What is your religion, if any?

[AndrewB]

I agree with you Octavius. I think a lot of people, especially our generation of young adults, are questioning the necessity of religion in maintaining a moral society. It's purpose of controlling tribal/feudal society through fear has long been served and it is a relic of an unenlightened time in human history. I can't think of many things more dangerous than the perceived justification for violence and murder that religion has conferred on people and the reports of religiously fueled violence worldwide underline this point daily.

[blaaaax]

I can't think of many things more dangerous than the perceived justification for violence and murder that religion has conferred on people and the reports of religiously fueled violence worldwide underline this point daily.

 

Two things.

 

First, I have difficulty with the oft-heard claim that religion is the cause of wars, violence, hatred, etc. Unfortunately, it seems to be human nature to hate that which is different, and religion is a popular justification to act on these feelings. It may be a proximal cause for wars throughout history, but I think it goes much deeper than that and other reasons would have been found in place. Case in point, the majority of Darfur is Muslim, but they are Africans not Arabs....

 

Secondly, it is easy to bash religion and point out the historical inaccuracies. What needs to be mentioned though is how many people on earth hold on to religion as the only good thing in their lives. How many people in impoverished, war-torn nations are comforted only by the thought that all their suffering is for a reason, that someone loves them, and that one day things will be better? It is a tricky question ethically, but is it moral to try and take that away from them even if it is false hope? What about the millions of dollars being sent by churches to third-world countries? Sure some of it goes towards proselytizing, and I have a huge problem with that, but it is more than most non-religious types are doing.

 

Disclosure : I am not religious.

[youngdad]

War is about power. True religion does not inspire people to think they are better than others, prideful people do. Many misguided individuals have used religion as a justification for genocide and violence, but it is always really about power.

 

If anyone thinks another is unenlightened, less of a person, or otherwise intellectually incompetent because of their beliefs, doesn't that make them a bigot?

[NewfieMike]

So what do you say when your dying patient asks you to pray with them?

 

I was referring to the religious beliefs of the practitioner, not the patient. I have absolutely zero problems with people having personal beliefs about religion, so long as its not projected onto other people in any negative aspect. If a dying patient asked me to pray with them, I'd pray with them. Same as I'd empathize with a dying patient who wanted empathy. The religious aspect of the scenario is irrelevant, and just about providing comfort to patients who seek it.

[n00b]

I think, in general, medicine and religious belief should be like oil and water

 

that's not possible, like abortion, end-of-life issues, etc

[youngdad]

I think all medical practitioners are influenced by their belief system, whatever that may be. This is a good thing. Staying true to what we believe is the foundation of integrity. The requirement is to never be judgmental, self-righteous, or infringe on the rights of others.

[AndrewB]

Two things.

 

First, I have difficulty with the oft-heard claim that religion is the cause of wars, violence, hatred, etc. Unfortunately, it seems to be human nature to hate that which is different, and religion is a popular justification to act on these feelings. It may be a proximal cause for wars throughout history, but I think it goes much deeper than that and other reasons would have been found in place. Case in point, the majority of Darfur is Muslim, but they are Africans not Arabs....

 

I would argue that religious differences combined with racial differences antagonize the problems even further and have been the cause of many evil acts over the course of history, some of which are occurring today in Darfur. We've tried to eliminate racism...its a pretty weak excuse to commit genocide in our opinion. Why then is religion seen as a legitimate excuse to commit violent acts in many areas of the world?

 

Secondly, it is easy to bash religion and point out the historical inaccuracies. What needs to be mentioned though is how many people on earth hold on to religion as the only good thing in their lives. How many people in impoverished, war-torn nations are comforted only by the thought that all their suffering is for a reason, that someone loves them, and that one day things will be better? It is a tricky question ethically, but is it moral to try and take that away from them even if it is false hope? What about the millions of dollars being sent by churches to third-world countries? Sure some of it goes towards proselytizing, and I have a huge problem with that, but it is more than most non-religious types are doing.

 

Disclosure : I am not religious.

 

I agree with you that religion serves a purpose through comforting those in distress and can be used to mobilize the charity of followers. I think this is beside the main point however.

[blaaaax]

If a dying patient asked me to pray with them, I'd pray with them.

 

Now this is an interesting question, and something I've actually run into before. Is it disingenuous to pray with a patient if you are not a believer yourself? Do you tell them that? What if you are in a third world country where it is just assumed you were a Christian? Is this a "white lie" situation?

[youngdad]

Now this is an interesting question, and something I've actually run into before. Is it disingenuous to pray with a patient if you are not a believer yourself? Do you tell them that? What if you are in a third world country where it is just assumed you were a Christian? Is this a "white lie" situation?

 

Maybe one could say "I am not really sure how to pray. I would be honored if you showed me." I think that reverences the person and what they believe but doesn't require any false representation of your own beliefs. What do you all think?

[blaaaax]

I would argue that religious differences combined with racial differences antagonize the problems even further and have been the cause of many evil acts over the course of history, some of which are occurring today in Darfur. We've tried to eliminate racism...its a pretty weak excuse to commit genocide in our opinion. Why then is religion seen as a legitimate excuse to commit violent acts in many areas of the world?

 

Clearly neither race nor religion is considered legitimate by us, but the point is they are both twisted to use as a rationale for violence. If you consider that all the major religious voices are condemning violence and yet it is still occurring, it becomes pretty clear that it is the primary goal and religion is simply a justification.

 

 

I agree with you that religion serves a purpose through comforting those in distress and can be used to mobilize the charity of followers. I think this is beside the main point however.

 

I don't think it is. For the more "militant" atheists (ie Dawkins) they put forth a pretty convincing argument against religion based on historical facts and some of the more distasteful interpretations, but the positive points are rarely raised and deserve to be. Simply put: religion has accomplished a lot of good. Whether it is enough to offset the negative effects (or if they are even attributable to religion itself) is up for debate, but the other half of the story should not be swept under the carpet.

[AndrewB]

First off I want to say you make good points. My personal opinion is that religion in a modern context tries to remain too conservative while the world advances socially at a blistering rate. The desire to remain relevant in this world drives a lot of people to make some pretty terrible and unnecessarily violent decisions worldwide. I understand that religion is the catalyst for a great deal of positive things as well. However, do people really need the threat of their God and where they go in the afterlife to motivate them to make a difference in this world? Why religion? Why not just trying to be an ethical person? People would find other things to fight over, but at least it wouldn't be about whose God is better.

[blaaaax]

Ok, wow too much to respond to.

 

I guess my overall point is that I am uncomfortable with the flippant condemnation of religion as an institution. Octavius, obviously you have thought this out and I agree with many of your points, but I still disagree with you as well. I firmly believe in the absolute separation of church and state, but on a personal level the tenets of religion are based on the ideals of honesty, kindness, altruism, etc. and that can't be a completely negative thing.

 

And as far as Darfur goes, the Janjaweed are the Arabic nomads who are pillaging the African villages, but the native villagers are black Muslims. It was the Second Sudanese Civil War in the 1980s and 1990s that pitted the Christian South versus the Muslim North.

 

edit: ok there was a post there when i wrote this....

[mrgreek]

So what do you say when your dying patient asks you to pray with them?

 

"Sure, show me how" and then continue on with my day.

 

 

Two things.

 

First, I have difficulty with the oft-heard claim that religion is the cause of wars, violence, hatred, etc.

 

 

I was first just going to post a link to the crusades, of which I learned 2 minutes ago there were nine. Thankfully for Wikipedia, I found a better link...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Religion_and_violence

[youngdad]

Good discussion.

 

Paragraph from Octavius. (I don't think I used the quote function properly)

 

Yes, to discriminate or judge ideology is bigotry by definition of prejudiced/intolerant against that which is different. But by that argument we should be more accepting of the KKK, the Nazi's and Al-Quieda because they should be entitled to their own creed/beliefs? Where do we stop? If someone says the Earth is flat, dinosaurs did not exist and there is no such thing as evolution should we not question their sanity/intelligence

 

This is a reduction to the absurd. Clearly the groups you have mentioned here explicitly infringe upon the human rights of others. Beliefs should be respected and upheld by the law and society as a basic right.

 

When a person argues specific doctrines or beliefs or practices of a religion and passes judgment on the validity of them it is a matter of opinion. Science itself is not immune from subjectivity, especially in its interpretation. You have probably seen in your life what happens when you present a religious person with "proof" of their wrongness and the proof is discounted, or interpreted in a different way. Attempts to discredit someones personal beliefs are oppressive. It is the same as to trying to convince a homosexual that they are wrong, or trying to force someone to see that abortion is murder. This is pushy and self-righteous and breeds the kind of power mongering that is the cause of so much hate and violence in the world. Religious and non-religious people make this mistake all the time.

[Octavius]

Yep removed it. The points I'd have to argue with later will detract from my MCAT efforts and I'm getting cremated in one of these EK 1001 books.

 

True, I'm against the institution of religion. If you're at home practicing or going to your community church that's cool. It's your right to do that (freedom of speech/expression). It's only an issue when there are huge conversion campaigns and policy starts getting affected and when divisive lines come up within a society creating conflict. If you need it/like it, go for it.

 

Thanks for clarifying the Sudanese conflict. Seems more ethnic than religious. You just need a divisive line to attack whatever it may be. Iraq they had Sunni/Shia.

 

Sometimes altruism can have bad consequences but I don't think the religious institutions organize any large scale detrimental projects run out of altruism. I was going to discuss altruism (i.e. European farm subsidies and the African agricultural market) but it's beyond the scope here lol.

[Octavius]

Nevermind, beat me to it.

 

youngdad I'll agree with you that the freedom of belief should be upheld, I never disagreed with this one although I think beliefs should be open to scrutiny. I don't think beliefs should be banned because it'll just create a bad precedent. What do you mean by a 'True' religion in one of your previous posts? Some religions explicitly cite violent and seek to divide those into those that believe and don't and advocate different treatment between the groups (an infringement of rights). What do you tell someone in modern society who, say, doesn't believe/accept evolution? Opinions can be argued, so can morals, but facts? Is it self righteous to argue those?

[AndrewB]

If anybody is interested in the ultimate contemporary perversion of religion and the horrible impact this strict interpretation has had on millions of people, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban. THESE guys are infuriating.

[Octavius]

Never let them take government...or it's all over.

I sympathize for the citizens of Iran/Afghanistan. Theocracies aren't good for anyone...except for the ironically kleptocratic clerics on top.

[youngdad]

Nevermind, beat me to it.

 

youngdad I'll agree with you that the freedom of belief should be upheld, I never disagreed with this one although I think beliefs should be open to scrutiny. I don't think beliefs should be banned because it'll just create a bad precedent. What do you mean by a 'True' religion in one of your previous posts? Some religions explicitly cite violent and seek to divide those into those that believe and don't and advocate different treatment between the groups (an infringement of rights). What do you tell someone in modern society who, say, doesn't believe/accept evolution? Opinions can be argued, so can morals, but facts? Is it self righteous to argue those?

 

I suppose not. And I welcome opposition to my own views. But telling someone they are wrong walks that fine line between discussion and oppression.

 

Not everyone sees things as purely fact or fiction. There are compelling, albeit non-scientific, arguments that attempt to discredit the modern theory of evolution. If they are non-scientific does that mean they are wrong? How do you know? What makes something a fact? What does it matter if there is overwhelming evidence in support of something when faith requires no proof? I have all things as a witness of a supreme creator, yet many other people have the same "proof" and see nothing of the sort. Fine by me, I am glad we get to choose.

 

On another note many atheists seem to condemn religion for their division of believers and non-believers, but isn't everyone capable of that? Isn't that what we all do when we are convinced of something but other people aren't?

 

You're right, violence is not to be tolerated. What religions do you know that teach they should be violent to others or otherwise infringe on their rights?

 

My reference to "true religion" was an opinion statement that was made in the context of violence and prejudice. I will rephrase. I do not think a religion that teaches people to oppress others can be true. Simply an opinion.

[AndrewB]

I like your response youngdad. I'm not religious myself but I can understand your reasoning and it makes sense. If religion makes people happy then I am all for it. However, when it becomes a tool to manipulate people and maintain power then it has to be recognized for what it is.

[apache]

i believe in god, just not really any individual religion

[Seneca]

Man.. it's not like I don't have other work that I should be doing but.. ah what the hell, I have the urge to throw my two cents into the debate lol. I mostly want to reply to youngdad's post, because there are some interesting points made, though I think they are not as solid as they might initially seem.

 

I suppose not. And I welcome opposition to my own views. But telling someone they are wrong walks that fine line between discussion and oppression.

 

I beg to differ. I think there is a lot of ground yet to cover if one wants to move from telling someone that they are wrong to actually oppressing them. How else is one supposed to express disagreement? Mind you, it should be done in an intelligent way. Simply stating "you are wrong," may not be oppressive, but it sure is idiotic since it is a mere assertion and not an argument. But stating "I think you're wrong because of reasons X,Y,Z" - well that's just how one expresses disagreement and defends one's reasons for it. If you hold position A and I hold position B, then the reason I hold B as opposed to A is because I think A is wrong in some sense. It is, of course, your right to hold belief A, but do not expect any kind of respect for it if you cannot defend it; and be prepared to defend it if you ever want to bring it into the public sphere. Of course, all of this can (and should) be done in a respectful and peaceful manner. But all of this is lightyears away from oppresion. People have rights. Ideas/belief systems do not.

 

Not everyone sees things as purely fact or fiction. There are compelling, albeit non-scientific, arguments that attempt to discredit the modern theory of evolution.

 

I'm curious as to what these ideas might be. I'm guessing that we're not talking about anything that exists in the creationist arsenal, since creationsim (i.e. ID) attempts to masquerade as science. So I can only assume you're coming from some sort of philosophical point of view, yes? Please tell me you're not talking about Plantiga though...

 

If they are non-scientific does that mean they are wrong? How do you know? What makes something a fact? What does it matter if there is overwhelming evidence in support of something when faith requires no proof?

 

Ok this is where we get into the philosophy of science and epistemolgy. First, no it does not mean that because something is non-scientific it must therefore be wrong. It depends what langauge-game we're dealing with. Non-scientific statements are simply meaningless in the language-game of science - they are neither right nor wrong. This means that they have to be evaluated by different standards. This applies to a lot of philosophy. Metaphysical statements are not amenable to scientific investigation, but they can still be evaluated in terms of internal and external coherence, logic, rationality, simplicity etc.

 

Of course, whether overwhelming evidence matters for you depends on whether or not you accept the notion of evidence to begin with. The problem is, however, that even the most faith-based individuals accept empirical evidence all the time. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that getting hit by a car travelling at 100 km/h is very likely to severely injure or kill you. Now, I suppose you could have faith that it simply won't be so for you, but should you choose to take this approach, most would consider you an idiot. They would tell you that you're wrong to think the laws of physics will treat you differently (do you think they'd be walking the fine line of discussion and oppression? hmm). Of course, the problem is, if you accept empirical evidence in some instances, how can you justify a choice to reject it in others? Unless you're ok with your belief system being judged as completely arbitrary that is; but if you are, then surely you must realize that you cannot demand any respect for your beliefs or expect that they'll be taken seriously in the public sphere.

 

I once had a very philosophically-informed friend who had very nuanced views of science, philosophy and religion (he actually considered himself a mystic with Hindu influences). His view, in short, was as follows:

 

1. If your beliefs contradict empirical science, then you've lost the game. Give up any hope of every being taken seriously, since if you allow blatant contradiciton of empirical evidence on the basis of faith, then there's nothing that can't be allowed. In short, you're willing to believe in anything.

 

2. If your beliefs contradict basic logic, same as above. (Note for instance, that no serious theologian believes God can do logically impossible things.)

 

3. If you have beliefs that are in accordance with science but are justified simply by personal mystical experience or faith, great. But don't expect these beliefs to carry any weight with anyone else. Such justifications are meaningless to anyone but you. Don't bother bringing them as justifications into the public sphere.

 

IF all religions and religious believers understood and adhered to these three basic points, I suspect that I'd have no problem with any of them. Of course, religion would also cease to have any influence beyond personal spiritual development.

 

On another note many atheists seem to condemn religion for their division of believers and non-believers, but isn't everyone capable of that? Isn't that what we all do when we are convinced of something but other people aren't?

 

I'm one of the atheists out there who doesn't believe that religion per se is the problem. Human stupidity, ideology and dogmatism are the problems. Religion, in most of its incarnations, is simply a reflection of that. I don't think that if religion went away tomorrow, suddely our woes would be gone. Something equally stupid would replace it.

 

But to answer your question, no it's not what we all do when we are convinced of something but other people aren't. The difference is in how we go about settling our disputes and the nature of justification that we use for our claims. If I claim that humans and chimps have a common ancestor, or that the globe is warming, I can defend these claims with empirical evidence, which is available to all. I can also tell you what evidence would make me renounce these claims. Opinions defended by empirical evidence carry weight precisely for this reason. Faith-baised justifications, on the other hand, are vacuous in the public sphere, for reasons I've already explained.

 

OK, I'll leave it at that.

 

Seneca

[Octavius]

Hmm we divide still, sometimes over stupid stuff (race, nationality), sometimes over legitimate stuff (economic policy). I guess for some reason, I thought the religious distinction was petty because I don't think a belief/faith is legitimate cause for argument and that we should only consider evidence/facts/figures. I guess that's where we differ in paradigms. But you're totally right about that, if it wasn't religion dividing people it would be communism vs. capitalism and that has slaughtered too many.

 

Whether faith is as legitimate as fact, I guess that is a debate in epistemology there. I think radioactive carbon dating that can be measured now and predicted now can be generalized to the past based on the mathematical functions characteristic to it. The fact that we test natural selection when we do experiments on bacterial conjugation, transformation, and tranduction is also evidence. Science gives us an objective platform from which to stand. If A then B, we must confirm that A is indeed true before infering that B may be true. That's what science does, it takes observable, agreed upon axioms and builds in a deductive manner, a priori in a sense. Faith...I can just throw anything out there, I've had a creationist tell me that god planted dinosaurs to deceive us!. To me it's the difference between reading a tabloid science article in popular tabloid literature vs. reading something peer review. In any case, I'm aware of the limitations of science, like the fact that we use a p value to determine causation, and that p values can be influenced by your alpha's and beta's.

 

On the subject of the patriarchalism. I think some beliefs need to be debunked for the good of social progress. Like the myth spread by tradiitional healers in Zimbabwe that ****ing virgins cures AIDS. Is it wrong to tell them they are off the wall on that one or should we respect their beliefs while child rape and molestations go up the roof? Where do draw the line in respecting someone's beliefs or correcting absurd and dangerous ignorance? Anyway the evolution thing isn't as serious because it doesn't really affect policy (thank you separation of church and state!)

 

AIDS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6076758.stm

 

Beliefs can have major implications to human life and human behaviour and wrong beliefs may incite wrong behaviour that could have been prevented with conventional education (if the knowledge is already there and confirmed to be true (aids is caused by an STV, why not let people benefit from it?) Anyway this has nothing to do with religion, but I'm illustrating that the patriarchal self righteous belief stomping attitude can be beneficial or even necessary in some cases. Might be reductionistic, but I'm trying to illustrate a point. But I do understand what you mean by that patriarchal attitude causing problems - I know North America has ****ed over the natives hardcore with those church-run internment schools that set out with the altruistic aim of 'civilizing' and 'assimilating' natives. All it ended up doing was breaking a culture with a sprinkle of sexual molestation and emotional/physical abuse. Where do you draw the line? As you said, fine line between oppression and discussion I guess.

http://archives.cbc.ca/society/education/topics/692/

 

We can agree that violence should have no place in civil society, or the infringement of personal rights...

[youngdad]

 

 

I beg to differ. I think there is a lot of ground yet to cover if one wants to move from telling someone that they are wrong to actually oppressing them. How else is one supposed to express disagreement? Mind you, it should be done in an intelligent way. Simply stating "you are wrong," may not be oppressive, but it sure is idiotic since it is a mere assertion and not an argument. But stating "I think you're wrong because of reasons X,Y,Z" - well that's just how one expresses disagreement and defends one's reasons for it. If you hold position A and I hold position B, then the reason I hold B as opposed to A is because I think A is wrong in some sense. It is, of course, your right to hold belief A, but do not expect any kind of respect for it if you cannot defend it; and be prepared to defend it if you ever want to bring it into the public sphere. Of course, all of this can (and should) be done in a respectful and peaceful manner. But all of this is lightyears away from oppresion. People have rights. Ideas/belief systems do not.

 

Very true.

 

I'm curious as to what these ideas might be. I'm guessing that we're not talking about anything that exists in the creationist arsenal, since creationsim (i.e. ID) attempts to masquerade as science. So I can only assume you're coming from some sort of philosophical point of view, yes? Please tell me you're not talking about Plantiga though...

 

I don't know what Plantiga is.

 

Ok this is where we get into the philosophy of science and epistemolgy. First, no it does not mean that because something is non-scientific it must therefore be wrong. It depends what langauge-game we're dealing with. Non-scientific statements are simply meaningless in the language-game of science - they are neither right nor wrong. This means that they have to be evaluated by different standards. This applies to a lot of philosophy. Metaphysical statements are not amenable to scientific investigation, but they can still be evaluated in terms of internal and external coherence, logic, rationality, simplicity etc.

 

Good stuff. Except how can one evaluate the validity of something that a person has faith in when it requires genuine faith to be understood. Many religious practices and teachings are coherent, logical, rational, and simple, but some just are not. But why would that make them less true?

 

Of course, whether overwhelming evidence matters for you depends on whether or not you accept the notion of evidence to begin with. The problem is, however, that even the most faith-based individuals accept empirical evidence all the time. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that getting hit by a car travelling at 100 km/h is very likely to severely injure or kill you. Now, I suppose you could have faith that it simply won't be so for you, but should you choose to take this approach, most would consider you an idiot. They would tell you that you're wrong to think the laws of physics will treat you differently (do you think they'd be walking the fine line of discussion and oppression? hmm). Of course, the problem is, if you accept empirical evidence in some instances, how can you justify a choice to reject it in others? Unless you're ok with your belief system being judged as completely arbitrary that is; but if you are, then surely you must realize that you cannot demand any respect for your beliefs or expect that they'll be taken seriously in the public sphere.

 

I don't believe that my system of beliefs is arbitrary. But I understand that from a public perspective it might look arbitrary. I get that: I can totally understand why all of religion looks arbitrary to a non-religious person. If I had not had the experiences that I have had in my life I probably wouldn't believe any of it.

I also understand that my beliefs will probably not be taken seriously in the public sphere or that I can demand any respect them. But this is not because I recognize the arbitrary nature of them. It is political unfortunately. If everyone in this country believed what I do then I would get respect in the public sphere. It seems what you are suggesting is that minority opinions of what is evidence shouldn't get respect or be taken seriously. Do you actually mean this?

The findings or the data in science are indisputable, but the meaning of the findings are always subject to opinion.

 

I once had a very philosophically-informed friend who had very nuanced views of science, philosophy and religion (he actually considered himself a mystic with Hindu influences). His view, in short, was as follows:

 

1. If your beliefs contradict empirical science, then you've lost the game. Give up any hope of every being taken seriously, since if you allow blatant contradiciton of empirical evidence on the basis of faith, then there's nothing that can't be allowed. In short, you're willing to believe in anything.

 

2. If your beliefs contradict basic logic, same as above. (Note for instance, that no serious theologian believes God can do logically impossible things.)

 

3. If you have beliefs that are in accordance with science but are justified simply by personal mystical experience or faith, great. But don't expect these beliefs to carry any weight with anyone else. Such justifications are meaningless to anyone but you. Don't bother bringing them as justifications into the public sphere.

 

IF all religions and religious believers understood and adhered to these three basic points, I suspect that I'd have no problem with any of them. Of course, religion would also cease to have any influence beyond personal spiritual development.

 

 

 

I'm one of the atheists out there who doesn't believe that religion per se is the problem. Human stupidity, ideology and dogmatism are the problems. Religion, in most of its incarnations, is simply a reflection of that. I don't think that if religion went away tomorrow, suddely our woes would be gone. Something equally stupid would replace it.

 

But to answer your question, no it's not what we all do when we are convinced of something but other people aren't. The difference is in how we go about settling our disputes and the nature of justification that we use for our claims. If I claim that humans and chimps have a common ancestor, or that the globe is warming, I can defend these claims with empirical evidence, which is available to all. I can also tell you what evidence would make me renounce these claims. Opinions defended by empirical evidence carry weight precisely for this reason. Faith-baised justifications, on the other hand, are vacuous in the public sphere, for reasons I've already explained.

 

The problem seems to be what is accepted as evidence and what the evidence means. I am involved in solid research and scientific study and have yet to encounter a scientific finding or principle that cannot fit into the context of my religious beliefs in some way.

 

OK, I'll leave it at that.

 

Seneca

 

edit: This post is hideous. Clearly I do not know how to do the multi-quote thing. Help?

edit: Thanks Law

[The Law]

Hi youngdad,

 

Your problem is the start of the quote is supposed to look like:

 

<---- THIS

 

[/qoute]<-----not like this (this is how to end the quote. Note I spelt quote wrong in the second one so that the tag didn't quote the word THIS lol).