Hi~ I'm new on the forum. Sorry my first post is a vent. WHY do religious people feel it is okay to talk about their religion and it is NOT okay for atheists to talk about what they believe (or don't believe!). Seriously people don't understand that just because they believe something doesn't mean that it's true and that other people's beliefs/non-beliefs are just as valid? Are they REALLY that stupid??? I SERIOUSLY just want to buy acres of land somewhere and live smack in the middle of it and have very minimal contact with the outside world. People are scarystupid!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ****************************************************** 09-09-06, 04:32 PM juanruiz Some religions teach that it is the responsibility of believers to spread the good news, make converts, enable others to enjoy some form of paradise after death. They are not interested in debate, ergo, they have no interest in listening to other opinions, especially those of atheists. That's just the way it is.
09-09-06, 05:14 PM jusork It's not really that crazy that a person who feels strongly about their beliefs wouldn't consider other people's beliefs as valid and true. It's not that surprising that they would see their beliefs as more important than other people's beliefs since they believe theirs is important. If those with strong beliefs believe they can know that there's one undeniable truth, why would they believe that there's a true possibility that they could be wrong and still believe? I wouldn't say that it's not a problem, but anybody who has strong beliefs of any kind could think like this.
09-09-06, 06:17 PM GarColga Welcome to AnswerPool!!
I feel your pain!
09-10-06, 11:23 AM newnickname I went to listen to the Dalai Lama speak here in Vancouver yesterday.
He said (among other things) that missionaries may have had their place in the past, but that in the modern world attempts to convert others inevitably lead to conflict. The new 'mission' is for people to learn about others' faiths, if they want. He said "religion is up to the individual".
It's true, I guess. The world has changed in the last couple of thousand years - it has gotten smaller as communication around the globe has become infinitely easier. It isn't such a huge challenge just to make a message available to people. Certainly in North America, just about anyone interested in learning about any religion can do so with a little effort. We don't need people knocking on our doors - I don't think it's news to anyone in America that Christianity, for example, exists.
I wonder if it's only Buddhism among the major religions that has the capacity to see all religions as valid - everyone seeking 'the truth' in the way that suits them best.
The Dalai Lama also said, on another point, that if we accepted it we should try to practice it. On the other hand if we thought it "just an old man talking nonsense" that was OK, too. "Just ignore it, I don't care!"
That shows a strong belief, I think - being quite comfortable with however your message is taken. A desperate urge to have everyone think as you do might actually be a sign of weakness, an inability to tolerate the possibility of other ideas being out there, and being just as good. Knocking on doors to try to make sure people choose your particular sect of your religion, out of the smorgasbord available, is selfishness. If 'missionaries' actually had faith that theirs was the right one (the perfectly cooked lobster dripping in butter, surrounded by cold tater-tots on the buffet) they'd let it be, and let people choose by themselves. Badgering people indicates doubts.
Humans instinctively want to teach, I think - to share information. This can be done sensitively and cooperatively - abandoning or modifying the approach if the recipient doesn't care or doesn't understand, and basically as a dialogue. Or it can be done to make the teacher feel one-up, the message being inflexible (and ineffective) because it's all about the speaker, not the listener - a monologue.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: newnickname, 09-10-06 11:59 AM
09-10-06, 12:05 PM DorianGreyed "A desperate urge to have everyone think as you do might actually be a sign of weakness, an inability to tolerate the possibility of other ideas being out there, and being just as good. Knocking on doors to try to make sure people choose your particular sect of your religion, out of the smorgasbord available, is selfishness."
For some, no doubt it is a sign of selfishness and condescension. But surely for some, it is simply an honest desire to share the joy that they feel in their belief. While these people may be but a tiny minority of the proselytizers, their feelings are genuine.
09-10-06, 04:50 PM frankvan I think DG is right in that some, probably a minority, have an honest desire to share the joy or satisfaction they derive from their firm belief. What the majority, unfortunately, seem incapable of, is recognizing that atheists and/or agnostics are not necessarily misguided spawn of the devil. Many of us derive considerable satisfaction from feeling free of superstitious myths, or prescribed dogma, free to pursue the truth wherever it leads.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: frankvan, 09-10-06 06:37 PM
09-10-06, 05:50 PM jusork
quote: Originally posted by newnickname: I wonder if it's only Buddhism among the major religions that has the capacity to see all religions as valid - everyone seeking 'the truth' in the way that suits them best.
But isn't a religion something that believes there's a certain way to go about the truth and such? What would Christianity be like if it said, "ok, you can believe something else if you want. Who knows which religion is right, anyway?" Maybe with the exception of Bhuddism, religions aren't about being open to other possibilities. They're about believing they have the true path, no? Maybe religion itself should be about being about whatever we feel is right, but as long as people believe in supreme truths based on faith, in particular those involving stuff like heaven and sin, it'll be about knowing the true truth. Maybe as people stop believing in ideas that contradict other religion's beliefs on what is true, we'll all be able to agree on what is true.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: jusork, 09-10-06 06:05 PM
09-10-06, 06:02 PM juanruiz
quote: They're about believing they have the true path, no?
Most Western religions are, because they emphasize a divinity/man relationship, whereas Oriental religions tend to emphasize a man/himself relationship.
09-10-06, 06:20 PM FredPuli Buddhists can be delightfully fatalistic. One was asked 'What will happen to me when I die?" and replied "You'll find out soon enough!" Big Grin
Britain's first Buddhist judge was a convert. He was christened Christmas Humphries because he was born at Christmas. Throughout his long life post-conversion he never thought to change his name. He was refreshingly practical too. I once appeared in front of him when he proposed to make a certain order. His clerk solemnly informed him that the proposed order was contrary to law. He answered with crushing finality: " It is common sense.Common sense is unappealable!" Big Grin
09-10-06, 06:45 PM FredPuli ITFM: A more serious comment than the one I just posted: Some people of faith are uncomfortable with any questioning of it. It doesn't matter that the questioner is of faith themselves.It is a human tendency to prefer certainty. We have evolved not to doubt.Some people have advanced further into doubting than others.For primitive man any certainty is better than any doubt.Some people retain their simple belief and go to great lengths to support it, whatever the evidence or argument to the contrary, sometimes constructing the most complex defences to that end.
Even scientists are prone to this failing. Once they have their theory they are the last to change it, perhaps clinging to it steadfastly even unto death , by which time they are almost alone in the world in supporting it.
It takes a considerable amount of faith to believe that one man born of woman was uniquely capable of healing the sick, of defying simple laws of physics e.g. by walking on water or of chemistry e.g turning water into wine or of economics e.g turning a few loaves and fishes into enough to feed five thousand or of biology e.g by dying and coming back to life. And all this magic was to prove that he was one put on Earth to save the rest of us. Wink
It may be as well that he didn't vouchsafe the secret of these powers. Just think of the effect it would have on the local economy if there was a sudden ability in the faithful disciples to produce limitless amounts of free bread or fish, to order. And as for medicine: it would have put many a local 'healer' and charlatan out of work. On the other hand, it might have saved the world a lot of suffering had we known earlier how to cure diseases rather than wait for mere men, not even Christian men, to find the answers.
09-10-06, 06:54 PM frankvan
quote: Maybe religion itself should be about being about whatever we feel is right, but as long as people believe in supreme truths based on faith, in particular those involving stuff like heaven and sin, it'll be about knowing the true truth. Maybe as people stop believing in ideas that contradict other religion's beliefs on what is true, we'll all be able to agree on what is true.
Maybe we could agree that what we believe to be true is indeed ONLY what we BELIEVE to be true. We can certainly choose to belong to any organization we prefer, but since when is the truth something we are free to select from the many possibilities?? Isn't the truth something we are obliged to accept because it has been proven beyond the shadow of doubt, or at the very least, accept as the most likely based on the present state of all the available evidence? And, in the end, what religion would tolerate similar criteria? The earth revolves around the sun, regardless of what the church taught its followers to believe for hundreds of years. The truth doesn't change but faith and belief does, daily.
09-10-06, 07:07 PM DorianGreyed "Maybe we could agree that what we believe to be true is indeed ONLY what we BELIEVE to be true."
You ask too much. Most of the people I've encountered who were trying to sell me their brand of God didn't use the word "believe" but rather "know." To a man, they "knew" they were right, and others wrong.
09-18-06, 04:05 AM tsaeb People of faith in what God can do favorably for individuals should in good conscience from time to time as it be God's will try to interest others in what God can do favorably for them, if such others are of little or no such faith. Similarly, if those of little or no such faith are privileged to have a functioning good conscience, then they should be open to those who have explored more of a God diligently sought and found to be spiritually sustaining.
Anyone who has to babble a person away from him or her and equally from the ever important pursuit of greater spiritual development is some sought of know-it-all fanatic who himself or herself needs greater spiritual development. Equally true, who needs naysayers who have all the answers and have given up on greater spiritual development?
We have to realize that everyone has value and that in anyone's life the time comes when one needs to hear whatever is about to attack one, because there is a reason for everything with which we are bombarded as surely as there is a reason for everything with which we are tolerated, respected, loved, comforted, complimented, and the like.
09-18-06, 09:35 AM newnickname
quote: ...some sought of know-it-all...
That's a fascinating typo, tsaeb. It's almost Joycean. I wonder what hidden depths it hints at.
09-18-06, 12:27 PM frankvan Is it better to be "babbled toward" something than to be "babbled away" from it?? And if I surrender to the "ever important pursuit of greater spiritual development" which of the many "prophets" should I choose as my guide? There are so many willing guides and life is so short, and I am so unencumbered at the moment?
09-19-06, 04:09 AM tsaeb Gee, talking in tongues right here in the forum . . . "sought" for "sort." I've been nailed.
10-04-06, 09:53 PM honilov
quote: WHY do religious people feel it is okay to talk about their religion and it is NOT okay for atheists to talk about what they believe (or don't believe!).
Ithink, what makes you think that they feel that it's not okay for Atheists to talk about what they believe in? If they didn't tell you that directly, it's probably just a mind thing on your part.
I'm religious myself, and I find it kind of interesting to hear Atheists talk of their views, and to hear them talk negative about religious people. It's kind of funny to me.
Instead of moving out in the middle of 'nowhere' just concentrate on yourself right here in the middle of 'somewhere'. Why worry about the next person. I don't give a hoot who's Atheist. I'm looking out for me.
Welcome to Answerpool!!!
10-04-06, 09:59 PM juanruiz
quote: I find it kind of interesting to hear Atheists talk of their views, and to hear them talk negative about religious people.
I'm not sure to what extent the criticism is aimed at the people, versus the religions themselves. I have no problem with people believing whatever they want to.
10-04-06, 10:07 PM honilov
quote: I have no problem with people believing whatever they want to.
That's the way it should be, but it seems that the author of this thread has a big problem...to the extent of moving to the middle of nowhere.
10-05-06, 02:52 PM Tulula
quote: That's the way it should be, but it seems that the author of this thread has a big problem...to the extent of moving to the middle of nowhere.
My sentiments exactly Honilov. I am a Christian and it breaks my heart to think that someone does not believe in God and will not go to heaven; however, unless that person gets in my face regarding their beliefs vs. mine, I kind of enjoy listening to their rationale. Their lack of belief does not shake my belief in the least - however, I do admit that I pray for them -- but I do not rub that fact in their face -- I was taught to lead by example -- thus -- it is not in my nature to disrepect any human being for being different. I have been known to try to plant a seed or two though. Big Grin
10-05-06, 03:19 PM juanruiz
quote: I have been known to try to plant a seed or two though.
This is not a criticism of Tulula, but this expression has been incorporated by a number of televangelists as a means of raising money. The seed in this case is contributions sent to people like Rob Parsley, Mike Murdock, Bennie Hinn and others. The quid pro quo is that God will personally see to it that the contributors are rewarded. Now in the case of this scam, I will criticize individual Christians, not for their belief, but for being con men who possess great wealth. while continually leeching off of people. (Of course, I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for the marks.)
10-05-06, 04:04 PM Tulula
quote: I have been known to try to plant a seed or two though.
Big Grin Juan, I did NOT take it as criticism, as a matter of fact -- even though I do plant seeds from time to time -- for me that comment was a tongue in cheek comment. I hate that "we want money, if you don't send us money you will go to hell in a handbasket" type of evangalism -- and don't even get me started on the "let me put my hands on you -- healing evangalistic approach" -- this is not to say that I don't believe people can be healed by their faith in God, because I have (but the experience was between God and me) and the price was also personal between me and God -- which by the way makes that particular experience a "known truth/fact" for me personally; however, a fact that I realize I cannot prove to anyone, Christian, Buddist, Atheist, Agnostic, etc. although i would probably find it easier to discuss with another Christian.
12-21-06, 10:57 AM ZIK
quote: Originally posted by Ithinkformyself: Hi~ I'm new on the forum. Sorry my first post is a vent. WHY do religious people feel it is okay to talk about their religion and it is NOT okay for atheists to talk about what they believe (or don't believe!). Seriously people don't understand that just because they believe something doesn't mean that it's true and that other people's beliefs/non-beliefs are just as valid? Are they REALLY that stupid??? I SERIOUSLY just want to buy acres of land somewhere and live smack in the middle of it and have very minimal contact with the outside world. People are scarystupid!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Don't you think intelligent people should make the truth available to duller people though - and not just leave them believing whatever they want to?
12-21-06, 09:37 PM newnickname How would you define "intelligent" and "dull", and, further, how would you identify which people fit into which of your categories? How would you know what "the truth" ("The Truth"?) is? What makes you think there's only one "truth"?
12-22-06, 01:18 AM ZIK
quote: Originally posted by newnickname: How would you define "intelligent" and "dull", and, further, how would you identify which people fit into which of your categories? How would you know what "the truth" ("The Truth"?) is? What makes you think there's only one "truth"?
Truth is the fundamental essence of existence. Intelligent people have a good understanding of it, and are therefore in a good position to explain it to duller people who have a poorer understanding of it. Intelligent people identify themselves by their ability to grasp and explain the nature and workings of Truth in the universe. Truth has the fundamental characteristic that it NEVER contradicts itself, or acts arbitrarily - as ALL the natural sciences will confirm to you. And so there can be but ONE of it.
12-22-06, 09:49 AM newnickname In the field of religion (or lack of it), which is outside the realm of the natural sciences, there seem to be many 'truths' (often self-contradictory, arbitrary or ambiguous) - none standing out as obviously better than any other.
Any competent scientist would tell you that the natural sciences don't confirm 'the truth' either - they aim only for the best possible (down to earth) explanations of the best available (tangible) evidence, for the moment.
That something never contradicts itself nor is ever arbitrary does not mean that there is only one of it. You say "and so", but that's a non sequitur.
"Truth is the fundamental essence of existence" is meaningless bafflegab - just playing with words. It sounds fine, but it tells us nothing. I guess, with you being unable to put that more clearly, and me being unable to grasp it, we must both fall into the 'dull' category. Smile
12-22-06, 10:41 AM ZIK
quote: Originally posted by newnickname: In the field of religion (or lack of it), which is outside the realm of the natural sciences, there seem to be many 'truths' (often self-contradictory, arbitrary or ambiguous) - none standing out as obviously better than any other.
Any competent scientist would tell you that the natural sciences don't confirm 'the truth' either - they aim only for the best possible (down to earth) explanations of the best available (tangible) evidence, for the moment.
That something never contradicts itself nor is ever arbitrary does not mean that there is only one of it. You say "and so", but that's a non sequitur.
"Truth is the fundamental essence of existence" is meaningless bafflegab - just playing with words. It sounds fine, but it tells us nothing. I guess, with you being unable to put that more clearly, and me being unable to grasp it, we must both fall into the 'dull' category. Smile
I take it you're neither a scientist nor someone that has been trained in any serious philosophical discipline?
I mean the idea of more than one truth is so absurd I don't even know where to start explaining to you how wrong you are. But this much I'll tell you: There is NOT more than one law of physics that applies in [B]ANY[/B given situation in the universe! It's always ever the one!
Are you a journalist by the way? It's only with journalists and the like that ideas like "multiple truths" makes some sort of perverse sense.
12-22-06, 11:00 AM newnickname Newton's view of gravity was taken, not as 'the truth, but as the best possible explanation available, until replaced by Einstein's. Einstein's will probably also be replaced by somethign more accurate. In science, it absolutely isn't "always ever the one".
Scientists do not claim to be confirm 'The Truth' but only the best possible (down to earth) explanations of the best available (tangible) evidence, for the moment.
But I was talking about the field of religion (or lack of it), which is outside the realm of the natural sciences, in which there are obviously many 'truths' (often self-contradictory, arbitrary or ambiguous) - Islam, Judiasm, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity... to name a few contemporary ones.
12-22-06, 11:04 AM ZIK
quote: Originally posted by newnickname: Newton's view of gravity was taken, not as 'the truth, but as the best possible explanation available, until replaced by Einstein's. Einstein's will probably also be replaced by somethign more accurate. In science, it absolutely isn't "always ever the one".
Scientists do not claim to be confirm The Truthm but only the best possible (down to earth) explanations of the best available (tangible) evidence, for the moment.
But I was talking about the field of religion (or lack of it), which is outside the realm of the natural sciences, in which there are obviously many 'truths' (often self-contradictory, arbitrary or ambiguous) - Islam, Judiasm, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity... to name a few contemporary ones.
Don't get confused: Newton's Laws, within the limits of precision that it was defined IS the truth and is identical to Einstein's.
And NOTHING is outside the realm of Nature!
12-22-06, 11:29 AM newnickname No. Newton's ideas on gravity were conceptually and fundamentally different to Einstein's. Einstein's theory wasn't a refinement of precision but a completely new explanation.
Superstitions and religions are outside the realm of the natural sciences - not amenable to experiment or falsification.
12-22-06, 11:52 AM ZIK
quote: Originally posted by newnickname: No. Newton's ideas on gravity were conceptually and fundamentally different to Einstein's. Einstein's theory wasn't a refinement of precision but a completely new explanation.
Superstitions and religions are outside the realm of the natural sciences - not amenable to experiment or falsification.
You're UTTERLY mistaken! And you clearly know NOTHING about physics!
Both Newton's and Einstein's equations regarding gravity approximate to one another under classical conditions.
Superstitions and religions are NOT the same thing. Don't introduce confusion where there is none.
12-22-06, 12:07 PM newnickname
quote: Both Newton's and Einstein's equations regarding gravity approximate to one another under classical conditions.
Yes, they give us the same predictions under the conditions we normally experience.
However, they are fundamentally different explanations, which is why, at extreme speeds and scales, they give different predictions. Einstein's theory was not a refinement of Newton's but a pradigm shift.
'In Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, space is transformed from the Newtonian idea of a vast emptiness that has no effect on the motion of matter, to an invisible web of spacetime that grips matter and directs its course. Gravity is no longer simply a force that attracts matter; it is also the curve and warp of spacetime itself.
How did Einstein come to this idea of spacetime? What made him doubt that Newton’s theory of gravity ruled the universe? And what exactly is “curved spacetime”? In this section, we learn about the two questions that propelled Einstein to question Newton’s theory of gravity and drove Einstein to redefi ne our universe...' einstein.stanford.edu
I didn't say that superstitions and religions are the same thing. I pointed out that neither falls into the realm of the natural sciences - not being amenable to experiment or falsification.
The natural sciences don't, and don't claim to, confirm "The Truth". You haven't said anything to refute this point.
12-22-06, 12:30 PM ZIK
quote: Originally posted by newnickname:
quote: Both Newton's and Einstein's equations regarding gravity approximate to one another under classical conditions.
Yes, they give us the same predictions under the conditions we normally experience.
However, they are fundamentally different explanations, which is why, at extreme speeds and scales, they give different predictions. Einstein's theory was not a refinement of Newton's but a pradigm shift.
'In Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, space is transformed from the Newtonian idea of a vast emptiness that has no effect on the motion of matter, to an invisible web of spacetime that grips matter and directs its course. Gravity is no longer simply a force that attracts matter; it is also the curve and warp of spacetime itself.
How did Einstein come to this idea of spacetime? What made him doubt that Newton’s theory of gravity ruled the universe? And what exactly is “curved spacetime”? In this section, we learn about the two questions that propelled Einstein to question Newton’s theory of gravity and drove Einstein to redefi ne our universe...' einstein.stanford.edu
I didn't say that superstitions and religions are the same thing. I pointed out that neither falls into the realm of the natural sciences - not being amenable to experiment or falsification.
The natural sciences don't, and don't claim to, confirm "The Truth". You haven't said anything to refute this point.
In classical mechanics, Einstein's and Newton's approaches yield identical results! That's all that counts! Whether you describe an object in English or Chinese, as long as the descriptions are the same in physics, it doesn't matter! It will be the same object! It will not change just because it is described with a different language!
Religion is cosmology whereas superstition is absurdity. Cosmology is a very respectable part of science. Superstition - and atheism - AREN'T!
12-22-06, 12:39 PM FredPuli Is it a fair summary of your position, Zik, that there must be a god because everything exists?
12-22-06, 12:48 PM ZIK
quote: Originally posted by FredPuli: Is it a fair summary of your position, Zik, that there must be a god because everything exists?
The existence of ANYTHING is proof positive that the quintessence of existence exists. That's what I'm saying.
12-22-06, 01:14 PM newnickname
quote: Whether you describe an object in English or Chinese, as long as the descriptions are the same in physics, it doesn't matter!
That's true, but it doesn't apply to Einstein and Newton. Einstein's description of the universe is fundamentally different to Newton's. The descriptions are not the same, although they give the same results on a human scale.
As the extract I linked to points out, Einstein redefined our physical universe; he described it differently - he didn't just translate Newton's ideas into different terms.
There are different kind of cosmology. The cosmology that is a "branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe" is a very respectable part of science. A cosmology that is "a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe" (such as, 'we all live on the back of a giant turtle which depends on the Flying Spaghetti Monster for existence') needn't be a respectable part of science. (Definitions from m-w.com)
To say 'religion is cosmology and cosmology is science so religion is science' is a false argument, playing with definitions. Actually, religion can involve a kind of cosmology, and another kind of cosmology can be scientific.
No one has said that superstition and atheism are 'science'. That would be the straw man fallacy.
12-22-06, 01:33 PM newnickname
quote: Einsteinian mechanics and Newtonian mechanics approximate to one another at the classical level of observability.
'Approximate'? At a certain level of observabilty - at near light-speeds and on cosmic scales - Einstein's theory is clearly correct, and Newton's clearly wrong. This is because they are fundamentally different desriptions of the universe. (What do you mean by 'classical observability'?)
Einstein absolutely did not say that all that mattered was that the two theories were the same under some circumstances. How absurd. It is not the truth.
Religion may be cosmology, but there are two kinds of cosmology, as pointed out by the simple dictionary definitions above. There's the metaphysical, religious or abstractedly philosophical, kind of cosmology, and then there's the cosmology of astronomers, based on observation and experimentation on scientific principles. They are different things.
The natural sciences cannot confirm religious truths. Those are different areas of thought.
12-22-06, 01:40 PM ZIK
quote: Originally posted by newnickname:
quote: Einsteinian mechanics and Newtonian mechanics approximate to one another at the classical level of observability.
'Approximate'? At a certain level of observabilty - at near light-speeds and on cosmic scales - Einstein's theory is clearly correct, and Newton's clearly wrong. This is because they are fundamentally different desriptions of the universe. (What do you mean by 'classical observability'?)
Einstein absolutely did not say that all that mattered was that the two theories were the same under some circumstances. How absurd. It is not the truth.
Religion may be cosmology, but there are two kinds of cosmology, as pointed out by the simple dictionary definitions above. There's the metaphysical, religious or abstractedly philosophical, kind of cosmology, and then there's the cosmology of astronomers, based on observation and experimentation on scientific principles. They are different things.
The natural sciences cannot confirm religious truths. Those are different areas of thought.
Two pictures of you taken at one million times magnification and at 2 times magnification will appear completely different! Yet BOTH are pictures of you, are they not? And, if normalised to the same level, within the operating range of the cameras used to take both pictures, will yield the same picture, won't they? What makes you think it's different with the Einsteinian and Newtonian views of mechanics?
The natural sciences seek to explain nature. So does religion. It's the same area of thought. The approaches may differ.
12-22-06, 01:55 PM newnickname Einstein's explanation and Newton's explanation of the nature of the universe are not analogous to two photographs at different magnifications. As as been pointed out, Eisntein's explanation is fundamentally different to Newton's.
Science seeks to describe nature - ina sesne that's explaining it. Some religions seeks the ultimate causes and purposes of nature - 'explaining' it. It's not the same area of thought. You're playing with definitions again - 'explain' has some subtly different meanings.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
