I Just dont get it How could you not believe in God

[QUOTE="majoras_wrath"][QUOTE="dhyce"]

Of course. Atheism does not state a zero possibility of God. Atheism is merely a lack of belief in any God due to zero evidence. If a God does exist, it is more than welcome to verify its own existence to me IN PERSON. Otherwise, nope, sorry! Can't take your word for it, those who believe in the bronze age myths reeking of manmade influence, demanding things no omnipotent being would be so petty as to suggest can very well keep it to themselves!

jalexbrown

Perhaps. My main point is what if there is something so beyond our understanding that created something out of nothing. Think Aquinas.

I know it's unscientific by definition, but how else can we understand the beginning of "everything"? Science will get close, but never ever will get to the root and meaning of it. I feel it is more of a philosophic question.

What if, philosophically speaking, said "omnipotent being" was simply beyond any possible comprehension? What this "being" wasn't the ludicrous and obviously human christian god, but more of an actual omnipotent force that lead to the creation of the universe that we simply could never sense. I feel as if we are arriving at the same points, but through differing levels of agnosticism/atheism.majoras_wrath

To be honest and serious, he must have created the universe with ridiculously strict laws, knowing they would result in no life for billions of years. Meaning, he used his power to devise something chillingly methodical and lewd/vague in nature to its inhabitants. A creation that pursued more pain than it did good, more possibility for collapse than salvation, more mystery than answers he so obviously does not want to provide by hiding. To suggest God on any sort of logical level lumps it as a Deist God, who obviously does not care or cannot, for a reason our minds cannot grasp. Still, the strict nature, the lack of evidence, the fact that we are but atoms of grains of sand in a desert beyond that of our planet hints to no creator. This thing we live in, this improbable void that may have failed in other universes as posed by many theories tells us this wonder we call existence is in truth, very dour.

Because we are not perfect. Because creating us perfect would defeated the purpose of having us choose him. Like I said God does not force us. We are allowed to be tempted so that we may have a choice at good or evil. If we had not ate the fruit then the choice of evil wouldn't be present. Everything went according to plan.jeremiah06

You said that God wanted to protect us from the harsh realities of the world.

Now you are telling me that God willfully put in this place not only the one thing that would expose us to the harsh realities of the world, but also the one thing that would convince us to subject ourselves to it. And that it was only through deceit - not a knowledge-based choice on the part of Adam and Eve - that made us do this. And then, of all the things that God could have done in response to this, he decides to send everyone to hell who does not manage to get back from this calamity that God basically purposefully caused.

God seems awfully confused. ...And a bit of a jerk.

[QUOTE="jalexbrown"][QUOTE="majoras_wrath"] What if, philosophically speaking, said "omnipotent being" was simply beyond any possible comprehension? What this "being" wasn't the ludicrous and obviously human christian god, but more of an actual omnipotent force that lead to the creation of the universe that we simply could never sense. I feel as if we are arriving at the same points, but through differing levels of agnosticism/atheism.majoras_wrath

Perhaps. My main point is what if there is something so beyond our understanding that created something out of nothing. Think Aquinas.

I know it's unscientific by definition, but how else can we understand the beginning of "everything"? Science will get close, but never ever will get to the root and meaning of it. I feel it is more of a philosophic question.

[QUOTE="majoras_wrath"]What if, philosophically speaking, said "omnipotent being" was simply beyond any possible comprehension? What this "being" wasn't the ludicrous and obviously human christian god, but more of an actual omnipotent force that lead to the creation of the universe that we simply could never sense. I feel as if we are arriving at the same points, but through differing levels of agnosticism/atheism.dhyce

To be honest and serious, he must have created the universe with ridiculously strict laws, knowing they would result in no life for billions of years. Meaning, he used his power to devise something chillingly methodical and lewd/vague in nature to its inhabitants. A creation that pursued more pain than it did good, more possibility for collapse than salvation, more mystery than answers he so obviously does not want to provide by hiding. To suggest God on any sort of logical level lumps it as a Deist God, who obviously does not care or cannot, for a reason our minds cannot grasp. Still, the strict nature, the lack of evidence, the fact that we are but atoms of grains of sand in a desert beyond that of our planet hints to no creator. This thing we live in, this improbable void that may have failed in other universes as posed by many theories tells us this wonder we call existence is in truth, very dour.

So things just "pop" into our existence? And if so, why did they "pop"?

Other then the fact that I find it hard to accept simply "no creator",just as much as I can't accept "there definitely is a creator", I certainly agree with you. There is no intrinsic meaning to our world, it is what we make of it.

The most logical conclusion I've ever come to is to accept that there is a passive creator. It's not the Judeo-Christian God that's omnipotent, and there is no such thing as divine intervention; but it seems to me like, at some point, there would have to be a creator.jalexbrown

Then you and I are speaking from the same level of Agnosticism. :)

[QUOTE="jalexbrown"]
The most logical conclusion I've ever come to is to accept that there is a passive creator. It's not the Judeo-Christian God that's omnipotent, and there is no such thing as divine intervention; but it seems to me like, at some point, there would have to be a creator.majoras_wrath

Then you and I are speaking from the same level of Agnosticism. :)

[QUOTE="tigertechie"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

You said that God wanted to protect us from the harsh realities of the world.

Now you are telling me that God willfully put in this place not only the one thing that would expose us to the harsh realities of the world, but also the one thing that would convince us to subject ourselves to it. And that it was only through deceit - not a knowledge-based choice on the part of Adam and Eve - that made us do this. And then, of all the things that God could have done in response to this, he decides to send everyone to hell who does not manage to get back from this calamity that God basically purposefully caused.

God seems awfully confused. ...And a bit of a jerk.

jalexbrown

[QUOTE="jalexbrown"]

[QUOTE="majoras_wrath"]

Then you and I are speaking from the same level of Agnosticism. :)

InEMplease

Yes, sir.

[QUOTE="jalexbrown"][QUOTE="tigertechie"] Are you calling my God a jerk? That is a clear insult to me and my religion that I will not stand.tigertechie

[QUOTE="majoras_wrath"]

[QUOTE="jalexbrown"]
The most logical conclusion I've ever come to is to accept that there is a passive creator. It's not the Judeo-Christian God that's omnipotent, and there is no such thing as divine intervention; but it seems to me like, at some point, there would have to be a creator.jalexbrown

Then you and I are speaking from the same level of Agnosticism. :)

I see myself as more of a agnostic/deist, but I've always understood agnosticism to mean an ambivalent view of creation.

You don't know, you'll never know, it doesn't really matter. I guess that could mean in a creator in a judeochristian sense but I don't think it necessitates it.

[QUOTE="jalexbrown"][QUOTE="tigertechie"] Are you calling my God a jerk? That is a clear insult to me and my religion that I will not stand.tigertechie

[QUOTE="jalexbrown"][QUOTE="InEMplease"]

Yes, sir.

InEMplease

I think it depends on whether or not you believe it without question, but I'm not certain.

[QUOTE="jalexbrown"][QUOTE="InEMplease"]

I think it depends on whether or not you believe it without question, but I'm not certain.

InEMplease

Hmm, maybe that does put you in a different category. Would be interesting to find out.

You make some very good points here, and in your other post. I share some of the same questions and doubts about the Abrahamic God of the Bible. However, I don't believe that gives reason to denounce the possibility of existence. Just because we as a species couldn't comprehend it thousands of years ago and through years of misinterpretation and tacked on bits, we have been given a depiction of a God that is fallacious in many ways IMO.

However, you assume in your reasoning there, that God is within the framework of time and therefore had to "wait" billions of years for life to slowly evolve here. God created all the forces in the Universe, and all the dimensions, including the illusion of time. Therefore, it would be outside of the control of said forces, dimensions, and time. It is something we can't conceive of, but God exists in a realm of timeless eternity and therefore experiences everything that ever was, ever is, and ever will be, all at once. For God, from the Big Bang until now, it has been one single instant.

I take a much more pantheistic view to the Universe. I believe the idea that it is in God's very consciousness and being, that the Universe is created, and that everything we see and experience with our senses here, is all the same thing at different energy levels. At everything's basis however, it the same stuff. I believe its God that gives rise to the vibration levels of all the different types of matter in the Universe. This consciousness that permeates the entire Universe and gives rise to it, would also be the consciousness that rises up in each of us as the self-aware "I" before any mental identification. The awareness behind all thought.

MystikFollower

The Eisnstein view? God is in all. I cannot very well dispute you. I only stake interest in the Gods with silly texts. However, God knew the timeframe from which life would spring, he knows all time and before. He knows which planets life will exist on, warps his consciousness there, yet still waits, he could create cotton filled green bean people of ever-lasting love, though he always lets it play out. Allowing his creation to spawn disease, to destroy with tornados and tsunamis, he saw this from the beginning and who knows what besets other planets with intelligent life. Yet a God can by definition inteject, if he does not, why? These questions are beyond reason and therefore speculatory. The absence of intervention and hatmony on Earth and this universe do paint a strange picture of a God though.

So things just "pop" into our existence? And if so, why did they "pop"?

Other then the fact that I find it hard to accept simply "no creator",just as much as I can't accept "there definitely is a creator", I certainly agree with you. There is no intrinsic meaning to our world, it is what we make of it.

majoras_wrath

I say there is no creator because no evidence exists for a creator. You can supply me with subjective evidence, I shall not waver! A God should be able to do anything, like prove itself. In its own horrific, vile, limited, ruthless creation.

Also, none of science claims anything 'popped' into existence and science has shown there is never a reason behind anything natural. (Edit: no spiritual or intentional reason. Everything occurs with a source we can uncover, obviously.)

You said that God wanted to protect us from the harsh realities of the world.

Now you are telling me that God willfully put in this place not only the one thing that would expose us to the harsh realities of the world, but also the one thing that would convince us to subject ourselves to it. And that it was only through deceit - not a knowledge-based choice on the part of Adam and Eve - that made us do this. And then, of all the things that God could have done in response to this, he decides to send everyone to hell who does not manage to get back from this calamity that God basically purposefully caused.

God seems awfully confused. ...And a bit of a jerk.

GabuEx

It gets even better. Catholic's doctrine states that God is all knowing. He know the past, present and future. If he knows the future, then it's set in stone. The whole span of our lifetime is pre-determined. Therefore our place in afterlife is also pre-determined. In conclusion we don't have a free will and God just likes to watch how we squirm. But hey, that's just one doctrine. Roman Church tends to change something in the interpretation of The Bible at every single Great Council.

Everything occurs with a source we can uncover, obviously.

dhyce

Hmm...then how and why did this proposed Big Bang happen?

And what about before that?

[QUOTE="jalexbrown"][QUOTE="InEMplease"]

Hmm, maybe that does put you in a different category. Would be interesting to find out.

InEMplease

Well theist is easy, it's simply the belief in the existence of God/s.

God itself...not so easy. :P

I feel the definition of God is more or less up to the individual.

It gets even better. Catholic's doctrine states that God is all knowing. He know the past, present and future. If he knows the future, then it's set in stone. The whole span of our lifetime is pre-determined. Therefore our place in afterlife is also pre-determined. In conclusion we don't have a free will and God just likes to watch how we squirm. But hey, that's just one doctrine. Roman Church tends to change something in the interpretation of The Bible at every single Great Council.

shinian

Trouble is, this all-knowing business of the bible infers that God knew Eve would eat of the Tree of Knowledge before Earth was even created and continued to get MAD and JEALOUS over matters he predicted since the dawn of time. A simple reason why old texts don't hold up. Why this idea of a God is flawed horrendously.

Hmm...then how and why did this proposed Big Bang happen?

And what about before that?

majoras_wrath

Why is there a bright thing in the sky? Why does it rain? What are those little bright things in the sky that appear when the big bright thing is chased away by the slightly smaller bight thing?

My point is that we don't currently know and don't you dare stab your God pin upon this matter. A god of the gaps is of the worst intellectual mindsets available. Sure, we have no overwhelmingly evident theories now, though in but a few decades the answers may become clear. Or in more time, or never! This lack of a reason does not in anyway suggest a creator, that is a leap of imagination I cannot fathom. Humanity does not know, and that is okay, let us discover and never assume or speculate without reason.

[QUOTE="majoras_wrath"]

Hmm...then how and why did this proposed Big Bang happen?

And what about before that?

dhyce

Why is there a bright thing in the sky? Why does it rain? What are those little bright things in the sky that appear when the big bright thing is chased away by the slightly smaller bight thing?

My point is that we don't currently know and don't you dare stab your God pin upon this matter. A god of the gaps is of the worst intellectual mindsets available. Sure, we have no overwhelmingly evident theories now, though in but a few decades the answers may become clear. Or in more time, or never! This lack of a reason does not in anyway suggest a creator, that is a leap of imagination I cannot fathom. Humanity does not know, and that is okay, let us discover and never assume or speculate without reason.

[QUOTE="majoras_wrath"]

Hmm...then how and why did this proposed Big Bang happen?

And what about before that?

dhyce

Why is there a bright thing in the sky? Why does it rain? What are those little bright things in the sky that appear when the big bright thing is chased away by the slightly smaller bight thing?

My point is that we don't currently know and don't you dare stab your God pin upon this matter. A god of the gaps is of the worst intellectual mindsets available. Sure, we have no overwhelmingly evident theories now, though in but a few decades the answers may become clear. Or in more time, or never! This lack of a reason does not in anyway suggest a creator, that is a leap of imagination I cannot fathom. Humanity does not know, and that is okay, let us discover and never assume or speculate without reason.

I've never once claimed to know there is a god, I've merely stated that I don't know anything. I am simply speculating and raising questions.

Also, I'll let a somewhat famous dude take your last statement.

"Then we shall… be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God." -Stephen Hawking

I've never once claimed to know there is a god, I've merely stated that I don't know anything. I am simply speculating and raising questions.

Also, I'll let a somewhat famous dude take your last statement.

"Then we shall… be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God." -Stephen Hawking

majoras_wrath

Going from our flawed universe as we know it to a creator is imaginitive in a way I cannot comment on. Your suggestion, I mean.

Oh ho ho, quote mining, woe be me! He may think that, or it could be the commonly misrepresented scientific metaphor used by everyone and their cat. (God: the overall) Because context couldn't have been misinterpreted. I say 'Thank God' very often, don't think I'm thanking god. That quote could even be seen as sarcasm, honestly. And even if it is true, even if he carries Deistic values, so what? It proves nothing beyond what a single mind believed. This is no proof, allow me to talk in circles, I will respect your beliefs. Simply show no surprise when you suggest the outrageous and I shoot an odd stare at your lack of a solid case. I am open-minded, trust me! I only look to maybes and what ifs with a great deal of skepticism.

I hate it when people just choose to say God did it for a lack of a better explanation, and I really hate it when people choose to believe in God until something better comes along.jalexbrown

Personally, I have always found the god-of-the-gaps argument to be extremely insulting, really, towards God if such a being exists, as it effectively treats it as just a placeholder until the real answer comes along. First celestial motion was due to God, then the stability of the solar system was due to God, and slowly but surely God's place... well, starts to get rather tiny. How awe-inspiring is a being towards whom we basically go, "OK, we don't know how to explain this yet, so we'll just call it 'God' for now..."?

If there is a divine creator of everything, we ought to be able to find it in everything true about the universe.

[QUOTE="jalexbrown"]I hate it when people just choose to say God did it for a lack of a better explanation, and I really hate it when people choose to believe in God until something better comes along.GabuEx

Personally, I have always found the god-of-the-gaps argument to be extremely insulting, really, towards God if such a being exists, as it effectively treats it as just a placeholder until the real answer comes along. First celestial motion was due to God, then the stability of the solar system was due to God, and slowly but surely God's place... well, starts to get rather tiny. How awe-inspiring is a being towards whom we basically go, "OK, we don't know how to explain this yet, so we'll just call it 'God' for now..."?

If there is a divine creator of everything, we ought to be able to find it in everything true about the universe.

[QUOTE="majoras_wrath"]

I've never once claimed to know there is a god, I've merely stated that I don't know anything. I am simply speculating and raising questions.

Also, I'll let a somewhat famous dude take your last statement.

"Then we shall… be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God." -Stephen Hawking

dhyce

Going from our flawed universe as we know it to a creator is imaginitive in a way I cannot comment on. Your suggestion, I mean.

Oh ho ho, quote mining, woe be me! He may think that, or it could be the commonly misrepresented scientific metaphor used by everyone and their cat. (God: the overall) Because context couldn't have been misinterpreted. I say 'Thank God' very often, don't think I'm thanking god. That quote could even be seen as sarcasm, honestly. And even if it is true, even if he carries Deistic values, so what? It proves nothing beyond what a single mind believed. This is no proof, allow me to talk in circles, I will respect your beliefs. Simply show no surprise when you suggest the outrageous and I shoot an odd stare at your lack of a solid case. I am open-minded, trust me! I only look to maybes and what ifs with a great deal of skepticism.

You know what? I give up on having a friendly argument. If you want to be so rude, forget it.majoras_wrath

Okie-dokie! I'll be sure to virtually molest you through my screen, should we ever engage in debate again! For the backbone of conversation is respect, and if you do not respect a stance: you should show respect for no good reason because it preserves the feelings of those around you! No, in debate, respect if petty, it should be raped, sundered, and destroyed if a point is to be made. And this does not denote me as bitter, oh no, I am having my giggles by the barrel! ;D

To argue is to care, to care is to be passionate enough that undermining honesty is simply no viable option. I don't apologize for my blunt stance, not now, not ever.

[QUOTE="majoras_wrath"]You know what? I give up on having a friendly argument. If you want to be so rude, forget it.dhyce

Okie-dokie! I'll be sure to virtually molest you through my screen, should we ever engage in debate again! For the backbone of conversation is respect, and if you do not respect a stance: you should show respect for no good reason because it preserves the feelings of those around you! No, in debate, respect if petty, it should be raped, sundered, and destroyed if a point is to be made. And this does not denote me as bitter, oh no, I am having my giggles by the barrel! ;D

To argue is to care, to care is to be passionate enough that undermining honesty is simply no viable option. I don't apologize for my blunt stance, not now, not ever.

There is a difference between having a passionate debate and being pompous and "knowing it all". It's all in the wording.majoras_wrath

Now, now honey-bunches-of-oats! I claim not a knowledge over inception. As I've stated before. I say we do not know all, and that to leap from what we know to be absurd conclusions deserves criticism. We should consider everything that deserves consideration; a creator so far; provides no such reason. Our world proves time and time again that we, as humans, can explain the laws of not only this planet, but our solar system, and galaxy, and galaxies, and universe, until the beginning . . . which we have an incredibly brilliant theory of! And science marches on! I say, in such perceivably smug tenses, that we should focus on our knowledge, the brilliant wealth we've uncovered, instead of diminishing our own intelligence by assuming a creator. Back to square one, let us not propose a creator until ample reason emerges. I'm okay with you believing a creator might have spat forth our universe, just don't think this assertion belongs in the scientific realm.

Edit: I'm headed to sleep now! If you wish to debate me further, do so via PMs. I may not come back to this thread in search of your reply.

The existance of a god (or gods) is a possibility, but who says it's the one you pray to? Thousands of religions have and continue to exist on this planet so I find it impossible to pick one and base my entire life around it when no religious person can give me any sort of proof other than "I just know he exists, I feel him". I mean that's great and all, but you think the ancient greeks didn't feel the same way about Zues? And lets not even get into how gods have constantly been used as tools to control people basically as long as the concept has existed.

All right, my turn to ask a question to the believers here.

99,99% of you, should you come into a discussion with a non-believer, yell at them, call them blasphemers like it's a bad thing and threatens them with Hells wrath. What does that say about you as a person? I'll tell you what it says. It says that you believe that your faith is above everything else, and everyone that doesn't believe what you believe is worthless. You don't see other people as equal unless they are believers as well. This, of course, goes for every other religion as well, which is the main reason I generally dislike it so.

I couldn't care less whether there is a god or not, but what annoys me the most is the behavior of you people. God loves and forgives everyone, doesn't he? Why would he then send people to Hell at all? Because Hell is something the priests of the middle age made up to scare people into becoming christians, as people were very superstitious at that time. But believing in God because you're scared is not true faith. Doesn't this seem the slightest stupid to you?

Now for the question I was about to ask you. *ahem* Why are you still trying to convert people into a religion that has been taking advantage of people that's scared sh*tless through hundreds of years?

[QUOTE="jalexbrown"]I hate it when people just choose to say God did it for a lack of a better explanation, and I really hate it when people choose to believe in God until something better comes along.GabuEx

Personally, I have always found the god-of-the-gaps argument to be extremely insulting, really, towards God if such a being exists, as it effectively treats it as just a placeholder until the real answer comes along. First celestial motion was due to God, then the stability of the solar system was due to God, and slowly but surely God's place... well, starts to get rather tiny. How awe-inspiring is a being towards whom we basically go, "OK, we don't know how to explain this yet, so we'll just call it 'God' for now..."?

If there is a divine creator of everything, we ought to be able to find it in everything true about the universe.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="jalexbrown"]I hate it when people just choose to say God did it for a lack of a better explanation, and I really hate it when people choose to believe in God until something better comes along.tigertechie

Personally, I have always found the god-of-the-gaps argument to be extremely insulting, really, towards God if such a being exists, as it effectively treats it as just a placeholder until the real answer comes along. First celestial motion was due to God, then the stability of the solar system was due to God, and slowly but surely God's place... well, starts to get rather tiny. How awe-inspiring is a being towards whom we basically go, "OK, we don't know how to explain this yet, so we'll just call it 'God' for now..."?

If there is a divine creator of everything, we ought to be able to find it in everything true about the universe.

What aspect of your God do you see in this picture?

[QUOTE="tigertechie"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Personally, I have always found the god-of-the-gaps argument to be extremely insulting, really, towards God if such a being exists, as it effectively treats it as just a placeholder until the real answer comes along. First celestial motion was due to God, then the stability of the solar system was due to God, and slowly but surely God's place... well, starts to get rather tiny. How awe-inspiring is a being towards whom we basically go, "OK, we don't know how to explain this yet, so we'll just call it 'God' for now..."?

If there is a divine creator of everything, we ought to be able to find it in everything true about the universe.

jalexbrown

What aspect of your God do you see in this picture?

[QUOTE="tigertechie"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Personally, I have always found the god-of-the-gaps argument to be extremely insulting, really, towards God if such a being exists, as it effectively treats it as just a placeholder until the real answer comes along. First celestial motion was due to God, then the stability of the solar system was due to God, and slowly but surely God's place... well, starts to get rather tiny. How awe-inspiring is a being towards whom we basically go, "OK, we don't know how to explain this yet, so we'll just call it 'God' for now..."?

If there is a divine creator of everything, we ought to be able to find it in everything true about the universe.

jalexbrown

What aspect of your God do you see in this picture?

[QUOTE="jalexbrown"][QUOTE="tigertechie"] I have. Maybe the rest of you just can't.tigertechie

What aspect of your God do you see in this picture?

Atheism is a logically equivalent to any form of religion because believing one is right that there is no god is equivalent to believing one is right that there is a god. That is also only true so long that god is defined the same way to both sides.

[QUOTE="jalexbrown"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] Well I think we've already all made that choice considering where we're all posting.jeremiah06

[QUOTE="dhyce"]

[QUOTE="majoras_wrath"]

Although I'm still not convinced either way as to whether there is a higher power or not, but I guess it really doesn't matter no matter what. I'll never sense this higher power if it does exist, and it has absolutely no effect on my life whether or not it exists.

majoras_wrath

Of course. Atheism does not state a zero possibility of God. Atheism is merely a lack of belief in any God due to zero evidence. If a God does exist, it is more than welcome to verify its own existence to me IN PERSON. Otherwise, nope, sorry! Can't take your word for it, those who believe in the bronze age myths reeking of manmade influence, demanding things no omnipotent being would be so petty as to suggest can very well keep it to themselves!

[QUOTE="jalexbrown"][QUOTE="tigertechie"] I have. Maybe the rest of you just can't.tigertechie

What aspect of your God do you see in this picture?

[QUOTE="jeremiah06"][QUOTE="jalexbrown"] Given all of the various opinions we've seen about God, I'd like to make a thread getting OT's opinions on Satanism. But I kind of want to wait for some of the other religious fervor to die down first.

tocool340

[QUOTE="tocool340"][QUOTE="jeremiah06"] That would be interesting to see where people stand on that. Maybe I can save a few people...jalexbrown