Re: *******Does God Exist?*************

Acme Posting wrote:
> "Nes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> "Acme Posting" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> "Nes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>  news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>
> Hi Nes. Thanks for your lenghty reply - it's a lot of fun! I hardly
> ever take so long to reply but some trivial things came up like
> earning a living. Hope my heavy snippage of previous stuff preserves
> enough context.

That's quite all right. I've been known to take my time replying to
messages, too. After all, we all have lives to get on with and can't use up
all our time persuing our (time consuming) hobbies. One of my favourites is
Usenet debating. It's a brilliant way of keeping yourself informed and up to
date.

> Google choked on the length, so had to chop it into two posts...
>>>
> <snip>
>>>
>>> But they still must try to convince others. It's part of their
>>> programming. If that qualifies as "caring."
>>
>> Yes. But what they propagate is religion which is not at all the same
> as the
>> belief in a "god". Organized religion is attractive to many peoples
> for
>> social reasons. Nice clubbing (hoping nobody takes any offence).
>
> Agreed. It's an important distinction and I like your terminology. I
> think of religion in the largest sense (i.e. all faith-based subjects)
> so that wrt social engineering, or opportunistic goals of individuals
> or groups, "god" is just a tool. An intellectual discussion of the
> objective existence of a creator god is something different, and the
> psychological needs that "god" serves in humans are something else
> again, and the supernatural god (if any) is yet another thing.

Of these options I would definitely pick your "psychological needs that [the
belief in a] "god" serves in humans" (including social programming and
engineering) as the most important AND as the most rewarding object for
study and debate. The other themes are naturally important, too, but they
either tend to become debates over "mere" history or to develop into
somewhat sterile sessions, trying to prove or disprove a hypothetical "god"
based solely on formal logic and physical science.

> Probably 10 or 12 more, but who's counting? <g> Must keep in mind
> which
> definition is addressed not to talk past each other.
>
> Re: offence: I can't know what is going on in any particular person's
> mind, nor can I know anything for sure about what gods might in fact
> be associated with anyone in particular. All my observations,
> especially re: psychology, would be either very general, admitting any
> exceptions in particular, or anecdotal, and I well understand the
> limitations of psychology, fundamentally, methodologically, and
> compared to the infinite (for practical purposes) complexity of the
> human mind. For all anyone knows, there could be a very miniature
> quantum modem in our brains that connects via some as-yet undiscovered
> energy form to a galactic database, thus very scientifically
> explaining soul, life-after-death, reincarnation, spirit, holy ghost,
> etc., etc.

Those ideas sound so "far out", but you probably know that there a many who
actually believe or hypothesize something like this - and there are
contemporary scientists among them.

> And when biblical John (or Christ) saw visions in a "sea of
> glass" they could possibly have been exactly that, and when Christ
> said in context of life after death, "Even the hairs on your head are
> all numbered" (reported by two observers in fact), he could have
> literally meant exactly that. Ezekiel (sp?) could have been describing
> exactly what he saw for all we know, etc., etc., etc. As I've said,
> one can't decide the objective existence of gods as creators. In the
> end, my faith in empirical logic is no more valid than anyone else's
> faith in anything.

Yes, you are correct. In objective physical terms the proof or disproof of a
hypothetical creator "god" can't ever succeed. But in psychological terms I
believe that it is possible to get very close (but not all the way). By
using your illogic non-reasoning as well as proper logic and knowledge of
the inner workings of the mind and by studying human (and other species)
behaviour the presense of an all powerful
interfering entity would certainly have to reveal itself, in some direct or
indirect (systematic) way. And since the mind is so delicate and sensitive
and creative the absense of (somewhat) certain indications that human
behaviour is mainly (solely) fashioned by an overwhelmingly  powerful
influence would strongly suggest that "god" is a figment of the inventive
human mind and not the other way round. At some point in the future, when
humans have finally succeeded in liberating themselves from their
self-imposed beliefs in "gods", the entire question may to those distant
descendants seem like humanity of our times had grave difficulty deciding
which came first, the hen or the egg? The mind that creates the idea of
"god" or "god", the idea? This question answers itself, I think.

> Now let's proceed to the assassination of religion. <g>
>>
> <snip>
>>>
>>> In convincing others (why they "care?"), they are also programming
>>> themselves (addressing the "doubt" if so). One of the best
> programming
>>
>> Fundamentally correct, I think. But this method of dealing with your
> own
>> thoughts and emotions is basically unhealthy.
>
> I am incensed at the subtle (not to me) brain programming all around
> us all the time, so I am no defender of it. But just to acknowledge a
> few contrary cases so we can proceed with the assassination in good
> conscience: I think that there are cases where self-programming is
> beneficial. Everything we do programs us a little, even reading a
> book. Programming others is beneficial in at least two cases: 1)
> socialization of children (in moderation!) and when nothing else will
> work, and 2) as a preliminary or technique in deprogramming. But (now
> proceeding to the assassination) these are far outnumbered by cases
> where it ranges from bad to downright evil, two of which are...<g>

Yes, I agree with that, too. I'm probably just a bit old-fashioned in that I
still prefer the term learning instead of programming. Socialization of
children is a good "thing", though, (but as you say, in moderation) and
depriving children of it is a human rights violation, in my book.

>> It leads to obsession and perhaps even fanaticism.
>
>> When that happens, onlookers and outsiders blame
>> the religion of the obsessive people. But that is false, the
> obsession comes
>> from a repression or suppression of (self-)doubt. This is valid or
> political
>> ideologies and political parties, as well.
>
> I understand how brain programming (let's say religious or political)
> leads to obsession (not clinical but programmed repetition) and
> fanaticism. But I don't understand the rest.

Well, you know the intolerant attitudes which are a social reality in much
of the World, today? The media, press, governments etc. all over the World
go on putting fuel on those potential fires, basically propagating hate,
intolerance, aggression, and violence. Why does this happen? Or, rather,
what socio-psychological realities are these that allow politicians, clergy,
leaders to radicalize their fellow citizens? The answer to that has to do
with obsession and fear. They ALWAYS go together (giving credence to the
idea that "god" is a creation of a fearful and obsessive social mindset).
It's the utilization of a basic human characteristic to respond to (reasoned
or unreasoned) fears with self-directed obsession and other-directed
aggression. This is what clever (and not so clever) politicians utilize, and
it is ridiculously easy to do for any half way capable government (or other
authority). The famous psychologist Hannah Arendt has studied these
questions in great depth and is the person to recommend for further reading.

> Agree that one should not
> blame the whole religion or political party for the actions of a few
> fanatics.

Yes, of course, but it is worth noticing that militancy and fanaticism are
the result of the same processes, just a bit more extreme, which generate
ordinary obsession in, say, the followers of a (besieged or persecuted or
threatened or oppressed) religion or political ideology. It's just a matter
of degree.

> One should blame the whole religion or political party if
> they are mostly fanatics but most of those are just smart enough not
> to participate in an obvious way.

 <snip>

> (I was talking about the designer of the universe or "it" the great
> scheme of things.)
>
>> Hrm, no I think the idea of an incarnated "god" makes no sense. Not
> only to me personally, but also from a general human psychological
> perspective. The >creator of "god" or the idea of "god" is a product
> the human mind. Now, what >can the human mind imagine this "god" can
> do? Can it sensibly imagine that >an omnipotent, immortal "god"
> creates a universe while at the same time
>> being integrated into that universe in its every manifest detail?
> Well, I have to answer, "No!" Even the fertile mind of a most talented
> fictionalist couldn't imagine how something like that could happen.
>
> But that is because 1) they are human, and 2) they can only analyze
> using some form of logic. Imagine an asteroid destroys earth tomorrow.
> I am only talking about what's left. I still submit that, if there was
> a god the creator of all existence, then logic itself would need to be
> a construct. Those humans who used to be part of this universe lacked
> the reasoning tools to say, "God could not create himself." That could
> be just as true as it is true that Zeno's race horse actually does
> reach the finish line. Or that we know we exist, yet we cannot imagine
> what came before existence, or what is outside of all (assume curved)
> dimensions of the universe or multiverse. I.e. we know that logic
> breaks down in a hundred ways. These paradoxes define the limits of a
> "logical box" within which we live and reason (analytically).

Yes, agreed, very much indeed. It's highly likely that the human mind is
limited in the same way that human senses are limited, since they are
ultimately expressions of what the individual human "needs" in order to
survive in this Earthy environment. If that was not true it is safe to
assume that no human beings would be alive on planet Earth today and that
none would ever have evolved.

> This theory of mine is falsifiable. Anyone can disprove it easily.
> Just write a meaningful post that cannot be inferenced into logical
> propositions. I've never seen that yet, nor in any religious text.

That's also correct. In order to do that human beings would need the ability
to communicate exclusively via their subconcious, circumventing and
bypassing the individual, rational mind, completely. Come to think of it,
isn't that exactly what some "magicians" have claimed they can do? That
means your (above) reasoning can be used as an explanation why "magic" is so
attractive a concept to many religious people, and at the same time how the
belief in the "magical" and the "supernatural" is an indication of
self-doubt, hoping "god" won't pick up on the "naughty" doubts  that
concious, reasoning minds have to express, at least occationally. "God" as
"Big Brother"?

> Those propositions may have nothing whatsoever to do with the literal
> text, but there is always context to provide such inferencing, and it
> is the inferencing that gives meaning to the reader. Perhaps the
> inferences are incorrect, and they often are. I am not saying that
> humans can only reason in correct logic. I am saying they can only
> reason in logic, correct or incorrect. If someone says, "Ok, I read
> that post, and I made no inferences and saw no logical meaning. Yet it
> did have meaning anyway." Then I will answer, ok, explain that
> meaning. If I can then inference that explanation, the theory stands.

Cleverly put. And true. But to religious peoples who want their lives to be
a "communion with god" this opinion and reasoning has to be pure poison. How
can they ever express their sincere belief in "god" except in a reasoned
way, which by definition is also a way to question or doubt the very
existence of the "object" of adulation? Perhaps by music? Ceremony?

> If someone posts, "x$%^(@)$" then I will reply with the proposition,
> "That means you are trying to defeat my theory by posting meaningless
> squiggles," which is a meaningful logical proposition.
> And not only that, it would be a correct proposition because we would
> both know that is exactly what you are trying to do, and that there
> really wasn't any other meaning in the post.
>
>> But perhaps an insane
>> mind could "think" of a "solution"?
>
> Here I think you are talking about the human god(s), so that we are
> talking past each other. I agree with you 100%, and it seems I agree
> with myself too!

You are right. But, as you know, my opinion is that there are no "gods"
except human ones existing in human language and in human minds. If the
"objective" existence of a hypothetical "god" is inferred, I'd simply say
that this is also an idea held by language and human minds and so on, ad
infinitum, around and around, like a snake biting its own tail. This is NOT
logic, of course, but essential nevertheless, since the idea of "god" as it
rests in human minds is extremely slippery (and defensive) and can't ever be
captured by mere formal logic or reasoning. But the obsessiveness, the
repetitiousness, the closed mindset, and the fears which have to exist
subjectivily, perhaps subconciously, to support such beliefs are highly
susceptible to reasoned understanding and to social interpretation. It
reveals the "nature of god" in a much more honest and conclusive fashion
than all the writings of the myriad theologists throughout history.

>> As to the question of objectivity I can say this. Objectivity in any
>> cosmological debate, especially one as idealistic as this one
> centering on
>> the existence of a hypothetical "god", is nearly impossible.
>
> Yes, escaping the anthropomorphic POV is nearly impossible or totally
> impossible. Also I often chuckle when I read, "So 15 billion years ago
> during the 10^-27th second after..." (Like we can figure out what
> happened last week!). That has to be quite a stretch. But we do learn
> things. Nuclear bombs do go off. And it's fun to speculate.
>
> "Cosmological" to me means "the observable universe," i.e. logical or
> probabilistic. When I talk about "not-logic" I'm talking about
> existence. So again I agree with you and it seems myself also.
>
>> Man is but a
>> child in his knowledge of the universe and its workings.
>
> Agree. I like to say our technological advance is but a slap in time
> compared to a hypothetical ET 50,000 years more advanced, and their
> 50,000 years is a slap in cosmological time. So I would go a lot
> further than a "child" and describe us more as an amoeba in our
> knowledge of the universe. Yet some of us amoebas have the audacity to
> think we can know whether or not there is/was a creating god. As if a
> real amoeba on earth could solve the problem of nuclear terrorism for
> us or explain every thought in e.g. Einstein's or Christ's mind.

Indeed, there are levels of existence and understanding. Presently, human
society is in desperate  trouble (isn't it always?) and much of it has to do
with the way the reasoning capabilities of the mind have been utilized to
promote the Industrial Revolution during the last couple of centuries. The
environmental degradation and the breakdown of traditional societies and the
widespread social misery and political upheaval that has followed in its
footsteps serve now to turn people towards religion and comforting,
ceremonial mumbo-jumbo instead of towards trying to understand what is wrong
and right that wrong. Blind reactionism, fear, "Suave qui peut", instead of
a reasoned response - and this tendency is visible not just in the Third
World but in a very pronounced way in the supposedly delevoped World, as
well. Indeed, I think it'll be a long time before Man frees himself from his
self-imposed beliefs in "gods" - yet, ordinary people around the World
certainly know that no "god" will intervene and save them from impending
disaster. This contradiction is at the heart of much that goes on in the
World, today.

>> But that doesn't
>> mean the human ideas or human knowledge is wrong or that a "god" must
> be
>> postulated to explain the gaps in human knowledge. Instead, man
> should face
>> his ignorance as well as his knowledge in humility and say, "How do
> we
>> progress from here?"
>
> For sure. It is too hard for some to accept doubt about the most
> important things to them. I don't seem to have that problem, so far.
> Maybe one reason is that I am highly invested in the concept of
> probability, and a lot of my background is administrative where I've
> always had to make decisions on incomplete information. So, just used
> to uncertainty.

Yes, that is how it always is. Perfect information is never a realistic
possibility. Man has to do the best he knows how whith the limited means he
has at his disposal. No use crying over spillt milk. But it is worth noting
that many, if not most, people find the basic circumstances of human
existence scary and intimidating. How they deal with their fears and
insecurities is highly significant when examining the roles organized
religions play in societies and the lives of individuals.

>>> We understand our universe as a logical universe (or
> "probabilistic"
>>> which amounts to the same thing). By "logic" I mean real-world
> logic
>>> (including probability) or how our universe works, not academic
> logic.
>>
>> True!
>
> Thanks! That's a big hurdle for some...
>>
>>> But we know that there is a "not-logic." That is, we know that
> logic
>>> does break down at some point, i.e. logical paradoxes. (A few fancy
>>
>> That's right. It's a creative construct of the concious human mind.
> It's a
>> mental or spiritual ability.
>
> I agree with your "non-logic" (let's use your term non-logic for
> non-logical things associated with psychology). But that's not my
> not-logic. I'm talking about something else entirely, something that
> would exist if the earth blew up tomorrow. And I'm only postulating
> it, or treating it as a default case or most probable case.
>>
>>> Whoever or whatever is responsible for all existence can operate
>>> according to this not-logic, probably to create logic among other
>>> things. We can't think in not-logic so it is meaningless to us, but
> (I
>>> argue) not "nonsense" in an objective sense.
>
> I made a big mistake above. I should not have said "think" but should
> have said "analyze." I've been avoiding that mistake for a long time.
> Why I suddenly did it here, I don't know. But given that I did say
> "think," everything you say next applies, and agreed.
>>
>> I'm not sure you're right that humans "...can't think in not-logic".
> The
>> concious part of the human mind which is capable of occational logic
> work
>> makes up just one small part of what the brain does and can do. Most
> of the
>> brain is occupied with subconcious processes even during the time
> when the
>> individual is awake. And the subconcious mind works basically by
> employing
>> your "non-logical" processes. If you remember your dreams, you have a
> easy
>> way right there to explore at how the subconcious works all the time
> to
>> digest information, create dreams etc. Another good way is to pay
> attention
>> to your own mood swings. They all originate with the subconcious.
>
> Agree again. The "subconcious" is the agent of doom to objective
> analyisis. I am sure it is grabbing facts and logic to make us reach
> conclusions it wants for a host of reasons which I suspect you know
> better than I. I have some basis for saying that, i.e. the so-called
> "combinatorial explosion" that demonstrates that logic is in fact
> being routinely ignored in the normal analyzing process regardless of
> objectivity. I've been calling it the "logic/fact snatcher" because I
> like to relate it to my interest in reasoning. I've thought to have
> seen this obviously happening in myself and others, and have lots of
> examples.

That's a nice way of putting it. As an addage I can say that the usual
assumption of highly formally trained scientists, who always in a
programmatic way promote and teach this idea to their students, is that the
ONLY part of the human mind that it is worthy of training and development is
the reasoning, concious mind, the "executive mind". This Aristotelian idea
is naturally completely wrong, yet most scientists in fields like physics,
astronomy, geology, biology etc. still believe it completely (contrary to
the mass of available evidence from psychological and social sciences). This
despite the fact that they often use non-logical processes in their own
work, as you describe - but they are simply not equipped to understand
themselves or their own minds, so they go about their work in what often
appears to outsiders to be a deluded state of mind. It is indeed a wonder
how the practitioners of material science often make the same mistakes as
the clergy of (say) the Roman Catholic Church (or perhaps not, considering
the history of Western science).

> <snip more about non-logic (psychology) v. "not-logic" (objective
> existence) as it seems we were talking about different things>
>
>>>> It seems that you have an interest in natural science. That has
> confronted
>>>> you with the many problems contemporary science faces in
> understanding
>>>> objective reality.
>>>
>>> Agree, and well put. When discussing this subject, I am usually
>>> careful to distinguish between subjective reality, objective
> reality,
>>
>> It's really difficult always to distinguish clearly between what's
> objective
>> and subjective.
>
> I interpret that as "difficult for humans to decide between the two"
> as in psychology. Well of course the best observers can only be
> approximate regarding reality, and there are the vagaries of
> perception and measurement.
>
> But it's nearly always a trivial imperfection for the sentient among
> us, worthy of being ignored. And even when it isn't, we nearly always
> are aware of it and compensate. I remember about 220 years ago when I
> took Psych 101 and there was this picture that could be either a cow
> or your mother depending on how you looked at it. Well, that was the
> one time in my life I've ever seen anything like that where I didn't
> suspect it ahead of time. I know there are famous examples. Like the
> guy who claimed to see a UFO out the airline window when it was just
> the wing refracted in the window. These things are exceeding rare, and
> that guy was pretty dumb IMO. I wouldn't make that mistake and I don't
> know many who would. I mean, you're looking through a thick piece of
> glass pressurized on one side high in the atmosphere, Duh! I think one
> might expect to see something unusual...

Yes...:-)

>> Principally, everybody ought to agree that ALL human
>> knowledge is subjective just from the basic argument that what holds
>> knowledge is human language. And human language is a human creation,
> so all
>> knowledge is a human creation. The very definition of subjectivity.
> Yet, I
>> would claim as you do that man can know objective reality because
> that is
>> what man interacts with and is a part of. In his very existence, man
> is
>> OBJECTIVILY part of the universe and as such he can know it, through
> the
>> basic dialectical process of experience and action.
>
> Agree with all of that. Glad you didn't talk in absolutes, as I always
> watch for that in psychological disucssions. There is labeling, like
> inventory part numbers and descriptions where subjective and objective
> are the same, or so close you couldn't detect the difference. An
> 8-penny boxnail is pretty much an 8-penny boxnail to either of two
> carpenters with 20 years experience. They've all seen it in every way
> there is. But I wouldn't stake my life on the new guy hired this week
> to bring the right nails, or the experienced guy if I hollered to him
> over some noise, etc., etc. This is all pretty elementary judgment and
> nothing here is going to bring the world to a stop. This leads into my
> "rely" dogma, in case you will analyze further.

Well, I certainly agree. What you are describing here is the "miracle" of
human communication, the creative substance of human language. How human
beings somehow agree on the common meaning of words, yet at the same time
retain the ability to associate every meaning with their own individual
emotions, memories, and connotations.

>> That brings forth the
>> question of "god". A person who believes in "god" naturally will
> claim that
>> "god" has objective existence, not knowing that this claim basically
> negates
>> itself, as explained above.
>
> I don't agree that it negates itself if we are talking about a god the
> creator of all existence. I don't see how such a god could be subject
> to logic or operate in a purely logical (or probabilistic) framework.
> I think such a god would have to be the inventor of logic. Thus, I
> assert, neither you nor I can claim that such a god cannot create
> himself through any process of analysis available to us other than
> faith. That's no proof of god, just a claim about the possibility of
> such a god. I don't think you can force logic on an assumed creator of
> all existence. But I don't know anything for sure and try to be a good
> listener.

Also correct. It's impossible to progress any arguments about the
hypothetical objective existence of "god" based purely on formal logic
beyond the agreement to disagree. The best way to treat this argument is to
say, IMHO, let's assume that "god" is a human idea held by human language -
as explained above. Most religious people will go along with that because
that is obviously true even though it doesn't present the ENTIRE truth in
their eyes. Then the road is open to arguing more realistic propositions to
do with human perceptions of language, psychology, sociology. And then the
REAL definition of the "god" under discussion will not remain hidden for
long (because most religious believers will feel very unsatisfied or
uncomfortable with a purely abstract "god").

> In the worst case we could agree to disagree on this point (with me
> knowing I'm right) <g>
>
>> But never mind. What position has "god" in the
>> objective-subjective scale? Well, the agnostic has to say that "god"
> is a
>> subjective human phenomenon, created by the human mind, and that he
> has no
>> objective existence exept as an idea expressed by language.
>
> I thought "agnostic" was inconclusive about existence of an objective
> god. I'm not well informed here. It's really been a long time since
> I've argued with those terms. If it comes up again, I'll google the
> definition.

Agnosticim dates back to ancient Greece and was the counter-philosophical
movement to Gnoticism. Agnostics said exactly as you or I have written in
these messages that the existence of "god" or "gods" could never been
proven. They also thought that it was well neigh impossible for human beings
to understand objective reality. This later developed into Scepticism.

I claim to be an agnostic in such discussions as the present one rather than
an outright atheist for just two reasons. One, the agnostic doesn't care
whether "god" or "gods" exist or not. Thus the agnostic doesn't parade his
non-belief in the same religiously obsessive manner as most atheists do.
Two, the agnostic is basically a sceptic. This is the only reasonable
attitude to have to human life and humanity's many projects, IMHO. Naivity
is not what the doctor ordered at this stage of human history.

>> And it might
>> actually be opportune for deists to go along with that, for they can
> then
>> say without any danger of ever being proved wrong that "god" put the
> idea of
>> "god" into the human mind, and that was and will be "his" only
> intervention
>> in the workings of the universe, forever and ever. But I know they
> won't
>> ever do this (though Islam is close to this point), so I'm not
> handing any
>> arguments to the "enemy".
>
> Clever. I'm a little squeamish about discussing Islam or certain
> politics because I live in the U.S. We have the "two Johns"
> (Pointexter and Ashcroft) who would like to (probably are) compile at
> least email databases, newsgroup posts are even easier. Certainly
> paranoid in terms of myself and now, but not so paranoid in terms of
> my descendants and many current parallels with 1930's Germany.

I fully understand. Caution is the better half of wisdom.

> <snip agreements about reality v. universe>
>>>>
>>>> significantly to this debate, this means that human beings
> basically create
>>>> their own reality.
>>>
>>> I know you mean "subjective reality."
>>
>> It means both. Human beings create both (part of) their own
> subjective and
>> their objective reality. The proof is easy - just a little thought
>> experiment. You probably live in a house or flat. They are not
> natural
>> creations but have been build by man. By building them man ADDS his
> creation
> <snip because I am convinced>.
>
> Ok, I see that. Thanks for correcting me. An idea takes some form and
> then it becomes objective reality. Haven't given any thought at all to
> where that line is drawn in terms of objective/subjective, or how it
> might be important in this argument.

This is highly consequential to our debate, since the unique human ability
to conciously transform and transmute parts of reality is indicative of
creative powers. A creative "god" is a superman, of course. "God" is a
simply a powerful (creative, beneficial, punishing, vindictive etc. as the
case may be) entity with human characteristics.

>>> And needs of the society. E.g. early america needed a certain brand
> of
>>> Christianity. Maybe that is included in "preferred narratives"
> since I
>>> don't have a good definition of that.
>>
>> Christianity has a lot of those. It's basically just a question of
> picking
>> and choosing.
>
> Oh yes. Just that part of the bible could serve any purpose I can
> think of. But no need to use just that part (of course Christians
> don't either, lots of contradictions based on that). All bibles
> conveniently include the old testament, and they are everywhere even
> in hotel rooms. Perfect for any brain-programming project you like.
> Give me an objective, I'll give you the dogma. <snipped some examples,
> thought better of it. Too many Manson types out there.>

That make me laugh. :-)

Nes