posted
Eh. If you'd read anything but the apologetics, you'd be aware of the flaws in that argument. To wit: Either morals exist independently of human invention, or they do not. If they exist independently, then there is no need for a god to enforce them. If they do not exist independently, then your god poofing them into existence is just more of the good old Might Makes Right, and we can do just as well on our own. Either way, your appeal to consequences, which anyway is a logical fallacy, falls on its face.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Rash, Like KoM and Libbie have said, there is enlightened self-interest. Morality isn't valuable instrinsically - it's valuable because it facilitates smooth, productive happy lives on earth. What other purpose could there be for a morality? Why should I live for anything else?
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey King of Men, just so you don't waste your time, when I see your name I don't bother reading what you wrote.
I know that's what atheists believe, Euripides, but I've been making the argument that that doesn't make any sense. You are basically just repeating the argument I am trying to refute.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
A very common tactic in people without the courage to defend their convictions with argument.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, I read that. It was short enough that I couldn't help it. I think I've been defending my convictions just fine so far. And since I just went up to see what you wrote a minute ago, which I shouldn't have, I think it's obvious to everyone that I've read much more than apologetics. So if all you're here to do is instigate bad feelings, why don't you just go away? Libby and I are having a very nice and I daresay constructive debate. You just want to start trouble.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And yet you are apparently not aware of the most elementary counterarguments for your assertions. Tell you what, I'm prepared to start over if you are. You come up with a response to my post at the top of the page, and I won't make any more disparaging references to your ignorance.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: If so, then can you please demonstrate that it is false?
To you? No. Because I know you've done your own reading on this one, and are perfectly capable of doing more.
Tom, if you can't demonstrate that something is false or you aren't willing to for whatever reason, then it is meaningless for you to say that thing is demonstrably false - and intellectually dishonest to use that as a tactic in an argument. I point this out because you frequently make claims that you can prove things, but then fail to back it up with a proof when asked, always with some excuse. While I understand you may not want to take the time and effort it takes to prove what you think you can prove, that doesn't mean you can simply claim something is demonstrably false without actually demonstrating it false. It would be behaviors like that which could lead people to believe atheists are condescending - dismissing views as disproven with a wave of the hand, rather than a reason. (Except for the fact that plenty of theists do the exact same thing, or make similarly unfair dismissals, as Reshpeckobiggle did to KoM a few posts above this one.)
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not dismissing him. I'm ignoring him. Have you seen what he is posting? He just wants to start a fight.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually you're talking at different sides of the wall. Reading the posts here I don't think it's possible to actually discuss the matter because, according to his post on the previous page, to Resh any sort of morality assigned by humans for the benefit of humans is not "true existence" and therefore immediately dismissable.
There's an elegant bit of circular reasoning tucked away in there. Any morals not coming from God aren't morals, because they didn't come from God. God is part of the definition of "moral," which explains a lot of the confusion. We're not using the same words to mean the same things.
Since I do not believe the universe or anything in it has a purpose beyond survival or the purposes we ourselves assign, there's little point going on unless we can find a translator...
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
How does a being outside of time interact with a world inside of time?
I imagine (read, have a usefull analogy) of dimensions. As a three dimensional person would deal with a "two dimensional" picture. Only more.
I find that a particularly interesting analogy, since two dimensional spaces are not really "real" to us. You can't pick up a line. You can't draw a point. They're theoretical. We can only really interact with representations of two dimensional space. At best, we can only think about and discuss true two dimensional objects.
That's part of the reason I don't understand how God can be outside of time. How can something outside of time truly interact with something inside of time? It makes a much sense to me as a person picking up a line segment and putting it in her back pocket. Perhaps God can only think about us, and we can only think about God.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Reading the posts here I don't think it's possible to actually discuss the matter because, according to his post on the previous page, to Resh any sort of morality assigned by humans for the benefit of humans is not "true existence" and therefore immediately dismissable.
There's an elegant bit of circular reasoning tucked away in there. Any morals not coming from God aren't morals, because they didn't come from God. God is part of the definition of "moral," which explains a lot of the confusion. We're not using the same words to mean the same things.
That is not circular reasoning, because saying "morals assigned by humans aren't really morals" is NOT the same thing as saying that "morals not assigned by God aren't really morals." The reasoning given was this:
1. Morals assigned by humans aren't really morals 2. Under atheism, morality could only come from human beings, or a natural order of might makes right 3. Therefore, atheism by itself either leads to no actual morality, or a morality of might makes right
You could obviously question premise 1 or premise 2. But isn't it true that a morality arbitrarily assigned by human beings is not really a morality? If I decided that for me it will be moral to kill people and commit terrorist acts, does that mean it actually IS moral for me to kill people and commit terrorist acts? I know some relativists will bite that bullet and claim it is true, but I cannot agree. I think things that are wrong are wrong even if you and your society think they are right. I think slavery was wrong, even if most Americans at the time thought it was right. I think the genocide committed by Nazis was wrong, no matter how many Nazis there were who wanted to define it as right. I don't think these things simply became wrong because we arbitrarily decided to make it so at some later date.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:And reason can't be a reason for itself, no matter how much you wish it could be. This was established a long time ago by Thomas Aquinas, that an effect cannot be the cause of itself, unless it is The First Cause.
Let me add Aquinas to the list of people who are given more credit for being "intelligent" than they deserve. The guy was bright, but some of his arguments -- like the First Cause argument -- are nonsensical.
And if you dispute that, stop for a second and wonder "what caused God?" Did God not have a cause? If God didn't have a cause, doesn't that mean that not everything needs a cause? Are you simply defining "god" as "something that doesn't need a first cause?"
Resh, what you fail to understand here is that you started out in this thread by insulting not only atheists but atheism in general with statements that are easily proven false -- and your defense for those claims so far has been merely a middle-schooler's understanding of basic theological apologia. Believe me, every single atheist -- and agnostic -- who's posted in this thread is aware of your sources and has found them unconvincing.
quote:Tom, if you can't demonstrate that something is false or you aren't willing to for whatever reason, then it is meaningless for you to say that thing is demonstrably false - and intellectually dishonest to use that as a tactic in an argument. I point this out because you frequently make claims that you can prove things, but then fail to back it up with a proof when asked, always with some excuse.
I do this to YOU nowadays, Tres, because I find you tiresome and didactic and have observed in you a tendency to dismiss any argument you don't understand by simply revising your first principles and redefining terms. You're confrontational, condescending, and absolutely tireless in your determination to spin words until the other person wanders away, sighing and shaking his head. If Resh had said he were interested, I'd've elaborated on his behalf; I will not waste further time reiterating arguments you've already chosen to ignore.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Religion is hatrack's own personal Disaster Train™
Every time it comes up as subject or thread or tangent, everyone's hopping on board and saying "Oh, I sure do wonder if we all crash and die again!"
and then oh no here it comes the terrible grinding steel and sophistry and condescention and flying bodies and fire and semantics and i just can't take my eyes off of the carnage oh god
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I do this to YOU nowadays, Tres, because I find you tiresome and didactic and have observed in you a tendency to dismiss any argument you don't understand by simply revising your first principles and redefining terms. You're confrontational, condescending, and absolutely tireless in your determination to spin words until the other person wanders away, sighing and shaking his head. If Resh had said he were interested, I'd've elaborated on his behalf; I will not waste further time reiterating arguments you've already chosen to ignore.
Firstly, you are being a bit unfair to me. How you "find me" is not how I actually am, except perhaps for the confrontational part, which is a valid complaint. I know I am sometimes "found" this way by some who don't want to question the assumptions I tend to try to force them to question; it often requires them to step entirely out of the viewpoint from which their opinions are grounded, and they typically seem to see little value in that. They think it is some kind of trick, which it is not. I've noticed that when I take widely accepted positions, the same style of argument gets a lot of positive responses. The difference always seems to be what I'm challenging, rather than how I am going about challenging it. I'm not usually surprised, for instance, when most atheists dislike my defense of a guy who is basically attacking atheism.
Secondly, you don't just do this to me. You do it to many people on many topics. And, of course, many other people do similar things. Frankly, whether or not you feel like it is a waste of time, it is only fair in a discussion on religion to backup the claims you state you can prove. I'm probably going to keep complaining if you or other people consistently refuse to back up the things they claim are proven, because that's just sophistry. I think Hatrack can do, and has done better than that. Karl Rove-ish tactics should not be allowed here. If it is just an opinion you have, then just say it is your opinion. But if you tell someone their opinion has been proven wrong, thus implying they are ignorant, then you owe it to them to explain why if they don't see why.
Thirdly, Resh DID challenge the same claim that I did, including in the post immediately after mine. He just didn't ask you as directly as I did. You still have not backed it up, although other people have given their own viewpoints on the matter. As for me, I'm on the fence. I'm not convinced that morality could arise purely within atheism, although I'm not convinced it couldn't either.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think we're in the same boat here, Tresopax.
I don't care what you or King of Men think, Tom. You're just a couple of know-it-all's who like to call people who disagree with you ignorant ---including histotrically recognized geniuses! So at least I'm in good company. I believe I've been consistent in my arguments, and I think I've actually made arguments, unlike you two. If Libby or Boothby or any of the others who can be respectful and can debate me honestly I will be more than happy to engage, but I have nothing to say to either of you and I would prefer you don't talk to me.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, we're not in exactly the same boat then, because I do care what Tom or KoM think. Otherwise, I probably wouldn't care about getting either of them to explain what they think.
And I also disagree with my fair share of historically recognized geniuses.... Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"But isn't it true that a morality arbitrarily assigned by human beings is not really a morality?"
Even if I remove God from the equation, it still remains that we are at an impasse. I do not believe in an objective morality and for those who do, nothing I could say would be convincing. So the question of how there can be morality without religion can't be answered in any way that would satisfy all of us. In the eyes of a believer in objective morality, anything I can say will be explained as self-delusion.
In the unordered, unpurposeful universe in which we find ourselves, the only morality (I believe) is what we create. And yes, that can be inconsistent and unreliable but then I'm not there's been a religion yet that wasn't inconsistent with its own commandments (to borrow your example, check Leviticus 25:44-46 on instructions on proper slave acquisition, suggesting that that particular example has not been an absolute one).
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Considering there's a historically recognized genius holding nearly every viewpoint available, I shouldn't think disagreeing with some subset of historically recognized geniuses would be problematic. Or if I can find a historical genius who agrees with a viewpoint will you automatically agree with it, Resh?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I believe I've been consistent in my arguments, and I think I've actually made arguments, unlike you two.
That's part of the problem, Resh. You believe you HAVE made arguments and insist that this is the case, to the extent that you feel insulted when people observe that, as a matter of fact, you have not. You haven't made any arguments to support your broad claims; you've tossed out the names of some famous people who've voiced their opinions on this issue and claimed to have a great deal of anecdotal evidence, but that's where it's stopped.
As I've said, I'm unconvinced that you're interested in actual conversation on the topic; your attempts to avoid engagement make that seem unlikely to me. But good job putting on your cloak of impenetrable outrage, all the same.
--------
For the record, BTW, I haven't called C.S. Lewis ignorant. I've strongly implied that he's been occasionally illogical. (I do think both Augustine and Aquinas were ignorant; I believe they would have prospered in a modern setting, had more evolved traditions of logic and rational argument existed for them to draw upon. Their essays suffer from the flaws of their era, in the same way that Newton's philosophies did.)
--------
quote:Frankly, whether or not you feel like it is a waste of time, it is only fair in a discussion on religion to backup the claims you state you can prove.
*sigh* For one thing, I'm almost certain Resh is a completely self-contained troll. For another thing, I'm absolutely certain that you've already made up your own mind on the topic and are familiar with most of the arguments I would make, and am completely certain that this conversation would devolve, as anything philosophical with you devolves, into semantics.
I strongly suspect, for example, that your definition of "religion" is going to come into play very quickly.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's worth noting that "apologist," in this context, isn't an insult. I don't believe Tom intended it to be insulting, but that may be where Resh got the impression that Tom was disdainful of Lewis, for example, because modern colloquial usage is often pejorative. The Wikipedia article is a reasonable summary.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:If Libby or Boothby or any of the others who can be respectful and can debate me honestly I will be more than happy to engage, but I have nothing to say to either of you and I would prefer you don't talk to me.
Your problem is that people are debating you honestly, but when they pose a question that you can't or don't want to answer, you cry foul and say, "He just wants to start a fight."
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: [QUOTE] Are you simply defining "god" as "something that doesn't need a first cause?"
As should be clear by now, we can't "simply" define God. But, yes, that is part of the definition of God.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Lines and points are one-dimensional, not two. A sheet of paper is (essentially) two-dimensional, and we certainly can act upon it.
Have you read Flatland?
I can accept a God who is "real" the same way that a piece of paper is "two dimensional."
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
My paper analogy is nothing more than a useful aid to my imagination in trying to imagine something that is beyond my comprehension. It isn't meant as a scientifically accurate model.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Lines and points are one-dimensional, not two. A sheet of paper is (essentially) two-dimensional, and we certainly can act upon it.
Have you read Flatland?
I can accept a God who is "real" the same way that a piece of paper is "two dimensional."
Actually, you and I are the ones who are two-dimensional.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Hey King of Men, just so you don't waste your time, when I see your name I don't bother reading what you wrote.
I know that's what atheists believe, Euripides, but I've been making the argument that that doesn't make any sense. You are basically just repeating the argument I am trying to refute.
But it makes perfect sense to us. So why should you worry about it?
Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't quite figure out if you're being sarcastic, there, Libbie; so I think I'll just say that I accept your tribute in the spirit in which it was given. Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: We're not using the same words to mean the same things.
Right. I tried explaining this to him in another post, and he shot that down, even though it's patently true. So I opted to stop responding to him altogether. There's no point in getting hauled into another pointless "you're wrong because I say you are" discussion about atheism/theism. I'm happy to discuss if all sides are willing to respect what the others say, but constantly having circular logic thrown into our faces kind of precludes that.
So much for that! By the way, I still believe in macroevolution, Resh, because it's a RIDICULOUSLY simple concept to grasp. Actually, the moment I understood macroevolution was the moment I stopped being religious.
quote:Since I do not believe the universe or anything in it has a purpose beyond survival or the purposes we ourselves assign, there's little point going on unless we can find a translator...
Hear, hear. End of discussion for me! Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I can't quite figure out if you're being sarcastic, there, Libbie; so I think I'll just say that I accept your tribute in the spirit in which it was given.
No, not remotely sarcastic. I loved that comment.
Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Religion is hatrack's own personal Disaster Train™
Every time it comes up as subject or thread or tangent, everyone's hopping on board and saying "Oh, I sure do wonder if we all crash and die again!"
and then oh no here it comes the terrible grinding steel and sophistry and condescention and flying bodies and fire and semantics and i just can't take my eyes off of the carnage oh god
HAHAHHA! I love you.
Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:If Libby or Boothby or any of the others who can be respectful and can debate me honestly I will be more than happy to engage, but I have nothing to say to either of you and I would prefer you don't talk to me.
Your problem is that people are debating you honestly, but when they pose a question that you can't or don't want to answer, you cry foul and say, "He just wants to start a fight."
Frankly, I'm surprised at his putting me into the "respectful" arena. I'm afraid I've been less respectful to Resh in this thread than I ever have to anybody else with whom I've had a similar discussion. The sarcasm has flowed heavily from my keyboard these past 24 hours. Probably because I have shingles right now, or something.
Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: My paper analogy is nothing more than a useful aid to my imagination in trying to imagine something that is beyond my comprehension. It isn't meant as a scientifically accurate model.
I don't expect it to be a scientifically accurate model. If I cannot make sense of a person, who exists in three dimensions, interacting in a meaningful way with something which exists in one or two dimensions, then the analogy makes it equally difficult for me to imagine a being out of time, interacting with things within time.
How do non-corporeal things influence corporeal things? What sort of energy transfer needs to take place? How does a non-temporal thing influence a temporal thing? The more we insist that God is such a being that it is wholly different from us, the more difficult I find it to comprehend how such a being can interact with us, or us with it.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Comprehend" is a term that I find oxymoronic when discussing God. Perhaps God can be both inside and outside of time. At the same time. Perhaps it is that time itself means something different when not incarnate.
And, I think, another stumbling block is thinking of God as "a being". While that is helpful in dealing with the relationship aspect of God, it is limiting.
At any rate, comprehension is not necessary for belief.
And I find that the most practical way to interact with God is to interact with the Holy Spirit - that aspect of God that is present iin other people.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: And as for the meaning and virtue you describe, I think that the place you say you find them is the shallows of an ocean of meaning. This is not to say you are shallow. Just that if you look at why that meaning and virtue exists, you must go a bit deeper, which will raise new questions which take you ever deeper. The idea that at the deepest level there is nothing but random occurences.. it just doesn't make any sense once you get there.
I'm coming back into this late and several others have responded to this better than I'm likely to, but I'll give you my take anyways.
I think it's very easy to mystify the unknown. If we can't completely understand something it feels deeper and more meaningful. One of the hardest classes I've ever taken was a basic neurophysiology course. Everything seemed so complex which made it seem somehow bigger and more important than other classes I had. But gradually I began to understand it a little bit and it seemed a bit less grandoise and a bit more like the practical way things are. Were I to take several more classes in the subject, I have no doubt that it would eventually become routine and the awe that I associated with it would lessen.
I think that trying to discern God's will can similarly feel deep and meaningful largely because you can't completely understand it. I suspect the reason that you find my meaning less deep is because it is very easy to understand. But I do not think this is valid. I find my own meaning more meaningful because of its unquestionable reality. A hazy view of God's will can not bring me the same level of satisfaction as making a sad person smile, recieving a hug from someone I love, or accomplishing something that I've put a lot of effort and thought into. These things may have become routine and less awe inspiring to you. The bigger unknown may seem more rewarding to you. That is your choice. But my method of thinking does make sense and it has plenty of depth if you're willing to see it.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer: A hazy view of God's will can not bring me the same level of satisfaction as making a sad person smile, recieving a hug from someone I love, or accomplishing something that I've put a lot of effort and thought into.
Those things (for me) are not separate things.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:How do non-corporeal things influence corporeal things? What sort of energy transfer needs to take place? How does a non-temporal thing influence a temporal thing? The more we insist that God is such a being that it is wholly different from us, the more difficult I find it to comprehend how such a being can interact with us, or us with it.
You do realise that this is just kmb saying "I'm going to believe this far-out stuff anyway, but these are some nice smokey words to disguise my total lack of reasons for doing so", right? When people begin to say things like "We cannot possibly understand this", and apparently think that this is a reason for believing in its truth, I think it's time to be getting out of the discussion.
Or, as one might say, "When I hear the phrase 'outside of time', I reach for my pistol." Not, you understand, that this is a comparison I enjoy inviting, but it is the only possible response to argument from meaningless words. If people won't stick to the rational, then ultimately there is nothing to do except outdo them in irrationality. And this, by the way, is precisely the reason I get so frustrated when kmb and her ilk say "I choose to believe" without offering any other reason. To abandon rational argument is to invite arbitration by the gun.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Those things (for me) are not separate things.
I think I see what you're saying. Perhaps I should rephrase it to "A hazy view of God's will does not enhance the satisfaction I recieve from making a sad person smile, recieving a hug from someone I love, or accomplishing something that I've put a lot of effort and thought into."
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
Um, no, it doesn't, actually. There are two ways to convince someone of the truth of some factual claim : One is by offering evidence, the other is by appeal to the irrational. "I choose to believe" is exactly as irrational as "Bang, you're dead, so I was right all along." It may possibly be less evil, but that's a separate discussion.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Um, no, it doesn't, actually. There are two ways to convince someone of the truth of some factual claim : One is by offering evidence, the other is by appeal to the irrational. "I choose to believe" is exactly as irrational as "Bang, you're dead, so I was right all along."
I don't entirely disagree. But I think that at root everybody chooses to believe whatever they believe because of irrational reasons. I choose to wake up every morning because I feel that life is worth living. If I were to set up some sort of emprical experiment weighing the amount of pain I receive from life and the amount of joy I receive from life, the results would make no impact on my decision to believe that life is worth living. I think that in every person's philosophy/values, underneath the layer of reasons for thinking as they do, eventually you will get to "I choose to believe".
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, no, no! I'm not talking about moral or preferential choices, such as a choice to live. I agree that in these cases there's nothing except "I just feel like it", in the final analysis. I'm talking about claims of fact, such as "God exists". I've made this distinction in three or four threads now, but it doesn't seem to sink in.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What, in your way of thinking, is the difference in rationality between believing that life has value and believing that there is a creator of the universe? (I'm sorry if this is repetitive. I probably missed the other posts.)
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
One is a claim of fact. The other is a personal preference. It's the same as the difference between "In summer the sky tends to be cloudless" and "I like sunny days".
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
kmbboots, I'm not sure if that was directed at me or KOM. If at me, I agree. It just seemed like KOM already accepted that as a personal preference so it seemed unnecessary to assert it.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Actually, you and I are the ones who are two-dimensional.
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
By the way, I still believe in macroevolution, Resh, because it's a RIDICULOUSLY simple concept to grasp. ![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
Actually, the moment I understood macroevolution was the moment I stopped being religious. ![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
