Proof is NOT Possible

Marty Hamrick
atheist
Marty Hamrick's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2010-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Proof is NOT Possible

I saw an interesting docu drama on George Price the other night. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_R._Price

He had come up with a mathematical theorem that "proved" that altruism was an illusion. He was one of those guys that had swung the pendulum from atheism to theism and had finally died by suicide after giving away all his possessions in 1975 ( clinical depression perhaps?). Heere's a Wiki quote about his theorem.

Quote:


 

  Price developed a new interpretation of Fisher's fundamental theorem of natural selection, the Price equation, which has now been accepted as the best interpretation of a formerly enigmatic result.[5] He wrote what is still widely held to be the best mathematical, biological and evolutionary representation of altruism. He also pioneered the application of game theory to evolutionary biology, in a co-authored 1973 paper with John Maynard Smith.[10] Furthermore Price reasoned that in the same way as an organism may sacrifice itself and further its genes (altruism) an organism may sacrifice itself to eliminate others of the same species if it enabled closely related organisms to better propagate their related genes. This negative altruism was described in a paper published by W. D. Hamilton and is termed Hamiltonian spite.

Price’s 'mathematical' theory of altruism reasons that organisms are more likely to show altruism toward each other as they become more genetically similar to each other. As such, in a species that requires two parents to reproduce, an organism is most likely to show altruistic behavior to a biological parent, full sibling, or direct offspring. The reason for this is that each of these relatives’ genetic make up contains (on average in the case of siblings) 50% of the genes that are found in the original organism. So if the original organism dies as a result of an altruistic act it can still manage to propagate its full genetic heritage as long as two or more of these close relatives are saved. Consequently an organism is less likely to show altruistic behavior to a biological grandparent, grandchild, aunt/uncle, niece/nephew or half-sibling(each contain one-fourth of the genes found in the original organism); and even less likely to show altruism to a first cousin (contains one-eighth of the genes found in the original organism). The theory then holds that the farther genetically removed two organisms are from each other the less likely they are to show altruism to each other. If true then altruistic (kind) behavior is not truly selfless and is instead an adaptation that organisms have in order to promote their own genetic heritage.

Now once again, this is one of those things where the existence of any deity can be argued, so the bottom line to me is that arguing that one had "proof or disproof" of the existence of God is a waste of time and monumentally so. My mom used to warn that contemplating such to such a degree would "drive you crazy", and apparently it helped push Price over the edge as conversion to Christianity didn't apprently save him from his own mental state.
"Proof" will always be subjective which negates the idea that it's "proof" in the first place. A believer will find proof in anything and a non believer will always find ways of falsifying it or finding "counter proof", while in the meantime, nothing will be concrete "proof" of anything except that time was wasted in arguing.
So my question to theists, is, if there is a God, why is he so vague about objectively proving himself? Why does he seem to want his follwers to believe without something objective and provable? Why is faith so important to him? Is he trying to "prove" something to himself or does he just get an ego kick?

"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings."


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hey Marty

Hey,

I would agree that proof is not possible. Well, let me qualify, truth is possible/probable, but never absolutely. And the ratio of the probable is never determined and thus in this sense truth is also not possible.

This goes for whether your car is blue, that you are a live and are male, or that your brain has melted away in the 3rd grade with the attempts of whole language in your approach towards learning how to read.

Sapient, if you wish for me to leave, mark me as a troll and I will leave.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 847
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
The only proof

Marty Hamrick wrote:

I saw an interesting docu drama on George Price the other night. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_R._Price

He had come up with a mathematical theorem that "proved" that altruism was an illusion. He was one of those guys that had swung the pendulum from atheism to theism and had finally died by suicide after giving away all his possessions in 1975 ( clinical depression perhaps?). Heere's a Wiki quote about his theorem.

Quote:


 

  Price developed a new interpretation of Fisher's fundamental theorem of natural selection, the Price equation, which has now been accepted as the best interpretation of a formerly enigmatic result.[5] He wrote what is still widely held to be the best mathematical, biological and evolutionary representation of altruism. He also pioneered the application of game theory to evolutionary biology, in a co-authored 1973 paper with John Maynard Smith.[10] Furthermore Price reasoned that in the same way as an organism may sacrifice itself and further its genes (altruism) an organism may sacrifice itself to eliminate others of the same species if it enabled closely related organisms to better propagate their related genes. This negative altruism was described in a paper published by W. D. Hamilton and is termed Hamiltonian spite.

Price’s 'mathematical' theory of altruism reasons that organisms are more likely to show altruism toward each other as they become more genetically similar to each other. As such, in a species that requires two parents to reproduce, an organism is most likely to show altruistic behavior to a biological parent, full sibling, or direct offspring. The reason for this is that each of these relatives’ genetic make up contains (on average in the case of siblings) 50% of the genes that are found in the original organism. So if the original organism dies as a result of an altruistic act it can still manage to propagate its full genetic heritage as long as two or more of these close relatives are saved. Consequently an organism is less likely to show altruistic behavior to a biological grandparent, grandchild, aunt/uncle, niece/nephew or half-sibling(each contain one-fourth of the genes found in the original organism); and even less likely to show altruism to a first cousin (contains one-eighth of the genes found in the original organism). The theory then holds that the farther genetically removed two organisms are from each other the less likely they are to show altruism to each other. If true then altruistic (kind) behavior is not truly selfless and is instead an adaptation that organisms have in order to promote their own genetic heritage.

Now once again, this is one of those things where the existence of any deity can be argued, so the bottom line to me is that arguing that one had "proof or disproof" of the existence of God is a waste of time and monumentally so. My mom used to warn that contemplating such to such a degree would "drive you crazy", and apparently it helped push Price over the edge as conversion to Christianity didn't apprently save him from his own mental state.
"Proof" will always be subjective which negates the idea that it's "proof" in the first place. A believer will find proof in anything and a non believer will always find ways of falsifying it or finding "counter proof", while in the meantime, nothing will be concrete "proof" of anything except that time was wasted in arguing.
So my question to theists, is, if there is a God, why is he so vague about objectively proving himself? Why does he seem to want his follwers to believe without something objective and provable? Why is faith so important to him? Is he trying to "prove" something to himself or does he just get an ego kick?

one is going to find is one's own self. JC is nothing more then what is human and it's promotion. The question isn't whether he physically existed or just a story conjured up by people. Is the story true when it comes to one's own self. If you find it fits then what's the difference. Everyone is fooled by the "snob job" perpetrated by the European dark age nummies. One has to remove the Euro from the picture and start over. Does---do unto others as you would have them do unto you---have any bearing. The Euro authorities did unto others what they wouldn't do unto them sleves ---right. So, they got it wrong. 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
No chance Jean.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Sapient, if you wish for me to leave, mark me as a troll and I will leave.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

You are staying here in gehenna, poked by demonic atheists, for figurative eternity....

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


amp1022
Theist
Posts: 25
Joined: 2012-09-05
User is offlineOffline
So the existence of a car

So the existence of a car does not prove that it was built? Is there another possibility? Any other explanation for how a car might come to exist? Serious question, no sarcasm at all. Is there any other possible explanation for the existence of a '01 Chevy pickup truck? Because if not, then you have absolute proof that it was created by an intelligent life-form.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
amp1022 wrote:So the

amp1022 wrote:

So the existence of a car does not prove that it was built? Is there another possibility? Any other explanation for how a car might come to exist? Serious question, no sarcasm at all. Is there any other possible explanation for the existence of a '01 Chevy pickup truck? Because if not, then you have absolute proof that it was created by an intelligent life-form.

 

A Chevy pickup - we own a 1994 S-10 - is not living.  It does not replicate nor reproduce.  So of course it was made by someone.  You and I however, do replicate and do reproduce and are living creatures.  And so we were not created - except by our parents who had sex on a night mom was fertile.  Unless you are a test tube baby, then the doctor got involved as well.

This is one of the lamer arguments.  Do Chevy pickups magically appear in the wild?  Of course not.  Why?  There are no parts for Chevy pickups bouncing around, reproducing, mutating, living and dieing.  Do plants and animals magically appear in the wild?  Of course not, they are living and dieing, screwing and reproducing or splitting and replicating.  There is jackola magic going on here.  There is zero evidence for some god/s/dess sticking their fingers in the mess and kick-starting life - and think how busy the poor god/s/dess would be - all those bacteria, all those beetles, and we haven't even got to the humans yet.  No wonder it can be so difficult for women to get pregnant.  </sarcasm>

There is plenty of evidence for how life evolved, how life mutates and changes, how life got to be so diverse, and the various pathways that life came to be as we know it today.  Way more information then I can post on an internet forum.  You could start by reading:

http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-What-Fossils-Say-Matters/dp/0231139624/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1346972504&sr=1-1&keywords=e...

Evolution: what the fossils say and why it matters by Donald R Prothero

The book has page after page after page of transitional fossils in a variety of species.  There are lots of pretty pictures of the transitional fossils as well.  And Dr. Prothero has been a paleontologist for over 20 years studying ruminant fossils in North America, so he is an expert on the subject.  I was able to check it out from my local library so you have no excuse to get a free copy you can read for yourself.

When you have read just this one book, get back with me and we can discuss some of what you learned.  If you don't bother to read it, I will be able to tell from your post, and I won't respond to complete, deliberate, ignorance.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4562
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote: Do Chevy pickups

cj wrote:

 Do Chevy pickups magically appear in the wild?  Of course not.  Why?

Y'all obviously ain't been hangin roun the Appalachia area of Kantucky. Head on over to the holler over there an' them Chevy S10's magically appear wit a couple dozen empty cans o' Natty Ice layin roun. Ain't mine officer, no siree, don know how that got there. (Note that parts of said Chevy S10 also magically disappear in the middle of the night until only a rusted out carcass remains) 

  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 331
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
amp1022 wrote:So the

amp1022 wrote:

So the existence of a car does not prove that it was built? Is there another possibility? Any other explanation for how a car might come to exist? Serious question, no sarcasm at all. Is there any other possible explanation for the existence of a '01 Chevy pickup truck? Because if not, then you have absolute proof that it was created by an intelligent life-form.

What if I were to produce a line of cars, and in each one, place a bomb that obliterates the car with a random timer on it that might cause it to detonate, but might not. This bomb component serves no other purpose in the car. It exists only to possibly explode. Would you call that intelligent design? Because the human equivalent (were we designed) would be our appendix. If you claim that we are intelligently designed, you must necessarily explain the human appendix. 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:cj

Beyond Saving wrote:

cj wrote:

 Do Chevy pickups magically appear in the wild?  Of course not.  Why?

Y'all obviously ain't been hangin roun the Appalachia area of Kantucky. Head on over to the holler over there an' them Chevy S10's magically appear wit a couple dozen empty cans o' Natty Ice layin roun. Ain't mine officer, no siree, don know how that got there. (Note that parts of said Chevy S10 also magically disappear in the middle of the night until only a rusted out carcass remains) 

 

What is Natty Ice?

My Chevy S-10 has over 310,000 miles on it, is not quite a rusted hulk but squeaks a lot, and doesn't use a drop of oil.  So there.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4562
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Beyond Saving

cj wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

cj wrote:

 Do Chevy pickups magically appear in the wild?  Of course not.  Why?

Y'all obviously ain't been hangin roun the Appalachia area of Kantucky. Head on over to the holler over there an' them Chevy S10's magically appear wit a couple dozen empty cans o' Natty Ice layin roun. Ain't mine officer, no siree, don know how that got there. (Note that parts of said Chevy S10 also magically disappear in the middle of the night until only a rusted out carcass remains) 

 

What is Natty Ice?

My Chevy S-10 has over 310,000 miles on it, is not quite a rusted hulk but squeaks a lot, and doesn't use a drop of oil.  So there.

 

Natural Ice is an economy brand of beer from Anheuser-Busch that is slightly above average in alcohol content at 5.9% ABV and generally sells for only $15 a 30 pack making it the drink of choice red necks (and poor college students). It is absolutely disgusting.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Natural

Beyond Saving wrote:

Natural Ice is an economy brand of beer from Anheuser-Busch that is slightly above average in alcohol content at 5.9% ABV and generally sells for only $15 a 30 pack making it the drink of choice red necks (and poor college students). It is absolutely disgusting.

 

Sounds similar to Black Label.  Or, generic beer.  Yech.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 331
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Natural

Beyond Saving wrote:

Natural Ice is an economy brand of beer from Anheuser-Busch that is slightly above average in alcohol content at 5.9% ABV and generally sells for only $15 a 30 pack making it the drink of choice red necks (and poor college students). It is absolutely disgusting.

If god were real, he would not have let Anheuser-Busch create anything more gross than American Budweiser....but he'd probably still allow African children to starve and simply reward them in the next life, because "GOD WORKS IN MYSTERIOUS WAYS!".

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3388
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is onlineOnline
Beyond Saving wrote:Y'all

Beyond Saving wrote:

Y'all obviously ain't been hangin roun the Appalachia area of Kantucky. Head on over to the holler over there an' them Chevy S10's magically appear wit a couple dozen empty cans o' Natty Ice layin roun. Ain't mine officer, no siree, don know how that got there. (Note that parts of said Chevy S10 also magically disappear in the middle of the night until only a rusted out carcass remains) 

  

hey, fuck you man, i grew up in eastern kentucky, and natty ice is not that popular.  most people stick to busch or plain old natty light.  natty ice is much bigger with hollister-wearing frat boys who blast jack johnson out of their dorm windows, their speakers propped up on cinder blocks, while they play ultimate in the quad, distressed baseball caps on backwards, calling each other "bra."

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


amp1022
Theist
Posts: 25
Joined: 2012-09-05
User is offlineOffline
So a complex system that is

So a complex system that is not alive MUST have a creator. But a system a billion times more complex does not need a creator as long as it is alive? But you said so yourself that people come from their oarents, so isn't the existence of a person proof of a parent? Even a test tube baby needs someone to add all the appropriate ingredients in the appropriate conditions.


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
 False equivalence fallacy.

 False equivalence fallacy. The universe is not like a baby.

 

You should search this site for threads about the Kalam argument / Cosmological argument (KCA). It's been discussed many times already. You're not bringing anything new to the table here that each of us has not already considered.

 

If there's a creator, what created it? a 'creator-making machine'? It's easy to turn the argument back on itself and request this answer of you.

 

Even if the universe does have a creator.. which is very much debatable, what makes you think that creator is listening to you? What evidence do you have that what you call God is responsible for the creation of the universe? Why would such a creator have to be aware of you, or conscious at all?

 

have you considered these points when you brought this discussion to the table? We have.

 

 

 

 


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 331
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hey,I

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hey,

I would agree that proof is not possible. Well, let me qualify, truth is possible/probable,

Personal moratorium on responding to JC lifted!! 

Isn't this religion in a nutshell? "X is not true. Actually, it's true/partially true". Utterly ridiculous. Religion is not MEANT to be understood. It's meant to both provide answers, and to also provide questions in order to have humans naturally drawn to the mystery of it. A giant incoherent mess. 

amp1022 wrote:

So a complex system that is not alive MUST have a creator. But a system a billion times more complex does not need a creator as long as it is alive? But you said so yourself that people come from their oarents, so isn't the existence of a person proof of a parent? Even a test tube baby needs someone to add all the appropriate ingredients in the appropriate conditions.

Read up on how this billion times more complex system came to be. It happened in a very gradual manner, and humans have traced specifically how a lot of it came to be. Read up, for instance, how lungs evolved. It is very fascinating. 

So you say "no, god fashioned the first humans. He gave us eyes so that we may see the beauty around us. He gave us a nose, so that we may smell the glorious scents of the flowers that he, too, gave us. He gave us our hands, complete with opposable thumbs, with which we can do many things. He gave us our heart to pump our blood, supplied with oxygen by our lungs. He gave us our appendix to.........EXPLODE. As I mentioned earlier. Whenever creationists challenge actual biologists with a question, an answer is always given. I have never heard a creationist give a good answer to why we have an appendix. All I've heard is some reference made to how we "fell", when people we know did not exist ate a magic fruit on advice from a talking snake.

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
amp1022 wrote:So a complex

amp1022 wrote:

So a complex system that is not alive MUST have a creator. But a system a billion times more complex does not need a creator as long as it is alive? But you said so yourself that people come from their oarents, so isn't the existence of a person proof of a parent? Even a test tube baby needs someone to add all the appropriate ingredients in the appropriate conditions.

You need to start with basic chemistry. You don't have the prerequisites to understand evolution and its processes yet. Once you understand the concepts of reaction, fusion, reduction, etc., we can move on to how simple chemical reactions were the beginnings of life (abiogenesis), and then we can possibly get into evolution. Though it's quite possible you'll also need to enlighten yourself in geology and a few other sciences dealing with the Earth and the solar system before we can really move on to evolution.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Peter A. (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Proof is NOT Possible

Marty Hamrick wrote:

So my question to theists, is, if there is a God, why is he so vague about objectively proving himself? Why does he seem to want his follwers to believe without something objective and provable? Why is faith so important to him? Is he trying to "prove" something to himself or does he just get an ego kick?

 

There are too many assumptions behind the questions you ask here. For example, regarding the first of these you are assuming that God, if such exists, has very similar desires and motivations to humans, and that as a result of this 'proving himself' to us must be high on 'his' agenda, but that for some inexplicable reason 'he' can't do it (or at least not to our satisfaction). Why would God (again, assuming he/she/it exists) even want to, or care, about 'revealing' him/her/itself to us? Does the microbiologist 'care' about the microbes under his microscope?

 

'Why does he seem to want his followers to believe without something objective and provable?' Provable? You yourself have just been telling us that proof is not actually possible for anything of any real importance. The title of your piece even says this, so why do you change your tune here when it comes to theists being under an obligation to provide 'proof'? Why the double-standard?

 

'Why is faith so important...?' 'ego kick' - There is a word for the, rather unfortunate, tendency you have displayed in asking these questions; anthropomorphism. I can't speak for most, but I have yet to meet a Christian, or anyone else who believes in God(s), who literally believes in the invisible sky-daddy. When asked about the various instances of apparent temperamental behaviour displayed by the 'God' of the Old Testament, the standard response is that the story or incident in question is allegorical, and should not be taken literally, and when the incident in question is read within its proper context it is never difficult to determine whether or not such is truly the case. For example, the creation account in Genesis states that the sun and moon were created on the, if I recall correctly, fourth day. Now, obviously, the 'day' mentioned here cannot be a literal 24-hour day as we know it, and so one knows that this account is symbolic. Mythology tends to be like that.


Marty Hamrick
atheist
Marty Hamrick's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2010-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Peter A. wrote:Marty Hamrick

Peter A. wrote:

Marty Hamrick wrote:

So my question to theists, is, if there is a God, why is he so vague about objectively proving himself? Why does he seem to want his follwers to believe without something objective and provable? Why is faith so important to him? Is he trying to "prove" something to himself or does he just get an ego kick?

 

There are too many assumptions behind the questions you ask here. For example, regarding the first of these you are assuming that God, if such exists, has very similar desires and motivations to humans, and that as a result of this 'proving himself' to us must be high on 'his' agenda, but that for some inexplicable reason 'he' can't do it (or at least not to our satisfaction). Why would God (again, assuming he/she/it exists) even want to, or care, about 'revealing' him/her/itself to us? Does the microbiologist 'care' about the microbes under his microscope?

Most theists I  know see god as father figure, I don't know of any religious sects that see god as a scientist. Since its human minds creating god, it stands to reason that this god would take on human characteristics.

Quote:

 

'Why does he seem to want his followers to believe without something objective and provable?' Provable? You yourself have just been telling us that proof is not actually possible for anything of any real importance. The title of your piece even says this, so why do you change your tune here when it comes to theists being under an obligation to provide 'proof'? Why the double-standard?

The situation, as I see it is unprovable, yet many theists seem to think it is. Having followed these debates for some time, looking at points and counterpoints, it seems like never ending circular arguments.

Quote:

 

'Why is faith so important...?' 'ego kick' - There is a word for the, rather unfortunate, tendency you have displayed in asking these questions; anthropomorphism. I can't speak for most, but I have yet to meet a Christian, or anyone else who believes in God(s), who literally believes in the invisible sky-daddy. When asked about the various instances of apparent temperamental behaviour displayed by the 'God' of the Old Testament, the standard response is that the story or incident in question is allegorical, and should not be taken literally, and when the incident in question is read within its proper context it is never difficult to determine whether or not such is truly the case. For example, the creation account in Genesis states that the sun and moon were created on the, if I recall correctly, fourth day. Now, obviously, the 'day' mentioned here cannot be a literal 24-hour day as we know it, and so one knows that this account is symbolic. Mythology tends to be like that.

You've never spent any time in the deep south?

"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings."