What about the Trans movement? Not religious on their part.
I read this last week about trans activists attacking people, England I believe. They had pictures of cops cuffing them. The trans community are not all benign, " we just want to be left alone" types. There are many that want special treatment, demand special treatment.
I suppose you could call that a religion, but it is not. It is people acting as they have since the beginning. People that otherwise would not associate will pull together over a common dislike.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
IMO, very good discussion.

BTW, religion is a choice. For some, once down the rabbit hole, there's no escape. Some say it's a matter of indoctrination, but it still falls in the concept of choice. Free will is associated, but religion and free will are on different pillars or poles. They pull energy one from the other. As the religious pillar grows, free will diminishes, and vice versa. It's an inverse relationship.

The way of man includes religion, and those religious ways vary by denomination, sect, type, etc., and degree, and even in infinite individual choices.

There is no flip-side to the ways of man. Religious, atheist, agnostic, etc. are all ways of man.

Even condemning one religion compared to another, or saying one is the true religion, is also ways of man.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
The way of man includes religion, and those religious ways vary by denomination, sect, type, etc., and degree, and even in infinite individual choices.

There is no flip-side to the ways of man. Religious, atheist, agnostic, etc. are all ways of man.

Even condemning one religion compared to another, or saying one is the true religion, is also ways of man.

Don’t disagree at all.

Hence, the reason I rarely look to or rely on “man” for guidance and dislike being governed by Godless law.

At least this has been a rather respectful discussion. As said, arguments between religious and non-religious people most of the time are unresolved at best. The worldviews are opposed.

And, most importantly, true believers think differently than non-believers. I said before that I don't like what religion does to the mind. Apparently, that's hard to understand by some. Here are explanations.

One would think there are terms and definitions for this condition, since it's rather obvious.

Lo and behold - there are:

It's called Presuppositional Apologetics.

Wrap your head around this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sZXvovvU6w

And perhaps read some of the comments below the video.

==================================================

In addition to lacking distinctions between reasoning and rationalization, as shown in previous post, the presuppositionist, as shown in the above video, engages in argument this way:

*************************************************
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...BCnchhausen_trilemma

In epistemology, the Münchhausen trilemma is a thought experiment intended to demonstrate the theoretical impossibility of proving any truth, even in the fields of logic and mathematics, without appealing to accepted assumptions. If it is asked how any given proposition is known to be true, proof may be provided. Yet that same question can be asked of the proof, and any subsequent proof. The Münchhausen trilemma is that there are only three ways of completing a proof:

The circular argument, in which the proof of some proposition presupposes the truth of that very proposition
The regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof, ad infinitum
The dogmatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts which are merely asserted rather than defended

The trilemma, then, is the decision among the three equally unsatisfying options.
*************************************************

Thus God, for the presuppositionist, is the Glorious Truth. Jump in both feet, no proof needed or wanted. That's the religion Rabbit Hole.

ME,
Evidence is abound. The obstinate wear glasses with jaded lenses.

quote:

The obstinate wear glasses with jaded lenses.

jad-ed
adjective
tired, bored, or lacking enthusiasm, typically after having had too much of something.
"meals to tempt the most jaded appetites"

ob·sti·nate
adjective
stubbornly refusing to change one's opinion or chosen course of action, despite attempts to persuade one to do so.

in·cor·ri·gi·ble
adjective
(of a person or their tendencies) not able to be corrected, improved, or reformed.


https://www.collinsdictionary....m%20is%20unrealistic.
rose-colored glasses
If you look at a person or situation through rose-colored glasses or rose-tinted glasses, you see only their good points and therefore your view of them is unrealistic.

op·ti·mist
noun
1.
a person who tends to be hopeful and confident about the future or the success of something.
"only an eternal optimist could expect success"
2.
PHILOSOPHY
a person who believes that this world is the best of all possible worlds or that good must ultimately prevail over evil.

================================================

The best we can do is put on our rose colored glasses and be optimistic, while balancing our incorrigible tendencies with reality,

Here's an article that I've been looking for an excuse to post the link:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...c91a5219cdd927&ei=57

Is polarization a problem, or just a reality because the far right has lost its mind?
Opinion by Jean Guerrero • 5h ago

The root article:

https://www.salon.com/2023/04/...orse-than-the-other/
Political "polarization" isn't the real problem in America: One pole is a lot worse than the other
Political research is all about the dangers of polarization. But what if one pole is cynical and dangerous?

A secondary definition of “jaded” is cynical. Some thesauruses list jaded as a synonym for cynical.

Jade is dark green (or can be).

Some people use the phrase jaded or jade-colored lenses to be the opposite of rose-colored (pink glasses for Jews) lenses.

To me Kabob, you are over complicating religion.
It is intangible. You get as much or as little out of it as you want. You also see what you want of it from the outside. This is the same whether you are Christian, Muslim, Jewish, other or none.

To me religion has very tangible aspects. It's the beliefs that are intangible. Actions are tangible.

I think of religion, the experience, as just like being in a cult.

I wonder if those who escape a cult, then looking from the outside, see reality.

I think of my religious experience, the escape, going from fantasy into reality, just like I imagine it is for those who escape a cult.

I'm using the word "escape" because I think of religion and cults as mind traps.

==============================================
https://dictionary.reverso.net...ion/tangible+actions

Tangible Actions:
1 capable of being touched or felt; having real substance a tangible object ·
2 capable of being clearly grasped by the mind; substantial rather than imaginary

Communism begins where atheism begins.
Karl Marx

With disdain I will throw my gauntlet full in the fact of the world and see the collapse of this pygmy giant. Then will I wander god-like and victorious through the ruins of the world. And giving my words an active force, I will feel equal to the Creator.
Karl Marx


I wish to avenge myself against the One who rules above.
Karl Marx

quote:

Communism begins where atheism begins.
Karl Marx

So where does agnostic fit in?

quote:

I wish to avenge myself against the One who rules above. Karl Marx

That's enlightening.

I have no desire to "avenge myself". That's Trump's mission.

I never studied Karl Marx, or Marxism.

https://www.3-16am.co.uk/blog/...t%20to%20change%20it.

But to some degree, I have studied Fascism.

I think maybe it is a mistake to try to oversimplify the philosophy of Kark Marx.

Sure, his way is and was repulsive, but he did have great influence over time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism

Your study of fascism is so narrow as to be worthless Kabob. The poly.sci. prof. I chat with said what you present as fascism, through your links would never get a peer review in a million years.
Back to religion......
Without chemicals, there is no brain washing.
What is said by religion, cults, or any group, only works if the brain releases enough endorphins to make staying worthwhile. Whether you already agree to some extent,and look for more or you want/need to belong to a group.
When the feel good, parts wane, you look somewhere else.
Look at the James Jones cult. When it came time to drink the poison kool-aid, a number of them said "hmm, not into this shit anymore" Some made it to the bush and escaped. Many were caught and murdered, by being forced to drink. But the believers did the forcing and drank themselves.
The vikings adapted to the religions of the countries they settled, even though they may have settled by force through their own warring culture. You are only involved to the extent the person is getting something out of it. There is no mystery to that.

It must be very satisfying to have become an expert on so much by studying the inside of your eyelids.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
It must be very satisfying to have become an expert on so much by studying the inside of your eyelids.

Coming from you that's hillarious!!!

There is an antique book seller, and does repairs on antique books, named Tom Twetten. He lives in a little place called Mill village VT. He also is ex cia, and has more degrees than a thermometer.
Look him up online, he likes to talk, tell him all about your version of fascism, then get back to us.

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
It must be very satisfying to have become an expert on so much by studying the inside of your eyelids.

Coming from you that's hillarious!!!

I intended for it to be funny. Glad you found it so.

Since you don't pretend to be an expert, or wise, where you get your info and opinions matters little. The stuff you post requires no backup or support. We know it comes out your arsh, and you cherish it.

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
There is an antique book seller, and does repairs on antique books, named Tom Twetten. He lives in a little place called Mill village VT. He also is ex cia, and has more degrees than a thermometer.
Look him up online, he likes to talk, tell him all about your version of fascism, then get back to us.

Name dropping as support works sometimes, but not this time.

Once you recommended that I contact some professor, or whomever, because he thought I was nutz. He made his assessment, according to you, from my posts herein. Perhaps you thought he would straighten me out. I dunno.

I think this is getting a bit silly.

For one thing, it's not MY VERSION of Fascism. I just started reading what smart and informed people were saying about Trumpism, for example, and other things happening on the Right, and agreed with their assessments. I didn't know what to call it, but Fascism seems the best fit.

I didn't invent the terms Christian Fascism (or Christofascism) for example. Some smart guy long ago coined that term which fits, given examples at that time and now.

I didn't initiate the association of Trumpism with Fascism. Others did that, and by his actions and words, and also those of his followers and supporters, the traits and characteristics and trajectory are clearly parallel in many ways.

Folks can be in denial all they want, and disagree, but I don't care about that until they offer persuasive support for their views. I have offered persuasive support for my premise. One argument that is not persuasive is hinging the definition of fascism on historical fascism, such as in Italy and Germany in the WWII era and stopping there. That's a good starting place, but it has morphed. Practically everything political morphs. The Republican and Democratic party have morphed compared to what they were in the 40's.

IMO, when someone insists that fascism is defined today by strict reference to what it was in the 30s and 40s is just using that as an excuse to be in denial.

We don't need to go very far back in time to see examples, representative of a broad picture, of how things in politics have changed or morphed.

Take this for example:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...6546e533fc3bf8&ei=10

'No idea how evil': Tucker Carlson's counterpart recalls their forgotten C-SPAN segment
Story by Dave Levinthal, Editor-in-Chief • 2h ago

===============================================

See the video and the written article.

The scourge of Carlson has to include the fact of massive viewership and ratings on Fox. This is evidence that fascism has morphed in the USA, and plentiful fascist fodder.

Do you think for an instant that because Carlson was fired will change anything regarding the vulnerability of the fascist fodder? They will just go to Newsmax or Bannon.

Kabob, you always claim to want to learn/be informed.
I give you a chance to do that, but you refuse.
Twetten can talk your ear off about every aspect of it, not opinion pieces you rely on.
You use fascism as a derogatory term, without facing what it truly is. I dont stand for righties useing the term fascist to describe the liberal/progressive side. Even though there is that aspect of fascism.

Oh, I never said you were nuts. I said you are half informed, and only choose info that goes with what you want things to be. That is a common theme with you, you never want to see the whole picture. Stay safe in your bubble of half truths.

quote:

I give you a chance to do that, but you refuse.

Give me a realistic chance, and I won't refuse.

Contacting some opinionated loud mouth you suggest will not happen.

I don't want to suffer that much or waste my time.

Spouting your opinions with no support isn't going to work either.

"Never want to see the whole picture" - hummm. How do you reach that conclusion?

Maybe I don't see the whole picture. Who ever does? But claiming that I never want to see the whole picture is BS, with no basis.

quote:

You use fascism as a derogatory term

It's a derogatory term all by itself. I don't intend it for that purpose. I intend it because it's descriptive and fits.

If the shoe fits, wear it.

In the academic world, getting a peer reviewed paper is the top of the accomplishment list.
I look up the writers of the links you post on fascism.
Do you want to look up how many have peer reviews on record? I can tell you, none.
Ask Lane how often say, a vet tech, gets published in an equine medicine journal with out review.
Fascism is simply a word, the word is neither good or bad.

Re academic peer review, all of the articles I've posted in support of my premise refer to sources which they rely on. None are lacking in support. Academic peer review is not the deal breaker. Some of the articles may be partially based in sources that had academic review. I don't know for sure since I didn't check.

The articles getting the academia peer review seem to require subscription to read, and fees.

Examples:

https://academic.oup.com/book/...irectedFrom=fulltext

https://brill.com/view/journal...sc/fasc-overview.xml

Here's one that doesn't require a subscription:

https://scholarworks.arcadia.e...8&context=agsjournal

and another:

https://world101.cfr.org/histo...individual%20citizen.

What Is Fascism?
In this free resource, learn how Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler rose to power and the lessons their political journeys hold for today.

https://www.scientificamerican...ttacks-on-education/

Fascism’s History Offers Lessons about Today’s Attacks on Education
Moves in Florida to control public education mirror past fascist strategies in ways that are disquieting for American democracy, a historian argues

What are the core tenets of fascism?
Common themes among fascist movements include: authoritarianism, nationalism (including racial nationalism), hierarchy and elitism, and militarism. Other aspects of fascism such as its "myth of decadence", anti-egalitarianism and totalitarianism can be seen to originate from these ideas.

Fascism and ideology - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...from%20these%20ideas.

There are so many footnotes and references in this article it would take a long time to trace down, especially looking for academic peer review. And this article is stuffed with facts and history.

In particular go directly to this section in the article:

Edited: it won't allow me to post a direct link. So scroll down to "contemporary fascism")

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...ascism_(2008-present)

Read the text and follow the footnotes.

Some very interesting thoughts in that article.
The lines "Fascism has been an exercise in forgetting"
"Present fascisms are a feeble imitation"
Both of those are exactly what I have been saying.
And why some things need to come from more than trash sources.

I don't post from trash sources.

You, otoh, don't post from sources at all.

"Present fascisms are a feeble imitation"

Agreed!!! Trumpism is a feeble imitation.

All fascist movements today are feeble compared to yesteryear because they are in development.

In the fascist thread I started just a few weeks ago, I gave a list of books I have read and recommended. You said you wouldnt read them. Your CRS is working overtime again.
But Kabob, it's good to see you have opened your eyes.
Now, when it becomes more than a "feeble imitation" get back to us. Then you can....

Well, I'm glad I was wrong. You do read.

But, as you have pointed out, I have a short memory. I don't recall your post mentioned or my response.

Link that for me, please.

I hope that is a joke kabob, as I have just said I can't link to save my life!
You can go back and find it.

http://forums.accuratereloadin...061028472#9061028472

When linking a post within this forum, for example, have the text you want to link on your screen, go to the top of the page, right click on the part that says forums AR etc.

Then start a reply, blank page. Right click on the blank slate and choose paste. Bingo, the link appears. Then add your comments and post.

The same applies to external links. Right click on the heading, choose copy, then past it within your reply, then post.

You can copy content here and external by highlighting the portion you want, right click, copy, then paste in the reply herein.

You can start a reply with a quote of another's post, edit it to exclude superfluous stuff, to focus the point, paste it, then below the last [ QUOTE] add your comment.

Then post the reply.

Then if you want, you can go to another previous post, from yourself or another, highlight the relevant part, copy. Then go back to your previous reply, go to edit, then paste the new quote therein, then post.

Similarly, two quotes, or more, from previous posts by others or yourself can be done by first clicking on the reply with quote then highlighting the quote that pops up, copy, then clicking on the X at the top right corner, which deletes the post started, but your copied content is still available for past where you want it.

Go to the post you just made, in the discussion you want. open your post using the edit feature, then paste the quote you have copied. Then post the edited reply.

The heading "originally posted by" thus shows.
Example:

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
I hope that is a joke kabob, as I have just said I can't link to save my life!
You can go back and find it.

From another thread:

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
Now we have heym using fascism instead of aspects of.
A big part of fascism was each industry was individual, and run by a strong union. Tell me what R's support that?
Wealth distribution was another, with France and Belgium factions wanting money, and Polands wanting land redistributed. Was that part of Desantis's plan?
Only political scientists get into Fascism. All the teachers, and opinion writers, media take sections they like.
conservative writers call fascism, socialist and populist.
The libs dont like that Fascism still had a capitalist side. Secular libs say it was roman catholic driven. Mussolini was against anti jewish side of communism, until he needed aid from Germany.
Fascism is such a convoluted mix it will not fit under one label you dimwits are trying to use it for.

You can do it without the heading "originally posted by" with or without the word "quote"

Example:

"I hope that is a joke kabob, as I have just said I can't link to save my life!
You can go back and find it."

I try to remember to add quotation marks in the above example.

quote:

I hope that is a joke kabob, as I have just said I can't link to save my life!
You can go back and find it.

The way I did the last trick is to go to the post you want to copy/quote, highlight it, then click on reply, then right click/cut the content, then hit the X at the top right corner to delete the fresh reply, then go to the previous reply you posted with "edit", paste the new copied content in addition, then re-post.

As you can see, I didn't make this entire post in one swoop. It took several edits. And I'm not sure my explanation/instructions are good enough. It took a while for me to learn this, and there may be more tricks that I don't know about. For example, embedding a link in a word.

And another important thing, IMO, is to NOT use these features to alter someone's previous post by changing their words, or editing out enough of it to change their meaning. That's not ethical. I have seen where some have used the strikethrough feature, and substituted words, saying "fixed it for you". I think that's okay because it doesn't fake the previous post into something it isn't.

Holy crap.....
I'll get someone to print what you said to try, than I can see if I follow.
Better will be when my daughter comes to visit, I'll get her to show me, and do it enough times to make sure I dont mess it up. I havnt even figured out how to highlite with this one, although I could with the old computer.
I loose patience with electronics. I went without a TV for almost a year because I didnt want to lean a new remote control!

Then you'll be really dangerous.

I didn't learn the techniques overnight.

I think I figured out how to imbed a hyperlink into a word .

Click on "word"

The forum site developers made provision for it.

ME has a very valid point here. Religion in and of itself has caused more death and misery than any other cause. More humans have died in the name of religion than all the natural disasters and wars combined. Adding to that is a lot of the wars in the past were religious wars so does those deaths count as war deaths or religious deaths? Religion is at the base just a way to control people. That control can be for the good or the bad so is religion good or bad? That is up to each person to decide on their own.

I don't want to be controlled by religion. I don't want the mind warp. I don't like being around hyper-religious people.

I notice that very religious people don't distinguish well, if at all, between belief and stuff based in proof, facts, evidence, across the board. Thus they are not trustworthy, IMO, regarding reality.

It's really rather simple.

I am not impressed by people that claim to be religious. Daily, they generally prove they are not. (There are exceptions.)

Formal religion is a disgrace for all the reasons mentioned here.

I tend to find people that are "spiritual" as being the more moral, kind, righteous, among us. The people that can't help wearing their religion on their sleeve for all to see, generally turn out to be the most bigoted, worthless human beings.

I tend to believe in a higher power, but I don't need some charlatan to be the intermediary between me and that higher power. I've got a direct line when I need to talk.

I knew too many whore chasing, hard drinking assholes in the oilfield, who when they couldn't do that anymore, got re-born hoping the statute of limitations on all their past transgressions supposedly would run out. I don't believe that is how it works. I think you will be judged on the totality of your life.

quote:

Originally posted by MtElkHunter:
ME has a very valid point here. Religion in and of itself has caused more death and misery than any other cause. More humans have died in the name of religion than all the natural disasters and wars combined. Adding to that is a lot of the wars in the past were religious wars so does those deaths count as war deaths or religious deaths? Religion is at the base just a way to control people. That control can be for the good or the bad so is religion good or bad? That is up to each person to decide on their own.

If religion can be blamed for people's death, couldn't guns/ assault weapons be blamed for people's death?

If we can blame religion and guns for peoples deaths it seems truthful to blame speech, ( as in communicating religion,) for people's death as well as assembly. ( Rioters and looters assemble, gangs and criminal organizations assemble, religious organizations are assembled, crowds and thugs assemble.

quote:

If religion can be blamed for people's death, couldn't guns/ assault weapons be blamed for people's death?

This is a false equivalence.

Religion is a state of mind. Guns/assault weapons are tangible things, a tool.

Assault weapons such as the AR15 are not only a thing (tangible), but some people associate them with a state of mind (intangible). That's obvious in case you want to argue about that.

Religion has been the activator. Assault weapons are not the activator. They are merely tools to facilitate the fantasy, in the cases of mass shootings.

Good post above Kabob.
Now I just have to learn what a hyperlink is.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

If religion can be blamed for people's death, couldn't guns/ assault weapons be blamed for people's death?

This is a false equivalence.

Religion is a state of mind. Guns/assault weapons are tangible things, a tool.

Assault weapons such as the AR15 are not only a thing (tangible), but some people associate them with a state of mind (intangible). That's obvious in case you want to argue about that.

Religion has been the activator. Assault weapons are not the activator. They are merely tools to facilitate the fantasy, in the cases of mass shootings.

Well you know I don't want to argue with you so that takes care of that.

If an assault weapon is a tool to facilitate a fantasy, it most certainly is an activator.

Id suggest that religion as written on a tablet or in a book, religion as spoken words or heard music is no more or less dangerous than an assault weapon. Yes the Bible and other religious texts have previously recommended correction and punishment for some behaviors. I'm familiar with some examples, no I don't feel inclined to stone anyone. That the text or even religious leaders may write and say so, ( speech,) still doesn't drive me to.

The hotrod can facilitate the fantasy of manly superiority in speed, technical skill, bravery. Religion can facilitate the fantasy of manly superiority, technical skill in reading and translating and bravery in the religious pursuit or execution.

The assault rifle the same as above.

We say over and over, that pistol laying there in the table never hurt anyone, neither has a Bible.

Here is a religious person, and his religious son. https://www.usatoday.com/story...-pastor/70281527007/

For starters all religious organizations should pay taxes. That would weed-out a lot of the born-again charlatans, and send some of them to prison for tax evasion. You know Kenneth Copeland and the other riff-raff would try to hide their ill-gotten gains. That trash wouldn't willingly pay taxes.

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
- Countless examples in human history of mass murder, rape, pillaging, and other atrocities committed in the name of religion. Every major religion can claim its share of inhuman acts committed in its name. Religion turns people into monsters.

- Throughout history every religious-based government, i.e. theocracy is characterized by oppression and intolerance.

- In a dark way, religion twists people, distorts their ethics and morality. For instance, people infected with the religion virus (any of its variants) will judge and demean people who aren't so infected. The infected do good not for its own sake or the sake of humanity, but to avoid eternal punishment from the Magic Man in the sky.

- Religion takes an enormous toll on human emotion and relationships. Spouses, even whole families, will divorce each other over religious differences.

- Indulging religion costs society a lot of resources, energy, and productivity. Hoping to save their souls, people give enormous amounts of money to institutions that do little more than preach the same mythos the infected have all heard from childhood. Pass the collection plate.

Overall, religion hurts humanity more than helps us.

My comments apply to all religions, not just one or two.

Debate?

You've mentioned your son's religion in some detail in this forum so I feel no hesitancy to ask you; what is it about your son you find damnable? You are disappointed in your son why? You find your son lesser because?
You've told him so?
Your son is aware of your disapproval of him?

Sorry, I don't think your boy is the problem. His religion, church, faith generally Religion globally, isn't destructive.

Saeed is Muslim so he's less than how?
DRG is Jewish so hes less than how?

Mother Theresa was Catholic, I go to Mass on Sunday and my six year old is Baptized Catholic, what's our problem?

Would you say the Dali Llama and China are/ would be better off Buddhist/ faithful or Communist?

M.E. has been cross with his sister and her religion at length, publicly here. My bet would be that M.E's sister genuinely loves him, cares about him, works physically for his well being and wishes/ prays for his every sucess.


How is it Saeed as a Muslim isn't a bomber, DRG as a Hebrew isn't what ever they malign them with, and my Catholic six year old isn't a pedophile? We all suspect Doc Lane is a good father and husband, loyal son, and most likely an ethical vet and business man. Assuming Doc Lane is Southern Baptist, he'd actually improve at any of the above if he were an atheist how?

Religion is not the problem, it's what folks do with it. Religion wasn't evil, Jim Jones was. religion wasn't evil, Dave Koresh was. How exactly do we espouse the idea that, "guns dont kill people, people kill people!" and then assert that the religious book or writings laying there on the coffee table or pulpit are responsible for mankind's failing rather than mankind being responsible for itself.

Who here admires Tumbleweeds snide atheism? Come on now, show of hands! Who here read Tumbleweeds post about and said, " yeah man! I wanna sound just like that guy!" Lofty high browed prose from the Albertan.

Roland, id think you wanna see your kid and spouse after this life. If you are not prepared and happy to say adios forever in the next twenty years or so, you may wanna consider some religion.

Who says I think my son is damnable? To be damned, someone has to be sent to hell. I don't believe in hell, except for hells people make. As an agnostic, I can't find persuasive evidence for or against God's existence.

I hold my son in high regard. He's probably the best MAN I know, and the best personification of his religion. Like his mother, a cultural but non-practicing Buddhist, he's one of the nicest people I've ever met, a kind and gentle soul.

You caught me painting with too broad a brush, for I admit religion has been a positive force in HIS life (as opposed to most).

Sure, I'd like to see them in an afterlife...if there is one. But there's no evidence for an afterlife, and wistful thinking doesn't reality make.