You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Belief and faith in something is inherent.
if you mean "in something divine" then its clearly not. Its not an essential quality of what makes us human. If you mean my faith that Einsteins sums are right then that is simply not comparable because there is proof for them.
Belief and faith in something is inherent
As with many of these things it's quite hard to carry out the necessary experiments to prove or disprove this statement. Even harder to carry them out ethically. In particular, it's very difficult to tell what is inherent and what is simply imposed. It's pretty unusual for someone in a Christian community to to grow up Jewish, or Zoroastrian, for instance, which you might expect to happen if it was inherent. But people seem to end up believing in the god that was popular where they grew up - funny that.
But people seem to end up believing in the god that was popular where they grew up – funny that.
No, it's obvious that people who want to believe in *something* will believe in what they are presented with.
As with many of these things it’s quite hard to carry out the necessary experiments to prove or disprove this statement.
Exactly, that's why I said waaay back there that it's prosaic. The argument always boils down to it being unprovable, and it ends up being a dick waving contest where militant atheists try and show how much cleverer they are than believers and get all cocky.
I have not read all threads (trying to solve a life long problem at the moment) but in my experience as Buddhist (not a good one) is to understand the teaching of the Buddha but walk the path your/myself. Buddha taught us to walk the path ourselves and rely on ourselves. Be brave and have courage to walk the path ourselves. Take responsibility of own decision and actions and whatever consequences good or bad that associated with your decision/actions. i.e. DO NOT rely on anyone else NOT even deities or whatever fairies or unicorns. Rely on yourself and the teaching i.e. the ones that make sense to you.
Make your own decision. Separate respect from logic. You can respect someone but if their logic does not fit you just reject them. Whatever consequences is bear by yourself. At least you know what you have done and learn from the mistake. If your decision is made by someone else because you respect them then you are a fool ... just like me. As a result I have suffered for many years because I respected someone else decision without questioning. I learned a very hard lesson. Don't be a fool like me.
Question ALL of them. If they cannot provide you a logical answer they are NOT worth listening to. Walk away and experience it yourself. There are simply too much bullc**p in the world.
and it ends up being a dick waving contest where militant atheists try and show how much cleverer they are than believers and get all cocky.
And yet you are the one making very clear statements up until the point you are challenged and have to walk them back.
Odd how the others are the cocky ones eh?
The argument always boils down to it being unprovable, and it ends up being a dick waving contest where militant atheists try and show how much cleverer they are than believers and get all cocky.
The burdon of proof is those who claim the existence of gods. You cannot prove the absence of a god
Just as you cannot prove the existence of a god. Not everything has to be proved though does it.
The burdon of proof is those who claim the existence of gods. You cannot prove the absence of a god
Yeah, you can't really prove or disprove it, which is what I said pages back, so it's a bit pointless arguing about it isn't it?
so it’s a bit pointless arguing about it isn’t it?
Depends if the people are wanting to say that this god which cant be proven has been handing out instructions.
Sure a noninterventionist god cant be disproved but also doesnt give a lot for religions to work with. Although admittedly Christian Deism, for example, tries but even there ends up being more of a philosophy.
Yeah, you can’t really prove or disprove it, which is what I said pages back, so it’s a bit pointless arguing about it isn’t it?
EDIT _ You cannot disprove anything, and in fact proving stuff is also quite hard. But we can go with the preponderence of evidence.
No because that means you can just postulate anything that cannot be proven and using your logic just say well you can't disprove it so it is pointelss arguing, lets pretend its true, cos it might be true. But you cannot disprove anything, so you can propose anything and say well it cannot be disproven so I believe in it.
The foundation of science (well logic and philosphy which are foundations of science) is that a proposal must be falsifiable.
What this means is that you can test the argument and propose what results would make it unproven.
EG F=ma (force = mass x accleration)>
If we measure force on an accelerating mass and find that it strays outside of that argument, then all scientist would agree (with lots of checking etc) that F=ma is not valid.
So far, in the newtonian world it is valid, and all scientists agree in the quantumn world things work differently. But it is falsifable in that we accept if a result is found outside of this arument that is valid then we must remodel our argument.
The God argument deliberatly excludes this logic in the guise of faith. I wonder why?
Or as Russel put it (from wiki)
In an article titled "Is There a God?" commissioned, but never published, by Illustrated magazine in 1952, Russell wrote:
Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.[2]
In 1958, Russell elaborated on the analogy:
I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely.[3]
In practise this means that gods are bunkem.
I refer you to this, this is the God argument:
And this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
I believe there is life in the universe other than just on earth. Maybe not life we can recognise within the limits of what we know/can discover but I simply cannot see how there can't be some form of life somewhere due to the numbers.
I clearly have no evidence for it but that doesn't bother me.
See, I don't need proof to be able to believe something...
I believe there is life in the universe other than just on earth. Maybe not life we can recognise within the limits of what we know/can discover but I simply cannot see how there can’t be some form of life somewhere due to the numbers.
I clearly have no evidence for it but that doesn’t bother me.
See, I don’t need proof to be able to believe something…
Don't you mean you believe it is highly likley? I mean so do I, I would not be suprised if we discover Alien life.
Agreed there is no evidence so far, but our model of the universe, the limited view we have of that which we know and understand shows us that is probable, or possible. The best evidence is our own existence.
However none of our experience or understanding points towards a god or gods.
You are just acknowledging something that most scientists agree is probable.
Apols - I mistate - there is evidence for Aliens, that is our existence and the likelyhood of there being other planets like ours in the universe, based on our current model of the universe, which is based on the best available evidence.
Again, proving the existence of God may not actually be the point, for believers.
Science may not actually be important here.
Again, proving the existence of God may not actually be the point, for believers.
Science may not actually be important here.
This is a reactive argument that came from the inability to counter the lack of evidence and facts. New Theology or whatever its called. Nobody ever used this until about 50 years ago. Again I wonder why...
Science isn't really a thing. Its just a loose collection of human knowledge based around methods of ordered observation. It's not a thing you can say is or is not important. It just is.
If we started humanity again we would observe the same physical phenomena and create the same physical laws, they may be expressed dofferently but ypou could map one on to the other.
If you ignore science then you will get hurt, or die.
Proving the existence of god or not is very important otherwise people get scammed, and oh look, they do, all the bloody time. How can anyone be party to an untruth a false idea. It is really dangerous. And again that makes you an apologist. I know your intentions are good, but the system you are defending is bad, very bad.
Gosh I really hope someone comes out as a Tory MP and makes a similar proposal.
Yeah look what happened last time we got fed up with experts. Lets all ignore science and see where that gets us. The whole antiscience arguement is underpinned by this BS.
Listen to Sagan.
See, I don’t need proof to be able to believe something…
Does this belief impact your actions in anyway? Do you campaign against abortion, for example, since you know those aliens are opposed to it?
There is often some bait and switching going on using the deist style god as a "well you cant disprove it" but then switching to an interventionist god when it comes to specific positions.
Or to go back to your analogy. Its the difference between going "well its a big universe so reasonable chance other life is out there" (especially if you are flexible about what life is) and then going on to say "and some of that life abducted me last night and did some weird things to me".
Listen to Sagan.
Or Einstein?
"I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.
Molgrips - you are still making false equivalence between the two concepts. This leads yo astray.
Yeah if you have read spinoza, its not a god.
anywya I refer to previous arguments where people of that time could not risk being outed as agnostic or atheist. This is a close as he Spinoza dared without being burned at the stake.
Yeah if you have read spinoza, its not a god.
Oh, He doesn't argue specifically that there isn't one though, but if we're going to trot out random Scientists to back up claims of pro or against the existence of God(s), the Atheist list is going to be much much shorter,than list saying "Can't be sure" innit
As Molly said three four pages ago, you/we just don't know, we can never know.
As I said up there, perhaps I'll make it explicit:
you/we just don’t know, we can never know.
this is not thought, its just meaningless woolly musing.
If we can never know, how did the "knowledge" of god come about? It was never known, therefore it was imagined, there was never, ever, any evidence. It starts and ends there. As I have been trying to explain, if we can never know, its not a thing. It has no meaning.
Secondly Sagan is not a random scientist.
Thirdly my appeal to listen to Sagan was not an appeal to authourity. It was just a reference to some incredibly well written and thought out words that describe the current thinking about religion and all the other anti science and wooly thinking going on around here.
It could have been written by molgrips and I'd still think it was powerful.
Secondly Sagan is not a random scientist.
Neither was Einstein, or Newton, or Galileo. what's your point?
its just meaningless woolly musing.
Mleh, get used to it. 'Tis the nature of the universe.
Mleh, get used to it. ‘Tis the nature of the universe.
You've tried this line before. Debunked thoroughly in the thread.
Neither was Einstein, or Newton, or Galileo. what’s your point?
The fact that you have asked me this despite me referring to my appeals makes me realise you are not as well read as I thought. Apologies. This does somewhat explain your approach.
Mleh, get used to it. ‘Tis the nature of the universe.
Also, I forgot to mention, the nature of the universe is Newtonian and General Relativity. so not mleh, or woolly.
.
Apart from the bits that are quantum and pay no attention to the Newtonian laws. Mleh, arguing with absolutists, waste of time (and space)
This is just shameful selective quoting seeing as my quote was
the nature of the universe is Newtonian and General Relativity.
What is general relativity???
from wiki
. So far, all tests of general relativity have been shown to be in agreement with the theory. The time dependent solutions of general relativity enable us to talk about the history of the universe and have provided the modern framework for cosmology, thus leading to the discovery of the Big Bang and cosmic microwave background radiation. Despite the introduction of a number of alternative theories, general relativity continues to be the simplest theory consistent with experimental data.
It doesn't chime with quantum mechanics, but only in theory.
And when they do resolve it, it still won't be "mleh or woolly". I mean what was the purpose of that comment other than to chip in with a little digs that don't really make any argument, but might prove some pedantry?
I'm not being personal, but seeing as you don't seem to know anything about logic, logical fallacies, the philosophy of science, or astrophysics/cosmology why are you commenting on them?
Science isn’t really a thing. Its just a loose collection of human knowledge based around methods of ordered observation. It’s not a thing you can say is or is not important.
I'm well aware of what science is thanks.
You're all missing the point, completely. We've already said that you can't prove the existence of God or the non-existence. So given those two facts, the argument is rendered pointless. You are therefore free to BELIEVE whatever you want.
In science, a theory has to be provable in order to be accepted. But faith is not science. You may as well aim to prove that football is rubbish, or that modern art is not real art.
In my view, the evidence does not support the existence of God. But so what? So what if I choose to start believing in it, because I want to?
Mleh, I'm done, you're clearly getting personal as you get desperate.
Molly says it better than me (as per normal) you miss the point.
I’m well aware of what science is thanks.
To be fair, I am not convinced.
You’re all missing the point, completely. We’ve already said that you can’t prove the existence of God or the non-existence. So given those two facts, the argument is rendered pointless. You are therefore free to BELIEVE whatever you want.
As TJ said you are balancing out these two which is wrong. I think this might be one of those "clever arguemnts" you don't like. The argument is not pointless, nobody can prove the non existence of anything. So that side of the argument is rendered null.
One can only demonstrate the likely hood of the existence of something, there is zero evidence to show the likelyhood of deities. There is a shed load of evidence to show they were made up. So the inabilty to prove the existence - kinda shows that god does not exist as far as you could say that about anything, its about as definite as it gets.
In science, a theory has to be provable in order to be accepted. But faith is not science. You may as well aim to prove that football is rubbish, or that modern art is not real art.
Not equivalent in any way. This is a classic category error. (thats another "clever arguement" in your parlance) Faith is belief in the absence of evidence, therfore there is no god to discuss.
At least with footy or art you can see and partake in footy and art. Yes you can discuss these things ad nauseam, but they do at least exist.
You are free to believe in whatever you want, just as I am free to think its utterly foolish and quite dangerous.
Faith is belief in the absence of evidence
That's what I've been saying all along.
The point I am trying to make is that faith is not a valueless concept despite the lack of evidence.
Faith is belief in the absence of evidence, therfore there is no god to discuss.
No, there is. We can discuss hypothetical concepts. Or at least, I can.
All you are doing is searching for proof and evidence to determine the fundamental nature of the universe. Which is fine. But what if someone doesn't care about that?
Faith is belief in the absence of evidence
That’s what I’ve been saying all along.
Ok fine we can agree on that much. 😂
The point I am trying to make is that faith is not a valueless concept despite the lack of evidence.
I think its a dangerous concept in respect of religion. I can have faith that England will win the world cup, thats harmless to a point, unless I use that faith to gamble my life savings..
No, there is. We can discuss hypothetical concepts. Or at least, I can.
Anyone can.
What does it matter if God exists or not?
EDIT - why did you delete this? Its the best question so far?
I think this is the nub of it.
It matters because the faith in god has created so much misery. Faith in something that is an obvious made up story - if you look at the history of religion and gods - has lead to all this misery and bad things. Plus promoting this way of thinking has contributed to the undermining of science (I'd argue that is scientists fault but its a different story), and contributed to all the gaslighting and mis/disinformation going on in the world today.
Responsible people should be working to bring back some idea of truth to the world.
All you are doing is searching for proof and evidence to determine the fundamental nature of the universe. Which is fine. But what if someone doesn’t care about that?
1) If you/they don't care, then why do people need to beleive in god? God is an answer, albeit flawed, to that question, that the point of it.
2) You'd be suprised to learn, I don't 'care' about the fundamental nature of the universe. I mean I don't need to know, I do not really give a damn. I am glad other people are working on it, but I doubt they will ever find out, becasue I think it is probably unknowable.
3) I care about making sure that peopel are not conned or manipulated, or know the the truth before they decide on anything. You molgrips may be aware of the nature of science, that you cannot prove a negative, that a theory needs to be falsifiable, that there is no evidence of god, and safely allow yourself to have faith. In fact if you know those things and still believe then it is true faith. (but you have said you personally do not believe)
But can you say hand on heart that many/most other believers actually do not realise the fundamentals of scientific thought, and if they did that would likely change their belief.
I know a few academics like this but almost all lay people I have discussed this with have ended up questioning their faith. Thats my issue, I see it as a major con for the unwary. If you know the facts and still choose? Fine.
Hence I think for you Molly as a confessed unbeliever, you should make it your duty to ensure people know what you know.
So given those two facts, the argument is rendered pointless. You are therefore free to BELIEVE whatever you want.
The flaw here is that only really applies to a deist approach. Which doesnt tend to be that prominent in religions since it has the obvious problem when the leader says "do x" they cant follow up with "because its the word of god".
This is the best post you've made so far 5plusn8
1) If you/they don’t care, then why do people need to beleive in god?
Why don't you come along to the pub night and ask?
But can you say hand on heart that many/most other believers actually do not realise the fundamentals of scientific thought, and if they did that would likely change their belief.
I've thought about this a lot. I used to think like you, when I was much younger. I constructed many arguments along these lines in my head, tearing apart the concept of Christian god. Then I realised something - if I were to argue with a religious person, what if I won? I'd take something from them that they love and value greatly. What kind of dick would that make me? Would I feel proud of myself as they stare into the abyss contemplating inevitable oblivion? I don't enjoy that part of atheism, why would I force it on someone else?
I care about making sure that peopel are not conned or manipulated, or know the the truth before they decide on anything.
So do I.
It matters because the faith in god has created so much misery.
We already covered this, but here goes again:
1) You can't separate religion from all the other motives in history that have caused war and misery and allowed people to be manipulated.
2) You can't say that without religion you wouldn't have wars. It's pretty obvious from an anthropological point of view (that's a science by the way) that tribes must come into conflict over resources, and they will make up all sorts of things to justify it. But just because some human invokes God to get people on his side doesn't mean that a) he wouldn't have invoked something else if there hadn't been God and b) the war wouldn't have happened without a God to invoke.
It seems clear to me that the argument about religion is different to the argument about faith as a concept, and different again from the one about the existence of a God.
the Atheist list is going to be much much shorter,than list saying “Can’t be sure” innit
That's the agnostic list you've got there.
We’ve already said that you can’t prove the existence of God or the non-existence. So given those two facts
Stop you there Mols, you little tinker. These are not the same "two facts" at all.
It is not possible to prove the non-existence of a god, you're quite right.
But it absolutely should be possible to prove the existence of a god should one exist, we just haven't worked out how to do it yet.
What happened to the OP? Preying elsewhere or weeping at the missed £2s?
But it absolutely should be possible to prove the existence of a god should one exist, we just haven’t worked out how to do it yet.
Nah not really for the same reasons as proving the non-existence. We don't even have a universal definition of 'God', for a start, which is bound to hamper efforts. But even if we take the traditional definition of an intelligent omnipresent being, nothing He could do could prove His existence. If a white robed bearded figure descended from heaven saying 'I am God!' and doing miracles, no-one could be sure it wasn't say, some sort of powerful alien in the style of Q from Star Trek TNG. The famous Arthur C Clarke quote springs to mind. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that a lot of Christians would refuse to believe that it actually was God. Last time this is alleged to have happened a lot of people didn't believe it.
Take for example a pious man walking down the street when a potted plant falls off a windowsill and smashes to the ground just infront of him. If he hadn't had to side-step a shitting seagull a few seconds before he'd have been right under it and died. Did God send the seagull, or did God send the plant pot? Was God trying to kill him but the seagull thwarted it? Or was he going to die by chance and God saved him with the seagull? It's not really possible to tell.
A being without limits could do anything, but anything could happen anyway for other reasons, so any given thing that has happened cannot be definitively attributed to a God or.. er.. disattributed.
The OP is not currently at his desk.
Rubber_Buccaneer
What happened to the OP? Preying elsewhere or weeping at the missed £2s?
That is not a very nice thing to say even if you don't believe in God etc. What is £2? Very little.
My view is that you can listen to what they have to say but you don't have to accept them. Respect and logic are two different matters. Try not to confuse respect with logic.
Some religious leaders want to have respect but they their logic don't stack up, in that case just take whatever that sounds logical to you and leave the rest behind.
Nah not really for the same reasons as proving the non-existence. We don’t even have a universal definition of ‘God’, for a start, which is bound to hamper efforts.
Sure we could. If we have something reasonable to go on we can extrapolate. Ask CERN.
nothing He could do could prove His existence
You're saying we'd reject first-hand witness as proof. Yet we base an entire ideology on 1500 year old documents being fact.
Think about that for a minute. Is the notion of a god is so outlandish that if there were the second coming tomorrow, the believers would be sceptical?
a pious man walking down the street when a potted plant falls off a windowsill and smashes to the ground just infront of him
What you've got there is Survivor Bias.
... most people (even the pious?) would think it’s a new David Blaine stunt?"
Yes, but the question is what is he teaching? Magic tricks? I have no need for that.
The notion of a god is so outlandish ...
I don't think it is outlandish. As I said earlier it could be cosmic conscious energy that is so fine but still exist in material world but our understanding is minimal. They might have the ability to create etc ... think about what make us conscious? Energy pulse? Some sort of electricity inside us? (don't know the technical term). What makes the heart beat? Brain wave? What is that? Energy? What is that?
p/s: we are "mechanical" without the energy flow isn't it. so what is that energy that keeps us going? Even starting the process of energy (carbohydrate whatever) still need energy but what is that?
[edited as you were replying, apologies]
Im still worshipping Ra the Sun God.
I intend to offer up thanks later on tomorrow and make an offering by way of an orange fizz ice lolly.
Which I shall sacrifice in his name.
Yet we base an entire ideology on 1500 year old documents being fact.
Not sure all religious people see them as facts, more a story that gives guidance on how to live and act.
Could probably do with an update that is more fitting to 2022 but the premise that everyone lived their lives in for example a christian way is a good one in theory and if everyone was truly trying to do that it would be a nice place to live.
In practice it is clearly not working out...
I Ching.
Does God Exist?
Cast Hexagram:
39 蹇 Chien / Obstruction
Description
Chien / Obstruction
Above K'AN THE ABYSMAL, WATER
Below KÊN KEEPING STILL, MOUNTAIN
The hexagram pictures a dangerous abyss lying before us and a steep, inaccessible mountain rising behind us. We are surrounded by obstacles; at the same time, since the mountain has the attribute of keeping still, there is implicit a hint as to how we can extricate ourselves. The hexagram represents obstructions that appear in the course of time but that can and should be overcome. Therefore all the instruction given is directed to overcoming them.
Yet we base an entire ideology on 1500 year old documents being fact.
No, we really don't. For a start, many of the books are a lot older than that. And we can be fairly sure that the ideology or similar others existed long before even those books did.
My view is that many people want, and possibly need faith. These people like religion, because it satisfies that need. But why? You could say that it's some kind of neurological defect, but you could also say that it is God touching them, and you can't really prove either way. You could point at neurotransmitters being activated, but you can't (as far as I know) point at why they'd be activated by this idea.
I don't wish to trivialise the views of the faithful here although I feel the above might be construed as such.
Yet we base an entire ideology on 1500 year old documents being fact.
And of course it is just a subset of all of the available documents that were chosen for a reason. SaxonRider is great with this stuff
https://laotiantimes.com/2022/05/11/eleven-bodies-found-at-thai-excrement-cult-temple/
Blood of Christ, etc...
Sorry,I've avoided this for a few days as I think it drifted a little too far......
My view is that many people want, and possibly need faith. These people like religion, because it satisfies that need. But why?
Does there have to be a 'why'?
Human nature is a product of evolution.
We,as a species still seem to need to believe in the irrational.
There's no point in getting annoyed about it, can we not just discuss it sensibly whilst accepting that we all have our own point of view?
Interesting contributions by Chewk as usual, btw. Appreciated.
Does there have to be a ‘why’?
No, it's there if you want it. But no.
Also, define irrational.
You could point at neurotransmitters being activated, but you can’t (as far as I know) point at why they’d be activated by this idea.
Evolutionary pressures is the answer. Feeling good with communal activity is an evolutionary advantage as it binds tribes together
It's complicated. 🙂
We all set limits on what we believe to be rational because of individual learned experience.
However, faith determines how far we are willing to stretch our personal definition of rationality beyond that.
Excellent example above regarding Newtonian and non Newtonian physics.
Do I find non Newtonian physics rational?
Yes.
Why?
Even though I have only a little personal experience of it as a student, I DO have personal experience of the validity of the scientific method.
Therefore I'm often happy to accept the findings of those following that method even though I have little experience of the subject myself.
Faith and science.
39 Chien / Obstruction
There's a pack of French dogs in the way?
And of course it is just a subset of all of the available documents that were chosen for a reason.
And what reason do we suppose that might be?
And what reason do we suppose that might be?
This is well known.
But the Bible != Religion != Faith != God
Evolutionary pressures is the answer.
Arguably once you get to religion and variants such as nationalism its more a way of short circuiting evolutionary pressures and getting them still to apply once you have outgrown the group size where they would normally apply.
redthunder
I Ching.
That's just energy reading which is just a reflection of your current state of energy level. Energy level change all the time. Nothing else. I see it as just bullc*ap. Some people use it to "predict" the future which is foolish. Relying on those bullc*ap to guide you in life will only destroy you. You create your own future and nothing can be predicted absolutely.
This is well known.
Care to enlighten me?
Irrelevant but - Top line from Jarvis in 'Glory Days' relating to I ching
"I used to do the I Ching
But then I had to feed the meter
Now I can't see in to the future
But at least I can use the heater
It doesn't get much better than this
This is how we live our glory days"
Care to enlighten me?
I thought it was common knowledge that it's a collection of books assembled by the authorities to project the view they wanted to at that particular time. The sections are even called 'books'. In the case of Christianity it was the council of er... *googles* Rome.
Are we still on for this folks?
Was rather looking forward to it.
We are. I will not be around until the 4th of June, but will schedule it for a day as soon as possible afterward.
Excellent.
Thanks.