Total Posts:228|Showing Posts:211-228|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What I respect about "True Atheists"

Dirty.Harry
Posts: 2,625
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 1:57:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/10/2012 12:30:09 PM, iamnotwhoiam wrote:
At 12/10/2012 11:41:30 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 12/10/2012 11:23:38 AM, iamnotwhoiam wrote:
At 12/10/2012 10:27:43 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
What of the many scientists who are angry about the dogmatic way Darwinism is portrayed as truth?

Many? There's many more scientists called Steve who are concerned some religiously motivated folks try to assert ToE isn't legitimate science.

Look up Dissent From Darwin - of course many is a subjective term but there are respected and educated scientists and educators who do not consider Darwin or evolution to be true. Also their number is unimportant Galileo and fellow dissenters were very few in number when they challenged the then prevailing Catholic dogma - yet that did not weaken their scientific case.

Harry.

It's about 200-250 I reckon. A lot of whom are not scientists in the relevant fields. Out of around 5 million scientists.

So there are scientists, professors and researchers - many with PhD level educations in medicine, biology, microbiology, chemistry, biochemistry, physics and other areas who do not accept Darwinism as a viable explanation for what we observe in nature.

The difference between Galileo and anti-evolutionists is that Galileo actually did some science.

Was Galileo in the minority? Yes, was he at odds with prevailing dogma? Yes, was the fact that his views were in the minority proof that he was wrong? No.

Are you saying that there are no examples of people "doing science" who also do not accept evolution?

Harry
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 2,625
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 2:01:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/10/2012 12:05:59 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/10/2012 12:02:26 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:

What term describes one who asserts "God does not exist"?

Atheist


What term describes one who asserts "I do not know if God exists"?

Agnostic


If you do not know whether God exists or not then you are an agnostic.

Agreed. But that doesn't prevent you from still being an atheist, since you can assert, as a matter of belief and not knowledge, that "God does not exist." Neither does it prevent you from being a theist, since you can assert, as a matter of belief and not knowledge that "God does exist."

Assertions and beliefs don't require knowledge, and atheism and theism are statements of belief.

Fair enough - but to assert "God does not exist" one either has a rational argument leading to that conclusion or one does not. I've never heard or read of such an argument, therefore all atheists hold this belief without having a rational argument.

Lane Craig got Hitchens tied up in knots in a debate on this very issue.


Harry
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,730
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 4:21:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/9/2012 1:45:27 PM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:

I guess I am somewhat like that in the sense that I'm not anti-theist and that I don't bash theists, but I still very much doubt my beliefs every day, to great extents.

I believe that's what we all do, it is no different for the theist, perhaps it's the human condition to be plagued by doubt. Religion does not necessarily provide answers to life's questions; it puts our lives in question, rather than enable life's questions to be answered, I think it allows those questions to be dissolved by a response of total commitment to a discernment that there is an ideal of perfection and goodness that we can't know or comprehend directly, but that is more of a direction in which we can go. It places before us possibilities of action in relation to new ideal of commitment to realize the goodness we have sensed as a possibility.

Our spiritual detractors want to make faith about believing lots of odd things on authority, but that is extraneous to what faith is, it is about committing ourselves to the possibility of achieving a higher ideal in our lives, something that can challenge and inspire us, to make us extend ourselves in the direction of something better, and provide empowerment for realizing our unique potentialities.

However, I agree that these atheists are the most appealing to me. I don't get all the anti-theistic posts that are usually nothing more than simple rants.

They say all wars are internal wars, when I see those rants, and again, they come from both sides of these disputes, I think they are more about internal conflict than anything, perhaps they are actually railing more against their own self doubt than against the "them" of their "us/them" thinking. The Bible says a double minded man is unstable in all his ways, I think that is what it is talking about.
It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 4:38:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/10/2012 2:01:41 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 12/10/2012 12:05:59 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/10/2012 12:02:26 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:

What term describes one who asserts "God does not exist"?

Atheist


What term describes one who asserts "I do not know if God exists"?

Agnostic


If you do not know whether God exists or not then you are an agnostic.

Agreed. But that doesn't prevent you from still being an atheist, since you can assert, as a matter of belief and not knowledge, that "God does not exist." Neither does it prevent you from being a theist, since you can assert, as a matter of belief and not knowledge that "God does exist."

Assertions and beliefs don't require knowledge, and atheism and theism are statements of belief.

Fair enough - but to assert "God does not exist" one either has a rational argument leading to that conclusion or one does not. I've never heard or read of such an argument, therefore all atheists hold this belief without having a rational argument.

What if atheism is, rationally, the default position?


Lane Craig got Hitchens tied up in knots in a debate on this very issue.


Harry
inferno
Posts: 15,236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 4:39:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/9/2012 1:33:00 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
I think most of you know I"m a theist and many are probably aware that I"m quite pluralistic in my religious thought, some of you are probably also aware that I"m not a big fan of "us/them" thinking. You may have noticed that I am a fan of broad sweeping generalizations and I don"t think I"ve said much about atheists here, so at this time I would like to talk in general about the Atheists I have known over the years.

Let me also try to be precise here. It is the Atheist who is free of religion that I am writing about here, not those who are angry at religion, anger is a form of attachment and those people are still very much attached. So I"m not talking about the ex-Christians that bash Christianity, the anti-theist bigots, the kids that are "acting out" and think they are clever, or those who have embraced the religion of "Scientism" in opposition to faith in God. I am talking about the "True Atheists" I have known, people who are dispassionate about religion and who have no axe to grind with any faith, the people I have known who have simply chosen to not believe in God. This is what I respect most about them.

The ones I have known tend to be very ethical people of high moral character; they just do not need to hide their humanity behind the elaborate rationalizations of any religious system. They appear to be overrepresented in social programs, and I have noticed that in general, they tend to be more involved in helping others rather than less, and they also tend to be more respectful of other people and other ways of thinking, rather than less. Perhaps it is because they don"t live their life with any anticipation of post life reward that they tend to live in the moment and fully express their humanity in their day to day lives. They bear the burden of human pain themselves, they look into their own heart to understand evil, and they rely on their own mind and power to find peace and meaning in their lives. They are prepared to be responsible for their own actions, their behavior seems to exhibit both more freedom, and more responsibility, and they see their brother everywhere because they are unimpeded by the prejudice of any religious outlook.

They believe in themselves and in other men, I certainly don"t think their life is any easier, but I sometimes think, for many of them at least, it is more real and honest and genuine. They just do not need certainty or absolutes, they only need to be loved for who and what they are, and they tend to love others on that same basis. They are intelligent, courageous, and free to act without any notions about God, and I sometimes wonder if that means God has more freedom to act in them.

They just aren"t doing the "God thing", they are content to only be doing the "human thing', and I often wonder if that "human thing" is the most religious thing of all.

This is funny.
SarcasticIndeed
Posts: 3,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 4:43:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/10/2012 4:21:04 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 12/9/2012 1:45:27 PM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:

I guess I am somewhat like that in the sense that I'm not anti-theist and that I don't bash theists, but I still very much doubt my beliefs every day, to great extents.

I believe that's what we all do, it is no different for the theist, perhaps it's the human condition to be plagued by doubt. Religion does not necessarily provide answers to life's questions; it puts our lives in question, rather than enable life's questions to be answered, I think it allows those questions to be dissolved by a response of total commitment to a discernment that there is an ideal of perfection and goodness that we can't know or comprehend directly, but that is more of a direction in which we can go. It places before us possibilities of action in relation to new ideal of commitment to realize the goodness we have sensed as a possibility.

Well, maybe some, but definitely not all doubt what they believe. There are so many blind believers and ignorant atheists it makes me feel envious. Why must I always ask questions like "But what if I'm wrong?" when they just don't care and they're fine.

Also, nicely put explanation of religion.

Our spiritual detractors want to make faith about believing lots of odd things on authority, but that is extraneous to what faith is, it is about committing ourselves to the possibility of achieving a higher ideal in our lives, something that can challenge and inspire us, to make us extend ourselves in the direction of something better, and provide empowerment for realizing our unique potentialities.

However, I agree that these atheists are the most appealing to me. I don't get all the anti-theistic posts that are usually nothing more than simple rants.

They say all wars are internal wars, when I see those rants, and again, they come from both sides of these disputes, I think they are more about internal conflict than anything, perhaps they are actually railing more against their own self doubt than against the "them" of their "us/them" thinking. The Bible says a double minded man is unstable in all his ways, I think that is what it is talking about.

I don't know. I wouldn't go and blame all atheists on having internal wars out of insecurity or fear. Stuff like that is anyway stuff I couldn't do. I don't see why'd ranting and bashing make me feel more secure and safe regarding my beliefs. Getting a false sense of superiority over another belief would probably make me even more insecure inside.
<SIGNATURE CENSORED> nac
naturebeckles
Posts: 73
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 8:41:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/9/2012 2:07:26 PM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 12/9/2012 1:33:00 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
I think most of you know I"m a theist and many are probably aware that I"m quite pluralistic in my religious thought, some of you are probably also aware that I"m not a big fan of "us/them" thinking. You may have noticed that I am a fan of broad sweeping generalizations and I don"t think I"ve said much about atheists here, so at this time I would like to talk in general about the Atheists I have known over the years.

Let me also try to be precise here. It is the Atheist who is free of religion that I am writing about here, not those who are angry at religion, anger is a form of attachment and those people are still very much attached. So I"m not talking about the ex-Christians that bash Christianity, the anti-theist bigots, the kids that are "acting out" and think they are clever, or those who have embraced the religion of "Scientism" in opposition to faith in God. I am talking about the "True Atheists" I have known, people who are dispassionate about religion and who have no axe to grind with any faith, the people I have known who have simply chosen to not believe in God. This is what I respect most about them.

The ones I have known tend to be very ethical people of high moral character; they just do not need to hide their humanity behind the elaborate rationalizations of any religious system. They appear to be overrepresented in social programs, and I have noticed that in general, they tend to be more involved in helping others rather than less, and they also tend to be more respectful of other people and other ways of thinking, rather than less. Perhaps it is because they don"t live their life with any anticipation of post life reward that they tend to live in the moment and fully express their humanity in their day to day lives. They bear the burden of human pain themselves, they look into their own heart to understand evil, and they rely on their own mind and power to find peace and meaning in their lives. They are prepared to be responsible for their own actions, their behavior seems to exhibit both more freedom, and more responsibility, and they see their brother everywhere because they are unimpeded by the prejudice of any religious outlook.

They believe in themselves and in other men, I certainly don"t think their life is any easier, but I sometimes think, for many of them at least, it is more real and honest and genuine. They just do not need certainty or absolutes, they only need to be loved for who and what they are, and they tend to love others on that same basis. They are intelligent, courageous, and free to act without any notions about God, and I sometimes wonder if that means God has more freedom to act in them.

They just aren"t doing the "God thing", they are content to only be doing the "human thing', and I often wonder if that "human thing" is the most religious thing of all.

The human thing?

Like Nazi death camps?

Or Bolshevik gulags?

Or Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Or abortion on demand? (Killing more than all of the above combined)

No, I'll stick with the God thing: Jesus.

You do know Hitler was a Christian right? Just CHECKING.
"Adapt what is useful, reject what is useless, and add what is specifically your own." Bruce Lee
naturebeckles
Posts: 73
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 8:41:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/9/2012 2:18:57 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 12/9/2012 2:07:26 PM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 12/9/2012 1:33:00 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
I think most of you know I"m a theist and many are probably aware that I"m quite pluralistic in my religious thought, some of you are probably also aware that I"m not a big fan of "us/them" thinking. You may have noticed that I am a fan of broad sweeping generalizations and I don"t think I"ve said much about atheists here, so at this time I would like to talk in general about the Atheists I have known over the years.

Let me also try to be precise here. It is the Atheist who is free of religion that I am writing about here, not those who are angry at religion, anger is a form of attachment and those people are still very much attached. So I"m not talking about the ex-Christians that bash Christianity, the anti-theist bigots, the kids that are "acting out" and think they are clever, or those who have embraced the religion of "Scientism" in opposition to faith in God. I am talking about the "True Atheists" I have known, people who are dispassionate about religion and who have no axe to grind with any faith, the people I have known who have simply chosen to not believe in God. This is what I respect most about them.

The ones I have known tend to be very ethical people of high moral character; they just do not need to hide their humanity behind the elaborate rationalizations of any religious system. They appear to be overrepresented in social programs, and I have noticed that in general, they tend to be more involved in helping others rather than less, and they also tend to be more respectful of other people and other ways of thinking, rather than less. Perhaps it is because they don"t live their life with any anticipation of post life reward that they tend to live in the moment and fully express their humanity in their day to day lives. They bear the burden of human pain themselves, they look into their own heart to understand evil, and they rely on their own mind and power to find peace and meaning in their lives. They are prepared to be responsible for their own actions, their behavior seems to exhibit both more freedom, and more responsibility, and they see their brother everywhere because they are unimpeded by the prejudice of any religious outlook.

They believe in themselves and in other men, I certainly don"t think their life is any easier, but I sometimes think, for many of them at least, it is more real and honest and genuine. They just do not need certainty or absolutes, they only need to be loved for who and what they are, and they tend to love others on that same basis. They are intelligent, courageous, and free to act without any notions about God, and I sometimes wonder if that means God has more freedom to act in them.

They just aren"t doing the "God thing", they are content to only be doing the "human thing', and I often wonder if that "human thing" is the most religious thing of all.

The human thing?

Like Nazi death camps?

since when to Nazi's == all humans?


Or Bolshevik gulags?

See above.


Or Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Since when does this equal all humans?


Or abortion on demand? (Killing more than all of the above combined)

Since when do people that get abortions == all humans?


No, I'll stick with the God thing: Jesus.

Okay?


There are killer theists and there are killer atheists. People do bad stuff, saying that because certain people do bad stuff means that this bad stuff is an intrinsic part of that group of people is kind of being dishonest.

Kind of? You're being too nice...
"Adapt what is useful, reject what is useless, and add what is specifically your own." Bruce Lee
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 9:13:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Hitler rejected catholic sacraments along with the hebrew Gospel, which is foundational to being a CHRISTian.

... So though I can't say whether anyone is a true Christian except for myself, I (and you) can't call someone a true Christian. Especially given Hitler's contrary actions to what Christ was all about. Christian is a Christ follower.
iamnotwhoiam
Posts: 171
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2012 12:48:52 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/10/2012 1:57:33 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
Are you saying that there are no examples of people "doing science" who also do not accept evolution?


The number of peer reviewed scientific papers in respectable journals that actually challenge the theory of evolution is between zero and a handful.
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2012 12:50:58 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/11/2012 12:48:52 AM, iamnotwhoiam wrote:
The number of peer reviewed scientific papers in respectable journals that actually challenge the theory of evolution is between zero and a handful.

Really? "Between"?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,305
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2012 3:41:06 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/11/2012 12:50:58 AM, wiploc wrote:
At 12/11/2012 12:48:52 AM, iamnotwhoiam wrote:
The number of peer reviewed scientific papers in respectable journals that actually challenge the theory of evolution is between zero and a handful.

Really? "Between"?

Is that between the line with the open circles or the line with the dots?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
DanielChristopherBlowes
Posts: 1,066
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2012 10:18:13 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/10/2012 1:47:21 PM, tulle wrote:
At 12/10/2012 1:41:49 PM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 12/10/2012 1:34:11 PM, tulle wrote:
At 12/10/2012 1:24:21 PM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:

That's right, I hate religion and love Jesus, they were motivated by a lack of Jesus.

Why is this the cool thing for Christians to say now? It's not even coherent.

It is to us..

Christianity is a religion and without it, you wouldn't even know Jesus. Redefining religion to make it something "other" doesn't actually make it so.

In the worldly sense yes, but not to us; religion is 'being good enough' to be accepted by God, Christianity is knowing you can never be good enough and relying (faith) on the merit of another: Jesus Christ.
Everyone on the side of Truth listens to Me. (Jesus Christ)
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2012 3:24:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/11/2012 12:48:52 AM, iamnotwhoiam wrote:
At 12/10/2012 1:57:33 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
Are you saying that there are no examples of people "doing science" who also do not accept evolution?


The number of peer reviewed scientific papers in respectable journals that actually challenge the theory of evolution is between zero and a handful.

Gotta wonder, was the first 'scientific paper' considered science? iamnotwhoiam puts much emphasis on this so it must be the one true blue way to distinguish science from non-science.
DanielChristopherBlowes
Posts: 1,066
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2012 1:15:10 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/11/2012 12:48:52 AM, iamnotwhoiam wrote:
At 12/10/2012 1:57:33 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
Are you saying that there are no examples of people "doing science" who also do not accept evolution?


The number of peer reviewed scientific papers in respectable journals that actually challenge the theory of evolution is between zero and a handful.

That's because people lose their jobs, are passed over for promotion, and lose funding if they even think about it..
Everyone on the side of Truth listens to Me. (Jesus Christ)
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,730
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2012 8:57:48 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/9/2012 2:37:46 PM, 000ike wrote:
Firstly, what you're describing are secularists, not atheists.

LOL, you know what I"m describing better than I do? Sorry Ikey, but I don"t think so, "I am talking about the "True Atheists" I have known", pay attention.

The same way you feel compelled to express your beliefs on this website and argue with the people that disagree with you, so do atheists.

Yeah, so? Is there a point to this babble? I've discussed beliefs with many of the true atheists I've known, there was usually mutual respect and on opportunity to see both sides of the issue, that's what rational, intelligent discussion is about, you should try it some time.

The same way you feel offended when you hear rhetoric suggesting the evil and stupidity of religion, so do atheists in the reverse.

Oh please, when I see the Sam Harris sheeple trying to offend with their illogical rhetoric and their puerile belligerence I find it more comical than anything else. Irrational people can"t offend me and I"ve raised three kids so I know how to deal with tantrums, you can keep trying, but so far you"ve never gotten me much past giggling.

And I have just as much a right to voice those opinions, as you do. You need to stop this made-up psychoanalysis of yours where militant atheists are immoral and rude people with no kindness or care for others.

LOL, want some cheese with that whine Ikey? I"m not sure what post you read, but it sure wasn"t mine. Calm down Ikey, try this, take deep breaths and count to a hundred.

You mock determinism as an attempt to be lazy and free oneself from responsibility, when the philosophy is actually far deeper, well-considered, and humanistic than that.

LOL, I just love Google scholars, kids declaring themselves "deep" and "well-considered" and everything, it"s just so cute. (giggle giggle)

The ugliest characteristic of religious libertarianism is the concept of wrath and the lack of sympathy... ignorance of the fact that the circumstances of life do dictate our actions, and if I or you were to be born under different circumstances, we would, by necessity, be very different people with different personalities.

Dogma dogma dogma, I know it"s kind of hard to work your prosylitizing dogma into just any conversation, but egads kiddie, this is about as non sequitur as it gets. Maybe you should go back and read my post again, try to read it real slow for comprehension this time, because this dogmatic nonsense isn"t even in the same ballpark as the subject of my post. I mean, c"mon, you can at least pretend to be rational can"t you?

You don't respect atheists at all, because you don't respect the defense of atheism.

Nope, but I can understand how you think that. Because of your "us/them" paranoid siege mentality that is completely intolerant of anyone who holds a different belief, you exhibit all of the characteristics of an extreme religious and fundamentalist point of view. As a religious fundamentalist you live in a bipolar world of good and evil, seeing your own beliefs as good, and all others as evil them of your "us/them" thinking. Good is not a function of actions or behavior, but conformity to the one true belief that you hold, that and only that determines whether or not people are "good", and those who hold any other metaphysical belief are the evil "others".

You see Ikey, I"m no fundie, I relate to people as individuals, what I did in my post was characterize the people I have known as individuals who I believe were true atheists. I specifically said I wasn"t talking about fundies like you, and I certainly do not respect mindless extremism, especially when it"s an angry fundamentalism like yours, you really need to reread my post and pay attention this time.

You don't respect determinism, or actually more accurately as far as I'm concerned "anti-freewill", and you don't respect the amount of thought and consideration and care so richly invested in these understandings.

Nope, that"s not it, I just don"t respect kids that are "acting out" and think they are clever, especially when it"s so illogical and irrational. If belligerent acting out is tolerated the child"s unhealthy behaviors can continue into adulthood and I think it"s irresponsible for adults to coddle children in such a way that they aren"t prepared to function in the real world.

Some day you"re going to have to go out into the real word and make a living, you"ll live in a diverse community, you"ll have to abide by the first amendment, obey the Civil Rights Act, adhere to anti discrimination laws, and maybe even comply with the EEOC, that kind of thing. You really need to understand that out in the real world they don"t much care for bigotry. Anti-theistic bigotry is just another kind of bigotry, and of course all bigots think they can make their case, but there is nothing intellectually respectable about bigotry, and just like the vast majority of the people you are going to have to deal with in the real world some day, I don"t respect bigotry.
It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,730
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2012 2:52:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/9/2012 2:46:43 PM, 000ike wrote:

I'm not assuming anything. There is a logical impasse in the concept of freewill, and the very compound is oxymoronic. Then there is evidence from the field of neuroscience against the concept. I'm fairly certain that there is no such thing as freewill.

As I've explained before, that is pure hogwash, there is no neuroscientific evidence whatsoever against the concept of freewill, if you think there is, then let's debate it.
It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,730
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2012 2:57:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/9/2012 4:27:10 PM, badger wrote:

my grandfather died today

I'm sorry badger, my prayers are with you both.
It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.