I have seen you bring up "being a good person."  I'd like to hear your belief regarding morality in the light of mindless evolution. Epignosis wrote: 4. Why does the Bible contain so much anti-scientific nonsense? I'm going to gloss over this since we've sort of run this subject into the ground in another thread (and to no avail).  I'll just point out that all the narrator makes statements but doesn't prove them.  For example, "God did not create Adam from dust like the Bible says." How does he know that? Because evolution and natural selection offer a far more credible and consistent explanation. To be honest: I don't understand you at all ... one moment you're taking the old testament literal to the letter, then you complain that nobody keeps in mind that the bible should not be taken literal. You can't have your cake and eat it too! How in the world do you read anything if you insist it, as a whole, must be either completely literal or completely figurative? The Bible consists of a literal narrative- I have always maintained that- but that doesn't mean that it isn't chock full of metaphor, imagery, idioms etc. along the way which ornament and enrich said narrative.  If you can't accept that, I have no idea what else to say to you. Show me one place where I have called something in the Bible (except parables) "allegory." Epignosis wrote: 5. Why is God such a huge proponent of slavery in the Bible? God isn't a "huge proponent" of slavery.  This makes it sound like one of God's main goals is to spread the use of slaves...it isn't. It says quite clearly that people should have slaves. [citation needed] Epignosis wrote: Again, the narrator argues against God based on a moral system that assumes God doesn't exist.  What is the point of that? It basically amounts to, "I don't like slavery, and God allows slavery, so God doesn't exist."  It's more along the line of  "most modern Christians abhor slavery. God promotes slavery. How does that compute with your religious belief system?". That isn't at all what he said. Especially in discussions about evolution vs. creationism religious people often argue that what separates humans from animals is their soul, "inserted" by God, which provides the sense of morality that animals lack. In that context, the question is quite valid. And I don't believe in a soul as defined in the West.  Moving on. Epignosis wrote: Then the narrator actually asks, "Why do all intelligent people abhor slavery and make it completely illegal?" There we are with yet another loaded term ("intelligent").  This means that someone can be a member of MENSA, write journal articles on quantum physics, and win a Nobel prize in literature...but the person is not intelligent because he believes slavery is immoral.  This implies that anyone who has ever tolerated slavery is unintelligent. I agree with you here that the word "intelligent" is not really suitable in that context. "Civilized" would be more appropriate. Cool. Epignosis wrote: Slavery is such a nasty concept now because of it being race-based in America and elsewhere...but in ancient cultures, slavery was an important, needed part of society.  If you were impoverished, there was no governmental welfare system to bail you out.  In Rome, some people (even people who were somewhat well-off) sold themselves into slavery so they could be provided for and even move up into society (if the slaveholder was of any status).  It was a way to survive. Please don't twist my words into saying I advocate slavery, because surely much slavery in the history of the world was awful. Again, this is a case of cherry picking. You *are* advocating slavery, apparently as long as it isn't race-based. I don't have to twist your words, even in the last sentence you say that not all, but only "much" slavery in the history of the world was awful - so some slavery was not awful in your opinion. Please, at least stand by it. I do not advocate slavery, but I don't think it is necessarily evil either (One of my first sophomore college papers was on the subject of slavery in the ancient world).  You are one of the worst "bifurcators" I have ever encountered. Epignosis wrote: Also, I should point out that a slave to a Hebrew was only allowed to be a slave for seven years at most.  After the expiration of seven years, the slave was to be set free (in accordance with God's law), unless the slave loved his master and wanted to be a slave for life.  This happened fairly often.  Furthermore, God's law required slaveholders to take care of their slaves and treat them well- something many other institutions did not require. But you don't advocate slavery ... Advocating and tolerating are not the same thing. Epignosis wrote: 6. Why do bad things happen to good people? Again, we're faced with more loaded terms (how is the narrator defining "good" and "bad?").  He certainly isn't using biblical definitions...according to the Bible, "There is no one righteous" (Romans 3:10), and the only person to serve as an exception is Jesus Christ. So using biblical definitions, all we have to do is figure out why bad things happened to Christ.  I'll be glad to answer that if anyone cares. So you're essentially saying that God doesn't care whether people are doing good things or bad things, because in his mind they're all sinners? That makes him a misanthrop ... again not exactly what religious people usually think about their "Father". The Bible explicitly says so (Isaiah 64:6 and Romans 3:23). God has a holy standard, one that no man except Christ has lived up to.  Just because you can't live up to it, choose not to, or ignore it doesn't mean it isn't His standard. Your definitions of the loaded terms "good," "bad," "loving," and "sinner" likely don't match His...so that isn't arguing against the God of the Bible on its own terms, as your video sought to do. Epignosis wrote: 7. Why didn't any of Jesus' miracles in the Bible leave behind any evidence? I would ask, "Why do they have to?"  There's no evidence that I brushed my teeth ten years ago (to look at my teeth, one might make the assumption that I didn't!), but that isn't proof that it didn't happen. This is an argument from silence, plain and simple. And your point is flawed, because brushing your teeth is hardly a miracle. The more improbable an incident is, the more evidence is required. Didn't you watch the clip about the baloney detection kit? I'm beginning to think that from your point of view the Bible looks like a piece of swiss cheese ... with the holes moving and changing size so that it fits your needs. How do you know brushing my teeth isn't a miracle?  Perhaps my hygiene is that poor!  It is an argument from silence, plain and simple.  It says Jesus did no miracles because no evidence presently exists of him doing miracles. Whether something is improbable or not is irrelevant.  Either something happened, or it did not.  Saying something didn't happen because there is no evidence for it is an argument from silence...a lack of evidence at most just makes the event unlikely. Epignosis wrote: 8. How do we explain the fact that Jesus has never appeared to you? Why...is this something we need to explain? "If you pray for Jesus to appear, nothing happens."  Again, this is because Christ isn't a genie who has to obey my prayers.  I feel kind of silly even having to say this. Still, many religious people claim that Jesus appeared to them, and such stories are often cause for others to consider believing. A whole new religion was created solely on the concept (Mormons). I have not claimed that Jesus will appear to someone who prays for him to do so.  Neither does the Bible.  Either argue with me, or don't bother.  I am not a Mormon. Jesus hasn't appeared to anyone individually since the first century...where in the Bible does he promise that he will? You are again preferring to argue against something the Bible doesn't teach. Epignosis wrote: 9. Why would Jesus want you to eat his body and drink his blood? Apparently our narrator has never heard of metaphor, a very common method of rabbinical discourse. Most religious people don't really believe in this, I know. Which makes it another example of cherry picking. It's just another item on the ever growing list of things that the Bible (or other scripts) says but can't be taken seriously. The whole point of this 10 item list is to show religious people that on the one hand all these things are ridiculous, but on the other hand they still keep believing in the whole concept. Again, I'm sorry you don't get that first century rabbis often spoke in parables and metaphors.  That's really all I can say. Epignosis wrote: 10. Why do Christians get divorced at the same rate as non-Christians? This is the only question I want to know the answer to as well.  Christians should not be getting divorced except for the reasons Christ laid out. But the fact that they do doesn't show that God doesn't exist, though. __________________________ I don't think I've had to come up with any "strange, convoluted" explanation for any of these.  And I have done so completely operating within the assumptions the 10 questions have allotted me (that the Christian God exists and that the Bible is God's word). Please forgive me when I say that I still find your posts strange. You're a rhetorical eel! Wait a minute...I'm some kind of eel?    But Mike, I have arms and legs and hair!  So everything you've just said to me is metaphor right?

I wonder if any is really reading the complete pyramids of post as myself... I have a lot of work to do but this topic remains interesting... especially the way progfreak doesn't get any of the ideas and start fighting the make up but not the essential... tell us please... what is to you to be a "good person"... we can start over that...