quote:Originally posted by rollainm: But many intelligent people, theists and atheists alike, apparently believe it is impossible to know. I'd like to know how they justify that belief.
It depends on the god, and what the believers claim that the god can or cannot do.
Take it on a deity by deity basis.
Gotcha. Contradictions in specific definitions of what God is. Like those in Euthyphro.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: But many intelligent people, theists and atheists alike, apparently believe it is impossible to know. I'd like to know how they justify that belief.
From my perspective as an atheist I would say that if a God exists then it most likely does not interfere in the universe because such interference is not required to explain any modern phenomenon and would violate the laws of physics. However, I cannot reduce the theory any further than that. As it stands that theory can not be proven or disproven because a God that does not participate in our universe can clearly not be observed by any means.
I like that a lot. Pretty much what I think my gut was trying to tell me.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Now, if you want a really cool president of an atheist organization, check out Margaret Downey. Definitely not angry or inflammatory (at least I never found her to be), and a seriously delightful woman.
Man...I wish I could agree with you Javert. She really rubbed me the wrong way at the convention the other month. But I agree she's not at the same level as this other lady at all.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Now, if you want a really cool president of an atheist organization, check out Margaret Downey. Definitely not angry or inflammatory (at least I never found her to be), and a seriously delightful woman.
Man...I wish I could agree with you Javert. She really rubbed me the wrong way at the convention the other month. But I agree she's not at the same level as this other lady at all.
Well, only going on my limited experience with her. I also seem to be able to get along with and like a lot of people that rub others the wrong way. Not sure how that works, heh.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: If you don't know or don't think we can know there is a god, you're an agnostic.
That's me in a nutshell.
I don't know, and I don't think it's possible to know. I don't reject it out of hand and say "there is not" - but I don't have a specific god I can point to and say "there is".
There are too many parallel stories throughout the history of comparitive religion, from too disparate geographical areas, to say that all those stories are not rooted in something.
Do I think that any of the religions to date have figured out that "something"? No. Do I think we'll ever find out that "something"? Probably not, no.
I was raised Catholic and consider myself fully recovered. I delved into hardcore "there can be no god in a civilized, rational world" atheism and found it flat, then innoculated myself with about a year's worth of homebrewed wicca. I still have some fondness for the god/goddess dichotomy and the spiritual energy of nature, even though I don't believe in them, per se. They do still occupy a warm place in my heart, though - as do Ender, Frodo, etc.
I guess I still hold to the "And if it harm none, do as ye will" philosophy - but I also hold to "thou shalt not (murder)" without being Catholic anymore, either.
I don't reject the idea of a god, nor do I feel that just because something is unproven/unprovable that it automatically means it doesn't exist (e.g. love). I also don't embrace the idea of deity, nor do I feel that there just *has* to be a deity because of subjective evidence.
I don't know, and nothing in my life has moved me in one direction or the other.
I can empathize with moderates on both sides of the aisle, though extremists in either direction bother me (and I try to avoid them).
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So Threads, would you be closer to the Clockmaker Hypothesis of Deism? I toyed around with that for a while, too, actually.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: If you don't know or don't think we can know there is a god, you're an agnostic.
I don't absolutely know there is a god, but I have faith that there is and act accordingly (go to church, etc.) because that belief seems to fit the evidence the best. Does that make me agnostic or theist?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jhai, I don't think anything I said contradicts what you said. In other words, I think we're arguing past each other.
FC, I think your last post on page 5 and the post above describes well my feelings on the matter, specifically this part:
quote:I guess I believe that there is something unknown (unknowable?) that religion is trying its best to capture (poorly) in human terms. The scriptures are, to me, literature like any other historic text (not unlike Homer, I suppose) that touch on this idea.
I'm hesitant to label this something as a god, but I do think it's something worth pursuing. If nothing else, at least we learn more about ourselves in the process.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Yes, there is. This evidence may lack certain characteristics and this lack makes it extremely inconclusive, but there is plenty of evidence that can be used to make a case for the existence of a god. That case may not be strong or compelling, but that doesn't mean that no evidence exists.
---
As an aside, how many people got or expect to get formal training in epistemology?
It seems to me like it is this incredibly important subject that is largely neglected in our educational system.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Yes, there is. This evidence may lack certain characteristics and this lack makes it extremely inconclusive, but there is plenty of evidence that can be used to make a case for the existence of a god. That case may not be strong or compelling, but that doesn't mean that no evidence exists.
I'd have to agree. There's evidence. Just not good evidence, especially when you consider the extraordinary nature of the claims made.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Squicky, most people don't actually care about epistemology, and think that you're crazy when you tell them their argument has a logical fallacy in it.
They don't know that it is an automatic "loss" as far as an argument goes, and don't appreciate you saying it. The worst I ever had to deal with was when I caught my brother in one, and called him on it, and I was the one accused of not being compassionate...
(I'm not saying this is a good thing, but I don't know that teaching epistemology in schools would make it any better, the amount of willful ignorance in this world is staggering)
posted
That would depend on what qualifies as "good evidence" and what qualifies as "extraordinary". I would think that much of the evidence for god is pretty good (eyewitness accounts, personal experience, etc.) and that the claims made are somewhat extraordinary, but I really can't think of any explanations for our existence that aren't pretty extraordinary-sounding.
quote:As an aside, how many people got or expect to get formal training in epistemology?
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: That would depend on what qualifies as "good evidence" and what qualifies as "extraordinary". I would think that much of the evidence for god is pretty good (eyewitness accounts, personal experience, etc.) and that the claims made are somewhat extraordinary, but I really can't think of any explanations for our existence that aren't pretty extraordinary-sounding.
A great riff on evidence is in Carl Sagan's "The Dragon in my Garage", and I think it might apply to this conversation.
posted
I got epistemology - but I was a philosophy major. I don't think most people get the grounding they need in epistemology (or, really, philosophy in general). I'd be a lot happier if science majors had to take a philosophy of science course, all students had to take a REAL ethics course & a critical thinking/reading/writing/arguing course, etc. While I'm dreaming, lit majors should be exposed to some good old analytical philosophy, psychology and economics majors should have real stats courses, and comm majors shouldn't exist...
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And while we're at it, philosophy and religion majors should have to take at least one advanced math course.
I will never forget someone going on and on about "quantum mechanics means . . ." in a theology class and when I commented that I didn't think anyone should be allowed to talk about what quantum mechanics "means" unless they'd had at least one caluculus class and someone else asked, and I quote, "What does math have to do with quantum mechanics?" Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: If you don't know or don't think we can know there is a god, you're an agnostic.
I don't absolutely know there is a god, but I have faith that there is and act accordingly (go to church, etc.) because that belief seems to fit the evidence the best. Does that make me agnostic or theist?
Both. Theism/atheism says something about belief. Agnosticism says something about knowledge (or lack of knowledge) - hence the Greek root "gnosis". If you don't know, then you're agnostic. Period.
Of course, this likely describes all of us (obviously I can't know that no one knows), which makes the term pretty useless. But there you go.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
From my perspective as an atheist I would say that if a God exists then it most likely does not interfere in the universe because such interference is not required to explain any modern phenomenon and would violate the laws of physics.
I wonder if we should suspend judgment on this until we can examine the brain at a sufficiently detailed level to see whether the electrons, quarks, or whatnot are moving randomly or according to some "rational" pattern.
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
From my perspective as an atheist I would say that if a God exists then it most likely does not interfere in the universe because such interference is not required to explain any modern phenomenon and would violate the laws of physics.
I wonder if we should suspend judgment on this until we can examine the brain at a sufficiently detailed level to see whether the electrons, quarks, or whatnot are moving randomly or according to some "rational" pattern.
Of course. But while we suspend judgment, the default position is to not believe. If and when the evidence appears, then we can go ahead and believe.
quote:I wonder if we should suspend judgment on this until we can examine the brain at a sufficiently detailed level to see whether the electrons, quarks, or whatnot are moving randomly or according to some "rational" pattern.
What does it mean to suspend judgment? Do you start going to church every other Sunday? To paraphrase Dawkins, is God's existence a 50/50 proposition or is it reasonable to determine a probability greater or lower than that and act accordingly?
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: So Threads, would you be closer to the Clockmaker Hypothesis of Deism? I toyed around with that for a while, too, actually.
I don't believe it so I guess no. The Clockmaker Hypothesis is impossible to prove or disprove assuming we constrain ourselves to the natural universe so I don't find the theory terribly meaningful.
EDIT: By "contrain ourselves to the natural universe" I mean that the Clockmaker Hypothesis cannot be proven while we are alive. It can only be proven if it is true and there is an afterlife that would show that it is true. It cannot be proven or disproven while we live.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
From my perspective as an atheist I would say that if a God exists then it most likely does not interfere in the universe because such interference is not required to explain any modern phenomenon and would violate the laws of physics.
I wonder if we should suspend judgment on this until we can examine the brain at a sufficiently detailed level to see whether the electrons, quarks, or whatnot are moving randomly or according to some "rational" pattern.
The only reason to suspend judgement would be if we did not know enough. We do know that such interference would violate the laws of the universe that we think exist, so my initial claim is supported assuming that the existing theories are correct. For example, God could be interfering in the universe through so-called quantum randomness. However, this would violate the theory that quantum randomness is pure randomness. It is also dubious because such interference would probably be noticed in experiments that test quantum mechanics. The idea that God is able to manipulate the universe through quantum randomness while at the same time ensuring that the randomness appears random (ie: fits all statistical tests for randomness) is highly dubious.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:However, this would violate the theory that quantum randomness is pure randomness.
Also, while individual "events" are random, they are predictable in the aggregate, in the same way that you can predict that out of 100 coin tosses, you'll get pretty darn close to 50 heads.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:From my perspective as an atheist I would say that if a God exists then it most likely does not interfere in the universe because such interference is not required to explain any modern phenomenon and would violate the laws of physics.
That isn't how science works, though. If scientists discover a phenomenon that is inconsistent with the current understanding of the laws of physics, the scientists don't conclude "God must be doing it." Instead, they would alter the laws of physics so the new phenomenon is no longer inconsistent with it. They would revise the model. At worst, they'd have to add a new force, or table the phenomenon for future explanation.
The reason why God is not required in any scientific models is because the scientific method limits and defines itself in such a way that, by definition, it never needs God as an explanation. If God were the one making gravity happen, or making the Strong Force happen, or making neurons behave randomly, science by definition could not discover it.
quote:But while we suspend judgment, the default position is to not believe.
quote:You disagree? You think that, when we don't have enough evidence to prove something, we should go ahead and just believe it anyway?
I think hope sometimes plays a role in what a person's default position of belief is. Granted, hope isn't really the best reason to start believing in things, but it isn't always a bad thing either.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You think that, when we don't have enough evidence to prove something, we should go ahead and just believe it anyway?
I think that when there is absolutely no evidence to prove something exists, it is equally wise to believe either it does or does not exist - there is no default. And if there is some evidence, but not enough to prove something exists or does not exist, I think it is best to believe whichever thing seems more likely given the limited evidence you do have.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:You think that, when we don't have enough evidence to prove something, we should go ahead and just believe it anyway?
I think that when there is absolutely no evidence to prove something exists, it is equally wise to believe either it does or does not exist - there is no default.
You're wrong.
And I say that so absolutely because I am making the assumption that you don't believe in everything.
Concerning things that have no evidence for them, I would bet that you tend to not believe them, with the most notable exception being your religious beliefs.
And it is certainly not wise to go around believing things for which there is no evidence. There is no evidence that gravity will stop working if I take a step off this cliff. There is no evidence that leprechauns exist. There is no evidence that if I flap my arms I will acquire the proper lift to become airborne.
It is never wise to do believe something when you have no evidence for it. It might be neutral, but certainly not wise.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, and I will retract the statement.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:And I say that so absolutely because I am making the assumption that you don't believe in everything.
That's because almost everything has some sort of evidence that suggests either it does or does not exist.
For example, the evidence that gravity will keep working is the fact that it has always kept working in the past, and the fact that I believe the future will be like the past. The evidence that leprechauns don't exist is that, as I understand it, they are supposed to have magic powers that would contradict laws of science I believe in. The evidence that flapping my arms won't make me fly is that it would also violate laws of physics I believe in.
None of the above proves anything. But it is evidence - and evidence, even slight evidence, tips the scale.
quote:It is never wise to do believe something when you have no evidence for it. It might be neutral, but certainly not wise.
Do you believe the world will exist tomorrow?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:From my perspective as an atheist I would say that if a God exists then it most likely does not interfere in the universe because such interference is not required to explain any modern phenomenon and would violate the laws of physics.
That isn't how science works, though. If scientists discover a phenomenon that is inconsistent with the current understanding of the laws of physics, the scientists don't conclude "God must be doing it." Instead, they would alter the laws of physics so the new phenomenon is no longer inconsistent with it. They would revise the model. At worst, they'd have to add a new force, or table the phenomenon for future explanation.
The reason why God is not required in any scientific models is because the scientific method limits and defines itself in such a way that, by definition, it never needs God as an explanation. If God were the one making gravity happen, or making the Strong Force happen, or making neurons behave randomly, science by definition could not discover it.
Your last statement is correct but I'm not sure how it's meaningful. If God were doing such things it would be impossible for us to show (aside from God literally telling us or something like that).
Also, remember that science is about disproving theories, not proving them. Theories gain credibility as attempts to disprove them fail. For example, when testing the laws of physics scientists are not looking for examples that support them but rather examples that break them.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:And I say that so absolutely because I am making the assumption that you don't believe in everything.
That's because almost everything has some sort of evidence that suggests either it does or does not exist.
For example, the evidence that gravity will keep working is the fact that it has always kept working in the past, and the fact that I believe the future will be like the past. The evidence that leprechauns don't exist is that, as I understand it, they are supposed to have magic powers that would contradict laws of science I believe in. The evidence that flapping my arms won't make me fly is that it would also violate laws of physics I believe in.
None of the above is proof of anything. But it is evidence - and evidence, even slight evidence, tips the scale.
quote:It is never wise to do believe something when you have no evidence for it. It might be neutral, but certainly not wise.
Do you believe the world will exist tomorrow?
But with your stance, and given the assumption that you believe in a God outside of the known natural universe, you'll still end up believing in an infinite number of things, all of which exist outside the known natural universe. That doesn't sound like a very satisfying epistemological system.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is never wise to do believe something when you have no evidence for it. It might be neutral, but certainly not wise.
Do you believe the world will exist tomorrow?
Yes and I have tons of evidence to support that belief. The only events we know of that could destroy the earth before tomorrow would be freak cosmological disasters that, given existing evidence, have a near zero probability of occuring ("near zero" as in zero for all intents and purposes).
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Harry Potter books are compelling evidence that with enough practice, I'll be able to fly on a broom. I'm still trying, but once day I'll make it.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seems like Tres thinks it is equally wise to believe the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists as it is to believe it doesn't exist - seeing as there is an absence of evidence, and all. Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The reason why God is not required in any scientific models is because the scientific method limits and defines itself in such a way that, by definition, it never needs God as an explanation. If God were the one making gravity happen, or making the Strong Force happen, or making neurons behave randomly, science by definition could not discover it.
This only works with constant forces or "random" events with a predictable distribution. If God is just a value or a formula, then what's the point of calling it "God" instead of just writing down that value or formula?
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:But with your stance, and given the assumption that you believe in a God outside of the known natural universe, you'll still end up believing in an infinite number of things, all of which exist outside the known natural universe. That doesn't sound like a very satisfying epistemological system.
Actually, it would be more accurate to say that with my stance, I believe there are an infinite number of potential things outside the known universe for which it is equally reasonable for me to believe they exist as it is for me to believe they don't exist. I don't see why that is problem, since all of those things (being outside the known universe) don't effect me in any way. To tell you the truth, I don't even think about them. I have no reason to doubt that there might be an infinite number of other universes out there with all sorts of bizarre things going on, but because they impact me in no way, they don't even cross my mind - I don't really hold any beliefs one way or another about them.
quote:Seems like Tres thinks it is equally wise to believe the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists as it is to believe it doesn't exist - seeing as there is an absence of evidence, and all.
Do you have a reason why I should think otherwise? Is there a reason to think someone who believes in an Invisible Pink Unicorn that effects nothing and leaves no evidence behind is going to suffer in some way that people who don't believe in such a thing would not?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
Mild agnosticism — the view that the existence or nonexistence of God or gods is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until/if more evidence is available. A mild agnostic would say "I don't know, but maybe you do."
This term/definition describes my beliefs best. I personally reject any claim of absolute truth, including the popular agnostic belief that we'll NEVER know the answer. That in itself is claiming certainty of something.
I don't know if God exists or not, but I might know someday. I won't say it's impossible for us to ever find out. How can I know the future?
Posts: 349 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Saephon: From Wikipedia:
Mild agnosticism — the view that the existence or nonexistence of God or gods is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until/if more evidence is available. A mild agnostic would say "I don't know, but maybe you do."
This term/definition describes my beliefs best. I personally reject any claim of absolute truth, including the popular agnostic belief that we'll NEVER know the answer. That in itself is claiming certainty of something.
I don't know if God exists or not, but I might know someday. I won't say it's impossible for us to ever find out. How can I know the future?
Now, would you say that you believe in a god, or don't believe in a god?
Sorry...I'm harassing the agnostics, aren't I? Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is actually interesting to me, Javert.
Say the question was: "Do you believe you will be alive at the age of 90?"
I could say yes, though that could be seen by some as being optimistic.
I could say no, though that could be seen by some as being pessimistic.
I could say that based on my health and family history that there is a statistical likelihood that I will not, but that is by no means a belief one way or the other but more of an educated guess that ignores a great many significant factors.
Or I could simply say that I don't know, and I don't feel it is possible to know. I could even add the "right now" modifier, leading one to believe that I could have some experiencee (living to 90, or dying prior) that would answer the question for me. (though, with something like the existence of a god, that answer may need to come after death... in which case there's a definite likelihood that there could be no answer at all, anyway).
I could say I "hope" to be alive at 90, too, but that's not belief but instead just a wish - something that would be nice.
So, with the "Do you believe in a god or not believe in a god?" question, (which, by the way, ignores concepts such as "gods" or "enlightened spirits" or other non-deity, or demi-deity entities), I can say two things:
1. I don't know 2. I hope there's something beyond what I have experienced within a rigid scientific world - be it a deity or otherwise - because that would be kind of neat to see/experience.
I'm not really compelled to believe or to not believe. Quite frankly, I don't give the idea of deity (or lack thereof) much thought most days.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: This is actually interesting to me, Javert.
Say the question was: "Do you believe you will be alive at the age of 90?"
I could say yes, though that could be seen by some as being optimistic.
I could say no, though that could be seen by some as being pessimistic.
I could say that based on my health and family history that there is a statistical likelihood that I will not, but that is by no means a belief one way or the other but more of an educated guess that ignores a great many significant factors.
Or I could simply say that I don't know, and I don't feel it is possible to know. I could even add the "right now" modifier, leading one to believe that I could have some experiencee (living to 90, or dying prior) that would answer the question for me. (though, with something like the existence of a god, that answer may need to come after death... in which case there's a definite likelihood that there could be no answer at all, anyway).
I could say I "hope" to be alive at 90, too, but that's not belief but instead just a wish - something that would be nice.
So, with the "Do you believe in a god or not believe in a god?" question, (which, by the way, ignores concepts such as "gods" or "enlightened spirits" or other non-deity, or demi-deity entities), I can say two things:
1. I don't know 2. I hope there's something beyond what I have experienced within a rigid scientific world - be it a deity or otherwise - because that would be kind of neat to see/experience.
I'm not really compelled to believe or to not believe. Quite frankly, I don't give the idea of deity (or lack thereof) much thought most days.
My issue is that you're not answering the question that is being asked.
If I ask you if a god, or gods, or the supernatural exists, saying that you don't know is an answer.
However, I'm not asking that. I'm asking what you believe. And my argument is that, if you don't actively believe in any of those things, it means you don't believe in any of those things. So, by definition, you would be an atheist.
Unless you actually claim to not know what you believe, which I would find confusing but not necessarily impossible.
I'm not saying you're not an agnostic. I'm just saying that saying you're an agnostic is not an answer to the question I asked.
But if you just don't want to be called an atheist, I can respect that. Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:What possible reason (or justice or fairness) can there by for a perfect and loving God to play hide and seek with humanity? It is predictable, even to an imperfect human mind, that large numbers of people would go looking in the wrong places. Why would not a God, of the type advanced in most of the major religions, simply address us each, personally, tell us the major moral truths, and judge us based upon whether we follow what we would thus know rather than on our imperfect speculation?
posted
I think part of the difficulty in this discussion is that everyone has slightly different definitions of atheism and agnosticism from one another.
If we apply a category system that is slightly more robust like:
quote: 1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.' 2. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.' 3. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.' 4. Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.' 5. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be sceptical.' 6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.' 7. Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung "knows" there is one.'
Dawkins notes that he would be "surprised to meet many people in category 7". Dawkins calls himself "about a 6.8."
Then I would be in category 6. Going through the last two pages quickly, I would guess (and these are really guesses, I don't mind being corrected): Javert is in category 6. FlyingCow is probably in category 5. Tresopax is probably in category 2.
Off the top of my head, I do not think there are any category 7s around.
An example of a category 1 may be Tatiana in the first page of "Do you believe in an afterlife?" when se says that she believes in the afterlife as she believes in Puerto Rico (assuming she believes in God as fervently as she believes in the afterlife).
I'm scratching my head for examples of 3 and 4, unless FlyingCow is actually in category 4 and not 5.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
As have I.
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
